Reply #78: 3 faulty premises, 2 faulty conclusions

[PaganPreacher]

"Premise1: Records show that the only 1.1D explosives stored at AQAQ were RDX and HDX."

False, and never asserted by IAEA or the NYT.

Al Aq was one of the largest military munitions manufacturing and storage facilities in Iraq. Al Aq manufactured SCUD missiles, SAMs, artillery (projos and propellant), small arms ammunition, land mines, mortars, and tank rounds. Several kinds of explosives and propellants were stored on-site.

Some of their explosives and propellants were manufactured at the Al Aq complex, and some were purchased from manufacturers. The shipping classification numbers on the drums in the photos indicate that they were most likely manufactured off-site.

The soldiers who were present at Al Aq reported finding vast quantities of weapons, explosives, and munitions.


"Premise2: This picture shows 1.1D explosives at AQAQ."

Unproven. However, in the absence of evidence that the video is not genuine, I won't dispute that it is legitimate.


"Conclusion: The explosives in the picture were RDX and HDX"

Your first conclusion is not supported by the evidence at this time, and is more likely false based on the flaw in premise #1.


"Premise3: The pictures were taken April 18th"

Unproven, but not disputed. We'll call this one true, unless proven otherwise (a Rovian scheme?)

"Conclusion2: RDX and HDX were present in AQAQ on April 18th"

Another conclusion unsupported by the evidence. All you can conclude at this time is that barrels of some kind of explosive or propellant were stored at Al Aq on 04/18/03. Nothing more (either pro- or con-.)