Explosion at fertilizer plant near Waco, Texas - Meteorite or comet fragment?
- Thread starter Nawd
- Start date
Forrestdeva
Padawan Learner
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
Taking a Scientific approach in this matter can be enlightening. Much research needs to be done. For starters at what temperature does steal ( railroad track metal amalgamates) melt? How hot does anhydrous ammonia burn, can it melt railroad tracks, and how spontaneous is it, specifically what temperature causes it to ignite? What was burning in the building prior to the explosion, and at what temperature and what was the distance from the building to the incoming object? What was the speed of the video in terms of frames per minute, to determine the speed and velosity of the incoming object? Not being the Wiz-kid in physics, Ark could add some insight perhaps to the map Pashalis provided with information about trajectories in regards to physics and objects moving at certain speeds.
Those of us in TX love our guns and yes, this could be a means of causing fear to make us consent to disarming. Watching the Boston events unfold only tends to influence me to acquire more artillery to protect myself from TPB *sigh* I can't fight 4-D STS with bullets, so I must rely on the fact the C's have given us that, "Knowledge protects"
My intuition tells me it was a weapon of some sort. I'm having the internal battle of reason-vs-emotion. There was after all the EXPLOSION the night prior on the 14th out here in the community in which I live. A rural area that could be a good "practice" area for clandestine operations as there are large acreage farms, some just Summer homes that are vacant most of the year.
Not a cloud in the sky, none on radar for hundreds of miles so what many of us out here heard was not thunder. Having checked Internet maps that show every kind of conceivable threat, be it earthquake, bombs, terrorist threats, etc, nothing showed up for the date of the 14th! Which leads me into the question of, "is this a cover-up?" Did they test a weapon in our area prior to the West explosion? Even a comet would have disrupted the soil and a dust cloud should have been visible.
Neighbors reported back to me that the local law and fire departments found nothing, no smoke even. I checked with media and was told they don't have a clue and they do not listen to scanners in our area. I followed up by calling the pipeline and hazardous materials hot line to only be directed to the Texas environmental agency who had no reports of an explosion on the 14th. A map of near earth objects also provided no information in terms of anyone witnessing a comet. All paths lead to a dead end!
The Governor of Texas is a possible candidate for the next office of President of the United States. Could it be this is a prelude of things to come, an opening scene in a larger drama concerning political ponerology.
Taking a Scientific approach in this matter can be enlightening. Much research needs to be done. For starters at what temperature does steal ( railroad track metal amalgamates) melt? How hot does anhydrous ammonia burn, can it melt railroad tracks, and how spontaneous is it, specifically what temperature causes it to ignite? What was burning in the building prior to the explosion, and at what temperature and what was the distance from the building to the incoming object? What was the speed of the video in terms of frames per minute, to determine the speed and velosity of the incoming object? Not being the Wiz-kid in physics, Ark could add some insight perhaps to the map Pashalis provided with information about trajectories in regards to physics and objects moving at certain speeds.
Those of us in TX love our guns and yes, this could be a means of causing fear to make us consent to disarming. Watching the Boston events unfold only tends to influence me to acquire more artillery to protect myself from TPB *sigh* I can't fight 4-D STS with bullets, so I must rely on the fact the C's have given us that, "Knowledge protects"
My intuition tells me it was a weapon of some sort. I'm having the internal battle of reason-vs-emotion. There was after all the EXPLOSION the night prior on the 14th out here in the community in which I live. A rural area that could be a good "practice" area for clandestine operations as there are large acreage farms, some just Summer homes that are vacant most of the year.
Not a cloud in the sky, none on radar for hundreds of miles so what many of us out here heard was not thunder. Having checked Internet maps that show every kind of conceivable threat, be it earthquake, bombs, terrorist threats, etc, nothing showed up for the date of the 14th! Which leads me into the question of, "is this a cover-up?" Did they test a weapon in our area prior to the West explosion? Even a comet would have disrupted the soil and a dust cloud should have been visible.
Neighbors reported back to me that the local law and fire departments found nothing, no smoke even. I checked with media and was told they don't have a clue and they do not listen to scanners in our area. I followed up by calling the pipeline and hazardous materials hot line to only be directed to the Texas environmental agency who had no reports of an explosion on the 14th. A map of near earth objects also provided no information in terms of anyone witnessing a comet. All paths lead to a dead end!
The Governor of Texas is a possible candidate for the next office of President of the United States. Could it be this is a prelude of things to come, an opening scene in a larger drama concerning political ponerology.
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
Yeah as crazy as it sounds, that seems to be more and more the direction in wich the information is leading to...
But it is still in the realm of possibilities and I don't think we will ever know for certain what it was.
I'm also leaning more to the fireball hypothesis even though it certainly could also have been some kind of missle or other weapon we don't know of...
Perceval said:
Yeah as crazy as it sounds, that seems to be more and more the direction in wich the information is leading to...
But it is still in the realm of possibilities and I don't think we will ever know for certain what it was.
I'm also leaning more to the fireball hypothesis even though it certainly could also have been some kind of missle or other weapon we don't know of...
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
If it is true that tracks melted (of wich I haven't seen any hard evidence yet) I'm pretty sure that it would need very high temperatures to do that. Or some electrica phenomenon caused by the "meteorite" alla "The Hutchison Effect" or something similar wich doesn't necessarily need any conventional heat to cause it to "melt".
But when we look at the picture I posted above, it seems that the nearest tracks (to the explosion) are either missing or covered in the debris.
But the tracks further on the left (where the "object" seems to have flown over", as can be seen in the analysis above also) seem to have been bend quite extremely outwards, into the direction the "object" was coming from. I don't think that a fertilizer explosion can accumulate such an extreme force even if it were near by the tracks, to cause those tracks to bend like that. But a electrical/plasma phenomenon certainly could do such kind of damage IMO... If a missle or another kind of weapon could do that I don't know.
If it is true that tracks melted (of wich I haven't seen any hard evidence yet) I'm pretty sure that it would need very high temperatures to do that. Or some electrica phenomenon caused by the "meteorite" alla "The Hutchison Effect" or something similar wich doesn't necessarily need any conventional heat to cause it to "melt".
But when we look at the picture I posted above, it seems that the nearest tracks (to the explosion) are either missing or covered in the debris.
But the tracks further on the left (where the "object" seems to have flown over", as can be seen in the analysis above also) seem to have been bend quite extremely outwards, into the direction the "object" was coming from. I don't think that a fertilizer explosion can accumulate such an extreme force even if it were near by the tracks, to cause those tracks to bend like that. But a electrical/plasma phenomenon certainly could do such kind of damage IMO... If a missle or another kind of weapon could do that I don't know.
Forrestdeva
Padawan Learner
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
Pashalis, what are your thoughts on the debris field? Does there appear to be more in one specific area that would help in determining from which direction the explosion occurred? in other words, where did most the debris land and from that perhaps it can be determined from what side the "force" came from.
Pashalis, what are your thoughts on the debris field? Does there appear to be more in one specific area that would help in determining from which direction the explosion occurred? in other words, where did most the debris land and from that perhaps it can be determined from what side the "force" came from.
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
The problem would still be one of early detection/track. The current SSN under Space Command hasn't got a chance. When I left the biz in 2008, they were struggling to acquire a single LEO sat replacement to MIT LL's aging SBV (Space Based Visible payload). Even if it is flying now, it is no match for the job.
The space-based IR sensors at GEO have a field of view matched to the earth and are designed to detect/track launches anywhere on the earth (and predict landfall, and provide targeting to missile defense). These sensors are probably capable of detecting a cold object passing in front of the warm earth, so early detection might be possible with changes to on-board and ground software. Tracks could be very accurate if observations from more than one sensor are combined.
If, at the time that the data went classified, there were a concerted effort to task all contributing sensors to support this detection/track mission (and possibly get a few new payloads flying), then they might actually have something useful - but I still have a problem with prediction of groundfall to the accuracy of a fertilizer plant unless there is some way of attracting it.
There also may be technology flying that I am not aware of - the security onion has a bazillion layers.
Laura said:
The problem would still be one of early detection/track. The current SSN under Space Command hasn't got a chance. When I left the biz in 2008, they were struggling to acquire a single LEO sat replacement to MIT LL's aging SBV (Space Based Visible payload). Even if it is flying now, it is no match for the job.
The space-based IR sensors at GEO have a field of view matched to the earth and are designed to detect/track launches anywhere on the earth (and predict landfall, and provide targeting to missile defense). These sensors are probably capable of detecting a cold object passing in front of the warm earth, so early detection might be possible with changes to on-board and ground software. Tracks could be very accurate if observations from more than one sensor are combined.
If, at the time that the data went classified, there were a concerted effort to task all contributing sensors to support this detection/track mission (and possibly get a few new payloads flying), then they might actually have something useful - but I still have a problem with prediction of groundfall to the accuracy of a fertilizer plant unless there is some way of attracting it.
There also may be technology flying that I am not aware of - the security onion has a bazillion layers.
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
Yeah, I know all that which is why the whole thing is exercising my mind so much. With all of the pros and cons, we are still left with what happened. If it were an impacting fireball - which looks possible - then we have the extraordinary coincidence of a burning fertilizer plant near WACO, fer gawd's sake, the destruction of which led to the alleged "fertilizer bombs" that took down the Murrah building in Oklahoma, AND we have a near simultaneous explosion in Oklahoma...
THEN, Forrestdeva informs us that there was an unexplained explosion in a clear sky probably much like the numerous (by now, uncountable) explosions people are hearing all over the planet (as we did here).
To Forrestdeva: no, a comet fragment exploding in the upper atmosphere would not necessarily leave any trace whatsoever as the hundreds of similar explosions to date indicate. It would not produce a visible dust cloud, necessarily. You might want to get up to speed on the comet fragment explosion science and probably the best place to start is my recent book "Comets and The Horns of Moses."
LQB said:
Yeah, I know all that which is why the whole thing is exercising my mind so much. With all of the pros and cons, we are still left with what happened. If it were an impacting fireball - which looks possible - then we have the extraordinary coincidence of a burning fertilizer plant near WACO, fer gawd's sake, the destruction of which led to the alleged "fertilizer bombs" that took down the Murrah building in Oklahoma, AND we have a near simultaneous explosion in Oklahoma...
THEN, Forrestdeva informs us that there was an unexplained explosion in a clear sky probably much like the numerous (by now, uncountable) explosions people are hearing all over the planet (as we did here).
To Forrestdeva: no, a comet fragment exploding in the upper atmosphere would not necessarily leave any trace whatsoever as the hundreds of similar explosions to date indicate. It would not produce a visible dust cloud, necessarily. You might want to get up to speed on the comet fragment explosion science and probably the best place to start is my recent book "Comets and The Horns of Moses."
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
If you really want to walk out on the theoretical limb with abandon, you could consider the idea that the PTB supposedly uses remote viewers who could have seen the location and timing of the impact. Then, if this impact is the first one carrying a deadly virus, it became important enough to the PTB to cover up the source of that virus (following the timeline outcome that they had access to via the remote viewers) for them to start a fire preceding the impact to make sure people could not connect the virus with the impact, since it's just an explosion and not an impact.
I'm not a huge fan of that explanation because it's so far outside the realm of the plausible (and I'm not generally a fan of any explanation that has to incorporate remote viewers) but this situation is bizarre enough that if something along those lines happened, I'd not be terribly shocked.
Orrrrr - a silo to the left of the building did explode and trigger the main explosion of the plant (I have no idea...). I'm not fully convinced that the size of the explosion rules out that it's a fertilizer plant explosion - there is a lot of explosive force involved there, but at the end of the day I can't say for certain - and who knows - sounds like a question for the C's!!
Laura said:
If you really want to walk out on the theoretical limb with abandon, you could consider the idea that the PTB supposedly uses remote viewers who could have seen the location and timing of the impact. Then, if this impact is the first one carrying a deadly virus, it became important enough to the PTB to cover up the source of that virus (following the timeline outcome that they had access to via the remote viewers) for them to start a fire preceding the impact to make sure people could not connect the virus with the impact, since it's just an explosion and not an impact.
I'm not a huge fan of that explanation because it's so far outside the realm of the plausible (and I'm not generally a fan of any explanation that has to incorporate remote viewers) but this situation is bizarre enough that if something along those lines happened, I'd not be terribly shocked.
Orrrrr - a silo to the left of the building did explode and trigger the main explosion of the plant (I have no idea...). I'm not fully convinced that the size of the explosion rules out that it's a fertilizer plant explosion - there is a lot of explosive force involved there, but at the end of the day I can't say for certain - and who knows - sounds like a question for the C's!!
QuantumLogic
Jedi
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
After reading all of the responses in this thread and thinking about all of the videos of the explosion shown, there is another possibility that could support it being a missile.
The primary reason that many have for not thinking it could be a missile is the glow from that single frame right before the explosion happens. But there is a way that could happen- a nuclear fission reaction. The only types of explosions that I have ever seen a complete whiteout due to blast brightness are the many videos of nuclear tests. Most nuclear warheads that are on missiles can be detonated at any point in the missile's flight path. It doesn't necessarily have to hit the ground to detonate. It could be remote detonated at a certain elevation, for example.
If this is indeed the case it would explain a great many things:
1) The glow on the left of the screen before the explosion itself. Did the video capture the beginning moment of the nuclear fission process due to remote detonation while still in flight?
2) The very next frame is the complete whiteout frame due to brightness of the explosion. I do not know of any other explosive ordinance that ignites that brightly.
3) No circular or oval ground crater. The kinetic energy of the missile in motion directed the blast wave parallel to the ground with no true kinetic impact of the missile prior to detonation.
4) The cloud from the explosion. Although it would have been detonated in motion parallel to the ground, a nuclear explosion would have still created a vacuum that would send dust into the atmosphere as is shown in the images after the explosion. The photos of the explosive cloud are very similar to nuclear weapon tests.
5) The melted train rails. A nuclear fission process certainly generates enough heat to either partially melt or even vaporize iron.
6) The missile sound just before the explosion. A missile was used to deliver the low yield nuclear warhead.
7) Registering a magnitude 2.1 on seismic equipment. This is the approximate range of the latest tests that were conducted underground by N. Korea(I am NOT saying N. Korea did this- I'm only using it as a recent example of the detection on a detonation).
This is only a possible explanation and is very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. One thing that would help support the hypothesis is if someone could use a geiger counter close to the blast site, but unfortunately I know of no one down there who could accomplish this. In many ways I am actually hoping this is not the case, as it would mean the PTB have really upped the ante to go so far- but with their current level of desperation, I wouldn't put it past them.
After reading all of the responses in this thread and thinking about all of the videos of the explosion shown, there is another possibility that could support it being a missile.
The primary reason that many have for not thinking it could be a missile is the glow from that single frame right before the explosion happens. But there is a way that could happen- a nuclear fission reaction. The only types of explosions that I have ever seen a complete whiteout due to blast brightness are the many videos of nuclear tests. Most nuclear warheads that are on missiles can be detonated at any point in the missile's flight path. It doesn't necessarily have to hit the ground to detonate. It could be remote detonated at a certain elevation, for example.
If this is indeed the case it would explain a great many things:
1) The glow on the left of the screen before the explosion itself. Did the video capture the beginning moment of the nuclear fission process due to remote detonation while still in flight?
2) The very next frame is the complete whiteout frame due to brightness of the explosion. I do not know of any other explosive ordinance that ignites that brightly.
3) No circular or oval ground crater. The kinetic energy of the missile in motion directed the blast wave parallel to the ground with no true kinetic impact of the missile prior to detonation.
4) The cloud from the explosion. Although it would have been detonated in motion parallel to the ground, a nuclear explosion would have still created a vacuum that would send dust into the atmosphere as is shown in the images after the explosion. The photos of the explosive cloud are very similar to nuclear weapon tests.
5) The melted train rails. A nuclear fission process certainly generates enough heat to either partially melt or even vaporize iron.
6) The missile sound just before the explosion. A missile was used to deliver the low yield nuclear warhead.
7) Registering a magnitude 2.1 on seismic equipment. This is the approximate range of the latest tests that were conducted underground by N. Korea(I am NOT saying N. Korea did this- I'm only using it as a recent example of the detection on a detonation).
This is only a possible explanation and is very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. One thing that would help support the hypothesis is if someone could use a geiger counter close to the blast site, but unfortunately I know of no one down there who could accomplish this. In many ways I am actually hoping this is not the case, as it would mean the PTB have really upped the ante to go so far- but with their current level of desperation, I wouldn't put it past them.
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
Looking further at the pictures of the sourrounding area after the explosion here:
http://photos.oregonlive.com/photo-essay/2013/04/aerial_photos_of_damage_by_fer.html
And again at where the fire was burning and in wich direction the wind was blowing, it is still possibility that one or several of the three big storage tanks were burning and/or the office building before the explosion (I would say the office building was burning and the fire was blowing almost directly towards the biggest storage tank).
If we then further assume that that heat and fire was heating that big storage tank (wich seems possible) and it realised gas suddenly to the left (That big storage tank is indecated with the letter "A" in the pictures of my earlier analysis), in the direction the big red arrow is pointing, then it could be that it ignited, outside of the plant, where the yellow rectacle is (wich discribes the area the first bright fiery light or object was seen, prior to the explosion), first and then triggert the rest to explode. So it is still also possible that it was in fact just a fertilizer plant explosion. But then again, how do we explain the glow/dust wich I indicated with the black rectangle right after or during the explosion. It is quite far away, outside of the plant, from the big storage tank.
(source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580185/frantic-search-for-survivors-after-deadly-texas-fertilizer-plant-blast/)
It's just all very difficult to say, if it was one way or the other. So many coincidences that make it difficult.
Also notice that the roof right behind the camera man ("West Intermidiate School") was also partly burned and destroyed.
But again looking at the pictures from the surrounding damaged area, the flight path of the supposed "object" would fit to this damage.
If it was a meteorite, the odds go even more into the realm of "impossible", because we would have to assume that it exploded or disintegrated right above (a few meters above the ground), because it left no sign of a crater of any sort. That would also add up to the other incredible odds like : hitting a plant that is already on fire.
So there we have again also the possibility that it was a weapon that was exploded on purpose before it hit the ground.
anart said:
Looking further at the pictures of the sourrounding area after the explosion here:
http://photos.oregonlive.com/photo-essay/2013/04/aerial_photos_of_damage_by_fer.html
And again at where the fire was burning and in wich direction the wind was blowing, it is still possibility that one or several of the three big storage tanks were burning and/or the office building before the explosion (I would say the office building was burning and the fire was blowing almost directly towards the biggest storage tank).
If we then further assume that that heat and fire was heating that big storage tank (wich seems possible) and it realised gas suddenly to the left (That big storage tank is indecated with the letter "A" in the pictures of my earlier analysis), in the direction the big red arrow is pointing, then it could be that it ignited, outside of the plant, where the yellow rectacle is (wich discribes the area the first bright fiery light or object was seen, prior to the explosion), first and then triggert the rest to explode. So it is still also possible that it was in fact just a fertilizer plant explosion. But then again, how do we explain the glow/dust wich I indicated with the black rectangle right after or during the explosion. It is quite far away, outside of the plant, from the big storage tank.
(source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580185/frantic-search-for-survivors-after-deadly-texas-fertilizer-plant-blast/)
It's just all very difficult to say, if it was one way or the other. So many coincidences that make it difficult.
Also notice that the roof right behind the camera man ("West Intermidiate School") was also partly burned and destroyed.
But again looking at the pictures from the surrounding damaged area, the flight path of the supposed "object" would fit to this damage.
If it was a meteorite, the odds go even more into the realm of "impossible", because we would have to assume that it exploded or disintegrated right above (a few meters above the ground), because it left no sign of a crater of any sort. That would also add up to the other incredible odds like : hitting a plant that is already on fire.
So there we have again also the possibility that it was a weapon that was exploded on purpose before it hit the ground.
angelburst29
The Living Force
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
On this site: The Latest Worldwide Meteor's/Fireballs Reports, there is a listing posted on April 18, 2013 of a sighting of a fireball or meteorite from Houston, Texas.
http://thelatestworldwidemeteorreports.blogspot.jp/
18APR2013 DT Houston,tx. usa 21:05 about 2 SECONDS TRAVELING SE TO NW BRIGHT WHITE/BLUE FAINT BOOM SOUND AFTER PASS BRIGHTER THAT MOON
On this same site - located here: A video of a Fireball Meteor with Sonics from Dec. 7th, 2012 in Texas, much like - what is being shown in the video posted by Laura.
http://lunarmeteoritehunters.blogspot.com/2012/12/texas-fireball-meteor-07dec2012-with.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LatestWorldwideMeteor%2FmeteoriteNews+%28Latest+Worldwide+Meteor%2FMeteorite+News%29
Texas Fireball Meteor ~06:43 am CST 07DEC2012 with Sonics!
This NASA site logs "Approaching objects" at the bottom of the site. Unfortunately, it doesn't show back data but lists 2 objects for Sunday the 21st, 2013. Another 2 for the 22nd.
http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php
On this site: The Latest Worldwide Meteor's/Fireballs Reports, there is a listing posted on April 18, 2013 of a sighting of a fireball or meteorite from Houston, Texas.
http://thelatestworldwidemeteorreports.blogspot.jp/
18APR2013 DT Houston,tx. usa 21:05 about 2 SECONDS TRAVELING SE TO NW BRIGHT WHITE/BLUE FAINT BOOM SOUND AFTER PASS BRIGHTER THAT MOON
On this same site - located here: A video of a Fireball Meteor with Sonics from Dec. 7th, 2012 in Texas, much like - what is being shown in the video posted by Laura.
http://lunarmeteoritehunters.blogspot.com/2012/12/texas-fireball-meteor-07dec2012-with.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LatestWorldwideMeteor%2FmeteoriteNews+%28Latest+Worldwide+Meteor%2FMeteorite+News%29
Texas Fireball Meteor ~06:43 am CST 07DEC2012 with Sonics!
This NASA site logs "Approaching objects" at the bottom of the site. Unfortunately, it doesn't show back data but lists 2 objects for Sunday the 21st, 2013. Another 2 for the 22nd.
http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php
QuantumLogic
Jedi
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
I have a question since you are so well versed in electricity/electronics. Would even a very small yield nuclear detonation at such a low altitude still produce an E1 pulse strong enough to disable electronics? All of the research I can find references rather large detonations, but I am unable to find anything on very small yield EMP effects.
There is something I found about being able to not only increase EMP strength, but also concentrating it in one direction from the detonation point. It is in Scientific American, Theodore B. Taylor "Third-Generation Nuclear Weapons", pages 30-39. Vol. 256, No. 4. April, 1987. I have not been able to find a copy of this- only short summaries on various websites. It occurred to me that if someone wanted to use a low yield warhead, perhaps they went in the other direction in their research. Instead of increasing EMP, could they have found a way to decrease it or concentrate it in such a fashion that close proximity electronics would be unaffected unless they were in the precise direction of the EMP concentration?
Unless this level of technology has been developed, then after reading about EMP effects, I would have to concur with your statement that it could not be nuclear as it would have affected the video cameras that people used to film the explosion along with everything else in the area.
LQB said:
I have a question since you are so well versed in electricity/electronics. Would even a very small yield nuclear detonation at such a low altitude still produce an E1 pulse strong enough to disable electronics? All of the research I can find references rather large detonations, but I am unable to find anything on very small yield EMP effects.
There is something I found about being able to not only increase EMP strength, but also concentrating it in one direction from the detonation point. It is in Scientific American, Theodore B. Taylor "Third-Generation Nuclear Weapons", pages 30-39. Vol. 256, No. 4. April, 1987. I have not been able to find a copy of this- only short summaries on various websites. It occurred to me that if someone wanted to use a low yield warhead, perhaps they went in the other direction in their research. Instead of increasing EMP, could they have found a way to decrease it or concentrate it in such a fashion that close proximity electronics would be unaffected unless they were in the precise direction of the EMP concentration?
Unless this level of technology has been developed, then after reading about EMP effects, I would have to concur with your statement that it could not be nuclear as it would have affected the video cameras that people used to film the explosion along with everything else in the area.
tempo
Padawan Learner
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
Considering the electrical nature of comets/meteors, would it be possible that the fire was ignited through some sort of electrical discharging activity taking place at the fertilizer plant prior to the explosion?
Pashalis said:
Considering the electrical nature of comets/meteors, would it be possible that the fire was ignited through some sort of electrical discharging activity taking place at the fertilizer plant prior to the explosion?
cholas
Dagobah Resident
Re: Explosion hits fertilizer plant north of Waco, Texas
In browsing through photos and various reports, the area across the tracks from the largest storage tank was supposedly a park, with nothing that looks remotely flamable. I suppose methane seepage could be possible?
The train tracks that are visible are not melted but seems to indicate from where the explosion originated. My guess is that largest of storage tanks.
Also, there had been discussion about certain things that attract meteorites. Could this be understood technology by the ptb? Or shades of the Indiana neighborhood explosion?
In browsing through photos and various reports, the area across the tracks from the largest storage tank was supposedly a park, with nothing that looks remotely flamable. I suppose methane seepage could be possible?
The train tracks that are visible are not melted but seems to indicate from where the explosion originated. My guess is that largest of storage tanks.
Also, there had been discussion about certain things that attract meteorites. Could this be understood technology by the ptb? Or shades of the Indiana neighborhood explosion?
