NEWS: 380 Tons of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq - (UPDATE: TIMING QUESTIONED)

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
to me that translates to Iraqs down town or green zone area being wiped off the map

I'm not sure about this, but weren't Fat Man and Little Boy designed for above-ground detonation, something like 400 feet off the surface? If that is how they worked, the conventional bomb you figured out, while having a yield of 1/3 the nuke, the explosion would be directed more upward and would cause the blast radius to be considerably smaller. Like a directional shape-charge.

I think they would use the explosives little by little. They have more to gain in sustained, random bombings than just one big one.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
to me that translates to Iraqs down town or green zone area being wiped off the map

I'm not sure about this, but weren't Fat Man and Little Boy designed for above-ground detonation, something like 400 feet off the surface? If that is how they worked, the conventional bomb you figured out, while having a yield of 1/3 the nuke, the explosion would be directed more upward and would cause the blast radius to be considerably smaller. Like a directional shape-charge.

I think they would use the explosives little by little. They have more to gain in sustained, random bombings than just one big one.

300 feet above triggered by pressure guage ....but the principle is sound the results may yes differ, but it still aint going to be any small fire cracker deal. Look at the OKC Bombing a bomb, less then 1/3 the size of the stolen cache took out quite a bit and it was a directed burst, it was intended only to damage one building, better yet an 2 airplanes desimated 5 buildings in NYC.... its all in how you use it >>>>I am putting a comparison to use here.

[edit on 25/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Bryan, could you try to use a period or a comma somewhere in your rambling? I sense you have something to say in there, but it's completely indiscernable from the babble.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Bryan, could you try to use a period or a comma somewhere in your rambling? I sense you have something to say in there, but it's completely indiscernable from the babble.

Sorry Ive been trying to work on it. I am still not good at when Im trying to go fast to answer many post in remembering. I will edit it for ya real quick.



well it is not gramatically correct probably , but does that help

[edit on 25/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Like many others, this story makes a point of stipulating, "It is unclear at this time if President Bush was informed."

Duh. Bush is the Commander-in-Chief. It's his job to be informed. That's what we pay him to do. Stay informed. It's his job to carry a cell phone on to the golf course, out to his ranch and wherever else he might go. It's his job to make certain his people keep him informed. That's what any manager does.

...I'd like to see some little 7-11 night manager try it, "But I didn't knowwww!" ....They don't though. Most are too responsible. Unlike the US President - who routinely blames others for giving him 'bad intelligence.'

Whether or not the President 'was informed' should NEVER be an issue. It is the President's job to be informed, and to ensure that the machinery is in place to keep him informed. If the machinery fails, if he is not informed - it is his responsibility. No one else's. That's just how it works in management - whether you're the night manager at a 7-11 or the Commander-in-Chief.

I dont know how tons and tons of these high powered explosives just dissaper even after being guarded by CIA and military personal? Unless, you wanted those materials to be taken, kinda odd, dont you think?

Originally posted by soficrow

Duh. Bush is the Commander-in-Chief. It's his job to be informed.

Good one, I guess he forgot to read the commander in chief job description.
He must have otherwise he is just plane stupid....HE FORGOT TO BE TOTALLY INFORMED ABOUT WMDs before staring a war because he was already in a kick arse state of mind, having already started the war on terror.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
OKAY I found it the smaller atom bomb droped on Nagasaki Japan had a yeild of 15,000 pounds of TnT, now the TnT compaired to convientinal exspolsives today......there is a 1.375 to 1 ratio where in 1 ton of modern explosive is equal to almost 1 1/2 tons of TNT from the Nagasaki era so if my math is right it should go like this


380 tons modern explosive yield
x1.375 tons older explosive yield
-------------------
522.5 tons yield


15.000 nagasaki yeild
divided 522.5 380 ton modern explosive yeild
-----------------------
equals just over 1/3 the total yeild of nagasaki


now what does that mean well their were 70,000 to 80,000 people killed
28,000 buildings destroyed by the Nagasaki bomb with a total destruction rate of 85% totally destroyed out to 1.2 miles from inpact.........now cut that by 1/3

you have a 23.333 to 26.666 thousand people killed
9,333 buildings destroyed
0.4 miles or 2112 feet square 80% total destruction

to me that translates to Iraqs down town or green zone area being wiped off the map

Uh, you're mixing yield (Nagasaki) with weight. The Nagasaki bomb weighed a little over 8,900 pounds but yielded over 15,000 tons of TNT. In Iraq we're talking about 760,000 pounds of explosives missing -- their yield is unmeasured.

Also, depending on who you want to believe, Nagasaki was the larger of the two blasts also, 20 kilotons whereas Hiroshima was hit by a 15 kiloton package. Nagasaki suffered less damage due to its terrain. I tend to believe FAS so they would put it at 13 kilotons for Hiroshima and 20 kilotons for Nagasaki.

www.factmonster.com...
www.vce.com...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
www.fas.org...


[EDIT]: Everything I've read indicates an airburst at an altitude of 1,800 feet for each weapon.

[edit on 10/25/2004 by titian]

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
OKAY I found it the smaller atom bomb droped on Nagasaki Japan had a yeild of 15,000 pounds of TnT, now the TnT compaired to convientinal exspolsives today......there is a 1.375 to 1 ratio where in 1 ton of modern explosive is equal to almost 1 1/2 tons of TNT from the Nagasaki era so if my math is right it should go like this


380 tons modern explosive yield
x1.375 tons older explosive yield
-------------------
522.5 tons yield


15.000 nagasaki yeild
divided 522.5 380 ton modern explosive yeild
-----------------------
equals just over 1/3 the total yeild of nagasaki


now what does that mean well their were 70,000 to 80,000 people killed
28,000 buildings destroyed by the Nagasaki bomb with a total destruction rate of 85% totally destroyed out to 1.2 miles from inpact.........now cut that by 1/3

you have a 23.333 to 26.666 thousand people killed
9,333 buildings destroyed
0.4 miles or 2112 feet square 80% total destruction

to me that translates to Iraqs down town or green zone area being wiped off the map

Nice math. The problem is how are they going to move 380 tons of something all at once? I'm pretty sure this far exceeds the weight a semi can tow. I think that a cargo car on a train might be able to hold somewhere in the vicinity of 100 tons. A B-52 can only carry 250 tons. So they'd have to load that all onto a fleet of semi's and then that is going to attract a lot of attention before they even get close to a target. That, or load it onto several rail cars and detonate when the train goes through their target. That, of course, would be putting all your explosive eggs in one basket and it would just be dumb.

When they can blow a plane up with a pound of the stuff, why go for one big hit? The property, life and psychological damage of thousands of attacks will be greater than blowing their wad all at once (if it were even possible to transport it all in one vehicle). I mean at one plane per pound, they could, theoretically, bomb 760,000 planes right? At even 100 people per plane that would be 76 million dead. Of course they aren't going to bomb that many planes (there aren't even that many passenger jets--not even close), but, using small amounts of explosives repeatedly against soft targets is what they are after. I'm not sure how much is necessary for an average suicide bombing, but I'm guessing its not more than a few pounds per attack. So even if they don't go after planes, they can continue with the car bombing business and still easily have enough material for 100,000 suicide bombings around the world (whoever "they" is). Even at 10 deaths per attack that is 1 million people killed. And at the rate things are going, I'm pretty sure there are 100,000 suicide bombers in the wings. It isn't the mega-attack that worries me, it is the constant small scale attacks like we've seen in Israel and Iraq and Russia brought to our soil with explosives that we didn't bother to take care of.

But hey, if they find a way to blow up 380 tons all at once in downtown Baghdad, more power to them. I'm not exactly sure what the point of annihilating your own capitol would be, and killing tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqi's isn't going to win them more any friends.

rg73 I wasnt saying it was practical just possible. You know the saying where there is a will there is a way.......believe me these people proved will all they need do is find a way.....I even thought of an alternative scenario where in 3 to 4 100 lbs bombs all set off in differnt locations,
would offer an oppurtunity where in a person with stolen emergency vehicles loaded with this stuff can in the confusion blend into a crowd of other emergency vehicles lessening suspision long enough to get close, and boom they get there target much the same way they do with moving car bombs now. With more vehicles they open a larger amount of targets and more destruction......The analysis was a potential threat level if they managed to get it all inside the green zone all at one time and in ruffly the same area see now.

While the deranged Emperor played on...Rome fell.

Bush Was Unconcerned About Looting:
When asked in April 2003 about concerns of looting, Bush said: �The statue comes down on Wednesday, and the headlines start to read, �Oh, there's disorder.� Well, no kidding� But just like the military campaign was second-guessed, I'm sure the plan is being -- but we will be successful.� (Bush, 4/13/03)

Rumsfeld on Looting:
�Stuff Happens�. ��Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things,� Rumsfeld said. � Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. �Stuff happens,� Rumsfeld said.� (CNN, 4/12/03)

White House Said Looting Was Part of Liberation Process:
In April 2003, asked about looting in Iraq, White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said: �Clearly, anything that involves looting is not desirable. It is worth noting that what you are seeing is a reaction to oppression. � It's also a situation the world has seen before when oppressed people find freedom. For a short period of time, these actions have occurred in history. You saw it in Sierra Leone, you saw it in the Soviet Union with the collapse of the Soviet Union. And nobody likes to see it, but I think it has to be understood in the context of people who have been oppressed, who are reacting to the oppression�� (WH Press Briefing, 4/11/04)

White House Said Stories About Looting Were Overblown:
Asked about the widespread looting in Iraq, Fleischer said: �This is almost starting to remind me of the stories that said our forces were bogged down, as people watched 24, 36 hours� worth of people reacting to the oppression from which they suffered. �but there's no question, in the President's judgment, that what's happening is people are finding liberation, are finding freedom.� (WH Press Briefing, 4/11/04)

Looting overblown? People "finding freedom?" How about helping themselves to 380 tons of high grade "resistance" compound.

A democratic president would have been impeached already. What does it take for Bush people to get it? What does it take? :shk:

Never mind. Most of you already voted.


[edit on 25-10-2004 by RANT]

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush wants to determine what went wrong.
McClellan, on Air Force One, stressed that the missing explosives were not nuclear materials, and said the storage site was the responsibility of the interim Iraqi government, not the United States, as of June 28, when the United States turned over the nation's administration to the Iraqis.

That is nice. Blame the Iraqis. Of course if they weren�t ready to take over the responsibility of running the country, then Why did you turn the keys over to them?

What a mess.

I'm just amazed it hasn't been laid at Kerry's door yet!

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I'm just amazed it hasn't been laid at Kerry's door yet!

Ask and you shall recieve

Reacting to the IAEA announcement on Monday, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry said the "incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be."

In response, the Bush campaign accused Kerry of using the IAEA announcement to attack the president.

"John Kerry has no vision for fighting and winning the war on terror, so he is basing his attack on the headlines he wakes up to each day," said Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Why, it'll be Clintons fault. Dont you know?
Such incompetence!

It is only me or I smell that the bush administration wanted all along to have a well supplied and armed enemy to fight against the coalition after the invasion.

If you look back at what the administration "did not" took care off in Iraq it seems like that was the purpose of leaving all that dangerous stuff all around so insurgent could get their hands on them.

Well the government either knew what he was doing or they are very careless.

This stuff turned up missing 19 months ago, this is not current news!

Political spin by the major news networks to get people all worked up before the election over a bunker that was looted right after the invasion of Iraq.

Sure its bad that this stuff is gone, and in the hands of badguys. But this happened last May, not last weekend.

Marg, i agree that the government wanted this stuff "stolen" to keep the war going

I dont see how there's anybody alive today who cant see whats really happening here

Originally posted by SIRR1
This stuff turned up missing 19 months ago, this is not current news!

Political spin by the major news networks to get people all worked up before the election over a bunker that was looted right after the invasion of Iraq.

Sure its bad that this stuff is gone, and in the hands of badguys. But this happened last May, not last weekend.

SIRRI, I think you got it right;

Fox News, April 4, 2003

U.N. weapons inspectors went repeatedly to the vast al Qa Qaa complex -- most recently on March 8 -- but found nothing during spot visits to some of the 1,100 buildings at the site 25 miles south of Baghdad.

Again this was said March 2003

Old story with a new twist for political reasons - how far will the media go to elect Kerry - one has to wonder.

The Fox 2003 article tells of thousands of 2"x 5" box's containing three vials each of white powder they (UN or US) indicated might be an explosive.

Doe's anyone have the color and physical desciption of the explosives in question with the more recent story - do they match or no?

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Phoenix]

This is the same Government that tells us that there has been no indication of any terror plots here at home during the election.

Yeah, sure, OK, anything you guys say, no problem!!!