Tunguska Event

Air burst meteor fragment still seems like the most likely reason, especially due to the eye witness reports of a falling object in the sky before the explosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

As to your theory, the buildup (or sudden release) of methane (or combination of swamp gases) gas necessary for an estimated 5-30MT blast is absolutely enormous and not likely to buildup as a gas cloud above ground or be suddenly released from the ground due to an earthquake. Even if it did, the mixture would need to have the right fuel-air composition to allow ignition of the cloud to occur (too rich a fuel mixture and the explosion wouldn't propagate properly or at all). If the blast were much smaller then perhaps that could have been the cause, but for an explosion of this size (and with a central point of detonation seen due to the way the trees were blown down) I cannot see how an above ground natural gas explosion could have caused this particular event.

Due to the blast pattern the explosion was not below ground (if you thought perhaps the ignition of the above ground methane cloud caused underground pockets of methane to explode to create a blast of suitably large proportions). If the blast occurred even partly below ground there would be clear evidence of a crater(s) and crater debry spread around the area.

Scientists cannot agree on the cause of the blast that rocked Siberia

Over the years more and more evidence obtained has pointed to an air burst meteor.

A fuel-air bomb is second only to nuclear explosion in power.Certainly the right mixture has to occur, but a 25 mile long cloud of methane would pack a pretty large punch.Sound travels much slower than light, so an observer at a distance would see the blast before hearing it.

It probably really was a meteor or comet fragment breaking up, but stranger things have happened due to Murphy's law.Could have been a hunter striking a flint to light a campfire, or one of Tesla's experiments gone awry.

Uhh... Scientists do agree on the cause. It was a meteorite that broke up about 6 clicks up. The Russians have found small stony particles in trees along the path; those particles are consistent with stony meteorites.

TVR45:
You wrote___'Uh... Scientists do agree. It was a meteorite that broke up about 6 clicks up'___

Can you name any of these scientists? i am curious which two are willing to offer their professional opinion on this matter without realizing that 'meteorite' describe something that has already survived impact...not something in process thereof.

Beyond that, there is legitimate debate concerning whether it was more likely a comet fragment or meteoroid.

Benbenben

Don't be pedantic. A large metor broke up 6 km up. Thousands of meteorites struck the earth.

Do you have a serious question or are you just trolling?

Did I strike a raw nerve? I appologize if that little jab to the ribs was less funny than it was enraging to you.

Words are important. Taking time to note correct usage at the risk of sound overly formal, or even pedantic is a risk I am willing to take.

On another note, I do not hold spelling in as high a regard. I have not spell checked my comments, so perhaps you will find an immediate chance to get even.

Benbenben

If you want to take jabs, add an emoticon so your comments will be taken lightly. Your time is up; that'll be five cents, please.

The Russians did a sir burst simulation on an actual scale model using match stick that represent groups of trees as well as hill, knolls and other topographical ground features, that gave a butterfly like pattern...same as the pattern at Tunguska. with the trees at ground zero still standing...

They then extrapolated size and travel vectors, everything points to an air blast.

For you to get credibility, you would have to do experiments the same to at least reinforce your hypothesise.

p911