After the lowest moment of Trump’s presidency to date — the bombing of Syria despite the risk of a third world war — the OPCW released a statement re-affirming that the United States, France, and the UK were wrong about their assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Douma in April, 2018.
In its then latest Fact Finding Mission report, the OPCW states that
OPCW designated labs conducted analysis of prioritised samples. The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties. Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is on-going. The FFM team will continue its work to draw final conclusions.
So, quite plainly, the decision to bomb Syrian government facilities, research facilities, and civilians in Syria was made on the basis of something that never actually took place. As virtually the entirety of the alternative media was able to report early on before the bombing, there were no chemical weapons used against civilians or terrorists in Douma by the Syrian government. Indeed, shortly after the attacks, clear evidence was presented which demonstrated that the attacks never actually happened. Even more so, clear evidence demonstrated that the attacks were entirely fabricated by the al-Nusra Front propaganda wing known as the White Helmets.
Now, in March, 2019, the OPCW has released its final report regarding the alleged chemical weapons in Douma on April 7, 2018. Western governments are, of course, claiming that the report is “proof” that chemical weapons were used, the truth is just the opposite. The report does not link any of the alleged 43 deaths to chemical weapons or the claimed chlorine which was allegedly found at the scene of the incident. No sarin was found.
Indeed, the sole basis for the claims made regarding the attack were made by Western-backed terrorists shortly before their inevitable defeat and the Syrian military retaking Douma the next day. The claims were that sarin and/or chlorine were deployed against civilians via the use of two yellow gas canisters modified as bombs.
It should also be noted that, despite having been given the mandate to apportion blame for the incident, the OPCW did not.
Iain Davis of 21st Century Wire examined the report in detail and analyzed its most important aspects in his article, “OPCW Douma Report Indicates US, UK, France Attacked Syria on False WMD Pretext.” I highly encourage you to click on the link above and take a look at Davis’ article.
In it, he begins by identifying the “6 locations” that the OPCW focused on. He writes,
Named Locations.
There are were 6 locations which the OPCW focused upon. These were:
Location 1: Hospital where the alleged victims were treated often referred to as “Point 1” in the report.
Location 2: A roof terrace where a yellow cylinder was found.
Location 4: A bedroom in a building near the Great Mosque where a yellow cylinder was found on a bed.
Sector 3: This is the area allegedly attacked and contains Location 2 and 4. It is also where the White Helmets centre, referred to in the report, is situated.
In addition there was a warehouse and a manufacturing facility, referred to as “the facility,” which the SAR suggested as possible locations for chemical weapons’ storage and manufacture.
Davis also collected a summary of the OPCW findings, reprinted here.
OPCW Findings Summary:
9.1 The FFM concluded that samples taken at Loc.2 and 4 indicate the presence of reactive chlorine.
9.2 The FFM concluded no nerve agents were detected.
9.3 The FFM concluded there was no evidence of any other chemical agent detected.
9.4 The FFM concluded there was no evidence to support the SAR allegation that the warehouse or the facility were used either for chemical weapons storage or production. Rather they were apparently used to store and produce conventional explosives.
9.6 The FFM concluded, due to the lack of biomedical evidence, it was not possible to say what chemical killed the victims seen in the ‘open source’ videos and photographs.
9.9 The FFM concluded the damage seen at Loc.2 was consistent with the impact of the yellow canister upon the roof terrace.
9.10 The FFM concluded the damage seen at Loc.4 was consistent with the yellow cylinder found on the bed which, having fallen through the roof, continued an altered trajectory.
9.11 The FFM concluded it was possible the yellow cylinders were the source of the reactive chlorine.
9.12 The FFM concluded it was reasonable to state a chemical weapons attack took place. The toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.
Location 2. The roof Terrace.
The FFM noted that the cylinder had been moved a number of times before their arrival. They noted a very similar crater on an adjacent building which had not been subject to an alleged chemical weapons attack. They did not explain the release mechanism for the alleged chlorine.
Location 4. The Bedroom.
The FFM noted the cylinder had been cleaned and a number of other items moved prior to their investigation. The FFM did not account for how the cylinder had moved from the point of impact to the bed. Nor did they note any damage to the floor where the cylinder allegedly initially landed in the room. No such damage is visible. They did not explain the release mechanism for the alleged chlorine.
The Warehouse
The FFM did not find any evidence of chemical weapon manufacture. The FFM found a yellow cylinder similar though not identical to the two found at Loc.2 and 4. The FFM did not test the contents of the cylinder. The FFM stated the presence of a cylinder, which reportedly contained chlorine gas, was not consistent with the production of explosives.
The Facility
The FFM found no evidence that the facility had been used as a chemical weapons manufacturing facility and no evidence linking the facility to the potential storage of such weapons at the warehouse. Two swabs were taken from large steel mixing tanks. One swab was tested and did not indicate the mixing of chemical agents or reactive chlorine. The FFM noted the lack of ventilation and the absence of protective measures against chemical exposure. The FFM concluded the facility was not used for manufacturing chemical weapons.
Davis then goes through each of the claims made regarding each location and analyzes the OPCW’s findings. He writes,
The first thing to note is that the OPCW reported it was the Assad government and the Russian Federation who first requested that the FFM be sent to investigate the alleged attack (3.3). The SAR also requested the FFM investigate the warehouse and the facility. No firm conclusion can be drawn from this, though we might wonder why the supposed guilty party would want to encourage an investigation.
9.1 The FFM concluded that samples taken at Loc.2 and 4 indicate the presence of reactive (molecular) chlorine.
A total of 8 of 16 environmental samples taken at Loc.2, and 7 of 11 taken at Loc.4, tested positive for chemicals consistent with the presence of reactive chlorine (8.5.) this is consistently reported throughout the OPCW report (see below). It seems clear that chlorine contamination occurred at some point.
9.2 The FFM concluded no nerve agents were detected.
Another consistency was the lack of any evidence suggesting any other form of toxic nerve agent was used. However, this does not mean the victims died as a result of exposure to reactive (molecular) chlorine. There are a number of reasons why we might question this (covered below.) Death by some other form of nerve agent was not ruled out because neither the time nor place of death was established.
9.3 The FFM concluded there was no evidence of any other chemical agent detected.
(As above.) While the OPCW only found evidence of the presence of reactive chlorine, this does not mean this is how the victims allegedly died.
9.4 The FFM concluded there was no evidence to support the SAR’s allegation that the warehouse or the facility were used either for chemical weapons storage or production. Rather, they were apparently used to store and produce conventional explosives.
The OPCW appeared to show a remarkable lack of inquisitiveness in their investigation of the warehouse and the facility. Their findings were based upon an observation of the apparent lack of ventilation and their record of the stored chemicals at the site (8.40.) In addition, a bag of Hexamine (explosive) was found at the warehouse which was tested (8.5.)
However, remarkably, the OPCW recorded the testing of just one sample from the facility and none at all from the warehouse (8.5.) This facility sample was a swab taken from the outlet of a metal mixing tank and it did not evidence the manufacture of chlorine gas. Of course others may, but they didn’t take any.
However, they did find a yellow cylinder similar (but not identical) to those found at Loc.2 and 4. The OPCW did not test the contents of this cylinder but conceded that the presence of a chlorine filled cylinder at the site was not consistent with the manufacturing of explosives. So it is regrettable they didn’t examine it.
The OPCW evidence suggests the warehouse and the facility were used to manufacture explosives but certainly does not rule out their use for chemical weapons. The unexplained reluctance to test the cylinder and bizarre lack of sampling means the possibility remains.
The question must be asked. Why were the FFM seemingly so incurious? Why not investigate thoroughly and take far more samples?
9.6 The FFM concluded, due to the lack of biomedical evidence, it is not possible to say what chemical killed the victims seen in the videos and photographs.
The evidence surrounding the victims overwhelmingly came from the White Helmets and other unnamed witnesses who weren’t medically trained. The Video evidence raised more questions than it resolved, as did the tweets, blogs and Facebook posts which the OPCW also took as their ‘open source’ evidence (5.1.) Moreover, the claims of the White Helmets were entirely inconsistent with the medical evidence and the testimony of medical professionals.
Firstly the White Helmets claimed the attack took place at 16:00 hrs approximately (8.55.) However this was contradicted by testimony of other witnesses who stated that they heard the cylinder impacts at 19:00 (8.58.)
Medical staff reported they were alerted to the attack a little after 19:00 with casualties arriving shortly thereafter (8.56.) This lends credibility to an attack time of 19:00 approximately and casts doubt upon White Helmet claims of an earlier time for the attack and their associated narrative (8.55.) Similarly, they claimed that people died of chemical weapons exposure in the tunnels leading to the Hospital. They provided many YouTube videos to that effect. The FFM could find no evidence at all to back up any of these claims (8.38.)
This is troubling, because it appears all the bodies were transported to the hospital by the White Helmets (8.57.) The bodies of 3 alleged victims arriving on the evening of the 7th and another 40 on the 8th.
It should also be noted that no medical professional treated any of the casualties at the Hospital for the effects of a chlorine gas attack (8.55.) Rather, they were all treated for the effects of dust and smoke inhalation. The casualties did not apparently present with life threatening conditions. None of the deceased died in hospital (8.48, 8.52, 8.54, 8.78, 8.83, 8.93 etc.)
Medical professionals didn’t know a chemical attack had occurred (they had no reason to suspect one) until an unnamed person shouted “chemical, chemical.” At which point people started being stripped and hosed down by the White Helmets (8.50.)
It is notable that the chaos in the hospital was compounded by the fact that many medical staff had left for the relative safety of SAR controlled areas. Leaving a skeleton staff compliment and an awful lot of White Helmets (8.46.) Not only did the White Helmets bring all the bodies to the hospital, they also took them to the makeshift morgue and buried them. Many said they didn’t know where (8.47.)
Clearly the OPCW report highlights a shocking disparity between the presentation of the casualties, who did not appear to be suffering from the effects of chlorine gas inhalation, and the deceased, who all allegedly died from it. The FFM was provided with 11 biological samples from casualties, none of which tested positive for reactive chlorine (7.3.) The only positive test came from a piece of clothing for which there was no clear chain of custody.
All the evidence relating to the deaths of the alleged 43 victims was controlled by the Western government backed White Helmets. All original footage, showing the deceased, and images were taken by ‘photo journalists’ and bloggers who could operate freely in territory controlled, at the time, by the terrorist groups. The White Helmets also had no problems working with the terrorists.
That the FFM and the OPCW made no comment on the credibility of this evidence is unbelievable. In order to establish how the deceased died, the FFM requested that the bodies be exhumed for analysis. It seems the SAR agreed to this with some unknown provisions. It is unfathomable, therefore, to understand why the FFM did not proceed with the exhumations (7.8.) Why, if they could do so, didn’t they even try to get some meaningful biomedical samples?
Witness statements were inconclusive with some claiming hundreds of bodies and others none at all (8.53.) Consequently the FFM had no idea how any of the victims supposedly perished or how many and were solely reliant on YouTube videos shot by terrorist and the White Helmets.
From the video evidence the FFM said the arching of the bodies appeared to show a sudden, convulsive death, consistent with the rapid onset of chemical poisoning (8.99.)
Without any credible evidence to establish the precise causes of death, for the 43 alleged victims, all the FFM could do was make an unsubstantiated suggestions about where and how the decedents [victims] lost their lives. Something they acknowledged in this conclusions (9.6.)
The Video evidence offered by the terrorist and the White Helmets simply added to the confusion. The FFM didn’t know how, or even if, the alleged victims died at either Loc.2 or 4. They reported that bodies had been moved, the adults showed signs of foaming at the mouth, while children didn’t; the discoloration around the eyes, seen on many, was atypical of death by chlorine inhalation, as was the filmed foaming of the mouth; a number had wet hair, though the ground was dry (suggesting they were moved from somewhere else,) and they had no physical evidence of any corpses. (8.90, 8.93, 8.98, 8.100, 8.101, 8.102.)
The questions that arise from all this are so numerous I’ll leave you to form yours. Personally, I would like to know why intergovernmental organisation, like the U.N, governments and international bodies of inquiry think social media posts, home videos, bloggers rants, terrorists and the groups that work with them are a trustworthy source of information? How can this ever provide a plausible basis for military action against a sovereign state?
So, to be clear, the OPCW report could not and did not link any of the deaths to chemical weapons or chlorine, even the samples of chlorine that it allegedly found. What the report did say was very different from what the mainstream corporate press and Western governments have claimed that it said. The report specifically states,
Many of the signs and symptoms reported by the medical personnel, witnesses and casualties (as well as those seen in multiple videos provided by witnesses), their rapid onset, and the large number of those reportedly affected, indicate exposure to an inhalational irritant or toxic substance. However, based on the information reviewed and with the absence of biomedical samples from the dead bodies or any autopsy records, it is not currently possible to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific chemical.
The report also, as noted by Davis, quotes witnesses who discounted the idea that there were ever any chemicals present at all. These witnesses included medical staff who had treated the alleged victims.
The report stated,
A number of the interviewed medical staff who were purportedly present in the emergency department on 7 April emphasised that the presentation of the casualties was not consistent with that expected from a chemical attack. They also reported not having experience in the treatment of casualties of chemical weapons. Some interviewees stated that no odour emanated from the patients, while other witnesses declared that they perceived a smell of smoke on the patients’ clothes.
Other accounts, long documented by journalists like Pearson Sharp, indicated that a large portion of the casualties were due to smoke inhalation and dust inhalation. The report states,
Some witnesses stated that many people died in the hospital on 7 April as result of the heavy shelling and/or suffocation due to inhalation of smoke and dust. As many as 50 bodies were lying on the floor of the emergency department awaiting burial. Others stated that there were no fatalities in Douma Hospital on 7 April and that no bodies were brought to the hospital that day.
“The conflicting witness reports,” writes Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report, “the lack of any evidence linking chlorine to even a single death on April 7, and other inconsistencies and contradictions make it impossible to use the report’s conclusions as “proof” that the Syrian government carried out a deadly chemical attack on the eve of its victory in Douma.”
Returning to Davis’ analysis, he continues with the report’s assessment of the damage at “location 2,” the roof terrace. He writes,
9.9 The FFM concluded the damage seen at Loc.2 was consistent with the impact of the yellow canister upon the roof terrace.
Firstly, at no point, did the FFM clarify how the gas was released from either cylinder. Presumably we are supposed to guess. The FFM stated that the yellow cylinder at Loc.2 landed on the eastern corner of the terrace and punched a hole through the roof. However the cylinder did not fall through the hole but rather fell over. Spilling its allegedly lethal payload through the hole into the building below maybe?
Loc.2 is where the majority of the victims allegedly died, though there is significant reason for doubt (2.14, 8.26, 8.31.) The FFM employed a team of ‘experts’ to generate computer models of how the craters and the impact damage was caused by the cylinders (for both Loc.2 & 4.)
Perhaps the use of the computer models was necessary because the physical evidence didn’t support any of the OPCW’s claims. Firstly, while they assumed the hole in the terrace was caused by the cylinder, a practically identical hole was seen on the adjacent terrace that was not caused by a falling cylinder to anyone’s knowledge. Furthermore the cylinder appeared to have been moved ‘several times.’ Raising doubt about how it got there.
The OPCW reported that the cylinder fell nose first, directly down upon the roof, puncturing a hole by smashing the roofing out of the way. However, they then claimed, rather than fall through the hole or wedge in it, the cylinder somehow bounced (presumably) back out of the hole to rest, on its side, next to it.
The hole was larger than the circumference of the cylinder, so what did it bounce off? The simulation showed the ‘zone of complete disintegration’ where the cylinder completely destroyed the roof beneath it. It can’t have both removed all the debris in its path and bounced back off it. The trajectory suggested by the models did not show the cylinder following the path of least resistance. A first for ballistics I would imagine.
The FFM stated they believed the prior impact upon the corner of the roof terrace wall reduced the velocity of the cylinder, claiming this meant it didn’t have sufficient energy (force) to fall through the subsequent hole. Yet clearly it had enough to create it. The FFM claimed the collision with the terrace wall changed the trajectory of the cylinder. Suggesting, but not showing, the cylinder striking at an angle. However, the shape of the hole appeared to preclude that idea. The FFM noted the 45 degree slope to the hole perimeter, suggesting the cylinder hit the roof terrace perpendicularly, rather than a glancing blow. This is shown clearly in the models they produced. However, the FFM were at pains to point out that the ‘models’ don’t show the strike angle, which brings their relevance into question.
The FFM produced a nonsensical “mish-mash” of contradictory evidence. Both the hole and their ‘expert’ models suggest a nose first, perpendicular impact. In such circumstances, given the greater circumference of the hole, the cylinder should have gone through or wedged in the hole. Gravity is still gravity no matter how fast an object is moving. Yet the cylinder was found in an unexpected position. The FFM were right when they observed the cylinder had been moved. Any notion the FFM can determine the delivery method of the cylinder, from this evidence, would be untenable.
9.10 The FFM concluded the damage seen at Loc.4 was consistent with the yellow cylinder found on the bed which, having fallen through the roof, continued an altered trajectory.
If the FFM’s damage analysis at Loc.2 was confusing their explanation for the final location of the yellow cylinder at Loc.4 bordered upon comical. Firstly they showed the cylinder had stabilisation fins, suggesting it should have dropped nose first. However, perhaps because the hole created was entirely inconsistent with this, they concluded it must have landed on its side without offering any explanation to account for this failure of the fins. The fins are clearly visible as it rests on the bed.
Next, the cylinder landed on the floor of the bedroom, without any evidence of impact and, according to the FFM, “continued an altered trajectory,” landing on the bed. Again, the FFM offered no evidence or explanation to account for how the cylinder performed this sharp about turn. They then appeared to list a number of extremely minor, secondary concerns about some ornaments that had moved and broken shower cubicles.
This appeared to be an ham-fisted attempt at misdirection. By focusing upon trivialities, the FFM avoided any discussion of the fact that the cylinders’ resting place could not be explained. Quite obviously the cylinder could not have possibly fallen through the hole in the roof and ended up on the bed. Someone put it there.
9.11 The FFM concluded it is possible the yellow cylinders were the source of the reactive chlorine.
9.12 The FFM concluded it was reasonable to state a chemical weapons attack took place. The toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.
Based upon the samples taken this seems a fair statement. There certainly appears to have been a release of chlorine gas in and around Loc.2 and 4.
However, what certainly cannot be said, based upon the FFM report, is that 43 people died in or near Loc.2 and 4 from chlorine gas inhalation. There was no evidence at all to support that assertion. So claiming it was an ‘attack’ is a bit of a stretch. Mass murder by persons unknown at an undisclosed location would be more accurate.
IMAGE: The White Helmets are known to work alongside terrorists as well as share members with multiple terrorist groups, and working exclusively in terrorist-occupied areas of Syria.
The FFM have not provided a shred of evidence clarifying who committed the alleged attack. However the evidence within the report strongly suggests that the most likely culprits would have been either Jaish al Islam, the White Helmets or both. The evidence shows the majority of casualties treated by doctors and medical professionals were not victims of any sort of chemical attack. All medical witness testimony was consistent on this point.
Another consistency was that the only people who had any contact with the decedents were the White Helmets and, quite possibly, members of terrorist organisations. The OPCW don’t have any evidence attesting to how these people died and none showing where they died. They have no biomedical samples and don’t even know where they were buried. They reported evidence indicating that the bodies were moved and showed post mortem injuries inconsistent with death from exposure to chlorine gas. All witness statements recording sightings of bodies came from people who remained in an area deserted by pretty much everyone apart from terrorist and their families.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that a similar “yellow canister” were found at a “militant-run weapons workshop” which was investigated by OPCW inspectors. That investigation revealed a sizeable amount of resources for terrorists to work with chemicals to make explosives.
The report noted:
Although the team confirmed the presence of a yellow cylinder in the warehouse, reported in Note Verbale of the Syrian Arab Republic (Annex 10, point 2) as a chlorine cylinder, due to safety reasons (risk involved in manipulating the valve of the cylinder, see Figure A.8.2) it was not feasible to verify or sample the contents. There were differences in this cylinder compared to those witnessed at Locations 2 and 4. It should be noted that the cylinder was present in its original state and had not been altered.
The “differences” to which the report refers, however, are only in the fact that the two canisters at locations 2 and 4 were altered to look like bombs while the one found in the weapons workshop was “unaltered.”
The most important aspect of this part of the report however, is that the OPCW, despite the obvious implications of the presence of the canister at the workshop, did not even bother to test whether or not the canister contained chlorine or some other chemical weapon. In other words, the OPCW came across clear evidence the canisters and potential chlorine attack came from the terrorists and simply decided not to pursue that evidence. This alone calls into question the authenticity of the report and the investigators themselves.
As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article, “OPCW Syria Report Cripples Western “Chemical Weapons” Narrative,”
The obvious implications of a nearly identical canister turning up in a militant workshop making weapons is that the militants may likely have also made the two converted canisters found at locations 2 and 4. OPCW inspectors found other improvised ordnance in the workshop including, “a number of 20-litre metallic drums, some fitted with crude cord-type fuses, which appeared to have been filled with plastic explosives to serve as improvised explosive devices.”
Western media organizations have tried to dismiss the presence of the canister at the workshop by suggesting it was a “setup” orchestrated by the Syrian Arab Army. Huffington Post UK senior editor Chris York would go as far as referring to the workshop as:
…the rebel explosives lab that had been captured by the SAA days before and which they were desperately trying to make look like a chemical weapons lab.
In reality, the OPCW itself would suggest nothing of the sort, and noted that all of the equipment present was consistent with a weapons workshop. Nowhere does the OPCW suggest anything was altered – including the canister – which the OPCW specifically noted “had not been altered.”
The presence of a canister nearly identical to those found at locations 2 and 4 in a militant weapons workshop provides at least as much evidence that militants staged the supposed chemical attack as the Western media claims the canisters at locations 2 and 4 suggest it was the Syrian government.
In the absence of definitive evidence regarding who created and deployed the canisters found at locations 2 and 4, or how they truly ended up there, a better question to ask is “why” they would have ended up there.
So the United States, UK, and France claimed before the world that they had undeniable proof that not only were chemical weapons used in Douma but that the Syrian government had used them. On this basis, the three powers launched an assault against the Syrian military (to the advantage of terrorists) and put the entire world at the brink of a thermonuclear third world war. But the US, UK, and France lied. They did not have any such evidence because no such evidence existed. Indeed, no such evidence existed because the attack, at least on the part of the Syrian government, never took place.
Indeed, the Douma “chemical weapons” attack was certainly a propaganda ploy concocted by Western media/intelligence agencies and the terrorist White Helmets they have been supporting since day one.
I highly recommend reading my articles on the Douma chemical attack as well as the work of Vanessa Beeley of 21st Century Wire and The Wall Will Fall, and Pearson Sharp of OAN in order to understand how the attack has been so thoroughly debunked even before the missiles and bombs began to fall on Syria in “response” to the “alleged” incident.
After US, UK, France Bomb Syria – OPCW Report Contradicts Claims Of ‘Irrefutable Proof’ Of Chemical Weapons – Brandon Turbeville
The Truth About The Syria Chemical Attacks – No Evidence of Assad Chem Weapons, Western False Flag Seems Likely – Brandon Turbeville
US Bombs Syria To Cover Up Lack Of Evidence On Chem Attacks, Discredits Own Claims By Doing So – Brandon Turbeville
The Truth About The Syria Chemical Attacks – No Evidence of Assad Chem Weapons, Western False Flag Seems Likely – Brandon Turbeville
OPCW Syria Report Cripples Western “Chemical Weapons” Narrative – Tony Cartalucci
OPCW Douma Report Indicates US, UK, France Attacked Syria on False WMD Pretext – Iain Davis
Syria – Manipulated Videos Fail To Launch World War III – Updated – Moon of Alabama
Photo and Video Diary from Eastern Ghouta, Syria – Vanessa Beeley
DOUMA: Testimonies from Kidnap Victims – Vanessa Beeley
Follow Vanessa Beeley on Twitter here
OAN’S PEARSON SHARP REFUTES MSM REPORTS OF ALLEGED SYRIAN CHEMICAL ATTACK – Pearson Sharp
OAN Investigation Finds No Evidence of Chemical Weapon Attack in Syria – Pearson Sharp
Pearson Sharp Visits Hospital in Douma when white helmets filmed ‘chemical attack hoax’ – Pearson Sharp
Eva Bartlett blows the lid on staged chemical weapons attack in Syria (VIDEO) – Eva Bartlett
SYRIAN CIVILIANS FROM GROUND ZERO EXPOSE CHEMICAL HOAX – Eva Bartlett
Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1500 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, civil liberties and, most notably, geopolitics and the Syrian crisis. His most recent release is a book of poetry, Dance, Amputee. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.
Be the first to comment on "OPCW Report Contradicts Western Gov’t/MSM Claims Of Douma “Chemical Weapons Attack”"