posted January 19, 2014 11:03 AM
I guess US intelligence made another oopsie?
http://rt.com/news/study-challenges-syria-chemical-attack-681/ A new MIT report is challenging the US claim that Assad forces used chemical weapons in an attack last August, highlighting that the range of the improvised rocket was way too short to have been launched from govt controlled areas.
In the report titled “Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence,” Richard Lloyd, a former UN weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), examined the delivery rocket’s design and calculated possible trajectories based on the payload of the cargo.
The authors concluded that sarin gas “could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the ‘heart’, or from the Eastern edge, of the Syrian government controlled area shown in the intelligence map published by the White House on August 30, 2013.”
Based on mathematical calculations, Lloyd and Postol estimate the rocket with such aerodynamics could not travel more than 2 kilometers. To illustrate their conclusion, the authors included the original White House map that depicted areas under Assad control and those held by the opposition. Based on the firing range and troop locations on August 21, the authors conclude that all possible launching points within the 2 km radius were in rebel-held areas.
This perhaps proves true an old conspiracy theory the usual suspects (Washington Post, New Yorker, etc) muzzled late last year.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100250185/ignore-the-conspiracy-theories-assad-was-behind-the-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack/
I have so far sworn off analysing the latest edition of the long-running conspiracy theory that the chemical weapons attack on the suburbs of Damascus on August 21 was carried out by the rebels rather than the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. However, my esteemed colleague Peter Oborne, who has referred to this conspiracy theory in the past, has brought up this latest version, an article by the American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books. So it is worth stating why this piece should not be taken too seriously, and indeed why the publication for which Hersh usually writes – the New Yorker – refused to publish it.