Talk:Aleppo University Attack

Videos
Here's a wrap-up from "Syrian Girl":

eDv4-WvioEk

Interesting that the "rebels" claim that it was a government plane firing rockets, while the "evidence" video shows no plane - and that the "western" sources so far don't seem to buy it and just add the "explosions, blaming each other" quib. And the Nusra stuff seems to imply bombs. --CE (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A psychic hunch says there might be a jet involved. But if so, there should be videos. Keep an eye casually out. If video proof appears, later than it should, that's interesting. Especially if the gov. still denies it then and people have started to side against the rebels' proof-free story. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That vapor trail should be looked at closer. It is squiggly. Is pointing to the school? Could be. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Guardian version
Syrian Girl: "New footage has just emerged of the Missile that struck Aleppo univeristy. Now we know for sure it was not an IED"
 * Syria's Aleppo university bombing: amateur video footage
 * Amateur footage, which cannot be independently verified, purports to show the bombing of Aleppo university in Syria. Residents are seen running down an Aleppo street with smoke rising behind them. Another blast follows and people hurry to find shelter. The bombing on 15 January resulted in the deaths of at least 82 people with at least 162 people injured

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Petri. Here's the (a) Youtube link, uploaded 23 hours ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ZoDEqyTTc No Jet sound anywhere in there, is there? --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Enduring America ""Proving the Assad Jet Fighter's Attack on Aleppo University" is based on this video. Still no jet sound, but better missile sound. Silent stealth fighter? As if not proven, EA also wonders "is it possible that the insurgents launched a surface-to-surface rocket or a surface-to-air missile, trying to hit a regime warplane, which went astray and struck the University?" Yep. They tried to hit the invisible jet, I suspect, but missed, and that's why the invisible jet was able to drop its deadly payload on the "university of the revolution." Anyway, four frames shared there show what must be the missile, big and white, from the right. I guess others have the scene mapped out. I'd like to soon, to see where this invisible jet was vis-a-vis rebel-held areas. And also get a catalog of all missiles seized by rebels in the Aleppo are prior to this incident. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What time did this happen? --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's indeed quite a blast. SANA said the stuff was fired from "al-Lairamoun" district which seems to be partly rural, here, 3-5 km north of the University. Do we have the buildings located? Faculty of Architecture is here, are the hit buildings those on the east side of that street? --CE (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, a good fit. I looked around elsewhere and can say there are fewgood fits.Walking towards the highlighted buildings for finals. Studied hard, friends killed. A roundabout is nearby. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So this looks like early PM. If the video isn't faked, the missile seems to have come from the south-SW. I don't know my rebel districts, or where they might be able to drive a missile launcher, but Hamadaniyah area looks right for direction. Or the artillery base just south of that, better yet. If taken, we'd likely hear, so ... just thinking. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, should have clicked on that "Enduring America" link first - seems I got the hit buildings right. But why do they claim the government blamed it on car bombs? SANA clearly said missiles from the beginning. EA says they think whatever it was came from the south, which would not fit with the named district to the north(-west). --CE (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrote that in a comment before seeing that i'm not the first who noticed it - the SANA articles were pointed out to him yesterday already. Combined with that he now claims to have solved the issue in a new article - asking us to believe anonymous "western" government officials(!) - I'd say this guy is demolishing his credibility. --CE (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My (anonymous) comment wasn't approved yet. Here he gives his take on "motives", repeating the fairy tale that Aleppo University is kind of "The University of the Revolution", blaming the pre-announced FSA assault on Aleppo last summer on some crack-down against protests there. Complete hogwash. Smells of operative. --CE (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I still think this was a IED, i.e. large amount of explosive placed next to the building. Here is my reasoning.
 * For an explosion outside to kill 100 people inside the building the blast must have been huge. If it was a missile it must have been the size of a Scud. Anders Breivik killed 8 with his blast. Timothy McVeigh killed 168. The Markale marketplace massacres in Sarajevo killed 68 + 43 people in open air. I know of no missile in history, that would have killed over a hundred people inside a building. American smart bombs killed more people in Iraq, but they were directed right into the heart of the building through an air went or something. The university building is made of poured concrete and did not even collapse from the blast. If the people died inside the building, it must have been from the enormous force of the blast. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fakery of a missile with no fighter jet sound even mixed in? I'm no missile expert, but it does seem high. But remember the first blast that killed some part of those 87-100 or so people. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the beginning of this video - also contains "regime tv" witness testimony, mostly students, with english subtitles - it is claimed that two Scud launchers in "rebel" hands are shown. This also shows some launchers in Aleppo countryside (don't ask me about that stuff). Found on Urs' blog. --CE (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rebels with missiles. Need more info. I don't know either. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The sound in the Guardian video may fake. There is no clear sound for the blast. The sound of an incoming jet or something is almost as loud as the rumble of the explosion. If the missile was subsonic it should be seen in the previous frame. A Scud – or even artillery – would be supersonic. You would hear nothing before the blast. The only subsonic projectiles are mortars, Grad rockets, cruise missiles and bombs dropped from airplanes. I think the explosion (cloud and damage) is too large for a mortar. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is something that could explain the sound. This seems to be an incoming Grad rocket. Syria - Violent shelling of Darayya. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is another video from the same spot. Incoming artillery or Grads. Draaa: the bombing of the nests of mercenaries -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another video from Aleppo: Footage appears to show Aleppo university bombing -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

KurdishCouncil version
The New York Times has a link to the original video: The video shows the incoming projectile. Looks more like a bomb than a Grad rocket. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Video Suggests Missile Hit Syrian University
 * Video: لحظة قصف الطيران لجامعة حلب – KurdishCouncil, January 21, 2013

I had a thought on the video. The gov. says the missiles came from the north, perhaps from radar data or something solid. The video shows it coming from the south. However, as noted, the cameraman pans north, towards the building before the blast. Why? Most likely thing to trigger that is sound. And if the sound is north, isn't it most likely the missile is? This would mean the one we see is fake, inserted. Back-up rebel argument: okay, it wasn't a jet like we emphatically said, but not a car bomb like the "regime" said either, and the missile came from the opposite direction than they said, maybe from the artillery base south of campus. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sound argument aside, I don't see it coming from the south. The south is behind the camera. I don't see it coming from over his head from the south-west, and it can't come from the south-east because then it wouldn't hit the facade. What I seem to see (if anything) is it coming over the smoke from the first blast. And that would be from N-NW. We have a whole bunch (edit: ok, four) of those high, long buildings in a line from north to south there (wikimapia says they're dorms), maybe the sound can be explained by some breaking at that line? --CE (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As he's facing (or captures) the missile/pixels, south is to his right, slightly behind. Only a bit is seen, coming from the right. I added the west direction since it hits the west face. Rebels are now using the video to make just this argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_4d5BOZcXg "The direction of the missile was opposite from Al-Leramon." They have it from the southeast, however. Maybe it hit the top more? I'm not totally clear there. Countering my point about the camera's pan, they seem to find two people looking kind of south-ish. Don't know how significant that might be. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh - watched it now, thought it only was the original source of the Guardian video. But it has a slightly wider camera view. You actually can't see in the Guardian video what I just saw and missed in my comment, it's out of frame. Apparently they cut the beef out? Strange. Yeah, that's definitely not from N-NW. --CE (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Speed of projectile
I am trying to calculate the speed of the projectile based on 3 frames in the KurdishCouncil video. Measuring from all four frames I get 32,9 degrees from the top corner to the blast point in three frames. For the lowest possible speed we can assume the shell flies right past the cameraman, and he captures it in the first frame at a 90 degree angle, then it would travel 54,3 meters. At 30fps this would make 543 m/s. If the projectile was traveling at an angle, meaning towards or away from the cameraman, the speed would be even greater. (Now, this calls for a pause to think!) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming the horizontal field of view of the camera phone corresponds to that of a normal lens (53 degrees), then the projectile covers 20,68 degrees in two frames.
 * This source says the cameraman was 120m (400 feet) away from the blast. I checked on Google Earth and get a value of just over 100 meters.
 * Assuming the bomb is flying perpendicular to the line of sight, it would cover 45,3 meters in the first two frames. With a frame rate of 29.97 frames per second we get 566 meters per second.
 * With the speed of sound at 340.3 m/s (Mach 1) the projectile would be traveling at Mach 1,66 – almost twice the speed of sound.

Correction: There is one frame missing from the EA montage. However I did not count in any time for the blast and the fireball to form. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Warhead?
I am now starting to think the warhead may have been thermobaric. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Experts
(moved to front page) James Miller vs. Robert Mackey. Interesting! James Miller, Enduring America: "proving" jet attack "definitive Evidence" of jet attack The second link is more relevant - the "definitive evidence" is an unspecified number of unnamed experts he spoke too, every one of which, with reasons specifically held-back, believes this was a fighter jet attack. He took that in a comment to the second source, as a counter-point. Robert Mackey, NYT blog (check my comment)
 * According to Joseph Holliday, a former Army intelligence officer and a senior analyst at the Institute for the Study of War who studied the clip for The Lede, the video strongly suggests that a missile struck the university. “There’s no jet noise before or after the strike and only missiles would be supersonic – the ripping noise at the end is just the missile ripping through the air,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Add to all that the size of the blast definitely seems more like a ballistic missile than a bomb.”

He suggests it was fired by the government ("the regime didn’t mean to target the university, but their Scuds just aren’t accurate enough and they screwed up – big time"), like the ones Mackey thinks landed near Turkey a while back.
 * Mr. Holliday showed the video to another analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, Christopher Harmer, a former naval officer, who observed: “I am 90 percent confident that is either a Scud or a large surface-to-surface rocket – that is much bigger than a Qassam or Katyusha. Might be a Fajr-5 rocket.” He arrived at that conclusion, he wrote, by the following process of elimination:


 * R.P.G.? No — explosion is too big. Mortar? No — explosion is too big for the size of mortars in theater. Artillery? No — explosion is too big for any of the artillery pieces in theater. Also, if it were fired by artillery, they would have heard firing. Airdropped bomb? Possible, but unlikely. No visual indication of jets in the area.

But... but... the students saw the jet, circling around all over and attacking twice. The State Dept's condemnation was based on that. Not on 'deploring the regime attack by jet bomb or scud missiles or whatever.' --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Mackey: "While an image of a jet has yet to appear, some opposition activists insisted that they did see a plane before the explosions." Miller: "Many witnesses saw an aircraft. ... However, no videos appeared to show an airplane. " Etc. Winner, Mackey, hands-down. Aside from quoting Mr.Dark in lieu of the government, and some other things, really a pretty good piece. The rebels lied again. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The version that this was a regime-fired Scud by far missing its target doesn't make sense as it doesn't explain the first hit at the roundabout. --CE (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They screwed up bad twice in a row? No, this is a silly version too, everyone scrambling to fulfill their duty to blame "the regime" somehow or other. My comments there appear and then disappear. Tried twice, yoinked twice. I'm not to speak there. But still, it helps greatly to demonstrate that the rebels lied to us. Just don't point it out right there I guess. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To note: Miller wins the contest on openness to comments. He allows my comments (so far, and I shan't push it too much - I gather he didn't allow CE's and I'm reluctant to even push it by submitting them mtself) Mackey deleted two in a row. Actually, he did that before, but somehow I kept wondering why, trying fiveformulas, and finally maybe in pity he allowed a comment. If it was getting traffic/attention that I was after (partly), no need - this page is already #5 is a Google search for "Aleppo University attack." Serious. #8 if you use "bombing." (at least on my end) --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My first comment re-appears with a response. In part: The statement that officials first suggested this was a car bombing is not based on retroactive reading of the current versions of reports posted on government Web site, but on information gathered immediately after the event by reporters who have been working inside Syria, like my colleague C.J. Chivers, and Syrian bloggers who have provided reliable information on events there for more than a year, like the Aleppo resident who writes as Edward Dark. Still no direct quote anywhere I've seen. But someone heard it muttered somewhere, something to that effect, and it proves a big lie, I guess. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. "We have our truthful contacts and what we say they said the regime said is true and the fact that nobody can point to them saying it is evidence that they tampered with their articles later on so we can expose their lies, they're evil after all". Sigh. The link to the collection of SANA articles i've put on the front page is a mirror on syria360 blog, not directly SANA, btw. Not that would help, because they're of course dictatorhuggers and would change their little blog page when the ministry of truth calls. Here's a reference to webcitation, as notice to ourselves. --CE (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a very simple explanation to the second explosion: it is a 250kg bomb dropped from an airplane, that missed its intended target by some 2 miles. Bombs are dropped in and around Aleppo all the time. Nothing surprising here. Holding exams next to the front line may not be the wisest idea, but Aleppo does not have much of a choice. Shit happens in war.

EA claims this this was a air-to-surface missile, not an aerial bomb based on what? Sound? – The sound analysis does not add mush to this. The "experts" cannot even agree if this was subsonic or supersonic. Besides, I know of no air-to-surface missile or rocket that would carry this much punch, yet one in the Syrian arsenal. EA cannot name one either.

Some of the analysis is totally delusional: -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assad fired Scuds from his Reichstag bunker in Damascus! The only military use of Scuds in this conflict is firing at targets deep inside Turkey. Totally unsuited for hitting something on a side street in Aleppo, when the Syrian Army could hit it with a hand grenade.
 * Assad deliberately killed his own people. ...or he killed his own people to frame the FSA / Al Nusra Front. If that was the aim, they could just have planted a car bomb. Dropping bombs from a jet in broad daylight is not the way to run a false-flag operation.

Rebel Missiles?
As surface-fired missiles (model unspecified, but large) now seem the winning explanation ... who might have had them? --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(big list, all missile, surface-to-air mainly get talked about)
 * missile base seized Around October 12: widely cited. Ex: LA Times
 * Syrian rebels seized a government missile defense base near the northern city of Aleppo on Friday that had been the source of regular attacks on surrounding villages, activists said. ... But shortly after the rebels seized the base, government fighter jets attacked it, destroying the missiles, Abu Firas said. So they didn't get anything.

- Oct. 14 (?) video, showing the loot -Al-Nusra involvement: AP

- five days later... Rebels trying to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime battled army troops inside an air base in the north today as government forces fought opposition strongholds near the seat of his government in Damascus.
 * Nov 8 video Syrian Rebels Take Control of Missiles (East Ghouta cited - near Damascus, right?)
 * Nov. 28 Syrian rebels turn looted missiles on Assad's aircraft
 * Dec 24 video: Rebels in fierce battle to seize missile base
 * Jan 10: Air Base fighting and a missile launch CBC:
 * In Brussels, a NATO official said the alliance on Wednesday detected the launch of an unguided, short-range ballistic missile in the country, which is embroiled in a civil war that has killed more than 60,000 people in nearly 22 months.

- five days later...

Then there's the video included in the other video by "Nuts Flipped" - unverified, original not popping up. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Syria Blamed Car Bombs?
The chief triumphant claim of those who still can’t find the stealth bomber in any of the video evidence is "well, it’s not the car bombs "the regime" blamed, so..." But did they? I start with SANAsyria.com. Car bomb is only mentioned on the side as a concurrent story, a car bombing in Idelb. Is that what people mean? Some samples: (forthcoming -don't want to loose an hour's work again) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jan 15 Terrorists Fire Rocket Shells on Aleppo University and Bani Zaid Area, Causing Casualties "A terrorist group on Tuesday fired two rocket shells from al-Lairamoun area on Aleppo University, causing casualties and material damage. An official source told SANA that the rocket shells caused the death and the injury of a number of students on the first day of exams. It added that there were also causalities among displaced people whose areas were affected by the terrorist acts and who are staying at the University dormitory. In a relevant context, SANA reporter was informed that terrorists fired two rocket shells on Bani Zaid area in the city, with the initial information indicating victims and injuries among the citizens."
 * Jan 16 Wide Condemnation of Terrorist Attack against Aleppo University: "The students offered condolences to the families of the victims and wished the injured quick recovery. A terrorist group on Tuesday fired two rocket shells from al-Lairamoun area on Aleppo University, causing casualties and material damage."
 * Jan 17: General Command of the Army: The Criminal Act against Aleppo University a Revenge against People of Aleppo "The General Command of the Army and Armed Forces said that the armed terrorist groups committed yesterday a new crime that claimed the lives of scores, targeting Aleppo University by rocket shells from al-Lairamoun area, which prompted the army to hit back against the gatherings of terrorists in the area."

Other sources:

Guardian: "Some activists in Aleppo said a government attack caused the explosions, while state television accused "terrorists" – a term they often use to describe the rebels – of firing two rockets at the school. A rebel fighter said the blasts appeared to have been caused by "ground-to-ground" missiles."

Wikipedia: "Syrian State TV claimed rebels had launched two rockets at the campus after a car bomb blast." Two sources. BBC: "State TV said "terrorists" had launched rockets at the campus, but activists blamed missiles fired by warplanes. ... A military source told AFP that a stray surface-to-air missile fired by rebels had hit the campus, which lies in a government-controlled area of the city." (no car mention) Al-Khabar: Non-official, Arabic - will take some checking.

The government did blame Al-Nusrah Front, didn't they? Those guys usually work with car bombs, so perhaps that's the confusion. (examples forthcoming) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Guardian "I’ve just been speaking to my colleague Martin Chulov, who has been in Aleppo today and yesterday. Martin said the suspicion among Aleppo rebels was that the opposition jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra was responsible for yesterday’s rocket attack on the university, which killed at least 87 people." No, that's not it ...

This must be it: Neely, ITV "Syrian government blames Aleppo university bombing on extremist group al Nusra": "The government's explanation is different. It said initially two rockets were fired from a rebel-held area of the city and hit the university. ... The government has now changed its position. Syria's Information Minister has just given me another explanation. Omran al-Zouabi says the Islamist extremist group Jabhat al Nusra is responsible. He says the twin explosions a few minutes apart, the intent to kill large numbers of people, the targeting of a government building and the capability of the group to do such a thing, all points to them as the most likely perpetrators. ... It, rather than the Free Syria Army, has shown its has the capability of exploding massive bombs outside buildings."

Speculation, not neccessarily a changedstory from the one he describes ("terrorists" is just more specific) Still no mention of a car. Neely's speculation hints at it, but he's not the "regime." So they say Al-Nusra may have done it, but never mention a car bomb. Correct?

Jabhat Al-Nusrah Blame
First thoughts: The warnings and fliers are damning - if they weren't faked, or handed out by "regime" actors posing as Al-Nusrah. It looks like a car bombing (but I'm no expert and haven't watched much video - it could be other things). The pulled admission is damning but strikes me as odd. If the style of the admission was much different than usual (I don't know usual) it's of interest. They might claim the "regime" hacked them to create a false admission to their own crime, and find some other way of bolstering that. But they probably posted it themselves, and it might even be the truth of the matter. Arrogance. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

CNN Talks to Simon
CNN Jan. 17 Aleppo University student describes chaos, carnage after blasts Stellar work to be credited to Ashley Fantz and Salma Abdelaziz and "Simon," a self-described dental student, who accidentally pulled of a woman's hand trying to help.
 * "I was on campus when I heard a plane over head from a distance," Simon recalled to CNN. "Suddenly a loud explosion erupted just 50 meters away at the gates of the College of Architecture," he said. "Since many roads in Aleppo are blocked, this is one of the few roadways that is open for those traveling though Aleppo."

Access for car bombers greater? No - access to people to kill, with the jet, they think.
 * At least 10 cars were blown to nothing, killing the people inside, he said. Minutes later a second blast exploded a few meters away. "But this time, thank God, it was mainly material damage, not casualties," he said.

No jet mention that time.
 * Students on campus believe the government specifically targeted the school. "Aleppo University is known as the university of the revolution," Simon said. "We staged a peaceful protest last week, and this is why were targeted. Our pro-government professors would always threaten us and say 'we swear we will shell this university.'"

Sure he did. Was this protest the boycott demanded for that day? Says students were then locked on campus, maybe held for another bombing, An Addounia crew showed up to film, suspiciously fast.
 * The students then turned on the Duniya TV crew and began beating them. He said the crew was reporting that there had been a ground explosion, but he and others were sure that it was aerial shelling, suggesting that the government targeted the campus. "They were lying in front of our eyes!" Simon said.

Then, Shabiha.
 * Then, men known as Shabiha appeared, he said. The Shabiha is a group of typically hulking men who are regarded as the shadowy arm of the government and are infamous for their strong-arm tactics. The men began shouting speeches praising President Bashar al-Assad. "Just 15 guys chanting for Assad," Simon said.

The US condemnation is then presented, making relative sense in context. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)