Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 10:07:31 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
| | | |-+  "380 Tons of Explosive Story" - SEE "DRUDGE"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print
Author Topic: "380 Tons of Explosive Story" - SEE "DRUDGE"  (Read 12442 times)
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4591


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

View Profile
« on: October 25, 2004, 08:26:05 pm »
Ignore

DRUDGE has picked it up -



This is a cut & paste from another site:



NBC THE GOOD GUYS TONITE
NBC BLOWS A HOLE IN THE KERRY ATTACK ABOUT THE EXPLOSIVES [10/25 09:09 PM]

Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News pretty much dismantled the New York Times attack on behalf of Kerry today.

NBC News: Miklaszewski: April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing.



The New York Times today discusses the missing 380 tons of explosives from Iraq however does not put that in perspective. In approximately 18 months, 110,000 tons have been destroyed and 138,000 tons have been secured. The unaccounted 380 tons of explosives are less than 1/10th of 1%. Further, the New York Times states, albeit buried in the article, By late 2003, diplomats said, arms agency experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.

Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged, but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken seals from the arms agency on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting. The ground forces in Iraq should be proud of this success as it is a historic achievement.

Every soldier serving today, understands that John Kerrys comments on this issue are additional insults to those that are serving. Those of us in uniform are thankful that George W. Bush did learn the lesson of Vietnam and is not micro-managing like Robert McNamara.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2004, 09:13:53 pm by The Vorlon »Logged

No man's liberty is safe while Congress is in session...Thomas Jefferson
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2004, 08:29:55 pm »
Ignore

Here we go again
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2004, 08:31:22 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2004, 08:44:23 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

So much for your "october surprise." 

You really don't seme to understand the bulk involved.  If terrorists showed up and took 50 pounds each, you'd need 16,600 of them to carry it.  The bulk is just too great.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2004, 08:46:41 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

So much for your "october surprise."

You really don't seme to understand the bulk involved. If terrorists showed up and took 50 pounds each, you'd need 16,600 of them to carry it. The bulk is just too great.


So they must not be missing? What sort of argument is this? Anyways, trucks can take away much more than 50 pounds at a time.

And the correct answer to your calculation is 15,600.

A guy here in California had an entire vacation house stolen.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2004, 08:50:55 pm by jfern »Logged
TheOldLine
Full Member
***
Posts: 183


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2004, 08:52:00 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

That link is to an AP story, not an NBC/MSNBC story.

TheOldLine
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2004, 08:53:37 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

That link is to an AP story, not an NBC/MSNBC story.

TheOldLine

NBC's reporting on this was not just a cut and paste from AP.
Logged
TheOldLine
Full Member
***
Posts: 183


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2004, 08:58:16 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

That link is to an AP story, not an NBC/MSNBC story.

TheOldLine

NBC's reporting on this was not just a cut and paste from AP.

Your link is a cut and paste from the AP.

TheOldLine
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2004, 08:58:43 pm »
Ignore

Oil was more important.

Quote
Q But after Iraqi Freedom, there were those caches all around, wasn't the multinational force -- who was responsible for keeping track --
MR. McCLELLAN: At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was -

Q So it was the multinational force's responsibility --

MR. McCLELLAN: There were a number of -- well, the coalition forces, there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2004, 08:59:22 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

That link is to an AP story, not an NBC/MSNBC story.

TheOldLine

NBC's reporting on this was not just a cut and paste from AP.

Your link is a cut and paste from the AP.

TheOldLine

NBC doesn't just automatically put that stuff on their website.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2004, 09:08:19 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

So much for your "october surprise."

You really don't seme to understand the bulk involved. If terrorists showed up and took 50 pounds each, you'd need 16,600 of them to carry it. The bulk is just too great.


So they must not be missing? What sort of argument is this? Anyways, trucks can take away much more than 50 pounds at a time.

And the correct answer to your calculation is 15,600.

A guy here in California had an entire vacation house stolen.

Wrong on the weight; these are metric tons.  The trucks were mentioned on another thread.  You'd need 40 and you'd need someone to load them. 

It's exceptionally hard to do something like this, without a lot of support.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2004, 09:10:11 pm »
Ignore

Let's see what......... NBC says

Quote
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

So much for your "october surprise."

You really don't seme to understand the bulk involved. If terrorists showed up and took 50 pounds each, you'd need 16,600 of them to carry it. The bulk is just too great.


So they must not be missing? What sort of argument is this? Anyways, trucks can take away much more than 50 pounds at a time.

And the correct answer to your calculation is 15,600.

A guy here in California had an entire vacation house stolen.

Wrong on the weight; these are metric tons. The trucks were mentioned on another thread. You'd need 40 and you'd need someone to load them.

It's exceptionally hard to do something like this, without a lot of support.

Yeah, I guess it couldn't have happened. The explosives are still there. And 9/11 never happened.
Logged
iosip
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2004, 09:17:09 pm »

DRUDGE has picked it up -

what?

drudge said it?

say it isn't so!
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2004, 09:18:33 pm »
Ignore

DRUDGE has picked it up -

what?

drudge said it?

say it isn't so!

He picks up everything good like the Kerry intern story.
Logged
shankbear
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 363


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2004, 09:20:21 pm »
Ignore

No, NBC has stuffed it back in the New York Times' face.  The Times is wrong then, wrong now and wrong in the future.
Logged

Remember, we never lost a battle on the field in Vietnam, we lost the will to win the war.  Never repeat it!!!
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2004, 09:21:12 pm »
Ignore

So much for your "october surprise."

You really don't seme to understand the bulk involved. If terrorists showed up and took 50 pounds each, you'd need 16,600 of them to carry it. The bulk is just too great.


So they must not be missing? What sort of argument is this? Anyways, trucks can take away much more than 50 pounds at a time.

And the correct answer to your calculation is 15,600.

A guy here in California had an entire vacation house stolen.
Quote

Wrong on the weight; these are metric tons. The trucks were mentioned on another thread. You'd need 40 and you'd need someone to load them.

It's exceptionally hard to do something like this, without a lot of support.
Quote

Yeah, I guess it couldn't have happened. The explosives are still there. And 9/11 never happened.
Quote

You really don't understand the concept, do you? It would be entirely possible for a group of terrorists to grab some explosives, possibly using a truck, a lot, several thousand pounds. It's not possible, without a great deal of organization, to transport 300 metric tons from a site.

They were not stolen.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2004, 09:21:28 pm »
Ignore

No, NBC has stuffed it back in the New York Times' face. The Times is wrong then, wrong now and wrong in the future.

So there's no missing 380 tons of high explosives?

Boy, NBC really showed NBC.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2004, 09:22:51 pm »
Ignore

So much for your "october surprise."

You really don't seme to understand the bulk involved. If terrorists showed up and took 50 pounds each, you'd need 16,600 of them to carry it. The bulk is just too great.


So they must not be missing? What sort of argument is this? Anyways, trucks can take away much more than 50 pounds at a time.

And the correct answer to your calculation is 15,600.

A guy here in California had an entire vacation house stolen.
Quote

Wrong on the weight; these are metric tons. The trucks were mentioned on another thread. You'd need 40 and you'd need someone to load them.

It's exceptionally hard to do something like this, without a lot of support.
Quote

Yeah, I guess it couldn't have happened. The explosives are still there. And 9/11 never happened.
Quote

You really don't understand the concept, do you? It would be entirely possible for a group of terrorists to grab some explosives, possibly using a truck, a lot, several thousand pounds. It's not possible, without a great deal of organization, to transport 300 metric tons from a site.

They were not stolen.

Explain to me why it's not possible? They probably had several days.

If it's not possible they're gone, then they must be there.

Oh, yeah, we've found parts of the explosives, in bombs aimed at our troops.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2004, 09:33:06 pm »
Ignore

So much for your "october surprise."

You really don't seme to understand the bulk involved. If terrorists showed up and took 50 pounds each, you'd need 16,600 of them to carry it. The bulk is just too great.


So they must not be missing? What sort of argument is this? Anyways, trucks can take away much more than 50 pounds at a time.

And the correct answer to your calculation is 15,600.

A guy here in California had an entire vacation house stolen.
Quote

Wrong on the weight; these are metric tons. The trucks were mentioned on another thread. You'd need 40 and you'd need someone to load them.

It's exceptionally hard to do something like this, without a lot of support.
Quote

Yeah, I guess it couldn't have happened. The explosives are still there. And 9/11 never happened.
Quote

You really don't understand the concept, do you? It would be entirely possible for a group of terrorists to grab some explosives, possibly using a truck, a lot, several thousand pounds. It's not possible, without a great deal of organization, to transport 300 metric tons from a site.

They were not stolen.

Explain to me why it's not possible? They probably had several days.

If they tried to carry it out, at 50 pounds per man, it would take more than 16,600 men to do it (or 8,300 over two days).  If they are using trucks, one story indicated it would take 40 trucks, exclusive of loading and eventually unloading.  There, I have dumbed it down for you so that you can understand it.

Trying to distribute it would take even more effort.

Basically this is something that takes time, more than several days.  If it's a small group, about 2 dozen, try about two weeks to a month.  If this were 2 or 3 guys with a truck, they'd still be doing it.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
shankbear
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 363


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2004, 09:33:17 pm »
Ignore

Love him or hate him, Drudge is FLASHING right now regarding NBC refuting the Times piece. The embedded reporters from the networks in that place are an important fact. This was on the NBC nightly news.
Logged

Remember, we never lost a battle on the field in Vietnam, we lost the will to win the war.  Never repeat it!!!
shankbear
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 363


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2004, 09:34:06 pm »
Ignore

maybe the explosives were taken by an African swallow.
Logged

Remember, we never lost a battle on the field in Vietnam, we lost the will to win the war.  Never repeat it!!!
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2004, 09:34:31 pm »
Ignore

So much for your "october surprise."

You really don't seme to understand the bulk involved. If terrorists showed up and took 50 pounds each, you'd need 16,600 of them to carry it. The bulk is just too great.


So they must not be missing? What sort of argument is this? Anyways, trucks can take away much more than 50 pounds at a time.

And the correct answer to your calculation is 15,600.

A guy here in California had an entire vacation house stolen.
Quote

Wrong on the weight; these are metric tons. The trucks were mentioned on another thread. You'd need 40 and you'd need someone to load them.

It's exceptionally hard to do something like this, without a lot of support.
Quote

Yeah, I guess it couldn't have happened. The explosives are still there. And 9/11 never happened.
Quote

You really don't understand the concept, do you? It would be entirely possible for a group of terrorists to grab some explosives, possibly using a truck, a lot, several thousand pounds. It's not possible, without a great deal of organization, to transport 300 metric tons from a site.

They were not stolen.

Explain to me why it's not possible? They probably had several days.

If they tried to carry it out, at 50 pounds per man, it would take more than 16,600 men to do it (or 8,300 over two days). If they are using trucks, one story indicated it would take 40 trucks, exclusive of loading and eventually unloading. There, I have dumbed it down for you so that you can understand it.

Trying to distribute it would take even more effort.

Basically this is something that takes time, more than several days. If it's a small group, about 2 dozen, try about two weeks to a month. If this were 2 or 3 guys with a truck, they'd still be doing it.



 you, I can do the math.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32372


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2004, 09:35:33 pm »
Ignore

Love him or hate him, Drudge is FLASHING right now regarding NBC refuting the Times piece. The embedded reporters from the networks in that place are an important fact. This was on the NBC nightly news.

They're trying to prove a negative, that no one saw them after the invasion. How exactly are they doing that?
Logged
shankbear
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 363


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2004, 09:38:58 pm »
Ignore

It's just a report from the mainstream media, I didn't start it fern.
Logged

Remember, we never lost a battle on the field in Vietnam, we lost the will to win the war.  Never repeat it!!!
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32091
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2004, 09:51:48 pm »
Ignore

[
So they must not be missing? What sort of argument is this? Anyways, trucks can take away much more than 50 pounds at a time.

And the correct answer to your calculation is 15,600.

A guy here in California had an entire vacation house stolen.
Quote

Wrong on the weight; these are metric tons. The trucks were mentioned on another thread. You'd need 40 and you'd need someone to load them.

It's exceptionally hard to do something like this, without a lot of support.
Quote

Yeah, I guess it couldn't have happened. The explosives are still there. And 9/11 never happened.
Quote

You really don't understand the concept, do you? It would be entirely possible for a group of terrorists to grab some explosives, possibly using a truck, a lot, several thousand pounds. It's not possible, without a great deal of organization, to transport 300 metric tons from a site.

They were not stolen.

Explain to me why it's not possible? They probably had several days.

If they tried to carry it out, at 50 pounds per man, it would take more than 16,600 men to do it (or 8,300 over two days). If they are using trucks, one story indicated it would take 40 trucks, exclusive of loading and eventually unloading. There, I have dumbed it down for you so that you can understand it.

Trying to distribute it would take even more effort.

Basically this is something that takes time, more than several days. If it's a small group, about 2 dozen, try about two weeks to a month. If this were 2 or 3 guys with a truck, they'd still be doing it.



<<jFOOL's expletive showing his lack of verbal skills deleted>> you, I can do the math.
Quote

Obviously, you don't understand how the math works in this case.  A single truck cannot carry 300 metric tons.  It will take 40 trips by a single truck, or 40 trips divided among several truck to load that much weight.  Those trucks each have to be loaded and if there is less than 40, unloaded.  This isn't something that could be done in two or three days, unless you have several hundred people doing it, and 40 trucks.

With this much weight, it cannot be easily done.

Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines