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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oil was more important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

DRUDGE has picked it up -

what?

drudge said it?

say it isn't so!

He picks up everything good like the Kerry intern story.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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 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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

 you, I can do the math.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[
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.

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is no NBC story.  Drudge said there will soon be an NBC story. Its true, there are many unknowns and this will not be solved by election day.  Bush may dodge this bullet.

But a group of former Baathists military officers working with a crew could probably scrounge up a couple trucks and a good sized work crew.  They wouldn't have to bring it far, could bring it to a storage point and have had plenty of time now to distribute it through out the country.  If I were a fighting an "invasion" the first thing I would try to get my hands on our the weapons.

So we're supposed to trust Drudge? LOL. Where's Baghdad Bob when you need him?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is no NBC story.
NBC retracted.
Time for Drudge to retract.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

God damn 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 GOD DAMN POINT!!!!!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[

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[/b's] 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.

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

The Empire State building weighs 365,000 tons. Off by a factor of 1000. In addition, explosives are probably more dense than the Empire State building, which is mainly filled with air. So the volume would differ by even more than a factor of 1000.

http://www.esbnyc.com/kids/kids_faq.cfm?CFID=8546723&CFTOKEN=18707286

It has a density of about 1.91. I assume they mean kilograms per liter.
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/hm/hmx.html

That would mean that 380 metric tons would be 200,000 lliters, or 200 cubic meters. That works out to 10 meters on each side, and 2 meters high. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

New NY Times article says WH lying, and that site was not searched.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/27bomb.html?oref=login&oref=login

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

same consistency as the s**tstorm that could be coming down on the KERRYNEWYORKTIMESCBS organizations.

So who do you trust? FauxNews? The liar in chief? Give me a break.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

NBC retracted after they realized that they and Drudge were wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

NBC retracted after they realized that they and Drudge were wrong.

Link up the retraction, bitte.

I don't know if they specifically said they retracted, but if you can't find the article, there's a reason for that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When asked about Russia, Rusmfeld was unable to back that story up. Whoops.