...at last, an unbiased opinion from a reliable source...:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Printable View
...at last, an unbiased opinion from a reliable source...:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Putin wrote it, it must be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
:)
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
Harry the whackjob, and a veritable smorgasbord of star-spangled spastics.
Albert calling *me* a whackjob!Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty2017
Oh dear.
Hiding your tin foil hat Albert?
:rofl:
<Moved>
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=10573&stc=1Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
..."When you quote from unreliable sources, you bring ridicule upon your post."... -Tomcat...
This immage below appears, to me, to be a record of tweets. Not being a user I am presuming those who desired to, could quickly find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
In the first image Clyde Davies confirms that the Porton Doen have changed their opinion.
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=10578&stc=1
The second image is a conversation between an unknown "Kevin Smyth" and "Clyde Davies",( 'arrys renowned media worshipped chemist of repute,) who only types the truth.
"Then along came the man who really did put me to shame. A Mr Kevin Smyth who completely demolished Davis with a simple polite question":
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=10574&stc=1
"
That part of the exchange is also missing from the thread being circulated so gleefully at the moment.
So what does Davies tell us in this article delivered by twitter which “demolishes” my article.
1) Davies acknowledges that until recently Porton Down and OPCW doubted the physical existence of “novichoks”. He says they have now changed their minds. [Porton Down has indeed undergone a remarkable change of mind in the last week , but the OPCW has yet to see the evidence].
2) Davis states that chemists can tell if a compound corresponds to one of the “novichoks” described by Mirzyanov, but Davis specifically accepts that does not prove Russian manufacture.
3) Davis nevertheless states strongly it is Russia because he believes Russia has form and motive.
Nothing here can remotely be said to be conclusive. The question that puzzles me, is why are so many mainstream media journalists gleefully seizing on this series of tweets as a destruction of the need for sceptical inquiry?"
Looks like the Russian de-mining squad have saved a few more from 'arrys presumptive explosion.
In contrast to "reliable sources" of UK PM's offices:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rt-war-inquiryQuote:
Blair said he had wanted to set the Iraqi people free and secure them from the “evil” of Saddam Hussein, but instead they had become victims of sectarian violence.
“For all of this, I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you can ever know or believe,” he said, in a speech in which his voice cracked with emotion.
Another joker:
In contrast to "true" speeches ("cracked with emotion") of UK PM...Quote:
https://teakdoor.com/images/TD/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by harrybarracuda https://teakdoor.com/images/TD/button...post-right.png
Putin wrote it, it must be true.
A letter to the Times 14/3/18, provides a little clarity of the status of alleged 141/ 41 or 43 victims of Russian chemical weapons on UK soil.
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=10579&stc=1
The letter from Stephen Davies, Consultant in Emergency Medicine Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, who is employed at the highest medical doctor, level "consultant", at the hospital where the alleged 141 possibly in danger/41 CW affected patients are being/have been treated.
Casts doubts on the seriousness of the incident. "No patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning."
NO CW PATIENTS, 3 POISONED IN SALISBURY
One would also expect the MSM to publish articles rejoicing this ending to the non-event. However there appears to be a reluctance to highlight the balls up, once again, by UK politicians and MSM.
Craig Murray talks about Skripal case to George Galloway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDrdlYZXa_o
That seems to be an error. It is certainly different in meaning to the following.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Dozens of patients who went to hospital after the Salisbury poisoning were unaffected by the nerve agent, a doctor has revealed. In a letter to The Times Dr Davies writes that no patients experienced symptoms other than the three with “significant poisoning”
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2018/03/444.jpg
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...ctor-vf9v0zg0m
There is no error. It's quite deliberate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Tin Foil hatwearer SOP.
I don't have access to the full Times story, behind a pay wall. But from what is published here in the Times letter page and Neverna's snippet of the Times article
An unnamed, unidentified "doctor" states, "were unaffected by the nerve agent". End of sentence. No name, no credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
A, possible different, named doctor, position stated, to put the record on his knowledge of the facts, writes to the alleged UK "paper of record", whose published phrases are:
1. "No patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning"
2. "three patients with significant poisoning."
Taken together the statement , they can be interpreted as, All the patients have not experienced any nerve agent poisoning. Only three of the examined patients have been treated for "significant poisoning". Of an unnamed type, developed by an unnamed, possibly foreign, country.
One country, who recently held a Presidential election may be, by some, an unproven suspect. There are other unproven suspects, capable, willing, knowledgeable with proven previous use of CW.
For clarity, the term "Novichok" was created by a Russian in his book published many years ago. In it, the writer describes some chemicals with very long names which maybe, by the writer, included under his "Novichok" family name.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
You have yet to identify any of the alleged chemicals used in Salisbury, nobody has. As such in the OPCW list of chemical weapons they may exist. Until somebody names the chemicals, nobody can be confident in stating "OPCW have never received a sample of Novichok nor have they had a member state tell them they have", the yet to be announced/described chemical weapons, allegedly used in Salisbury this month.
Possibly the OPCW team, now requested by the UK government to investigate this problem, will "clarify" the names in their eagerly awaited report.
They *can* be interpreted in the way you wish if you are silly conspiracy theorist, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Possibly they will keep you in the dark while the investigation proceeds, which is the norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Meanwhile, as you either missed it or are ignoring it:Quote:
Inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are arriving in the U.K. to assess samples of the nerve agent used in the attack against former Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter earlier this month.
The OPCW team will study the substance at the military research facility Porton Down, which is located just outside the city of Salisbury, where the attack took place.
Russian spy: Salisbury attack was 'brazen and reckless' - BBC NewsQuote:
...government scientists have identified the nerve agent used, but will not be making that information public at this stage.A source familiar with the investigation told the BBC the agent was likely to be rarer than the Sarin gas thought to have been used in Syria and in an attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995.
And it was said not to be VX - the nerve agent used to kill the half brother of the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Malaysia last year.
Earlier, Ms Rudd told the BBC the nerve agent used in the poisoning was "very rare".
I don't really rate BBC news, too much propaganda. Dr. Who now, that's different.
That was handy.Quote:
The OPCW team will study the substance at the military research facility Porton Down, which is located just outside the city of Salisbury, where the attack took place.
How can you accept the UK stance, if as you believe, there are alternatives?Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Understood, but to claim one result, accusing another country of an act of war, as the only one, prior to the investigation being completed in accordance with OPCW procedures, seems premature. IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Seems strange that Russia would attempt to kill this 'former spy' and his daughter when they were in England, if they had wanted him dead they could have killed him at any time when he was in prison in Russia before he was 'swapped'.
His daughter lives in Moscow and could have met with an accident at any time and no one would have even heard about it.
And to use something that could be pointed back at Russia, no strange is not the correct word unbelievable is closer for Russia had no reason or motive for wanting them dead at this time and in particular in a way that was bound to gain international media attention.
But those who will believe anything against Russia are in for their chop.
An outstanding example of an "overwhelming" hypocrisy.
How all the "friends" from the exited Union hurrying obediently (some not very but nevertheless) be on hand. Cannot remember such similar case of the vassals of the old good Soviet bloc.
And that all in the time of the huge turmoil in ME where one life means nothing not speaking about thousands lives and unrepairable damages .
Or is it just a test how much inflatable rubbish the "international community" will swallow?
But then they wouldn't have had anyone for swapsies would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by birding
Duh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
Anyone?
Because I'm fucked if I know what he's gibbering on about.
Not really, there are all sorts of military facilities in that part of Blighty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmatic
I know who done it, the same group who killed Lady Diana and reporter Jill Dando.
And presumably Marvin Acme.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Perhaps his source was the Moon of Alabama website, which has an image showing a letter purporting to be from the Times.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2018/03/406.jpg
MoA - "No Patients Have Experienced Symptoms Of Nerve Agent Poisoning In Salisbury"
Time 4 a Ruby, Murray oft abused due to his admitted personality issues, however he knows the game from inside
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9spgagSHI
One of the Soviet scientists who developed ‘Novichok’ says there are dozens of people in Russia who still know how to make it
The Bell
22:26, 20 march 2018
The newsletter The Bell published an interview on March 20 with Vladimir Uglev, one of the Soviet scientists at the state chemical research institute known as “GosNIIOKhT,” who helped developed “Novichok” — the nerve agent reportedly used to poison ex-spy Sergey Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in England, earlier this month. Here are the biggest revelations from the interview:
- There are four compounds that combine to form what’s called “Novichok”: A-1972, B-1976, C-1976, and D-1980 (each named after the years they were created).
- The substance was developed on orders from the Soviet Defense Ministry to serve as the USSR’s response to VX. Scientists worked on the poison from 1972 to 1988.
- There is no antidote to B-1976, C-1976, or D-1980. If Skripal and his daughter were exposed to a near-lethal dose of any one of these substances, then they will die as soon as they’re disconnected from life support.
- Novichok’s formula is still known to several dozen people in Russia today.
- “Binary weapons,” where two harmless compounds are combined to force a supposedly lethal nerve agent, do not exist, according to Uglev.
Earlier on March 20, the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti published an interview with another scientist at GosNIIOKhT, Leonid Rink, who denies that Russia could be involved in the poisoning of the Skripals.
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/03...how-to-make-it
To save anyone having to debunk the whole load of shite:Quote:
Originally Posted by misskit
Quote:
Binary components for the three most common nerve agents (American code names are given in brackets) are the following:
- Sarin (GB-2): methylphosphoryldifluoride (DF) + isopropanol. The isopropanol is included in a mixture (OPA) with isopropylamine which binds the hydrogen fluoride generated.
- Soman (GD-2): methylphosphoryldifluorid (DF) + pinacolylalcohol.
- VX-2: O-ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite (QL) + sulphur.
https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-...-agents/#c4114
I see that walking expense account Juncker was congratulating Putin yesterday on his win.
What a smug pos he is.
So did baldy orange cunto. Then again, Putin probably ordered him to.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
another view from offguardian
https://off-guardian.org/2018/03/15/...ovichok-story/
Published on March 15, 2018
Comments 122
The farcical reality behind Theresa May’s “novichok” story
22 Votes
We already know UK PM Theresa May misrepresented the Russian law on executing terrorists in foreign lands, in order to bolster her currently evidence-free claims of Russian culpability in the poisoning of ex-MI6 employee Sergey Skripal. Her narrative remains, as of March 15, bald and unconvincing. But it seems things may be about to get even worse for her and what some see as her bid to “Falklandise” her flagging premiership. It seems the “nerve agent” she claims was used to attack Skripal and his daughter may not actually exist.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2018/03/1.jpg?w=840the 2008 book in which dissident Soviet scientist Vil Mirzayanov published the formula for “novichok” which Theresa May pretends is a secret known only to RussiaIncredible as it may seem given the tale of certitude told by May in Parliament, and given the column inches used up in the media assuring the UK public how terrifyingly toxic “novichok” really is, the evidence for this alleged super-poison’s existence currently rests solely on the unproven claims of a dissident soviet “military chemist” named Vil Mirzayanov.
Mirzayanov told his western handlers a group of new (“novichok” in Russian can be translated as “new stuff” or “new arrival”) and allegedly highly dangerous compounds which he claimed could be created by combining commonly available substances, but it turns out western scientists were far from convinced by his claims, and, even as recently as two years ago, the efficacy and even the existence, of these “novichoks” was still deemed to be entirely speculative.
For example in 2013 the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (the body the UK refuses to work with in the Skripal case) had this to say about the potential reality of novichoks:
Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”Report of the Scientific Advisory Boardon Developments in Science and Technology for The Third Review Conference p. 3, section 8And again in 2016 Dr Robin Black, former head of the detection laboratory at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made the same point:
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. Robin Black (Dr), Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal Society of Chemistry 2016, cited in “Doubts about novichoks” by Piers Robinson & Paul McKeigueWhat these publications are effectively saying is – there’s no evidence any of these compounds work in the way claimed and Mirzayanov may very possibly be exaggerating or inventing.
Which raises the question – how did the scientists allegedly sourced by May suddenly feel able to not only identify this previously poorly understood and questionable substance, but identify where it came from and lay claim to it being massively deadly and toxic? As Craig Murray says (our emphasis):
…now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin. Given Dr Black’s publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true.But that’s not all. There’s also problems with May’s claim that the “novichok” formula is a deep secret, known only to the Russians. Mirzanayov was interviewed by AFP about the Skripal case and this is what he said:
“Only the Russians” developed this class of nerve agents, said the chemist. “They kept it and are still keeping it in secrecy.”Exactly what May said in Parliament. Great. Just one problem. Mirzayanov neglected to mention that this “secret formula” known only to “the Russians” had been published in 2008 in his own book – still available on Amazon today.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2018/03/395.jpgGiven the fact that anyone with an internet connection and $8.16 to spend could have obtained the “secret” recipe for novichok (which it seems most scientists don’t think would work anyway), and anyone with a decent professional laboratory could presumably manufacture it (again supposing it even works as claimed) will May correct her deceptive claims to Parliament and the British public?
Will the media continue to help her maintain her crumbling narrative? Are we watching WMD#2 with added depths of cynicism?
If you have access to the Times web site, presumably you can confirm the letter. I don't, which disables me from commenting as to whether it is fake or not. The link you provided , because the mass is behind a pay wall, clarifies nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...ctor-vf9v0zg0m
As for MOA site, it relies extensively on "published" by reputable sources, to mould it's opinions. The site plus comments page are open to all. many times the commentators provide much interesting info. Not always proven to be correct, but sourced by worldwide commentators and from worldwide publishers of allegedly facts.
I know Russia uses similar planes to this one, but does it have any bouncing bombs, to breach the dam of lies and expose the dark secrets of the lake bottom?
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=10620&stc=1
You forget that sites like this attract whackjobs like yourself, so neither the "worldwide commentators" nor "worldwide publishers" of such fucking nonsense have any credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Further, you continue to either misunderstand or deliberately try to misrepresent the letter, which essentially said that only three people were affected by the nerve agent, the two victims and an attending police officer.
Do try and keep up.
"Essentially" does not equate to proven by evidence/facts, it again, is your unproven "opinion".Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
The letter, allegedly published in the Times, states quite clearly "No patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning"
The letter, allegedly published in the Times, states quite clearly "three patients with significant poisoning.".
What is not stated is that the poison was a "nerve agent".
As posted by me #334.
But again, I await the report of the OPCW to confirm, or not, my currently held "opinion" being correct. As opposed to the UK government which has already accused Russia of an act of war.
Why await the report, because the UK has previous in starting wars based on lies and slaughtering millions of men, women and children.
Sheesh. People have to talk to you whackjobs as if you're fucking seven year olds. Unless everything is spelt out in capital letters, you see conspiracy theories in everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
His letter was merely to say that no patients were treated for nerve agent poisoning other than the two victims and the policemen.
I think he if wanted to join you nutters in denying this ever happened, he would have worn a tin foil hat and screamed "It's not a nerve agent, it's Ameristan wibble wibble" or the usual sort of shit you lot come out with.