My Analysis is Complete: Beirut Explosion was approx 10 Kilotons | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 40072667 United States 08/13/2020 07:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Hydrogen. No one is looking at Hydrogen. Sure a sm hydrogen bomb would need to be smuggled in, for example a converted fuel tanker, but a fuel tanker rigged w hydrogen is about right for that size blast. Especially combined with other onsite explosives. I would expect "construction" underway when that happened. Any witnesses are dead from the blast, or suicided. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35676288 Ever heard of small tactical nuke? It was not a tactical NUKE. READ my posting I did above. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79128512 United States 08/13/2020 07:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Before I detail my conclusion, I will explain some facts regarding Ammonium Nitrate. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79262472 Ammonium nitrate(AN) does not burn on its own. Instead, it acts as a source of oxygen that can accelerate the combustion (buring) of other materials. For combustion to occur, oxygen must be present. Ammonium nitrate prills (industrial term synonymous with pellets) provide a much more concentrated supply of oxygen than the air around us. This is why it is effective in mining explosives, where it's mixed with oil and other fuels. Those bags of AN prills sitting in the Beirut warehouse could not have been mixed with any kind of fuel because the ratio required for an explosive is 94 parts AN and six parts fuel and it needs to be mixed quite thoroughly and homogeneously in order to maximize the explosion. It's relatively difficult for a fire to trigger an ammonium nitrate explosion. The fire would need to be sustained and confined within the same area as the ammonium nitrate prills. Also, the prills themselves are not fuel for the fire, so they would need to be contaminated with, or packaged in, some other combustible material. What some shills have suggested here on GLP is that ammonium nitrate by ITSELF can chemically decompose, which releases the oxygen molecules bound up in the little pellets...this is true, and this release is very energetic...and, under the right circumstances, can be something like an "explosion"...in the same way you can use ordinary compressed air to "blow up" your bicycle tire if you insist on putting 100 psi into it. But this is NOT an explosion...an explosion means that a fuel BURNS...there must be COMBUSTION. AN by itself cannot burn. BUT if you take some AN and pack it into a SEALED container like a pipe, and then heat it up until the material starts decomposing, the release of the oxygen gas inside will cause a massive increase in pressure until the pipe bursts...just like the bicycle tire… Obviously there was no huge pipe in that Beirut warehouse for the AN to be packed into and then heated with the world's biggest blowtorch until the thing exploded. There was also no mixing of all those hundreds of tons of AN bags with any kind of fuel in order to create a HOMOGENOUS combustible mixture… These are the basic PHYSICAL FACTS. Satellite photos online show the devastation for several kilometers from the blast center. Buildings have simply been flattened for literally many hundreds of meters in every direction...that requires a HUGE explosion...in fact even if that entire 3,000 tons of AN was professionally mixed with fuel to make a bomb, it would not be nearly powerful enough to cause the damage seen. I will link to a blast calculator on the UN website where anyone can enter one million or two million or whatever amount of TNT and see immediately how far that kind of blast will cause a destructive OVERPRESSURE: [link to www.un.org (secure)] Also, I will link to a FEMA publication that on page 4-19 has an important Explosive Blast Damage Approximation Chart, which gives estimates of damage relative to destructive overpressure calculated from the UN Blast Calculator: [link to www.fema.gov (secure)] From the photos of the devastation, combined with the blast calculator info, it is clear that the explosion was absolutely huge. By increasing the amount of high explosives in that blast calculator we can see how far such a massive bomb would wreak building damage When I enter 10 million kg of TNT into the Blast Calculator, we see that at a distance [range] of 1000 meters [1 km, about two thirds of a mile] we have about 50 kilopascals of incident pressure, which is about 7 psi...just enough to knock down buildings (according to the FEMA Chart I linked to above. It's pretty obvious from the pictures that the explosion was even bigger than that...the sat photo shows buildings RAZED to the ground for many hundreds of meters. How big was the bomb then? The ten million kg of TNT we entered above is 10 kilotons. Hiroshima was 12 to 15 kilotons. IMO this was a conventional detonation. If it was nuclear, the video camera would have been electronically disabled by the EMP. That said what I found strange, there were two pressure waves you can only see in slow motion. There was the first wave that shook the camera then another wave that blew away the building. So it makes me think there was an unknown detonation that caused the second. There are different pressure wave velocities based upon the type of explosive. High explosive pressure waves travel around 25,000 feet per second. Ammonium nitrate travels around 18,000 feet per second. I suggest there is a possibility the first detonation was from an outside source that initiated the ammonium nitrate explosion because the first blast wave was not very powerful and it arrived before the second blast wave. The first detonation pressure wave was from a very high explosive variety perhaps HMX/TNT type warhead IMO. The cameras weren't electronically disabled during the multiple explosions at Fukushima. Kept rolling right through the incident. The videos have been slowly disappearing off YouTube but some of them might still be out there. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 40072667 United States 08/13/2020 07:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm not privy to any classified info, but it's pretty obvious that the nuclear powers have been working on trying to create pure fusion or near pure fusion devices for the last 70 years. If they did perfect such a thing, they'd never tell if they could help it. There is no hard lower limit on size for a fusion device like there is for fission devices, so small tactical units are a possibility. The radiation signatures would be minimal and mostly prompt radiation without residual. No lingering crap as fallout. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79259631 It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure this out. I'm not convinced that the blast was nuclear, but I do think it's a likely possibility. Those that wanted Lebanon out of the game are most likely to have the means. All valid points worth considering, IMHO. Just hasn’t been proven yet. Considering that, my GOD, nuclear devastation without radiation, so called “pure fusion” bombs I want off. We are fixin to really kill ourselves. So called “winnable” nuclear war No thanks Bodliless I have posted what the cause was in one of my regular threads. The last post in this one... and it is factual....what this Italian guy thought. Thread: General Collection of Material Around Corruption (Page 4) |
Reaching
User ID: 78368478 United States 08/13/2020 07:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You can see the flash from most of the video angles. Use a high quality source and scrub video just before the explosion. Very bright light source, extremely bright in fact. Quoting: N3m3s1s [link to wordpress.mrreid.org] “ The variation in the brightness of the light emitted by a nuclear explosion follows a distinct pattern. It is possible to build light sources that are as powerful as nuclear explosions, or to produce light sources that have the same double flash characteristics, but not to produce a source with both characteristics. Thus the nuclear double flash is taken as irrefutable evidence that a nuclear explosion has taken place.” Cleanest footage I have seen so far: This is the frame you are looking for from that footage. [link to i.postimg.cc (secure)] In this picture, on the right 1/2 of the pic there are 3-primary buildings. The black building furthest in the back was vaporized immediately following the building. Perhaps someone with better viewing equipment than I have can argue this point; but I remember after I saw this particular video that I immediately came to the conclusion that whatever vaporized that building had the same force as the mini-nukes used on 9-11, as there is a very well known video of one of the towers having a few remaining steel girders still standing, maybe 50-floors high or more; and in the span of 2 or 3 seconds, you see those steel girders vaporize. What could cause steel to vaporize that way? Also, I thought there was a good argument to be made that a submerged torpedo could have been the trigger, as evidenced by the open water side of the crater having been breached in and out of the crater. Another point - for the people trying to mock any aspersion directed toward Israel; one would have to been buried under a rock for the last 75-years to not know at least enough history of the Middle East and the relentless, egregious efforts Israel has conducted to destroy all its' enemies, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, the U.S., and others come to mind. Therefore, you would have to be seeing the world through rose-colored glasses to not question Who has the motive, Who has the means, Who has the capability, Who is in close proximity, Who desires to stamp out all those that would imagine a world without Israel front and center. Maybe it was them, maybe not; but you would be a fool or puppet to not investigate it further. |
Pilgrim001
User ID: 78018011 United States 08/13/2020 07:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Before I detail my conclusion, I will explain some facts regarding Ammonium Nitrate. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79262472 Ammonium nitrate(AN) does not burn on its own. Instead, it acts as a source of oxygen that can accelerate the combustion (buring) of other materials. For combustion to occur, oxygen must be present. Ammonium nitrate prills (industrial term synonymous with pellets) provide a much more concentrated supply of oxygen than the air around us. This is why it is effective in mining explosives, where it's mixed with oil and other fuels. Those bags of AN prills sitting in the Beirut warehouse could not have been mixed with any kind of fuel because the ratio required for an explosive is 94 parts AN and six parts fuel and it needs to be mixed quite thoroughly and homogeneously in order to maximize the explosion. It's relatively difficult for a fire to trigger an ammonium nitrate explosion. The fire would need to be sustained and confined within the same area as the ammonium nitrate prills. Also, the prills themselves are not fuel for the fire, so they would need to be contaminated with, or packaged in, some other combustible material. What some shills have suggested here on GLP is that ammonium nitrate by ITSELF can chemically decompose, which releases the oxygen molecules bound up in the little pellets...this is true, and this release is very energetic...and, under the right circumstances, can be something like an "explosion"...in the same way you can use ordinary compressed air to "blow up" your bicycle tire if you insist on putting 100 psi into it. But this is NOT an explosion...an explosion means that a fuel BURNS...there must be COMBUSTION. AN by itself cannot burn. BUT if you take some AN and pack it into a SEALED container like a pipe, and then heat it up until the material starts decomposing, the release of the oxygen gas inside will cause a massive increase in pressure until the pipe bursts...just like the bicycle tire… Obviously there was no huge pipe in that Beirut warehouse for the AN to be packed into and then heated with the world's biggest blowtorch until the thing exploded. There was also no mixing of all those hundreds of tons of AN bags with any kind of fuel in order to create a HOMOGENOUS combustible mixture… These are the basic PHYSICAL FACTS. Satellite photos online show the devastation for several kilometers from the blast center. Buildings have simply been flattened for literally many hundreds of meters in every direction...that requires a HUGE explosion...in fact even if that entire 3,000 tons of AN was professionally mixed with fuel to make a bomb, it would not be nearly powerful enough to cause the damage seen. I will link to a blast calculator on the UN website where anyone can enter one million or two million or whatever amount of TNT and see immediately how far that kind of blast will cause a destructive OVERPRESSURE: [link to www.un.org (secure)] Also, I will link to a FEMA publication that on page 4-19 has an important Explosive Blast Damage Approximation Chart, which gives estimates of damage relative to destructive overpressure calculated from the UN Blast Calculator: [link to www.fema.gov (secure)] From the photos of the devastation, combined with the blast calculator info, it is clear that the explosion was absolutely huge. By increasing the amount of high explosives in that blast calculator we can see how far such a massive bomb would wreak building damage When I enter 10 million kg of TNT into the Blast Calculator, we see that at a distance [range] of 1000 meters [1 km, about two thirds of a mile] we have about 50 kilopascals of incident pressure, which is about 7 psi...just enough to knock down buildings (according to the FEMA Chart I linked to above. It's pretty obvious from the pictures that the explosion was even bigger than that...the sat photo shows buildings RAZED to the ground for many hundreds of meters. How big was the bomb then? The ten million kg of TNT we entered above is 10 kilotons. Hiroshima was 12 to 15 kilotons. Trump came out and said, "Our generals said it was an attack." Something to the effect of we can tell by looking, which should have been a "no shit" moment. How this is not more of a story should raise an eyebrow. I have an engineering background but don't have a background in explosives. That said, were I into explosives, my bet would be that the footage of the explosion along with the ambient air temperature and pressure with the relative humidity that day might be enough to determine the strength of the explosion. The giant water vapor ball produced by the explosion extends out to where the pressure produced was no longer enough to condense the moisture to a cloud. So one could easily determine the force of the blast tracing back from there. Even if there was a hydrogen and oxygen reaction as the source of the explosion, the water vapor produced would not expand or outpace the pressure wave. At least that's my guess. This would not take much to calculate, and we can be sure our military is all over that, even though a hobbyist or meteorologist could just as easily be. My guess was tactical nuke or something on that level, ours, Israel's, or Russia's, with neither us or Russia doing anything without the other knowing. That means most likely that everyone knows who did it, and why and ain't nobody doing or saying shit about it, for now. Would that be mini-nuke #4? One at the railway station in NK, two in basements of bldg 1 & 2 WTC and #4 in beruit. #5 if they used one on bldg #7 WTC. They should be getting pretty good at making these. Last Edited by Bennder on 08/13/2020 07:43 PM I don't have the time or the crayons to explain this to you. Slake Blake |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18972958 United States 08/13/2020 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | thanks. I'm not an expert but know a little about explosives Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77878787 and was quite skeptical that 2700 tons could detonate in such a homogeneous fashion. There's air gaps and erratic distances between bags, etc. It would most likely have been a set of smaller explosions, one after another. . You'd also need a fuel source - hence why diesel or kerosene. You don't though. Tannerite is just AN mixed with a sensitizer so you can use a bullet to detonate it rather than needing a blasting cap. Your post (and others, like BFD's) will be ignored by all the others since it doesn't fit their belief system, so only things they state as "FACTS" are relevant to them even if they're not really facts. OP and many others do not understand the difference between "burn" and "detonate". The OP does not even understand what a "detonation" is, or apparently what "high explosives" are. So his whole "analysis" is based on basic misunderstandings. AN can detonate without being mixed with fuel. The red cloud was from the AN being heated, which causes decomposition reaction (nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, water), which what was going on before it detonated. Technically it doesn't "burn", but undergoes a different reaction under heat. Heated AN can lead to a detonation. . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18972958 United States 08/13/2020 07:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The cameras weren't electronically disabled during the multiple explosions at Fukushima. Kept rolling right through the incident. Quoting: Constant Parad0x The videos have been slowly disappearing off YouTube but some of them might still be out there. The explosions at Fukushima were not nuclear fission or fusion explosions, so in general they would not produce a NEMP. . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79197686 United Kingdom 08/13/2020 07:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | thanks. I'm not an expert but know a little about explosives Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77878787 and was quite skeptical that 2700 tons could detonate in such a homogeneous fashion. There's air gaps and erratic distances between bags, etc. It would most likely have been a set of smaller explosions, one after another. . One red flag in the official story is the alleged instant detonation of 2,700 tons simultaneously, not over a few minutes even. Zero delay. Even weapons + AN would go off over a few minutes. The ammonium nitrate was contaminated, also there was a flash fire above it, which caused the AM to become super-heated, thats why it all exploded together. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79197686 United Kingdom 08/13/2020 07:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | thanks. I'm not an expert but know a little about explosives Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77878787 and was quite skeptical that 2700 tons could detonate in such a homogeneous fashion. There's air gaps and erratic distances between bags, etc. It would most likely have been a set of smaller explosions, one after another. . You'd also need a fuel source - hence why diesel or kerosene. You don't though. Tannerite is just AN mixed with a sensitizer so you can use a bullet to detonate it rather than needing a blasting cap. Your post (and others, like BFD's) will be ignored by all the others since it doesn't fit their belief system, so only things they state as "FACTS" are relevant to them even if they're not really facts. OP and many others do not understand the difference between "burn" and "detonate". The OP does not even understand what a "detonation" is, or apparently what "high explosives" are. So his whole "analysis" is based on basic misunderstandings. AN can detonate without being mixed with fuel. The red cloud was from the AN being heated, which causes decomposition reaction (nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, water), which what was going on before it detonated. Technically it doesn't "burn", but undergoes a different reaction under heat. Heated AN can lead to a detonation. . The AN was super-heated due to the flash fire, which caused it to detonate. Sorry folks as much as you would love the fantastical idea that it was a nuclear weapon. It just was not. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79255582 Canada 08/13/2020 08:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What kind of explosion would you get if a catalyst device was introduced to the NH4NO3 designed to separate the elements in such a way as to release large quantities of hydrogen for a period of time then detonate? Could there be a way to perform such a chemical change to the pellets themselves so they become tiny hydrogen explosive pellets? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18972958 United States 08/13/2020 08:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The ammonium nitrate was contaminated, also there was a flash fire above it, which caused the AM to become super-heated, thats why it all exploded together. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79197686 Also, only a small part needs to detonate, once a small detonation has initiated a shock wave, it can initiate even less sensitive material to detonate and even at quite a distance. This is the obvious way blasting caps work, although the cap explodes to initiate the detonation. . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78109443 United States 08/13/2020 08:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This military manual says that a surface explosion of 1 kiloton of TNT in wet sand (softest scenario) should be about 450 ft in diameter. Quoting: BFD The Beirut crater is about 420 ft in diameter. Considering the 2700 tons of ammonium nitrate and the ratio of something like .4 to 1 for an vs. tnt... this sounds about right. Thread: Crater dimensions for 1-kt TNT or nuclear In wet sand soil type [link to ibb.co (secure)] [link to apps.dtic.mil (secure)] Yes, but it wasn’t TNT in the building and as stated by OP AN needs a fuel to go through it’s chemical reaction completely. BTW, calculated what the volume of a KT of TNT is and it’s equivalent to 603 cubic meters at a density of 1.654 G/CM3 Let that sink in for a minute. 603 cubic meters of TNT 600 is only 60 x 10. That is easily believable, check out these photos of the storage situation. [link to metro.co.uk (secure)] As far as the primary charge is concerned, that could have been achieved a few ways, but the actual 1-2 kiloton blast was most likely fueled by the AN stored there. The numbers work out very well with the military study on craters. |
Greenvalley
User ID: 76339908 United States 08/13/2020 08:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Why are there no fire fighters in any of the videos while the warehouse burned for over 25 minutes? This should be a big clue of who's is responsible. And I think it was mentioned that the fire fighters weren't given the proper location, but how could they not see all the smoke when people from over 25 kilometers away were video recording it? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 13577537 Denmark 08/13/2020 08:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18972958 United States 08/13/2020 08:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 600 is only 60 x 10. Quoting: BFD That is easily believable, check out these photos of the storage situation. [link to apnews.com (secure)] As far as the primary charge is concerned, that could have been achieved a few ways, but the actual 1-2 kiloton blast was most likely fueled by the AN stored there. The numbers work out very well with the military study on craters. 600 cubic meters is only 6 x 10 x 10. Next we can work on the OP's blast tonnage math. . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78617574 United States 08/13/2020 08:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79208687 United Kingdom 08/13/2020 08:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What was the majority of architecture at Hiroshima and Nagasaki constructed from? Many buildings were lightweight, wooden. Those cities were tinder boxes in comparison to Beirut's modern day construction. As pointed out by other posters, they were also above ground detonations, central to the targets. To say 'look at the aftermath of those explosions and the damage caused to the landscape in comparison to Beirut is pointless. Why do posts contesting the OP's view on threads such as these always have the same formula - a repeat of the official line + 'You're an idiot' or a brief, stating of a plausible sounding, yet still conjecture rebuttal theory + 'You're an idiot'. Generally people of reasonable intelligence are not afraid of rival competing theories, and are welcoming of them. They also don't tend to call people idiots because they disagree with their ideas. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77686247 United States 08/13/2020 08:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thanks OP, very good analysis and I bookmarked your thread. What chance do you think there is the bomb was a thermobaric bomb? Quoting: Blenderizer A nuke would have left a radiation signature picked up by satellite. Seems to me the explosion and damage could have been done by a thermobaric bomb. The next question is why? why? someone wanted the damage the port. this us something to do with estimated 1/2 odf word's supply of natural gas found in the area. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 20510505 United States 08/13/2020 08:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Fence Rider
User ID: 40535158 United States 08/13/2020 08:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Before I detail my conclusion, I will explain some facts regarding Ammonium Nitrate. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79262472 Ammonium nitrate(AN) does not burn on its own. Instead, it acts as a source of oxygen that can accelerate the combustion (buring) of other materials. For combustion to occur, oxygen must be present. Ammonium nitrate prills (industrial term synonymous with pellets) provide a much more concentrated supply of oxygen than the air around us. This is why it is effective in mining explosives, where it's mixed with oil and other fuels. Those bags of AN prills sitting in the Beirut warehouse could not have been mixed with any kind of fuel because the ratio required for an explosive is 94 parts AN and six parts fuel and it needs to be mixed quite thoroughly and homogeneously in order to maximize the explosion. It's relatively difficult for a fire to trigger an ammonium nitrate explosion. The fire would need to be sustained and confined within the same area as the ammonium nitrate prills. Also, the prills themselves are not fuel for the fire, so they would need to be contaminated with, or packaged in, some other combustible material. What some shills have suggested here on GLP is that ammonium nitrate by ITSELF can chemically decompose, which releases the oxygen molecules bound up in the little pellets...this is true, and this release is very energetic...and, under the right circumstances, can be something like an "explosion"...in the same way you can use ordinary compressed air to "blow up" your bicycle tire if you insist on putting 100 psi into it. But this is NOT an explosion...an explosion means that a fuel BURNS...there must be COMBUSTION. AN by itself cannot burn. BUT if you take some AN and pack it into a SEALED container like a pipe, and then heat it up until the material starts decomposing, the release of the oxygen gas inside will cause a massive increase in pressure until the pipe bursts...just like the bicycle tire… Obviously there was no huge pipe in that Beirut warehouse for the AN to be packed into and then heated with the world's biggest blowtorch until the thing exploded. There was also no mixing of all those hundreds of tons of AN bags with any kind of fuel in order to create a HOMOGENOUS combustible mixture… These are the basic PHYSICAL FACTS. Satellite photos online show the devastation for several kilometers from the blast center. Buildings have simply been flattened for literally many hundreds of meters in every direction...that requires a HUGE explosion...in fact even if that entire 3,000 tons of AN was professionally mixed with fuel to make a bomb, it would not be nearly powerful enough to cause the damage seen. I will link to a blast calculator on the UN website where anyone can enter one million or two million or whatever amount of TNT and see immediately how far that kind of blast will cause a destructive OVERPRESSURE: [link to www.un.org (secure)] Also, I will link to a FEMA publication that on page 4-19 has an important Explosive Blast Damage Approximation Chart, which gives estimates of damage relative to destructive overpressure calculated from the UN Blast Calculator: [link to www.fema.gov (secure)] From the photos of the devastation, combined with the blast calculator info, it is clear that the explosion was absolutely huge. By increasing the amount of high explosives in that blast calculator we can see how far such a massive bomb would wreak building damage When I enter 10 million kg of TNT into the Blast Calculator, we see that at a distance [range] of 1000 meters [1 km, about two thirds of a mile] we have about 50 kilopascals of incident pressure, which is about 7 psi...just enough to knock down buildings (according to the FEMA Chart I linked to above. It's pretty obvious from the pictures that the explosion was even bigger than that...the sat photo shows buildings RAZED to the ground for many hundreds of meters. How big was the bomb then? The ten million kg of TNT we entered above is 10 kilotons. Hiroshima was 12 to 15 kilotons. Trump came out and said, "Our generals said it was an attack." Something to the effect of we can tell by looking, which should have been a "no shit" moment. How this is not more of a story should raise an eyebrow. I have an engineering background but don't have a background in explosives. That said, were I into explosives, my bet would be that the footage of the explosion along with the ambient air temperature and pressure with the relative humidity that day might be enough to determine the strength of the explosion. The giant water vapor ball produced by the explosion extends out to where the pressure produced was no longer enough to condense the moisture to a cloud. So one could easily determine the force of the blast tracing back from there. Even if there was a hydrogen and oxygen reaction as the source of the explosion, the water vapor produced would not expand or outpace the pressure wave. At least that's my guess. This would not take much to calculate, and we can be sure our military is all over that, even though a hobbyist or meteorologist could just as easily be. My guess was tactical nuke or something on that level, ours, Israel's, or Russia's, with neither us or Russia doing anything without the other knowing. That means most likely that everyone knows who did it, and why and ain't nobody doing or saying shit about it, for now. Would that be mini-nuke #4? One at the railway station in NK, two in basements of bldg 1 & 2 WTC and #4 in beruit. #5 if they used one on bldg #7 WTC. They should be getting pretty good at making these. Maybe one at NK railway, only because I have nothing to go on, but WTC buildings were all conventional controled demolition explosives. I should clarify that I say tactical nuke OR SOMETHING ON THAT LEVEL. |
Rodulf User ID: 75873906 United States 08/13/2020 08:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | thanks. I'm not an expert but know a little about explosives Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77878787 and was quite skeptical that 2700 tons could detonate in such a homogeneous fashion. There's air gaps and erratic distances between bags, etc. It would most likely have been a set of smaller explosions, one after another. . One red flag in the official story is the alleged instant detonation of 2,700 tons simultaneously, not over a few minutes even. Zero delay. Even weapons + AN would go off over a few minutes. Except that it has happened this way before, several times, with exactly the same results. I don't know who you are but your statement is horseshit. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75311439 United States 08/13/2020 08:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | “ Smaller blasts preceded massive Beirut blast - Israeli seismologist” [link to www.jpost.com (secure)] |
Rodulf User ID: 75873906 United States 08/13/2020 08:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The ammonium nitrate was contaminated, also there was a flash fire above it, which caused the AM to become super-heated, thats why it all exploded together. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79197686 Also, only a small part needs to detonate, once a small detonation has initiated a shock wave, it can initiate even less sensitive material to detonate and even at quite a distance. This is the obvious way blasting caps work, although the cap explodes to initiate the detonation. . BS. Initiation doesn't work like that. To cause that large of a pile to detonate would require several detonators. Otherwise the first ignition would blow the other material away without detonation. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 46432626 United States 08/13/2020 08:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
facts User ID: 79263586 Estonia 08/13/2020 08:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ookie
User ID: 12226455 United States 08/13/2020 09:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 10 Kiloton? No way. Not even close. nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap for blast simulation internet for body count and damage pictures |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78629642 Canada 08/13/2020 09:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | thanks. I'm not an expert but know a little about explosives Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77878787 and was quite skeptical that 2700 tons could detonate in such a homogeneous fashion. There's air gaps and erratic distances between bags, etc. It would most likely have been a set of smaller explosions, one after another. . The Beirut blast flipped cars, blew out doors, broke windows and caused walls to collapse within five kilometres of the blast and reportedly broke windows as far away as nine or 10 kilometres from the Beirut port. How much explosive power does it take to break windows 10 kilometers away? We see from the FEMA chart for overpressure that it takes about 0.2 psi to break windows...that's about 1.5 kilopascals. When I eneter blast parameters at 10 km for a 20 kiloton TNT explosion, we see incident overpressure just a little above that required to break windows at 10 km distance. We we enter blast parameters for 2,750 tons of TNT into the blast calculator - and assuming here that it was professionally mixed with fuel in order to make a bomb similar to TNT [which of course wasn't the case, but let's pretend it was] - we see that the calculator only goes as far as 5,604 meters in this case...farther than that and the shockwave peters out and there will be no building damage or broken windows. At 5,000m, which is five kilometers we get just barely enough overpressure to break windows [2.76 kPa, 0.4 psi]...that's only HALF the distance of the recorded broken windows 10 km away. What we see here is absolute PROOF that even if we are to believe that the entire 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate was mixed precisely with fuel to make an explosive equivalent to TNT...it would NOT be powerful enough to do the damage seen. We see also that this is nowhere near powerful enough to cause walls to collapse at 5km distance...that would take at least 5 psi even for wood framed buildings, as per the FEMA overpressure Chart...that is more than TEN TIMES higher than the 0.4 psi we have at 5km. There can be no arguing with this hard science: the bomb in Beirut was a LOT bigger than 2,750 tons of even TNT. OK, If a nuke was really responsible for the blast, then where are all the reports about flash burns and radiation sickness caused by the fallout that would have fallen on large parts of Beirut within 20 - 30 minutes of the explosion? And how is it possible that a picture of the blast site published by the Times of Israel days after the blast shows earthmoving machines, and construction/clean-up workers on the ground at the site? If a nuke really was responsible for the blast, then the blast site would be too radioactive to allow anyone to work there for a long time to come. Yes, radiation decays, but not that quickly at ground zero. Occam’s Razor is a construct that says the simplest answer is the most likely one, therefore the blast was caused by the detonation of ammonium nitrate. Any other explanation fails because it forces you to induce, not deduce, additional details to explain what happened. Inductive reasoning is always fallacious. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74827762 United States 08/13/2020 09:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Another point - for the people trying to mock any aspersion directed toward Israel; one would have to been buried under a rock for the last 75-years to not know at least enough history of the Middle East and the relentless, egregious efforts Israel has conducted to destroy all its' enemies, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, the U.S., and others come to mind. Therefore, you would have to be seeing the world through rose-colored glasses to not question Who has the motive, Who has the means, Who has the capability, Who is in close proximity, Who desires to stamp out all those that would imagine a world without Israel front and center. Maybe it was them, maybe not; but you would be a fool or puppet to not investigate it further. Quoting: Reaching If the Israelis somehow set up the blast, then they must have major collaborators in the Lebanese government. If public officials in Beirut had even a slight suspicion that a foreign actor - such as Israel - set them up, then why did those officials push the line that the explosion was due to old supplies of Ammonium Nitrates going "baroom!"? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74827762 United States 08/13/2020 09:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OK, If a nuke was really responsible for the blast, then where are all the reports about flash burns and radiation sickness caused by the fallout that would have fallen on large parts of Beirut within 20 - 30 minutes of the explosion? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78629642 To me it's a given that it wasn't a nuclear blast. If it were, the evidence would have been so obvious that even a housewife in Muncie, Indiana could have detected it. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 79262472 United States 08/13/2020 09:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What was the majority of architecture at Hiroshima and Nagasaki constructed from? Many buildings were lightweight, wooden. Those cities were tinder boxes in comparison to Beirut's modern day construction. As pointed out by other posters, they were also above ground detonations, central to the targets. To say 'look at the aftermath of those explosions and the damage caused to the landscape in comparison to Beirut is pointless. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79208687 Why do posts contesting the OP's view on threads such as these always have the same formula - a repeat of the official line + 'You're an idiot' or a brief, stating of a plausible sounding, yet still conjecture rebuttal theory + 'You're an idiot'. Generally people of reasonable intelligence are not afraid of rival competing theories, and are welcoming of them. They also don't tend to call people idiots because they disagree with their ideas. Everyone citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to discredit Beirut, are failing to mention that those WWII nukes detonated 600m (in the case of Hiroshima) above the ground. That was by design and in order to inflict orders of magnitude greater damage than a nuke that detonated after impacting the ground. |