As it happens, it is the specific claim as to the sarin gas used in the alleged attack that raises the most questions. This is due to the nature of the gas and the symptoms it causes. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, those "exposed to a low or moderate dose of sarin by breathing contaminated air, eating contaminated food, drinking contaminated water, or touching contaminated surfaces" may experience runny nose, watery eyes, pinpoint pupils, eye pain, blurred vision, drooling and excessive sweating, coughing, chest tightness, rapid breathing, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, increased urination, confusion, drowsiness, weakness, headache, slow or fast heart rate, and low or high blood pressure (Source). Larger doses may result in loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis, and respiratory failure. Importantly, one's clothing can absorb sarin gas and then continue releasing it, and even touching contaminated clothing can be harmful so that safety measures must be taken with clothing being sealed in a plastic bag within another plastic bag.
Bearing these facts in mind, look at the picture above of first responders from the Syria Civil Defence ("White Helmets") handling victims of the alleged attack. Notice that the men are wearing gas masks yet have not covered their hands. Let's assume that the gas had already dispersed enough so that they would not be exposed through their skin and clothing. They are still touching victims, however, and, as we have learned from the CDC, the "White Helmets" could still be exposed through such contact. This necessarily raises serious questions as there have not been reports of the "first responders" becoming ill or dying, which would surely have been global news. After all, the "Syria Civil Defence" is a rebel organization that only operates within rebel-held territories, and the global media readily treats them as heroes, promoting them as a charity. If these heroes were readily giving their lives in the hopes of saving others, would it not be front-page news?
Now, look again at the picture of the Syrian man, or, more specifically, the "bomb crater." As noted by CNN, witnesses claim to have seen "chemical bombs" falling on Khan Sheikhoun at dawn, which precludes any notion of rockets or missiles having been used. Compare that "crater" with those seen below known to have been caused by an aerial bomb and a mortar, respectively.
We can see that the "bomb crater" is smaller than both the bomb and mortar craters seen above, which we must again question. Are we to believe that the Syrian Air Force dropped bombs of such low yield that they were weaker than even a mortar that is loaded by hand? Since the witnesses claim to have seen "chemical bombs" dropping on the town, should we just assume that the Syrian Air Force peppered the city with low-yield bombs? No, we can see from the picture below that the small crater is isolated and alone without much damage visible around it. If there were many bombs being dropped, we should expect to see many such "craters" in a line following the path of the jet. What we instead see is a shallow hole without any siblings.
What are we to make of this? If there was one or two trivial inconsistencies, we could perhaps overlook them. But is it trivial that the rebel-controlled "White Helmets" produced their own images and videos showing them seemingly exposing themselves to sarin without consequences? How were they able to rush into the area without being exposed themselves, or being exposed later through the clothing of victims that they handled without any precautions taken? How were rebels able to collect soil samples without safety equipment yet again without consequences? Why are the pictures of "bomb craters" so unimpressive relative to verifiable examples seen elsewhere? How were rebel witnesses able to clearly see "chemical bombs" dropping on the city at dawn? The more one honestly looks at this situation the more questions are raised, and we have to acknowledge that virtually every piece of "evidence" has come from the jihadis opposing the Syrian government—coincidentally, the ones who benefit the most from US involvement after the "attack."
The Assad regime was already winning the war against the jihadis with Russia's help. In the days prior to the attack, the Trump administration had made it clear that it had no intention of becoming involved to unseat Assad. Why then would the Syrian government do something so blatant so as to provoke US involvement? If they were going to bomb the rebel-held city, why not just bomb it? Why specifically use chemical weapons knowing that it would provoke a reaction? Why do so knowing that the "White Helmets" regularly make propaganda videos in the area and would do so again? Nothing about the official narrative makes any sense on the part of the Syrian or Russian governments. It is, however, the perfect scenario for the jihadis and American warhawks, both of whom want the US to become involved in the war. As the saying goes, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Well, this was all too perfect, and we now face World War III.