Leaked OPCW report(Engineering report)

Kimsang wrote: »

Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons is a UN agency that was charged with inspecting Douma after the alleged chemical attack in April of 2018. This incident was used as a pretext for western countries(UK US France) to attack Syria, and nearly caused a war between Russia and the US.

They suppressed their engineering report, which has since leaked, and looks be have been validated as real by the OPCW.

Damningly it reveals

The only mainstream coverage this story has received is from Peter Hitchens of the Mail Online and Robert Frisk of the independent.

Media Lens have been petitioning BBC for a reason they haven't been covering this story, and as of yet this is the only response from Lyse Doucet(BBC chief international correspondent)

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, so I welcome being proved wrong in anyway, but if I'm correct why is this not being reported?

You're fairly blatantly mis-representing what has happened there yourself.

They didn't "suppress their engineering report" - they suppressed the single engineering report which disagreed with the multiple engineering reports that supported their conclusions.

It's standard scientific practice to follow the overwhelming consensus - which is what they did. Proper scientific practice is not to ignore the consensus and hail

What wasn't right is that they failed to note in their report that a small minority of the engineers disagreed with the majority.
This isn't the smoking gun that the putin-loving conspiracy theorists want to portray it as - they conclusions of the OPCW report are still based on the sizable majority opinion of their engineers, it's just that they failed to acknowledge that there was a minority who didn't agree.



From the Fisk article

The OPCW might have saved itself much embarrassment – and ridicule by the Russians – if it had simply told the whole truth: that while a majority of its scientists came to the conclusion that the “gas” cylinders came through the roof (ie, from an aircraft), a minority report believed that they did not.

Kimsang wrote: »

Thank you for your reply.

Although I must challenge this statement


From what I can tell, there was only one engineering report, and only one engineer team. Other scientists disagreed with the engineering team, is my understanding. Could you please point me to where there are other engineering teams/and or reports?

From that same Frisk article;









Also in the main report officially released by the OPCW there is no mention of another engineering team.


Just for some context, I am not a Putin lover. I am just vehemently anti-war. Again, if i'm right, and there was a single engineering team, and they were overruled by people with less expertise than themselves, why is this story not reported on?

Actually only a single engineer put his name to the dissenting assessment - you have no evidence as to the expertise, or otherwise, of the majority who reached the conclusion that was ultimately reached.

Annex 12 of the report details that 3 different independent teams were asked to analyse the cylinder, and their results all supported the conclusions of the official report.

The FFM requested three independent analyses from experts recognised by their respective institutions and the international community for their knowledge, skills, and experience.
- The experts consulted came from three different countries and have expertise in engineering, ballistics, metallurgy, construction, and other relevant fields

The independent analyses results were complementary and, as such, presented in the main body of the report.

All of which serves to prove Fisk's point. The failure by OPCW makes it far too easy for vested interests and conspiracy theorists to throw mud in order to minimise the actions of Assad.
If they were open about any instances of dissenting opinion on any of the subjects covered in their report then it'd be far easier to address those concerns up front than to scramble retrospectively