Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beirut Port Explosion

forensic-architecture.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 226 posts

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#71

Post by yyyk »

This investigation ignores a key question: How many kg of ammonium nitrate was actually in the warehouse. Surely that's extremely important to the models. They only mention an mtv news report mentioning the stated figure of 2750t.

That figure comes from the ship's documents. Yet there are estimates that suggest the actual explosion is only equivalent to 1000-1500t[0], or 700-1000t[1].

If the actual amount of nitrate was lower that the stated figure this strongly suggests some form of smuggling was involved, and someone was siphoning off the material. This would immediately explain the enormous 'negligence' that let this incident happen in the first place.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53668493

[1] https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/a-hidden-tycoon-afri...

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#72

Post by rconti »

notrealpersonq wrote: post #69
netsharc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also didn't investigate reports of John McClane (of the Die Hard movie fame) tossing a cigarette into the warehouse, backwards while walking away, a few minutes before the explosion... I'm unsatisfied that they didn't entertain my conspiracy theory! /s If you actually informed yourself properly about this explosion (instead of reading -- I'm going to assume -- conspiracy websites), why the whole thing was sittin…

I'm Lebanese myself and I did inform myself don't worry about me. I also talked to real people affected by the blast and claim they saw Jets as well. I would have loved it if the vid had tackled this and debunked it completely. I'm not claiming otherwise. There was definitely military/gov negligence and I even call kit suicidal levels of incompetence. However, they never talk about the original owners of the ammonium…

Confiscated means the original owners have no ownership of it anymore.

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#73

Post by samstave »

kqvamxurcagg wrote: post #2

This is incredible and I can only imagine how much time this took to create. Definitely also worth taking a look at their previous investigations at https://forensic-architecture.org/ .

I’m just waiting to see what’s out there in like the NSA, which is able to do this automatically.

Have a drone take Lidar or whatever model of an area, feed the pictures in and some other data and the system produces videos like this.

This video was incredible!

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#74

Post by JoeAltmaier »

yyyk wrote: post #71

This investigation ignores a key question: How many kg of ammonium nitrate was actually in the warehouse. Surely that's extremely important to the models. They only mention an mtv news report mentioning the stated figure of 2750t. That figure comes from the ship's documents. Yet there are estimates that suggest the actual explosion is only equivalent to 1000-1500t[0], or 700-1000t[1]. If the actual amount of nitrate…

Or it degraded in the humidity? Not sure how that would play out.

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#75

Post by notrealpersonq »

netsharc wrote: post #70
notrealpersonq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Lebanese myself and I did inform myself don't worry about me. I also talked to real people affected by the blast and claim they saw Jets as well. I would have loved it if the vid had tackled this and debunked it completely. I'm not claiming otherwise. There was definitely military/gov negligence and I even call kit suicidal levels of incompetence. However, they never talk about the original owners of the ammonium…

Why does one video have to answer every question and entertain every theory? (Should it also answer my question if John McClane was seen at the scene?). It's a video showing a 3D model/timeline from publicly released videos. If I claim "my friends saw Aladdin flying on his magic carpet before the explosion" but there's no video/photo of this claim, they can't use that claim for their reconstruction. And they're not g…

Are you for real? I swear you have to be trolling.

There are several videos showing flying objects and several people reporting that jets were flying. Again, Israeli jets flying over Lebanon is a normal occurrence and could be absolutely nothing. I will say it again, there exists SEVERAL different videos that show this. This is why I expected them to at least mention this.

Also the ammonium nitrate was not confiscated, they were taken to the port to prevent them from sinking in the sea. But they were never claimed back.

You're the one who is misinformed and is rejecting even a comment saying "I wish they tackled these subjects as well" which are without a doubt related to the explosion. Fuck off with your shitty sarcasm.

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#76

Post by eCa »

yyyk wrote: post #71

This investigation ignores a key question: How many kg of ammonium nitrate was actually in the warehouse. Surely that's extremely important to the models. They only mention an mtv news report mentioning the stated figure of 2750t. That figure comes from the ship's documents. Yet there are estimates that suggest the actual explosion is only equivalent to 1000-1500t[0], or 700-1000t[1]. If the actual amount of nitrate…

2750 tonnes, not kg.

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#77

Post by yyyk »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #74
yyyk wrote: post #71

This investigation ignores a key question: How many kg of ammonium nitrate was actually in the warehouse. Surely that's extremely important to the models. They only mention an mtv news report mentioning the stated figure of 2750t. That figure comes from the ship's documents. Yet there are estimates that suggest the actual explosion is only equivalent to 1000-1500t[0], or 700-1000t[1]. If the actual amount of nitrate…

Or it degraded in the humidity? Not sure how that would play out.

I (not an expert) don't think trace materials or humidity can explain the size of the explosion being 1/2 to 1/4 of stated storage. That must require significant chemical changes.

I suspect these changes would appear in the plume or type of explosion; Yet no investigation finds any evidence of any type of material not in the original documents.

So we have 'raw' ammonium nitrate possibly contaminated with trace materials - which brings us back to the explosion weight being inconsistent with the documented weight.

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#78

Post by yyyk »

eCa wrote: post #76
yyyk wrote: post #71

This investigation ignores a key question: How many kg of ammonium nitrate was actually in the warehouse. Surely that's extremely important to the models. They only mention an mtv news report mentioning the stated figure of 2750t. That figure comes from the ship's documents. Yet there are estimates that suggest the actual explosion is only equivalent to 1000-1500t[0], or 700-1000t[1]. If the actual amount of nitrate…

2750 tonnes, not kg.

Ouch. I wrote kg instinctively. Corrected.

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#79

Post by holler »

From a laymen's perspective, it's hard to imagine just how negligent the port authorities could have been in managing the warehouse. 2750tons high-explosive Ammonium Nitrate? Check. 50tons Ammonium Phosphate? Check. Stacks of flammable wooden pallets among Ammonium Nitrate? Check. 1000 flammable rubber car tires? Check. 23tons of explosive fireworks? 5 rolls of detonator cord? Check. I mean... how/why?

Re: Beirut Port Explosion

#80

Post by tsjq »

holler wrote: post #79

From a laymen's perspective, it's hard to imagine just how negligent the port authorities could have been in managing the warehouse. 2750tons high-explosive Ammonium Nitrate? Check. 50tons Ammonium Phosphate? Check. Stacks of flammable wooden pallets among Ammonium Nitrate? Check. 1000 flammable rubber car tires? Check. 23tons of explosive fireworks? 5 rolls of detonator cord? Check. I mean... how/why?

and some alleged welding sparks in the same location
Post reply on HN