OPCW Douma probe: a ballistics/engineering/physics question

[Adam Larson CL]

Hi! I'm one of those "Russian disinformation" "conspiracy theory" people you've heard about. I could debate the issues and defend my OWN and honestly derived findings and views as needed, start a general thread on it, etc. In due time. But for now, I have just one question that SHOULD be simple and scientific. But unfortunately it's been politicized so that many people won't even want to touch it. Since the politics affects the science or discussion of it, both might come up and it seems politics section of Science Forums is the place. 

Syria, Douma, 7 April 2018, deadly chlorine attack, the leaks and whistleblowers of the least year, and OPCW losing some credibility because of Russian lies or because their Fact-Finding Mission's biased methods in the Douma probe have been exposed (opinions differ.)

The point (I'll try and upload the image I made for this. )
This one point isn't central, but was accepted as a solid clue for aerial delivery by several influential people including the New York Times (with Forensic Architecture and Bellingcat)
(see 5:50 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2X84JZINcI
... and the OPCW's Fact-Finding Mission in their final report. 
(see page 54 here for how it was presented: https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/03/s-1731-2019(e).pdf and attached fig. A.6.2)
But it seems downright absurd to me and everyone I ask. So apparently opinions differ, and that's not the right way to approach it.

A chlorine gas cylinder - fill estimated ~170L compressed gas, plus steel cylinder + aerial harness (unclear weight) - is falling. The FFM concludes it hits this upper corner at ~50 m/s, and slows to 30 m/s before hitting the balcony floor. Not shown: the aerial harness with fins thought to be on at first but removed somewhere on the way, left badly crumpled. It's designed so the thing falls nose/valve first. Both the corner impact and subsequent impact through the balcony floor were presumed nose-first.

Then somehow its falling causes THE SIDE of the cylinder to impact onto this wire mesh canopy frame, somehow imprinting its clear grid pattern in the paint (figure A.6.2 attached shows the marks and the mesh - the proportions do seem to match - see FA modeling, attached). The FFM wasn't sure if the canopy was still erected, or torn down already, maybe crumpled in a corner as seen later. The latter would leave many possible impact angles, most of which would be lower and at weirder angles than this, and with a less rigid grid offering almost no resistance. Anyway, it flips or angles or whatever into the mesh but not along it, then it's mostly nose-down (again or still?) and does its bizarre move to punch a serious hole in the concrete but then doesn't fall through it. 

That last step is also problematic, but it's the mesh impact I need to pin down. As I reason, the movement would have to be sideways; the FFM is clear "the lateral aspect of the cylinder did not slide on the mesh but it hit perpendicularly."  Is there or is there not any plausible way to have a lateral move into the mesh - with no sliding against it - during or in-between  nose-down positions at the given speeds (again ranging from 50-30 m/s) with an object that heavy? 

None of those involved in promoting this idea (Bellingcat, Forensic Architecture, the New York Times, the FFM) have visually illustrated their proposed impact, on their own or at my urging. They show the marks line up, but not how they were formed. It leaves us guessing, and that image is my guess. Anyone here see it their way and willing to try and explain it to me? Or anyone here see it like I do and willing to help me correct the record? Especially helpful: anyone the masses would consider extra-credible, a professor with a PhD and military experience, for example, who can also give a cogent explanation. I'd like to add it to my blog post on the subject, alongside tracing the FFM's possible source for the idea, and my own speculation about these marks and what they mean.

URL deleted

Sorry to be the lame science parasite here. I respect science, but never mustered the mustard OR patience to learn the right formulas and apply calculations. I also know amateurs can do it wrong and get useless results. And here we could really use a solid view, not me stumbling around. I'll check back regularly. Thanks!

- Adam

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Two issues:

1. if this is a physics question you should leave the politics out of it, and not post it in politics.

2. Posting to advertise your blog is against the rules.

 

[Adam Larson CL]

Thanks for the tips. I'd rather leave the politics  out, but didn't want to be accused of being a SNEAKY "Russian troll." It's made extra hard for us. And I wondered if the url was allowed. I thought more information would help anyone thinking of answering, or maybe they'd want to see the context it would go in. But if anyone asks, I can find a non-compiled source and re-create my notes as needed. FFM report + NYT links are good to start.

 

And should I also take this sans explanation and no "advertising" to the … not this forum?