Al Qaqaa Explosives Shown Videotaped April 18

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, Kerry is claiming something a failure based on bullcrap information that is circumstantial at best. It is not certain as to when those explosives were there. Reports are conflicting, etc.
seekerof

Need Seekerof say more? NO!

Sweat! And Left's agenda crumbles.....hehe

I know, who ever is running Kerry's campaign is desperate.

Kerry is not a Commander and Chief, this was not only an attack on the President but an attack to the troops AGAIN!!!

Other than that, Seek, I fail to see how this is not politically valid? I'll admit, I have not dug deep on this story, but the surface tally has Bush hoisted on his own petard:

- Bahdari (sp) & Blix and Ritter's reports are all consistent as to the stuff being there.

- It's powerful stuff, not your vanilla munition.

- We didn't secure it

- We don't know where it is now

- We know that the roadside bombings have a stong tie to this being the boom behind them

Just having billions of dollars spent & unaccounted for kind of puts a major crimp in that whole competency argument, no?
Potential blowback? What exactly could it be for Kerry? That the stuff is found? Cool, that's good for everybody.
That Bush really knoew all along? Bad for the comeptency thing again, good for Kerry.

Just again, from my surface glean, if I were pulling for Bush to win, I would have advised him to come out immediately, not days later, and handle it with that aw shucks, s**t happens, but we are exhausting the resolution of.... type of response.
They played this wrong.

And politicizing, at this stage, should not even be boo hooed. The big negative for team Bush? Kerry doing what he's doing and putting it in simple terms.......protracted explantaions smell of cover up, short ones smell of avoidance......Kerry has out played the boys form Crawford.

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by jrsdls
Sorry RANT, these are Cast Bossters, and not the missing explosives, nice try though, Keep on buy Kerry's lies.

I found this in the pdf spec for Cast Boosters:

�Hazardous Shipping Description
�Boosters, 1.1D UN 0042

Here's documentation on 1.1D classification.

UN Numbers for all Explosives Class 1

What makes you assume 0042? The 1.1D class is extensive and all classified explosives.

RDX and HMX are 1.1D too. #0391

0391 Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (Cyclonite; hexogen; RDX) and Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (HMX; Octogen) mixtures, wetted with not less than15% water, by mass or Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (Cyclonite; Hexogen; RDX) and Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (HMX; Octogen) mixtures desensitised with not less than 10% phlegmatiser, by mass 1.1D

I fail to see why you dismiss this as all 0042? Or the fact there were explosives there on April 18th at all?

Look at that picture again. That's a 1 under 1.1D, not a D for compatibility D (secondary blasing explosive).

"For example, 1.1D decodes as Hazard Class 1 (explosive), Division 1 (mass explosion hazard), and Compatibility Group D (secondary blasting explosive)."

Not sure if it's "Class 1" explosive or "Division 1" mass explosive, but it is NOT Group D secondary blasting explosive.

It is explosives at Al Qaqaa on April 18th. CONFIRMED!

[edit on 28-10-2004 by RANT]

of course it is explosives, no one has never denied that explosives were still at Al Qaqaa. However, it is not the HDX and RDX that the UN lost. I am amused that Kerry takes the word of the UN over the word of the soliders on the ground. Oh yeah, I forgot, he loaths the military.

D - Secondary detonating explosive substance or black powder or article containing a secondary detonating explosive substance, in each case without means of initiation and without a propelling charge, or article containing a primary explosive substance and containing two or more effective protective features. (1.1D, 1.2D, 1.4D, 1.5D)


environmentalchemistry.com...


[edit on 28/10/04 by jrsdls]

Originally posted by jrsdls
of course it is explosives, no one has never denied that explosives were still at Al Qaqaa. However, it is not the HDX and RDX that the UN lost.

Now the UN lost it? How low will you go? Seriously? And how do you know it's not HDX or RDX? It's got a big fat 1.1D -1 on it! Just like HDX or RDX would. See link above.

The UN FOUND it. They didn't lose it. They reported it to the US. Then the US invaded, and never bothered to look for it or secure it. And the looting continued from when they left until basically NOW.

Some guy the Pentagon trots out yesterday to say he didn't see any trees in the forest does not dismiss the President's failure here on soooo many levels. Giuliani blaming the troops doesn't either. You're losing it big time here blaming everyone but the civilian leaders in charge of this mess.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by RANT]

Dude, read the link I provided for you. It's not the HDX and RDX. How low will you go to lie about this to get your pathological liar elected. The UN had the responsibility for it. When Our troops arrived, the stuff was gone. It's obviously was removed from there by Sadaam. It was probably taken out by the Spetznaz. I will go on record and say that they also took out the wmd also.

Originally posted by jrsdls
Dude, read the link I provided for you. It's not the HDX and RDX. How low will you go to lie about this to get your pathological liar elected. The UN had the responsibility for it. When Our troops arrived, the stuff was gone. It's obviously was removed from there by Sadaam. It was probably taken out by the Spetznaz. I will go on record and say that they also took out the wmd also.

Explain it to me then. I'm reading the link. I see nothing about 1.1D NOT being RDX or HMX.

And when you're done explaining where it says that, tell me why the UN lists this as 1.1D:

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (Cyclonite; hexogen; RDX) and Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (HMX; Octogen) mixtures, wetted with not less than15% water, by mass or Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (Cyclonite; Hexogen; RDX) and Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (HMX; Octogen) mixtures desensitised with not less than 10% phlegmatiser, by mass 1.1D

UN Numbers

And if that's not RDX and HMX, please tell me what code is? Your elementary chemistry site is not explaining this issue away any better than you.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by jrsdls
When Our troops arrived, the stuff was gone.

Umm, and that's fact just because you said? Well better call your buddy Bush up and let him know you've concluded the investigation, since he himself admitted yesterday he wasn't sure what the hell happened to the stuff.

If the stuff was gone when the troops got there, it would be documented, and we wouldn't need to wait for any more facts to come up -- they could just show us the documents that prove that troops searched the facility and said there were no explosives there anymore. But guess what, they haven't provided documentation because none exists.

The only comment I've heard attributed to a military person was on MSNBC yesterday, and the person said that they were not sure whether or not explosives were there when they passed by since they were not ordered to check.

Also, I don't rush to conclusions so it's entirely possible the stuff was taken before our troops got there, I don't know, much like you don't know jrsdls.

However, I do find it disheartening that our government cannot tell us the answer one way or the other. The IAEA informed them of this site beforehand. If we went in to disarm Iraq, this site should have been checked so that we KNOW whether there were still explosives there or not.

Apparently, they didn't do this. And that says alot about the amount of forethought this administration put into this war.

Challanged to "prove it" KSTP went back to the footage. They have about 380 tons of it.

"Where's the IAEA seals?"

RIGHT HERE

STILL SEALED ON APRIL 18

Breaking 4:59 Today

The video shows a cable locking a door shut. That cable is connected by a copper colored seal.

A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency told 5 Eyewitness News that seal appears to be one used by their inspectors. "In Iraq they were used when there was a concern that this could have a, what we call, dual use purpose, that there could be a nuclear weapons application."

5 Eyewitness News continues to develop new leads and uncover new developments in this story.

IAEA SEALS INTACT CONFIRMED OVER A WEEK AFTER INVASION.

Reminder: The seals means dual use purpose for "nuclear weapons applications" exactly like the now missing explosives.



[edit on 28-10-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by moxyone
are those the explosives in question?

nope

nice try, though.

Kerry is unfit for command.

The exact same video was played on ABC tonight, indicating that American soldiers DID NOT SECURE facility- In living color.
The comander in-chief dropped the ball as he often does, hell, it was done on purpose. Why secure anything???

Originally posted by RANT
Challanged to "prove it" KSTP went back to the footage. They have about 380 tons of it.

"Where's the IAEA seals?"

RIGHT HERE

STILL SEALED ON APRIL 18

Breaking 4:59 Today

Thanks for that RANT.

They had already made two trips to that facility by the time that footage was taken so it proves they didn't search properly the first two times.

What language(s) is "eksplosiv?"

According to this report, the explosives from Yugoslavia were in 30 gallon cardboard drums like those.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Smoking Gun??

NY TImes
One frame shows what the experts say is a seal, with narrow wires that would have to be broken if anyone entered through the main door of the bunker.

The agency said that when it left Iraq in mid-March, only days before the war began, the only bunkers bearing its seals at the huge complex contained the explosive known as HMX, which the agency had monitored because it could be used in a nuclear weapons program. It is now clear that program had ground to a halt.

If that's true, it means the bunkers they were at were the HMX bunkers.

[edit on 29-10-2004 by AceOfBase]

It looks like the explosives were there!!

They showed the video tape to David Kay and this is what he had to say about it:

CNN
BROWN: And was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

KAY: Absolutely nothing. It was he HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

BROWN: OK. Now, I want to take a look at the barrels here for a second and you can tell me what they tell you. They obviously to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.

KAY: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this and inside the barrel is a bag. HMX is in powdered form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons.


And, particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qa Qaa that was in that form.

It's looking more and more like that was the HMX.
We just need to find out what happened to it after then.

Originally posted by moxyone
are those the explosives in question?

nope

nice try, though.

Kerry is unfit for command.

David Kay disagrees with you and I'll take his opinion over yours.


[edit on 29-10-2004 by AceOfBase]

Whether or not Bush knew about this is moot. He is the Commander in Chief and therefore responsible for the conduct of the war. In believe he did know about this for the following reasons.

1. If there were WMD's in Iraq, and history shows this to be correct, then his military advisors would look high and low to find them. It would be imperitive to look at any place that could store them. A high maintenance facility needed to control environmental conditions to store them would be at the top of the list.

2. MG. David Patreus of the 101st Airborne is the Golden Boy for the Dept. of the Army and to think he would have passed by this secondary objective without inspection would be a dereliction of duty.

3. Even if they were not fully searched and inventoried there should have been a fully supplied guard force to protect the site. If there were not enough troops on the ground during the offensive phase to ensure protection of this site then it is a dereliction of duty on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He has stated on a number of occasions that there were enough troops but this has apparently been proved incorrect. As a political appointee and senior cabinet member of the Bush Admin. then it is Bush's responsability to provide answers to why.

This proves the Bush administration made a big mistake. We have first hand evidence of soldiers after April 18th opening sealed bunkers full of HE and not securing the facility.

That's all I need to know of the Bush Administration's incompetency. You are delusional if you think that this wasn't the leadership's fault, what annoys me more is blaming it on the grunts when Kerry apparently "hates the troops"

Very bad move in a country like Iraq.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

"We weren't quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents".



Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months together in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely."

www.kstp.com...

So...let's see, they brought the newscrew to this giant installation, broke the chain that locked it, showed them around, pointed out the detonation caps and such.....and then just drove away....didn't even lock the door after them.....did they shut it even? The article makes me wonder about that even.

Wouldn't it have been routine proceedure to at least assign a unit or two at the site to make sure it stayed put and didn't fall into the hands of the "terrorists"?
Which leads us back to another point, Why did Bush not take the advice of his military advisers in the beginning, and send the troops that they said would be required? Oh, ya, they were going to greet our liberators with open arms!! And, he's right, and steadfast, and never makes a mistake!

Weather or not these are the exact explosives in question seems not to make a difference to me....What, they couldn't spare a few bombers to blow the place either?

Maybe Bush felt bad that he cut Al Quada's funding so badly, knew they wouldn't be able to last until the election without some assistance, and gave the stuff to them?

Or, maybe we are the ones that are hurting, and well, we used the stuff oursleves....cost cutting.

Or, maybe my husband is right and they are all lying through their teeth, who knows, but the whole story just doesn't jive too well, does it?