Video shows missile hitting West Texas fertilizer plant

Status
Not open for further replies.
But your standards of evidence are fairly low. Wouldn't you agree?

This picture is your best evidence. In it you see a missile, or the trail of a missile. This one picture makes you 95% certain that the US government killed it's own citizens.

smoke+difference.png


I look at the same picture and I'm 95% sure I see a skeletal vampire fire demon. And maybe an owl or two.


smokedifference1.png

No, I do not agree. I posted comparisons of the missile impact I saw with the West Texas blast. I posted video where the entire frame is lit from the missile before it enters from the left. I posted sound comparisons of cruise missiles and West Texas. I also posted mine and my wife's observations of the missile on the original news broadcast. If this is all you are getting from my blog, I don't think you have read it all. I also outlined the missiles trace to the plant before the explosion.
 
No, I do not agree.

I'm sorry you don't agree. Clearly you are not looking closely enough. The fire demon is quite undeniably visible. You can even here it roar... it kinda sounds like a missile.


smokedifference1.png


I'm fairly certain you think you saw a missile. What you outlined in red as "missile traces" is really just your opinion. That can't be considered evidence any more than my outline can be considered evidence of fire demons. Unfortunately, you have not presented enough to convince anyone but yourself and perhaps your wife. You said it best...

Although a picture of the missile is missing...
 
I'm sorry you don't agree. Clearly you are not looking closely enough. The fire demon is quite undeniably visible. You can even here it roar... it kinda sounds like a missile.


smokedifference1.png


I'm fairly certain you think you saw a missile. What you outlined in red as "missile traces" is really just your opinion. That can't be considered evidence any more than my outline can be considered evidence of fire demons. Unfortunately, you have not presented enough evidence to convince anyone but you and perhaps your wife. You said it yourself...

Continue to mock the deaths of your fellow citizens as all your rights are willfully taken away.
 
Everybody.. I think your missing something in this photograph. You can clearly make out a male sexual organ.



Its right where the arrows are. Testicles included. I must have fatal attribution error from all of the times I watched Beavis & Butthead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Continue to mock the deaths of your fellow citizens as all your rights are willfully taken away.

You haven't provided any evidence to support your claim. You analyze the photograph as if you are an explosives expert but have not provided any credentials to back it up. Can you provide any credentials? Expert testimony usually requires a voir dire.
 
Nay has nobody come forward and said that they heard a supersonic roar flying at low level over a populated area in all directions. If it wasn't a low level cruise missile then surely the nearby hospital helicopter base would detect a drone or fighter jet on its radar? Even drones when silent emit a low buzzing tone

How did this missile stay silent up until a split second before impact or a silent drone?

Drones on film
[video=youtube_share;SqeZoW7C2Ng]http://youtu.be/SqeZoW7C2Ng[/video]

[video=youtube_share;yT-8C0gp3Ik]http://youtu.be/yT-8C0gp3Ik[/video]
 
Nay has nobody come forward and said that they heard a supersonic roar flying at low level over a populated area in all directions. If it wasn't a low level cruise missile then surely the nearby hospital helicopter base would detect a drone or fighter jet on its radar? Even drones when silent emit a low buzzing tone

How did this missile stay silent up until a split second before impact or a silent drone?

Drones on film
[video=youtube_share;SqeZoW7C2Ng]http://youtu.be/SqeZoW7C2Ng[/video]

[video=youtube_share;yT-8C0gp3Ik]http://youtu.be/yT-8C0gp3Ik[/video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2WZ6Jb7NB_I#t=28s
Sound at :28 sec. in.

Sound at 3:14 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6idJHArHfMY#t=193s

Cruise missiles aren't fired from drones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2Z-4GQSSWQY cruise missile sound for comparison
 

Once again in a wide open space in a partially populated area there is no sound of a supersonic missile nearing its target. Did it just appear out of nowhere with a secret teleporter or maybe it was a laser beam fired from the Kickstarter Death Star?

Listen to the Syrian false flag missile again. It does not appear out of then air. You can hear it make its run when it gets within earshot. The Waco incident doesn't. It just allegedly appears. How would that be possible? Was it travelling faster than the speed of light?

Syrian missile strike

[video=youtube_share;eka1FK_iJIU]http://youtu.be/eka1FK_iJIU[/video]
 
I think one of the main problems that is being overlooked, and I was reminded of it from a post on you tube. As light travels faster than sound, it is possible that the flash you see to the left was the beginning of the blast then you hear the explosion seconds later.
If this is incorrect then I apologize ahead of time.
 
Once again in a wide open space in a partially populated area there is no sound of a supersonic missile nearing its target. Did it just appear out of nowhere with a secret teleporter or maybe it was a laser beam fired from the Kickstarter Death Star?

Listen to the Syrian false flag missile again. It does not appear out of then air. You can hear it make its run when it gets within earshot. The Waco incident doesn't. It just allegedly appears. How would that be possible? Was it travelling faster than the speed of light?

Syrian missile strike

[video=youtube_share;eka1FK_iJIU]http://youtu.be/eka1FK_iJIU[/video]

Wrong, your video missile sound is near exact as the sound in the two videos I just posted.

*3 videos.

I have noticed now that most of the youtube videos have the missiles sound completely taken out.
 
Wrong, your video missile sound is near exact as the sound in the two videos I just posted.

*3 videos.

If i was you, i'd go get my hearing checked out.

The Syrian missile you can hear travelling from a distance. Quiet to loud in a couple of seconds. Waco is just loud. They are not the same. If you read the post i included (HERE). A jet fighter was heard prior to the strike. Nobody in Waco heard any fighters or missiles. Even the people who were there. The only people whom picked up on this alleged attack were at home watching it on the telly. Funny thing is most were conspiracy theorists too. A breed of people whom find conspiracy theories in every event or accident or anything at all. You are one yourself, talking about the many false flag attacks by the American government. CT's rarely admit that they are wrong, so they'll just keep pushing their bs until it sticks or that someone will give in and to the CT that is a victory and they have won.
 
Continue to mock the deaths of your fellow citizens...

I'm not mocking anyone or anything. I was attempting to demonstrate that your interpretation of the picture is no more valid than mine. It's basically meaningless. Where you see missile traces others may "see" something else. It's just opinions, not facts.
 
If i was you, i'd go get my hearing checked out.

The Syrian missile you can hear travelling from a distance. Quiet to loud in a couple of seconds. Waco is just loud. They are not the same. If you read the post i included (HERE). A jet fighter was heard prior to the strike. Nobody in Waco heard any fighters or missiles. Even the people who were there. The only people whom picked up on this alleged attack were at home watching it on the telly. Funny thing is most were conspiracy theorists too. A breed of people whom find conspiracy theories in every event or accident or anything at all. You are one yourself, talking about the many false flag attacks by the American government. CT's rarely admit that they are wrong, so they'll just keep pushing their bs until it sticks or that someone will give in and to the CT that is a victory and they have won.


If that was the jet's noise, you would have heard it from farther out and for a longer time. What is your evidence that the noise you were hearing was the jet and not the missile? Another thing, I don't think jets fire cruise missiles.

Also, why does the noise stop at impact if from the jet? Do you hear a jet flying after impact?
 
I'm not mocking anyone or anything. I was attempting to demonstrate that your interpretation of the picture is no more valid than mine. It's basically meaningless. Where you see missile traces others may "see" something else. It's just opinions, not facts.

It would be meaningless if you could show another "natural/accidental" explosion happening in the same manner.
 
If that was the jet's noise, you would have heard it from farther out and for a longer time. What is your evidence that the noise you were hearing was the jet and not the missile? Another thing, I don't think jets fire cruise missiles.

..and how come nobody heard a cruise missile flying towards Waco?

In case you didn't read my link but just watched the pretty video, here..

The officials would not divulge the basis for this information, but a source for EA indicates that Western government have used sophisticated radar, deployed in Turkey and other countries in the region, as well as information gathered from classified "listening posts" that monitor signal interceptions and pilot chatter.
Further analysis of the evidence we have collected matches the assessment of the officials.
The key factors to consider in determining what weapon was used are the size of the payload, which can be determined by the size of the explosion, and the speed of the projectile that hit the target.
We know the speed of the weapon was subsonic (below the speed of sound) because we can hear the projectile before it passes the camera. The sonic characteristics also do not match that of a supersonic weapon.
Most rockets possessed by either the regime or the opposition are too small to do this kind of damage. Larger ballistic missiles, are too fast, their payloads do not match the explosion, or their size is so great that evidence of the ballistic missile would be present after the blast.
Several experts have told EA that they think this weapon was a bomb. However, there are problems with this theory. The jet would have to be traveling extremely fast, and would have to pull a strong climb and/or turn after delivering the bomb, remaining out of the frame of the video. Such a move is not incompatible with the audio evidence, but it is less likely than other options.
Under the right conditions, a bomb could cause this damage without the airplane leaving a very loud noise-print at the bombing site. However, these conditions are rare. While we believe a noise-print of the jet is audible at the 40 second mark in the video, it is not as loud as that in most other footage of bombing raids. In contrast, a jet at altitude, firing an air-to-ground missile, could easily leave this audio signature.
Then there is the "roar" of the bomb. Audio analysis rules out, with a relatively high degree of certainty, that this roar is created by the plane delivering the strike. Several experts, however, suggest that many of the large bombs which are suspects could create such a noise due to the extreme speed and heavy weight of the projectile. We revisited the evidence, and we believe that the audio does not rule out this option. Because we have been unable to find a comparison video that closely approximates the specific circumstances seen in this footage, we have been unable to test this theory.
The initial hypothesis that this was an air-to-ground missile was partially based on the sound of the incoming projectile. One complaint about this is that there is no sign of smoke, a signature of a missile. However, it is possible that the rocket ran out of propulsion fuel right before it entered the frame. This would indicate that the missile was towards the end of its range, a possible explanation for why the jet is not seen in the video, and why the audio of the jet noise is quieter than one might expect.
All of the experts we have consulted agreed, with certainty, that this was an airstrike. This conclusion matches the eyewitness testimony that we have, as well as the testimony offered by journalists inside Aleppo. Adding the evaluations of aviationists, arms specialists, and combat veteranst to the technical testimony of the well-placed Western government officials, we conclude that this was an airstrike. We maintain the original hypothesis that jet-fired missiles were used. And we hold that --- uniquely, so far --- this video offers proof of a deliberate, targeted and repeated strike by Syrian forces against civilians in a Government-controlled area. The use of an air-to-ground missile against this target is also unique, signifying the importance of the strike to the Assad government.

I think they are in a better position than you regarding this matter.
 
..and how come nobody heard a cruise missile flying towards Waco?

In case you didn't read my link but just watched the pretty video, here..



I think they are in a better position than you regarding this matter.

Now, I am starting to have fun. "While we believe a noise-print of the jet is audible at the 40 second mark in the video, it is not as loud as that in most other footage of bombing raids."
Please explain why you hear no jet after the missile impact if it is that loud at the :40 second mark.
Also, why don't you hear the jet longer than 3 seconds before impact if it's that loud? You could hear the jet for at least 5 seconds at what seemed ten times the distance from the explosion.
 
It would be meaningless if you could show another "natural/accidental" explosion happening in the same manner.

Could you say exactly what you mean by this.
Are you claiming that AN will not or has not ever exploded on it's own? Are you claiming that the wikipedia article examining the historical Texas explosion is fake or unreliable, and if so, why exactly?
What exactly do you mean by "in the same manner"?
 
Now, I am starting to have fun. "While we believe a noise-print of the jet is audible at the 40 second mark in the video, it is not as loud as that in most other footage of bombing raids."
Please explain why you hear no jet after the missile impact if it is that loud at the :40 second mark.
Also, why don't you hear the jet longer than 3 seconds before impact if it's that loud? You could hear the jet for at least 5 seconds at what seemed ten times the distance from the explosion.

Marine0811 has just debunked the Aleppo university air strike. What a frigging genius you are sat at your computer. All the experts whom EA deal with have obviously never met you. Maybe Human Rights Watch should check all their field data with you too.

Better still, skip to 03:00 of this video and now the U.S./UK/Middle East governments can now consult you when regarding evidence in warfare.

[video]http://bcove.me/8vj7toym[/video]

you're wasted here, Marine0811.
You should be working for the Syrian Electronic Army
 
Could you say exactly what you mean by this.
Are you claiming that AN will not or has not ever exploded on it's own? Are you claiming that the wikipedia article examining the historical Texas explosion is fake or unreliable, and if so, why exactly?
What exactly do you mean by "in the same manner"?

Hello. I am referring to the pictures I posted of the missiles entry into the plant which the poster said were meaningless. I am also making the claim that no "accidental or natural" explosion which hasn't had a missile fired into it will look like this explosion. A natural explosion will not show where a missile has entered the smoke. Please define, "on it's own"? I would consider that lightening or improper storage of which there is no proof of.
I am claiming that the '47 Texas explosion is being associated with this explosion to push regulation. They both lasted and happened on the same date and are mysteriously equal in $100 million damages. The government and media are using fear to manipulate and pass regulations.
 
Marine0811 has just debunked the Aleppo university air strike. What a frigging genius you are sat at your computer. All the experts whom EA deal with have obviously never met you. Maybe Human Rights Watch should check all their field data with you too.

Better still, skip to 03:00 of this video and now the U.S./UK/Middle East governments can now consult you when regarding evidence in warfare.

[video]http://bcove.me/8vj7toym[/video]

you're wasted here, Marine0811.
You should be working for the Syrian Electronic Army

Is this sarcasm or a compliment?
 
You're the genius who sees what he wants to see.

You work it out.

Can you not answer the question I asked of why the jet wasn't heard after the impact if the sound wasn't from the missile?

The only thing I want to see is a more honest world for my son to live in. I had given up on people and the world a long time ago before my son was born. I do not want to raise my son into adulthood to see him murdered by the very government which promises to protect, or attempts to protect.
 
Can you not answer the question I asked of why the jet wasn't heard after the impact if the sound wasn't from the missile?

The only thing I want to see is a more honest world for my son to live in. I had given up on people and the world a long time ago before my son was born. I do not want to raise my son into adulthood to see him murdered by the very government which promises to protect, or attempts to protect.

Maybe the jet fired from a distance and right across the round a very loud explosion has gone off.

Within minutes, reports flooded social media that a regime warplane had fired two missiles at the campus. A student posted on Twitter:
A plane hit with two shells. We saw the plane with our own eyes. I am not going to doubt my eyes and believe regime media.
When the plane roamed above the university following the shelling, the university guards and soldiers told us, "Hide, the plane is back!"
Many witnesses saw an aircraft. Several contacts told EA that the aircraft was at a relatively high altitude when it fired, then it circled around and fired again. However, no videos appeared to show an airplane. One video may have revealed the puff of a jet vapor trail. but this was inconclusive.
The regime claimed that these were car bombs. With no hard evidence, the question of who killed the Aleppo students seemed destined to remain a mystery.
Until today.
This video shows the smoke rising from the roundabout, the location of the first blast. As the cameraman walks towards the blast, just around the 27-second mark, there is a loud sound. It is the roar of a self-powered subsonic aircraft-delivered explosive --- a missile.

Spectrographic analysis software indicates, the sound shares many characteristics with that on the first video, though the acoustics are different. This suggests that both videos have captured the audio of the same missile from different angles.
Another analyst looked more closely at the first video. Immediately before the explosion, one can make out the missile in four different frames. In frame 1. the missile is near the lamp post, in the 2nd frame it has moved forward, in the 3rd it is barely visible, and in the 4th there is an explosion (click for full size):

strike.jpg

An analysis of the audio on the video reveals no evidence that this was faked. Moreover, a second video corroborates the audio, with a similar sound is heard immediately before the 2nd explosion.

[video=youtube_share;aoFj6aEJT8o]http://youtu.be/aoFj6aEJT8o[/video]

dude, i posted all of this earlier. You accuse people of not reading your blog and your doing exactly the same. Just looking at the video and saying, "Yeah, that's it!". I've long stopped taking you serious.

Where are your frames?
 
Maybe the jet fired from a distance and right across the round a very loud explosion has gone off.



Spectrographic analysis software indicates, the sound shares many characteristics with that on the first video, though the acoustics are different. This suggests that both videos have captured the audio of the same missile from different angles.
Another analyst looked more closely at the first video. Immediately before the explosion, one can make out the missile in four different frames. In frame 1. the missile is near the lamp post, in the 2nd frame it has moved forward, in the 3rd it is barely visible, and in the 4th there is an explosion (click for full size):

strike.jpg

An analysis of the audio on the video reveals no evidence that this was faked. Moreover, a second video corroborates the audio, with a similar sound is heard immediately before the 2nd explosion.

[video=youtube_share;aoFj6aEJT8o]http://youtu.be/aoFj6aEJT8o[/video]

dude, i posted all of this earlier. You accuse people of not reading your blog and your doing exactly the same. Just looking at the video and saying, "Yeah, that's it!". I've long stopped taking you serious.

Where are your frames?

It has been a long day, what are you arguing? I already said I thought it was a missile and sounds like a missile. You clearly see the missile because the frames don't have it blurred out. that is also not a cruise missile, so it probably was fired from a jet. As for as a heat signature, your own article explains why it probably didn't have one. One complaint about this is that there is no sign of smoke, a signature of a missile. However, it is possible that the rocket ran out of propulsion fuel right before it entered the frame. This would indicate that the missile was towards the end of its range, a possible explanation for why the jet is not seen in the video, and why the audio of the jet noise is quieter than one might expect.

What are you asking for? There are many reasons this missile impact isn't identical to the plant, "Except for the missile sound".
 
Hello. I am referring to the pictures I posted of the missiles entry into the plant which the poster said were meaningless. I am also making the claim that no "accidental or natural" explosion which hasn't had a missile fired into it will look like this explosion. A natural explosion will not show where a missile has entered the smoke. Please define, "on it's own"? I would consider that lightening or improper storage of which there is no proof of.
I am claiming that the '47 Texas explosion is being associated with this explosion to push regulation. They both lasted and happened on the same date and are mysteriously equal in $100 million damages. The government and media are using fear to manipulate and pass regulations.

"On it's own" meaning, without the help of a missile, due to it's own build up of heat, as it is scientifically proven to be capable of.
Ammonium nitrate decomposes into gases including oxygen when heated (non-explosive reaction); however, ammonium nitrate can be induced to decompose explosively by detonation. Large stockpiles of the material can be a major fire risk due to their supporting oxidation, and may also detonate, as happened in the Texas City disaster of 1947, which led to major changes in the regulations for storage and handling.There are two major classes of incidents resulting in explosions:

  • In the first case, the explosion happens by the mechanism of shock to detonation transition. The initiation happens by an explosive charge going off in the mass, by the detonation of a shell thrown into the mass, or by detonation of an explosive mixture in contact with the mass. The examples are Kriewald, Morgan, Oppau, Tessenderlo and Traskwood.
  • In the second case, the explosion results from a fire that spreads into the ammonium nitrate (AN) itself (Texas City, Brest), or to a mixture of an ammonium nitrate with a combustible material during the fire. The fire must be confined at least to a degree for successful transition from a fire to an explosion (a phenomenon known as "deflagration to detonation transition", or DDT). Pure, compact AN is stable and very difficult to initiate. However, there are numerous cases when even impure AN did not explode in a fire.
Ammonium nitrate decomposes in temperatures above 210 °C. Pure AN is stable and will stop decomposing once the heat source is removed, but when catalysts are present (combustible materials, acids, metal ions, chlorides. ..) the reaction can become self-sustaining (known as self-sustaining decomposition, SSD). This is a well-known hazard with some types of NPK fertilizers, and is responsible for the loss of several cargo ships.

Content from External Source
I would say this is most likely an example of the second case.

There is no proof of improper storage?
Not yet in this case which is still an ongoing investigation. There is a history of improper storage or ignoring regulations though.

The plant was last inspected by OSHA in 1985. At the time, according to records obtained by the Associated Press, OSHA cited the plant for improper storage of anhydrous ammonia and fined it $30; OSHA could have imposed a fine of as much as $1,000. OSHA also cited the plant for violations of respiratory protection standards, but did not issue fines.[10]


After a complaint in 2006 about an ammonia smell coming from the facility, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality investigated and cited the operator for not having obtained a permit for its two storage tanks containing anhydrous ammonia. A permit was issued once the operators brought the facility into accord with the regulations and recommendations made by the agency.[11][12]

According to an open records request by Reuters, the plant had a long history of thefts, mostly by people wanting to use the anhydrous ammonia on site to make methamphetamine. Despite this, the plant had no security guards or burglar alarms, and didn't even have a surveillance system until 2009.[13]
At the time of the explosion, the facility had a permit to store nearly 54,000 pounds (27 short tons; 24 t) of anhydrous ammonia.[8] Despite this, company officials filed an emergency planning report with the EPA stating there was no fire risk or explosion hazard involved at the plant.[14][15]
According to a filing with the EPA in late 2012, the company stated that it stored 540,000 pounds (270 short tons; 240 t) of ammonium nitrate and 110,000 pounds (55 short tons; 50 t) of anhydrous ammonia on the site.[16] However, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Senate investigators that the company hadn't disclosed its ammonium nitrate stock to her department. Federal law requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be notified whenever anyone has more than 1 ton of ammonium nitrate on hand, or 400 pounds if the ammonium nitrate is combined with combustible material.[13][17]

Content from External Source
Do you believe this was a plot to make ammonium nitrate unavailable for use by the general public? What consequences do you foresee from it being unavailable?

Do you not believe it should be regulated?
 
Also, with regards to the supposed pushing of more regulation....

Has Congress introduced any new regulation legislation?

Yes, but it would roll back regulations rather than strengthen them. Eleven representatives — one Democrat and 10 Republicans — sponsored a bill in February that would limit the EPA’s regulatory authority over fertilizer plants. It has been endorsed by industry groups such as the Fertilizer Institute. Kathy Mathers, a spokeswoman for the Fertilizer Institute, told ProPublica that the group supports the bill because it would more clearly spell out how the EPA can regulate the industry.
Content from External Source
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/whe...the_texas_fertilizer_plant_explosion_partner/
 
It has been a long day, what are you arguing? I already said I thought it was a missile and sounds like a missile. You clearly see the missile because the frames don't have it blurred out. that is also not a cruise missile, so it probably was fired from a jet. As for as a heat signature, your own article explains why it probably didn't have one. One complaint about this is that there is no sign of smoke, a signature of a missile. However, it is possible that the rocket ran out of propulsion fuel right before it entered the frame. This would indicate that the missile was towards the end of its range, a possible explanation for why the jet is not seen in the video, and why the audio of the jet noise is quieter than one might expect.

What are you asking for? There are many reasons this missile impact isn't identical to the plant, "Except for the missile sound".

But it doesn't sound the same. There's a difference in the length. Waco is an open field, surely you would hear the missile longer as it gradually approached its target and nobody has come forward and claimed they saw/heard one with they're own eyes. Only CT's watching it on the telly are claiming this and you are a CT.
 
"On it's own" meaning, without the help of a missile, due to it's own build up of heat, as it is scientifically proven to be capable of.
Ammonium nitrate decomposes into gases including oxygen when heated (non-explosive reaction); however, ammonium nitrate can be induced to decompose explosively by detonation. Large stockpiles of the material can be a major fire risk due to their supporting oxidation, and may also detonate, as happened in the Texas City disaster of 1947, which led to major changes in the regulations for storage and handling.There are two major classes of incidents resulting in explosions:

  • In the first case, the explosion happens by the mechanism of shock to detonation transition. The initiation happens by an explosive charge going off in the mass, by the detonation of a shell thrown into the mass, or by detonation of an explosive mixture in contact with the mass. The examples are Kriewald, Morgan, Oppau, Tessenderlo and Traskwood.
  • In the second case, the explosion results from a fire that spreads into the ammonium nitrate (AN) itself (Texas City, Brest), or to a mixture of an ammonium nitrate with a combustible material during the fire. The fire must be confined at least to a degree for successful transition from a fire to an explosion (a phenomenon known as "deflagration to detonation transition", or DDT). Pure, compact AN is stable and very difficult to initiate. However, there are numerous cases when even impure AN did not explode in a fire.
Ammonium nitrate decomposes in temperatures above 210 °C. Pure AN is stable and will stop decomposing once the heat source is removed, but when catalysts are present (combustible materials, acids, metal ions, chlorides. ..) the reaction can become self-sustaining (known as self-sustaining decomposition, SSD). This is a well-known hazard with some types of NPK fertilizers, and is responsible for the loss of several cargo ships.

Content from External Source
I would say this is most likely an example of the second case.

There is no proof of improper storage?
Not yet in this case which is still an ongoing investigation. There is a history of improper storage or ignoring regulations though.

The plant was last inspected by OSHA in 1985. At the time, according to records obtained by the Associated Press, OSHA cited the plant for improper storage of anhydrous ammonia and fined it $30; OSHA could have imposed a fine of as much as $1,000. OSHA also cited the plant for violations of respiratory protection standards, but did not issue fines.[10]


After a complaint in 2006 about an ammonia smell coming from the facility, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality investigated and cited the operator for not having obtained a permit for its two storage tanks containing anhydrous ammonia. A permit was issued once the operators brought the facility into accord with the regulations and recommendations made by the agency.[11][12]

According to an open records request by Reuters, the plant had a long history of thefts, mostly by people wanting to use the anhydrous ammonia on site to make methamphetamine. Despite this, the plant had no security guards or burglar alarms, and didn't even have a surveillance system until 2009.[13]
At the time of the explosion, the facility had a permit to store nearly 54,000 pounds (27 short tons; 24 t) of anhydrous ammonia.[8] Despite this, company officials filed an emergency planning report with the EPA stating there was no fire risk or explosion hazard involved at the plant.[14][15]
According to a filing with the EPA in late 2012, the company stated that it stored 540,000 pounds (270 short tons; 240 t) of ammonium nitrate and 110,000 pounds (55 short tons; 50 t) of anhydrous ammonia on the site.[16] However, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Senate investigators that the company hadn't disclosed its ammonium nitrate stock to her department. Federal law requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be notified whenever anyone has more than 1 ton of ammonium nitrate on hand, or 400 pounds if the ammonium nitrate is combined with combustible material.[13][17]

Content from External Source
Do you believe this was a plot to make ammonium nitrate unavailable for use by the general public? What consequences do you foresee from it being unavailable?

Do you not believe it should be regulated?

Thanks. 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.

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.
 
Also, with regards to the supposed pushing of more regulation....

Has Congress introduced any new regulation legislation?

Yes, but it would roll back regulations rather than strengthen them. Eleven representatives — one Democrat and 10 Republicans — sponsored a bill in February that would limit the EPA’s regulatory authority over fertilizer plants. It has been endorsed by industry groups such as the Fertilizer Institute. Kathy Mathers, a spokeswoman for the Fertilizer Institute, told ProPublica that the group supports the bill because it would more clearly spell out how the EPA can regulate the industry.
Content from External Source
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/whe...the_texas_fertilizer_plant_explosion_partner/

Thanks, this was a great article. I will have to read over it more later.
It seems we have plenty of regulation already. http://www.dhs.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-statutes-and-regulations
 
What I posted below, notice the key word is "confined" can cause an explosion. It was confined for 20+ minutes before exploding. This mentions nothing of a football field gap of gasses igniting the explosion.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg230.pdf

"For example, in a fire, pools of molten
ammonium nitrate may be formed and if the molten mass becomes
confined (eg in drains, pipes, plant or machinery) it could explode,
particularly if it becomes contaminated."
 
Marine have you ever worked with AN personally? With your hands? Have you ever caused it to go from deflagration to detonation? I gotta say here man, you really just dont know the issue you are talking about. AN does not have to be confined to explode. Period.
 
But it doesn't sound the same. There's a difference in the length. Waco is an open field, surely you would hear the missile longer as it gradually approached its target and nobody has come forward and claimed they saw/heard one with they're own eyes. Only CT's watching it on the telly are claiming this and you are a CT.

You are right, you could actually hear the tomahawk cruise missile for a longer time than the one in your video. The ones where the sound hasn't been edited out.
Witnesses in West Texas will eventually come forward if some haven't already. With a cover up this large, I imagine many of them received a nice check after the explosion.
 
Marine have you ever worked with AN personally? With your hands? Have you ever caused it to go from deflagration to detonation? I gotta say here man, you really just dont know the issue you are talking about. AN does not have to be confined to explode. Period.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top