The findings of Fred Whitehurst, a former FBI scientist and whistleblower, regarding the analysis of the pipe bombs found during the January 6 Capitol incident. His critique raises questions about the bombs' intended use and the accuracy of the FBI's report.
1. Expert Background: Fred Whitehurst is a respected explosives expert and the first successful whistleblower from the FBI. He previously exposed forensic fraud within the FBI's lab.
2. Analysis Findings: The FBI's analysis reported that both pipe bombs contained elements common in explosives, such as potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal, and included a 60-minute kitchen timer. However, neither bomb detonated.
3. Whitehurst's Concerns:
• Whitehurst argued that the bomb materials were not properly proportioned to create an explosion. He suggested that the composition could be ineffective, comparing it to having a "crock of flour" in the pipe.
• He criticized the design of the bomb's fusing system, which involved steel wool, stating that the amount used would not allow the bombs to function as intended.
4. Discrepancies in FBI Timeline: A witness reported that the timer on one bomb had 20 minutes left when discovered, conflicting with the FBI’s claim that the bombs were planted the night before. This inconsistency has prompted doubt regarding the FBI's timeline.
5. Alternative Theories:
• Barry Loudermilk, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee investigating January 6, expressed skepticism about the FBI's narrative and suggested that the bombs might have been part of a training exercise.
• Both Whitehurst and Loudermilk suspect the bombs were not intended to explode and question whether there was a manipulation of facts by the FBI.
6. Overall Criticism of the FBI: Whitehurst expressed concern that the FBI may be reverting to old habits of obscuring facts rather than providing transparent and truthful analyses.
Whitehurst's critique of the FBI's analysis of the January 6 pipe bombs raises significant questions about the effectiveness of the bombs, the accuracy of the FBI’s timeline, and the integrity of the Bureau’s reporting. These revelations suggest a need for further investigation into not just the devices themselves, but also the motives and processes behind their assessment.
No comments:
Post a Comment