Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I imagine people at the facility raised this issue several times and were ignored or threatened, now what passes for government in lebanon will go after and convict those same people.

 Matt Swain wrote:
I imagine people at the facility raised this issue several times and were ignored or threatened, now what passes for government in lebanon will go after and convict those same people.

And this is why you should allways maintain a System that threathens the governing and not the other Way around...

Or you devolve the government , which also works , because it turns the governed into governing at the Same time.

Backfire wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

I believe it ferments, and whilst is dangerous and flammable anyway, it was this fermentation of the substance and build up of pressure that caused the blast, I think a lot of countries stores AN in various amounts of quantities, so I wouldn't worry too much. Also, a lot of countries store all sorts of dangerous stuff all over, as long as it is looked after properly it is fine.

According to people who claim to know this stuff, AN does not degrade into more dangerous or unstable form over time, unlike some other explosives. However, it does turn into sort of tough hardened paste, which makes it more difficult to handle. In the old days if AN had became too hard, they actually used dynamite to loosen up the mixture, which turned out to be not the best idea ever.

Apparently, there was no 'fireworks warehouse'. Stuff which you see going pop in the video before the major explosions is just small bits of AN blowing up the heat. The fire reportedly began from a welding job meant to close some entrances to the warehouse to stop potential thievery.

Welding job.
Yeah, no words to follow that up with.

Backfire wrote:
The fire reportedly began from a welding job meant to close some entrances to the warehouse to stop potential thievery.

Well, from a certain point of view, that was a success. They don't need to worry about anything being stolen from the warehouse anymore.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Backfire wrote:
The fire reportedly began from a welding job meant to close some entrances to the warehouse to stop potential thievery.

Well, from a certain point of view, that was a success. They don't need to worry about anything being stolen from the warehouse anymore.

The Problem vanished into thin Air...

Though let's be honest. Whoever does have responsibility for this tragedy is either going to be spending money to cut ties or desperately trying to skip town. We're already hearing reports of mobs wanting justice in the area.

Its the 75th aniversary of Hiroshima.

Anyone claiming its a nuke needs to do some research go to the museums, listen to the stories of the dead and the survivors and then feel free to claim its the same thing. Its nowhere near the same thing.

 Argive wrote:
Its the 75th aniversary of Hiroshima.

Anyone claiming its a nuke needs to do some research go to the museums, listen to the stories of the dead and the survivors and then feel free to claim its the same thing. Its nowhere near the same thing.

Wasn't it a bit too muted in light and heat to be nuclear? From what we saw it seemed like mostly an explosion of force, a shockwave with little of the other effects associated with a nuclear blast.

cody.d. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Its the 75th aniversary of Hiroshima.

Anyone claiming its a nuke needs to do some research go to the museums, listen to the stories of the dead and the survivors and then feel free to claim its the same thing. Its nowhere near the same thing.

Wasn't it a bit too muted in light and heat to be nuclear? From what we saw it seemed like mostly an explosion of force, a shockwave with little of the other effects associated with a nuclear blast.

Yep. About the only similar thing was the mushroom cloud, and really those are just a sign of a really big explosion, not just nukes.

The only people calling this a nuke are the ones who reflexively blame "the jooze" for everything bad that happens. They're idiots. The fact so many electronic cameras recorded this without any flicker proves there was no emp hence no nuke.

 Matt Swain wrote:
The only people calling this a nuke are the ones who reflexively blame "the jooze" for everything bad that happens. They're idiots. The fact so many electronic cameras recorded this without any flicker proves there was no emp hence no nuke.

Obviously this is a next-gen nuke that doesn’t have an EMP. Those would disable the chips they are implanting into people. This was a test, wake up sheeple!

/sarcasm (in case it wasn’t obvious)

I do think mushroom cloud=nuke in most people’s eyes. And with the level of damage it’s not an unreasonable first conclusion to jump to. That’s a lot of devastation for one blast. But once you start looking closer, it’s clearly not a nuke.

At least from the information that They are allowing out.

Large explosions tend to look like large explosions.

The sad thing is regulations to make it less likely that this could happen in america have recently been repealed and reversed.

https://www.jems.com/2019/11/22/epa-ends-safety-rules-in-place-after-west-texas-fertilizer-plant-explosion/?fbclid=IwAR0-RrMcg9SIzmbKIy5SORtwmH62FyND3XSIcCPscx37Ly01aCayO3aG2xw

An aerial photo shows the explosion was good sized but not near equal to the beirut explosion.


This link may or may not demand you sign up to read it. In some cases it has, in some it hasn't.

Good longish read at the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/x2iutcqf1g/beirut-blast The whole sorry saga seems to full of corruption and incompetence from before the nitrate even arrived in the port. The before and after aerial photos are particularly striking.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Backfire wrote:
The fire reportedly began from a welding job meant to close some entrances to the warehouse to stop potential thievery.

Well, from a certain point of view, that was a success. They don't need to worry about anything being stolen from the warehouse anymore.

How every Obi-wan of you.

cody.d. wrote:
Though let's be honest. Whoever does have responsibility for this tragedy is either going to be spending money to cut ties or desperately trying to skip town. We're already hearing reports of mobs wanting justice in the area.

Apparently lots of port works and officials have been rounded up and arrested. Whoever ends up being deemed 'responsible' for this is probably going to be surprised, right up until the moment they're hung by the neck.


Though maybe not, since protests have turn to occupying the foreign ministry and erecting a gallows, and burning portraits of the President.
Meanwhile he's still blaming 'maybe some sort of rocket attack' and refusing an international investigation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53704998

This may actually turn into a regime change. Or get more complicated if a neighbor decides there doesn't need to be a Lebanon anymore (probably Syria, though they're busy with their own issues still; and Israel doing it, even in the name of protecting people, would turn into a regional crisis)

Hopefully not veering too close to the forbidden p-word, but I’m sure that Israel will look at a possible revolt/revolution as an opportunity to try and encourage a more sympathetic group into power (or at least try and stop any hardline loonies from seizing yet another country). Certainly behind the scenes manipulation rather than active involvement though.

 Jadenim wrote:
Hopefully not veering too close to the forbidden p-word, but I’m sure that Israel will look at a possible revolt/revolution as an opportunity to try and encourage a more sympathetic group into power (or at least try and stop any hardline loonies from seizing yet another country). Certainly behind the scenes manipulation rather than active involvement though.

The country allready was seized by Hardliner loonies and governed by them though...

Ammonium nitrate is actually pretty hard to make explode.

Which is why any explosive made with it, usually has something else mixed in with it ("contaminated" ammonium nitrate is exceedingly easy to make explode) like a fuel oil, or grain dust.

It was also stored right next door to the grain silos, which are a dust explosion factory at the best of times. It's REALLY easy to make dust explode. That explosion CAN set fire to ammonium nitrate, and when any of the dust from the silo gets mixed with the AN, that dust explosion CAN kick off the AN.

The safety standards for that area have been considered lax for some decades. It may be surpassed by US "standards" soon, though - given the scrapping of regs about it. It wasn't a purpose built storehouse for AN (which usually have dust and contaminant mitigation systems built into them, at least they do here).

For those ignorant savages in the press who called it a "nuke" ...

Nukes give off a gamma and x-ray burst when the go boom as well as the emp effect.
This has the side effect of killing electronics - and ALL the footage shot of the explosion was digital. Much of it shot from cellphones.
Hard to shoot cellphone video with a brick.
Also, blindness from the flash.

And the whole "lack of radiation" thing...

 chromedog wrote:
Ammonium nitrate is actually pretty hard to make explode.

Which is why any explosive made with it, usually has something else mixed in with it ("contaminated" ammonium nitrate is exceedingly easy to make explode) like a fuel oil, or grain dust.

I've seen this claim repeated quite literally verbatim since this incident happened.

I've yet to see anyone explain it. I don't say this to imply it is impossible, but to express skepticism at what appears to be (pardon my french) random internet bs which is simply being read and regurgitated.

If it was EASY to make AN explode, then you wouldn't need to mix it with a fuel oil in order to make it go boom. You never hear of AN being used just by itself as an explosive. Just as a fertiliser. It BURNS well, though.

Even then, ANFO STILL requires an explosive to kick it off. It doesn't have to be a BIG one, just a bang. A blasting cap will do it. A dust explosion in close proximity will do it. (and dust explosions only require a spark to set off. Like welding near a grain silo next door ... ).

The AN was kept in a warehouse NOT designed for the storage of it, in a port that undoubtedly sees a LOOOOT of diesel powered ships come in and out. Diesels put out a LOT of crap in their exhaust which can travel for some distance, and includes unburnt oil in it. It settles EVERYWHERE nearby. Like on improperly secured AN 1000kg bags of AN.

It's not like granulated Potassium Hypochlorite, which will go woof in a variety of conditions - from exposure to sunlight, to getting wet - this is why pool chemicals have specific instructions for use. (the granules have to be kept dry, as it has a rather 'energetic' reaction with water. The liquid kind is more friendly).

Most explosives require two components. fuel and oxidiser. the faster it oxidises, the more energetic the reaction and the faster the fuel is consumed. Like KClO and brake fluid.

Im not going to claim to be a Chemistry expert But if there was contaminated or premixed AN, and that got set off, would the be enough to set off the others that are not?

 LordofHats wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
Ammonium nitrate is actually pretty hard to make explode.

Which is why any explosive made with it, usually has something else mixed in with it ("contaminated" ammonium nitrate is exceedingly easy to make explode) like a fuel oil, or grain dust.

I've seen this claim repeated quite literally verbatim since this incident happened.

I've yet to see anyone explain it. I don't say this to imply it is impossible, but to express skepticism at what appears to be (pardon my french) random internet bs which is simply being read and regurgitated.

It's not internet BS. The AN is the oxidising agent. As chromedog mentioned, there is usually a fuel component required to make them practical as an explosive. Aluminium powder (ammonal or anal) sugar (ANS) or petrol (ANFO). These generally need to be initiated with a high explosive detonator to detonate themselves(and will be even more explosive if tightly confined into palm oil containers courtesy of Terry Taliban) but in a large enough quantity, a fire in bulk AN will self sustain (as it's an oxidising agent) which can accelerate to deflagration, then to detonation.

If it was EASY to make AN explode, then you wouldn't need to mix it with a fuel oil in order to make it go boom.

If it was hard, I feel like I shouldn't be able to find 20+ ammonium nitrate disasters in the last twenty years. A lot of them list the cause simply as 'fire'. It doesn't seem that hard.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im not going to claim to be a Chemistry expert But if there was contaminated or premixed AN, and that got set off, would the be enough to set off the others that are not?

This is kind of freaky, but if you watch the videos you know how you can see cook offs before the big boom?

In witness accounts of the Texas City disaster, people standing and watching the Grandcamp could see the sea around the ship boiling. I'm also not a chemist, but I remember basic high school chemistry. Fire produces water vapor. Water vapor + heat produces pressure. The right combination of heat and water in an enclosed space is a vicious cycle. The Grandcamp didn't explode because ammonium nitrate caught fire. It exploded because the captain (who also probably wasn't a chemist) sealed the ship and pumped steam into the hold in an attempt to put out a fire. The fire, steam, and the presence of an oxidizer just meant pressure built until the ship exploded. Watching the video of the fire right before the big boom it seems kind of obvious that the blast was caused by an improperly stored substance catching fire and burning off until pressure built and turned the fire into a blast.

Taking what chromedog says:

(and dust explosions only require a spark to set off. Like welding near a grain silo next door ... ).

It really really doesn't seem hard. If dust can serve as a fuel and the welder started a fire, it seems kind of straight forward to me.

It's not internet BS.

It sounds like internet BS and it reads like internet BS, especially because I keep seeing the exact same wording used, like people are just repeating what they've heard and don't really understand what it means.

I'm actually not trying to be an donkey-cave here. My skepticism of that comment and the people who keep making it is extremely high because I've seen the exact comment multiple times in multiple places. I find it really suspicious when vague qualifications start getting repeated word for word all over the place, especially when they appear counter-factual.

The AN is the oxidising agent

I know what an oxidizing agent is. I also know the events of the Texas City disaster, where no explosives was used or present. I can also find other incidents in the past 20 years where mere fire seemed sufficient to cause explosions with this stuff. The Port Neal fertilizer plant explosion didn't even involve a fire, merely steam and decomposition. High quantities and improper storage seem sufficient to cause an explosion under circumstances and I find it hard to believe that so many regulations surround the storage of this stuff if it's so benign on its own. It's enough to make the claim "it's actually pretty hard to make it explode" appear utterly counter-factual.

a fire in bulk AN will self sustain (as it's an oxidising agent) which can accelerate to deflagration, then to detonation.

And this sounds a lot like it might be the chain of events as I describe above. Unless deflagration has some other definition I'm unfamiliar with.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
The only people calling this a nuke are the ones who reflexively blame "the jooze" for everything bad that happens. They're idiots. The fact so many electronic cameras recorded this without any flicker proves there was no emp hence no nuke.

Obviously this is a next-gen nuke that doesn’t have an EMP. Those would disable the chips they are implanting into people. This was a test, wake up sheeple!

/sarcasm (in case it wasn’t obvious)

I do think mushroom cloud=nuke in most people’s eyes. And with the level of damage it’s not an unreasonable first conclusion to jump to. That’s a lot of devastation for one blast. But once you start looking closer, it’s clearly not a nuke.

At least from the information that They are allowing out.

Yeah I kinda got it was nice sarcasm.

As to a nuke that did not produce emp or conventional radioactive fallout, I wonder if a speck of antimatter could do something like that. I imagine the amount of antimatter needed to produce this blast would be barely if at all visible to a naked eye. I'm not sure if matter/antimatter mutual annihilation produced an emp or any normal radioactive fallout, i mean there's no fission element involved in an antimatter blast. So that could be your cynically suggested "next gen nuke".

I suppose sooner or later a con nut wil claim it was a test of an antimatter weapon. I'm going to pre empt it by saying anyone who could make, store, transport and deploy the amount of antimatter needed to make this blast would probably have better things to do than blow up beirut with it.

Nah I think we're on the same page, just different paragraphs. So technically from an explosive point of view, AN is fairly unreactive, you couldn't make an IED and just use AN on its own as the explosive charge. It needs the additional fuel to allow it to react explosively when subject to the explosive force of the detonator. But when its subjected to fire, as with all oxidising agents, it has that capacity to self accelerate, in this case to detonation, as seen by the various disasters you mention.

Basically, if the newspapers refer to it as a 'highly explosive material' OWTTE, it's technically incorrect. To go into technical geek terms, it's hazard division would not be 1(explosive) it would probably be 6 or whatever division oxidising agents are. Can't remember off the top of my head. Similar to how petrol is classed as a flammable liquid, but does have the capacity to explode under certain circumstances.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
The only people calling this a nuke are the ones who reflexively blame "the jooze" for everything bad that happens. They're idiots. The fact so many electronic cameras recorded this without any flicker proves there was no emp hence no nuke.

Obviously this is a next-gen nuke that doesn’t have an EMP. Those would disable the chips they are implanting into people. This was a test, wake up sheeple!

/sarcasm (in case it wasn’t obvious)

I do think mushroom cloud=nuke in most people’s eyes. And with the level of damage it’s not an unreasonable first conclusion to jump to. That’s a lot of devastation for one blast. But once you start looking closer, it’s clearly not a nuke.

At least from the information that They are allowing out.

Yeah I kinda got it was nice sarcasm.

As to a nuke that did not produce emp or conventional radioactive fallout, I wonder if a speck of antimatter could do something like that. I imagine the amount of antimatter needed to produce this blast would be barely if at all visible to a naked eye. I'm not sure if matter/antimatter mutual annihilation produced an emp or any normal radioactive fallout, i mean there's no fission element involved in an antimatter blast. So that could be your cynically suggested "next gen nuke".

I suppose sooner or later a con nut wil claim it was a test of an antimatter weapon. I'm going to pre empt it by saying anyone who could make, store, transport and deploy the amount of antimatter needed to make this blast would probably have better things to do than blow up beirut with it.

Given that matter/antimatter annihilation apparently results in photons or exotic particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation), it’s certainly not going to be free from radiation or EMP. In fact, it’s probably exactly the same as the energy from a nuclear weapon, as the energy in a nuclear reaction comes from conversion of matter into energy, but in a more round about manner (effectively when you do division or multiplication on an atom, one part of physics rounds up and doesn’t carry the one and another part of physics really, really doesn’t like that...)

The most amazing part about it if it were an antimatter weapon (which it is not), is that firstly they'd go to all the trouble of creating a container for it, and then go and waste that by turning it into a bomb rather than extract or try to at least all of the other theoretical benefits of contained antimatter.

And then, to go and use it in a port, with the total damage value being $15B (a lot of money to us, but in the grand scheme of things it really isn't as well, there would be far more higher priority targets globally for any country with the resources to construct such a weapon)....

If a country were also creating antimatter weapons, and they had achieved it, you would assume they wouldn't want ANY other country to know about it also, and you wouldn't want the international condemnation of using a WMD.

Yeah, you all do get I wasn't seriously suggesting it was an anti matter bomb, right? After beating down the "nuke" idea for numerous reasons I saw a poster had made a good joke about people claiming it was a secret "next gen nuke" that didn't have fallout or EMP. I just decided to play on that with the idea a 'next gen nuke' might be an antimatter device.

But seriously, I thought some con nut might try to bring that up once a normal nuke was disproved.