Jump to content

Initial investigations point to negligence as cause of Beirut blast: source


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

Initial investigations point to negligence as cause of Beirut blast: source

By Samia Nakhoul

 

2020-08-05T113738Z_2_LYNXNPEG740WQ_RTROPTP_4_LEBANON-SECURITY-BLAST.JPG

A view shows damaged buildings following Tuesday's blast in Beirut's port area, Lebanon August 5, 2020. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Initial investigations indicate years of inaction and negligence over the storage of highly explosive material in Beirut port caused the blast that killed over 100 people on Tuesday, an official source familiar with the findings said.

 

The prime minister and presidency said on Tuesday that 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, used in fertilisers and bombs, had been stored for six years at the port without safety measures.

 

"It is negligence," the official source told Reuters, adding that the storage safety issue had been before several committees and judges and "nothing was done" to issue an order to remove or dispose of the highly combustible material.

 

The source said a fire had started at warehouse 9 of the port and spread to warehouse 12, where the ammonium nitrate was stored.

 

Tuesday's explosion was the most powerful ever suffered by Beirut, a city is still scarred by civil war three decades ago and reeling from a deep financial crisis rooted in decades of corruption and economic mismanagement.

 

Badri Daher, Director General of Lebanese Customs, told broadcaster LBCI on Wednesday that customs had sent six documents to the judiciary warning that the material posed a danger.

 

"We requested that it be re-exported but that did not happen. We leave it to the experts and those concerned to determine why," Daher said.

 

Another source close to a port employee said a team that inspected the ammonium nitrate six months ago warned that if it was not moved it would "blow up all of Beirut".

 

According to two documents seen by Reuters, Lebanese Customs had asked the judiciary in 2016 and 2017 to ask the "concerned maritime agency" to re-export or approve the sale of the ammonium nitrate, removed from the a cargo vessel, Rhosus, and deposited in warehouse 12, to ensure port safety.

 

One of the documents cited similar requests in 2014 and 2015.

 

"A local and international investigation needs to be conducted into the incident, given the scale and the circumstances under which these goods were brought into the ports," said Ghassan Hasbani, former deputy prime minister and a member of the Lebanese Forces party.

 

Shiparrested.com, an industry network dealing with legal cases, had said in a 2015 report that the Rhosus, sailing under a Moldovan flag, docked in Beirut in September 2013 when it had technical problems while sailing from Georgia to Mozambique with 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate.

 

It said that, upon inspection, the vessel was forbidden from sailing and shortly afterwards it was abandoned by its owners, leading to various creditors coming forward with legal claims.

 

"Owing to the risks associated with retaining the ammonium nitrate on board the vessel, the port authorities discharged the cargo onto the port's warehouses," it added.

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-08-05
 
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... well that's like 2,750,000 kilo of that stuff stored there for years ... not bad, safety first!

Now, just for comparison, that equates to about 2,900 car bombs like the one that rightwing-nutter up in Norway used back in '11 ... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a horrific totally preventable disaster hoping the world takes notice with relief and helps in any way possible also hoping that the worlds city’s look in their own areas for potential disasters in the making and deal with it 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

"We requested that it be re-exported but that did not happen. We leave it to the experts and those concerned to determine why," Daher said.

A simple, 1-word answer: baksheesh.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name those "top generals".
"Seem to feel" is not what passes muster. >20k lies from Trump. add another

Isn't the ammonium nitrate what Tim McVeigh used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City? And that was "just" a rental truck load.

My big question is: where is it stored and how much of the same material is around Thailand?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Emdog said:

Name those "top generals".
"Seem to feel" is not what passes muster. >20k lies from Trump. add another

Isn't the ammonium nitrate what Tim McVeigh used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City? And that was "just" a rental truck load.

My big question is: where is it stored and how much of the same material is around Thailand?

McVeigh used a 2 tonne combination of 9 barrels of Ammoniun Nitrate and 4 of Nitromethane plus 15 litres of diesel fuel.

The stuff in Beirut was Ammonium Nitrate and 1375 times larger.  Possibly a little less powerful, without the other ingredients but when multiplied by 1375 that is really irrelevant.

Sorry, but I have no answer for your big question.

There are comprehensive rules for the storage of explosives or explosive materials; let's hope they are complied with ????

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Very curious that trump stated:

 

"It would seem like it [was a bomb], based on the explosion. I met with some of our great generals and they just seem to feel that it was," Mr Trump said.

 

based on "intelligence", but the Russian Bounty scandal wasn't?

 

"Great generals"? 

 

The WH is still defending the president's statement.

 

Seems like someone would take credit if it were anything other than a tragic accident.

 

Proving negligence can be challenging, but it does look like some/all elements (of negligence) exist, based on information available.

 

I'm not convinced that a General with probably over 25 years experience of things that go bang, both expected and unexpected, would agree it was a bomb.  Many videos were available shortly after the tragedy and showed a fire which contained myriad small explosions similar to uncontrolled burning of fireworks or ammunition.  This was followed by the massive explosion of the ammonium nitrate stored in a nearby warehouse.

45 - 'wow it seemed like bomb!'

General - 'yes sir, it did seem like a bomb.'  (whilst privately thinking there is no point arguing with him)

 

"Proving negligence can be challenging"  45 does it every day!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

I'm not convinced that a General with probably over 25 years experience of things that go bang, both expected and unexpected, would agree it was a bomb.  Many videos were available shortly after the tragedy and showed a fire which contained myriad small explosions similar to uncontrolled burning of fireworks or ammunition.  This was followed by the massive explosion of the ammonium nitrate stored in a nearby warehouse.

45 - 'wow it seemed like bomb!'

General - 'yes sir, it did seem like a bomb.'  (whilst privately thinking there is no point arguing with him)

 

"Proving negligence can be challenging"  45 does it every day!

 

You have to understand how the six(?) US intelligence agencies present their assessments. Its by percentage of confidence (typically never 100%) - based on a snapshot of what is known at a certain point of time. 

They do not draw conclusions from what is basically a researched nuanced statistic nor produce a consensus among all the intelligence agencies ... that's the authority of the White House, ie., NSA nominated by the POTUS and the POTUS. 

For example, for the sake of argument agencies 1-3 say 10% for a bomb attack, 70% accident/negligence and 20% unknown cause. Agencies 4-6 say 5% for a bomb attack, 75% accident/negligence and 20% unknown cause.

Trump could correctly cite that All the agencies agree that a bomb attack was a possible cause, albeit the lowest probability! But it is also correct for the NSA to say an accident/-negligence was a possible cause, albeit the highest probability!  

This is why Truth matters between the POTUS and the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ukrules said:

Amazing that they would store this material in a populated place.

 

Not surprising that some American generals would think this is a bomb, this is likely the largest single accident on record and it involves material which is often used in bombs.

 

They had better already be building emergency food storage warehouses and start filling them out of the city because from what I understand it also took out all the grain stores and who knows what else in the blast.

 

Amazingly Australia stores much more close to a populated city than what Beirut claimed was stored in their blast. Residents In Newcastle NSW in Oz have been complaining for years but nothing has been done. In Newcastle they have between 6,000 - 12,000 ton of ammonium nitrate stored within 800m of residential buildings and working 8km of Newcastle CBD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     Why are all going on about Potus, and the Generals, its now't to do with them, Thousands would of assumed it were a bomb, even the Lebanese people thought it must of been a missile.

     But, the Lebanese Government are blaming port officials, when they themselves seem to of been incompetent at dealing with the issue of what to do with it. They had it confiscated, with no thought on what to do with it for 6 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, animalmagic said:

He is so stupid he couldn't pour water out of a wellie if the instructions were written on the sole!

He's nonetheless likely to secure another 4 years...

 

Back on topic; I saw a fair amount of 'credible speculation' elsewhere yesterday without commenting, but it now appears that a similar 'massive fire in a wearhouse' (with video) has subsequently occurred in Najaf, Iraq.

 

Coincidence...?

Edited by evadgib
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, evadgib said:

He's nonetheless likely to secure another 4 years...

 

Back on topic; I saw a fair amount of 'credible speculation' elsewhere yesterday without commenting, but it now appears that a similar 'massive fire in a wearhouse' (with video) has subsequently occurred in Iraq.

 

Coincidence...?

He needs to be 'secured' for another 40 years.

I'm really not convinced that credible speculation should be encouraged from world leaders; facts and reassurances of getting to the bottom of something is far preferable.

I have no idea what started the original fire, it may well have been accidental or malicious, hopefully we will one day know and have incontrovertible proof.  There are several possible explanations.

What is obvious is that 45 was simply spitballing or thinking out loud, in the words of other commentators; and this has never been effective or impressive from him.

There appear to have been suspicious fires in Ajman (UAE) and Najaf (Iraq) within 24 hours of the Beirut explosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...