Centerfield

Marc, you managed to miss:

ABC News: Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control

The story quotes David Albright, among others:

Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.

"I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

The barrels were found inside sealed bunkers, which American soldiers are seen on the videotape cutting through. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency sealed the bunkers where the explosives were kept just before the war began.

"The seal's critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them."

Stills from the April 18, 2003 tapes clearly show metal seals marked "IAEA", and the tapes reportedly show 101st Airborne troops breaking them to see what was inside.

Claude,

Thanks. I did miss it, BUT:

From an earlier report from ABC News (see my "Explain This, Senator Kerry}

"The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted."

jesus dude, end the denial...

just look at the pictures:

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

they have video OF THE ACTUAL EXPLOSIVES...

It has been confirmed by security experts.

this KSTP station also provides video if you don't like stills, including video of soldiers opening the seals.

http://www.kstp.com/

The small station has the exclusive.

ISIS (love that name!) is a private anti-nuke research group, and ISIS president Albright a former IAEA inspector who made one trip to Iraq as a "people inspector," not a facilities inspector. His specialty was analyzing the paperwork produced back at IAEA HQ. I notice it's not mentioned that he's a friend of El Baradei's, and an oft-quoted critic of the Bush administration. You would think those details would be relevant. He was very vocal in the run-up to the war about continuing the inspections (which ended in 1998 and did not resume until late 2002). Oh yeah, FWIW, he really doesn't like Hans Blix.

The barrels might be some of the missing materials. Or they might not. It's certainly not obvious from the video and stills available on the station's web site. There are no IAEA seals shown (and yes, I know what they look like, and yes, they can be both evaded and faked). The only thing the troopers are seen cutting through is an ordinary heavy padlock & chain. There are no readily apparent markings on the barrels other than the international standard explosive stickers. And Albright isn't quoted "among others" in the article, he's the only one quoted at all.

Albright counts as something of an expert by credentials, but one with a horse or two in the race. His expertise is irrelevant in any case, as his ID of the materials is "I showed a picture to a guy who had been there and he said they looked like that." He himself did not inspect facilities and never saw the material, so his "ID" is both second-hand and anonymous. Barrels that looked like barrels. Oh my.

There must be footage we haven't seen. If it shows something definitive, let's see it.

No sir, this has already been verified. Those actually show THE EXPLOSIVES IN QUESTION. Although, not all of them.

In addition, in the video and in stills here you can see the seals close up:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=64

That shows a close up of the seal.

Let it go. This isn't rathergate.

Nick,

I don't think this is rathergate, either.

I don't think that picture of the seal is actually one that was at the site, though. It's simply an example of what an IAEA seal looks like. I'm not sure about this. But, that's my understanding from the reading I've been doing. I believe there is some research being done right now on matching seal numbers with records.

Um, Nick? Read the story again. The news crew didn't go into that building. But that does indeed appear to be an IAEA seal on that door.

That's a step closer to something resembling confirmation than absolutely anything else I've seen yet.

But I still don't know why I should care, other than in the context of poorly sourced late-breaking campaign hit pieces.

Jamie, the seal in the lower picture is from the April 18 tape. The top pic is a sample.

Got it.

Here's the NY Times story will stills from the videotape that plainly read Qaqaa

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/29bomb.html?ei=5094&en=7b767c25018de326&hp=&ex=1099108800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1099023011-X89WBiw54u/O1mekm5bKVg&pagewanted=all&position=

Of course, some may argue that Jayson Blair worked for the Times, so you can't trust anything they'd print.

Nick said

they have video OF THE ACTUAL EXPLOSIVES...

It has been confirmed by security experts.

I say
If you read the last line, it says that the video has been sent to the expert. It doesn't say that they recieved a reply back.

I agree Tully, the story itself is a non story. Well, no. It should be a non-political story. You can logically, and honestly stretch it to the "lack of troops" mistake, but its really quite a stretch.

On the other hand, the fervent and mildly insane rage against the story has kept it in the public eye, and has verged on irresponsible.

Read some of the links provided by Marc, the second it was the new york times and cbs, there was wild rage.

Did you read the New York Post story Marc linked to? "The Myth of the 'Missing Explosives': A Shameless Lie"
. Look at the post he just added blaming the IAEA for not cealing the bunkers better.

Its near the election, but the denial and honestly irresponsible response (like the post editorial) against the story has been absurd. The denial and blame shifting has become the story itself.

Donald, for that confirmation, go to the ABC story I cited. Also, as I pointed out on the other thread, these barrels were clearly labeled as military high explosives (UNO Class 1.1 Explosives).

Claude, 1.1 means "Mass explosion hazard" material. It's a HAZMAT shipping label found worldwide on a whole buncha materials, including bulk gunpowder and ammonium nitrate fertilizer. I checked.

Rick, that boxes of ammunition and ordanance at the Al QaQaa plant have the plant name stamped on them doesn't strike me as proof of anything. The seal shown on the one door (that the troopers did not enter) is the best thing I've seen yet, but still doesn't prove much.

The Times should have had all this stuff in hand BEFORE they ran the story, instead of running a Red Queen special. "Sentence first--Verdict afterwards!"

As I predicted, the Pentagon has produced at least one satellite photo of trucks loading up at Al QaQaa bunkers immediately before the invasion. March 17, 2003.

Nick wrote:

"Its near the election, but the denial and honestly irresponsible response (like the post editorial) against the story has been absurd. The denial and blame shifting has become the story itself."

This is what is blowing me away. Russians, Martians, satellites, Rudy G., Syria, Outer Mongolia...

The seal shown on the one door (that the troopers did not enter) is the best thing I've seen yet, but still doesn't prove much.

Here's a little more info about that Tully. From David Kay's interview with Aaron Brown last night:

Well, at least with regard to this one bunker, and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through, and there were others there that were sealed. With this one, I think it is game, set, and match. There was HMX, RDX in there.

And then this:

AB: Was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

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

And then this:

HMX is in powder 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 Qaqaa that was in that form.

I want to see the whole tape, William. We haven't. What I saw on the station web site does not support the wild claims I've heard, or even close. We know there's more tape because we saw stills of things not on the video the station has posted.

Stills: I saw the soldiers pointing at a seal. It well could be an IAEA seal. I didn't see the soldiers breaking any seals, just chains. The context of the mention clearly indicates they didn't enter the sealed bunker. (Nor do I put it past the Iraqis to have "subbed" stuff into the bunkers to get past a cursory inspection.)

I emailed a friend who's ordanance-disposal in the military about the barrel labels. He did time in Bosnia with the UN forces, and in Iraq with his unit. The 1.1D means they're one of about 90 compounds, most of which could be reasonably expected to be found at an ordanance depot and munitions plant (I think we can rule out grain dust...). There is also what appears to be a UN munitions class code scrawled on one that reads "239." I'm trying to find out what that is in the UN code structure. THAT would be a solid indicator. Barrels marked 1.1D EXPLOSIVE are just a vague maybe, given the nature of the location.

Still haven't heard from my friend yet, but I DID find out what UN #239 class 1.1D is. It's nitrostarch, a powder demolition explosive, slightly less powerful than TNT but more easily detonated, and very simple to manufacture. The barrels in the video apparently aren't the missing HMX.

HMX and RDX would be UN#'s 140 to 144, class 1.1D.

A copy of the UN Table of explosives and classification numbers can be found here.