The report states:
According to the intelligence obtained by the French services, the process of synthesizing sarin, developed by the Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) and employed by the Syrian armed forces and security services, involves the use of hexamine as a stabilizer.Sounds convincing, right? But the report falls apart upon closer scrutiny ...
***
The presence of the same chemical compounds in the environmental samples collected during the attacks on Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017 and on Saraqib on 29 April 2013 has therefore been formally confirmed by France. The sarin present in the munitions used on 4 April was produced using the same manufacturing process as that used during the sarin attack perpetrated by the Syrian regime in Saraqib. Moreover, the presence of hexamine indicates that this manufacturing process is that developed by the Scientific Studies and Research Centre for the Syrian regime.
Specifically, the head of the United Nations' team investigating the possible use of chemical warfare in Syria (Åke Sellström) wrote an email to MIT rocket scientist Ted Postol in 2014 stating:
Hexamine ... is a product simple to get hold of and in no way conclusively points to the [Syrian] government. In addition, hexamine found in samples may be derived from other sources for example, explosives.(I blacked out Postol's email address to protect his privacy; as I did with personal information in the email below.)
This week, Washington's Blog wrote the following email to Dr. Sellström seeking confirmation:
The Washington Post quotes French officials as saying that analysis of sarin from Khan Sheikhoun shows the presence of hexamine, indicating that the sarin was produced by the Syrian government:Dr. Sellström responded:
However, my understanding is that it is easy to acquire hexamine, and so the presence of the substance does not indicate state-sponsored manufacture. I also understand that hexamine is a common byproduct from explosives. Is that right?
It is really a question of the meaning of the word indicating. The presence of hexamine could, indeed, indicate that the source is the government. Leaving out who actually used it.In other words, the lead UN investigator is saying that the presence of hexamine could prove that:
But it could also indicate a lot of other things, like someone using the same recipe for example
(1) The Syrian government did use sarinThe French report also claims:
(2) The rebels got a hold of old stocks of government-produced sarin, and then used it themselves
(3) Someone reverse-engineered the sarin formula previously used by the government and created their own new sarin
(4) Something else altogether (e.g. that the hexamine came from every day explosives, was otherwise introduced from other sources, or perhaps the evidence was altogether fudged for political purposes)
France assesses that the theory of an attack by the armed [rebel] groups using a neurotoxic agent on 4 April is not credible. France has no information confirming the possession of sarin by these groups.That's downright silly, given that it was long ago shown that the rebels do possess chemical weapons such as sarin.
Comment: It always looked, to careful and knowledgeable observers, like a sloppy frame-up to create an excuse for retaliatory aggression. Whether Trump did the gut-emotional knee-jerk all by himself or whether he was pressured into a course of action, the logic and facts have never matched the response. What it did do, besides destroy stuff and kill people, was expose the fallacies, reaches and depths of the cover story perhaps more than anticipated. It also pigeon-holed Trump with an unpopular decision, even better yet if it is found to be nonfactual...because it compromises him and his administration in so many nefarious ways that can now be manipulated from the neocons down to the depths of the deep. If this is true...forget Russia, forget China, forget peace and a different future...they 'have him.'