It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Discrepancy Over Quantity of Explosives Missing From Al Qaqaa.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
On a declaration from the Iraqi government on July 15, 2002, they reported that 141 tons of RDX explosives were located at Al Qaqaa, but the documents from the IAEA show that on January 2003, the inspectors found that just over 3 tons of the explosives were found at the site. This shows that either the Iraqi government lied about the amount of explosives they had, or in 6 months they bought over 160 tons of the explosives.
 



abcnews.go.com
The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.

But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.

The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing -- presumably stolen due to a lack of security -- was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility -- a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The most important part of these documents, if this is true, is that the inspectors felt that the IAEA seals were innefective, because the bunkers had ventilation slats on the sides, which could be removed to remove the explosives.


[edit on 28-10-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   
(i can't edit the original thread or it will become a submission once more, I am placing the information I have found as replies.)

The following is what I have been able to find from "part" of the IAEA reports.


In the backlog of the Iraqi semi-annual declarations provided to the IAEA in October 2002, statements were included on the relocation and consumption of HMX for civilian use. In the declarations, Iraq stated that, between 1998 and 2002, it had transferred 32 of the 228 tonnes of HMX, which had been under IAEA seal as of December 1998, to other locations. In addition, Iraq stated that a very small quantity (46 kg) of HMX had been used at munitions factories for research and development.

42. IAEA inspectors have been able to verify and re-seal the remaining balance of approximately 196 tonnes of HMX, most of which has remained at the original storage location, documented the paper trail from removal to end-use of the removed HMX and conducted inspections at the sites where HMX has been used according to Iraqi statements.



The information i excerpted above can be found in page 10 at the following link.
www.iaea.org...

I have not found any information of any other explosives in this report. The IAEA just reported HMX explosives. I did not find the name of the "original location" either, althou this report is from April 2003. (was written in 2003, and refers to the time period between 1998-2002.)

---edited to clarify statement---

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I haven't been able to find any other references from IAEA where they state that there were 377 or 380 tonnes of these high explosives. The last report, that I was able to find, states that Iraq had 196 tonnes. In the information I gave on the post above, even thou they did not mention the name of the place of storage for the 196 tonnes of HMX, it seems to be Al-Qaqa. In my search I also found that Al-Qaqaa is spelled by different agencies and news sources in different ways. Which makes the search a bit more difficult, there is Al-Qaqa, Al-Qaqaa, and Al-Qa'qa.

Valhall actually reported information on this before me at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Althou some of the links there didn't seem to work when I tried them. Perhaps those websites were down for the night.

In conclusion, "it seems" that there never were 377 or 380 tonnes of these high explosives at Al-Qaqaa, (At least no original reports from IAEA that I could find state this.) and even with the seals, the IAEA inspectors said that it was relatively easy to steal these explosives using the ventilation slats at the side of the buildings.


[edit on 28-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Muaddib,

The "380 tonnes" was when you added in the PYX, RDX, and PETN. The 196 tonnes - and the 32 that the IAEA didn't keep up with - was HMX.

The problem is the 380 tonnes being stated as a "firm number" is kind of ludicrous because I can't find where they ever say they even made them stop producing the RDX...they were producing that at Al-Qa'qaa.

FURTHERMORE, they NEVER (that I could found) in any inspection recorded an inventory for RDX, PYX, or PETN...but now they want to talk like they knew exactly how much was there.

whatever.

[edit on 10-28-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
..............
FURTHERMORE, they NEVER (that I could found) in any inspection recorded an inventory for RDX, PYX, or PETN...but now they want to talk like they knew exactly how much was there.

whatever.

[edit on 10-28-2004 by Valhall]

(My original response was longer but it dissapeared when the home page of ATS changed.)

Exactly, i haven't found in any of the AIEA reports mention any quantities of explosives other than HMX, and the quantity they gave back in 2003 was 196 tonnes of HMX.

The only other source we have is that some news sources were saying that AIEA counted 3 tonnes, but no reports from IAEA are corroborating this.

Now the new Iraqi government claim that there were over 3 tonnes of high explosives..... It does not make sense. Unless you are right and Iraq was still producing these explosives among other things....

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Trying to keep the politics out of this for a minute, can we summarize what we know?

There was a quantity of these materials at Al-Qa'qaa at one time
At least some of the materials are now missing
The materials that are missing disappeared before we landed there

What we do not know:

The exact quantity of materials that were there at last official count
The exact date that the materials can be accounted for
How much of the materials is missing
Who took the materials that are now missing
Where the materials are now

Anything else?

Sorry for being so elemental, but there is so much information and rhetoric being thrown about in several threads that it is difficult to know where we stand right now.




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The materials that are missing disappeared before we landed there


This statement is total rubbish.

The Bush campaign is now as we speak trotting out its PR merchants to blame the troops for their poor inspection processes and securing of explosives.

The administration is attempting to deny accountability for any of its blunders, major or minor.



[edit on 28-10-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

This statement is total rubbish.

The Bush campaign is now as we speak trotting out its PR merchants to blame the troops for their poor inspection processes and securing of explosives.

The administration is attempting to deny accountability for any of its blunders, major or minor.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



How can Bush say that he supports the troops when he always tries to put the balme on them? First Abu Gharib, now he says they didn't inspect or secure the site.

You're the Commander-in-Chief for crying out loud! Show some backbone and quit pawning off the mistakes in your adminstartion on the soldiers!



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Discrepancy or not, the explosives are missing, despite whom to point the finger at, not body can tell where they went, all I know is that the "insurgents" and "terrorist" are well armed and well prepared to blow anything in their site, and they are doing a good job.

Now I am not saying that the explosives they are using to kill people and troops came from the missing Qaqaa place. Nevertheless, I wonder sometimes about how the "insurgents" and "terrorist" get their stuff?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   


From the October 28 edition of NBC's Today:

GIULIANI: The president was cautious. The president was prudent. The president did what a commander in chief should do. And no matter how much you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?




From the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's FOX News Live:

KRISTOL: The Bush campaign was actually slow to respond, I think, but finally yesterday pointed out that Kerry was launching very serious charges against the president of the United States, based on a thinly sourced New York Times article, charges that really impugn the competence of the U.S. military. [President] George [W.] Bush didn't decide, you know, "skip that dump" [the Al Qaqaa military installation, where the missing explosives were supposedly housed]. That was 101st [Airborne Division] or the 3rd ID [Infantry Division], "skip that arms dump." That's not a decision made by the president, that's made on the ground. Even if there were some weapons there, this is what happens in war. You know you have to make tough decisions, leave some stuff to take care of later.




From the October 27 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes:

STEVE MURPHY (FORMER MANAGER OF REP. DICK GEPHARDT'S (D-MO) PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN): Laura, Laura, John Kerry did not question the troops. John Kerry questioned the leadership of --

INGRAHAM: Oh, really? Who was looking for those weapons, Steve?

MURPHY: He questioned the leadership of George [W.] Bush. George Bush did not send enough soldiers.

[CROSSTALK]

INGRAHAM: Was George Bush on the ground there? The military commanders were on the ground there, Steve.

MURPHY: He [Bush] didn't send enough soldiers to Iraq. He didn't secure the borders.

INGRAHAM: That's not how the soldiers see it, Steve.

MURPHY: He didn't secure the weapons.

INGRAHAM: Why don't you talk to the soldiers for a change?

Media Matters


Disgusting. Just blame it all on the troops. Spin it until it's the soldiers fault.

Selling your soul Giuliani for a cabinent position? Maybe a contract in Iraq for your consulting firm?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by jsobecky
The materials that are missing disappeared before we landed there

This statement is total rubbish.
[edit on 28-10-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

I asked that politics be kept out of this, so if you have facts that prove your allegation, please provide them.

You too, curme. I really don't care what Giuliani, or Lockhart, or anyone else is spinning.

Thanks



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You too, curme. I really don't care what Giuliani, or Lockhart, or anyone else is spinning.

Thanks


I was responding to MaskedAvatar. Maybe I should of been clearer. Sorry for the mix-up.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
You know...there has been a trend lately in ATSNN to turn everything political, and I have been guilty of this same trend at times, its hard not to when others keep bringing their own political agenda and don't give a crap about the news. Is this what ATSNN is turning to? another ATS forum and not a forum for reporting news?

I think there are enough forums to talk about political agendas and spew, spin and tell whatever is in people's minds about their agendas.

ATSNN is about reporting news and getting to the bottom of the "news" without turning ATSNN into the mudpit... or am I wrong on this?....

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Discrepancy or not, the explosives are missing, despite whom to point the finger at, not body can tell where they went, all I know is that the "insurgents" and "terrorist" are well armed and well prepared to blow anything in their site, and they are doing a good job.

Now I am not saying that the explosives they are using to kill people and troops came from the missing Qaqaa place. Nevertheless, I wonder sometimes about how the "insurgents" and "terrorist" get their stuff?


Marg, i give you credit for asking a legit question.

To tell you the truth I don't know what to believe anymore, there are too many discrepencies to even figure out what is going on without more data. These discrepencies are coming from everyone, not just one source.

If we believe the 2003 IAEA report there were only 196 tonnes of HMX. (Actually Valhall found links before me about this and posted them)
I will post both of the 2003 reports I found from IAEA, I reported one and saw the other last night but forgot to link it. In their report they only mention HMX and no other explosives, yet the Iraqi government is saying there was much more and there were other explosives. We are also getting different amounts of explosives from the media, so I really have no idea what could be going on. Is everyone lying?

Almost none of the sources corroborate each other....this is just messed up.


---edited to give credit to Valhall---

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
These are the links from the IAEA, I will post the main link to the IAEA directly from the UN and will post those reports that the agency gave in 2003.

The following is the main IAEA site from the UN website.

www.iaea.org...

And the following are the reports they have for 2003.

www.iaea.org...

www.iaea.org...

I will be looking at the reports from 2002 and 2001 and see what I can find through those. If anyone is interested in reading those previous reports you will find them at the first link I post above.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I wish they would release the trucks into Syria and Lebanon!



Pentagon releases photo of Iraq arms storage site

WASHINGTON, Oct 28 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Thursday released an aerial photograph taken two days before the Iraq invasion that showed two trucks at the site where 377 tons of high explosives went missing, but could not say if they had anything to do with the disappearance.

The image of a small portion of the sprawling Al Qaqaa arms storage site near Baghdad, taken on March 17, 2003, showed a large tractor-trailer carrying white containers and a smaller truck parked behind it, the Pentagon said.

The image was declassified and released to the public just days before the U.S. presidential election as President George W. Bush faces charges by Democratic challenger John Kerry that the administration committed a blunder by failing to safeguard the powerful conventional explosives.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita acknowledged he could not say the trucks were hauling away any explosives or had anything to do with the matter


cnn.netscape.cnn.com...



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Just like our president, blame the troops who lay their lives down 24/7.

It couldnt possibly be Bush's fault. oh, no



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Just like our president, blame the troops who lay their lives down 24/7.

It couldnt possibly be Bush's fault. oh, no


*shakes head*..... First, didn't you notice it was other people who said those comments?......

Second......who the heck... did Kerry say was at fault when he fell while skiing and tripping over a secret agent?..........

Do not turn this into a political debate....why don't you stick to the topic and the facts instead?.....

Third....the fault would lie mostly on whoever decided that the 101st ID was to be sent to Al Qaqaa without much knowledge about these explosives or how to take care/neutralize them....the president is not exactly the person who says which troops have to go where....he makes other decisions..... this is why he has advisors....

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Ok, I remember another member said earlier, I am not sure in which thread, that the pictured released was not Al Qaqaa. Well, let's compare.




The above image is all of Al Qaqaa, which was provided first by AceofBase.



The one above is the picture released by the pentagon, and the link was provided first by Edsinger. If you look at the picture of the whole base you will see the picture released by the Pentagon is that of the northeast section of the storage area. It could also be the group of bunkers found at the southwestern section of the storage area. It does seem to be upside down, or tilted to one side, but I could be wrong.

---edited to add comment---


[edit on 29-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I agree that the tendency for some members to parrot political talking points and attack fellow members personally (in violation of the TOS, I might add) instead of considering the merits of their opinions has had a dampening effect on the boards.

Certainly, it has been a significant reason for my general avoidance of the more politically-charged forums in ATS up until recently (and perhaps again very soon).

Why? Because reading posts where people do nothing more than bag on each other is a waste of time. If that's what I'm looking for, there are better places for practicing and enjoying the fine art of flamecraft.

Here once again we see plenty of examples of such useless drivel on display for all the world to see and marvel over.

So many psychics out there reading Bush's mind, so many able to speak with certainty about events that took place thousands of miles away and months or years ago with infallible clairvoyance, I could swear that every political forum is just another subforum for Paranormal Studies.

It should be fairly obvious by now, even to the most casual observer, that there are some very serious discrepancies in this story this thread supposedly addresses in between flamefests -- enough to make an intelligent conclusion about what actually happened impossible.

Not that intelligent conclusions are by any means required here. But they are required for those who wish to Deny Ignorance.

Until I can establish some reasonable facts in this case, it appears to be nothing more than a strategically-timed partisan mud-sling, founded upon nothing more than the desire to influence the U.S. elections through deceit.

That much is far more certain than how many tons of RDX were at Al QaQaa and when.

As for those who are topically challenged, well, for the worst offenders, the "ignore" option is always there if the eye pollution gets too thick.

But it is sad when it comes to that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join