I wouldn't be surprised if he is telling the truth. A difference between me an you, I don't automatically write people off as insane before testing and being able to discredit their evidence. Nice to see you find it amusing that out government is launching missiles into us.
Dude, you should try being like me. Might bring some harmony and balance to your life. Not sure where you got the 'i trust my government' thing from. I've only ever voted once in 21 years. I have no interest in my or any other government but that said i'm not gonna hoard months of supplies of baked beans, water and ammo in my basement awaiting for the NWO to come a knocking at my door to throw me in a FEMA camp in my lifetime.
You're welcome. Things go a lot easier for all of us if we can dispute your claims without being accused of supporting or covering up a false flag attack. A claim will be examined according to (X) available facts, and supposition is just that. There's nothing wrong with an initial hypothesising, but then the claim will be held to a stricter examination and you shouldn't be surprised or offended when other reasonable explanations are offered, especially if someone has experience in a certain field. eg, your dismissal of audio distortion as a cause for the sound was very quick and your reason for the objection is not clear.
In what you posted, I read that fire is the source. I didn't read anything about a nitrate explosion starting from a football field distance away. Even in gaseous form blowing through the air, would there be a football field gap between the initial spark and the main explosion in the fire? They also didn't explain why the fire was burning for at least "20" minutes before without exploding.
Here is F4Jock's explanation from the first page. It seems reasonable. If you have a good reason to dispute it, then by all means please do...
My take: It's apparently a gas flare from one of the anhydrous ammonia or other tanks just before it blew.
What caused the explosion was apparently one or more of the anhydrous ammonia or other tanks blowing. The fires seen burning out of control before the blast would have heated the liquid and the gas present in the tank above that liquid to a point where, expanding rapidly, it would have either ruptured the tank or blown a safety. The escaping gas would not have ignited until the air / gas mixture supported combustion, "(Think butane lighter.) hence the initial gap shown between the flame and the ground.
The explosion just afterward was caused by the rest of the tank(s) contents cooking off.
Understand that I've pieced this together based on my work in refineries and my knowledge of what might have been present in a fertilizer plant so I may not have identified the compound in the tanks properly, but I'd be willing to put some money on the explosive mechanism being as I described it.
...
The unignited source gas is screaming out somewhere behind that tree or black smoke hugging the ground center left. It expands, reaches the proper air/gas mixture and after it ignites it approaches top left and expands further as it burns and its velocity slows.
Yes, I think for certain they want large amounts unavailable for a potential system collapse. I believe this was also done to steal money from the fertilizer and pesticide industry. I don't know if they will ban it so much as they will enforce more regulation to steal from the industry. If they banned it, they would be missing out on stealing money from people. I'm also pretty sure there is some type of tracking system already in place by our government on individuals that purchase large amounts of ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia. I believe it should be regulated, but not under false flags.
Well it seems that you have a pre-existing narrative about the desire and implementation of system collapse and stealing from the people, one which I don't have, so I can see why you believe what you do about this case.
It may not be that though, so I suggest you not hold too tightly to beliefs that pre-determine how you see an outcome, that later facts will not alter.
Be supple, not rigid, that the wind of facts will not break you. (sorry, I just read a japanese novel.)
Dude, you should try being like me. Might bring some harmony and balance to your life. Not sure where you got the 'i trust my government' thing from. I've only ever voted once in 21 years. I have no interest in my or any other government but that said i'm not gonna hoard months of supplies of baked beans, water and ammo in my basement awaiting for the NWO to come a knocking at my door to throw me in a FEMA camp in my lifetime.
Hello, no I haven't. Do I have to have hands on experience when not one scientist or engineer can prove how this explosion happened? What is your evidence that AN can explode from a football field distance rather than the center of it's fire or heat source? Where is one source written on AN telling of the potential dangers of leaking gases causing an explosion? I will challenge any and every engineer or chemist on my claims and they will fail. Truth is not biased to college degrees.
Where did you get this idea that the AN was exploding from a football field away from its heat source?
You can clearly see that a large explosion happened from one of the largest storage warehouses at the location. This can be made out by examining the direction that debris was blown away from the crater; as almost all the debris has been blown away from this one spot. There are trees that lay on the ground that form a line towards this crater. There are boards, sheetrock, and other debris pointing the same way. You can also clearly see how silos on each side were blown away from the one location.
I have drawn a circle around the crater and drew arrows to indicate the pattern of debris spread away from the crater.
This is a photo indicating the center of the crater. As you can see with the storage tanks that held anhydrous ammonia, that this building was the larger building located where I indicated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73A1yX9O9FI I posted this video before which you called bad because it did not add evidence to your own story, but I would call to your attention that in this video the question you asked about AN leaking and gassing off when it is burned. In addition to that, I have found a few others that show how AN behaves under fire; and will even burn in the absence of oxygen because it has its own oxygen source.
but as well when it is contaminated with other chemicals it can burn more rapidly as well.
Ammonium nitrate can be exploded under certain conditions. These must include added energy (heat, shock), especially under conditions of confinement or presence ofcontaminants.
One who would want to have a better explosive with AN would do something commonly called "activation" in which AN is exposed to water and then quickly dried, sometimes 3 times over. This would increase the explosive potential of AN.
There is also an element of neglegance that has been exposed on behalf of the employees of the fertilizer corp. This is indicated in this news article.
The massive explosion at a fertilizer plant near Waco, Texas, must have been caused by ammonium nitrate, and couldn’t have gone off without negligence by the facility’s employees, chemists who talked to RT about the incident agree.
“The most likely cause of the powerful explosion is the ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer and pesticide, which is also a powerful explosive and is known to have caused quite a number of disasters around the world,”UK chemist Christopher Busby said. “America’s most deadly disaster, in Texas City in 1947, happened when a fire detonated 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate stored on a ship.” “People were watching the fire from a distance of about 1km from the plant. The fire was very large at that stage and what happens is the fire then goes underneath probably one of the ammonium nitrate storage vessels and eventually heats it up until it explodes. It takes about half-an-hour to an hour for fire to explode in an ammonium nitrate storage vessel." “So this is what has happened, that the fire has got out of control and basically heated up the vessel. What seems to me to be wrong about this whole incident is that instead of evacuating the plant, when the fire establishment could not control it, there seemed to be brought up more and more fire people and they were putting them at risk. I don’t know, it sounds as if there have been a lot of deaths among fire people,”he added.
If you want, I can try to get Christopher Busby PhD in on this discussion as well. I have spoken to him online as recently as a few days ago. He is a professor of Chemistry. His opinion is of the expert level on this subject matter. This is what you would call strong evidence that the explosion was nothing more than AN. So far you have none of this with your theory, and furthermore this information I present puts big holes in your own case.
You're welcome. Things go a lot easier for all of us if we can dispute your claims without being accused of supporting or covering up a false flag attack. A claim will be examined according to (X) available facts, and supposition is just that. There's nothing wrong with an initial hypothesising, but then the claim will be held to a stricter examination and you shouldn't be surprised or offended when other reasonable explanations are offered, especially if someone has experience in a certain field. eg, your dismissal of audio distortion as a cause for the sound was very quick and your reason for the objection is not clear.
Here is F4Jock's explanation from the first page. It seems reasonable. If you have a good reason to dispute it, then by all means please do...
Well it seems that you have a pre-existing narrative about the desire and implementation of system collapse and stealing from the people, one which I don't have, so I can see why you believe what you do about this case.
It may not be that though, so I suggest you not hold too tightly to beliefs that pre-determine how you see an outcome, that later facts will not alter.
Be supple, not rigid, that the wind of facts will not break you. (sorry, I just read a japanese novel.)
Hello, thanks for being reasonable. "your dismissal of audio distortion as a cause for the sound was very quick and your reason for the objection is not clear." I thought I made myself clear in my response. The sound of the missile was heard at least 3-5 seconds before the explosion which the poster claimed was the source of the sound. I pointed the poster to my video links. Even the recorded over audio, the sound is near exact.
"My take: It's apparently a gas flare from one of the anhydrous ammonia or other tanks just before it blew." I saw no tanks directly around the source of the left flash that sparked the explosion. "The escaping gas would not have ignited until the air / gas mixture supported combustion, "(Think butane lighter.) hence the initial gap shown between the flame and the ground." Yes, but a butane lighter is directly below the flame, not a football field away. Plus explosions are different on higher scales and greater distances.
"The unignited source gas is screaming out somewhere behind that tree or black smoke hugging the ground center left. It expands, reaches the proper air/gas mixture and after it ignites it approaches top left and expands further as it burns and its velocity slows."
Where behind the tree? There was no tanks visible near the left flash? Is this poster claiming the left flash was after the explosion? Even if the right air/gas mixture is correct, why wouldn't the explosion be closer to the heat source?
It was not pre-existing until we saw the missile. Then I immediately see a cover up and the promotion of regulation by blaming the plants explosion on it'self. I welcome any facts from anyone. It's hard if not impossible to cover up a missile strike.
Where did you get this idea that the AN was exploding from a football field away from its heat source?
If you want, I can try to get Christopher Busby PhD in on this discussion as well. I have spoken to him online as recently as a few days ago. He is a professor of Chemistry. His opinion is of the expert level on this subject matter. This is what you would call strong evidence that the explosion was nothing more than AN. So far you have none of this with your theory, and furthermore this information I present puts big holes in your own case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QmyrDnbo8ds
There is my video. Compare the two and you will see yours is clearly edited to hide the distance of the flash on the left from the burning plant.
The main explosion to me looks like that extremely dark area in between your arrows. Please point me to the tree as a reference of where the initial flash came from shown in my video above. Why are all of those white anhydrous ammonia tanks all around the blast looking untouched?
I will get to all of your videos. Get everyone you know with a degree who can explain the distance between the flash/missile that sparked the blast.
Well, it's the luck of the draw really. If I had been on earlier to respond I probably would have got a bit riled up by you, but it's been the other poster's privilege to do that.
Yes, but a butane lighter is directly below the flame, not a football field away. Plus explosions are different on higher scales and greater distances.
The 'football field away' seems to be a key point.
Can you demonstrate that this is the case?
I think that joelb79's post above shows otherwise.
Not quite clear what you mean about different scales and greater distances? I'm limited in analysis as I can't watch videos.
It was not pre-existing until we saw the missile. Then I immediately see a cover up and the promotion of regulation by blaming the plants explosion on it'self. I welcome any facts from anyone. It's hard if not impossible to cover up a missile strike.
Very true, which is why there should be better evidence for it than what there apparently is.
Are you an actual marine? If so, do you see any paradox in serving your government and also believing your government would deliberately cause a fatal event just to get some legislation through? It seems to be a very popular belief lately.
I thought I made myself clear in my response. The sound of the missile was heard at least 3-5 seconds before the explosion which the poster claimed was the source of the sound. I pointed the poster to my video links. Even the recorded over audio, the sound is near exact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QmyrDnbo8ds
There is my video. Compare the two and you will see yours is clearly edited to hide the distance of the flash on the left from the burning plant.
The main explosion to me looks like that extremely dark area in between your arrows. Please point me to the tree as a reference of where the initial flash came from shown in my video above. Why are all of those white anhydrous ammonia tanks all around the blast looking untouched?
I will get to all of your videos. Get everyone you know with a degree who can explain the distance between the flash/missile that sparked the blast.
Listen here buddy... I DID NOT POST a video of the explosion in my last post, and I do not take lightly the fact you accuse me of fabricating a video. Seriously what video did I edit? I have not nor did not post a video of the explosion in the post you quoted.. so I am curious why you are deluded into thinking such things. You say you will get to all of my videos yet you are accusing me of posting one that is an edited version of the explosion?
Those tanks, you don't think they would be build strongly do you? They are not thin walled tanks, they are designed for pressure. Its not much of a stretch of the imagination to think that they could have survived the explosions and fire to not have had anything happen to them at all. I mean, they are not even being investigated any further as a source of the explosion.
Anhydrous ammonia, another fertilizer component, was also stored on site at the West Fertilizer facility and there was some early speculation that it may have been the source of the explosion. More than 70 investigators have developed over 200 leads, from which over 400 interviews have been conducted. Investigators believe the fire started somewhere in the 12,000 square foot (1,100 square meter) fertilizer and seed building. They continue to work on pinpointing the exact location. "The number-one issue that we're trying to resolve right now is, where did the fire start and how did the fire start," Kistner said.
Investigators said they have eliminated the following causes for the initial fire: weather, natural causes, anhydrous ammonia, a railcar containing ammonium nitrate, and a fire within the ammonium nitrate bin.
Additionally, they said water used during fire fighting activities did not contribute to the cause of the explosion as some had speculated.
I or someone else will post the final information up from this investigation which will detail the entire fire to explosion scenario for you once the investigation is through. I am sure then we will have people with degrees who will explain everything you think you are seeing in your collection of videos you draw from.
Well, it's the luck of the draw really. If I had been on earlier to respond I probably would have got a bit riled up by you, but it's been the other poster's privilege to do that.
The 'football field away' seems to be a key point.
Can you demonstrate that this is the case?
I think that joelb79's post above shows otherwise.
Not quite clear what you mean about different scales and greater distances? I'm limited in analysis as I can't watch videos.
Very true, which is why there should be better evidence for it than what there apparently is.
Are you an actual marine? If so, do you see any paradox in serving your government and also believing your government would deliberately cause a fatal event just to get some legislation through? It seems to be a very popular belief lately.
I'll have to let the audio question alone because I can't watch videos, but hopefully someone else will examine it closer.
Yes, I will demonstrate the distance when I can find the reference point from the photos compared to videos.
There are undeniable facts of the missile in the smoke and explosion patterns even without the missile there. Any explosion or missile expert knows what I am writing is undeniable. I challenge any professional explosion expert to challenge and dismiss my claims. I will make them look silly with only my high school diploma.
Yes, I see the paradox. That is why I am so disturbed by my latest findings. It makes everything we all did and some died for all for nothing when our government is killing us. Or pretending to kill us. It makes all law irrelevant for government to hold people accountable for things they obviously cover up and break themselves.
Listen here buddy... I DID NOT POST a video of the explosion in my last post, and I do not take lightly the fact you accuse me of fabricating a video. Seriously what video did I edit? I have not nor did not post a video of the explosion in the post you quoted.. so I am curious why you are deluded into thinking such things. You say you will get to all of my videos yet you are accusing me of posting one that is an edited version of the explosion?
Those tanks, you don't think they would be build strongly do you? They are not thin walled tanks, they are designed for pressure. Its not much of a stretch of the imagination to think that they could have survived the explosions and fire to not have had anything happen to them at all. I mean, they are not even being investigated any further as a source of the explosion.
Anhydrous ammonia, another fertilizer component, was also stored on site at the West Fertilizer facility and there was some early speculation that it may have been the source of the explosion. More than 70 investigators have developed over 200 leads, from which over 400 interviews have been conducted. Investigators believe the fire started somewhere in the 12,000 square foot (1,100 square meter) fertilizer and seed building. They continue to work on pinpointing the exact location. "The number-one issue that we're trying to resolve right now is, where did the fire start and how did the fire start," Kistner said.
Investigators said they have eliminated the following causes for the initial fire: weather, natural causes, anhydrous ammonia, a railcar containing ammonium nitrate, and a fire within the ammonium nitrate bin.
Additionally, they said water used during fire fighting activities did not contribute to the cause of the explosion as some had speculated.
I or someone else will post the final information up from this investigation which will detail the entire fire to explosion scenario for you once the investigation is through. I am sure then we will have people with degrees who will explain everything you think you are seeing in your collection of videos you draw from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73A1yX9O9FI This is the video you posted above. I didn't say you edited it personally. I just said it was edited. The missile streak is completely chopped out and the frame shortened. Compare it to my video and you will see the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2WZ6Jb7NB_I Sorry I posted my wrong video earlier.
I look forward to the degree squad to put me into my place. Find me a missile or explosion expert to make me look stupid and discredit my main claims.
If you discredit my explosion and entry patterns, my entire claim falls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73A1yX9O9FI This is the video you posted above. I didn't say you edited it personally. I just said it was edited. The missile streak is completely chopped out and the frame shortened. Compare it to my video and you will see the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=QmyrDnbo8ds
I look forward to the degree squad to put me into my place. Find me a missile or explosion expert to make me look stupid and discredit my main claims.
If you discredit my explosion and entry patterns, my entire claim falls.
Now compare your untampered Daily Telegraph video with my Syrian one (and yes you can hear a jet at 00:40 seconds in flying away. Its a false flag so its not gonna pass by)
Now compare your untampered Daily Telegraph video with my Syrian one (and yes you can hear a jet at 00:40 seconds in flying away. Its a false flag so its not gonna pass by)
Not everybody has a smart phone. Besides wouldn't whomever was filming see a missile? After all they're vision would have been the clearest. Meanwhile with the Telegraph video, there was more than one person there. Nobody said, heard or seen anything regarding a missile.
Here's a thing, please explain to me about how the feds would pay off such witnesses and so quickly after it happening?
Not everybody has a smart phone. Besides wouldn't whomever was filming see a missile? After all they're vision would have been the clearest. Meanwhile with the Telegraph video, there was more than one person there. Nobody said, heard or seen anything regarding a missile.
Here's a thing, please explain to me about how the feds would pay off such witnesses and so quickly after it happening?
Im sure they did see the missile. This is a media cover up which is seen by the video altercations and lack of video. Why would the let people speak against what they are hiding? The feds knew the missile was coming. I guarantee they were already there or there shortly after the plant blew. Find their response time for me. Sweet dreams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73A1yX9O9FI This is the video you posted above. I didn't say you edited it personally. I just said it was edited. The missile streak is completely chopped out and the frame shortened. Compare it to my video and you will see the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2WZ6Jb7NB_I Sorry I posted my wrong video earlier.
I look forward to the degree squad to put me into my place. Find me a missile or explosion expert to make me look stupid and discredit my main claims.
If you discredit my explosion and entry patterns, my entire claim falls.
Well considering I did not post the video to prove your point but more clearly explain the plant layout and possible explosion place, as well as the fact that it has experts in the video explaining it. Really your not addressing anything the video says about the actual explosion cause by fire. Your just trying to make it seem like there is a grand cover up but really the fact is nobody is seeing what you saw in any video you post.
Im sure they did see the missile. This is a media cover up which is seen by the video altercations and lack of video. Why would the let people speak against what they are hiding? The feds knew the missile was coming. I guarantee they were already there or there shortly after the plant blew. Find their response time for me. Sweet dreams.
There were three people filming at the time of the explosion. Not members of the media.
[video=youtube_share;la1EGKlt-mI]http://youtu.be/la1EGKlt-mI[/video]
I see nothing entering and only things going out. It's your opinion that the smoke is somehow proof, but the only proof is hard evidence like missile remains (non-existent). And countless others here have offered you a different opinion to refute it. I am also not clear how this single frame has any weight when the rest of the video footage in total does not back up your conclusion as well.
Where can I see the missile in this video from 3 angles?
I've pinpointed the location of where the video was taken that Marine0811 keeps linking as the strong evidence he has This video was taken from 505ft away. Can we narrow down how narrow a FOV we are looking at so we can better determine the explosion as appearing to travel some distance. I believe we are seeing the explosion travel across the building I suggested is now the crater, which is a distance of about 148ft. Much smaller than a football field, roughly half the size.
The trash bin is about 7ft long. It appears full screen width on this video. I believe that the video you have is edited as well, it has been stretched to width so that would make the image appear wider at longer distances. you are seeing an optical illusion.
It may have been stretched to fit screen when it was re-broadcast, but if you're saying the edges of the screen have been clipped to hide wider footage I really don't think you've investigated it properly.
The fire was obviously huge at this point, enough to provide the heat and conditions for the explosion.
edit...
Where behind the tree? There was no tanks visible near the left flash? Is this poster claiming the left flash was after the explosion? Even if the right air/gas mixture is correct, why wouldn't the explosion be closer to the heat source?
Note the tree hides at least the edge of the building - possibly more if the footage was taken to the left of the small building in the carpark shown in Joel's above post rather than the very corner of it - so you can't see if the fire has spread low down to that side or not. There looks to be a rail track in front of the building, so a rail car with material in it could easily be at the corner of that building behind the tree. It's speculation of course, but not unreasonable.
I don't think he's saying the flash was after the explosion, but that it was likely the cause of it or shows the moment of final ignition.
Where did you get this idea that the AN was exploding from a football field away from its heat source?
“The most likely cause of the powerful explosion is the ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer and pesticide, which is also a powerful explosive and is known to have caused quite a number of disasters around the world,”UK chemist Christopher Busby said. “America’s most deadly disaster, in Texas City in 1947, happened when a fire detonated 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate stored on a ship.” “People were watching the fire from a distance of about 1km from the plant. The fire was very large at that stage and what happens is the fire then goes underneath probably one of the ammonium nitrate storage vessels and eventually heats it up until it explodes. It takes about half-an-hour to an hour for fire to explode in an ammonium nitrate storage vessel." “So this is what has happened, that the fire has got out of control and basically heated up the vessel. What seems to me to be wrong about this whole incident is that instead of evacuating the plant, when the fire establishment could not control it, there seemed to be brought up more and more fire people and they were putting them at risk. I don’t know, it sounds as if there have been a lot of deaths among fire people,”he added. [/ex]
If you want, I can try to get Christopher Busby PhD in on this discussion as well. I have spoken to him online as recently as a few days ago. He is a professor of Chemistry. His opinion is of the expert level on this subject matter. This is what you would call strong evidence that the explosion was nothing more than AN. So far you have none of this with your theory, and furthermore this information I present puts big holes in your own case.
[h=2]Bryce Reed, a volunteer paramedic, gained national attention for offering help and updates after the blast in Texas. Now he is drawing national attention again for his arrest but authorities stress it is unrelated to the explosion.[/h]
Hearty applause echoed in the lobby when Reed stepped down. Yet no one had asked Reed to come, and in a town swarming with federal and state investigators — who had handled all the official briefings and tightly controlled updates — a local volunteer paramedic relaying such information was a stark contrast. He also gave lengthy interviews to national media while other emergency responders in West declined to talk.
Reed was among the most vocal residents after the fatal explosion, freely talking to reporters. However, Reed was no longer part of West EMS as of April 19, according to an email sent by a regional EMS organization, the Heart of Texas Regional Advisory Council, to the state health officials.
State health records show he became a certified paramedic in 2005. Following Reed's arrest, the Department of State Health Services opened a regulatory investigation into Reed's license and removed him from the roster of the West EMS, spokeswoman Carrie Williams said.
When Cyrus' body arrived at a funeral home three days later, Bryce Reed said he stayed there all night.
"I got to hug him for the last time. He got there at 9 o'clock last night and I was there until 4 in the morning, holding onto my brother," Reed said at the time. "And telling him I'm sorry for everything that I did."
There is only one video which seems to show the explosion coming from the left. That is this video:
Please note this video has been edited.. a width adjustment or some sort of crop adjustment. It also likely has motion stabilization enabled on the camera. Here is an unedited copy (note the difference in dumpster size and shape) :
So there is some confusion it seems on how the explosion travels across the screen; which seems to be the big selling point of missile comes in explosion goes out. I would like to point out that the direction that people seem to think they see a missile come from is actually the direction a good deal of the fireball and blast was directed. you can tell because there is a great deal of trees that are charred, more burned down homes, and more damage in this direction. I have drawn each of the camera angles and their Field of View on google earth.
I find that everything is coming outward from the explosion and nothing is traveling inside. There is a moment where overexposure from all of the cameras blurs the image, but the overexposure comes from the left side of the screen on the red lines. This is the direction the explosive force seems to have done the most damage. This view is unique in that the explosion is not travelling mostly towards the camera like the orange camera FOV, or mostly away from the camera FOV as in the yellow lines. Nothing can be seen entering the explosion from the other two angles.
Why could it not be an optical illusion from the one camera angle; one where the expansion of the cloud and overexposure causes it to seem like something is moving inward but for that split second as the explosion happens? You cannot toss out the other video angles which clearly show only an explosion and nothing entering.
I've pinpointed the location of where the video was taken that Marine0811 keeps linking as the strong evidence he has This video was taken from 505ft away. Can we narrow down how narrow a FOV we are looking at so we can better determine the explosion as appearing to travel some distance. I believe we are seeing the explosion travel across the building I suggested is now the crater, which is a distance of about 148ft. Much smaller than a football field, roughly half the size.
Thanks for showing where the videos were filmed from. Is the tree I have circled the ones we are seeing the flash come left of in the videos?
I really do wish you were right that the flash happened before the explosion, but you aren't. I will post the videos later.
I see nothing entering and only things going out. It's your opinion that the smoke is somehow proof, but the only proof is hard evidence like missile remains (non-existent). And countless others here have offered you a different opinion to refute it. I am also not clear how this single frame has any weight when the rest of the video footage in total does not back up your conclusion as well.
Where can I see the missile in this video from 3 angles?
The trash bin is about 7ft long. It appears full screen width on this video. I believe that the video you have is edited as well, it has been stretched to width so that would make the image appear wider at longer distances. you are seeing an optical illusion.
Thanks for showing where the videos were filmed from. Is the tree I have circled the ones we are seeing the flash come left of in the videos?
I really do wish you were right that the flash happened before the explosion, but you aren't. I will post the videos later.
Yes that is the tree. It was destroyed by the explosions, or wiped clean of all green leaves and charred by the fireball and resulting pressure wave. And I can tell that flash is part of the explosion. There is only one overexposure point on all of the three videos, I believe that it is partially obscured by the resulting smoke and debris that is ripping through the building.
The best angle of the whole thing was taken from the south east, with the smoke heading away from the explosion. You can make everything out on that video, as well if there was a missile approaching from the side you think it was, there would have been a clear sign of it on that video. I see none of this. You can clearly see a good deal of the blast was focused north west from the explosion on this view.
I'm pretty positive you are just seeing an artifact (which you call a missle) due to the direction of the blast and the recording angle and zoom.
No its clearly a modified video that you referenced. The camera angle is creating the illusion, of which is not visible on any other angle. It also has been stretched from a vertically aligned phone to fit the width and somehow cropped. The three video image is aspect ratio correct, as you can fit three vertically recorded camera phone images on one widescreen 16:9 aspect video.
I clearly see the fire demon skull. you see a missile. So what, it was an AN explosion caused by a fire with an unknown cause.
In this video, the missile has been edited out. But the one that edited it didn't remove all of the flash from the left side.
[video=youtube_share;JLjiINp-06I]http://youtu.be/JLjiINp-06I[/video]
Do you not see that big flash completely separate from the plant to the left? The same one you think is a lens flare, from the explosion, or from an AN cloud which you saw explained on youtube. If you put this much effort into researching missile impacts and signatures, you would know im telling the truth. You are argueing your theory against what I saw happen.
Is this trash can full screen too?
