Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[MikeTimbers]

If it was a truck bomb, was it fortuitous coincidence that there was a fuel train crossing at the same time or very careful planning? Was the target the road or rail bridge? The fact that both were affected is extremely suggestive.

 

[Gypo]

Air raid sirens in Kyiv but seemed to stop so for now, threat over.

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

i reckon putin will strike next week a high profile Ukranian target for retaliation

 

[Tephnos]

I would argue against the prevailing view on here that it was EFP explosives, a precision missile strike, thermobaric bomb, special forces rigging the bridge, drone boats or similar high tech operation.

The first reason is the explosion itself. All of the above produce "clean" explosions where all of the reactive part of the bomb is consumed and you are left with smoke and inert debris. This explosion looks far dirtier. When the flash dims you see burning debris raining down. It looks very similar to an ammo depot exploding. For example this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJvcVM6jvE

The burning debris is likely propellant from tank/artillery shells, missiles, mortars, incendiary rounds, packaging and so on.

This entirely makes sense for an improvised truck bomb. There are huge quantities of these munitions moving through Crimea on their way to the front line. With the professionalism displayed by the Russian Army it doesn't stretch credulity that several pallets of these could make their way onto a truck especially if the bomber took a job related to logistics.

The second is the damage caused. Images of the underside of the bridge show it to be clean of charring or obvious blast damage. The piers are all intact and undamaged.

Look at the guard rails on the bridge. These are torn off or bent outwards. It is especially noticeable that they are completely missing on one span of the still intact side. This shows the blast must have occurred on top of the deck. If the explosion had taken place beneath the bridge deck the guard rail would have been shielded from damage by the deck.

I would speculate a truck bomb of several tons at least detonated on top of the deck. The blast wave travelled out in all directions. Up into the sky, horizontally outwards tearing off the guard rails and leaving the visible charring, and also downwards. The downwards force would act to bend the bridge deck into a banana shape which also puts the ends of the deck section under huge tension. (imagine holding up two pencils with a string tied between them then get someone to push down on the middle of the string. You feel the pencils being pulled towards the centre)

As all the deck sections are fixed together the force is transferred along until the weakest points are revealed or the blast runs out of power. This explains why in two places sections separated without signs of explosions. They were torn off by tension generated at the explosion site.

As for who orchestrated the attack I wouldn't like to speculate!

This is about the third or fourth time now where it needs to be pointed out the video footage showed the truck intact as the first flash occurred.

It's just not plausible with that evidence. Plus, there is a hole on a collapsed section of bridge, which could be indicative of a missile strike. A truck blowing a hole and falling through it wouldn't exactly do much good.

All the theories have holes, but I'm not buying the truck one.

 

[Rroff]

I would argue against the prevailing view on here that it was EFP explosives, a precision missile strike, thermobaric bomb, special forces rigging the bridge, drone boats or similar high tech operation.

The first reason is the explosion itself. All of the above produce "clean" explosions where all of the reactive part of the bomb is consumed and you are left with smoke and inert debris. This explosion looks far dirtier. When the flash dims you see burning debris raining down. It looks very similar to an ammo depot exploding. For example this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJvcVM6jvE

The burning debris is likely propellant from tank/artillery shells, missiles, mortars, incendiary rounds, packaging and so on.

This entirely makes sense for an improvised truck bomb. There are huge quantities of these munitions moving through Crimea on their way to the front line. With the professionalism displayed by the Russian Army it doesn't stretch credulity that several pallets of these could make their way onto a truck especially if the bomber took a job related to logistics.

The second is the damage caused. Images of the underside of the bridge show it to be clean of charring or obvious blast damage. The piers are all intact and undamaged.

Look at the guard rails on the bridge. These are torn off or bent outwards. It is especially noticeable that they are completely missing on one span of the still intact side. This shows the blast must have occurred on top of the deck. If the explosion had taken place beneath the bridge deck the guard rail would have been shielded from damage by the deck.

I would speculate a truck bomb of several tons at least detonated on top of the deck. The blast wave travelled out in all directions. Up into the sky, horizontally outwards tearing off the guard rails and leaving the visible charring, and also downwards. The downwards force would act to bend the bridge deck into a banana shape which also puts the ends of the deck section under huge tension. (imagine holding up two pencils with a string tied between them then get someone to push down on the middle of the string. You feel the pencils being pulled towards the centre)

As all the deck sections are fixed together the force is transferred along until the weakest points are revealed or the blast runs out of power. This explains why in two places sections separated without signs of explosions. They were torn off by tension generated at the explosion site.

As for who orchestrated the attack I wouldn't like to speculate!

I would largely agree with what you sad - but thermobarics, though there are some potential indicators like the fuel cloud not clearly present, can produce an explosion like seen with large amounts of thermal debris (which also potentially could be due to munition propellants, etc. in the mix of a truck bomb) especially if they are slightly off optimal - not the best comparison being a small scale DIY test but https://youtu.be/tW3ISdHmcfQ?t=413 unfortunately I don't know enough about the kind of thermobaric munitions of this kind of scale especially those for systems like the Iskanders to be able to compare. But overall it doesn't tie up neatly with other large VBIED explosions, etc. that I can find to contrast with.

Superficially most of the damage seems to come from intense heat and thermobaric style overpressure rather than typical blast damage.

 

[ChrisLX200]

This is about the third or fourth time now where it needs to be pointed out the video footage showed the truck intact as the first flash occurred.

It's just not plausible with that evidence. Plus, there is a hole on a collapsed section of bridge, which could be indicative of a missile strike. A truck blowing a hole and falling through it wouldn't exactly do much good.

All the theories have holes, but I'm not buying the truck one.

I watched all the vids and from what I saw there were two trucks + 2 cars, each pair following the other. When the flash went off you could make out the second truck but the first one - perhaps the one with the explosive - was not visible. So there is some confusion here.

 

[tang0]

 

[Mr Jack]

This is about the third or fourth time now where it needs to be pointed out the video footage showed the truck intact as the first flash occurred.

I assume you mean this frame of the video?

I'm unconvinced. What we're looking at here is a partial scan rather than the blast not originating from that lorry. By the time the frame has cleared, the origin of the blast is unclear, but it's certainly near the location of that lorry, and the lorry itself is no longer visible. Of course, there's no way to be sure from the information available but a large blast originating from a vehicle, probably that lorry, seems the most likely explanation. If nothing else, it does not require that we imagine that Ukraine has hitherto un-hinted-at capabilities to strike at a distance.

 

[Jokester]

Shhh, don't challenge the narrative!

 

[Tephnos]

I assume you mean this frame of the video?

I'm unconvinced. What we're looking at here is a partial scan rather than the blast not originating from that lorry. By the time the frame has cleared, the origin of the blast is unclear, but it's certainly near the location of that lorry, and the lorry itself is no longer visible. Of course, there's no way to be sure from the information available but a large blast originating from a vehicle, probably that lorry, seems the most likely explanation. If nothing else, it does not require that we imagine that Ukraine has hitherto un-hinted-at capabilities to strike at a distance.

It is not implausible that Ukraine has the capability to launch a strike at a distance, it is just we see lack of evidence of shrapnel (not that there would be much anyway).

The truck theory has more holes in it which need addressing as well - the truck came from the Russian side, not the Crimean. How do we then discount the possibility that this was not another false flag attack?

The truck is just not a great tool for the job, and has zero guarantees of collapsing the bridge. Ukraine has much better tools at their disposal if this was a well planned, targeted attack done by its military. It just doesn't add up.

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

the truck came from the Russian side, not the Crimean.

Thats Russia, either way. It doesnt matter where it came from , although i am also not convinced this isnt a false flag operation.

 

[Rroff]

The helicopters are not facts - circumstantial evidence at best - they'd been flying patterns over that area for several days before and continued to do so for several days after and appear to be in response to IIRC Swedish concerns about unidentified drones and submarines sightings in the area. While not impossible it doesn't make that much sense for the US to have its assets there so publicly if they were to do it - neither required and rather obvious connection to themselves - unless they did want to signal they'd done it without saying they'd done it.

 

[Firestar_3x]

Thats Russia, either way. It doesnt matter where it came from , although i am also not convinced this isnt a false flag operation.

The direction of travel 100% matters, because logistically its even harder for Ukraine to launch an attack on the bridge from the Russian side.

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

The direction of travel 100% matters, because logistically its even harder for Ukraine to launch an attack on the bridge from the Russian side.

it doesnt imho, it might be easier to launch an attack from the russian side, especially now. Security in the crimea might be up the ***.

 

[cu3ed]

The helicopters are not facts - circumstantial evidence at best - they'd been flying patterns over that area for several days before and continued to do so for several days after and appear to be in response to IIRC Swedish concerns about unidentified drones and submarines sightings in the area. While not impossible it doesn't make that much sense for the US to have its assets there so publicly if they were to do it - neither required and rather obvious connection to themselves - unless they did want to signal they'd done it without saying they'd done it.

Also doesn't make sense in an "opportunity" sense either, as they had turned the taps off and where already buying US gas anyways.

 

[413x]

Is it fair to say Russia are now losing this war?

If so we must be right on the cusp of some significant change in strategy.
Its an embarrassment to putin. He's been shown up on the world stage.

What's coming next? It's. Probably going to be barbaric whatever it is.

 

[Scania]

Unfortunately, I’m at the point where I’m almost expecting to look up and see a huge flash in the sky, been here before in the early 80’s yet this time, I really see a scenario where it could actually happen - the Soviet regime was never this mad, in fact, they were paranoid that we (the west) were on the verge of attacking them….

This time though, you have a delusional paranoid moron in the form of Putin who’s basing everything that’s going on in his own warped view of the west, our attitude toward Russia and what’s happening in Ukraine which no matter how you dress it up is the Russian federation invading a sovereign country.

Now it’s clearly backfired against what Putin expected and the undoubted humiliation of the Russian conventional forces, I sadly don’t see anything other than a dark escalation way beyond what this should ever have been…

Ultimately, if it happens, it happens. There’s nothing I can do to prevent it so I’m not lying awake at night worrying about it.

That said, I’d be lying to say I wasn’t terrified of the prospect…..

 

[NickK]

Yes, a thermobaric weapon. Fourstar above maybe right though, I've been reasonably near high explosive bombs when they've been dropped and they don't at all look like the explosion on the bridge, which does look like a lot of the ammo dump explosion footage.

Probably russian thermobarics simply loaded on a truck and used as a improvised bomb. Inly issue is you usually see a vapour blast before it’s detonated.

 

[Rroff]

Unfortunately, I’m at the point where I’m almost expecting to look up and see a huge flash in the sky, been here before in the early 80’s yet this time, I really see a scenario where it could actually happen - the Soviet regime was never this mad, in fact, they were paranoid that we (the west) were on the verge of attacking them….

This time though, you have a delusional paranoid moron in the form of Putin who’s basing everything that’s going on in his own warped view of the west, our attitude toward Russia and what’s happening in Ukraine which no matter how you dress it up is the Russian federation invading a sovereign country.

Now it’s clearly backfired against what Putin expected and the undoubted humiliation of the Russian conventional forces, I sadly don’t see anything other than a dark escalation way beyond what this should ever have been…

Ultimately, if it happens, it happens. There’s nothing I can do to prevent it so I’m not lying awake at night worrying about it.

That said, I’d be lying to say I wasn’t terrified of the prospect…..

It is weird at work - people, the average everyday person, talking about the use of "atom bombs" conversationally and with a degree of resigned inevitability as to their use in this situation while not really panicking about it. I find it very odd - I think largely a complete failure of imagination or information in their perspectives.

Probably russian thermobarics simply loaded on a truck and used as a improvised bomb. Inly issue is you usually see a vapour blast before it’s detonated.

That is the odd bit for a thermobaric, though I don't really know how the kind of thermobarics on the kind of systems which have this kind of range work and/or whether the framerates of the cameras which captured it are sufficient, etc. etc.

 

[HungryHippos]

Is it fair to say Russia are now losing this war?

If so we must be right on the cusp of some significant change in strategy.
Its an embarrassment to putin. He's been shown up on the world stage.

What's coming next? It's. Probably going to be barbaric whatever it is.

I've maintained that Russia have been losing this for a while now.

The turning point is the arrival of the HIMARS, just got to see the territory changing hands slowed down and reversed.

Russia still hold a lot of Ukraine but by and large it's the bits that were easier to reach, and they're gradually losing that grip.