>>10184975 (lb)
>>10185048 (lb)
>red smoke
Nitric acid fumes. Same thing happened with this chemical plant explosion:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2950648/Toxic-orange-cloud-created-nitric-acid-explosion-chemical-plant-spreads-FIVE-Spanish-towns-forcing-authorities-order-stay-inside.html
> [continuous small 'crackles' build up to the larger second explosion]
>-Not fireworks [no colours]
Those were the fireworks.
>-Not a simple chemical reaction
That's what an explosion is.
>can it be a byproduct of the fire ?
Nitric acid (sort of) is half of ammonium nitrate. If you cook it (not blow it up) it will produce these fumes. The fire before the explosion apparently did that.
The official explanation actually fits very well for once.
General chemical info about Ammonium Nitrate. Note the decomposition in fire to produce toxic nitric oxides (some of which are brownish/reddish fumes. Sauce: high school chem).
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/nitrous%20oxide
Looks like a small portion of it barely exploded and thermally decomposed some more into NOx fumes (brown/red stuff) as it hurled it into the air. Then half a second later the rest saw a proper detonation.
>blast was so powerful that it was capable of condensing atmospheric levels of water vapor in that coastal area of Beirut, Lebanon, into 'cloud formation' level density.
That's the back side of the shock wave. It's the low pressure that causes the brief condensation. Any sufficiently powerful explosion can do that, regardless of the type of source. Here is a volcano blowing its top, see at around 0:25:
>Is that sufficient to rule out any and all theoretically and practically possible mini-nukes?
Better question is, why the hell would anyone use an undisclosed super-high-tech mini-nukes to blow up a fireworks warehouse?
Kek. It was not a fuckin nuke.