Reiterate as much as you want gts, it does not change anything in the what you posted;)

My observation is that I suspect you may be confused with the words and concepts of proof and evidence? Evidence is often provided. Proof is another matter, and sometimes is never found to the level that satisfies some.

There are different standards and personal bias used in determining proof, from evidence provided (which may or may not involve past histories and likely intent and benefit of the parties involved.(Take the example of the OJ trial. Evidence was provided, which was enough for the level of proof required by the jury. But, the level of proof provided in the trial differed in the population - it was either enough evidence or not enough evidence for to be considered proof of his guilt by so many people, I suspect depending on their perspectives and personal bias).

IMO, you have shown your anti-USA administration bias in posts and in other threads. So, I suspect the level of evidence you would reflect this bias and require what would seem quite high to me, and possibly some others. Even if evidence were provided to meet whatever your standard may be,(if you even know this standard) I suspect you would busy yourself finding one or more "conspiracy theories" in one or more on-line media or opinion report to rule it out anyway,then lift the standard to and prove you right. IMO, being right, versus finding the most likely scenario, seems to be one fuel that stimulates your fire.

So, given this observation, please explain the point in participating in any logical discussion with you on what may or may not be evidence contributing to group speculation on the most likely candidates in launching the chemical weapons (from the likely lot) with you?