Beirut Explosion, Proof of Bomb?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Are you suggesting the mainstream media deceives us most of the time? If so, I agree very much.

If VT is lying, why did Twitterdom explode with anger and indignation when the NBA sports writer expressed his common sense observation?

a reply to: Salander

Of course the media lies. But Veteran's Today doesn't try to hide it. He flat out said he lies at least half the time, although just about everything posted there has proven to be BS that couldn't be verified anywhere else.

Oh wait, by your logic that means that he's an outstanding source.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well if he said half what they publish is a lie, this story must be the half that is the truth.

That was a nuclear explosion, a tactical weapon.

The other interesting stuff is they have researched all the Beirut public records regarding the boat and its presumed contents left there for 6 years, including those who signed off on the purchase of the material.

Holy Cow, it turns out that a bunch of straw men and front companies did all the transactions. Nobody can find any trace of a fertilizer company in Moldova or wherever it was, no trace of the individuals who signed off.

Seems like VT did what investigative reporters do. Scott Pelley doesn't do such investigations. He says what he is paid to say, and his paycheck does not pay for actual thinking.

a reply to: Salander

Of course it was. There were absolutely none of the effects of a nuclear bomb, but VT says so, and you said it looks like one, so OBVIOUSLY it's a nuke. Screw all the accepted science of nuclear weapons, a crackpot website said it's so, so it's got to be Truth.

I bet he did a whole 15 minutes of internet searches to find that out. And I'm equally sure that all the records are 100% accurate too.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You don't just randomly mix fuel and ammonium nitrate and get explosive. ANFO requires a pretty precise mix of specific materials. Too much or too little and nothing happens. So no, it wouldn't have mixed them and magically gotten the right ratios and detonated.

ANFO:
Go underground into any hard-rock mine for a day and do some "Long-Holing" aka "stoping".
Pump multiple drill holes (15-20m long) with ANFO and finally plug every hole with a packet of explosive gel.
Then insert a detonator plug into every packet and walk away at least 100m-200m down a narrow tunnel.
Wire up your detonation box to a electrical cord, twist that handle and listen to that boom.

The BBC are now stating that the Ammonium Nitrate was contained on a Russian ship, docked nearby in the harbour.

You said it,

'it wouldn't have mixed them and magically gotten the right ratios and detonated.'

A standard missile would have been a perfect catelyst.

In this case the Amminium Nitrate needed a major catelyst to cause it to ignite. A missile from Israel did the perfect job.

a reply to: Rapha

And yet, not one video caught this magic missile, I haven't seen any credible evidence of any kind of strike on that warehouse. Why is it so hard to believe that ammonium nitrate exploded due to a fire burning in the same warehouse, without blaming Israel.

some love to see the world burn.

a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: Rapha

or a warehouse full of fireworks that contain gunpowder and metals that will produce gasses which will react with and enhance the blast.
form the wiki,

Ammonium nitrate can explode through two mechanisms:

Shock-to-detonation transition. An explosive charge within or in contact with a mass of ammonium nitrate causes the ammonium nitrate to detonate. Examples of such disasters are Kriewald, Morgan (present-day Sayreville, New Jersey), Oppau, and Tessenderlo.

Deflagration to detonation transition. The ammonium nitrate explosion results from a fire that spreads into the ammonium nitrate (Texas City, TX; Brest; West, TX; Tianjin; Beirut), or from ammonium nitrate mixing with a combustible material during the fire (Repauno, Cherokee, Nadadores). The fire must be confined at least to a degree for successful transition from a fire to an explosion.
Ammonium nitrate

here is a list of things ammonium nitrate reacts with. many of which are used in fireworks.
Reactivities / Incompatibilities

safety /hazzard page from australia.

Heat, fire and combustion
Ammonium nitrate does not burn. However, it will support and increase the rate of combustion in the presence of flammable or combustible materials even in the absence of oxygen.

When heated it will melt, decompose and release toxic gases including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia gas (NH3). When heated excessively (e.g. as in a fire) it can cause an explosion in an enclosed space and closed containers or vessels may rupture violently.

fire works are made with gunpowder (salt-peter (potassium nitrate), charcoal, and sulfur ) all react with Ammonium nitrate.
plus fireworks that are not ground based, firecrackers, m 80's, and such, have two charges, the propellant charge, and explosive charge.

what likely happened is the fireworks propellant forced the shells into the Ammonium nitrate, where they exploded and released gasses or the plastic casing or paper burnt off and released the gunpowder which did a slow burn or flash burn and released gasses.

we know there was a fire, and in one video you can see where there are fires that intensify and then go back down, and you can see what i say are fireworks going off and other fires.

can't find one on you tube, but here it is on a sky news link.
Videos capture moment of explosion in Beirut, Lebanon

here is something to also consider, zinc is used in some fireworks. from the list above of metals and salts that react with ammonium nitrate.

With ammonium chloride, (barium nitrate), water, zinc: Addition of water to an intimate mixture of zinc powder and the salts causes spontaneous ignition and a mixture of ammonium nitrate and ammonium chloride...sprinkled with zinc dust ignites vigorously when moistened.

we know there was a fire before hand.
could they have been using water?
were there fireworks containing zine there?
dollars to doughnuts the answers yes.

fairly safe to say it was a combination of fireworks, fire and ammonium nitrate that caused the explosion and not a bomb or missile.

a reply to: Rapha

The BBC are now stating that the Ammonium Nitrate was contained on a Russian ship, docked nearby in the harbour.

the ship was a moldovan flagged ship and was owned by a russian named Igor Grechushkin. the ammonium nitrate was unloaded in 2014, and the ship moored next to the breakwater across the harbor from the dock where it sank in 2018.

here a article it even has pictures of the sunken ship.


Ship Cited in Beirut Blast Hasn't Sailed in 7 Years. W e Found It.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I agree it’s not a nuke. But too expensive? Even nukes have a shelf life. Might as well get some use out of it instead of letting it rot.

a reply to: AlbatrossMaker

That's what a SLEP and routine maintenance is for.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie
Either way - what ever is true, whether it be
a) Ammonium Nitrate silos + Fireworks
b) An old Russian vessle full of Ammonium Nitrate + heat
c) or Amonium Nitrate objects + missile from Israel.

It really does not matter. Simply look at the end result......

The people of Beruit are rising up against their Old World Order (Current Government) only to not realise that they are about to gladly accept the NWO.

Out of Chaos Comes Order - The New World Order.

originally posted by: Dolby_X
some love to see the world burn.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Some like to MAKE it burn...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Of course it was. There were absolutely none of the effects of a nuclear bomb, but VT says so, and you said it looks like one, so OBVIOUSLY it's a nuke. Screw all the accepted science of nuclear weapons, a crackpot website said it's so, so it's got to be Truth.

I bet he did a whole 15 minutes of internet searches to find that out. And I'm equally sure that all the records are 100% accurate too.

LOL, next you'll be telling me MH17 was taken out by a Russian BUK. Shades of Bellingcat.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Improper storage, which this is what it appears to have been, will always result, eventually, in an ignition source finding it.

It doesn't require a bomb--just a fuse of some sort. Then Boom!!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Those happen fairly frequently.

Wheat dust, or any dust, can be very explosive.

a reply to: Salander

Next you'll be telling me that you can even detect radiation by eye. So how exactly do you explain the instantaneous readings your favorite website are claiming took place in Italy? Radiation takes time to travel, and according to VT there was an increase in Italy, at the exact same time as the explosion. Italy doesn't have active nuclear plants to release radiation from, so please, explain to me how the explosion in Beirut caused an increase in Italy at the exact same time.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Next you'll be telling me that you can even detect radiation by eye. So how exactly do you explain the instantaneous readings your favorite website are claiming took place in Italy? Radiation takes time to travel, and according to VT there was an increase in Italy, at the exact same time as the explosion. Italy doesn't have active nuclear plants to release radiation from, so please, explain to me how the explosion in Beirut caused an increase in Italy at the exact same time.

I never said it was instantaneous, and I never mentioned how long it took for the wave to get there, but I know those waves move very fast.

I said they had detected when they checked the instrument it had been recorded, is my understanding. They are like seismographs I would think.

I'm no expert, but it looked like a nuke to me and others. Anybody not kidding himself knows it was a nuke. It's not like we haven't seen pictures of nukes going off for our entire life.

People saw the delivery aircraft and other aircraft in the immediate area.

Someday I'd like to hear your take on the story of the B-52 flying around when Cheney was in office, and they ended up carrying some nukes on the wings without proper authorization or something like that. I think a story was out in the mainstream media but was dropped. Some wanted to tie it to Cheney. I was just a curious civilian.

a reply to: Salander

I think the latest from VT is that IAEA sensors in Italy recorded a spike at the same time as the attack. Hmmm....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

People saw an aircraft. Not one video saw a weapon in flight, not one camera stopped recording due to EMP, not one video caught the double flash, no reports of radiation sickness. Yep, it's that new physics defying nuclear weapon.

Why should I bother with the Minot incident?

a reply to: Zaphod58

So you think the videos at VT are fake?

A nuclear device went off.