4 ms·
The images of the damage seem to thoroughly rule out the boat theory. There's clear evidence of lateral shockwaves on the upper-side of the deck (the guardrails
by jcranmer 4y ago
The images of the damage seem to thoroughly rule out the boat theory. There's clear evidence of lateral shockwaves on the upper-side of the deck (the guardrails are basically completely blown off), and the underside doesn't have the same lateral damage--the catwalks are mostly intact, for example.
I'm also skeptical of missile theory--if you're targeting this with a missile, and you have the precision of such, the place to blow up the bridge wouldn't be where it was hit, but on the high portion of the bridge, where replacing damaged sections would be hard.
The truck bomb does seem the most likely option to me.
- selimthegrim 4y agoIf the truck was headed to Crimea from Russia, why is the Russia bound deck sunk?
- jcranmer 4y agoThe alleged truck was traveling from Russia to Crimea, on the westbound side of the bridge. It was this side of the bridge that was sunk.
- selimthegrim 4y agoOk, the rails are on the south side, I understand now.
- idlewords 4y agoLike the article points out, CCTV footage of the explosion shows that it did not originate from the truck; there is a bright light above and to the right of it the instant before the explosion.
- cycrutchfield 4y agoRolling shutter effect
- idlewords 4y agoThere's also debris and stuff coming from above and to the right of the truck once the picture returns. And there's the expert in the article saying what he sees is not consistent with a large truck bomb.
- jcranmer 4y agoThey don't actually show any frames of the footage illustrating what they mean, but I've seen one explanation that what was seen is actually an artifact of the camera: the brightness of the frame changes mid-capture, and that it makes look like the explosion is happening elsewhere.