Shopping Centre In Kremenchuk Hit By Russian Missile.

a reply to: merka

I am more concerned with knowing the truth than being right.


When I make allowances I make them in favor of reaching the mall.

How do you know it detonated before it traveled that distance?

Because there is video evidence that gives points of reference that can calculate the distance it traveled between one frame to another. In the very next frame it has already impacted and is exploding. That tells you that it did not travel the same distance as the previous frame. Yet even with using the entire length that it could travel doesn't show it reaching the mall. There are several plots that allow it to reach the dock but all the ones that would even allow it to intersect something on the dock to make it explode can't happen unless the items on that dock are stacked up 18 feet high at the very least.

Unless you are claiming that it detonated at a minimum of 5ft away from the mall wall in mid-air for no reason then it just doesn't work.

Your entire argument now depends on whether the missile was BLOCKED by the thin fluffy trees. Which is kind of disproven by the fact it's still seen well above the treeline when it's between the yellow lines which is almost past the treeline in any of your trajectory scenarios

Yes, hitting a tree can make a point impact missile detonate. Why would you think it couldn't?

Also, as I have said before, I am trying to find a working model where it can hit the mall. That means I have excluded every path that would miss the mall. Those paths would take it further into the woodline.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Sigh.

The warehouse and mall were hit by missiles as shown by satellite photo as points of missile detonations

The mall backed by damaged, the injured, and those killed.

If there isn’t another point of missile detention on the satellite photos, you don’t have crap but innuendo and propaganda.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, hitting a tree can make a point impact missile detonate. Why would you think it couldn't?

One. Can you cite what trigger the warhead was equipped with. I would think bring ship based it would be radar.

Two. The missile could be equipped with a delay so the explosion could be after the initial point of impact. Like you would want the weapon to penetrate a haul then explode.

Three. Because you think it clipped a tree doesn’t mean it had enough contact to simulate hitting a target squarely to trigger the warhead.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Yes, hitting a tree can make a point impact missile detonate. Why would you think it couldn't?

It wouldnt when it's flying above the trees. Even in the rightmost scenario the yellow line is too close to the end of the treeline, we know from the footage that at this point the missile is above it. Adding in the length of a missile in front of the missile in the video footage just barely make the tip line up with the treetops which means... it's beyond all the trees at that point in all your 3 scenarios while still being in the air (and very, very far away from the treeline in your leftmost scenario, in fact it's beyond the rails when still at treetop height). Add just 11m to the yellow line.

So your lines prove the trees did not in fact block it.

Also, as I have said before, I am trying to find a working model where it can hit the mall. That means I have excluded every path that would miss the mall. Those paths would take it further into the woodline.

Yes we know. You found it, flying just above the treeline and hitting the mall, per above.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Sad you can’t come to terms with a Russian missile attack killed people at a mall through exploding and shrapnel.

a reply to: merka

I had thought that maybe you were interested in finding out the facts. Proving your point with reason and evidence or at least contributing.

I see that is not the case.

You completely ignored what I wrote about how I am only ploting courses that take it to the mall. Trying to find a solution where it actually hits the mall. You ignored what I said about courses that take into the treeline which would also change the entire dynamic of where the missile is.

I see I wasted my time explaining all this to you. I should have just worked a little on my thread.

I guess you are all for the theory that the missile went off without hitting anything right after questioning how hitting a tree could set one-off.


The main thing you keep ignoring is the math. I keep telling you that the missile could not have reached the building in the next frame at least not on those trajectories but for some reason, that doesn't matter to you.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Huh. A missile designed to dive at an angle into a large structure like an aircraft carrier with a large flat surface in an urban environment happens to dive into a large building (what seems one of the largest in a sea of smaller structures) with a large flat roof instead of a tree.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Grimpachi

Huh. A missile designed to dive at an angle into a large structure like an aircraft carrier with a large flat surface in an urban environment happens to dive into a large building (what seems one of the largest in a sea of smaller structures) with a large flat roof instead of a tree.

No according to people here Russia designs the missile to attack trees. The internal guidance system locks on to those trees in case they ever attack Russian ships. Certain people here don't realize how stupid their argument is saying the missile designed to target ships would dive into trees instead of the huge building behind it.

a reply to: dragonridr

I don’t know about trees, but each fall I wage a full out campaign against leaves. A serious offensive measure of targeting, capture, and burning. 😁

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: merka

I had thought that maybe you were interested in finding out the facts. Proving your point with reason and evidence or at least contributing.

I see that is not the case.

You completely ignored what I wrote about how I am only ploting courses that take it to the mall. Trying to find a solution where it actually hits the mall. You ignored what I said about courses that take into the treeline which would also change the entire dynamic of where the missile is.

I see I wasted my time explaining all this to you. I should have just worked a little on my thread.

I guess you are all for the theory that the missile went off without hitting anything right after questioning how hitting a tree could set one-off.


The main thing you keep ignoring is the math. I keep telling you that the missile could not have reached the building in the next frame at least not on those trajectories but for some reason, that doesn't matter to you.

Once again you keep SAYING it doesnt work when you SHOW the complete opposite.

Yes, you only plotted courses that take it into the mall - very successfully proven at that, backed up by the missile footage and the google map overlay on where the missile would be!

Now try plotting courses that make it impact inside the treeline instead, where your "back trees" and "front trees" light up an on/near ground impact. You cant do that can you? No, because the evidence - your own evidence - doesnt support it at all. The missile is too high up and too far into the treeline to be able to actually hit the treeline. Even your worst case scenario, the one where it hit the very edge of the mall fails. It soars past the treeline. Once again disproven by our own overlay and the video footage - it would have hit too far to the left along the central line from the camera perspective and we can also see the roof kick up dust there, that's the completely wrong position for the fireball. It clearly hit closer to your leftmost scenario, where the missile is still at treetop height almost by the back wall of the building.

Your theory still hinges on the fact that the missile somehow exploded in a position you proven it cant have. The answer should be simple from that point, I think?

We just go around in circles once again.

Your trajectories and estimated missile locations have proven it hit the mall, I'm happy enough with that

a reply to: merka

You cant do that can you? No, because the evidence - your own evidence - doesnt support it at all.

What part of the evidence not supporting it hitting the mall do you not understand? 2+2 does not equal 5 but you say it is close so it must be true.

The missile is too high up and too far into the treeline to be able to actually hit the treeline.

What part of me using math and trig to plot a course do you not understand.

If you adjust the trajectory towards the edge of the mall it doesn't show the missile over the treeline. It does show that the missile is within striking distance of the treeline.

You want to fit a square peg in a round hole because you like the way it looks.

Furthermore, the more I adjust the trajectory towards the corner of the mall the closer the dive angle comes to what the missile is programmed to do.

I will say this in the simplest of terms so you are not confused.

None of the trajectories I have tried that take it to where you claim it hit the mall work.

By me trying to prove that it hit the mall all I have done is show the ways it couldn't have happened. Because the math says it is impossible.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
By me trying to prove that it hit the mall all I have done is show the ways it couldn't have happened. Because the math says it is impossible.

So now you are saying that your 3 lines show how it couldnt have happened?

Once again I ask then: can you draw in a trajectory that show how it could hit the treeline from the apparent height it's at along your yellow lines?

Or are you saying it had this trajectory to hit the treeline:



???

a reply to: merka

Don’t you know. All decades old high speed Russian missiles can instantly stop all forward momentum then travel sides ways to take out Nazi trees….

Yes sarcasm

a reply to: merka

First I tracked the possible trajectories of the missile strike on the factory back to Russia which is the red lines.






From those points in Russia, I plot lines back to the mall in blue.



The distance between the first two frames in the CCTV footage the missile traveled is between the green and yellow line.



The red line shows the maximum distance it could travel "unobstructed" in the next frame of CCTV footage matched to the distance measured between the blue and green line.


The line that allows it to hit the mall(the far left blue line) would also create a side view missile profile like below.





The line that takes the missile into the very corner of the mall(the far right blue line) would create a side view missile profile like below.





The missile is designed to climb to an altitude of 27,000 m and makes a high-speed dive into the target at an angle of 30 ° to the horizon, with a terminal speed of about Mach 4.6.

The angle from the far-right blue trajectory line with measurements from google earth put it at 37.02° angle.


The further I track the trajectory towards the orange circle the closer it gets to a 30 ° dive angle.



Also, the closer I move the trajectory towards the orange circle the closer the measurements between the two yellow lines and the blue and green lines match.

From the far-right blue trajectory line towards the orange circle places the missile outside the woodline in bothof the CCTV video frames showing the missile.

Those trajectories also pass over an area of the woodline the factory used to store equipment.
I don't know what it is that the factory stored in that area on the google earth image but it is at least 40 ft long. About the length of a rail car.


I am still trying new missile paths from origin points tracked back to Russia.

If I find one that matches the video evidence and could physically reach the mall I will say it.
If I can't I will also say it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Seems that Russian missiles are oddly attracted to shopping malls and residential apartment blocks. But you carry on defending this stuff:


BBC News - Russian rockets kill 15 in Chasiv Yar housing block, Ukraine says
www.bbc.co.uk...

Do you have any shred of decency or humanity left?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Ukraine says

What about credibility though.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The further I track the trajectory towards the orange circle the closer it gets to a 30 ° dive angle.

Also, the closer I move the trajectory towards the orange circle the closer the measurements between the two yellow lines and the blue and green lines match.

That ought to tell you something, if you cant see the obvious:

Your calculations must be wrong.

Now I'm not saying that from a calculation standpoint - a calculation is only as good as the data coming in and you've already made up your mind that it couldnt have hit the mall so it's crap data coming in - but lets look at that overview from an entirely visual standpoint.

Any trajectory across the entire orange circle at the same angle as your blue lines would indeed miss the mall entirely and instead hit the ground no matter where it explode. In fact, from the camera perspective, it would hit the ground to the left of the rail building that is at the edge of the orange circle.

Now. The problem with this is two rather big things...



There is no damage in that part of the treeline.

And secondly, from the camera perspective the fireball and subsequent explosion (regardless of it being a hit or miss on the mall) was to the right of that little building crossing the orange circle.

Do you see the problem with this?

a reply to: merka

None of the trajectories I have plotted take it in your "problem area.

I plotted that one because you kept harping about how the lines I plotted prove you were right. They don't. They prove the very opposite.

You are trying to eyeball it from the CCTV footage and claim you know what is going on.

I am using math and evidence to plot probable and improbable outcomes.



I have told you repeatedly that I will post a thread when I am done.

In the meantime, you should try to prove your theory correct. I would like to see how your calculations turn out.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Funny the damage to the mall, the injured, the killed and human remains prove your wrong.