I'm not sure how you can comment on the last patient's burns as they are not visible. Do you have direct experience in treating burn victims and specifically white phosphorus burn victims?

I'm playing devil's advocate, but they are reasonable questions considering the certainty of your claims. And since these are ultimately medical issues, it would help to know if you have any medical background that would support your opinion.

Oh, I always love it when a newbie unfamiliar with my work strikes such a tone.

I have prior experience debunking white phosphorus claims dating back to November of 2005, when I interviewed military and medical experts (and in one extraordinary stroke of luck, a soldier with medical and artillery experience) when I debunked the Italian propaganda film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, which was a collusion between anti-war communists and Sunni insurgents regarding the taking Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004.

I'm sure you'll find this three-parter a fascinating read.

The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 3

I've also discussed WP injuries with other military medical personnel, and read about the distinctive pathology of white phosphorus (both via external wounds and ingestion) dating back to WWI in researching those articles, and how M825A1 base-ejecting 155mm shells work.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you understand how theses shells work, and how the WP used in those shells works, then you quickly realize that none of those pictured are wounded in a way inconsistent with these shells.

Read the information at the links provided, and perhaps you'll understand why these claims are false.

In part 3, the link to Signaleer he states: "Injuries related to WP are caused by direct contact with burning pieces of the waxy solid. The injuries are either primary; discrete burns in the immediate area of contact (photo left), or secondary, burns caused by the ignition of clothes or other materials that have come into contact with the WP (photo right)."

If you receive burns from the ignition of clothing, it looks like any other 'basic' burn a person would sustain.

Signaleer's statement doesn't really vindicate your opinion of these burns, it just makes the determination that more difficult. The photos he presents aren't significantly different from those in your blog post. The first photo definitely compares to the one shown by signaleer, and the second photo shown by you looks like a contact burn which is certainly possible based on Signaleer's comments.

You have certainly researched WP and talked to one person (Holcomb) who has knowledge in their wound patterns, but this doesn't give you the credentials to become a forensic pathologist. My question was whether you've actually taken care of burn victims and specifically WP burn victims to accurately assess the wounds in these photos. Further, you can't even see the wounds in the last patient so how on earth can you claim they aren't or are WP related burns?

Maybe you should show these pictures to Holcomb and see what he thinks, or a military physician with burn experience.

Leftists often quote the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons as saying that White Phosphorus is an illegal weapon. However, it specifically excepts WP when used for smoke or illumination.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

Also, the across the board ban on using incendiaries in civilian areas is applied specifically for "air-delivered incendiary weapons." The wording for other delivery methods, to include artillery is more discriminating:

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Source:
http://www.ccwtreaty.com/KeyDocs/protocol3.html

SPW, let's be honest about your intentions, shall we? Everywhere you appear, you do so to be an apologist for pro-Hamas actors. All the same, let's look at what the photos show, and try to fill in the gaps in your education.

The Signaleer's photos show, clearly, the effects of free-form non-fixed WP as used in incendiary weapons systems--weapons, not the base-ejecting smoke wedges deployed by the M825A1.

Look closely at the Signaleer's images and you'll see a multitude of small, irregular multi-thickness burns. This is quite possible with WP in an incendiary weapon. Why?

Weaponized incendiary WP is dispersed by a burster charge (high explosives, typically impact fused but occasionally timed) that will typically spread small bits of WP that typically cause an irregular pattern of penetrating wounds as shown in the Signaleer's photos.

"Smoke" WP is fixed and dispersed differently in a way that makes it much less likely to cause casualties, which is why experts including the International Red Cross have stated so emphatically it isn't a weapon.

The WP is fixed--impregnated--in felt wedges that capture the WP. If hit by one of the WP-impregnated felt wedges, it is most likely to cause a distinctive burn--perhaps not unlike being struck with a branding iron.

While WP burns very hot, WP in this form it does not tend to stick to vertical or nearly vertical objects as it burns, and if it should hit someone, will typically cause localized contact burns before falling away.

The first photo does not show evidence of such a burn. As far as that goes there is no obvious evidence of burns on this boy at all, while quite obvious abrasions and lacerations indicate it is far more likely that we're looking at secondary blast wounds from conventional munitions.

Likewise, WP wedges are not consistent with the burns of the second victim.

I concur that his wounds would not be greatly dissimilar with WP incendiary munitions, but as multiple credible organizations including the International Red Cross have confirmed, these weapons are not being used. He is undoubtably burned, however. to my admittedly layman's eye these facial wounds appear more consistent with relatively quick "flashover" or "splashover" burns of high intensity and short duration. I've seen photos of similar burns resulting from various conventional IED/high explosive blasts, and even on a dim insurgent in Iraq that made the mistake of standing behind a compatriot firing an RPG. Again, I reiterate, this young man's burns are not consistent with the M825A1 payload.

Which brings us to this poor third victim. Again, if you understand the basic construction of the M825 smoke round, you cannot seriously suggest someone could be this seriously injured over such broad areas of his body--at least one arm, apparently the entire head, potentially his chest and other injuries-- from a burning piece of felt three-quarters of an inch thick.

I am not a forensic pathologist, coroner, medical examiner, internist, EMT, surgeon, RN, or LPN.

I am also not a geologist, oncologist,cashier, crossing guard, oceanographer, mathematician, or scullery maid...

...and yet I think that people in each of those professions have the capability to understand that a point-detonating incendiary white phosphorus warhead operates quite differently than a air-bursting shell designed to lay down comparatively innocuous smoke screens.

Hopefully, you have that capability as well.

"I am also not a geologist, oncologist,cashier, crossing guard, oceanographer, mathematician, or scullery maid."

That acually made me laugh out loud.

The IDF isn't lying when they say they're not using WP, as in any military jargon WP means incendiary shells filled with the stuff, not smoke shells using it as a trigger agent or starshells.

So while they're using shells that have white phosphorous in them, those aren't white phosphorous shells.
It's no different from US APFSFS shells not being nuclear weapons despite containing (depleted) Uranium (the left accused the US of using nuclear weapons in Iraq just like they accuse Israel of using incendiary shells now).

I did not make the connection that Signaleer's photos were point contact incendiaries which is different from what is being used in Gaza. But you pointed me to the link, and it just says "WP burns." So there is a difference. I'm not so sure people in all of those professions (except perhaps the scullery maid) are capable of making a distinction between the two unless they are told the difference by someone with more knowledge. So in that sense we are relying on you which is what a person has to do everyday when they read the news. Take the reporter's word for it. But getting an outside opinion on the matter would strengthen your argument. Especially since you have a clear agenda in the matter.

And speaking of agenda, I happen to be pro-Israel on this conflict. Half of my family is Jewish. I'm not a Hamas apologist. I just don't believe everything I read or see, and will happily call someone on it. And since you can't evaluate a medical resuscitation very well, I'm naturally suspect about your opinions on these burn victims.

But for now, I'll take your word for it. Get an outside opinion that confirms it, and I'll give you a gold star because that would be some solid reporting.

The guy in the second photo has a totally burned face, but his hair is absolutely intact, and no burning whatsoever to his clothing?

Can you say 'make-up'?

Martin,
I think it's already been established these people have real injuries. The question is whether they sustained them from WP dispersal.

The guy in the second photo clearly has upper lip edema (swelling) as well singed hair consistent with recent burn injuries. I think even in Gaza they can afford a change of clothes.

The notion that there are Hollywood make up artists with their kits in tow behind these photos is laughable.

Matter of fact, SPW, Pal #2's facial blistering reminds me of the pics we saw of Ukraine's Yuschenko after the dioxin poisoning by (presumably) FSB. Perhaps it was toxic exposure or a chemical burn, say from a 'work accident' fueling Qassams. I'm sure rocket-fuel ingredients like RFNA will do that.

And I'm not sure what level of WP burn expertise would satisfy you, but I haven't seen any signs that you have expertise in anything but advocating against the side you claim to back.

Me, I don't know much about burns or incendiaries. but I will tell you, I was certified in CPR & first aid in high school, and the video of that kid getting CPR was a fake.

What? You're arguing that he went and changed his shirt before heading to the hospital to have his serious white phosphorous burns treated?

I think that is what they call 'bollocks' in England.

I looked at the picture again, and that guy has been made up. Faux burn victim.

I figured the Qassam used solid propellant. Even HAMAS wants to actually launch the rockets before dying, and Red Fuming Nitric Acid is something that would kill you quite dead when it is being handled. It is typically fired with UDMH, which is just deadly. I have no doubt that they lack concerns for safety, but messing around with toxic liquids does not go with a fast launch.

OK, IANA rocket scientist. Nonetheless I don't see any singing, charring, or evidence of flae. Therefore I first think toxic chemical exposure. Radiation maybe, look at the light and dark areas. Fell asleep in a tanning bed? Biblical plague? Maybe he has a peanut allergy.

No, you know what? It was not a burn. Not with fire, anyway. His eyebrows and eyelashes are intact, not to mention facial and scalp hair. How was this guy burned? Nah, no way.