Explosion at fertilizer plant near Waco, Texas - Meteorite or comet fragment?

[Cosmos]

Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas

derekbaxter24,
how were you and your wife able to see that it "was a red tomahawk cruise missile" when you initially saw it?
Did you record that initial sequence, that you think was later photoshopped, and played it in slow motion (or super slow motion), to determine that?
Or did you have some sort of divice that enabled you to play it in slow motion at the time? (I know that there are recording devices that enable users to play things on TV, lagged from the orginal time for example.)

And how were you able to show your wife that sequence again (as you said in your blog), to get her "unbiased" view, wich turned out to be the same as yours, aka "a red tomahawk cruise missile"?

I find it kind of hard to believe, that you could have been able to initially see "a red tomahawk cruise missile", without a strong slow motion...

What seems to be clear is, that something indeed impacted the plant from the left.
But jumping to a definite conclusion, that it was a "red tomahawk cruise missile", based on your initial impression, explosion patterns and sound, seems to me to be not that wise, especially because you won't be able to know how other weapons (of wich some are certainly classified) behave, sound like or explode... And the same goes for a comet impact, you simply can't know for sure how the explosion or blast pattern of a comet would look like...

Based on the initial flash of light, that seems to have been brighter then the actual explosion, I tend to think that whatever impacted the plant was already very bright while flying before it hit the plant. Based on that and the bigger picture of how, where and when this event occured, as well as the aftermath and how it was handeled, I tend to go with the possibility that it was a comet. There certainly is also the possibility that it was a weapon that is brighter before the actual explosion occurs.

I haven't seen any "tomahawk cruise missile" yet, that could account for that brightness, while flying, before it hits something. But that certainly doesn't mean that there are not other weapons out there that could hypothetically behave like that...

But if it was a weapon, then why did they choose such a weapon that gets so bright before the actual explosion? I mean that would be kind of stupid, because it certainly increases the visibility and noticeability of that weapon before it hits the plant.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, because they then certainly could have also used a weapon that doesn't get bright before the actual explosion and doesn't increase the visibility and noticeability of that said weapon...

 

[seek10]

Are there any way , you can guess the speed of object that hit based on the frame speed ,angle, distance , level of explosion?.
like this _http://ogleearth.com/2013/02/reconstructing-the-chelyabinsk-meteors-path-with-google-earth-youtube-and-high-school-math/
comet fragments will be very fast. It looks some onlookers became so shocked that they couldn't hear for some time( It could be shock or some thing else).

 

[Cosmos]

Are there any way , you can guess the speed of object that hit based on the frame speed ,angle, distance , level of explosion?.
like this _http://ogleearth.com/2013/02/reconstructing-the-chelyabinsk-meteors-path-with-google-earth-youtube-and-high-school-math/
comet fragments will be very fast. It looks some onlookers became so shocked that they couldn't hear for some time( It could be shock or some thing else).

Yes, I think it would be possible to calculate an approx speed of that object.
From the data available we can not say with certainty the exact angle from the ground (but an estimation could be made for that one, that could be fairly accurate with a relatively small deviation up or down, to the original angle).

For the horizontal angle (for a lack of better description of what I mean here) it is more difficult and the deviation would be bigger up or down, to the original angle). But I think if we calculate with a relatively parallel angle of that object in reference to the camera views, that would give us the option to at least say that that object was at least ...km/h fast.

Taking this article as basis (wich should be fairly accurate I think) we could calculate the speed, I think:
http://www.sott.net/article/261485-Something-impacted-the-fertilizer-plant-in-West-Texas-most-likely-a-Comet-fragment

We have 3 viewpoints of that explosion and the object that enters into the cameras before it.
Viewpoint#1 is not useful (as far as I can determine) to calculate the speed.
But viewpoint#2 and #3 can be used...

So we have two videos from wich we can calculate the approx speed for each (the minimal estimation would be the best way to go, since we can't know the two angles for sure wich (as explained above) would determine the exact distance this object was covering. But the lowest estimate should give us a relatively good approx lowest speed this object was having. But if the two angles are estimated to be other then this lowest estimate, then the speed could have been faster. Even much faster). When we have the two approx lowest speed estimates from both videos they could be compared with each other if they come up with approx the same speed and then added together and divided by 2 to give a better approximation of the lowest possible speed.

So now the question I think is: How many frames per second does the camera of viewpoint #2 capture? And how many frames per second does the camera of viewpoint #3 capture?

From viewpoint #2 we have this video, wich shows the cellphone wich recorded it:
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/video?clipId=8788940&autostart=true

Does anybody know wich cellphone it is and on how many frames per second it is recording?

Is there a tool out there wich could be used to determine the "frames per second" of each one of those two videos?
Or can I also determine that by counting all frames (using super slow motion) within one second of the given video?

 

[derekbaxter24]

Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas

derekbaxter24,
how were you and your wife able to see that it "was a red tomahawk cruise missile" when you initially saw it?
Did you record that initial sequence, that you think was later photoshopped, and played it in slow motion (or super slow motion), to determine that?
Or did you have some sort of divice that enabled you to play it in slow motion at the time? (I know that there are recording devices that enable users to play things on TV, lagged from the orginal time for example.)

And how were you able to show your wife that sequence again (as you said in your blog), to get her "unbiased" view, wich turned out to be the same as yours, aka "a red tomahawk cruise missile"?

I find it kind of hard to believe, that you could have been able to initially see "a red tomahawk cruise missile", without a strong slow motion...

We didn't initially see anything until I paused our TV on the dvr

What seems to be clear is, that something indeed impacted the plant from the left.
But jumping to a definite conclusion, that it was a "red tomahawk cruise missile", based on your initial impression, explosion patterns and sound, seems to me to be not that wise, especially because you won't be able to know how other weapons (of wich some are certainly classified) behave, sound like or explode... And the same goes for a comet impact, you simply can't know for sure how the explosion or blast pattern of a comet would look like...

Me or my wife didn't jump to anything, all information and observations were tested. The explosion patterns weren't analyzed until around 4 days after seeing the missile. As far as a comet or asteroid, I don't see a comet coincidentally striking an already on fire plant, too much coincidence. Plus the gov. could have further covered themselves by claiming an accident. I don't see much reason why they wouldn't claim a comet. I haven't seen any scientists attempting to explain this as a comet.

Based on the initial flash of light, that seems to have been brighter then the actual explosion, I tend to think that whatever impacted the plant was already very bright while flying before it hit the plant. Based on that and the bigger picture of how, where and when this event occured, as well as the aftermath and how it was handeled, I tend to go with the possibility that it was a comet. There certainly is also the possibility that it was a weapon that is brighter before the actual explosion occurs.

I haven't seen any "tomahawk cruise missile" yet, that could account for that brightness, while flying, before it hits something. But that certainly doesn't mean that there are not other weapons out there that could hypothetically behave like that...

But if it was a weapon, then why did they choose such a weapon that gets so bright before the actual explosion? I mean that would be kind of stupid, because it certainly increases the visibility and noticeability of that weapon before it hits the plant.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, because they then certainly could have also used a weapon that doesn't get bright before the actual explosion and doesn't increase the visibility and noticeability of that said weapon...

I don't think the plume rules out the cruise missile when there is so much more that verifies the missile. If caught which they were, they can blame the missile on a foreign source.

Mod note: fixed quotes

 

[Cosmos]

Are there any way , you can guess the speed of object that hit based on the frame speed ,angle, distance , level of explosion?.
like this _http://ogleearth.com/2013/02/reconstructing-the-chelyabinsk-meteors-path-with-google-earth-youtube-and-high-school-math/
comet fragments will be very fast. It looks some onlookers became so shocked that they couldn't hear for some time( It could be shock or some thing else).

Yes, I think it would be possible to calculate an approx speed of that object.
From the data available we can not say with certainty the exact angle from the ground (but an estimation could be made for that one, that could be fairly accurate with a relatively small deviation up or down, to the original angle).

For the horizontal angle (for a lack of better description of what I mean here) it is more difficult and the deviation would be bigger up or down, to the original angle). But I think if we calculate with a relatively parallel angle of that object in reference to the camera views, that would give us the option to at least say that that object was at least ...km/h fast.

Taking this article as basis (wich should be fairly accurate I think) we could calculate the speed, I think:
http://www.sott.net/article/261485-Something-impacted-the-fertilizer-plant-in-West-Texas-most-likely-a-Comet-fragment

We have 3 viewpoints of that explosion and the object that enters into the cameras before it.
Viewpoint#1 is not useful (as far as I can determine) to calculate the speed.
But viewpoint#2 and #3 can be used...

So we have two videos from wich we can calculate the approx speed for each (the minimal estimation would be the best way to go, since we can't know the two angles for sure wich (as explained above) would determine the exact distance this object was covering. But the lowest estimate should give us a relatively good approx lowest speed this object was having. But if the two angles are estimated to be other then this lowest estimate, then the speed could have been faster. Even much faster). When we have the two approx lowest speed estimates from both videos they could be compared with each other if they come up with approx the same speed and then added together and divided by 2 to give a better approximation of the lowest possible speed.

So now the question I think is: How many frames per second does the camera of viewpoint #2 capture? And how many frames per second does the camera of viewpoint #3 capture?

From viewpoint #2 we have this video, wich shows the cellphone wich recorded it:
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/video?clipId=8788940&autostart=true

Does anybody know wich cellphone it is and on how many frames per second it is recording?

Is there a tool out there wich could be used to determine the "frames per second" of each one of those two videos?
Or can I also determine that by counting all frames (using super slow motion) within one second of the given video?

I count about 10 frames per second on both videos (viewpoint #2 and #3 from the link above). Can that be? That strikes me as pretty low...
I guess we would need to find the original video of both viewpoints to be sure wich is the actuall FPS of those cameras?

 

[Niall]

As far as a comet or asteroid, I don't see a comet coincidentally striking an already on fire plant, too much coincidence.

The fire and whatever other combination of factors on the ground would act as an attractor for the comet fragment, which either explodes on impact or explodes overhead then discharges an enormous amount of energy. Think of a lightning bolt striking certain points on the ground. What attracts it to one location or another?

Plus the gov. could have further covered themselves by claiming an accident. I don't see much reason why they wouldn't claim a comet.

They wouldn't label it a comet because history has shown that there would be revolution on the streets and they'd be thrown out of power overnight.

I haven't seen any scientists attempting to explain this as a comet.

Official science still believes that comets are dirty snowballs and that they haven't interfered with evolution since the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Truth is, there was widespread global devastation just a few hundred years ago and total civilization collapse less than 2,000 years ago. We're overdue another visit of a cyclical comet cluster.

For me, the symbolism of 'the gods' sending this message the day after the PTB pulled the Boston Bombings and the day before the anniversary of the OKC Bombing (also PTB), Waco (also PTB) and Columbine (also PTB), is all way beyond coincidence of cosmic mathematical proportions.

Laura's research into comets and catastrophe is entertaining if not enlightening: http://www.sott.net/topic/10-Comets-and-Catastrophe-Series

 

[derekbaxter24]

As far as a comet or asteroid, I don't see a comet coincidentally striking an already on fire plant, too much coincidence.

The fire and whatever other combination of factors on the ground would act as an attractor for the comet fragment, which either explodes on impact or explodes overhead then discharges an enormous amount of energy. Think of a lightning bolt striking certain points on the ground. What attracts it to one location or another?

I am not a physicist or chemist, but I would guess that electrical attractants are entirely different from comets. Plus a comet tail would be seen for longer than the missile because it would be burning. There should also be other pieces besides one if attracted to the plant. There was no visual breakup of multiple pieces.

Plus the gov. could have further covered themselves by claiming an accident. I don't see much reason why they wouldn't claim a comet.

They wouldn't label it a comet because history has shown that there would be revolution on the streets and they'd be thrown out of power overnight.

I disagree, the russian meteor recently didn't lead to fear and collapse

Mod edit: fixed quote boxes

 

[derekbaxter24]

Did the Houston Press really steal my picture / screen capture of the explosion?

Here is the picture posted in my blog.

 

[derekbaxter24]

The link to the Houston Press blog. http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2013/04/worst_west_conspiracies.php

 

[light worker]

In last session from 28 May 2013 we have received answer what made a fire and after big explosion:

(L) So we didn't even ask anything about the fertilizer explosion. So, ask! (Perceval) What caused the Waco fertilizer plant explosion?

A: Information overload in the form of a small comet fragment with a massive electrical charge.

Q: (Perceval) There was a fire burning before the explosion. What caused that fire?

A: First fragment.

 

[Voyageur]

I am not a physicist or chemist, but I would guess that electrical attractants are entirely different from comets. Plus a comet tail would be seen for longer than the missile because it would be burning. There should also be other pieces besides one if attracted to the plant. There was no visual breakup of multiple pieces.

Hi db,

You might want to read a little here about comets, electrical arching and such. _http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

If you think not of just comet tails and a burning mass and think of discharge, well it is not understood exactly, yet it seems evident that it happens, likely much more than we know.

You can have a look at this older SoTT article about exploding transformers, although it is commented in the news that such and such surging was the causation, it may be something altogether related to what interacts from above.

http://www.sott.net/article/228706-Exploding-Transformers-More-than-meets-the-eye

I disagree, the russian meteor recently didn't lead to fear and collapse

Thing is, osit, from a historical perspective, the variability of what happened, the size, discharge, where it happens, elevation, how much force etc. all plays to this. Consider Tunguska of 1908 being in a desolated part of the world playing out over LA or Pairs or multiple events simultaneously, and "fear and collapse" become much more understandable.

 

[Joe]

[quote author=derekbaxter24]
I am not a physicist or chemist, but I would guess that electrical attractants are entirely different from comets. Plus a comet tail would be seen for longer than the missile because it would be burning. There should also be other pieces besides one if attracted to the plant. There was no visual breakup of multiple pieces. [/quote]

Actually, comets most likely have a very definite electrical component to them.

See this link

There was no breakup seen because this particular meteorite/comet fragment was not visible because of low cloud cover. It probably would have been visible for a fraction of a second after it broke cloud cover.

[quote author=derekbaxter24]
I disagree, the russian meteor recently didn't lead to fear and collapse
[/quote]

The point is that there was no way to ignore the fact that the Russian event was a meteorite. If they can avoid it, the ptb will not admit a meteorite caused major physical damage to the earth, because according to NASA, that never really happens.

 

[derekbaxter24]

[quote author=derekbaxter24]
I am not a physicist or chemist, but I would guess that electrical attractants are entirely different from comets. Plus a comet tail would be seen for longer than the missile because it would be burning. There should also be other pieces besides one if attracted to the plant. There was no visual breakup of multiple pieces.

Actually, comets most likely have a very definite electrical component to them.

See this link

There was no breakup seen because this particular meteorite/comet fragment was not visible because of low cloud cover. It probably would have been visible for a fraction of a second after it broke cloud cover.

[quote author=derekbaxter24]
I disagree, the russian meteor recently didn't lead to fear and collapse
[/quote]

The point is that there was no way to ignore the fact that the Russian event was a meteorite. If they can avoid it, the ptb will not admit a meteorite caused major physical damage to the earth, because according to NASA, that never really happens.
[/quote]

I will check the links, but what was seen cannot be denied. I highly doubt an electrical current would change the direction of a meteorite or comet. I also don't think the comet would impact and explode exactly like a cruise missile. I feel like you are trying to fit the comet into your data. I think the government would report a comet or metorite because fear is the easiest way to push regulations. It would oalsocover up the missile. The sky looked clear except for the plant fire, I have a good feeling the comet would have been visible for a while.

 

[Laura]

I also don't think the comet would impact and explode exactly like a cruise missile. ...

Whatever happened there did not "impact and explode" - it exploded first, then impacted with a following ground explosion.

I have a good feeling the comet would have been visible for a while.

You don't know much about comets, do you? Please read my comet series and my new book "Comets and The Horns of Moses" for extracts of the hard data.

 

[derekbaxter24]

I also don't think the comet would impact and explode exactly like a cruise missile. ...

Whatever happened there did not "impact and explode" - it exploded first, then impacted with a following ground explosion.


I have a good feeling the comet would have been visible for a while.

You don't know much about comets, do you? Please read my comet series and my new book "Comets and The Horns of Moses" for extracts of the hard data.
[/quote]

I don't know how I am supposed to debate something with you when you deny objective facts on video. There wouldn't be a reflected blast from the missile if it didn't impact before exploding. But there is an undeniable reflection. Should I just stop posting so you and friends can promote your comet theory? You don't know much about missiles do you?