shivas.wisdom said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 is also misrepresenting it as "the original engineering report" when it's actually just one individuals summary of their engineering assessment of the two cylinders likelihood of having been dropped from a helicopter.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

It's also obvious as to why this individuals assessment was not included in the official report, given that their summary reveals significant gaps in methodology.

1st. They state an intent to create and test "at least two clear and opposing hypotheses" for each location. They go on to create at least two hypotheses (dropped by helicopter, placed by people on the ground) - but the summary only tests the first hypothesis, finds it unsupported by their data, and concludes that therefore the second hypothesis is correct. Not only is that ignoring their own stated methodology, it's also an unsound argument (A or B. A is unlikely, therefore B).

---

shivas.wisdom said:

2nd. While testing their first hypothesis, they state the cylinder was dropped from an "unknown altitude" but then go on to arbitrarily limit their model to only testing drop heights between 500-2000m. That assumption fundamentally flawed their conclusions - especially since they state that the damage observed "could only have been caused by an impact, under an angle of 20°, with an initial velocity significantly lower than the ones considered in the simulation".

It's no surprise that this fundamentally flawed assessment wasn't included in the final OPCW report. It's also no surprise that Falcon91Wolvrn03 continues to misrepresent and publicize it

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

First of all, we already KNOW that the engineering report is real, as the guy who wrote it came out and said so.

---

Right, and we already KNOW the guy who wrote that report did not have all the information and acted outside of his duties with OPCW.  We also KNOW that he never had any authorization to write it.  Calling it the "original report" is so dishonest that I think we can fairly say you're lying here.

Quote:

14. In July 2018, Inspector A, without proper authorisation, contacted companies about conducting an engineering study on the cylinders found at two locations in Douma. When this became known to the team leader of the FFM, Inspector A was instructed to refrain from making contact with any external third parties. The investigation found that Inspector A did not accept this and decided that he was going to complete his study alone—without informing the FFM team leader.

---

---

Enlil said:

I didn't call you a liar.  I said you lied.  You did lie.  The person who wrote that report did not have authorization to do the study or write the report.  That makes it clearly not the "original report."

---

Enlil said:

That makes is some unauthorized outlier report from a guy who went rogue with incomplete information.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Sure, I posted a copy of the original engineering report here, which Wikileaks released after the final report came out with a different conclusion.

See page 8 paragraph 33.

---

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 is also misrepresenting it as "the original engineering report" when it's actually just one individuals summary of their engineering assessment of the two cylinders likelihood of having been dropped from a helicopter.

---

Incorrect.  I didn't misrepresent this as the original engineering report.  It's what was provided to the report writing team to use in writing their final report.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

Enlil said:

I didn't call you a liar.  I said you lied.  You did lie.  The person who wrote that report did not have authorization to do the study or write the report.  That makes it clearly not the "original report."

---

shivas.wisdom said:

1)

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Sure, I posted a copy of the original engineering report here, which Wikileaks released after the final report came out with a different conclusion.

See page 8 paragraph 33.

---

2)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 is also misrepresenting it as "the original engineering report" when it's actually just one individuals summary of their engineering assessment of the two cylinders likelihood of having been dropped from a helicopter.

---

Incorrect.  I didn't misrepresent this as the original engineering report.  It's what was provided to the report writing team to use in writing their final report.

---

3)

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

Enlil said:

I didn't call you a liar.  I said you lied.  You did lie.  The person who wrote that report did not have authorization to do the study or write the report.  That makes it clearly not the "original report."

---

No, I didn't lie.  I didn't call it "the original final OPCW report", I called it "the original engineering report".  If you think I should have called it the "the original engineering-assessment of the two cylinders found in Douma", fine.

---

Enlil said:

That's less accurate.  It was unauthorized to even be written.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

koods said:

You’re such a free thinker youve essentially turned over how you form opinions to whatever the opposite is of what the MSM is saying.

---

No, they're right about 99% of the time.  But you just keep on make believing... it's what you do.

---

Enlil said:

I already linked my source.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

HamHead said:

Enlil said:

Listening to a whack job like Alex Jones isn't something a rational person does.

---

He's been right on a lot of topics.

---

Exactly.  It's like saying listening to outlets that peddled Russia-Trump collusions isn't something a rational person does.

But the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have been right on a lot of topics.

---