Video shows missile hitting West Texas fertilizer plant

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm watching the Bryce thing carefully.

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) :


These look to be the same video, everything is identical apart from the slow mo editing on first one. Is that what has led to loss of quality? And the global leaks inset on bottom one, with better quality picture. If this is slowed down, do you still get the same strange flash prior to explosion?

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.

That and the sound, appear to be the entire basis of the missile theory, (apart from the litigation aspect)

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 would not have noticed the flash coming in from the left unless someone slowed it down like they did. But it is quite clear and can be seen moving in toward the fire, which does not change until it is completely engulfed by the flash. Then... that is some explosion. If those guys had been any closer, I think they would likely have been injured.

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
.

So the overexposure on all images can only be accounted for by a very bright light source coming in?

This is the direction the explosive force seems to have done the most damage.

If there were a low pressure area in that direction, would the blast not be inclined in the area of least resistance?

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?

On how many different cameras?
You cannot toss out the other video angles which clearly show only an explosion and nothing entering.

Are there stills of these different cameras at exactly the same time the flash appears?

There is not even one person claiming to see or hear a missile in real life though, is there?
 
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.

The clear cut evidence in a missile strike is not in the clouds but on the ground; parts of the missile. I see the flash as part of the larger explosion. I never said lens flare, I said it is explosion happening on the extreme edge of the fov, and since the image has been stretched in width it exaggerates the edges of the shot. Your seeing an artifact. Overexposure might be what your confusing lens flare; overexposure is when the brightness from the flash overwhelms the optical device of the camera.
 
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.


How do they shut up all the people who saw a missile?
 
These look to be the same video, everything is identical apart from the slow mo and the global leaks inset.



That and the sound, appear to be the entire basis of the missile theory, (apart from the litigation aspect)
The sound cannot be explained without waveform analysis by an expert. I believe the sound is masked by a good deal of distortion from the small camera phone microphone diaphragm overloading, as well as preamp distortion from the camera recording preamp. The sound is not definitive proof of anything because the ear can be easily fooled. Special effects for movies are not what you think they are a lot of times. My friend produces sound fx for movies. He records some crazy stuff in his studio that sound entirely different once the eye is lead to believe something.


I would not have noticed the flash coming in from the left unless someone slowed it down like they did. But it is quite clear and can be seen moving in toward the fire, which does not change until it is completely engulfed by the flash. Then... that is some explosion. If those guys had been any closer, I think they would likely have been injured.

One was injured. A child's hearing was knocked out and her father and her were tossed around the truck violently. Many people were injured and killed. Why is this even a question.

So the overexposure on all images can only be accounted for by a very bright light source coming in?

coming in?!? what the heck, its the AN detonation. Nothing coming in. Do you not know when an explosion creates a pressure wave that there is a blow-back from an explosion after the pressure wave passes.


If there were a low pressure area in that direction, would the blast not be inclined in the area of least resistance?

The blast was likely deflected somewhat by the building that was containing it until the building ruptured. There could have been drums of things that slowed down the expansion on one side, forcing a good deal of the explosion in another direction until the material was destroyed and the expansion could continue. So yes to some degree we are i agreeance that there was a path of least resistance for the overpressure, But I argue that the cause is the location of the fire, the explosives and other factors inside the building that we are not party to the information of yet.

Are there stills of these different cameras at exactly the same time the flash appears?

I was able to pause the videos at the same time, but I'm sure the originals can be found and that could be made. I don't have the time right now, and I'm not trying to prove the missile is there. I am convinced because of the direction the investigators like the fire chief and ATF are doing, that this is not a missile. 400 interviews and there was not one person who saw a missile. Only people online who are convinced from very very narrow FOV camera footage that their eyes and ears see something else.
 
Why don't you do it?

It's best to concentrate on one aspect of a complex situation at a time.

And why do you keep offering up these avenues?

I already have done it.

Because, it would be a lot faster if someone could just show the differences in other missile impacts compared to this one. It would dismantle every one of my claims. If most on here would put half as much work into looking at missile explosions, they will see why my pictures are so important.
 
I already have done it.

Because, it would be a lot faster if someone could just show the differences in other missile impacts compared to this one. It would dismantle every one of my claims. If most on here would put half as much work into looking at missile explosions, they will see why my pictures are so important.

Okay, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your original question. Would a sensible rephrasing be -

"Can anybody find footage / images of a known missile impact which doesn't look like the one under discussion here?" ?

Or even...

"I think this looks like a typical missile impact, can anybody find images / footage which prove it doesn't?"
 
Okay, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your original question. Would a sensible rephrasing be -

"Can anybody find footage / images of a known missile impact which doesn't look like the one under discussion here?" ?

Or even...

"I think this looks like a typical missile impact, can anybody find images / footage which prove it doesn't?"

It is amazing how you made that look so simple. What she said!
 
The original video is posted below. Notice all of the altercations when comparing the youtube videos. I recorded this one for the sound. You can hear the sound of the missile directly before the explosion.​ Of course they still edited the missile out of his video. Here is the news link. http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/22013609/video-shows-power-of-explosion-in-west-tx
You will see here on the original recording how clear the tree is. Before and when the missile enters left to right, the image is blurred.
clearoriginalvideo.pngmissileoriginal.png

Notice you also see the missiles tail flash entering from left to right on the originals! Why is it edited out so much on other videos? Possibly to easier blame the explosion on Ammonium Nitrate and pass more regulations?
 
No matter how many people the media and government hide from telling what they saw, you have to take away the entire explosion to hide a missile impact.

Truth isn't biased to degrees or media witnesses.
 
Marine, I would like you to explain WHY not ONE person that was there saw 'your' missile. There is NO way in 'double hockeysticks' that a bunch of rural Texans that in general, don't like the federal government, could be shut up. if they saw a missile. They would LOVE to have something on the administration that they disapprove of.

There are multiple videos, and you can only find 'evidence' on one, when it is altered.

I see nothing in your posts, but a personal opinion from someone that wasn't there, and doesn't have a good understanding of the situation .
 
Marine, I would like you to explain WHY not ONE person that was there saw 'your' missile. There is NO way in 'double hockeysticks' that a bunch of rural Texans that in general, don't like the federal government, could be shut up. if they saw a missile. They would LOVE to have something on the administration that they disapprove of.

There are multiple videos, and you can only find 'evidence' on one, when it is altered.



I see nothing in your posts, but a personal opinion from someone that wasn't there, and doesn't have a good understanding of the situation .

It is your assumption that not one person saw my missile. The evidence is undeniable and impossible to hide. To answer your second question, I don't know why more people haven't researched this, probably because it is so unbelievable, even with evidence. I also don't know how many people like myself paused their T.V. on the news broadcast to get a better view.

That "ONE" video is the "ORIGINAL". You will find evidence of blurring in any clear ones that have decent reference points. You say I have no good understanding when I present objective evidence. All you present is AN theories with the missile edited out of the videos. I did appreciate your videos and maps.

I do appreciate you admitting the video was altered. There is no winner in this.
 
Because, it would be a lot faster if someone could just show the differences in other missile impacts compared to this one.

Notice you also see the missiles tail flash entering from left to right on the originals!

I'm geting the distinct impression we're being trolled.

1.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

2.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

3.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

4.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

5.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.
 
I have another explanation for the sounds heard before the explosion. It is correct to do analysis with physics in regards to shock waves and sound, and also the Doppler effect. Sound can travel through the ground quicker than through air. The speed of sound through earth is on the magnitude of 10x greater than through air. Shock waves from an explosion of this magnitude move quicker than sound, especially as we move closer to the source of the explosion. As we move away from the explosion, the shock wave begins to move slower than the speed of sound.

The video taken from the dumpster is close to a section of the school that sustained a roof collapse. Objects that are vibrated through the ground shaking can make their own noise prior to the arrival of the blast wave and sound from the explosion. First we need to study the explosion and see if we have deflagration or detonation, or a combination of both called deflagration to detonation.

Explosions can be categorized into two general categories, as follows.

In a deflagration, the combustion or reaction wave propagates at a velocity less than the speed of sound. Although all combustion (fires) can be defined as a deflagration, the ignition of a fuel-oxidizer mixture or a suspended cloud of combustible dust in a confined environment typically causes a significant and rapid increase in pressure that can cause catastrophic damage. These explosions are typically associated with natural gas or propane releases (gas explosion), gasoline and hydrocarbon vapors (vapor explosion), finely divided fuels (dust explosion), and certain reactive chemicals . These events can occur immediately before, or immediately after a fire and can propagate throughout a facility. Therefore, an engineering investigation of the event typically includes the preceding and subsequent events.

In a detonation, the combustion or reaction wave propagates at a velocity faster than the speed of sound. Due to the very fast reaction, these explosions create a high-pressure shock wave that causes significant damage at large distances from the seat of the blast. Detonations which can create significant brissance, or fragmentation, of containment vessels, causing impact and penetration damage are typically fueled by solid or liquid fuels but can also occur in pressurized or oxygen-rich-gas environments. They usually are associated with blasting agents or munitions (high explosives). Certain chemicals can also be boosted into detonation with a proximate high-explosive charge. A fire within a chemical warehouse or storage area may also cause a deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT).
Content from External Source


http://www.exponent.com/explosions/

In addition I found another very interesting resource which seeks to find reasons for AN related explosions and industrial disasters by testing AN with many types of other chemicals mixed in; at fire temperatures and at normal temperatures. There is far too much to link here, but the sheer amount of available AN mixtures tested that would go from deflagration-to-detonation are extremely large.

http://arblast.osmre.gov/downloads/...s Of Ammonium Nitrate Under Fire Exposure.pdf

Of particular interest in this document is Page 53, titled "Mathmatical Analysis of the Possibilty of Deflagration to Detonation Transition". The whole document lends a good deal of strong scientific evidence to the "This was a disaster/accident" and not "this was a missile strike/deliberate attack on people by our government." I cannot copy paste it due to the way the PDF was created (scanned images not text), so you will have to read this document yourself. It's hard for me to understand without much chemistry experience or training aside from high-school.

In fact given the totality of the evidence in the accident category, it is very fringe to even examine any evidence of government conspiracy. If anybody can present any information other than a media file that can prove that AN did not go from deflagration to detonation on this side, I would be surprised.
 
I'm geting the distinct impression we're being trolled.

1.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

2.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

3.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

4.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

5.jpg

Tomahawk cruise missile, notice... no tail flash.

The tail flash is irrelevant because you don't have a burning fertilizer plant with gases within the smoke. The videos are also blurred, so the tail-flash cannot properly be sized. Thanks for finally researching missile impacts, which were already posted on my blog.
cruisee.pngMissileenterssmoke.png
No similarities in these explosions. Completely different.

That was sarcasm if sarcasm is allowed.
 
The tail flash is irrelevant because you don't have a burning fertilizer plant with gases within the smoke.

Then show another missile impact within a burning fertilizer plant that has gases within the smoke so we can compare it to your "missile picture"




Thanks for finally researching missile impacts.

Somebody had to. You certainly were not willing.

cruisee.pngMissileenterssmoke.png

No similarities in these explosions.

I agree. Mine doesn't have the face of a vampire fire demon... get it?
 
Then show another missile impact within a burning fertilizer plant that has gases within the smoke so we can compare it to your "missile picture"

Are you currently in the military? If so, I understand why you are in denial. I don't want to believe the government I worked for kills innocent civilians either.






Somebody had to. You certainly were not willing.


cruisee.pngMissileenterssmoke.png



I agree. Mine doesn't have a the face of a vampire fire demon... get it?

Are you currently in the military? If so, I understand why you are in denial. I don't want to believe the government I worked for kills innocent civilians either. No, I don't really "get it" I don't understand how you lack caring for citizens murdered by our government.
 
Well let me elucidate this matter for you.

You see a missile that nobody else can see.

You can't actually produce evidence of a missile.

That is all.

Wow, are you serious? I have never said I have seen the missile in any online video, all have been altered. The only time I saw was on the T.V. broadcast which was altered afterwards. I'm not the only one that saw the missile. My wife verified everything I saw before any suggestion. I don't think you know what evidence is. Many on death row are in on circumstantial evidence. There is more than enough to prosecute those guilty of these murders.

You are now on ignore, you are a waste of my time.
 
The only time I saw was on the T.V. broadcast which was altered afterwards.

Correct. That's why I claim you can't actually produce evidence.

I'm not the only one that saw the missile. My wife verified everything I saw before any suggestion.

Prove it.

There is more than enough to prosecute those guilty of these murders.

Great. Who is being prosecuted? I'm assuming you have the names of the guilty?
 
You 'see' a missile that NO ONE on the ground saw. I really don't think that your wife agreeing with you is really evidence.

Tomahawk missiles are fired from ships or subs. Where was the ship or sub that fired this Tomahawk?
 
I dont see what dont you get about this. A cheap, criminally liable, private company over stocked the amount of a high explosive they were authorized to store in a single location, to save on storage costs. then an accident happened. had they not broken the law in the first place, this would have been little more than a messy HN3 fire.. This incident is exactly why the rules that are on the books, are on the books...

Now that's a conspiracy to work with. its legit, money driven, simple, and probably actually happened. now riddle my why in all might hell one would use a missile when there are literally tens of thousands of both mass produced and clandestinely available devices to both start a fire and detonate AN in a manner like this that could be used with no chance of an internet cowboy such as yourself finding out?

Somewhere Occam is weeping...

Edit: Yes, invalid criminal convictions are a VERY big problem in this country, and one of the reasons i dont support capital punishment. please, redirect your energy and efforts to helping fix that problem? if you would like i can put you in touch with some non profits who work in this area.
 
Marine, do you have any additional evidence besides your blog and you and your wife's interpretation of the explosion as a missile attack? You say more than one person saw the missile. Can you bring me eye-witness testimony, besides you and your wife?

Can you explain to me how the explosion we saw could not possibly have been due to poor storage of a known, dangerous explosive material?
 
Wow, are you serious? I have never said I have seen the missile in any online video, all have been altered. The only time I saw was on the T.V. broadcast which was altered afterwards. I'm not the only one that saw the missile. My wife verified everything I saw before any suggestion. I don't think you know what evidence is. Many on death row are in on circumstantial evidence. There is more than enough to prosecute those guilty of these murders. You are now on ignore, you are a waste of my time.
As the only Tomahawks are sea launched what you are saying is that a missile was launched from the Gulf of Mexico and traveled a considerable distance inland to West, Texas and nobody along the way saw it. Also could you provide your credentials you used to determine the videos were altered and your expertise in explosives and explosions? No other experts are coming up with your analysis. It is just bunk and I nominate for a title change to debunked.
 
Marine, do you have any additional evidence besides your blog and you and your wife's interpretation of the explosion as a missile attack?

No and that's why I am done here. Enjoy each others company stroking one another's ego's running circles for information that was already presented. Few of you are here to discover what is truthful, most are only hear to discredit your presuppositions of all conspiracy theories being false. Not one of you dismissed one of my claims. Not one of you could discredit my character or lack of sanity. You fail. Enjoy your site.
 
No and that's why I am done here. Enjoy each others company stroking one another's ego's running circles for information that was already presented. Few of you are here to discover what is truthful, most are only hear to discredit your presuppositions of all conspiracy theories being false. Not one of you dismissed one of my claims. Not one of you could discredit my character or lack of sanity. You fail. Enjoy your site.

Anyone trying to discredit your character or sanity would be in violation of the politeness policy. You need to provide evidence and you have not done that.
 
No and that's why I am done here. Enjoy each others company stroking one another's ego's running circles for information that was already presented. Few of you are here to discover what is truthful, most are only hear to discredit your presuppositions of all conspiracy theories being false. Not one of you dismissed one of my claims. Not one of you could discredit my character or lack of sanity. You fail. Enjoy your site.

Then on that note, there's no further point to keep this thread open. If you have some new evidence to present, feel free to PM it to me or any of the other moderators and we'll be happy to reopen it.

This thread is now closed until new evidence is presented.
 
Are you currently in the military? If so, I understand why you are in denial. I don't want to believe the government I worked for kills innocent civilians either. No, I don't really "get it" I don't understand how you lack caring for citizens murdered by our government.

From where I'm sitting, you're trying very hard to prove you do want to believe this about the government. You've been given a number of explanations for different aspects of your claim in this thread, you could have walked away with any one of them.

I think it would do you well to study the way bias effects human judgement. Particularly confirmation bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top