A massive explosion has just hit Beirut, Lebanon (video)

submitted by magnora7 from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Yes there would MOST LIKELY be. Also, the phone cameras did not register any radioactivity, which is puzzling.

However, the amount of energy displayed by that blast front exceeds my guesstimate of what conventional explosives can attain.

You can compare it to a bomb if you like, but bear in mind that bombs are created SPECIFICALLY for exploding in a devastating way. There is no wasted energy in a bomb. A storage space is not a bomb. Even when filled with explosive stuff. There will be combustible / oxygen mistmatching and other fizzle inducing inefficiencies in a storage space.

So when a storage space explodes "every bit as energetically as a bomb" ... IT'S A BOMB. Storage spaces explode inefficiently.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

However, the amount of energy displayed by that blast front exceeds my guesstimate of what conventional explosives can attain.

Then you should do a little more research. Getting a huge explosion is just a matter of getting a huge amount of explosive material together. There have been far larger conventional explosions than this.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, I can't argue at your level.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Far larger indeed, There was a massive on in the US many, many decades ago.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I remember it well.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

your guesstimate is invalid. We can achieve massive explosions with conventional explosives. We just can't deliver them to a target efficiently. MOAB is the biggest we've seen recently.

Static explosion, though? How many kilotones would you like stacked in that warehouse, sir?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, I know all this. How much have you studied this topic? I'm not talking about how big or strong the explosion is. It's beyond obvious that larger explosions are possible from chemical reactions.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

However, the amount of energy displayed by that blast front exceeds my guesstimate of what conventional explosives can attain.

the halifax explosion clearly shows your guesstimate is incorrect

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, you are demonstrating very well how you're not understanding my statements.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

you were guestimating that you can't have an explosion that big that was non nuclear? Or did I misunderstand

Maybe it was nuclear, using an advanced tiny warhead next to a massive dump of fertiliser epxlosive for colouring on top (and, i find it hard to imagine the fertiliser all going off so neatly with), but to say that the size of the explosion rules out conventional munitions is incorrect, and halifax proves it.

It would be correct to say that a directed weapon (missle/bomb) is unlikely, due to the size, but one transported on site in a container ship is possible.

But i'm leaning towards nuke now, especially given the tunnels. Hezbollah got discovered and dealt with

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You misunderstood. I'm not talking about the size of it at all. I'm talking about the concentration of energy and its efficiency and also some other things that if you haven't studied the nuclear question in detail, aren't really worth mentioning.

There are videos showing the missile that was used.

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It doesn't have to be "efficient" to be devastating. You can have an inefficient arrangement of the material and maybe get a detonation of 10% potential maximum yield... but then what if we're talking about a warehouse with 10x or 100x that material! Someone said 2700 tons of ammonium nitrate, so who knows.

At that point you can't say that it isn't a crude explosion that itself compresses the material causing it to detonate so much more suddenly, similar to how the "fat boy" was triggered by TNT.

Practically, for it to be a bomb, it would need to be small enough to be delivered: that's where efficiency comes in. This was in all likelihood just a warehouse, but pending more information of course.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

No, it doesn't. The issue is that the rate of expansion of that shockwave front, even at a very large diameter, shows tremendous efficiency. It's not a comparatively strong explosion, on the whole scale including nukes, but the efficiency displayed by that second explosion spells BOMB.

Oh and look here: https://www.rt.com/news/497372-external-interference-possible-cause-beirut-blast/

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You can find videos of the West Texas fertilizer plant explosion and other AN explosions that all look very similar.

I'm not saying I know any more than you do, but everything points to an accident. There was obviously a massive fire there that people were filming to start with, so saying it could've been triggered by a rocket or some kind of "interference" just doesn't make sense to me. Everyone's just shocked and in disbelief so people are grasping to find something to blame that's commesurate to the level of emotional shock. It's the same kind of speculation that happened after 9-11.

(By the way, have a look for Tech Ingredients on YouTube. He has a great video from a month ago about the characteristics of different explosives.)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

All recent nuke usage was disguised by pre-existing fires and other explosions. I'm not saying it's a nuke 100%, because who the fuck knows all the world's explosive technologies? NOBODY. Only the perpetrators of this know what kind of bomb was used. Accident? I say bomb, 99.99999%. Disguised as an accident.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

yep, military action disguised as accident I agree with 100%. Like China and all the small nukes seen in the ME over the last few years

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Finally. Thank you. You're staying on my friends list.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And bingo: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/08/07/breaking-israel-nukes-beirut/

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Practically, for it to be a bomb, it would need to be small enough to be delivered

in a cargo ship. a container sized weapon is possible.