User:Southofwatford/rewrite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs

On July 11th 2006 the Spanish newspaper El Mundo published this headline:

No era Goma-2 ECO: El explosivo que estalló el 11-M era distinto del que tenían los islamistas[1]
It was not Goma-2 ECO: The explosive that detonated on 11 March was different from the explosive that the islamists had

El Mundo argues that:

  • During the official hearings of 7 July 2004 on the Madrid bombings, the chief of the bomb disposal team (TEDAX), Juan Jesús Sánchez Manzano, emphatically asserted that there was nitroglycerine in the remains of the explosion, and that all dynamites contain such substance. Mr. Sánchez Manzano said:
...logramos encontrar restos de nitroglicerina, y la nitroglicerina es el componente de todas las dinamitas
...we managed to find traces of nitroglycerine, and nitroglycerine is a component of all forms of dynamite
Testimony in the Spanish Congressional file[2][3]
  • In response to a question from a member of the commission on whether he was an expert on explosives, Sánchez Manzano replied:
En explosivos, no; soy un experto en desactivación de explosivos[4]
In explosives no; I am an expert in the deactivation of explosives
  • Nitroglycerine is, definitely, not a component[5][6] of the only explosive (Goma-2 ECO) that the alleged Islamist perpetrators had. Goma-2 ECO was the explosive found in the only unexploded bomb recovered from the trains.
¿es la nitroglicerina un componente de la Goma 2 ECO? Rotundamente, no.
Is nitroglycerine a component of the Goma 2 ECO?. Positively, not.[1]

El Mundo founder and manager, Pedro J. Ramírez, has said about this issue:

No estamos ante una entrega más de los misterios, de los agujeros, de los enigmas del 11-M ... Hemos llegado a un punto absolutamente crítico ... Todo el Sumario está construido sobre la base de que lo que estalló en los trenes era Goma 2 ECO ... Si ahí pone Nitroglicerina, el Sumario del 11-M se ha venido abajo.
Excerpts taken from the first fifth of the COPE radio program.[7]
This is not just a new chapter to the mysteries, the shady issues, the enigmas about 11-M ... We have reached an absolutely critical point ... All the "Sumario" [i.e., the explanation of facts provided by the Spanish Judiciary] is based upon Goma 2 ECO exploding in the trains ... If you can read there "nitroglicerine", the entire "Sumario" goes down (there is the original scientific police reports, missing from the "Sumario").
Full context quote.[8]

Nevertheless, on July 17th 2006, Mr. Sánchez Manzano stated before the investigating judge that he had mistakenly used the word "nitroglycerine" because of its historical connection with dynamite.[9]

That day, El Mundo claimed that the news agencies EFE and Europa Press and the newspapers Gara and ABC also cited the presence of Nitroglycerine. ABC article cited by "El Mundo".[10]

ABC article mentioning the presence of Nitroglycerine, cited by "El Mundo".[11]

The 19 July 2006 digital edition of El Mundo contains a report on the appearance before the investigating judge, Juan del Olmo, of the inspector belonging to the bomb disposal squad (TEDAX) who was responsible for the preliminary reports on the explosives used in the bombings. This officer, head of the TEDAX investigation group and a graduate in Chemistry, stated before the judge that she was unable to determine the type of dynamite used in the bombs because it was not possible to obtain a test sample of sufficient size to study the composition of the explosive. She also declared that at no time did she ever mention the presence of nitroglycerine to any of her commanding officers - who include Mr. Sánchez Manzano.[12]

In the chemical tests ordered by the Judge in 2007, Nitroglycerine, Dinitrotoluene and Dinitroglycol appeared in a sample exposed to the explosions in the trains. According to "El Mundo", the presence of those substances points to Tytadine -used by ETA- (not Goma-2, used by the Islamists) as the explosive that went off in the trains [13]. According to "El País" the Civil Guard claimed that Tytadine was not used in the attacks [14]

According to "El País" the presence of Nitroglycerine was caused by "contamination" during its storage by the TEDAX[15] or during the manufacturing process [16]. "El Mundo" replied that an expert claimed in the trial that no case of "contamination" has been claimed in the last 20 years [17] and that the manufacturer stopped used Nitroglycerine in the manufacturing of Goma-2 EC in 1992 [18]. "ABC" claimed that the Civil Guard pointed to the fact that the bags used by the TEDAX (Spanish bomb disposal teams) to preserve some samples were less than ideal. The Civil Guard used enclosed tubes to preserve the samples, and those samples contained no Nitroglycerine no Dinitrotoluene. The Civil Guard report concludes that it is scientifically impossible to know which kind of explosives went off in the trains [19].

In the final tests ordered by the judge no other explosive apart from Goma-2 ECO was detected [20]


[edit] Rewrite - Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs

In the immediate aftermath of the train bombings it was suspected that the explosive used in the bombs may have been Titadine, as initial suspicions on responsibility for the bombings focused on ETA and this explosive had been used by them on occasions in the past[21][22]. As evidence emerged from the investigation attention on the explosive used switched to a brand of dynamite known as Goma-2 [23].

Analysis of samples from the explosion sites carried out by a member of the bomb disposal squad (TEDAX) following the bombings did not produce a definitive result. The analyst concerned later testified in the trial of those accused of committing the bombings. She stated that the only thing she could identify in these tests were generic components of dynamite [24].

Later in 2004, in his appearance before the parliamentary commission of investigation, Juan Jesus Sánchez Manzano (the head of the TEDAX) stated that traces of nitroglycerine had been detected in the samples recovered after the bombings [25][26]. He would later retract this statement before the investigating magistrate in charge of the case and emphasised that he was not an expert in explosives [27]. The statement by Sánchez Manzano led supporters of the idea that ETA was involved in the bombings [28] to question whether the explosive used in the bombs had been Goma 2 ECO [29]. Nitroglycerine is not a component of Goma 2 ECO [30][31].

In the run up to the trial of those accused, the court ordered that fresh tests be carried out on the samples recovered from the trains and on remains of explosive recovered from different sites connected to the bombings. These tests were carried out by specialists appointed from the security services, the defence and other parties to the accusation. The judges ordered that video and audio recordings be made of these tests[32]. The results of these tests [33] were also inconclusive concerning the samples taken from the explosion sites. Nitroglycerine was detected in one of these samples, and the presence of dinitrotoluene (DNT) was also detected. This has led to claims that the explosive used could have been Titadine [34]. However, also detected in the same sample was dibutyl phthalate (DBP)[35], which is a component of Goma 2 ECO but not of titadine [31][36]. Several other samples from the explosion sites also revealed the joint presence of DNT and DBP[37]. Tests were carried out on a sample of Titadine [38]. In addition the presence of nitroglycerine and DNT was also detected in samples of Goma 2 ECO that had been recovered from sites associated with the bombings [39].

The discovery of these different components led to suggestions that there could have been some accidental contamination of the samples and explosive remains, although a definitive cause of such contamination has not been established [40] [41]. Entire cartridges, or partial remains of cartridges, of Goma 2 ECO were recovered from the apartment in Leganés where 7 suspects of the bombings died following an explosion, the only unexploded bomb, a Renault Kangoo van found near Alcalá de Henares station on the day of the bombings, and the device that was left by the high speed railway line connecting Madrid and Seville [42]

The only explosive positively identified in any site connected to the bombings has been Goma 2 ECO and the sentence in the trial concluded that it was likely that the bombs contained this explosive or a mixture of it with its predecessor product Goma 2 EC [43].

[edit] References used in original section and rewrite

  1. ^ a b El explosivo que estalló el 11-M era distinto del que tenían los islamistas (El Mundo)
  2. ^ Declaration (Spanish), 4th page first column
  3. ^ Audio file with the declarations of Sánchez Manzano
  4. ^ Goma 2 ECO en los escenarios del crimen (El País)
  5. ^ Manufacturer fact sheet
  6. ^ NordExplosives fact sheet
  7. ^ COPE Audio file (Spanish) 5´35´´...//....7´42´´...//...10´54´´
  8. ^ Wikiquote Pedro J. Ramírez
  9. ^ El jefe de los Tedax declara al juez del 11-M que se equivocó al hablar de nitroglicerina · ELPAÍS.com
  10. ^ Efe y Europa Press informaron el 11-M de que había nitroglicerina en los trenes | elmundo.es
  11. ^ ABC, article citing nitroglycerine , 3/11 2004 22:14
  12. ^ La jefa de los Tedax que analizó los explosivos del 11-M dice que nunca habló de nitroglicerina (El Mundo)
  13. ^ [Los peritos que analizaron los explosivos del 11-M, incapaces de ponerse de acuerdo, El Mundo]
  14. ^ Los peritos atribuyen los resultados de los análisis a una mezcla de dinamitas Goma 2 El País
  15. ^ [1]
  16. ^ Los expertos, no obstante, siguen sin descartar una contaminación en la fábrica de Unión Española de Explosivos de Páramo de Masa (Burgos)
  17. ^ [2]
  18. ^ El fabricante de Goma 2 EC asegura que esta dinamita no tiene nitroglicerina desde 1992, El Mundo
  19. ^ Policía y Guardia Civil coinciden en sus conclusiones sobre el explosivo del 11-M ABC.es
  20. ^ [3] [4] [5] [6]
  21. ^ “CBS News: Spain Reels From Deadly Bombings”
  22. ^ "ABC: Los terroristas querían volar dos trenes dentro de la estación de Atocha"
  23. ^ “New York Times: Bombing in Madrid: The Investigation”
  24. ^ “ABC: La perito de los Tedax despeja las dudas sobre los primeros análisis de los explosivos”
  25. ^ Declaration (Spanish) "Sessions of the parliamentary commission of investigation: 4th page first column"
  26. ^ "Audio file with the declarations of Sánchez Manzano"
  27. ^ "El País: El jefe de los Tedax declara al juez del 11-M que se equivocó al hablar de nitroglicerina"
  28. ^ “International Herald Tribune: Three years after train bombings, Spain is haunted by conspiracy theories”
  29. ^ "El Mundo: El explosivo que estalló el 11-M era distinto del que tenían los islamistas"
  30. ^ Manufacturer fact sheet
  31. ^ a b NordExplosives fact sheet
  32. ^ "El País: El tribunal del 11-M admite la petición de uno de los acusados del atentado para citar a tres etarras"
  33. ^ [7] [8] [9] [10]
  34. ^ "El Mundo: El fabricante de Goma 2 EC asegura que esta dinamita no tiene nitroglicerina desde 1992"
  35. ^ "Test results pages 20-21 (Spanish)"
  36. ^ "El País: Detectadas 79 muestras con el componente Goma 2 ECO"
  37. ^ "Test results pages 41-42 for example (Spanish)"
  38. ^ "Test results page 146 (Spanish)"
  39. ^ "Test results pages 22-23, 29-30 and 109-110 (Spanish)"
  40. ^ "El País: Los peritos atribuyen los resultados de los análisis a una mezcla de dinamitas Goma 2"
  41. ^ "El Mundo: El hallazgo de nitroglicerina: entre la falta de explicación y la tesis de la contaminación"
  42. ^ "El País: Los peritos del 11-M no hallan sustancias ajenas a la Goma 2 ECO en lugar del atentado"
  43. ^ "Sentence of the court (in Spanish)"