No, you obviously didn't read the other post where I pointed out that is a false assumption. Just because there are no witnesses on your mainstream media source doesn't mean no one saw the missile. Also, you can see more in a video than you often can in the moment. It is possible to witness something without being at the scene.
Yes, I know video sound is distorted over when recorded over. Maybe you should put your efforts into ruling out the sound still existing in the original video which matches the cruise missile. And genius, the sound was before the explosion happened. I think you should take a basic course in research to view evidence with an open mind.
I see how you work now. You just write off what you don't "believe" is worth considering because you are lazy. Post links of other explosions happening in this manner. Keep having faith that the media and government serves you with the truth.
Professionals such as yourself who uses no references to back their faithful claims? I'll pass. Why should anyone trust your analysis when you obviously are too lazy to properly research? Those that are trouble and scared refuse to research and believe the truth. How do you define truth?
Thanks for admitting your are a liar and fear the truth. Don't claim you tested my evidence when you didn't. It appears you didn't even read your own news link and just jumped to assumptions, or else you wouldn't assume the paramedic blew the plant?
And I did comment on the paramedic above with a quote from your source. I guess you were too lazy to read that also.
As a Texan, I can tell you that there was no missile attack. wherever you heard that from is only trying to stir a pot that doesn't exist.
I always try to tell people to research on there own, yet they forget about the tools in front of them, and fly off to You Tube or the first conspiracy site they drag up in search. Please educate yourself, and consider each side before making accusations. Here is a link telling you what ammonium nitrate does if not stored properly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate
Do not try to give advice on how to research when you are completely clueless from the information you posted. I didnt determine it was a missile from what I was "told" or read my "1" favorite news source. Educate yourself by depending on yourself. You arent too ignorant to find truth without a degree as the media would have you believe.
Do not try to give advice on how to research when you are completely clueless from the information you posted. I didnt determine it was a missile from what I was "told" or read my "1" favorite news source. Educate yourself by depending on yourself. You arent too ignorant to find truth without a degree as the media would have you believe.
As for me, there is no way I'm going to believe that there was a missile that for no apparent reason hit a fertilizer plant in the middle of nowhere, just because some guy thinks he saw a flame that is out of place. Maybe you should educate yourself on what a missile really looks like when flying through the air.
Just in-case you dont click the link and read up on this as well. I'll paste the main part.
Ammonium nitrate decomposes in temperatures normally well above 200 °C. However the presence of impurities (organic and/or inorganic) will often reduce the temperature point when heat is being generated. Once the AN has started to decompose, then a runaway reaction will normally occur as the heat of decomposition is very large. AN evolves so much heat that this runaway reaction is normally impossible to stop. This is a well-known hazard with some types of N-P-K Fertilizers, and it is responsible for the loss of several cargo ships.
At 9:12 a.m., the ammonium nitrate reached an explosive threshold and the vessel then detonated, causing great destruction and damage throughout the port. The tremendous blast (29.3756°N 94.8916°W) sent a 15-foot (4.5 m) wave that was detectable nearly 100 miles (160 km) off the Texas shoreline. The blast leveled nearly 1,000 buildings on land. The Grandcamp explosion destroyed the Monsanto Chemical Company plant and resulted in ignition of refineries and chemical tanks on the waterfront. Falling bales of burning twine added to the damage while the Grandcamp's anchor was hurled across the city. Sightseeing airplanes flying nearby had their wings shorn off,[4] forcing them out of the sky. Ten miles away, people in Galveston were forced to their knees; windows were shattered in Houston, Texas, 40 miles (60 km) away. People felt the shock 100 miles away in Louisiana. The explosion blew almost 6,350 tons of the ship's steel into the air, some at supersonic speed. O
Read your trademark quote at the bottom of your posts. You are a prime example that the quote is true. You claim there is no way you are going to believe something you haven't even tested. I have no interest in persuing conversation with you when you are clueless to your own mind. You hwve just admitted you are to lazy to discredit the indormation on my blog. Have a nice day promoting your false flags.
Try this link http://www.wimp.com/missiletest/ note how even at firing stage how the burn is in a tight and narrow formation. not in a huge flame that was half the size of the fire burning below.
Read your trademark quote at the bottom of your posts. You are a prime example that the quote is true. You claim there is no way you are going to believe something you haven't even tested. I have no interest in persuing conversation with you when you are clueless to your own mind. You hwve just admitted you are to lazy to discredit the indormation on my blog. Have a nice day promoting your false flags.
How am i promoting false flags, i'm simply giving you hard proof that these things have happened before, and is what u asked for. I am sorry that you care not to read up on it.
Edit, just ask yourself one thing. "WHY" would someone blow up a fertilizer plant in the middle of nowhere?
Now you are at least comparing missiles and questioning which is a plus. Research cruise missiles, the one in your video isnt the same. Plus the tail in your videos doesnt have explosive chemicals leaking out from where it launches or impacts to compare.
How am i promoting false flags, i'm simply giving you hard proof that these things have happened before, and is what u asked for. I am sorry that you care not to read up on it.
Edit, just ask yourself one thing. "WHY" would someone blow up a fertilizer plant in the middle of nowhere?
When you post information I havent already tested, I will consider you credible. I have already answered "why" in my blog if you weren't too lazy to read it.
I actually did read it from top to bottom. one of your video's actually says its private.
Also If they were pursuing a way to ban these products they had a more perfect opportunity after this,
"Ammonium-nitrate-based explosives were used in the Oklahoma City bombing and in the 2011 Delhi bombing, 2013 Hyderabad blasts and the bombing in Oslo 2011."
What I saw appeared between 8-15 ft... I saw what clearly looked like a missile or projectile. The object had a rounded nose in the front, appeared between 15 - 30 in. in width. It had what looked like wings to it's center, appearing maybe 1/4 of the objects length. It had what looked like at least 3 guidance fins at the rear. It was a distinct red color. The projectile had distinct solid lines enclosing it.
No, you obviously didn't read the other post where I pointed out that is a false assumption. Just because there are no witnesses on your mainstream media source doesn't mean no one saw the missile. Also, you can see more in a video than you often can in the moment. It is possible to witness something without being at the scene.
So the absense of evidence is the proof now? Nobody saw the missile buddy. Nobody. Not one first hand on location in West Texas or any surrounding area with a view of West Texas. There was no smoke trail as well, not even from the shots taken far away. How can I believe something without evidence to suggest it exists?
For this to be a cruise missile travelling at a speed where you cannot see it come in frame to frame, you have much more evidence to gather. Let's start with the invisible trail of invisible smoke.
Yes, I know video sound is distorted over when recorded over. Maybe you should put your efforts into ruling out the sound still existing in the original video which matches the cruise missile. And genius, the sound was before the explosion happened. I think you should take a basic course in research to view evidence with an open mind.
No sir. I am not going to spend my time to prove your own conjecture with my audio programs. If you feel so strongly that something is there, why don't you download a program like audacity (free), split off the audio from the video where you feel the sound is the best and show us the waveform yourself. There are many sounds that are distorted that can be made in such a way that people believe that something else happened. If you feel so strongly there is a missile sound then show it to us; because I do not hear your supposed sound. I hear preamp distortion and smack of a microphone diaphragm.
I see how you work now. You just write off what you don't "believe" is worth considering because you are lazy. Post links of other explosions happening in this manner. Keep having faith that the media and government serves you with the truth.
I'm lazy?! What the heck you posted this HUGE long document online and I took the time to read your ramblings, all of which were personal oppinions of what you saw and not evidence to anything. And I'm lazy? You are the one who is ignoring the evidence and only using what fits your own theory. Where is the smoke trail for this missile oh guru of smoke analysis?
Where?
Get real then. I'm not the one who is denying information. I spend a good hour reading your blog. Its lacking in evidence, and full of opinion of what you thought you saw on the internet. You are the one convinced of only one theory and tossing out evidence that doesn't support it.
Professionals such as yourself who uses no references to back their faithful claims? I'll pass. Why should anyone trust your analysis when you obviously are too lazy to properly research? Those that are trouble and scared refuse to research and believe the truth. How do you define truth?
Touche. And your hurling insults because somebody didn't believe you. I have good reason not to. And for now on your blocked. I'm too lazy for you anyways, I wont spend hours of my mothers day away from my wife and kids to prove your own theory, that must make me a lazy person. Get lost, I have you on ignore from here on out. (reason, you avoided the points I made and instead hurled insults.)
What you really don't want is us picking apart your blog. It is full of statements where you contradict yourself over and over. Trigger Hippy posted one. There are a dozen or so.
I like to keep some more stupid by feeding them all types of crap to believe in. RT Facebook is hilarious for crazy people.
I'm actually working on given them what they want. Sucking up to their paranoia and creating a "Disinfo" site. A few of us including a few professionals (ex-armed forces from a few countries) are working on our own CT website. It'll be total BS with everything made up. From names to interviews to stories but its ALL FACT! Total psychobabble bollocks played straight just for the laffs. Increase their paranoia whilst pretending to be their friends. When they start linking our stories on other sites then i know our job has been done.
I am glad you noticed that, it shows you dissected what I wrote and is an excellent question. I wrote that ahead because the object was not easily detectable initially until further examination. Once I focused in on the missile, it was then easily describeable. I am 95% sure we are correct. I leave the 5% in case someone can change my mind of our conclusions with credible evidence. Again, I do not want this to be true.
I wrote that ahead because the object was not easily detectable initially until further examination. Once I focused in on the missile, it was then easily describeable. I am 95% sure we are correct. I leave the 5% in case someone can change my mind of our conclusions with credible evidence. Again, I do not want this to be true.
All I need to do is take a look at my kids, and I know that I'm making the right decision by filtering what information I waste my time on. This is not about bravery soldier. Go AWOL. You are blocked because you have nothing but insults when your evidence is found lacking and demand blind faith. This doesn't mean I can't read your posts, but it does mean that I can filter what I read. If you make a good point and somebody quotes it I will see your text there. I just have to click "show post" on your posts from now on.
The Texas City disaster of April 16, 1947 was the deadliest industrial accident in U.S. history, and one of the largest non-nuclear explosions. Originating with a mid-morning fire on board the French-registered vessel SS Grandcamp (docked in the Port of Texas City), its cargo of approximately 2,300 tons (approximately 2,100 metric tons) of ammonium nitrate detonated,[1] with the initial blast and subsequent chain-reaction of further fires and explosions in other ships and nearby oil-storage facilities killing at least 581 people, including all but one member of the Texas City fire department.[2] The disaster triggered the first ever class action lawsuit against the United States government, under the then-recently enacted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), on behalf of 8,485 victims.
All I need to do is take a look at my kids, and I know that I'm making the right decision by filtering what stupidity I waste my time on. This is not about bravery soldier. Go AWOL. You are blocked because you have nothing but insults when your evidence is found lacking and demand blind faith. This doesn't mean I can't read your posts, but it does mean that I can filter what I read. If you make a good point and somebody quotes it I will see your text there. I just have to click "show post" on your posts from now on.
You haven't been able to discredit one piece of my evidence with anything other than your opinion. Did you even check the original videos for the sounds?
Now you are a hypocrite claiming I am just here to insult as you reference me and my information as stupid. I backed everything I claimed with objective evidence to view. You have failed.
There is not one media video of this explosion released to the public, all are during or after. The videos during filmed by residents clearly show the heat trail. You would know this if you viewed my info as you claim.
The Texas City disaster of April 16, 1947 was the deadliest industrial accident in U.S. history, and one of the largest non-nuclear explosions. Originating with a mid-morning fire on board the French-registered vessel SS Grandcamp (docked in the Port of Texas City), its cargo of approximately 2,300 tons (approximately 2,100 metric tons) of ammonium nitrate detonated,[1] with the initial blast and subsequent chain-reaction of further fires and explosions in other ships and nearby oil-storage facilities killing at least 581 people, including all but one member of the Texas City fire department.[2] The disaster triggered the first ever class action lawsuit against the United States government, under the then-recently enacted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), on behalf of 8,485 victims.
Keep posting information over and over that has nothing to do with the explosion to appear like you are researching. The explosion also ran into the early morning of the 17th with the same number in damages, $100 mil. Guess how much the cost is of West Texas damages?
I do not need to repeat what I have already covered in my blog. I am more than welcome to accept being wrong when the information I have published is discredited with objective evidence rather than opinions and faithful associations. I also welcome anyone on here to challenge my sanity or lack of if I am simply posting false and ignorant information.
I also challenge anyone here to point out my motives and motivations. Am I going to get rich off of my blog? Do I exist to discredit liberals and Obama? Am I a churchgoing conservative that thinks Obama is the devil?
You haven't been able to discredit one piece of my evidence with anything other than your opinion. Did you even check the original videos for the sounds?
Now you are a hypocrite claiming I am just here to insult as you reference me and my information as stupid. I backed everything I claimed with objective evidence to view. You have failed.
There is not one media video of this explosion released to the public, all are during or after. The videos during filmed by residents clearly show the heat trail. You would know this if you viewed my info as you claim.
If you knew more about audio from an audio engineer's perspective, you would know that I have given you the truth of why you did not HEAR the missile but heard an audio artifact. Did you look into how a micorphone/preamp will behave when recording transient audio of 70 to 150 db in 1/27th of a second?
I stand by my statement that you have an opinion based paper. There is no way a 480 (w) x 640 (d) (or lower still) resolution video is showing what you think it is. You are offering an opinion. You did not show the proof. You only mentioned your opinion of what was going on based on the video then falsely stated that "you witnessed" it happening. You did not witness this event, you watched it on video. I assume you know the difference between watched on television and witnessed a crime.
Can you explain how low resolution video can show more detail than high definition? I cannot see what you see because the detail is lacking. You mention the size of the missile you didn't see but then saw and described on second later as 15ft long. Do you know the size of the explosion cloud you are trying to put that missile into? How does the scale fit into the smoke? Can you even tell me what position those cameras were recorded from?
I pulled this next video to show how the missile lights the entire video frame a millisecond before hitting the plant. This video wasn't shown on any major media outlets that I saw. I didn't see this one until I did a web search. Many people when watching this explosion claim that the initial flash from the left, was somehow chemicals from the plant reacting and causing a chain reaction. If that is so, then the entire video frame shouldn't light up, before the football field gap sparks the explosion. The missile lighting the entire frame is proof that the left flare wasn't from the plant, but supports the missile my wife and I saw.
Except I cannot find a flash from a missile shot that is even remotely close in brightness as the frame you mention. Without a definitive type of missile, its very hard to locate a specific missile that has a very bright flash like that. A more reasonable assumption would be that the flash you speak of is caused by many tons of ammonium nitrate on fire that detonated. As has happened historically.
I also have spent a good deal of time studying the pepcon explosion you referenced as a comparison. I do not feel that they compare at all. The pepcon explosion was a different fuel and was ignited in a different manner, was fed by a natural gas line underneath the location, and was a much larger explosion as well. They do not compare at all physically, as well as size wise, and also in storage methods used for the "fuel". Nothing compares.
Undeniable evidence of the West Texas missile is in the smoke pattern.
The picture frames clearly show the missiles entry point at the left. Notice the difference on the two sides in the smoke patterns.
You show split second images after the detonation saying that the missile is flying through the cloud. Tell me sir, which came first; the ammonium nitrate explosion or the warhead on the missile? Because if the ammonium nitrate explosion was already taking place; why would the missile need to shoot through the smoke? If the smoke from one explosion existed already; then why is the missile flying through that explosion. Which came first?
For me this is the biggest failure point of your theory. One would have to assume that the explosion was already taking place, so why even shoot a missile at it? It was already done from the perspective of your photograph; and as you state the missile is flying through the explosive cloud that has already happened.
If you knew more about audio from an audio engineer's perspective, you would know that I have given you the truth of why you did not HEAR the missile but heard an audio artifact. Did you look into how a micorphone/preamp will behave when recording transient audio of 70 to 150 db in 1/27th of a second?
The "audio artifact" matches exact to a cruise missile which my wife and I saw on tape. Please provide the initial time that you believe the "audio artifact" begins and the video for your reference. This is science, not just opinions Mr. Engineer. Please provide video of "one" different explosion that made an "audio artifact" like this one before exploding.
I stand by my statement that you have an opinion based paper. There is no way a 480 (w) x 640 (d) (or lower still) resolution video is showing what you think it is. You are offering an opinion. You did not show the proof. You only mentioned your opinion of what was going on based on the video then falsely stated that "you witnessed" it happening. You did not witness this event, you watched it on video. I assume you know the difference between watched on television and witnessed a crime.
Can you explain how low resolution video can show more detail than high definition? I cannot see what you see because the detail is lacking. You mention the size of the missile you didn't see but then saw and described on second later as 15ft long. Do you know the size of the explosion cloud you are trying to put that missile into? How does the scale fit into the smoke? Can you even tell me what position those cameras were recorded from?
I already explained this to the other poster which you cheered on. Please read my response to him so I don't have to type it over.
I pulled this next video to show how the missile lights the entire video frame a millisecond before hitting the plant. This video wasn't shown on any major media outlets that I saw. I didn't see this one until I did a web search. Many people when watching this explosion claim that the initial flash from the left, was somehow chemicals from the plant reacting and causing a chain reaction. If that is so, then the entire video frame shouldn't light up, before the football field gap sparks the explosion. The missile lighting the entire frame is proof that the left flare wasn't from the plant, but supports the missile my wife and I saw.
Except I cannot find a flash from a missile shot that is even remotely close in brightness as the frame you mention. Without a definitive type of missile, its very hard to locate a specific missile that has a very bright flash like that. A more reasonable assumption would be that the flash you speak of is caused by many tons of ammonium nitrate on fire that detonated. As has happened historically.
I also have spent a good deal of time studying the pepcon explosion you referenced as a comparison. I do not feel that they compare at all. The pepcon explosion was a different fuel and was ignited in a different manner, was fed by a natural gas line underneath the location, and was a much larger explosion as well. They do not compare at all physically, as well as size wise, and also in storage methods used for the "fuel". Nothing compares.
Please show "one" large scale explosion which ignites a football field away from the fire.
Undeniable evidence of the West Texas missile is in the smoke patterns.
The picture frames clearly show the missiles entry point at the left. Notice the difference on the two sides in the smoke patterns.
You show split second images after the detonation saying that the missile is flying through the cloud. Tell me sir, which came first; the ammonium nitrate explosion or the warhead on the missile? Because if the ammonium nitrate explosion was already taking place; why would the missile need to shoot through the smoke? If the smoke from one explosion existed already; then why is the missile flying through that explosion. Which came first?
I clearly show in the images clipped that the missile came first in my blog "you already read". I also showed the difference and comparisons in dirt patterns to a cruise missile.
For me this is the biggest failure point of your theory. One would have to assume that the explosion was already taking place, so why even shoot a missile at it? It was already done from the perspective of your photograph; and as you state the missile is flying through the explosive cloud that has already happened.
The explosion didn't happen until the missile struck. No matter what I write or you research, you will never see truth to something you refuse is possible.
Sorry, my other responses are posted under your questions.
Wow, I just noticed you wrote "without a difinitive kind of missile". Are you serious? How could you have read my blog without seeing the missile I described?
The explosion didn't happen until the missile struck. No matter what I write or you research, you will never see truth to something you refuse is possible.
Sorry, my other responses are posted under your questions.
I'm sorry what exactly did you "research" here? I only saw conjecture and opinions trying to convince me to see things that don't exist or didn't happen.
I'm sorry what exactly did you "research" here? I only saw conjecture and opinions trying to convince me to see things that don't exist or didn't happen.
I really don't understand Marine why you are trying to prove your claim. You have no hard actual evidence yourself, only the claim that at one point you saw something red come into view for a split second, and that it was erased from every video that you can now find. I'm sorry there is way too much actual proof out there that it was and explosion cause by Ammonium Nitrate, the only question is was the fire deliberately set or an accident. Apparently you fail to read up on the links that I have provided for you. Thhat clearly show that this has happened before, and in most cases was far more catastrophic.
Sorry but that video does not prove that a missile was fired at a random fertiliser factory. More so, why would it? You're claim of a false flag however did remind me of an explosion at Aleppo university in Syria last January. It was at first thought to have been hit by a nearby car bomb or a bomb inside the university (techniques favoured by the Islamist group Jabhat Al-Nusra). Upon a closer and more thorough investigation it was discovered that it was a missile fired from a jet fighter which hit the university. A real false flag attack.
If you knew more about audio from an audio engineer's perspective, you would know that I have given you the truth of why you did not HEAR the missile but heard an audio artifact. Did you look into how a micorphone/preamp will behave when recording transient audio of 70 to 150 db in 1/27th of a second?
I stand by my statement that you have an opinion based paper. There is no way a 480 (w) x 640 (d) (or lower still) resolution video is showing what you think it is. You are offering an opinion. You did not show the proof. You only mentioned your opinion of what was going on based on the video then falsely stated that "you witnessed" it happening. You did not witness this event, you watched it on video. I assume you know the difference between watched on television and witnessed a crime.
Can you explain how low resolution video can show more detail than high definition? I cannot see what you see because the detail is lacking. You mention the size of the missile you didn't see but then saw and described on second later as 15ft long. Do you know the size of the explosion cloud you are trying to put that missile into? How does the scale fit into the smoke? Can you even tell me what position those cameras were recorded from?
I pulled this next video to show how the missile lights the entire video frame a millisecond before hitting the plant. This video wasn't shown on any major media outlets that I saw. I didn't see this one until I did a web search. Many people when watching this explosion claim that the initial flash from the left, was somehow chemicals from the plant reacting and causing a chain reaction. If that is so, then the entire video frame shouldn't light up, before the football field gap sparks the explosion. The missile lighting the entire frame is proof that the left flare wasn't from the plant, but supports the missile my wife and I saw.
Except I cannot find a flash from a missile shot that is even remotely close in brightness as the frame you mention. Without a definitive type of missile, its very hard to locate a specific missile that has a very bright flash like that. A more reasonable assumption would be that the flash you speak of is caused by many tons of ammonium nitrate on fire that detonated. As has happened historically.
I also have spent a good deal of time studying the pepcon explosion you referenced as a comparison. I do not feel that they compare at all. The pepcon explosion was a different fuel and was ignited in a different manner, was fed by a natural gas line underneath the location, and was a much larger explosion as well. They do not compare at all physically, as well as size wise, and also in storage methods used for the "fuel". Nothing compares.
Undeniable evidence of the West Texas missile is in the smoke pattern.
The picture frames clearly show the missiles entry point at the left. Notice the difference on the two sides in the smoke patterns.
You show split second images after the detonation saying that the missile is flying through the cloud. Tell me sir, which came first; the ammonium nitrate explosion or the warhead on the missile? Because if the ammonium nitrate explosion was already taking place; why would the missile need to shoot through the smoke? If the smoke from one explosion existed already; then why is the missile flying through that explosion. Which came first?
For me this is the biggest failure point of your theory. One would have to assume that the explosion was already taking place, so why even shoot a missile at it? It was already done from the perspective of your photograph; and as you state the missile is flying through the explosive cloud that has already happened.
The picture above shows the missile going in and exploding before the explosion reaches the missile trace. The explosion didn't happen until the missile from the left. I did not say the missile flew through the explosive cloud, now you are lying. I said the missile was in the smoke from the plant fire.
Sorry but that video does not prove that a missile was fired at a random fertiliser factory. More so, why would it? It did however remind me of an explosion at Aleppo university in Syria last January. It was at first thought to have been hit by a nearby car bomb or a bomb inside the university (techniques favoured by the Islamist group Jabhat Al-Nusra). Upon a closer and more thorough investigation it was discovered that it was a missile fired from a jet fighter which hit the university. A real false flag attack.
I am starting to think you can't comprehend the information posted in my blog or that you are just trying to run in circles. Provide me with one piece of evidence of a nitrate plant exploding from a football field away. You keep relying on media to define your truth and I will rely on work.
To Jonn.
It is convenient because I have been researching while your fellow Texans were murdered while you sit around promoting false flags.
It's sad of you to joke when your own state was just attacked. On the other hand, it shows no matter what anyone provides, they will always be wrong if in disagreement with your favorite politicians or news channels.
I am starting to think you can't comprehend the information posted in my blog or that you are just trying to run in circles. Provide me with one piece of evidence of a nitrate plant exploding from a football field away. You keep relying on media to define your truth and I will rely on work.
To Jonn.
