The Explosives And The Contaminated Samples

I wasn't intending to write any more on this blog about the issue of the explosives used in the train bombings, I've already covered the issue in some detail before and there have been no significant developments. But then a couple of days ago a Google Alert I have set for news on the Madrid bombings caught my eye, and I found something that potentially sheds light on a genuine mystery to do with the analysis of the explosives used in the bombs.

When the analysis of the samples recovered from the bomb sites and other locations associated with the attacks was carried out for the trial, some curious results were returned. Traces were found of substances that are not present in the dynamite which was used in the train bombs, Goma-2 Eco. The conspiracy theorists have made a great deal of these unexpected findings, indeed their whole case that a different explosive was used in the attacks is based around this data. In particular, they have used the detection of nitroglycerine in one sample from one of the bombed trains to argue that the explosive used must have been Titadine, and in the process keeping alive the allegation that ETA were somehow involved in the bombings. Nitroglycerine is not a component of Goma-2 Eco and is for at least one type of Titadine, an explosive often used by ETA in the past.

Another substance not present in Goma-2 Eco but which is a component of Titadine, dinitrotoluene (DNT), was also detected in the same sample. A problem for the conspiracy theorists, however, has always been the fact that the same substance was also revealed in the tests on samples of Goma-2 Eco that were recovered from different sites connected with the bombings. No definitive explanation was ever established at the time of the trial for what appeared to be some kind of contamination of the samples. Suggestions were made that contamination could have occurred in the factory, in the Asturian mine where the explosives used were stolen, or in the storage facilities used by the police. 

The conspiracy theorists would have none of this, as any credible theory of contamination wrecks their insistence on Titadine having been used in the bombs. Numerous pages of El Mundo and even a whole book have been produced all based around the slender proposition that a tiny trace of nytroglycerine proves their theory. But then the only explanation they have been able to offer for the contamination of the other samples has been that someone sneaked into the place where the explosives samples were being held and deliberately contaminated them! Evidence for this assertion? Don't ask, we're back in the territory of imagination.

All of this brings me to the reason for this new post. In the real world of science where theories are tested there has been some interesting work done. The study described in this link has tested whether any cross-contamination could occur between explosives samples held in polyethylene bags at the police storage facility. The results, which included tests with DNT, have demonstrated that volatile components of explosives can escape from these bags. Not only that, but traces of these components over time can enter into other bags containing different substances. 

The importance of this study is twofold. Firstly, it suggests that the storage method used by the police at the time of the bombings was not sufficiently secure as samples of different explosives could have been held in the same place and cross-contamination could occur. Secondly, it might be the explanation for why substances like DNT were not identified in the samples immediately following the bombings, but did show up in the tests carried out 3 years later for the trial. Presumably the tests carried out by the scientists for this research are reproducible and therefore verifiable. Precisely the kind of test that those who still persevere with more bizarre explanations will be keen to avoid. 

Hechos Probados....The Theft Of The Dynamite

As a result of his agreement with Jamal Ahmidam to provide explosives, Jose Emilio Suárez Trashorras arranged the supply of two shipments of dynamite to Madrid between the 5th and the 9th of January 2004. On the 4th January Trashorras offered €600 to Sergio Alvarez Sánchez to carry a sports bag to Madrid which he would hand over on arrival to a person waiting for him at the bus station. Trashorras bought him a ticket for the journey to be made the following day, and on the morning of the 5th he took Alvarez to the bus station in Oviedo together with the bag he was to transport. On arrival in Madrid Alvarez awaited the arrival of Jamal Ahmidam in the bus station, Ahmidam arrived 30-45 minutes later. Shortly afterwards Alvarez returned to Oviedo by bus. On arrival Trashorras was waiting for him together with Gabriel Montoya Vidal. As payment for the journey Alvarez was given two tablets of hashish, valued by the accused at approximately €700.

The second journey to Madrid was made by Iván Reis Palicio who had a debt with Antonio Toro related to hashish trafficking. Trashorras offered to cancel this debt if Reis would take to Madrid on the 9th January a bag which he was told contained hashish. After further negotiation it was agreed that Trashorras would pay an additional €300. Reis Palicio complied with the agreement and took the bus service to Madrid, he was met in Madrid by Jamal Ahmidam who took the bag. Ahmidam also demanded payment of money, and finding that Reis did not have this he took the latter’s wallet and mobile telephone. Reis Palicio was never paid for the journey, nor did he have his debt with Toro cancelled.

On the 23rd January 2004, Trashorras spoke to Jamal Ahmidam using the telephone of Iván Granados Peña. He also spoke to Raúl González Pelaez and they agreed to meet in a place known as the Mirador de Tineo. Both he and Granados went to this place. Once there, Trashorras disappeared with González during approximately 45 minutes, on return both he and Granados went back to Avilés. During this journey Trashorras asked Granados to transport a bag containing explosives to Madrid, something which Granados refused to do. Trashorras made the same proposal to Gabriel Montoya Vidal who agreed and made the journey by bus at the end of January or during the first few days of February. Montoya handed the bag to Jamal Ahmidam in Madrid and returned to Asturias. The next day Granados informed Montoya Vidal that the explosive the latter had transported had been collected from the mine where he had worked.

The dynamite was removed from the mine taking advantage of the complete absence of control over usage of explosive there. The person in charge of recording such usage, Emilio Llano Alvarez, simply noted the quantity that he was verbally provided with by the miners. Access to detonators was also not controlled as the miners simply hid the keys to the stores under a stone or behind a tree. The difference between the amount really consumed and that received at the mine was left lying in the mine in a place where it could be collected by Trashorras or anyone acting for him. There is no evidence that Llano intervened himself in the extraction of the explosive from the mine.

In February of 2004, Emilio Suárez Trashorras was driving a Toyota Corolla car which had a false number plate fitted. This car had been stolen in Madrid on the 18th September 2003 by unknown persons. The car was given to Trashorras in Madrid by Jamal Ahmidam on the 28th December 2003. It was Trashorras who decided to change the plates on the car once he had returned to Avilés in Asturias. Two or three days before the 28th February 2004 Trashorras drove with this car to the Mina Conchita in the company of Gabriel Montoya Vidal. At the mine, Trashorras got out of the car and spoke to two people wearing blue overalls whilst Montoya waited in the car. Trashorras returned to the car saying “this is done, it’s good”. On the afternoon of the 28th February Trashorras collected Montoya in the same car in the company of Jamal Ahmidam. They were accompanied by another vehicle, a Volkswagen Golf, in which were travelling Mohamed Oulad Akcha and Abdennabi Kounjaa.

Both vehicles were heading towards the mine when Trashorras received a call from his then wife, Carmen Toro. As a result of this call they returned to Avilés, collected some boots which Trashorras gave to Ahmidam and set off once more for the mine. Once at the entrance to the mine, Trashorras and Ahmidam entered the mine whilst Montoya, Kounjaa and Oulad Akcha remained with the cars. After approximately 45 minutes, both men returned and Trashorras reminded Ahmidam to remember to collect some bolts and screws that were nearby. All of them returned to Avilés where Ahmidam and his companions purchased three rucksacks, three sports bags, three torches and two pairs of gloves in a Carrefour supermarket. They then went to Trashorras home in the street of Llano Ponte.

Trashorras remained at home, whilst the other four went once again to the mine where all except Montoya entered the area of the mine itself. Several hours later Ahmidam, Kounjaa and Oulad Akcha returned to the car with all of the bags and rucksacks loaded. Once again they returned to Avilés. At the garage of Trashorras in Avilés they passed all explosives into the Volkswagen Golf, before again setting off for the mine to repeat the same operation. At around midday on the 29th February Ahmidam, Oulad Akcha and Kounjaa began the journey back to Madrid with the explosives they had removed from the mine. Ahmidam drove the Toyota Corolla and the other two men went in the Golf.

Shortly before setting off for Madrid Jamal Ahmidam phoned Otman el Gnaoui telling him they were returning. In the course of this conversation it was agreed that El Gnaoui and other members of the group would meet them on the road connecting Burgos and Madrid, Ahmidam phoned again during the journey to agree the point at which they would meet, which turned out to be the locality of Cogollos in Burgos province. During the journey the vehicle driven by Ahmidam was stopped by a Guardia Civil traffic patrol, Ahmidam showed the officers a false Belgian passport in the name of Youssef Ben Salan and was allowed to proceed after being sanctioned for speeding and not having the vehicle documentation in order.



Footnote: A further demonstration of just how easy the theft of the explosive was from Mina Conchita, and with the added twist of Jamal Ahmidam being stopped by the police whilst transporting it back to Madrid from Asturias. A mine with significant dynamite usage, and virtually no control over consumption or with any security. A perfect place for anyone looking to acquire explosives. The court has not accepted the defence of those who carried bags of dynamite to Madrid, the claim that they did not know what was in the bags has been rejected.

Explosives Analysis....The End Of The Road

With the presentation to the tribunal of the final report on the analysis of the explosives used in the bombings, the conspiracy theorists are now playing their last card in their efforts to establish any kind of connection between the train bombings and ETA. This is a fairly lengthy post, although significantly shorter than the report itself. A certain level of detail is the only way to explain what the issues are here. The prosecution case is that the bombers used Goma 2 Eco dynamite that was stolen from the Mina Conchita in Asturias.

The tests carried out for the trial have been exhaustive, and the length of the resulting report is testimony to that. They were carried out in a transparent way and were even recorded on film to avoid any disputes over the methodology used. In addition to expert analysts from the police and Guardia Civil, the team carrying out the tests also included nominated experts from the defence and victims associations. The tests carried out have in the end confirmed something that has been said repeatedly since the bombings occurred; that it is not possible to identify the commercial brand of explosive used from the analysis of samples taken from the sites where bombs exploded. All that can be said definitively on these samples is that they contain generic components of dynamite. The conspiracy theorists have constantly rejected this idea and insisted that it meant that proper tests had not been carried out following the train attacks. Now, after months of analysis in which pro-conspiracy theory specialists have participated, the result is the same.

The noise that comes from those that promote the connection to ETA is now based entirely around the results of tests on one sample of fire extinguisher powder recovered from one of the trains where bombs exploded (at the station of El Pozo). All samples recovered from the explosion sites on the trains are of materials that may contain traces of explosive components, rather than being samples of the explosive itself. The tests on the powder have revealed the presence both of nitroglycerine and dinitrotoluene (DNT), neither of which are components of Goma 2 Eco. Followers of the conspiracy theories use this fact to suggest that the explosive used was probably Titadine, a past favourite of ETA although it is several years since they last managed to obtain any. Some, and only some, varieties of Titadine do contain these two components although they are of course present in other dynamites too. The problem for those who want to argue that Goma 2 Eco was not the explosive used in the bombs is that both of these substances have also been detected in several samples of Goma 2 Eco! The quantitative analysis of their presence in these samples of explosive reveals percentages which are far too low for either substance to be a considered a component of the explosive, leaving the conclusion that their presence must be due to some form of contamination.

The sample from El Pozo

Where such contamination might have occurred is an open question, there is no definitive explanation of how several samples of the Goma 2 Eco explosive contain substances that are not recognised components. The possible sources of contamination could come in the factory where the explosive was produced, in the mine from where it was stolen, in the preparation of the bombs, or even in the storage of the samples taken following the bombings. Although it is impossible to explain with the facts we have to hand, let’s take a brief look at each possibility

The factory is probably the least likely source of this contamination, although it cannot be ruled out. The conspiracy theorists deride the possibility by arguing that the company has quality controls which preclude the presence of foreign substances, and also by arguing that the master samples provided by the manufacturer do not contain traces of either DNT or nitroglycerine. This is what I call the "tin of paint" argument. Let’s say you buy a tin of blue paint to paint a wall at home and when you open the tin you find it contains red paint. The conspiracy theorist reacts to this situation by denying reality, if it says on the label that the paint is blue then it must be so; the wall will be painted red but our conspiracy theorist will still insist that in fact the colour of the wall is blue. I would return the paint to the shop where I bought it. Let’s hope that none of these people are ever put in charge of a factory producing food or drink, I can just see them assuring poisoned clients that it is impossible for their product to contain any contaminating substance because they have quality controls!

The Conchita mine in Asturias, where it is alleged the explosives and detonators used in the bombs were stolen, presents a more interesting case for consideration. Interesting above all because it raises the possibility of explaining the contamination through contact between the Goma 2 Eco and another dynamite which does contain both DNT and nitroglycerine; Goma 2 EC. This explosive is the predecessor product of Goma 2 Eco, and evidence has already been presented to the trial on how unused Goma 2 Eco was found scattered around the mine together with some quantity of Goma 2 EC. The mine had used both explosives and it seems perfectly possible that at least some of the stolen explosive could have been in contact with GOMA 2 EC or that both had been stored in the same places. Indeed, it can’t be completely ruled out that the stolen explosive contained some of the older brand, those who stole the explosive would not have been too fussy about what they found at the mine. No Goma 2 EC has been recovered from sites related to the bombings.

Another possible source of contamination has been the storage of all the samples during the last 3 years. Although at first sight this did not seem to me a very likely explanation of the contamination, the results contained in the report do throw up some interesting pointers. There are samples of explosive which come from the same source, but which do not all reveal the presence of the additional substances. Also, and this is probably why the conspiracy theorists are also so very keen to reject this explanation, the all important powder from the train at El Pozo that reveals the presence of nitroglycerine was tested previously in the aftermath of the bombings, and no DNT or nitroglycerine was found in these tests! These are factors which are not conclusive but which do open the possibility of contamination which occurred after the bombings.

We are left with the doubt over the source of contamination, but the verdict of the results cannot be ignored. There is also a wide variation in the proportion of substances detected, even in those samples which are from the same explosive. Some samples were obviously recovered in better condition than others; the dynamite from an unexploded bomb is likely to be in much better condition than the smaller pieces that were recovered from the wreckage of Leganés for example. The stolen explosive itself was not all from the same batch, and some of it was probably already in a more degraded condition. Couple this with the volatility of some of the components and the different storage conditions and you have a recipe for a wide range of results. Some of the samples were washed with water and acetone as part of a previous testing phase, something which the conspiracy theorists also seize on to back their case, the fire extinguisher powder does not seem to have passed through this process: No evidence has been provided to show why this process would remove nitroglycerine traces without also removing other soluble components of the explosives.

Despite the variation of the results, and all the evidence suggestive of contamination, one of the analysts involved - almost certainly the one representing the Asociación de Victimas del Terrorismo - insists in the report that the presence of nitroglycerine and DNT in the fire extinguisher powder makes the use of Titadine "highly probable". Why this should be the case when we know that the same substances have been found in some samples of Goma 2 Eco, or when we also know that they are also components of Goma 2 EC, is something that only this person can answer, he offers no further explanation for his conclusion.

One of the pro-conspiracy analysts even complains in his conclusions that there is too much emphasis in the samples on Goma 2 Eco. Well there is of course a fairly simple explanation for the overwhelming presence amongst the samples of this explosive. Traces or even significant quantities of it have been recovered from the only unexploded bomb recovered from the trains, the Kangoo van found near Alcalá railway station on the day of the bombings, the wreckage of the apartment that was blown up in Leganés, the device that was found on the high speed railway line connecting Madrid to Sevilla, and the house where the bombs are alleged to have been prepared. It needs to be emphasised that no other identifiable explosive has been found at any of the sites connected to the bombings. The Titadine that was used for comparative purposes only in the explosives tests came from the capture of ETA members transporting explosives towards Madrid in a van; an event which has no demonstrated connection to the train bombings. I won’t even go into the significant body of evidence that surrounds the supply of stolen Goma 2 Eco from the Mina Conchita in Asturias. So there we have it, a small sample of powder from one of the trains containing tiny traces of components that are found in Titadine, but not exclusively in Titadine, against all of the above evidence.

Far from revealing evidence of a cover up or even involvement of the government in the train bombings, the explosives analysis reveals very clearly the political intention that lies behind the conspiracy theories. You cannot look impartially at the results of the analysis and come away with the conclusion that Titadine must have been the explosive used. Anyone who wants to believe that media such as El Mundo are simply doing a straightforward task of journalistic investigation should take a look at the selective and distorted presentation of the issue by that newspaper. All facts inconvenient for the Titadine theory are ignored and swept aside, anything at all which supports it is treated as being beyond reproach. That’s why they cling to that small bag containing reddish powder as if it was the only significant evidence that had emerged in the entire case, it might not seem much but it’s all they have left. At least they have not confused it with another sample containing white powder that was recovered from Leganés. In this sample the tests also detected the presence of components of explosives, the substance being tested was....cocaine.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
20 Minutos - Lo que debes saber sobre los explosivos del 11-M y nadie te ha contado...
El Mundo - You can download the reports (in Spanish) from here
El País - Qué estalló en los trenes... y los preservativos de los Tedax

Key Evidence....The Van In Alcalá

On the day of the train bombings a Renault Kangoo van was discovered parked near to the railway station in Alcalá de Henares, where the trains that were bombed departed from. The van was taken to the headquarters of the forensic police, and underneath one of the front seats was found a plastic bag containing some detonators and a small piece of dynamite, Goma 2 Eco. Also found in the van was a cassette of Arabic chants, this clue was amongst the first that pointed towards possible Islamist involvement in the bombings. It is believed that this vehicle was the main one used to transport the bombs to Alcalá on that day. DNA traces of some of the accused have also been discovered inside the vehicle.

As with all crucial pieces of evidence in the case, the conspiracy theorists have done their very best to suggest that it was faked by the "real" authors of the bombings who would obviously need to count members of the police amongst their numbers. Seizing on some declarations by those who made initial visual inspections of the vehicle to the effect that they saw nothing significant inside the vehicle, the conspiracy theorists attempt to suggest that the van was filled with the incriminating evidence somewhere between Alcalá and the official recording of its contents in the police headquarters at Canillas. They produce no evidence of this being done, it's clear that if the detonators in a bag were found underneath a seat then they would not be seen from the outside of a vehicle. The claim is also made that the evidence must have been planted because a sniffer dog failed to detect the tiny piece of explosive that was in the same bag as the detonators. One thing that the trial has clearly demonstrated is that such methods are anything but infallible.



READ MORE IN ENGLISH:
The Guardian - Who's to blame? The long search for clues to blasts begins

The Slow Death Of The ETA Connection

The battle by Agustín Díaz de Mera, in charge of the Spanish police at the time of the Madrid bombings, to avoid prosecution for contempt of court continues. Díaz de Mera got into this mess because he decided to repeat in the trial a claim he had made on a pro-conspiracy theory radio programme; that an official report existed linking ETA to the Madrid bombings. The senior police officer that he eventually named as his source for this claim, Enrique García Castaño, has not only firmly denied having been a source for the claims, he has also made it clear that Díaz de Mera put him under intense pressure to help his "friend" out of the hole he had dug for himself. Immediately following the appearance of García Castaño in the trial, Díaz de Mera issued a statement calling him a liar and challenging him to a face to face confrontation before a judge. Obviously such a confrontation would just be the word of one man against another, in the absence of anyone else to offer evidence on the issue. The mistake Díaz de Mera made when he appeared in court, thinking that he could just casually introduce the conspiracy theory on ETA participation, without providing evidence, continues to haunt him.

In general things are going from bad to worse for the proponents of ETA participation in the bombings, not that this is likely to stop them from repeating the mantra. The appearance last week of the 3 ETA members demonstrated just how farcical the whole issue is, as those who had demanded the appearance of these witnesses showed themselves completely unable to confront them with any evidence at all demonstrating their connection to the train bombings. When the final results of the explosives analysis are released we can expect a huge amount of noise from the chess players because one single test on one single sample from many is said to have shown traces of nitroglycerine. The conspiracy theorists will claim this to be proof of the use of Titadine dynamite instead of Goma 2 Eco, and therefore proof of ETA involvement because Titadine has been used by them on several occasions. It is nonsense, and I will write in some detail on the issue when it comes up. It will be the only thing the faith based reasoners who so fervently desire any kind of connection to ETA have left to offer.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
El País

Key Evidence....The Vallecas Bomb

The only unexploded bomb recovered intact from the trains, it is called the “Vallecas” bomb because the police station where it was discovered is located in the Madrid district of the same name. The real importance of this bomb, and what makes it a major target for the conspiracy theorists, is that the mobile telephone used as a timer for the device led to the first arrests made in the aftermath of the attacks. The sports bag in which it was found also contained a significant quantity of explosive, Goma 2 Eco, as well as shrapnel consisting of nails and screws. This does not mean that it is by any means the only important evidence in the case against the accused, but it has significance in that it was the first decisive lead for the police investigation.

The bomb was not detected on the day of the attacks itself, but was found in the early hours of the next morning as police officers in the Vallecas police station checked personal effects that had been recovered from a train where bombs exploded at the station of El Pozo del Tio Raimundo. The discovery was made by two police officers, identified by their service numbers 88.163 and 79.046.

Now, bearing in mind that the conspiracy theorists want to pretend that the attack was carried out by ETA in collusion with unidentified elements close to the current Spanish government, and that the explosive used was not Goma 2 Eco, the existence of the Vallecas bomb presents a major obstacle to their theories. They have devoted considerable effort to trying to insinuate that it must have been planted. Lacking any evidence at all to sustain this outlandish notion, they do what all good conspiracy theorists would do in such a situation and attempt to create a version of the events which would permit the mere possibility of someone having planted the bomb; and then act as if they have proved their case. There are two main planks to the conspiracy theorist case, firstly comes an attempt to suggest that the bomb could never have been on the trains. The second part of the case rests on attempts to show that bag containing the bomb was not under permanent police custody during the day of the bombings, meaning that “someone” could have planted it with the fake evidence needed to cover up the true authorship of the train bombings.

Explosives Analysis....The Latest Results

The issue of the explosives analysis that I wrote about at the beginning of the trial is still moving forwards, although the final test results are not going to be submitted until the comparative tests on a sample of Titadine have been carried out. Titadine is of course the conspiracy theorists favourite explosive because it has been used on several occasions by ETA, and the sample to be tested is due to come from some Titadine that was being transported by a captured ETA commando.

The latest results that have emerged from the tests show quantitative results on the concentration of dinitrotoluene (DNT) found in the samples tested. DNT is present in almost all of the samples of Goma 2 Eco dynamite that have been tested, and it is present in such a minimal concentration that it suggests contamination of the explosive, rather than the presence of DNT as a component. Goma 2 Eco is the dynamite stolen from a mine in Asturias which has been found at all relevant sites connected to the train bombings.

Despite this clearly established finding, the conspiracy theorists continue to ignore the data showing DNT being present in the Goma 2 Eco sample, or when they don’t ignore it they try to suggest that any contamination must have been deliberate. However, the chess players try to have it both ways, suggesting that the presence of DNT means that another explosive must have been used, and at the same time insinuating that someone has also added it to the Goma 2 Eco. Why anyone would choose to deliberately contaminate the Goma 2 Eco with a substance that is not a recognised component of this same explosive is beyond my comprehension, but bear in mind we are dealing with conspiracy theorist logic here; the normal rules do not apply.

Unfortunately for the followers of the conspiracy theories, the levels of DNT found from the tested samples come nowhere near to the proportion that is needed to equal that found in Titadine, but this small but important detail will not prevent a concerted and noisy attempt to suggest otherwise when the final report is submitted.

READ MORE IN SPANISH:
El País on the quantitive analysis
ABC on the quantitive analysis
The test results - via El Mundo
Desiertos Lejanos - recommended reading on the explosives issue

Analysis Of The Explosives

One curious consequence of writing about the Madrid bombings and the conspiracy theories, is that you start to find out more than you ever really wanted to know about a whole range of subjects. It never occurred to me that I might end up one day writing blog posts about the chemical components of explosives, or that the central theme of what I write might be a substance called dinitrotoluene (DNT).

It has been a constant theme of those behind the conpiracy theories that there is no firm evidence that the explosive used in the train bombs was really Goma-2 Eco. This is despite the discovery of this Spanish made explosive in several places connected to the bombings, including of course an unexploded bomb recovered from one of the trains. The tests carried out in the aftermath of the bombings failed to identify the explosive via chemical analysis, the verdict was that the identified components were common to different types of dynamite, and that it was impossible to state with absolute certainty which particular dynamite had been used.

Naturally, the conspiracy theorists sought to use this uncertainty to push the suggestion that the explosive could have been Titadine, a different dynamite and a past favourite of ETA. With the aim of dispelling doubts about the issue, the court hearing the case against the accused ordered analysis on all surviving samples from the different sites to be repeated before the beginning of the trial. The latest tests on the samples have been carried out under strictly controlled conditions, with experts present from the police, the defence, and victims associations. The tests have been filmed to ensure maximum transparency.

The results published so far confirm the position maintained throughout the judicial investigation, that the tests taken at the sites of the explosions do not provide definitive confirmation of the use of a particular explosive. What has been found are traces of different substances which point to the use of dynamite. The presence of certain substances in the results of these tests can be used as an indicator for excluding the use of dynamites which do not contain these substances, but nothing more definitive than that seems to be possible.

Of the substances identified in the tests, all of them are recognised components of Goma-2 Eco except for DNT, which is found generally in the earlier version of the same explosive, Goma-2 Ec. However, one curious result of the tests has been that the same DNT was found to be present in the master samples of the explosive that were provided by the manufacturer for comparison purposes; so whilst it may not be a recognised component it does seem possible for traces of it to be present.

The key issue here is that the components found in the master sample of Goma-2 Eco are consistent with those traces of explosive recovered from sites linked to the attacks, and to substances found in those sites where no actual explosive was recovered. The reason why this matters is because the conspiracy theorists are clinging to the presence of DNT as evidence that a different explosive was used in the bombings, it’s the only thing they have left. For the conspiracy theorists what matters is that there a exists a document somewhere in the world that says it is impossible for this substance to be found in Goma-2 Eco. Whilst that is the case, it doesn’t matter to them that scientific test results on that same explosive show a different result.

The tests have not yet been fully completed, the court also ordered tests against samples of Titadine, but if you take the test results in isolation then any reasonable assessment would say that it is very likely that the explosive used was Goma-2 Eco. If you assess these results together with the other evidence available then there are simply no grounds for thinking that any other explosive was used. The “faith based reasoners” will not accept this because it points towards conclusions they find unacceptable, but there is currently no single credible fact pointing to the use of any other explosive in the train attacks.