• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

The Russian Spy poisoning, and its connections to the coming World War

Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,201
Likes
1,264
Points
163
#63
Now it looks like the poison used in Salisbury was of UK or US origin. Western governments have lost the plot and that includes the thickos in Leinster House. Bent Punjabi queen Leo Varadker should do the decent thing a apologise to Putin who is actually a man. Maybe Putin could teach him how to ride bears and toughen the sissy the fuck up. I digress.

The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

Lavrov: Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service
 

Una

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
1,975
Likes
2,502
Points
163
Location
Dublin
#64
Now it looks like the poison used in Salisbury was of UK or US origin. Western governments have lost the plot and that includes the thickos in Leinster House. Bent Punjabi queen Leo Varadker should do the decent thing a apologise to Putin who is actually a man. Maybe Putin could teach him how to ride bears and toughen the sissy the fuck up. I digress.

The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

Lavrov: Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service

FacepalmFacepalmLol with tearsLol with tearsLol with tearsLol upsideLol upsideLol upsideLol with tearsLol with tearsLol with tears Leinster House Thickos & bent Punjabi Queen Leo...
Great to see Western Governments loosing control of the media.......
The Eejits Leo & Co. are flying to Brussels tomorrow to go down on bended knee re. Syria.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,666
Likes
1,459
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
#65
Now it looks like the poison used in Salisbury was of UK or US origin. Western governments have lost the plot and that includes the thickos in Leinster House. Bent Punjabi queen Leo Varadker should do the decent thing a apologise to Putin who is actually a man. Maybe Putin could teach him how to ride bears and toughen the sissy the fuck up. I digress.

The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

Lavrov: Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service

Yeah, BZ toxin MUCH better explains the curious timing, symptoms and recovery of the skripals and the copper

BZ is odorless and nonirritating with delayed symptoms several hours after contact
3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate - Wikipedia
 

TheWexfordInn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,999
Likes
2,038
Points
163
#66
Now it looks like the poison used in Salisbury was of UK or US origin. Western governments have lost the plot and that includes the thickos in Leinster House. Bent Punjabi queen Leo Varadker should do the decent thing a apologise to Putin who is actually a man. Maybe Putin could teach him how to ride bears and toughen the sissy the fuck up. I digress.

The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

Lavrov: Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service
I think rather than relying on Fake News outfit RT to inform you what Spiez lab have stated its a better idea to listen directly to what Spiez lab have stated which is that they have no doubt that Novicheck was detected.

 
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,666
Likes
1,459
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
#67
I think rather than relying on Fake News outfit RT to inform you what Spiez lab have stated its a better idea to listen directly to what Spiez lab have stated which is that they have no doubt that Novicheck was detected.

I think Novicheck is exactly what happened here.
Novicheck is in the mail that is! Laugh with tongue out

As is your Novicheck Wexford! Though not for much longer I suspect.
Bad value for money!! Lol upside
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,201
Likes
1,264
Points
163
#68
FacepalmFacepalmLol with tearsLol with tearsLol with tearsLol upsideLol upsideLol upsideLol with tearsLol with tearsLol with tears Leinster House Thickos & bent Punjabi Queen Leo...
Great to see Western Governments loosing control of the media.......
The Eejits Leo & Co. are flying to Brussels tomorrow to go down on bended knee re. Syria.
Well, at least we have an expert in bending over. He's come a long way from his humble bending over beginnings in the nightclub shithouse.
 

TheWexfordInn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,999
Likes
2,038
Points
163
#69
Now it looks like the poison used in Salisbury was of UK or US origin. Western governments have lost the plot and that includes the thickos in Leinster House. Bent Punjabi queen Leo Varadker should do the decent thing a apologise to Putin who is actually a man. Maybe Putin could teach him how to ride bears and toughen the sissy the fuck up. I digress.

The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

Lavrov: Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service
I think rather than relying on Fake News outfit RT to inform you what Spiez lab have stated its a better idea to listen directly to what Spiez lab have stated which is that they have no doubt that Novicheck was detected.

I trust it that everyone knows by now not to take any notice of the dis-information pumped out by the lying scumbags in the Russian Government and Media but just to perform the final obliteration of this fake news story the Russians put out up the OPCW have confirmed that the BZ sample involved in the testing process was a control sample, ie a "known" substance entered into the testing system to validate that the testing system would identify it correctly to give greater confidence in the testing systems results with regard to the "unknown" substance .


https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/M-59/en/ecm59dg01_e_.pdf
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,201
Likes
1,264
Points
163
#70
I trust it that everyone knows by now not to take any notice of the dis-information pumped out by the lying scumbags in the Russian Government and Media but just to perform the final obliteration of this fake news story the Russians put out up the OPCW have confirmed that the BZ sample involved in the testing process was a control sample, ie a "known" substance entered into the testing system to validate that the testing system would identify it correctly to give greater confidence in the testing systems results with regard to the "unknown" substance .


https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/M-59/en/ecm59dg01_e_.pdf
So you use a different substance as a datum? That doesn't sound right. Not that I know much about chemicals, but it doesn't make sense to me.

If you do a bump test of a gas monitor, you use a mixture of known gasses in precise and known concentrations. You calibrate your equipment with a known substance of known properties identical to that which is being tested. You do not calibrate say a hydrogen sulphide detector with carbon monoxide. At face value it doesn't make sense. Why use BZ? Sure any old substance must be good enough if I'm wrong?

In my experience as I said above. You use the a known sample of the substance to be tested to calibrate equipment in order to test an unknown.
 

TheWexfordInn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,999
Likes
2,038
Points
163
#71
So you use a different substance as a datum? That doesn't sound right. Not that I know much about chemicals, but it doesn't make sense to me.

If you do a bump test of a gas monitor, you use a mixture of known gasses in precise and known concentrations. You calibrate your equipment with a known substance of known properties identical to that which is being tested. You do not calibrate say a hydrogen sulphide detector with carbon monoxide. At face value it doesn't make sense. Why use BZ? Sure any old substance must be good enough if I'm wrong?

In my experience as I said above. You use the a known sample of the substance to be tested to calibrate equipment in order to test an unknown.
The Brits make a claim broadcast around the world that they have found Novichock which everyone in the science community will be aware of.
They invite the OPCW in to investigate. The OPCW takes samples and submits them to its laboratories around the world.

The OPCW use standard scientific methodology which aims to eliminate the possibility that these laboratories will have a bias in their testing towards finding Novichock as they will start out with the preconception that that is the "correct" result.

So the OPCW sends out some samples which are from the crime scene and some samples which the OPCW (but not the laboratory) will know are some other substance.

The OPCW uses the fact that the "unknown" substances are correctly identified as validation that the testing laboratories are producing the correct results unaffected by any bias towards preconceived expectations of what the "correct" result is giving greater confidence in the other findings produced by those laboratories which conclude that Novichock has been identified.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,201
Likes
1,264
Points
163
#72
The Brits make a claim broadcast around the world that they have found Novichock which everyone in the science community will be aware of.
They invite the OPCW in to investigate. The OPCW takes samples and submits them to its laboratories around the world.

The OPCW use standard scientific methodology which aims to eliminate the possibility that these laboratories will have a bias in their testing towards finding Novichock as they will start out with the preconception that that is the "correct" result.

So the OPCW sends out some samples which are from the crime scene and some samples which the OPCW (but not the laboratory) will know are some other substance.

The OPCW uses the fact that the "unknown" substances are correctly identified as validation that the testing laboratories are producing the correct results unaffected by any bias towards preconceived expectations of what the "correct" result is giving greater confidence in the other findings produced by those laboratories which conclude that Novichock has been identified.
So why was BZ mentioned, that's my point! That isn't an answer to what I have said.

The bias toward Novichok began when Theresa May stated that it was Novichok. It would seem that the OPCW doesn't trust the labs to be honest. The simplest thing to do would be to test to see if it is Novichok based on known samples and if not, then find out what it really is. Why look for a needle in a haystack when it isn't in the haystack? It seems to me that political interference is taking place here.

Why was a sample not sent to Russia as per British obligations?

The following is from a Canadian website and not from the baddie Russians. Canada are the goodies so it should be credible to you? The OPCW are just like the WADA. They are not impartial.

"The chemical weapons watchdog is notoriously pro-Western. Its year ago fact-finding mission on the alleged Khan Sheikhoun CW incident falsified results.

Will its Douma analysis produce similar “findings” to please Washington and its imperial allies? Its credibility long ago was lost.

No Douma CW incident occurred – confirmed by area medical personnel and Russian toxic weapons experts. Will the OPCW refute them, further tarnishing its credibility as an impartial body?

Washington’s dirty hands pressured the organization to confirm its falsified Douma accusations".

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wa...mp-official-falsified-douma-narrative/5636719
 
Last edited:

TheWexfordInn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,999
Likes
2,038
Points
163
#73
So why was BZ mentioned, that's my point! That isn't an answer to what I have said.
Because as the OPCW said BZ was used as a control substance. They send off to their designated laboratories a combination of the substance they want identified along with separate samples of a substance whose identity they know, in this case BZ. The laboratory receiving the test samples do not know if all, some or none of the samples they receive are the samples being investigated or control samples. This is used to validate that the laboratory is identifying all samples with an open mind not with any preconception of what the samples contain.

The bias toward Novichok began when Theresa May stated that it was Novichok.
No it was not a political claim, it was a scientific claim. The Laboratory at Porton Downs identified the substance as Novichok. At the point the UK invited in the OPCW to carry out an investigation as to what was present independently of whatever the Porton Down laboratory had claimed.

It would seem that the OPCW doesn't trust the labs to be honest. The simplest thing to do would be to test to see if it is Novichok based on known samples and if not, then find out what it really is. Why look for a needle in a haystack when it isn't in the haystack? It seems to me that political interference is taking place here.
The OPCW followed its established protocol. It sent samples from the scene along with control samples to one or more (they haven't clarified the detail of how many as of yet) of the 32 odd designated laboratories it has in countries around the world (one of which is in Russia btw).
The decision of the OPCW as to where to send those samples would factor in it not being sent to any country with a vested interest in the outcome, so in this case it did not use the Russian laboratory and will not have used any test evidence supplied by the UK when reaching its conclusion.

Why was a sample not sent to Russia as per British obligations?
The following is from a Canadian website and not from the baddie Russians.
You are now not being serious here. Globalresearch along with Zerohedge and Couterpunch are the three standout sites used by the Kremlin to plant its fake news, I couldn't be arsed reading their link, Ive read too much fake Russian bolloxology on the three of them in the last four years to click on any link to them.

If there is anything in that link that is verifiable fact then please re-post it. Without any separate back-up my presumption is that everything in that article is a combination of Kremlin approved opinion (aka propaganda) along with associated fake facts.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,201
Likes
1,264
Points
163
#74
Because as the OPCW said BZ was used as a control substance. They send off to their designated laboratories a combination of the substance they want identified along with separate samples of a substance whose identity they know, in this case BZ. The laboratory receiving the test samples do not know if all, some or none of the samples they receive are the samples being investigated or control samples. This is used to validate that the laboratory is identifying all samples with an open mind not with any preconception of what the samples contain.


No it was not a political claim, it was a scientific claim. The Laboratory at Porton Downs identified the substance as Novichok. At the point the UK invited in the OPCW to carry out an investigation as to what was present independently of whatever the Porton Down laboratory had claimed.



The OPCW followed its established protocol. It sent samples from the scene along with control samples to one or more (they haven't clarified the detail of how many as of yet) of the 32 odd designated laboratories it has in countries around the world (one of which is in Russia btw).
The decision of the OPCW as to where to send those samples would factor in it not being sent to any country with a vested interest in the outcome, so in this case it did not use the Russian laboratory and will not have used any test evidence supplied by the UK when reaching its conclusion.



You are now not being serious here. Globalresearch along with Zerohedge and Couterpunch are the three standout sites used by the Kremlin to plant its fake news, I couldn't be arsed reading their link, Ive read too much fake Russian bolloxology on the three of them in the last four years to click on any link to them.

If there is anything in that link that is verifiable fact then please re-post it. Without any separate back-up my presumption is that everything in that article is a combination of Kremlin approved opinion (aka propaganda) along with associated fake facts.
Why was a sample not sent to Russia as per British obligations?
 

TheWexfordInn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,999
Likes
2,038
Points
163
#77
Dunno what all that legal jargon means, it appears to be saying that whenever the OPCW meets in session that all members are entitled to have their say. The OPCW met in special session on April 4 on this case and indeed Russia did get to make a statement.
A quick skim through the document doesnt appear to reveal anything about any obligations to hand over specimens for testing to members. (Although Im not saying that if I had all day to study it in detail I might see such a provision).