UN Report: Samples from Muadamiah had no traces of Sarin.
Before the UN report of the investigation on the use of poison gas near Damascus was published, the propaganda machine of the Western community of lies, fed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, has distributed the (false) information that clear evidence has been found among the samples for the crimes against humanity by the Syrian government.
In the craft of the propaganda, the technique used by Ban Ki-moon for the prejudgment of the Syrian government is called “pre-spinning” (spin).
The results of the report are being pre-empted by the use of opinion making, so that it comes to the formation of a Common Sense, therefore that, what is commonly referred to as the truth, and it does no longer matter what the report really says. However, the report was now finally published.
And although the UN report makes it more or less clear in its introduction that the Syrian government has to be blamed for the use of chemical weapons, there are very interesting details in the appendix at the investigation results, which confirm the opposite. One of these details, which was already eye-catching by a quick reading of the appendix of the UN report, is explained below.
Muadamiah is in contrast to Zamalka and Ain Tarma not located in the northeast of Damascus, but in the southwest of Damascus. As the UN inspectors wanted to investigate the allegedly use of chemical weapons there, they were shelled by unknown snipers.
In the blood samples, taken from victims in Muadamiah, also Sarin was found just as in the blood samples from Zamalka and Ain Tarma, and also the statements by the witnesses, who were brought there by the terrorists, indicate anywhere on Sarin.
But unlike in Zamalka and Ain Tarma, where Sarin was found in many environmental samples, no Sarin was found in any of the environmental samples that were taken in Muadamiah.
This is to look up in the UN report on the pages 30 to 32, where the analysis results of the samples are described, in conjunction with the pages 27 and 28, where the taking of the samples in Muadamiah is described.
If you compare the results of the laboratory of the pages 30 to 32 with the results of the subsequent pages of the UN report, so the results of the taken samples from Ain Tarma and Zamalka, the difference is literally eye-catching.
Conclusion: In contrast to the region of Zamalka / Ain Tarma, where actually a carefully orchestrated false-flag attack with the use of Sarin for the provocation of an open US attack on Syria has taken place, there has been no use of chemical weapons in Muadamiah.
Although some victims of the chemical weapons use from the area of Zamalka / Ain Tarma were brought to Muadamiah, but there was no more time for the implanting of credible evidence into the surrounding area of Muadamiah.
In order to prevent that this will become known by the analysis of the environmental samples, the terrorists tried to stop the UN inspectors from doing their work by the shelling.
By the fact that the UN inspectors went to Muadamiah despite the sniper fire they have uncovered a major contradiction in the propaganda, which is associated with the chemical weapons false-flag attack, by the terrorists and their supporters.
It is to expect that further contradictions in the details of the analyses become obvious by a closer reading of the UN report.
The Russian ambassador to the UN (United Nations), for example, has just asked the question, if anyone can answer how it can be that chemical weapons were allegedly fired at rebels, but that they have completely missed the rebels.
Another detail: On page 25 of the UN report, there is also a very strange remark about the impact of a rocket in the area of Zamalka / Ain Tarma:
1. The rocket found by the sub-team on the roof … Based on the found evidence; there is an indication that the rocket warhead appeared to function prior to impacting on the roof, releasing it’s contents and depositing the discovered fragments before travelling through the structrue to its terminal location. …
So, based on the found evidence, the rocket would have to explode shortly before impact, says the UN report. So, these unguided missiles did not use, in the case that the evidence were not manipulated, a kind of impact fuse, but a kind of a very sophisticated fuse, which sparks shortly before the impact? If this does not smell like planted evidence, then what?
Still much work. For the adjustment with other studies, the following text was just published:
Russia Today (RT) also says something on the report – UN: Warheads used in Syria chemical attack ‘could be original or improvised’.
What is missing here is the distinction between Muadamiah and Zamalka. These are two completely different situations to which the investigation has also supplied two completely different results. In Muadamiah, no traces of poison gas were found in the area, but a rocket, which looks like a russian rocket; in Zamalka, poison gas was found in the area, but the rocket, allegedly belonging to it, looks like self-built.