"380 Tons of Explosive Story" - SEE "DRUDGE"

[J. J.]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[J. J.]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[J. J.]

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.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this 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.  

[J. J.]

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.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this 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.

[J. J.]

[
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.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this 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.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

[J. J.]

How could more than 1 truckload be involved? No!!!!!!

Of course I understand that 1 person didn't move it in an hour. We don't know how it got taken, but we do know that it's gone, and is in the hands of people not friendly to our boys over there.

Did you ever see the magician's trick where someone goes into a box and the magician runs swords through the box?  Then he opens the box and the guy isn't in there?  Why doesn't the guy inside get all cut up?  Simple, he wasn't in the box.  Same principle.

The Pentagon questions (along with NBC) if there were any explosives there.  It looks like they were removed prior to the Airborne showing up.  These explosives may have been in the numerous batches that were destroyed.  This 300 metric tons amounts to 0.1% of the total explosives destroyed by US forces so far.

Basically, unless it was a large organized group, with extensive transport, these expolsives were not stolen.  Now, possibly a group of terrorists could looted a lot of explosives, but not this amount.  One truck cannot carry 300 tons in on trip.

Rent the movie Goldfinger and you will see the problem.

[J. J.]

This is 380 tons of non-ordinary explosives.

ONE POUND OF IT TOOK DOWN PAN AM FLIGHT 103

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/10007264.htm?1c

When I want someone who cares about security, I'm never going to look for a Republican.

Or ZERO TONS, POUNDS OR OUNCES based on NBC's reporting.

[J. J.]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098677410357

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-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. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

--------------

Furthermore, in regards to this story the White House is claiming they knew nothing of the missing weapons until 10 days ago...which can't be true if Drudge's theory is correct.

I'm not buying it until I see some much better evidence than gossip on Drudge

It would next to impossible to move 300 tons of explosives, without a massive and well organized effort.  I'm betting Drudge.  They might have been accounted for at some other location.

[J. J.]

Here is what MSNBC is now saying:

"An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives.

"It remains unclear, however, how extensively the U.S. forces searched the site in the immediate aftermath of the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

"Signs of looting seen at war's end
The State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said that coalition forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at Al Qaqaa facility after the war, looking for weapons of mass destruction. He said the troops found none, but did see signs of looting."

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

It would have taken a massive effort to remove that much weight.

[J. J.]

MSNBC has been running the cited story on it's broadcast.

[J. J.]

You guys do realize that NBC said that Drudge is wrong and the NY Times is right on this?

Not as of yet.  Here is what the story really said:

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

"The war in Iraq began March 20. Army officials told NBC News on condition of anonymity that troops from the Army’s 3rd Infantry did not arrive at Al-Qaqaa until April 4, finding “looters everywhere” carrying what they could out on their backs.

"The troops searched bunkers and found conventional weapons but no high explosives, the officials said. Six days later, the 101st Airborne Division arrived. Neither group was specifically searching for HMX or RDX, and the complex is so large — with more than 1,000 buildings — that it is not clear that the troops even saw the bunkers that might have held the explosives"

MSNBC is still saying the same thing as I'm typing this.  I guess jfool can't read.

[J. J.]

Was this 380 tons of explosives more of a danger to the USA before or after Bush invaded Iraq?

About equal, considering who the owner was.  His minions might still have it and picked it up before the US Army arrived.  It's also possible that it was captured and destroyed at another location.

[J. J.]

Yeah, no problem there, no story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You missed it, again.  Here it is:

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

"The war in Iraq began March 20. Army officials told NBC News on condition of anonymity that troops from the Army’s 3rd Infantry did not arrive at Al-Qaqaa until April 4, finding “looters everywhere” carrying what they could out on their backs."

You have them guard something that wasn't there?   When the Army arrived, it was gone.  No recanting, as you previously claimed, either.

[J. J.]

[

You missed it, again.  Here it is:

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

"The war in Iraq began March 20. Army officials told NBC News on condition of anonymity that troops from the Army’s 3rd Infantry did not arrive at Al-Qaqaa until April 4, finding “looters everywhere” carrying what they could out on their backs."

You have them guard something that wasn't there?   When the Army arrived, it was gone.  No recanting, as you previously claimed, either.

<<Jfool tasteless expletive indicating his ignorance deleleted>> you're annoying. Anyways, when the army arrived, they did not do a search then. Searching for the explosives was not a priority. Go read for yourself here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/26/13489/620

NOTHING WAS DONE TO SECURE THE AREA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


QUIT MISSING THE <<Jfool[/b's] tasteless expletive indicating his ignorance deleleted>>  POINT!!!!!

The POINT is, they were there, with an NBC embed, and there wasn't anything to see.  360 metric tons of explosives cannot be hidded in a broom closet.  It will take up space, a lot of space.  They will see something.  Don't be dense and offensive.

[J. J.]

It was a huge facility, and checking it was not a priority.

Do you have any idea how much space 40 truckloads of material takes up.  We are actually talking about the same weight as the Empire State Building.  Try to picture trying to "hide" the Empire State Building on even a "huge facility."  As explosives tend to less dense than granite and steel, it would take up more space.

You are not comprehending the amount of material involved.

[J. J.]

You are correct on the Empire State Building, that was my error.  You are still talking something with the volume of a small house.  That isn't easy to hide.  Because of the weight, it's even harder to steal. 

According to the article, the troops, while no securing it, did look around.  Nobody saw the sealed buildings.  From the size of the unit (brigade, there would have been 3,000-6,000 people there, and while they were there, they had to secure the area.  There has been no suggestion that it was hidden when the inspectors were last there.  There was nothing there to loot.

[J. J.]

You are correct on the Empire State Building, that was my error.  You are still talking something with the volume of a small house.  That isn't easy to hide.  Because of the weight, it's even harder to steal. 

According to the article, the troops, while no securing it, did look around.  Nobody saw the sealed buildings.  From the size of the unit (brigade, there would have been 3,000-6,000 people there, and while they were there, they had to secure the area.  There has been no suggestion that it was hidden when the inspectors were last there.  There was nothing there to loot.

If you read the accounts, they were not given orders to inventory or secure the area. Sure, some people looked around, but the facility was large enough that they weren't able to accomplish much.

Several thousand people, securing an area, even briefly, didn't run accross something the size of a small house!  This was a combat opperation; they we're not checking into a Ramada Inn!  To secure the area, even briefly, they'd have to move through the area, to make sure there weren't a few dozen Iraqis with grenade launchers hiding there.

I'm not claim that, in the middle of a war, they stopped to inventory anything.  I am saying that somebody would have seen something, especially since they were checking for WMD's.

[J. J.]

It was a compound of several dozen warehouses. The contents of a small house could have been overlooked quite easily.  Especailly since they weren't looking for it. This was a short stop before they went to Bagdad.  The whole, Soldiers were there, is just a kneejerk reflex defense to muddle the issue.  You would think that they would have been ordered at least to check if it were gone.  They didn't I think this is bad, really bad, but it might be to late to be an issue.

And remember we had all our satelites trained on Iraq before the war trying to find weapons of mass distruction or movement of weapons.  I think that we would have noticed it before  the war had it happened.

And after as well, with regard to satellites.  The thing is, they did check the base for something, WMD's.  They didn't see these sealed bunkers?  The ones sealed by a UN agency.  That would attract attention.  It's like looking for a piano in a warehouse where there is a car, a limo.  They'll see the limo, even if they don't do anything about it.

[J. J.]

Do Bush supporters want to discuss the truth or just try to spin this?

The truth is that is it not easy to remove 380 metric tons (tonnes) of explosives.  The truth is that the area was occupied, for several days and nobody saw the "seals" on the bunkers that contained the explosives.  The truth is that the inspectors only saw that the seals were intact prior to the start of the war.

That is being addressed.

[J. J.]

NBC reported that satellite images of a large number of trucks around the site in the days before the war.

It also reported that the access road in was a major US convoy route, so it's unikely that anything large got moved after the Army reached the site.

[J. J.]

We don't know what was in those trucks, but if the imaging is released, Kerry's intellectual dishonesty reigns supreme.

[J. J.]

I trust NBC, where the story was run.  It wasn't on their website yet.  When it appears, I'll post the link.

[J. J.]

This possibily was also raised on CNN.

[J. J.]

As promised, here is the link to the story and some highlights:

"The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday it is “very highly improbable” that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area."

***********************************************

"The colonel [the commander of the brigade] himself did not directly offer that conclusion.

"But the Pentagon said a statement Wednesday, 'The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd I.D.’s arrival at the facility.'”

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

It's looking less and less like they were there.

[J. J.]

But not there was nothing there to guard.