It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Buncefield Missile

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I'm putting this in the weaponry forum to get a realistic response.

John Harris of TPUC saw the Buncefield missile. He got that intuitive feeling to open his front door and look up just as it passed over his house. Now that he's not here to speak I see no reason for keeping my mouth shut on this subject.

www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk...

This thread got the response that dreadfully true threads sometimes get.www.abovetopsecret.com... It's the only thread he posted. Must have felt great when he got the overwhelming silence treatment.

That video. Is it colour? What colour is a petrol vapour explosion?




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
In all my years of ATS this is the most cleanly presented "hey guys what's up with this?" That leads to the least nonsense.

All I can say is everything you presented looks pretty valid, I'm gonna read up on this buncefield incedent.

Good job, few threads lead to any sort of substance at all.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

We didn't kill Dr David Kelly either right?

Back to topic, this is a cover up. Question is who fired the missile?

Surely there are very few countries who could strike the UK with a tomahawk and have the gov keep it quiet?

Would we really do it to ourselves?


FYI the incident you're talking about here isn't the incident I was talking about in the other thread.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: EA006

At the time there were reports of army with metal detectors searching a field a few miles away. I thought this suggested a missile and a ramp transported in a lorry.

Looking into all the other possibilities gets confusing rapidly. Reading between the lines here could mean something. fireworld.com...

...bizarre sequence of aberation...


And this?


Buncefield fire destroyed crime data

Last Modified: 16 Aug 2007
By: John Sparks

The Buncefield oil depot fire caused millions of pounds worth of damage in 2005 but it also damaged a vital crime fighting system

Channel 4 News understands that a vital back-up system to the police national computer was damaged by the Buncefield fire, with knock-on effects still felt today.

This programme has learnt that as a direct result of the fire, the government has scrapped an attempt to join the Shengen Information System (SIS), an important crime-fighting tool, because vital software was damaged.

Paid for - but never used

The SIS provides vital information of whether wanted criminal suspects are entering the country from the EU or elsewhere.

The UK has held the right to access much of this information since late 2004 - and paid £39m for its share of developing SIS - yet there isn't a single computer connected to it in the UK.

The Home Office has even trained staff to work on it, but have told Channel 4 News that because of the fire, they had abandoned trying to connect to the database in its current form.

The Schengen Information System (SIS)

The SIS is a huge EU-wide system for the collection and exchange of information between different law enforcement agencies. The information covers various policing, immigration, criminal and terror-related areas.

The SIS hub is located in a bunker in a Strasbourg suburb called Jesuitenfeld. Its back-up is in Austria and it is linked to Europe-wide police forces, security agencies and border posts. They collect the intelligence and information and exchange it by sending back it to the hub, where their European colleagues can access it.

That information is available on the desk-top for authorised officials to use and the database has been found to be enormously effective with thousands of alerts triggered every day.

'Acts of God'

Home Office officials told a House of Lords committee this spring that they had abandoned trying to connect to the first version of SIS because of computer problems and 'acts of God'

Channel 4 have discovered that these 'acts of God' refer to a fire in a building consumed in the Buncefield oil depot fire. This building held computer infrastructure designed to connect to SIS.

Also destroyed in the fire was the Police National Computer's "Hot Stand-By" back-up system, designated "national critical infrastructure" by the government as it holds details on nearly seven million offenders, crimes and property.

Questions remain as to why such a vital piece of national infrastructure was placed 100 yards from a disaster hazard.
z13.invisionfree.com...
edit on 14 6 2015 by Kester because: add quote



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
The Buncefield fires in 2005. A fire in an oil storage depot, where storage tanks exploded. There are plenty of eye witnesses who did not see a missile. The inquiry is public.

> Inquiry opens in a PDF

If it was a terrorist attack then the government would have made a big play of it. If it was a rogue missile from the British military then how and what. It's quite difficult to cover up things like that! In fact, this is a thread based on hearsay - a friend of a friend said...



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Maybe covering their asses from European law enforcement?
Weren't there critical systems in building 7, 9/11?

Oh yeah there was.....



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

I'd always just assumed it was oil war payback. Buncefield provided a large part of Heathrow's fuel.

The oil terminal supplied 30% of Heathrow Airport's fuel, and because of the fire, the airport had to start rationing fuel. Some long-haul flights to Australia, the Far-East, and South Africa had to make an intermediate stop at Stansted Airport or other European airports to refuel, while short-haul operators were asked to fuel their aircraft for the round trip before flying to Heathrow. Some aircraft were only allowed 40% of the fuel they would normally take on board. Fuel shortages continued for months after the explosion.
en.wikipedia.org... Shortly before Christmas when flights were busy would make an impact.

Which is the target and which is collateral can be deliberately mixed up.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester




Looking into all the other possibilities gets confusing rapidly. Reading between the lines here could mean something. fireworld.com...


I understand your trying to get something out there...but I think your grasping here with your linked source.

The quote you picked should have been shown as it means something other than what your implying.


Gasoline storage facilities represent the barest minimum of risk to citizens beyond the plant perimeter except under freakish Buncefield-type conditions. It would be impossible for even the best financed, most organized terrorists to duplicate the bizarre sequence of aberation that visited so much destruction upon the typically quiet English countryside.


And as for that bizarre sequence aberation...this is it.


Buncefield could happen again, given the right circumstances of time, weather, mechanical failure and human error. However, manufacturing that set of circumstances is certainly beyond what even the most determined terrorists could manage. For more than 40 minutes, nearly 300 tons of gasoline spilled unchecked into a dike surrounding a storage tank. Slowly, a vapor cloud extended out from the tank.

Only then came ignition.


fireworld.com...

The only thing that reading between the lines will tell you is it wasn't a missile, but a chain of events that subsequently ended up in what happened...no missile or terrorist attack caused this...sorry.



And this?


Another conspiracy forum that the OP of the thread there bases his findings off of a very edited mish mash of news reports, and you think that is somehow proof...too many other witnesses to what happened to believe it was something other than reported.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester




Which is the target and which is collateral can be deliberately mixed up.


Well it seems in this case so can an accident.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Where the guys with metal detectors there before or after the incident?
If there after, they'd have been looking for shrapnel or a missile tail fin? Idk.

Could this have been a drone strike rather than a cruise missile attack?



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

All the fringe information may help a military mind analyse this. I guess the video evidence and multiple witness reports will be most helpful to a weapons expert in judging what caused this blast and subsequent fires. I've just found another account saying he heard a whoosh then a bang. That is a common story if you research thoroughly. The noise of something flying, some report a moments silence, then the explosion.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: EA006

Afterwards some distance away.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Here this may be of some help...

vimeo.com...

A short documentary on the event.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester


What color is a petrol vapour explosion?

The fireball after is yellow and orange. A fuel vapor explosion has two components, the burster charge that wafts the chemical aerosol airborne that then detonates once the right mix of fuel and oxygen are achieved. Like any explosion, there is a free emission of photons ( the bright part) and an ensuing fireball and dust cloud mushrooming into the sky.

What suggests this was a missile… . Its not like shooting an ammo dump and boom.

The right conditions have to brought into play for the initial warhead to hit some tank or pressurized line that then explodes, throwing a huge amount of fuel into the air that then detonates. Its an iffy thing to calculate ahead of time.

Why the missile report and the crude c4 device, which was it?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I hadn't heard of the C4 until I searched ATS for any previous mention of Buncefield. There are many possible combinations of on the ground explosives, tampering with equipment, and a missile. There's always the possibility of miscommunication in a highly secretive operation and actions being duplicated. Not much left to judge from when it's all over.

John Harris was extremely well known, I took notice when I heard what he'd said. Although I'd read several accounts of witnesses hearing what they took to be a missile or small aircraft immediately before the explosion, John's was a very rare eyewitness account. He chose not to speak of it publicly.


edit on 15 6 2015 by kester because: alteration

edit on 15 6 2015 by kester because: clarify



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: kester
John Harris was extremely well known,


No he’s not. The John Harris of “The People’s United Community” (TPUC) should not be mistaken for the other John Harris a moderately successful novelist and others of the same name.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Website hits say otherwise, silly.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: kester


There's always the possibility of miscommunication in a highly secretive operation and actions being duplicated. Not much left to judge from when it's all over.

Tales also grow in the telling. Especially on the interwebz.

A refinery is a huge bomb waiting to go off. Have you been following the one In Ukraine?

A hideous, raging inferno.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: kester
a reply to: intrptr

I hadn't heard of the C4 until I searched ATS for any previous mention of Buncefield. There are many possible combinations of on the ground explosives, tampering with equipment, and a missile. There's always the possibility of miscommunication in a highly secretive operation and actions being duplicated. Not much left to judge from when it's all over.

John Harris was extremely well known, I took notice when I heard what he'd said. Although I'd read several accounts of witnesses hearing what they took to be a missile or small aircraft immediately before the explosion, John's was a very rare eyewitness account. He chose not to speak of it publicly.



Says on wiki, there were several explosions at the refinery.

Also points out the fire burned for two days.

Also the witness saying small plane, that could have been a drone.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: EA006

There was a report at the time from a lady who thought what she saw may have been a small remote controlled aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join