Info Needed re Explosives

Vanity ^ | 10/29/04 | Tomahawk

[tomahawk]

I was getting my car serviced this morning, and CNN was on in the waiting area.

They ran a report with the Minnesota reporter and his videotape.

They stated that you could see a U.S. soldier cutting an IAEA seal off one of the barrels.

They said the IAEA said that they only sealed/tagged the HMX and RHX.

CNN concluded that this was definitive proof that the explosives in question were there on April 13, when the 101st was there.

I had not heard this link of IAEA tag = HMX/RHX

I thought they tagged other things, too.

Can anyone please dispel/contradict this report?

[tomahawk]

Thank you.

[TexasTaysor]

They were showing this video on Fox this morning....it showed a soldier looking at one of the tags, then opening different boxes. There were different things in each box, no two the same that showed in the video. And it only showed one bunker in this video. To me, that doesn't prove a thing, except maybe this was the 3 tons of stuff left, but not almost 400 tons. One box had some round things that looked similar to fat candles, another box had something totally different, etc.

[TexasTaysor]

And from what was shown this morning, I didn't see anything that said HMX or anything else.

[tobyhill]

In the late 80s and early 90s I was a member of the 59th Ord. Brigade and member of the Brigades EOD Team. I know for a fact that a find like this would not be unusual and in a lot of cases just locking the door after a find would be sufficient until EOD gets there. The assessment is based on a five level threat assessment chart, 1 being very low, 5 being very high. This bunker was probably listed as a 2, meaning EOD cleaned it out maybe a day or two later. This reason for the low risk was that there was so many troops in the area that no terrorist or enemy could have gotten to it. A 5 is imminent threat and EOD would be there within a couple hours. The EOD would detonate the explosives at the same time imploding the bunker assuring terrorist or enemy couldn't get to it. In this case, I believe EOD arrived a couple days later and hauled these explosives off to a secure facility awaiting destruction. I guarantee the airships in the area would have spotted any movement in the area by any enemy or terrorist between the time of find and EOD's arrival. As for the amount, much of these crates are just blasting caps or fuses for mortar rounds. The barrels are explosives in powder form used for the explosives in mortar rounds. The powder form has to be processed in order to make C4. The powder in its self is an explosive but because of the lack of compression is not as potent as it would be in a mortar round or any warhead because in a round or warhead it is enclosed in metal which allows a massive build up of compression in the chamber. The point of all this is, so what about this one bunker. It was not looted.

[Catphish]

They have plenty about this here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

[visualops]

It doesn't matter if the seals were on or not.
The IAEA & others have said there were other ways into the compartments. In other words, you could take all the stuff out without going through the front door which had the lock/seal.
The stuff could easily have been long gone before. In fact, IIRC, the last inspection the IAEA made, all they did was confirm the presence of seals, they didn't actually visually inspect the explosives. Additionally, there was not nearly the amount that is now being claimed. There was at most some 200+ tons, or perhaps as little as less than 10 tons. So what better way to steal the stuff than to have the IAEA so-called inspection be your cover. Then, some time later, remove the seals and make it look like the stuff disappeared at a much later date.

[Paine in the Neck]

Belmont Club has a very detailed rundown on this today

[Texas Deb]

On the second video put out by the TV station, the reporter who was on the scene said they NEVER entered a bunker that had been sealed by the IAEA. It even shows someone climbing up the side of the bunker and looking in and that supports his statement that the sealed bunker was NEVER entered as they just looked in through the ventilation shaft on the sealed bunker; therefore the photos could not have been taken in sealed bunkers.

ABC has been VERY DECEPTIVE, showing a bunker with a seal on it, and the soldiers and the news crew DID find and photograph and video that bunker on the outside, BUT THERE IS NO PICTURE OR VIDEO OF ANYONE BREAKING AN IAEA SEAL, JUST CUTTING THROUGH A LOCK AND SOME CHAINS BUT NOT THROUGH AN IAEA SEAL.

And the location has NEVER been verified.

[Avenger]

Certainly, the IAEA tagged other things besides HMX/RHX. That claim sounds pretty silly.

However, instead of splitting hairs on this matter when the facts will take a while to sort out when need to keep in mind that approximately 400000 tons of explosives/munitions have already been destroyed in Iraq. The claims of missing explosives in Al Qaqa is about 380 tons. Al Qaqa represents a miniscule fraction of the munitions that have already been destroyed. Also keep in mind that there is no evidence that HMX/RHX has been used by insurgents. The vast majority of the IED (improvised explosive devices) are retooled/wired munitions. If the insurgents had this stuff (HMX/RHX) in their hands they would have certainly used it by now - they have not so they do not.

[tomahawk]

Good point, thanks.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I don't think the TV reporter could tell where he was anyway.

[Deaf Smith]

"I didn't see anything that said..."

Am I correct in thinking that I saw some items placard in English? If so, then why in English?

[tomahawk]

Thanks!

[igoramus987]

The more important question is what was taken away by the Heavy Truck and in the convoys.

[Texas Deb]

Thanks for your excellent post.

[cyncooper]

The only things with an IAEA seal *at Al Qaqaa* was HMX and RDX.

The video was taken on April 18 and was initially described as being taken by an embedded photographer with the 101st at Al Qaqaa.

The 101st was at Al Qaqaa on April 10 and it is my suggestion the video was shot at *another site* that was "near" (the media has recently amended their description to "at or near Al Qaqaa").

You are correct, at *other sites, other items had the IAEA seal* and I submit that is what we are seeing on the video.

[tobyhill]

"One box had some round things that looked similar to fat candles"

Those were fuses for mortar rounds. The powder in the barrels was the explosives used in the mortars. It can be made into C4 but would have had to be processed. In the military this would have been considered low threat because it was not inserted in the weapons its self. While being low threat the bunker was probably locked back up and cleaned out a day or two later by EOD. It was considered low threat in terms of security because there was so many troops in the area and gunships in the sky that no terrorist could have gotten to it. They satellite photos showing trucks 2 days before the war was probably Iraqis and Russians cleaning out documents and processed explosives. They left these bunkers because of time limitations and uselessness of these materials. They weren't going to sit there and stuff mortars.

[TexasTaysor]

I agree with your point, and to me this video didn't prove that the troops were at fault for anything. It just looked to me like ABC was trying to hype this one bunker as the big find to prove their case. I don't know what all these different explosives or other weaponry materials look like, but the fact that they showed several different shaped things didn't prove to me that this was the "missing" stuff.

Thanks for the info

[MizSterious]

You might find this thread interesting, too. Lots of info there.

[TexasTaysor]

I totally agree with that, if they had it they would have already used it