Beirut hit by massive explosion wounding several and damaging buildings

Beirut Explosion: Aerial Video Reveals Full Extent of Damage


A short 1 min clip of drone footage from the area after the explosion.

Footage of destruction from a helicopter, this is a major disaster. The main crater at the warehouse measures in at 150m across which is nigh on impossible to imagine.

twitter.com...

At least 300,000 homeless, 4000 injured and 100 dead with the toll expected to rise dramatically. In good news a couple of people have been found alive and concious in the rubble.

Footage of the explosion tearing through the BBC Beruit offices while they were conducting a live interview - somehow they're all alive and accounted for. twitter.com...

originally posted by: angelchemuel
Just mulling moving forwards, regardless of whether this was an accident or planned.

Too right The previous day to the incident the Israeli's bombed Hezbollah sites in Syria then Bibi told Lebanon to expect the same for Hezbollah sites there. Next day this explosion happens, I dunno about coincidences but I've seen no other attacks which were promised on Lebanon by the IDF occur, but this did happen, erm something's fishy here especially when Bibi to Hezbollah they were going to be targeted. It's usually warehouses storing Hezbollah / Iranian weaponry being taken out by the IDF at the moment in Syria........... Then there's this storage facility in Lebanon going up in flames, it's a bit of a coincidence but we'll probably never know the truth

Been toying with other ideas maybe this is ISIS taking revenge on Hezbollah / Lebanon for pushing them away from their take over of Syria? Could well be an attempt by ISIS to try and forment some insurgency by the Sunni's in Lebanon especially at this time when Lebanon is crippled economically?

originally posted by: penroc3

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: face23785

who said it was a nuke?

Did you read the thread. Several people have suggested it could be nuclear.

i honestly must have missed it, this thread is growing pretty fast.

what do you think the small explosions were before the big detonation?

why would the US pres say that if it wasnt true, surly he has better intel than most 'DoD officials' making statements to the press

Again, this was very early on. It's also Trump we're talking about. He jumps the gun and spread unconfirmed stuff a lot. I can imagine it going something like this:

Advisor: "Mr. President, there's been an explosion in Beirut. Details are sketchy right now."

Trump: "Could it have been a terrorist attack?"

Advisor: "It's possible, but we really don't know much yet."

-Trump sees the press a little while later, still not having heard any additional details-

Trump (to press): "Yeah, they told me it was an attack."

Tell me that's not very Trumpesque?

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: charlyv

This is not just your average Arab shipping port. Is it supposed to be world class because of all the different ships loading and unloading there. It is above stupid to have these kinds of materials in close proximity there, and it is so bad, perhaps it was planned that way and few knew about it.

This was such a violation of maritime ergonomics and safety that if any of the major shippers that frequented the place, knew it was being run like that, they would make it public knowledge and boycotted the place until it was fixed.

It will be interesting to hear the story from the management in charge of the port, if they are still alive.

People are "above stupid" and violate safety protocols all the time. That's how these kinds of accidents happen. You'll hear this over and over in HAZMAT training. Most of these kinds of accidents/disasters are caused by negligence and/or human error, and an unlikely sequence of events.

Like I used to tell my Airmen, just because you can't imagine something happening doesn't mean it can't. Real life is more imaginative than you are.

In a smaller, unprofessional port, I would agree, however this is the big time and the kind of person that would be in charge of an operation like this would understand HAZMAT protocols and never have this kind of material near an active load and unload station. Something is fishy for sure, or it was a planned attack? Lots more info will come out.

Sorry, that's just not a realistic take. Things go wrong in the most professional organizations. Surely you remember the U.S. Air Force transporting live nuclear warheads around the country without any security and safety precautions about 10 years ago? How did that happen? Human error and negligence. Luckily no accident occurred. But just because a place is "professional" doesn't mean it's immune to human factors. I would know, I'm an Air Force vet.

Fireworks and ammonium nitrate appear to have been the fuel that ignited a massive explosion that rocked the Lebanese capital of Beirut, experts and videos of the blast suggest.
A previous poster posted the picture of the Nitropill HD 1000KG, from the google maps you can see the size of the warehouse 2700 tons of it double stacked. That's what happens when it ignites all at once.
Essentially that amount is like a small nuke.
This is the same stuff used in the Oklahoma city bombing
"On September 30, 1994, Nichols bought forty 50-pound (23 kg) bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer from Mid-Kansas Coop in McPherson, Kansas, enough to fertilize 12.5 acres (5.1 hectares) of farmland at a rate of 160 pounds (73 kg) of nitrogen per acre (.4 ha), an amount commonly used for corn"
Basically that is just over only one of those 1000 Kg bags

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: face23785

who said it was a nuke?

Did you read the thread. Several people have suggested it could be nuclear.

i honestly must have missed it, this thread is growing pretty fast.

what do you think the small explosions were before the big detonation?

why would the US pres say that if it wasnt true, surly he has better intel than most 'DoD officials' making statements to the press

Again, this was very early on. It's also Trump we're talking about. He jumps the gun and spread unconfirmed stuff a lot. I can imagine it going something like this:

Advisor: "Mr. President, there's been an explosion in Beirut. Details are sketchy right now."

Trump: "Could it have been a terrorist attack?"

Advisor: "It's possible, but we really don't know much yet."

-Trump sees the press a little while later, still not having heard any additional details-

Trump (to press): "Yeah, they told me it was an attack."

Tell me that's not very Trumpesque?

It was a planned attack/assassination to take out Secretary-General Nazar Najarian....similar to the attack in 2005 in the same area.

Vlad might well be behind the bombings. It's a possibility with the Belorussian elections taking place today. Vlad let them off to divert the media away from the elections, if they go the wrong way towards a western orientated take over of Belarus, Vlad will have to invade like as in eastern Ukraine to keep NATO away from Russia itself. Belarus is the main buffer state for Russia in eastern Europe, if little green men start cropping up all over the place it's a sign Vlad did the deed

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: face23785

who said it was a nuke?

Did you read the thread. Several people have suggested it could be nuclear.

i honestly must have missed it, this thread is growing pretty fast.

what do you think the small explosions were before the big detonation?

why would the US pres say that if it wasnt true, surly he has better intel than most 'DoD officials' making statements to the press

Again, this was very early on. It's also Trump we're talking about. He jumps the gun and spread unconfirmed stuff a lot. I can imagine it going something like this:

Advisor: "Mr. President, there's been an explosion in Beirut. Details are sketchy right now."

Trump: "Could it have been a terrorist attack?"

Advisor: "It's possible, but we really don't know much yet."

-Trump sees the press a little while later, still not having heard any additional details-

Trump (to press): "Yeah, they told me it was an attack."

Tell me that's not very Trumpesque?

It was a planned attack/assassination to take out Secretary-General Nazar Najarian....similar to the attack in 2005 in the same area.

That's preposterous. Sure, we have to destroy half a city to get one guy.

You guys really need to put your thinking caps on.

ETA: Maybe THIS is why ATS is going downhill. The quality of conspiracy theories here is horrible anymore. "Here's my pet theory with zero evidence, but it's not physically impossible so we must take it seriously!"

Saw this on Facebook this morning. I can't confirm it's legit, although it does look like the area in question.



And yeah, I can hear it now: "It looks like a bomb crater, so it must've been a bomb!"

This place really does deserve to die.

a reply to: face23785

Even before you posted that picture, that was the building I thought was storing the Nitropill HD 1000KG, now confirmed.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: face23785

who said it was a nuke?

Did you read the thread. Several people have suggested it could be nuclear.

i honestly must have missed it, this thread is growing pretty fast.

what do you think the small explosions were before the big detonation?

why would the US pres say that if it wasnt true, surly he has better intel than most 'DoD officials' making statements to the press

Again, this was very early on. It's also Trump we're talking about. He jumps the gun and spread unconfirmed stuff a lot. I can imagine it going something like this:

Advisor: "Mr. President, there's been an explosion in Beirut. Details are sketchy right now."

Trump: "Could it have been a terrorist attack?"

Advisor: "It's possible, but we really don't know much yet."

-Trump sees the press a little while later, still not having heard any additional details-

Trump (to press): "Yeah, they told me it was an attack."

Tell me that's not very Trumpesque?

It was a planned attack/assassination to take out Secretary-General Nazar Najarian....similar to the attack in 2005 in the same area.

That's preposterous. Sure, we have to destroy half a city to get one guy.

You guys really need to put your thinking caps on.

ETA: Maybe THIS is why ATS is going downhill. The quality of conspiracy theories here is horrible anymore. "Here's my pet theory with zero evidence, but it's not physically impossible so we must take it seriously!"

Preposterous? Do you even know about the 2005 assassination? ATS is going downhill because of folks that don't do their homework. You should do some.....let me know how preposterous it sounds after you read about the one in 2005.....

a reply to: bastion

That second video you linked, from the BBC office interview gave me the chills. Like something out of a movie!

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: face23785

who said it was a nuke?

Did you read the thread. Several people have suggested it could be nuclear.

i honestly must have missed it, this thread is growing pretty fast.

what do you think the small explosions were before the big detonation?

why would the US pres say that if it wasnt true, surly he has better intel than most 'DoD officials' making statements to the press

Again, this was very early on. It's also Trump we're talking about. He jumps the gun and spread unconfirmed stuff a lot. I can imagine it going something like this:

Advisor: "Mr. President, there's been an explosion in Beirut. Details are sketchy right now."

Trump: "Could it have been a terrorist attack?"

Advisor: "It's possible, but we really don't know much yet."

-Trump sees the press a little while later, still not having heard any additional details-

Trump (to press): "Yeah, they told me it was an attack."

Tell me that's not very Trumpesque?

It was a planned attack/assassination to take out Secretary-General Nazar Najarian....similar to the attack in 2005 in the same area.

That's preposterous. Sure, we have to destroy half a city to get one guy.

You guys really need to put your thinking caps on.

ETA: Maybe THIS is why ATS is going downhill. The quality of conspiracy theories here is horrible anymore. "Here's my pet theory with zero evidence, but it's not physically impossible so we must take it seriously!"

Preposterous? Do you even know about the 2005 assassination? ATS is going downhill because of folks that don't do their homework. You should do some.....let me know how preposterous it sounds after you read about the one in 2005.....

It's preposterous because you literally made it up out of thin air. There's zero indication that that's what happened.

You caused the explosion. I have just as much evidence for that as you do that it was an assassination.

Zero is always equal to zero.

ETA: And for the record, this is way bigger than the 2005 incident. The two are not comparable.

I slowed the video down of the person that lost their life down to quarter speed. You can see just how amazing the power of this explosion is.



Edit: If anyone has a particular video they want slowed down let me know which one. Then I'll post it.

a reply to: face23785

Those Before and After pics definitely look like the same spot. The size of that crater. Geesh. Someone linked a video from a drone surveying the area today. The blast was devastating

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: face23785

who said it was a nuke?

Did you read the thread. Several people have suggested it could be nuclear.

i honestly must have missed it, this thread is growing pretty fast.

what do you think the small explosions were before the big detonation?

why would the US pres say that if it wasnt true, surly he has better intel than most 'DoD officials' making statements to the press

Again, this was very early on. It's also Trump we're talking about. He jumps the gun and spread unconfirmed stuff a lot. I can imagine it going something like this:

Advisor: "Mr. President, there's been an explosion in Beirut. Details are sketchy right now."

Trump: "Could it have been a terrorist attack?"

Advisor: "It's possible, but we really don't know much yet."

-Trump sees the press a little while later, still not having heard any additional details-

Trump (to press): "Yeah, they told me it was an attack."

Tell me that's not very Trumpesque?

It was a planned attack/assassination to take out Secretary-General Nazar Najarian....similar to the attack in 2005 in the same area.

That's preposterous. Sure, we have to destroy half a city to get one guy.

You guys really need to put your thinking caps on.

ETA: Maybe THIS is why ATS is going downhill. The quality of conspiracy theories here is horrible anymore. "Here's my pet theory with zero evidence, but it's not physically impossible so we must take it seriously!"

Preposterous? Do you even know about the 2005 assassination? ATS is going downhill because of folks that don't do their homework. You should do some.....let me know how preposterous it sounds after you read about the one in 2005.....

It's preposterous because you literally made it up out of thin air. There's zero indication that that's what happened.

You caused the explosion. I have just as much evidence for that as you do that it was an assassination.

Zero is always equal to zero.

ETA: And for the record, this is way bigger than the 2005 incident. The two are not comparable.

So...the Secretary General of the party now led by the son of Rafik Hariri (2005 assassination) is killed in a explosion in the exact same area as the previous assassination.....quite the coincidence.

As far as size of explosion being bigger......yes it was. Very astute of you. Does that make it less palatable? That some groups are just evil enough to kill hundreds or thousands to knock out a target and make a point?

Keep doing homework......you may get there at some point.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

So your evidence is that it's a coincidence.

Someone sure does need to do their homework, and it ain't me...

Very much an Industrial accident albeit a very powerful one, the RE (relative equivalence) for AN to TNT is 2.38 kilos of AN = 1 Kilo of TNT so the explosive power of the AN comes out at roughly 1.115 Kilotons. As we all have seen, there was an initial red fire-cloud and then the big detonation, very much like a fuel air detonation the first large explosion lifted and dispersed the AN and subsequently provided the ignition source, throw in a few tons of hydrocarbons from fireworks and god knows what else they stored there and you have the perfect ingredients to amplify the detonation even more, the resulting final explosion had an impressive pressure wave comparable to a thermobaric fuel air detonation though thankfully without the accompanying superheated fireball. These bomb theories are hilarious in a very dark humoured way, similar explosive environments exist, simple Flour or Coal dust can have very high energy output when dispersed in air.