He claims he has reviewed the evidence and believes that President Al-Assad couldn’t have done it.

PUBLISHED: 9:07 PM 12 Apr 2018

MIT Professor Offers Theory On Syrian Chemical Attack, It Was Staged

He claims he has reviewed the evidence and believes that President Al-Assad couldn’t have done it.

An expert finds that the story as told just could not have happened.

There is a problem with the whole narrative which says that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad again gassed his own people to death. The biggest issue is that he has no reason to do so. The opposition that he wants to be quelled has been all but knocked to nothing by Russia, and even ISIS numbers are rapidly dwindling. Using chemicals on innocent men, woman, and children would serve the Syrian leader no good whatsoever, because it would draw the attention of the world just as the U.S. was about to leave.

One Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) expert agreed in an article for the International Business Times.

Theodore Postol, referred to as a “leading weapons academic” has found that “the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack” that took place in Syria “was staged.” This supports what the facts seem to have already implied.

Postol is a “professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)” and he has issued a number of reports which answer White House claims that the April 4 attacks were the doing of Assad.

The professor claims that the government lacks “concrete” proof of any kind that the Syrian leadership was the culprit. The attack seems to be something that took place “on the ground,” at least according to the data collated thus far.

That means that President Donald Trump could be about to attack based on faulty data.

Offering no ambiguity, Postol said, “I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.

He added, “In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.” If this is true, and there is no evidence to the contrary, the U.S. must rethink its response.

As for the supposed images that are being touted, the MIT man stated, “This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.”

The image shows a crater with a shell inside of it, but nothing about the picture lends itself to being anything but part of the staging. Rather, the expert revealed that “the damage of the casing is inconsistent from an aerial explosion,” so the official story is not supported by military forensics.

It has been established that “it was more likely that an explosive charge was laid upon the shell containing sarin, before being detonated.” While Russian leader Vladimir Putin has gone out of his way to show nothing but contempt for Washington, the facts in this one instance appear to support what he has said regarding Russia Middle Eastern ally.

The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt crushing mallet,” Postol has informed those willing to listen. “It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time creating the crater.” The image supports that conclusion.

Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened, the sarin acted on the walls and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the pipe and also the failure of the cap on the back end,” he clarified.

This means that “anti-government insurgents” must have caused the nightmarish attacks. Postol was “a scientific advisor at the Department of Defense (DoD),” so his opinion should carry with it a great deal of weight and authority.

The professor has condemned “politicisation” extant today, and stated “No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it. All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report [from Ghouta in 2013], was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.

Not only is he calling out the current G.O.P. leader, but he has voiced similar disdain for how Obama handled the same issue. In no uncertain terms, Postol is suggesting that the intelligence community is knowingly misleading the president and that war is desired.

He highlighted such worries as he said, “I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicisation of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it.

And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.”

As planes fuel up and are seen over Middle Eastern skies, hopefully, the wise words from Postol will be heard. If not, every weapon used will only lead to more destabilization in the world, likely for the wrong reasons.