george1992 said:

---

CNN news report:

Trump causes major explosion in Beirut, Lebanon in an attempt to delay the elections in the US. A representative for Joe Biden says that if ever there were a time where mail in ballots should be required, it would be now before Trump blows up the US like he just did Beirut. BLM and Antifa plan more peaceful protests because of Trumps senseless killing of unarmed Lebanese.

More on Trump's latest tragedy after the break.

---

I don't mean to make light of the situation, but this post Is not far from what could be true. But I had the whole house wondering what I was laughing at.

SexyAg said:

---

I think the key is what caused the first explosion?

---

Not a fire examiner in the world will be able to say that with much confidence. Everything is blown to crap.

SirLurksALot said:

---

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.

---

FYI it definitely is treason.

Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution. According to Article III, Section 3:

Quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

---

Lying about the cause of an attack by a foreign entity is adhering to them and possibly giving them aid in that they otherwise would be held responsible.

It was the location where Bill Clinton used to go and play golf and get special attention from young Lebanese women wearing blue dresses. .

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

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.

---

FYI it definitely is treason.

Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution. According to Article III, Section 3:

Quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

---

Lying about the cause of an attack by a foreign entity is adhering to them and possibly giving them aid in that they otherwise would be held responsible.

---

"Foriegn entity" isn't the standard.

Legally, what defines an enemy of the US? I'll give you a hint, there's a reason no one has been prosecuted for treason since the 50s.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Same.

Sun coming up...live stream here...not much to see but close up of damage

SirLurksALot said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

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.

---

FYI it definitely is treason.

Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution. According to Article III, Section 3:

Quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

---

Lying about the cause of an attack by a foreign entity is adhering to them and possibly giving them aid in that they otherwise would be held responsible.

---

"Foriegn entity" isn't the standard.

Legally, what defines an enemy of the US? I'll give you a hint, there's a reason no one has been prosecuted for treason since the 50s.

---

Prosecuted no... but brought charges against yes. In 2006.

And that foreign entity was a terrorist organization not a country and we were not technically at war either. So yes treasonous. No exemption because we were not "at war" and it is not an established country.

The only reason it did not go to trial and likely end in conviction was the moron was killed in an airstrike.

Quote:

---

Since 1954, there has been only one treason case in the U.S. In 2006, a man named Adam Gadahn was indicted for treason for making propaganda videos for al-Qaeda. Federal prosecutors said Gadahn, who at the time was a fugitive living overseas, "gave al-Qaeda aid and comfort... with intent to betray the United States." Gadahn was killed in an airstrike in Pakistan in 2015 and never faced trial for treason.

---

Another live stream. Fires still going...

aggiehawg said:

---

Whitetail said:

---

---

Well that is certainly an, "Holeee chit!," moment.

---

The DEW weapon looks very similar to the explosion in Beirut .. crazy stuff

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

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.

---

FYI it definitely is treason.

Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution. According to Article III, Section 3:

Quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

---

Lying about the cause of an attack by a foreign entity is adhering to them and possibly giving them aid in that they otherwise would be held responsible.

---

"Foriegn entity" isn't the standard.

Legally, what defines an enemy of the US? I'll give you a hint, there's a reason no one has been prosecuted for treason since the 50s.

---

Prosecuted no... but brought charges against yes. In 2006.

And that foreign entity was a terrorist organization not a country and we were not technically at war either. So yes treasonous. No exemption because we were not "at war" and it is not an established country.

The only reason it did not go to trial and likely end in conviction was the moron was killed in an airstrike.

Quote:

---

Since 1954, there has been only one treason case in the U.S. In 2006, a man named Adam Gadahn was indicted for treason for making propaganda videos for al-Qaeda. Federal prosecutors said Gadahn, who at the time was a fugitive living overseas, "gave al-Qaeda aid and comfort... with intent to betray the United States." Gadahn was killed in an airstrike in Pakistan in 2015 and never faced trial for treason.

---

---

A terrorist group that congress specifically authorized the use of force against. There was no such authorization for the groups that carried out the attack in Benghazi. An entity can not be an enemy of this country unless Congress authorizes the use of force against Them. That's the reason none of the Cold War spies were prosecuted for Treason and its the reason we don't charge Americans who are caught assisting terrorists groups with treason.

As for that specific case, I doubt that a treason conviction would have actually held up. The common legal interpretation is that a declaration of war is needed for an entity to be a legal enemy.

Also you're taking quite a wide interpretation of "adhere to their enemies". I personally don't see political spin to help with an election as qualifying. Our founders were quite concerned that treason would be Misused. That's why the requirement for two witnesses was introduced.

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.

---

If this is remotely similar to the gun-running Obama was engaged in in Benghazi, I'll be shocked. Obama was such a shyster.

fullback44 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Whitetail said:

---

---

Well that is certainly an, "Holeee chit!," moment.

---

The DEW weapon looks very similar to the explosion in Beirut .. crazy stuff

---

A) y'all know that DEW weapons don't exist in the form purported in that video, right?
B) that video has been edited, and poorly at that.

Truthfully, I have no idea about DEW weapons... kind of why I posted that to get some input from those that may know ?

Didn't know if this was posted , supposedly the closest video

Red Leader said:

---

Didn't know if this was posted , supposedly the closest video

---

If the person filming that survived at that proximity, seems like a miracle

The part I am not understanding is if all of that Ammonium Nitrate was spread out like that in a warehouse, would it all go at the same time and create that concentrated of a pressure wave?

Texas city was in a ship right? West was in a silo? It seems like those conditions would be far more "condensed" than just having it spread across the floor like that...

Red Leader said:

---

Didn't know if this was posted , supposedly the closest video

---

That's the explosives warehouse. Kaboom!

C@LAg said:

---

Artorias said:

---

If the person filming that survived at that proximity, seems like a miracle

---

has to be deaf.

---

What?

#dadjoke

scottimus said:

---

The part I am not understanding is if all of that Ammonium Nitrate was spread out like that in a warehouse, would it all go at the same time and create that concentrated of a pressure wave?

Texas city was in a ship right? West was in a silo? It seems like those conditions would be far more "condensed" than just having it spread across the floor like that...

---

As long as it all in close proximity and in an enclosed space, yes, it can explode like that. Even if it's palletized and spread across the floor like some of the pictures indicate. Texas City was bagged ammonium nitrate in the hold (think bags of fertilizer on pallets). It wasn't just dumped in en masse like coal on barge.

If you want an example of "laid out" explosives, check out explosive welding. What's being welded (large plates of metal) is stacked in two layers. A thin layer of explosives is put on top. When the explosive is detonated (in a corner IIRC), the explosion spreads across the surface, accelerating the top material into the bottom at high speed. This forces the materials to join together, even if you can't typically join them through traditional welding techniques, because they're plasticized into each other (think mashing two layers of play-doh together with a sledgehammer) instead of being melted together. The process was discovered when pieces of shrapnel were found to be welded to the hulls of tanks in WWI and WWII. Stacked pallets of AN across a warehouse floor would be the same thing but on a way bigger scale.

The thing about 2nd order explosions is that typical containment is not required. The friction from air having to move out of the way provides plenty. Generally these have to be initiated by a first order explosion

It's hard to think that someone would store that much ammonium nitrate in an urban location, but then again, one or two greased palms in a place where people are accustomed to not asking too many questions of the wrong people and no one even knows.

Devastating!

But good to see embedded tweets working on TexAgs again.