I read it that way as well—-words do have secondary and tertiary connotations, and any competent journalist knows how to use composition and careful word choice to more effectively convey a particular narrative.
All your examples use 'fallout' about abstract occurrences – not situations where an actual plane-and-jet-fuel crashed-and-exploded from the sky, throwing some actual 'fallout' across a debris field.
As far as I can tell, clean-up crews are having no notable problems with the fallout from the crash. Boeing is scrambling to contain the damage to its business.
Nobody with a full command of the language uses "fallout" to refer to a debris field. It is most commonly used in the abstract sense, to refer to negative after-effects, or else in the technical sense, for radioactive pollution.
As noted in my examples, the NYT regularly uses 'fallout' to refer to non-radioactive toxics emerging from explosions and other activities as well. This usage is also confirmed by many dictionaries.
Trauma May Have Fallout Over Generations
Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far
As Trump Struggles With Helsinki’s Fallout, Congress Faces a New Charge: Complicity
Inside Uber’s $100,000 Payment to a Hacker, and the Fallout
Nissan and Renault Wrestle With the Fallout From Carlos Ghosn’s Arrest
Fallout is widely used to mean "affect-effects" with no secondary or tertiary connotations.
I mean....you really thought there was some kind of nuclear disaster in Helsinki after reading that headline?