To the people of Beirut
No, I don't care what CNN or MSNBC said this time
Ad Lunam
Ad Lunam
Major explosion in Beirut
103,332 Views |
686 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by C@LAg
Hadn't seen a couple of these clips. That 1st one looked like the death star blast in Rogue One.
I don't know why people yelling in fear it's funny when it's in another language but it is I'm sorry
I am a slave of Christ
he's not laughing Karen.lobopride said:
I don't know why people yelling in fear it's funny when it's in another language but it is I'm sorry
Why don't we ask Cuomo what he thinks? Hasn't been wrong yet
lunchbox said:I'd be more apt to believe it is a drone than a missile.Challenger 17 said:
Not sure. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. It's being insinuated that it's a missile, or bomb of some kind. The timing seems like a coincidence that it moves across the screen right before the explosion.
Someone in an intelligence office here say "enhance" and get us a zoomed in pic.
Slowest drone/missile in history.
It's a damn bird. The timing is just a coincidence.
You've seen dozens of videos from different angles of this thing but this is the only one that shows "incoming"? Get serious.
Probably because he's not dead, just like everyone else shooting video that's been posted. Just because the pressure wave is enough to damage an adjacent building does not mean it does any harm to a human being.
As the shock wave expands, pressures decrease rapidly (with the cube of the distance) because of geometric divergence and the dissipation of energy in heating the air. The force exerted on a guy in the street 1/2 mile from ground zero (estimate of guy in video) is dramatically less than the firefighter standing a couple hundred feet away.
Running a 1.1kt nuke sim, you can see where the 20psi pressure wave diminishes. Outside of that ring, death is caused by flying debris and collapsing buildings in a conventional explosion. Buildings are subject to severe damage at much lower over pressure.
As the shock wave expands, pressures decrease rapidly (with the cube of the distance) because of geometric divergence and the dissipation of energy in heating the air. The force exerted on a guy in the street 1/2 mile from ground zero (estimate of guy in video) is dramatically less than the firefighter standing a couple hundred feet away.
Running a 1.1kt nuke sim, you can see where the 20psi pressure wave diminishes. Outside of that ring, death is caused by flying debris and collapsing buildings in a conventional explosion. Buildings are subject to severe damage at much lower over pressure.
Charge your phone
lunchbox said:
Charge your phone
Seriously, what kind of monster lets their phone get to 4%?
Dang! Why didn't anybody tell Dale Earnhardt, Sr. that? He'd be alive now.Quote:
Probably because he's not dead, just like everyone else shooting video that's been posted. Just because the pressure wave is enough to damage an adjacent building does not mean it does any harm to a human being.
ETA: Did you also advocate for the neutron bomb, too?
Hamody Jasim who is pretty connected in the middle east (former Iraqi sergeant major that helped the US) said he was able to confirm the guy who shot this video is dead.Cromagnum said:Kenneth_2003 said:That building coming unglued in the 7-9 second frames!lunchbox said:
Whomever filmed that **** had to have gotten hurt pretty damn bad.
Mr. AGSPRT04 said:
Probably because he's not dead, just like everyone else shooting video that's been posted. Just because the pressure wave is enough to damage an adjacent building does not mean it does any harm to a human being.
As the shock wave expands, pressures decrease rapidly (with the cube of the distance) because of geometric divergence and the dissipation of energy in heating the air. The force exerted on a guy in the street 1/2 mile from ground zero (estimate of guy in video) is dramatically less than the firefighter standing.
Running a 1.1kt nuke sim, you can see where the 20psi pressure wave diminishes. Outside of that ring, death is caused by flying debris and collapsing buildings in a conventional explosion. Buildings are subject to severe damage at much lower over pressure.
Give yourself a wedgie, nerd!!
Mr. AGSPRT04 said:
Probably because he's not dead, just like everyone else shooting video that's been posted. Just because the pressure wave is enough to damage an adjacent building does not mean it does any harm to a human being.
As the shock wave expands, pressures decrease rapidly (with the cube of the distance) because of geometric divergence and the dissipation of energy in heating the air. The force exerted on a guy in the street 1/2 mile from ground zero (estimate of guy in video) is dramatically less than the firefighter standing.
Running a 1.1kt nuke sim, you can see where the 20psi pressure wave diminishes. Outside of that ring, death is caused by flying debris and collapsing buildings in a conventional explosion. Buildings are subject to severe damage at much lower over pressure.
This was very informative
I grabbed the video and slowed it down. Looks a lot like a bird to me...
Probably not...I don't think there's any Sully protest going on in Beirut today.
No kidding. Knows physics but can't keep his phone charged. We pretty much identified the anti-Christ.pacecar02 said:lunchbox said:
Charge your phone
Seriously, what kind of monster lets their phone get to 4%?
Brandon, if you are on this thread please ban evil user with 4% phone charge. Thanks.
94chem said:West explosion in 2013 was ~270 tonsRapier108 said:SS Grandcamp had 7,700 tons of ammonium nitrate aboard when she exploded which is equivalent to 3.2 kilotons of TNT, assuming all 7,700 tons detonated.GAC06 said:
Looks like I may be wrong too now that I see 2700 tons of ammonium nitrate. Texas City was 2200
So, that would make this one, assuming it was 2750 tons, it all detonated, and if I do the math correctly, 1.155 kilotons of equivalent TNT yield.
Guess my earlier estimate was way off, but that was based on the few, early videos.
Grandcamp had 2200 tons, with another 1800 on High Flyer, which went off 15 hours later. Similar to Halifax. Texas City killed nearly 600 people.
MassAggie97 said:Quote:Quote:
I mean it's pretty irresponsible for a President to make that statement unless there is something backing it up. It's just going to give rise to conspiracy theories in an especially volatile part of the world if it's not accurate.
Do y'all ever stop?
Hilarious because the GOP lost their minds when it turned out Bengazi was not what the WH said it was at first.
you understand the difference between
a. saying it was nothing, just a response to a viral video, unorganized rioting basically and not targeting Americans
and
b. saying a major explosion of a foreign facility might be intentional and should be investigated
especially when in example a American soldiers/CIA and a US Ambassador were targeted and killed on US military installation.
If you don't get it a was an outright lie and CYA and b is speculation but we weren't the target apparently.
BIG differences.
Also, a US ambassador wasn't brutally murdered in this event like Benghazi. Totally apples to apples!Zombie Jon Snow said:MassAggie97 said:Quote:Quote:
I mean it's pretty irresponsible for a President to make that statement unless there is something backing it up. It's just going to give rise to conspiracy theories in an especially volatile part of the world if it's not accurate.
Do y'all ever stop?
Hilarious because the GOP lost their minds when it turned out Bengazi was not what the WH said it was at first.
you understand the difference between
a. saying it was nothing, just a response to a viral video, unorganized rioting basically and not targeting Americans
and
b. saying a major explosion of a foreign facility might be intentional and should be investigated
especially when in example a American soldiers/CIA and a US Ambassador were targeted and killed on US military installation.
If you don't get it a was an outright lie and CYA and b is speculation but we weren't the target apparently.
BIG differences.
Here we golunchbox said:I'd be more apt to believe it is a drone than a missile.Challenger 17 said:
Not sure. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. It's being insinuated that it's a missile, or bomb of some kind. The timing seems like a coincidence that it moves across the screen right before the explosion.
Someone in an intelligence office here say "enhance" and get us a zoomed in pic.
No, I don't care what CNN or MSNBC said this time
Ad Lunam
Ad Lunam
...but I do believe it was a bird. I posted a video above with another angle of the birds.TexAgs91 said:Here we golunchbox said:I'd be more apt to believe it is a drone than a missile.Challenger 17 said:
Not sure. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. It's being insinuated that it's a missile, or bomb of some kind. The timing seems like a coincidence that it moves across the screen right before the explosion.
Someone in an intelligence office here say "enhance" and get us a zoomed in pic.
I was just saying I didn't think it was a missile...
I think the key is what caused the first explosion?
Zombie Jon Snow said:MassAggie97 said:Quote:Quote:
I mean it's pretty irresponsible for a President to make that statement unless there is something backing it up. It's just going to give rise to conspiracy theories in an especially volatile part of the world if it's not accurate.
Do y'all ever stop?
Hilarious because the GOP lost their minds when it turned out Bengazi was not what the WH said it was at first.
you understand the difference between
b. saying a major explosion of a foreign facility might be intentional and should be investigated
That's not what he said. He said that his Generals told him it was a "bomb" and the incident was an "attack".
He didn't say it might be intentional and he didn't call for an investigation.
So if we're talking about historical Big Bangs, one that is not well known is the "Black Tom" munitions explosion in NY Harbor during WWI. It was likely Germany sabotage.
It caused $2.4 million worth of damage to the Statue of Liberty (in today's dollars) and is why they closed the torch to visitors.
Supposedly a 5.0 earthquake equivalent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion
It caused $2.4 million worth of damage to the Statue of Liberty (in today's dollars) and is why they closed the torch to visitors.
Supposedly a 5.0 earthquake equivalent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion
So, i've been reading up a little on the Beirut explosion. They are saying that 2700 TONS of ammonium nitrate were being stored at the port in Beirut. I don't know what caused the initial explosion, but 2700 TONS of ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) definitely would have made a big boom. I dug out my old Engineer's Bible (FM3-24) to check out some things. Doing the calculations: 2700 tons =5,400,000 Lbs of NH4NO3, multiplied by .42 (RE factor of NH4NO3) gives you Net Explosive Weight (NEW) equal to 2,268,000 blocks ( 1134 tons) of TNT being detonated assuming all 2700 tons of NH4NO3 detonated
For comparison purposes: The Texas City disaster on 16April 1947 was a result of 2200 TONS of NH4NO3 exploding, which by the calculation would have had a NEW equal to 1,848,000 blocks ( 924 tons) of TNT
All demo calculations are based off on TNT. All explosives have an RE factor (relative explosiveness Factor) in relation to TNT. NH4NO3 (ammonium nitrate) has an RE factor of 0.42. C4 has an RE of 1.34. NEW equals the total pounds of explosives expressed in TNT equivalent. the formula is: quantity x weight x RE factor = NEW
(Edited to correct the Math and to make sure the proper terminology was used.)
For comparison purposes: The Texas City disaster on 16April 1947 was a result of 2200 TONS of NH4NO3 exploding, which by the calculation would have had a NEW equal to 1,848,000 blocks ( 924 tons) of TNT
All demo calculations are based off on TNT. All explosives have an RE factor (relative explosiveness Factor) in relation to TNT. NH4NO3 (ammonium nitrate) has an RE factor of 0.42. C4 has an RE of 1.34. NEW equals the total pounds of explosives expressed in TNT equivalent. the formula is: quantity x weight x RE factor = NEW
(Edited to correct the Math and to make sure the proper terminology was used.)
SirLurksALot said:Zombie Jon Snow said:MassAggie97 said:Quote:Quote:
I mean it's pretty irresponsible for a President to make that statement unless there is something backing it up. It's just going to give rise to conspiracy theories in an especially volatile part of the world if it's not accurate.
Do y'all ever stop?
Hilarious because the GOP lost their minds when it turned out Bengazi was not what the WH said it was at first.
you understand the difference between
b. saying a major explosion of a foreign facility might be intentional and should be investigated
That's not what he said. He said that his Generals told him it was a "bomb" and the incident was an "attack".
He didn't say it might be intentional and he didn't call for an investigation.
either way.
it wasn't a cover up of a known attack on US soldiers, installation, etc.....
erroneously (possibly) thinking there was an attack on foreign soil by another foreign entity is not comparable to LYING about US personnel being attacked and killed.
one is TREASONOUS. the other is simply misinformed most likely.
Zombie Jon Snow said:SirLurksALot said:Zombie Jon Snow said:MassAggie97 said:Quote:Quote:
I mean it's pretty irresponsible for a President to make that statement unless there is something backing it up. It's just going to give rise to conspiracy theories in an especially volatile part of the world if it's not accurate.
Do y'all ever stop?
Hilarious because the GOP lost their minds when it turned out Bengazi was not what the WH said it was at first.
you understand the difference between
b. saying a major explosion of a foreign facility might be intentional and should be investigated
That's not what he said. He said that his Generals told him it was a "bomb" and the incident was an "attack".
He didn't say it might be intentional and he didn't call for an investigation.
either way.
it wasn't a cover up of a known attack on US soldiers, installation, etc.....
erroneously (possibly) thinking there was an attack on foreign soil by another foreign entity is not comparable to LYING about US personnel being attacked and killed.
one is TREASONOUS. the other is simply misinformed most likely.
I agree they aren't the same. I just don't think a President should be doing either one.
FYI it's definitely not treason.
Featured Stories
See All
49:45
54m ago
1.7k
25:48
4h ago
2.2k
Wade Taylor IV will be chasing history during his final game at Reed
by Luke Evangelist
17:09
4h ago
2.1k
Baseball Thoughts: Challenging week ended with an important exhale
by Ryan Brauninger