West Wing Error ? (May 8)

If I heard it right, the ship carrying explosives purportedly to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge was carrying 5000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and 1 gallon of diesel.

The problem here is that 1 gallon of diesel is required for only about 170 pounds of ammonium nitrate. Seems like the writers never bothered to verify the mix ratio.

Or maybe they deliberately got the mix wrong in an effort not to give terrorists too much information. The suggested target, the fort and the bridge, are not particularly vulnerable in that configuration too. The fort was designed to withstand a conventional bombarding, and the bridge is a hundred feet away and lots of steel. In short, the writers were semi responsible in not planning a viable attack.

Something else I was wondering about - Josh came home with a box of smoked moose meat from Finland. I thought moose are strictly a North American beastie. They might have elk in Finland, but do they have moose?

Ah, well. I heard that, too. I’m not an explosives expert so glossed over that in favor of the “Fort Meyer in Maryland” bit.

Sorkin may have been snorting a bit too much this week :smiley:

The moose is found all over the Northern Hemisphere, in Europe, Asia, and North America.

Anyone who’s seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail should very well know that moose are in Northern Europe. :slight_smile:

Can’t believe Sam pulled such an obvious boner, though–and I’m a little dubious about the trumped up suspense of the CJ angle (this from an on-off viewer)

Anybody doubt Mark Harmon is going to die in defense of CJ?

Nah. Wondermutt will save him.

I still don’t get the whole issue with the tape.
First, we have to assume that Seaborn’s friend was the one who secretly gave him the tape. That’s what was implied at least.
Now, assuming this is correct, the plan fails. Two scenarios occur:

  1. West Wing keeps the tape. Sam’s friend has no “proof” that WW has the tape and can’t accuse them of anything.
  2. Sam gives the tape back. But since no one SAW Sam give the tape back, there’s still no proof that WW ever had possession of the tape in the first place. Before the story breaks, any reputable reporter is going to call up someone in the WW and say “hey…this guy on Richie’s campaign in saying you had a tape. Did you?”
    the answer: “what tape? What are you talking about?”
    And how unethical would it be to lie in that situation? Because the only reason you’d be getting a phone call from a reporter in that case is when you were set up in the first place.