US experts reveal the truth of the alleged chemical in “Khan Sheikhon”

The manuscript of a scientific study that has been worked on by a group of American scientists to discover the details of what actually happened in Khan Sheikhoun and who caused the attack (assuming that it happened) resulted in a dispute and disagreements among scientists, and the prevention of the newspaper (Global Security and Science) SGS famously published the study saying the reason was “remediation of problems”.

The suspension of the letter, according to political experts, only indicates that the findings have been in favor of the Syrian state.

Although the margin of US press freedom is considerable, the reason for not publishing extends to signs that condemn the United States and reveal its involvement in the falsification of the facts or its involvement in that somehow.

According to media reports, the most important author of this letter is Theodor Postol, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the University of Cambridge and an expert on missile defense and nuclear weapons who discussed in previous interviews that the Syrian army is not responsible for the attack in Khan Sheikhoun and two other attacks studied by him..

The second party to the dispute over the scientific study is Gregory Koblenz, an expert in chemical and biological weapons at George Mason University, who saw that “Postol turned a blind eye to big evidence and has a supportive agenda for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” “I don’t try to be biased to anyone,” he said.Turning to a third party, applied mathematician Gong Chen of the University of Texas (A&M), who began studying after learning about Postol’s previous work, Chen launches a manuscript model of what happened in Khan Sheikhoun and made contact with Postol and five scientists.

Chen’s manuscripts focus on the study of a small hole in a road, which is said to be the site of the sarin gas emission used in the chemical attack.

The Joint Investigation Mechanism had previously concluded, based on photographs, satellite images and ammunition residues, that “the cause of the pit up to half a meter deep was a bomb thrown from an aircraft”, pointing the finger at the Syrian state, but Chen’s models confirmed that the pit was formed by a 122mm artillery missile with an explosive warhead, a weapon that the Syrian army does not have.

Chen’s manuscripts were criticized by the Billingskat website. He argued that “the team’s model does not match the original in Khan Sheikhoun,” but this criticism has not been accepted among scholars and experts, due to its weak connotations.

“The founder of Billingskat journalist, Elliott Higgins,did not undergo scientific training, knew nothing about science and was not interested in learning any of it, ” Postol said. Turning to the publication of the manuscripts and the scientific study, Koplentz sent several e-mails to Pavel Bodwig, an editor of the global security newspaper, warning that Postol’s statements were dangerous and the final analysis should be handled with great caution asthe letter proving that the Syrian army was not involved in the chemical attack could be abused.

In turn, the newspaper’s editors published that they had planned to publish an edited version of the manuscript that should be judged on its benefits,“We fully understand that no analysis in this area can be completely detached from the political context and the Scientific Society has solid practices to deal with this challenge,” the newspaper said.

Koblentz welcomed the decision, hoping that the newspaper would say what happened in more detail, while Chen was surprised to say that the movement was stunned.

Postol commented that he was absolutely confident that the letter would be published Eventually by the newspaper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *