|
drilldo squirt posted:So would this be bigger or smaller than the texas city disaster? Texas City involved 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate so I'm going to say smaller.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Estimated 7,000-70,000 casualties Source?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:So would this be bigger or smaller than the texas city disaster? In terms of the size of the boom no. In terms of loss of life quite possibly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Texas City involved 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate so I'm going to say smaller. ukle fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Source? disregard that, source seems to be poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B002'05.7%22N+117%C2%B044'34.2%22E/@39.0325209,117.737201,549m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0 look at all those apartment buildings right across the highway
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Wonder how hard videos of this are going to get censored, and how quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B002'05.7%22N+117%C2%B044'34.2%22E/@39.0325209,117.737201,549m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0 Like they actually had any occupants...
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:
Holy gently caress. I hope they survived and the concussive wave just damaged the camera/made it stop recording. But I seriously seriously doubt it. poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
No way that guy survived. Pause on the final frame and the ground is being torn up in front of him. edit: nevermind those are trees
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Likely the phone survived, the person is toast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:No way that guy survived. Pause on the final frame and the ground is being torn up in front of him. There is longer video of this and they are a few miles away from the explosion the video is deceiving as the blast is just so big. When you understand how far away they actually are what seems like a fence, appears to actually be a multi story building of some sort, that's just ripped to shreds, I hope its just a warehouse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
I'm sure those apartment blocks that appear to have been blown to bits survived. We all know that in China builders adhere to strict building codes and guidelines and use only the finest material in the most thorough construction process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
ukle posted:There is longer video of this and they are a few miles away from the explosion the video is deceiving as the blast is just so big. When you understand how far away they actually are what seems like a fence, appears to actually be a multi story building of some sort, that's just ripped to shreds, I hope its just a warehouse. Also it looks like the initial blast caused a building even close to the camera explode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
TheBuilder posted:Like they actually had any occupants... Ok that made me laugh. jm20 posted:Likely the phone survived, the person is toast. From what I can find elsewhere he was live-streaming and someone captured it from the stream. Of course there is basically zero official word right now beyond "something happened".
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Where are people getting 7000-70000 casualties? BBC has like 7 dead, 700 injured. I mean I know China would lowball it but is the discrepancy that much?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Camera guy might be fine, camera guy's eardrums though probably not
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Where are people getting 7000-70000 casualties? BBC has like 7 dead, 700 injured. I mean I know China would lowball it but is the discrepancy that much? I doubt they have a good idea of the actual numbers at this point, not that they'd necessarily say them if they did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Where are people getting 7000-70000 casualties? BBC has like 7 dead, 700 injured. I mean I know China would lowball it but is the discrepancy that much? Its an extrapolation from the average population density of the blast zone area, then factoring in things like glass and building collapses. However the epicenter wasn't a residential area and it was late at night so hopefully it doesn't get anywhere that high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
How long ago did this happen? The source on all the wire services "7 dead" seems to be People's Daily.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:How long ago did this happen? The source on all the wire services "7 dead" seems to be People's Daily. About 23:30 local time, so 11:30 EST.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Where are people getting 7000-70000 casualties? BBC has like 7 dead, 700 injured. I mean I know China would lowball it but is the discrepancy that much? Read above, it's already been taken back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
CCTV America just cut their feed covering the explosion. The feed just switched over to some generic news, and then cut out entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
So with the amount of poo poo they are trying to censor its safe to assume the damage is way higher then what they are claiming?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
This is the most complete video I've seen http://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034%3Adc65aafd8a97629626a8b7c27c9d38ff Terrifying stuff. And yeah, no point trying to guess the cost at this stage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:So with the amount of poo poo they are trying to censor its safe to assume the damage is way higher then what they are claiming? People's News Daily twitter feed showed traffic jammed up for kilometers on end, but oddly it's not showing this tweet on their main Twitter page. I say that with the caveat that I'm not terribly familiar with Twitter's method of what is shown or not shown - https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/631550305621049345
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
The Texas City explosion was almost two kilotons and 460 people died, so the 7,000 dead figure seems completely impossible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Texas City explosion was almost two kilotons and 460 people died, so the 7,000 dead figure seems completely impossible. Texas City had a population of around 6,000.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Texas City explosion was almost two kilotons and 460 people died, so the 7,000 dead figure seems completely impossible. Well, yeah, hence it being retracted. However, given the size and depending on what part of the port it was it could easly be in the hundreds. At any major port, even in the dead of night you have that number of truckers alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Texas City had a population of around 6,000. And 5,000 were wounded by the Texas explosion. But the big thing is the difference in location. The Texas City port had over a mile of industrial development between it and the nearest commercial/residential buildings, which were all only a few stories tall. The Tianjin explosion occurred two blocks away from a complex of high-rise apartments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Hey CCTV America just came back online,, but they're talking about random other things and having a bunch of technical issues. Got some off-mic commentary about being "happy that's over" before it cut off again before I could even hit submit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Roughly 300m from one of the blasts. Also since no one else has mentioned it the National Supercomputer Center is well within the blast radius.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:Well, yeah, hence it being retracted. However, given the size and depending on what part of the port it was it could easly be in the hundreds. At any major port, even in the dead of night you have that number of truckers alone. Yeah but there was clearly a huge fire before the explosion, even in China I doubt you'd have the drunkest of truckers stick around for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, it looks like someone triggered a low grade nuclear bomb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:
Was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Yep even the wiki page about the place has already been updated: "It has now been thought to be totally decimated in August 12 China cargo explosion."
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Apparently buildings up to 10km away are reported to have collapsed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Comparing the estimated 20 ton explosion to the fireball, pictured damage, and reported building collapses, it seems to be a 'bit' more than 20 tons in size.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
What I see in the times is that the second explosion was equivalent to about 21 MT (metric tons ) of TNT. This is based on seismic readings. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/w...ottom-well&_r=0 A couple of things. That means each of the two explosions is about a twenty foot containers worth of whatever. (If any one wants this explained I'll walk you through how I can conclude this) So two twenty foot containers or two twenty foot tanks. It doesn't look like a BLEVE type explosion to me from the videos. BLEVE meaning "boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion." They tend to look like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU. So personally I would guess this was something solid, a 5.1 or a 1. whatever. I know quite a bit of 1.4s come out of Tianjin. But this is entirely speculation, past the it's probably two twenties. I see some of you comparing this to Texas City. The Texas City incident involved 2100 MT of ammonium nitrate. This is two 21-ish MT explosions. The difference is the cargo hold of a ship amount of whatever vs a couple of 20' containers of whatever. This is a pretty significant hazardous materials incident and is going to be a very very big deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:15
|
|
