[cyncooper]

I should have pinged you to my posts on the other thread, too.

The 101st was at Al Qaqaa on April 10. This ABC story says they were there on April 18. That's wrong. My guess is these images were taken at another site which makes the story irrelevant.

[Virginia]

But one of the boxes says "Al QaQaa" on it.

[MEG33]

It is my understanding that they went back and were there for like two weeks...used it as a temporary base..

[Virginia]

"My guess is these images were taken at another site which makes the story irrelevant."

I was responding to this comment. One of the boxes says "Al Qaqaa". Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

[leftcoaster]

"The 101st was at Al Qaqaa on April 10. This ABC story says they were there on April 18. That's wrong. My guess is these images were taken at another site which makes the story irrelevant."

That's what it looks like to me. Combined with the camera crew's uncertainty of where they were, and the date being a week later, I appears these guys were filming a different bunker at a different place at a different time ("Wrong bunker, wrong place, wrong time" ?)

So the stuff they are taping WAS secured by troops and WAS NOT lost. It is not "proof" that there was explosive at Al QaaQa when the U.S. arrived. And if that is the case, this report was a bigger mis-information attempt than Ra^THergate.