For most people, it is enough to know that on March 11, 2004, a massacre was carried out by means of "bombs" or "explosives". However, the analysis of the devices used as a crime weapon, the attention to their chemical composition and origin, constitutes a central element in the clarification of the attacks. From the very beginning, it was debated whether the explosives used were Titadine or Goma-2 ECO. The implications were enormous, since the first type was associated with an attack committed by ETA and the Goma-2 ECO with the authorship of an Islamist group. In all the secondary scenarios (the Kangoo van, the Vallecas Bag, the Mocejón device and the Leganés apartment) evidence was found that would point to Goma-2 ECO. In addition, 100 kilos of this compound were transported from Mina Conchita (Asturias) to Madrid two weeks before the attacks (a fact confirmed by those involved, confidants of the Armed Forces). On the other hand, no such remains were found at the main scene. It would not have been easy, given that the trains were quickly dismantled and that only a few grams of sample reached the precarious analysis laboratory. Nor does it help that, once studied, the usual procedure was not followed and samples were kept for later examination. In other expert reports, such as the one carried out on the remains of fire extinguisher foam, traces of nitroglycerin, a component of Titadine, appear. In the trial there will be talk of contamination; there could be no fissures. The explosive must have been GOMA-2 Once again, we find evidence that would allow us to defend any of the versions. And, once again, the official story shows a clear preference for one of them, reaching a conclusion 'ex ante' and trying to shield it from contradictions. Chapter 4 of 8. #11MelPrincipioDelFin.
