Let’s Carefully Deconstruct the Syria Gas Attack Lie

“The term ‘false flag’ has its origins in naval warfare where the use of a flag other than the belligerent’s true battle flag is flown while engaging the enemy to provide a tactical advantage.”

IN ORDER FOR our President to make responsible decisions regarding foreign policy and the use of military force, our intelligence community bears an awesome responsibility to provide him with accurate information. When that information is tampered with or concocted to fit a political narrative, the President’s actions can appear to be quite reasonable, even though in reality he will have been manipulated for ulterior and possibly sinister motives.

On April 4, 2017 a bomb was dropped in Idlib Syria. The position of the United States is that Bashar al-Assad used a sarin gas device against his own people. The position of the Syrian government is that a regular munition was dropped on a suspected Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda) warehouse containing chemical munitions. In my previous article titled “Has President Trump Been Blackmailed or Deceived by the NEOCONs?” I discussed the various motives (or lack thereof) for either argument. In this article I will discuss the apparent misleading of both the American public and possibly even the President of the United States by our intelligence community.

The following are the items of evidence presented by the U.S. intelligence community to support the decision for the President’s deadly attack on an airbase in Syria with 59 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles:

Satellite Evidence

Using the above image, senior Pentagon officials disputed a Russian report that an opposition chemical weapons facility was struck by a standard bomb dropped by the Syrian military. The officials insist that these images prove exactly where the chemical weapon impacted (see photograph above).

Careful review of these images reveals very quickly that the North/South orientation is reversed and the magnification scale is dramatically different between the two images. When the images are normalized for orientation and scale, it becomes rather obvious that the Pentagon marker positions are inconsistent and that the existence of the impact site indicated as “new” cannot be conclusively ruled out before the bomb event:

In Step 1 above, we can clearly see that the “No impact crater” marker has been placed too far north to provide an accurate comparison. By using a fixed distance reference available in both images that is the length of the misplacement (the length of the arms of the U shaped building), we can accurately place the “No impact crater (2)” marker in Step 2 below:

As is depicted in the Step 2 image above, the existence of the “New impact crater” cannot be ruled out before the bomb event.

UPDATE: Following the original posting of this article, I received a comment that the feature indicated at the “No impact crater (2)” marker shown in Step 2 above could be a shadow from the wall near the roadway. I cannot rule this out as a possibility. I also cannot rule out the possibility that a shadow may be masking a preexisting impact site. If the feature is primarily a shadow, the length should be commensurate with the height of the wall and the position of the Sun as related and with respect to other shadows cast in the image. The results are inconclusive and even if it is a shadow, I cannot rule out the possibility that the shadow is masking a preexisting impact site. What is certain is that the “No impact crater” marker is positioned too far North, the “New impact crater is positioned at the far South end of the feature being highlighted and the resolution of the “after” image is at too steep of an angle and too poor resolution to make a comparative assessment of shadows. The feature highlighted by the “No impact crater (2)” marker shown in Step 2 above could be an impact site, a shadow, or a shadow that is masking a preexisting impact site.

Whether the feature indicated at the “No impact crater (2)” marker shown in Step 2 above is an impact site, a shadow, or a shadow that is masking a preexisting impact site is not really important. What is important is that our President has accurate information on which to base his decisions, not misplaced markers on Satellite images and statements of certainty where no certainty exists.

In addition to the satellite evidence, the photographs returned from the scene of the attack show that the victims are being pulled from rubble, not lying injured or dead near this road:

Video Evidence

The video evidence presented by both the administration and by the news media shows a number of victims having difficulty breathing immediately following the attack. The “official” U.S. position is that this is the result of a nerve agent known as sarin gas. In addition, there are numerous first responders to the event that handle the victims without protective clothing, or even gloves, which remain totally unaffected by the alleged nerve agent. This would not be possible if the agent was from a military grade sarin device. Watch the video below:

Now review a video of what exposure to the nerve agent sarin should look like:

I think this analysis conclusively demonstrates that the administration and news media reporting of the substance used is misleading and likely inaccurate. The difference in the effects could also be explained by the quality of the munition. A munition developed in the field by Al Qaeda or Al Nusra fighters might not have the potency or purity of a professionally manufactured weapon subject to stricter controls and proper storage. It is also important to point out that the “doctor” that reported the substance as sarin (and provided samples for further testing by outside agencies) is none other than Dr. Shajul Islam, a British doctor that has previously stood trial on terror offences. Dr. Islam was charged with the ISIS kidnapping of two journalists in 2012. The journalists were British reporter John Cantlie, and Dutch reporter Jeroen Oerlemans.

Russian Chemical Weapons Found at Assad Airbase

The final piece of evidence presented in the news media and initially supported by government officials is the allegation that Russian sarin gas munitions were photographed at the airbase that the Syrian aircraft departed from. These photos were taken immediately following the retaliatory cruise missile attack:

Hundreds of news articles were written and television segments broadcast based on this “smoking gun” evidence of Russian collusion and obvious participation in the attack that used the sarin gas munitions. The only problem with this evidence is that these are not chemical weapons. They are cluster munitions; a fact verified by the source of the photographs but ignored by both the administration and the media.

Click image above for larger version, click here for source.

The 2013 Ghouta Syria Chemical Weapons Incident

Our current President has demonstrated that he is tougher than our previous President by “enforcing a red line” set by the previous administration in 2013 based on the alleged Syrian use of chemical weapons. The red line was crossed when the Syrian government allegedly used sarin gas munitions against CIA-backed Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda) fighters in Ghouta, Syria. The only problem with this claim is that the “red line” was not crossed by the Syrian government in 2013. Please review the final report titled “Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013”.

Summary

Bashar al-Assad is being blamed for a chemical weapons attack against the forces of Al-Nusra Front in Idlib. Maybe he did it, maybe not. A warehouse that had been identified as a munitions storage depot for Al-Nusra Front seems a strange target for use of a sarin gas bomb. That the warehouse was the target does not appear to be in dispute. The only thing in dispute is what type of bomb was used.

Many are saying that the warehouse contained chemical weapons manufactured by the CIA-backed Al Nusra Front fighters. Many are speculating that the CIA has taken advantage of this situation by falsely reporting information to hide their chemical munitions involvement and to encourage President Trump to take military action against Assad. I must admit that I am skeptical of Assad’s selection of a sarin gas bomb to level an Al-Nusra Front warehouse.

Secretary of State Tillerson had announced less than a week ago that Assad could remain President of Syria as long as he continued to support U.S. coalition forces with the destruction of ISIS. Today we are celebrating an attack on Assad’s forces in Syria by our military.

Is it possible that globalists and NEOCONs in our intelligence community took advantage of these events to stop Assad from decimating the CIA-backed Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) fighters in Idlib? Have globalists and NEOCONS, determined to overthrow yet another country that dared challenge the dominance of a Deep State shadow government run by our intelligence communities, used the might of our military to suppress attacks on their Al Nusra fighters?

Russian President Vladimir Putin stated today that “last week’s chemical weapons attack in the Idlib province of Syria was a false flag — a phony operation staged by enemies of Russia and Syria to discredit them”.

“We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one — and I cannot call it otherwise — are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack,” said Putin.

I will let you decide based on the information presented above and your own research whether the Russian government or neither government is telling you the truth. Clearly the U.S government version of events is sorely lacking in accuracy.

* * *

Source: Oathkeepers