3/11: The Explosive Used in the Massacre is Still Unknow

The Report on the 3/11 Explosives Will Have to Be Repeated Since It Lacks Legal Value.

Luis del Pino had already noted it down, and today Monday EL MUNDO gives further details, founding its arguments in the Criminal Procedure Law, to insist that the report on the 3/11 explosives has no legal value. It was written by the Explosive Deactivation Unit and NBQ, the TEDAX, in spite of what the procedure orders, that it should have been written by an official laboratory: either the one of the Scientific Police or the one of the Crime Section of the Civil Guard. In addition, it is only signed by one forensic expert, Sánchez-Manzano, when two signatures are needed. The Court that beginning in February will judge the case; will have to order to repeat the analysis.

(Libertad Digital) According to the news noted down by Luis del Pino on which EL MUNDO gives further details, the report on the composition of the explosives used in 3/11 included in the Judicial Summary by [Investigating Judge] Del Olmo is only signed by one forensic expert, when it is necessary the signature of two of them. This forensic expert is Jesús Sánchez-Manzano, the chief of the TEDAX unit, a degree in Law but without any other qualification as expert or TEDAX training.

The report does not fulfil at this point what the Criminal Procedure Law orders. An obligation that, the newspaper that directs Pedro J. Ramírez reminds, “could only be avoided, according to law of precedent by the Supreme Court, when the laboratory where the analysis were carried out, is classified as an Official Laboratory”. And only two are official laboratories: the one of the Scientific Police and the one of the Crime Section of the Civil Guard.

In spite of this, the report was sent to the investigating judge of 3/11 and it is included in the Judicial Summary, attached as Appendix Number 2. It says that “it is technically impossible to assign a commercial name to dynamites that have suffered explosive reaction, since in this process, particular components that make possible its designation disappear”.

EL MUNDO concludes that “the court that will judge the 3/11 attack case, whose hearing will begin in the last days of February, will have to order to repeat the forensic analysis that were carried out on substances recovered in the 12 explosion scenes (10 in the trains and two corresponding to the controlled detonations in Atocha and El Pozo of the backpacks that did not exploded)”.

And it explains that the TEDAX laboratory where the analyses were carried out has fewer resources than the Scientific Police’s one. In the latter, EL MUNDO recalls, it had been written all the reports on substances related to 3/11. All but the one on the dynamite found on the tracks of the AVE [High Speed Train]. In this case, fulfilling the Law, the analyses were done in the Crime Section of the Civil Guard.

The newspaper quotes a TEDAX agent that participated in the collection of samples from the trains on 3/11, who maintains that “it is impossible that not enough rests were recovered to establish the typology [of the explosive] without any doubt, in the two controlled explosions carried out at Atocha and El Pozo”. In addition, he acknowledges that “if the analyses were performed in our laboratory, that lacks resources, that was a mistake without justification. Above all, when we are talking about an attack that killed 191 persons”.

EL MUNDO insists that the Criminal Tribunal of the High Court that is going to judge 29 indicted persons for the massacre of March 11th 2004, will have to order new forensic analysis “to determine if what effectively exploded in the trains was Goma-2 ECO, another kind of dynamite or Titadyn, as was told in the first moment”.

------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------

Sánchez-Manzano is an old acquaintance to all the Spanish citizens trying to find the truth on 3/11 because he declared before the 3/11 Commission of Investigation that rests of Nitro Glycerine were found in the trains, and Nitro Glycerine is a compound of all dynamites. A collaborator in Luis del Pino’s blog pointed out some months later that Goma-2 ECO, the explosive sourced by the alleged Islamists, according to the Official Version, no longer contains Nitro Glycerine, being completely substituted by Nitro Glycol. However, ETA’s Tytadin 50 still contains Nytro Glycerine.

In the end what we’ve got is simply a derailed investigation using false reports, to finally blame for the attack some Muslim petty criminals and some theorics of Islamism that were under close surveillance, thus justifying what is simply a Coup d’Etat. Now the strategy seems to try to get some condemnatory sentences for those scapegoats in order to keep the show going on at least until the next National Elections.

P.D. In the Bombay attack in India against commuter trains, the Security Forces there determined in six days that it was used RDX.

P.P.D Check the diagram to see how two decoys (bombs that did not detonate) were placed in the first carriages of Atocha and El Pozo trains, while the ones planted in the last ones (9 out of 12) all went off.

So if I understand correctly, this means that the explosives that were present with Jihadists that were caught can not be matched to the explosives used on the trains. And thus, the Jihadists are likely to get a light prison sentence.

However, I don't understand how the mix-up with the lab work came to be. Is there no residue from the train explosions for a professional police laboratory to compare with the explosives caught with the Jihadis? And further, wasn't there a link to Basque separatists with regards to the type of explosive used on the trains?

Is Mr. Bean, Presidente del Gobierno, trying to sweep the Jihad against Spain under the carpet?

Incorregible, that's it. There is no way to link the explosives the "Jihadists" you say (though a Muslim petty criminal does not equal a Jihadist) allegedly had, to the explosive on the trains.

Of course there were residues from the train explosions, numbers play with us: ten explosion scenes, two somewhat controlled explosion scenes. The probability of not identifying the explosive used is comma followed five or six zeros, one. The problem is that any other report has been concealled because its conclusions do not exclude ETA.

Unbelievably, only Sánchez-Manzano report adresses the kind of explosive used ON the trains in all the 3/11 Judicial summary.

Is Mr. Bean, Presidente del Gobierno, trying to sweep the Jihad against Spain under the carpet?

Under his carpet there is much more than a few Jihadists, believe me.

redgolum,

So the train explosive was of a nitro glycerin type, while the suspects only had nitro glycol type explosives. Is that right?

Yes, it can be inferred so from the mistake of Sánchez-Manzano before the 3/11 Commission of Investigation: the analyses of the rests from the trains did not discard ETA.

Doesn't rule out that they (the islamic suspects) didn't have two batches of explosives, but since ETA is known for using Nitro glycerin explosives of the type on the train, it does raise some interesting questions.

I don't think so. It is not easy as foreigner to obtain explosives and not being discovered. That is the reason real Islamic terrorists prefer TATP, which can be home-made from commercial products. Moreover, the entire Official Version foundes itself on the Goma-2 ECO sold in Asturias to Jamal Ahmidan... without it, where did the moors obtain the explosive? The most probable answers is ETA, followed by secret services.

Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't a subway attack seems a bit out of the norm for ETA? I know only a little of the history of their attacks.

Well, on Christmas Eve 2003, three months before the attack, ETA left some suitcases in a train from San Sebastian to Madrid Chamartín station, packed with explosives. The terrorist were caught, the train stopped and the bombs deactivated.

ETA does what it is necessary to win, and follows no rules. Attacks on the civil population, when carried out, such as the Hipercor attack in Barcelona in the late 1980's have costed much of the support for its cause by the far left voters, in the places that had occurred. ETA knows that it cannot openly attack the Spanish people but, what if leaving two decoys and letting some pro-Socialist high rank police officers do the rest?

For more information about the explosives in the trains, check this article. Much of it is still valid even one year after writting it.

Thank you. Please keep me on your list.

Of course, I don't see this as either-or, if it is "x" it can not also be "y".

There has never been any reason to imagine that if the jihadists launched the attack that by definition ETA is innocent, or vice versa if ETA led the attack then the jihadists must therefor not have been involved. It is possible to be a scapegoat and still have been complicit.

The old joke is that if you are in a poker game and you don't know who the "patsy" is, its you. If you are in a conspiracy, and you don't know who the patsy is, its you.

The false x versus y choice has kept people busy in other parts of the world, imagining that shia won't work with sunni, religious muslims won't work with secular muslims, Bin Ladin's agents won't work with Saddamist agents, or Iranian agents, and we have seen upon examination every one of these false presumptions fall apart in the light of reality. In a given set of circumstances, they will all work together, and if you're having trouble deciding if its "x" or "y", its probably both.

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing, carried out by home-grown terrorists? Dig into it and you find Al Qaeda connections through the philippines, and possible Saddamist connections. Both. Dig into it and you also find the conspirators surrounded by government informants all the way down the line. The deeper you dig, the weirder it gets.

So its entirely possible for "x" to be also "y" with a dash of "z" thrown in for flavor.

Good point, marron. But the Jihadist you say had pretty bizarre ways: From Luis del Pino's Enigmas on 3/11. Chapter Twelve: "The Fairy Tale about El Chino". An excerpt:

We know that Jamal Ahmidan rented on January 28th 2004 a house in Morata de Tajuña [Morata] and the official version tells us that Jamal Ahmidan was a dangerous Islamist and that in this house the bombs that killed 192 persons on March 11th were assembled. Well, as a version is not bad. The problem is that are numerous testimonies that did not fit in a so simplistic vision.

Let us begin with the facts that it is pretty strange that a dangerous Islamist has a son studying in a Catholic School and it is also striking that he lives with a non-Muslim woman that smokes, wears leather trousers and a piercing around her lip. It is bizarre that in his phone calls taped, he never talks about religion or politics, but about hash, drug debts and settling of scores. But, above of all, the behaviour of this alleged terrorist before and after 3/11 is completely inexplicable according to the Police version.

First of all, Jamal Ahmidan rents a house for a whole year, and pays the rental in advance. After renting the house, he visits his new neighbours and buys some second hand equipment: a fridge, a heater, a solar panel... In the first weeks of February, Jamal Ahmidan, brings some Moroccan building workers to his house in Morata to add a second floor, build a farmyard and some kind of cellar. Finally, on the first days of March, Jamal Ahmidan buys a flock of six goats, some hens and a dog, and takes them all to his house.

[...]

We know, according to the testimony of his woman, that Jamal Ahmidan tells his son on March 11th, referring to the attacks: "These guys of ETA have gone too far". We know that between March 13th and 14th, he does a quick trip to Pamplona [near the Basque country], maybe for issues related with drug trafficking [he carried out this kind of business also in Bilbao, in the Basque country]. We know that he calmly continued to go to his house in Morata after 3/11, not trying to flee. We know, anyway, that on March 19th he celebrates in his house without any worry the Father's day [St Joseph].

To this party came his woman, his son, his mother-in-law and her partner, a former Peruvian Civil Guard. At the same time that the Spanish Security Forces were searching franticly for a house near Morata, this dangerous Islamist called Jamal Ahmidan was celebrating without worry with his family a Catholic festivity [St. Joseph, celebrated on March 19th, was the adoptive father of Jesus Christ, therefore, his day is the father's day in the Catholic world].

Jamal Ahmidan, aka El Chino, has been portrayed by Spanish and international media as a dangerous Islamic terrorist. A man that celebrated the Catholic Father's day one week after the attacks in the house where the bombs were allegedly mounted!

The more you investigate about the real lives of those "Jihadists" indicted by the Official Version, the clearer you see it was ALL a set-up, and their role in the attack was, if any, secondary.

BTW, you know what the State Attorney says in her Indictment for the 3/11 case on the report on the explosives that detonated in the trains? That all the reports on the explosives found in the 3/11 case are included in a big report (173-Q2-04) and she consideres the whole big report correct.

That is the old tactic of putting a lie among truths. The scapegoats must be found guilty at any price. The Rule of Law in Spain is in retreat. Fascism is coming.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.