Beirut explosion.

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Halifax Explosion On 6 December 1917, SS Imo and SS Mont-Blanc collided in the harbour of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Mont-Blanc carried 2,653 tonnes of various explosives, mostly picric acid. After the collision the ship caught fire, drifted into town, and exploded. 1,950 people were killed and much of Halifax was destroyed. An evaluation of the explosion's force puts it at 2.9 kilotons of TNT (12 TJ).[26] Halifax historian Jay White in 1994 concluded "Halifax Harbour remains unchallenged in overall magnitude as long as five criteria are considered together: number of casualties, force of blast, radius of devastation, quantity of explosive material, and total value of property destroyed."
 

J232

Well-Known Member
Halifax Explosion On 6 December 1917, SS Imo and SS Mont-Blanc collided in the harbour of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Mont-Blanc carried 2,653 tonnes of various explosives, mostly picric acid. After the collision the ship caught fire, drifted into town, and exploded. 1,950 people were killed and much of Halifax was destroyed. An evaluation of the explosion's force puts it at 2.9 kilotons of TNT (12 TJ).[26] Halifax historian Jay White in 1994 concluded "Halifax Harbour remains unchallenged in overall magnitude as long as five criteria are considered together: number of casualties, force of blast, radius of devastation, quantity of explosive material, and total value of property destroyed."
very much part of our history, worth reading about for sure.
 

potroastV2

Well-Known Member
Reinforced concrete construction and it looks like they had the inside divided up as well, no floors to collapse, just a big heap of grain that probably saved the rest of the structure. It would be like those barrels of sand they put at the end of highway dividers to absorb impact and cushion the blow.

Wow, you trailer park boys certainly live in a strange place.

In our country, they fill those barrels with water. :lol:


:mrgreen:
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Water freezes, try hitting a barrel of ice in winter when they are used the most, the sand is kept dry too.
I heard they kept hydroxychloroquine in them. badaboom, crash

Actually, not. I had a friend who worked for a company who made those things. He said Idaho DOT bought some and called back complaining that they weren't working to save lives. Turned out that their crews were finding water was evaporating out of some valves and so they plugged them. The valve are the key safety feature in the design. When somebody hits one, they bleed the water off to reduce the energy of the impact. A static barrel of water is just like a concrete post when somebody hits them at freeway speed. Or sand or frozen water. All the same. The barrel has to have a way to deform and bleed off energy of the impact. Not all barrels are the same. Some are empty, some do have sand in them. The ones they use on freeways are called impact attenuators.

I found this:

If those crash barrels are filled with water, why don't they freeze in the winter?

Kelly from Loveland writes, “What's driving you crazy? Last week you talked about an accident where the car hit some barrels filled with water and that caused the highway to get all wet. Doesn't the water freeze during winter and the wouldn't you just hit the barrels filled with solid ice?”

Kelly, that is a very astute observation and a great question. What I am told from the construction workers is that the impact attenuator that was hit, the barrel as I called it on TV, was partially filled with liquid magnesium chloride, not pure water. The contractor assures me that the mag chloride solution will not freeze, even in the coldest Denver temperatures, so no one will ever hit an attenuator full of ice.

 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I heard they kept hydroxychloroquine in them. badaboom, crash

Actually, not. I had a friend who worked for a company who made those things. He said Idaho DOT bought some and called back complaining that they weren't working to save lives. Turned out that their crews were finding water was evaporating out of some valves and so they plugged them. The valve are the key safety feature in the design. When somebody hits one, they bleed the water off to reduce the energy of the impact. A static barrel of water is just like a concrete post when somebody hits them at freeway speed. Or sand or frozen water. All the same. The barrel has to have a way to deform and bleed off energy of the impact. Not all barrels are the same. Some are empty, some do have sand in them. The ones they use on freeways are called impact attenuators.

I found this:

If those crash barrels are filled with water, why don't they freeze in the winter?

Kelly from Loveland writes, “What's driving you crazy? Last week you talked about an accident where the car hit some barrels filled with water and that caused the highway to get all wet. Doesn't the water freeze during winter and the wouldn't you just hit the barrels filled with solid ice?”

Kelly, that is a very astute observation and a great question. What I am told from the construction workers is that the impact attenuator that was hit, the barrel as I called it on TV, was partially filled with liquid magnesium chloride, not pure water. The contractor assures me that the mag chloride solution will not freeze, even in the coldest Denver temperatures, so no one will ever hit an attenuator full of ice.

I saw on TV years back they were doing tests and the impact shot the sand into the air and it looks like they are filled with something like that around here, the barrels don't look like the are made for liquid around here. I'm sure it has been studied to death by highway safety engineers and there are a mountain of papers and tests on that item alone!
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I saw on TV years back they were doing tests and the impact shot the sand into the air and it looks like they are filled with something like that around here, the barrels don't look like the are made for liquid around here. I'm sure it has been studied to death by highway safety engineers and there are a mountain of papers and tests on that item alone!
citation
 

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
"On 23 September 2013, the Russian-owned Moldovan-flagged cargo ship MV Rhosus set sail from Batumi, Georgia, to Beira, Mozambique, carrying 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. In October, it was forced to port in Beirut with engine problems. After inspection by port state control, the Rhosus was found unseaworthy, and it was forbidden to set sail. Eight Ukrainians and one Russian were aboard, and with the help of a Ukrainian consul, five Ukrainians were repatriated, leaving four crew members to take care of the ship.

The owner of the Rhosus, the Cyprus-based Russian businessman Igor Grechushkin, went bankrupt, and after the charterers lost interest in the cargo, the owner abandoned the ship. The Rhosus then quickly ran out of provisions, while the crew were unable to disembark due to immigration restrictions. Creditors also obtained three arrest warrants against the ship. Lawyers argued for the crew's repatriation on compassionate grounds, due to the danger posed by the cargo still aboard the ship, and an Urgent Matters judge in Beirut allowed them to return home after having been stuck aboard the ship for about a year. By order of a court, the dangerous cargo was brought ashore in 2014 and placed in Hangar 12 at the port, where it remained for the next six years.

Various customs officials had sent letters to judges requesting a resolution to the issue of the confiscated cargo, proposing that the ammonium nitrate either be exported, given to the Lebanese army, or sold to the private Lebanese Explosives Company. Letters had been sent on 27 June and 5 December 2014, 6 May 2015, 20 May and 13 October 2016, and 27 October 2017. One of the letters sent in 2016 noted that judges had not replied to previous requests, and "pleaded":

In view of the serious danger of keeping these goods in the hangar in unsuitable climatic conditions, we reaffirm our request to please request the marine agency to re-export these goods immediately to preserve the safety of the port and those working in it, or to look into agreeing to sell this amount"
from
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
1 kiloton pre TRINITY test ( check out guy with hammer ) .


Hiroshima was around 15 kilotons. That's 15,000 tons of TNT.

The trinity test was 22 kilotons. That's 22,000 tons of TNT.

Typical U.S. nuclear warhead is 1,200 kilotons. That's 1,200,000 tons of TNT.

The explosion in Beirut is calculated to be around 450 tons of TNT.

That should give folks some perspective.
 

1212ham

Well-Known Member
Try signing into a G suite account. Shit looks highly suspicious dude/ this might be the beginning of ww3. I have studies nuclear blasts extensively. This was a nuclear blast.
That was no nuclear blast. It was 2700 tons of ammonium nitrate and it's not the first time.



"The 1947 Texas City disaster was an industrial accident that occurred on April 16, 1947, in the Port of Texas City, Texas, at Galveston Bay. It was the deadliest industrial accident in U.S. history and one of history's largest non-nuclear explosions. "


Another ammonium nitrate explosion in Texas City, it blows at 1:24 in the vid.
 
Top