Oh I agree that something is rotten. At the very least they knew they were gone, but had hoped it would not become a big deal. I suspect there are other naughty reports we'll hear about after the election, regardless of the outcome.<br><br>Will Stanford actually welcome her (Rice) back after Bush leaves? <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I've unloaded molasses saturated bags of horse food which should be generally the density of high explosives.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You call yourself a scientist? :P<br><br>You could easily fit 380 2000 lb. bombs on a few freight cars, they're not particularly large. Plus RDX typically comes in sheets or wire form iirc. Another thing to consider, when they say 380 tons of RDX do they mean 380 tons of stuff, or the explosive equivalent? If you're talking the explosive equivalent of 380 tons of dynamite, the acutal weight and bulk would be far far less. After all, a 10 megaton bomb doesn't actually weigh that much, does it? :)<br><br>If we did bomb those bunkers and RDX was in it, none would be left. Pure RDX is less stable than nitro, the shockwave would have set it off, it's typically mixed with TNT to make it more stable.<br><br>

A scientist who has never dealt with this type of high explosive but I think my guess at the volume is realistic. When they speak of 380 tons I would think they are talking real mass and not explosive equivalent. That would be a large mistake. Since I have seen the news get this type of measure wrong all the time it may be explosive equivalent but I doubt it. <br><br>I have handled kegs of grey powder (used for shotgun shells) and black powder and there is no mysterious heaviness to it. They are not discussing iron bombs but the explosive material. I have seen PTEN on TV and I think the mass would be of the same magnitude or just slighlty more dense. So my guess of 13 freight cars stands.<br><br>Max capacity for a hopper rail car for coal is 30 tons. It is unlikely that a "few" rail cars would handle the 380 tons. We had this argument last year when you were hiding all of the WMD's espoused by the administration behind a few card board boxes. Haven't you learned yet? <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

here's a <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1026/dailyUpdate.html">comprensive look</a> at many articles:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The BBC points out two seemingly contradictory reports from NBC.<br><br>NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.<br>However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.<p><hr></blockquote><p>and, this one gets me because we could have easily reached this facility well before the fall of saddam since al qaqaa was south of baghdad. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The New York Times, which first reported the story late Sunday, wrote that the Al Qaqaa weapons facility (30 miles south of Baghdad) "was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday."<p><hr></blockquote><p>i guess the most troubling thing is that our leaders are now acting like this stuff missing is now news to them. HELLO, it's been missing for some time and they knew about this facility. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> In several sessions with reporters, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, alternately insisted that Mr. Bush "wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this" and tried to distance the president from knowledge of the issue, saying Mr. Bush was informed of the disappearance only within the last 10 days. White House officials said they could not explain why warnings from the international agency in May 2003 about the stockpile's vulnerability to looting never resulted in action. At one point, Mr. McClellan pointed out that "there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom."<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br><br>Max capacity for a hopper rail car for coal is 30 tons. It is unlikely that a "few" rail cars would handle the 380 tons.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not talking weight, I'm talking physical dimensions. The warhead on a 2000 lb bomb is roughly 170 inches long and 18 inches in diameter. Yes, that is actually two tons of material. So physically you could pack about as many in a freight car as you could people. We know for a fact that 100 people would be stuffed into a rail car in WWII, so you're talking physical dimensions of 3-3.5 freight cars. Hell I'll give you benefit of the doubt and say 5. Not a terribly difficult task to bury in a desert, considering we're still finding complete fighter jets buried!<br><br>Oh, and BTW I'm sure ronclark can confirm the max weight for a modern box car is 286000 lbs or 143 tons gross rail load :)<br><br>** edit - actually I calculated it out, with a standard box car size you can physically place 192 of those bombs in a rail car. That's 384 tons worth of explosives.<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by SgtBaxter on 10/26/04 03:49 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

You are also talking about the weight of a missile already made. This is explosive material not in a warhead and not in a missile. This packaging would add density which may be tripping you up. Most 2000 pound bombs have extremely hard front ends so they can penetrate certain prescribed distances through the target before exploding. You need to spot me two more freight cars.<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

Sean, no need for a comprehensive look at articles. The actual NBC reporter has said they didn't search the facility. I posted this in another thread. In brief:<br><br><blockquote>AR: Was there a search at all underway or did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?<br><br>LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was - at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.<br><br>AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?<br><br>LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.</blockquote><br><br><br>This isn't proof they were there, but it indicates how chaotic and secretive this whole issue is. I think its a catch-22 for the administration. Either they were still there and they have been looted on the coalition's watch or they were already stolen and they have been trying to keep it quiet. Its a no-win situation for the individuals involved in planning this invasion.<br><br>Rumsfeld, you have anything to say this week? <br><br>*cricket* *cricket*<br><br>

Well since there's so much speculation going on, how about the Mission:Impossible smoke and mirrors scenario.<br><br>This stuff can appear as a white powdery substance (not saying this is the form it was in, just saying it's possible and nobody has said what form it was stored in). So when the UN was checking this stuff out (once again I ask) were they counting sacks, crates, or grain hoppers and checking off on a manifest or was someone performing some tests to make sure this stuff was in fact "stuff that goes bang" rather than, say, flour. So, let us assume that we start out with 380 tons of High Explosive, but then over time, we swap HE for flour, right under the noses of the UN inspectors. Eventually the HE has been relocated elsewhere, doesn't matter where. Then when the US invades, the Iraq forces open the doors and the "HE" blows away in the wind. Nobody has to move or hide it following the last inspection because, in reality, there's nothing of value there.<br><br>(Or, maybe I've just watched too many episodes of the 60's TV series Mission:Impossible)<br><br>

What gets me is this...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>this one gets me because we could have easily reached this facility well before the fall of saddam since al qaqaa was south of baghdad.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Seriously Sean you have absolutly ZERO idea of what could have or not have been easily reached during the push to Bagdad. ZERO idea.<br><br>Looks like there are lots of reports about this flying around now, will be interesting to see how this story pans out over the next few days.<br>No wonder CBS wanted to hold this until Sunday. I'm sure they would have liked not giving the administration time to respond appropriately. But, I'm sure they're looking for a replacement "bomb" right now.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .

NBC (not Bush-Hating-Liberal-Biased-Conspiracy-Lying CBS) is sticking with their story, No Move to Secure the Weapons link<br><br>Their reporter did not search for these weapons.<br><br>"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."<br><br>The IAEA reported them looted after 4/9/03.<br><br><br><br><br><br>