Shopping Centre In Kremenchuk Hit By Russian Missile.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I am using math and evidence to plot probable and improbable outcomes.

With incorrect data in (as neutron mentioned, it was supposed to have been fire from a plane so that's a very assumed trajectory). Do you know what the lens focal length of the camera is as well? Have you taken into account the fact the camera is leaning?

Granted, it not possible to get it exact.

Perhaps it's just time to find some common ground for the trajectory at least.

Do you agree that the fireball of the explosion can only have occured in that burnt/debris filled treeline (your theory) area OR the back of the mall (everyone elses theory) OR somewhere between these points?

Do you agree that the path from frame 1 of the missile, to frame 2 of the missile, to the fireball, is the trajectory of the missile and that they would logically have to line up in an overhead view as well?

Do you agree that the "shaped charge" semicircular damage on the the mall roof would be the last point along the trajectory of the missile regardless of where along the line and how far from it - even outside in the treeline - it actually exploded?

a reply to: merka

With incorrect data in (as neutron mentioned, it was supposed to have been fire from a plane so that's a very assumed trajectory). Do you know what the lens focal length of the camera is as well? Have you taken into account the fact the camera is leaning?

I don't even read Neutrons posts. He non-stop spams. It's annoying and I don't want to be tempted to feed him.


It is not an assumed trajectory. As I stated before repeatedly it was the one that came the closest.
As for lens focal length. I hope you are not going to claim that the lense somehow converted a near flat dive into one that looks to be somewhere in the 30 to 40 degree angle just by coincidence. Also, the missiles are designed to be launched by planes. They are old tech missiles designed to fly straight to their target with a range far more than they needed to fire from within Russian borders. Trajectories that all lead back to very close proximity to Russian air bases that when researched those bases station the planes designed to carry such missiles.

Granted, it not possible to get it exact.

I never thought I would get something exact. Just something plausible, yet even with me making allowances for connecting the missile with contacting the mall it still won't.

Perhaps it's just time to find some common ground for the trajectory at least.

Do you agree that the fireball of the explosion can only have occured in that burnt/debris filled treeline (your theory) area OR the back of the mall (everyone elses theory) OR somewhere between these points?

I have stated this before but I will again. The missile has two detonations. One is the booster containing the remainder of the fuel and oxidizer and the other is a shaped charge.
Did you know you can shape a charge with another charge. I have heard of it being called padding. One charge in front of another timed to go off just before the other. The first charge compresses the air so when the second charge ignights it is forced to in a direction away from it.
But yes, I have maintained that the detonation occurred in the woodline.

Do you agree that the path from frame 1 of the missile, to frame 2 of the missile, to the fireball, is the trajectory of the missile and that they would logically have to line up in an overhead view as well?

No. I am only using this as an example. Let's say a missile hits a rail car or connex. It will punch right through the wall before detonation especially when that missile is traveling at over Mach 3. It would do the same to a brick wall or ship hull. The first signs of the explosion you will see is wherever the weakest point is before the pressure builds enough to make the entire thing rupture.

Have you ever watched a training video where soldiers or police throw a concussion grenade through a door into a room? There is a reason they don't stand in front of the door when it goes off. Same principle.
There are all kinds of things that can shape a blast. I also saw in the picture you posted in the remanents of the woodline what looked like one of those concrete boxes. Which I think is what you were calling a building further up. Imagine if there were a bunch of those stacked back there which is what I said was 40 ft long.

Do you agree that the "shaped charge" semicircular damage on the the mall roof would be the last point along the trajectory of the missile regardless of where along the line and how far from it - even outside in the treeline - it actually exploded?

I am really not following your semi-circular damage.

What I see in the video going by the frames is the blast being pushed forward. It hits the wall and like an ocean wave hitting break splashes upwards.



The wall holds momentarily before collapsing and the blast starts digging into the building and you start seeing debris being thrown everywhere. Most of the blast had had time to disperse which is why we don't see more damage in the mall than we do. It is also why we saw a fireball before seeing debris being thrown out in chunks.

That is it for now.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I have stated this before but I will again. The missile has two detonations. One is the booster containing the remainder of the fuel and oxidizer and the other is a shaped charge.
Did you know you can shape a charge with another charge. I have heard of it being called padding. One charge in front of another timed to go off just before the other. The first charge compresses the air so when the second charge ignights it is forced to in a direction away from it.
But yes, I have maintained that the detonation occurred in the woodline.

Ok so then we've established that one point of reference has to be the treeline.

No. I am only using this as an example. Let's say a missile hits a rail car or connex. It will punch right through the wall before detonation especially when that missile is traveling at over Mach 3. It would do the same to a brick wall or ship hull. The first signs of the explosion you will see is wherever the weakest point is before the pressure builds enough to make the entire thing rupture.

You are saying that this does NOT match up regardless of where along the line the missile exploded?

I am really not following your semi-circular damage.

See aftermath images (180 degrees so mall front is at the top, didnt bother to fix the old image).


Because you know if we line up all these points - the treeline, the back wall of the mall, the semi-circular damage which indicate that the "shaped charge" of the missile at least continued that deep regardless of where the explosion took place we get this:



Do you agree that these are the only locations the blast could have possibly occured at? Anything further down is completely unreasonable - there is no damage to the mall there. Anything further top is equally unreasonable as the missile is at the very edge of the video footage. Now I did mark another two points that are unreasonable on the face of it - the two top markers which is when the missile is still visible above the treeline, but for the sake of argument that is the entire treeline. We know that everything to the right of the line is undamaged. We know that the mall to the left of the line is "undamaged" (relatively speaking).

So how exactly does the calculations become more accurate as you move toward the scrapyard?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The missile has two detonations.

I gave it some thought and tried to work with two detonations and your more accurate position for the missile through the orange circle and giving it roughly one missile length of travel but I still cant get it to work:



Would you mind posting your single most likely trajectory with your most likely detonation points?

a reply to: Grimpachi

You

I don't even read Neutrons posts.

Because you have to ignore how a murder investigation works. That it’s about the dead, not your silly drawn lines based on biased views and erroneous guessing, ignoring the physical evidence of the dead.

The investigation starts with those murdered and the recovery of human remains. How they were killed, what caused the condition of the remains, and how they got there.

You have no alternative credible explanation how the dead were killed at the mall by the missile attack.

Next. You you cannot produce a site on the satellite photo you think the missile hit that would produce the witnesses panels being blown off. With evidence of a missile detonation.

Next. You cannot explain what destroyed and damaged the mall consistent with a middle strike.

Next. You cannot discredit the witnesses to the mall being hit with a missile strike. Because it’s constant with the physical evidence of the dead, the human remains, and the damaged / destroyed mall.

Stating facts you have to ignore and don’t want to face is not spam. It shows how ridiculous you are, and your arguments are based on smoke and mirrors.

Impossible from not knowing the exact position and hight the missile was launched, what actual path the rockets internal guidance system took( maybe it was programed to avoided areas where the missiles could be shot down or avoid radar detection) , what two modes of dive the missile used (shallow or deep) and using a one camera view point that provides no real determination of depth of field for calculating distance. When there are more camera angles to added to actually triangulate the missile’s point of detonation.

Your style is very dead on with RubyGray from the 9/11 forums. Lots of BS line drawing. You ignore what you cannot explain. You use innuendo near or to the point of slander to discredit facts like how the dead died, what resulted in human remains, eyewitness accounts, and the actual physical damage to the building you cannot provide a credible alternative explanation. Create a set of mythical BS independent of actual cited facts that you try to make people chase when it’s only lies and propaganda.

And you ignore the pattern of Russian attacks with no military value and no strategic value that kill civilians.

a reply to: Grimpachi

We all know the footprint of the mall.

I find it odd you use satellite photos before the missile strike to argue your point of missile detonation that has to totally ignore the actual mall damage and the causes of deaths at the mall.

I guess if you drew your lines and orange circle on the satellite photo of the mall right after being destroyed by the missile attack, it would be quite clear their is no visible evidence a missile detonated in your BS alternative site.

If it did even hit the shopping centre directly it was obviously an accident.

The west calls it collateral damage.

a reply to: Grimpachi

One of the first things you have to assume is the CCTV mounted so the video frame is truly level in relation to earths gravity.

The camera can be mounted to easily be up to 7% off level.

Then each of your speculated assumptions compounds the errors…..

a reply to: merka


What it seems like you are doing is setting yourself on a trajectory because it looks right to you or because I said that is the one that would bring the missile closest to the wall.


That is just one of many tried and failed attempts trying to find out if the missile could have hit the mall.

It is not the only or best trajectory that would allow the blast wave to hit the wall.

It seems like you are also trying to plot the course of how the blast moved into the building. That is part of a 6 month course in EOD school. 4 months in reality but it is part of the curriculum that disqualifies most recruits.

You are plotting the blast moving into the mall in a straight line.

I am 100% certain that it did not do that. You can't look at the mall from a top-down view and calculate how the blast wave moved into the building.





What is the path of least resistance? How much is the side wall in the loading dock going to deflect the blast wave? Where will it deflect the blast?

I am not even going to try to calculate all of that while also being clueless to what the inside is laid out as.


The only thing I have been trying to do is see if it is even possible for the missile to have hit the mall as MSM, Ukraine, And Zelensky has claimed.

So far it looks like they lied, again.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Grimpachi

One of the first things you have to assume is the CCTV mounted so the video frame is truly level in relation to earths gravity.

The camera can be mounted to easily be up to 7% off level.

Then each of your speculated assumptions compounds the errors…..

True it definetly will mess up those angle calculations. If you tilt your head to roughly level the container (or the picture :p) it highlights the point that missile is most likely coming in at a lower angle than it appear and thus would fly further and higher past the treetops, also the slightly confusing "staircase" light looks even more like it's the loading docks that's blocking the flash from the disintigrating wall.

That said I dont think it changes the rough estimate of the overhead missile rear/tip lines that much, the shift in centerpoint is not that big.

Edit: Grimpachi, I asked you to draw ONE best guess line with the 2 step detonation and instead you draw even more lines and still dont cover the detonations... Not sure what the big red circle is supposed to be either, are you saying that's where you think the missile hit? Because I dont think I've ever said it hit there. Mostly because that part of the building is still, relatively speaking, intact in the aftermath.

a reply to: merka

Edit: Grimpachi, I asked you to draw ONE best guess line with the 2 step detonation and instead you draw even more lines and still dont cover the detonations...

No, those are only a portion of the paths I have already tried to calculate.

I will repeat what I have said many, many times for you. I really hope you get it this time.

I have been trying to see if there is a possible way for the missile to have struck the mall.


Do you agree that the missile did not hit the mall? Are you now moving on to some other argument?

Because if you are not convinced of that then I don't get what you are trying to prove or show and as I have said before I am not being paid for this. It really seems like you want me to switch focus like you are assigning a task.

As for the circle, How do you think they get the things from the loading dock into the building?

What would you call that?

a reply to: Grimpachi

What about all the other malls/apartment blocks hit by Russian missiles?

Will you try and tell the families of the civilian dead that it was all some kind of optical illusion and that they all died of natural causes?

Give it up. Your credibility is zero.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Do you agree that the missile did not hit the mall? Are you now moving on to some other argument?

Does me requesting you to provide a best guess trajectory that could impact the treeline in line with the mall suddenly mean I agree it didnt hit the mall?

I cant help but notice you still cant seem to provide it...

What I do agree with is all your blue lines showing the missile aproximately impacting the wall though, since at the yellow line it's still high up in the air and will probably travel at least another 25m, incidently hitting right around the back of the building.

As for the circle, How do you think they get the things from the loading dock into the building?

What would you call that?

I would call that circling an area between the two loading docks because most loading docks are made with a little roof to cover the rear of a truck when loading. I'm still not sure what I can call the claim you're making, because you dont appear to be making any claim, you just circled it for some reason.

a reply to: merka

Does me requesting you to provide a best guess trajectory that could impact the treeline in line with the mall suddenly mean I agree it didnt hit the mall?

What it looks like to me is that you are trying to move the goalpost.

What I do agree with is all your blue lines showing the missile aproximately impacting the wall though, since at the yellow line it's still high up in the air and will probably travel at least another 25m, incidently hitting right around the back of the building.

So, let me get this straight.

Let's say that we know it can only move 77 ft from one frame to another and we know that it is 80ft to the mall wall and it was already exploding before the next frame was taken which logically means it hit something "before" it traveled the full 77ft.

Are you claiming it sped up after exploding yet still stayed together traveling the full 77ft plus an additional 3ft punching through the wall and exploded again?

If so, can you explain how that is supposed to work?

I would call that circling an area between the two loading docks because most loading docks are made with a little roof to cover the rear of a truck when loading.

Yes, it is a loading dock. A point of entry. A path of least resistance.

a reply to: Grimpachi

What caused the destruction, the injuries, the deaths, the human remains worked on by missile explosion at the mall.