What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[cromwell]

What we all need to accept is we are guessing,M having consulted with colleagues in the security services and the SBS but unable to substantiate their clearly greater knowledge on this subject due to us not having security clearance is correct.

 

[papasmurf]

Every expert I've heard talking about it states it was an explosion from below. 

I stated that from day one. 

[Barry]

Perhaps it simply fell down. Poor Russian workmanship! 

Highly amusing Toots!

There's a discussion here which comes to no conclusion, but the guard rails being blown outwards does suggest a blast on the bridge.
For me, it's the trajectory of the ejected material which points to it being underneath. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRqpk2m1Or4

[Nick]

Has anyone got actual telling evidence of impact damage?  No impact damage suggests no actual impact.
Even a truck bomb of that size would have torn  chunks out of the immediate vicinity

Every expert I've heard talking about it states it was an explosion from below. That's good enough for me, but I'm still waiting on PS's image showing a missile. Something about Elvis flying a pig, maybe he crashed the pig into the bridge 😂

[Sampanviking]

You don't understand either. That type of Bridge is VERY strong in compression and a truck bomb on the carriageway might punch a hole in the carriageway but do nothing else. There are ZERO signs of damage to the surface of the carriageways.
You can parrot Putin's propaganda as much as you like, there is ZERO physical evidence of a truck bomb.

There is no damage like this: -

Thats because that is the damage caused by a small explosive charge delivered by a fast ballistic rocket from a MRLS. A goodly amount of the damage being caused by high speed impact as much as the blast.
A lorry carrying tonnes of military grade explosives would definitely do the damage that we see at Kersh!
As for not seeing damage like this it blew a hole big enough to destroy the entire mid section of the causeway. We have not seen much close up of the broken segment of the carriageway, but its a fair guess, given the angle that much of the loose debris that landed back on it, simply slid down into the sea.

In addition the causeway is not slabs of reinforced concrete but Steel Trestles sections. You can see that from the underneath pictures. There may be a concrete layer under the tarmac to form the road surface but its not load bearing like in the older Soviet era bridges.

[B0ycey]

You don't understand either. That type of Bridge is VERY strong in compression and a truck bomb on the carriageway might punch a hole in the carriageway but do nothing else. There are ZERO signs of damage to the surface of the carriageways.
You can parrot Putin's propaganda as much as you like, there is ZERO physical evidence of a truck bomb.

There is no damage like this: -

I wonder why you are expecting a hole when most of the energy would go upwards? Do holes appear in every explosion under your logic? I am not saying that it wasn't under the carriage Pappy for I don't know. But what I will say is what you are saying is wrong here by the limited physics I know. Also, are you aware of Newtons third law? Every action has an equal reaction. If the truck explosion pushes downwards, the same force would lift it back upwards. That little nugget of info displaces your other theory that the energy to lift the bridge can only come from underneath.

[papasmurf]

A lot of people here claim Engineering and Science expertise but few even seem able to understand even O level physics.

A Bomb on the top of the Causeway mid point forces the causeway down at that point. Lever action raises the ends and lifts the connected section with it off of the support columns before breaking
This is exactly what we see

You don't understand either. That type of Bridge is VERY strong in compression and a truck bomb on the carriageway might punch a hole in the carriageway but do nothing else. There are ZERO signs of damage to the surface of the carriageways.
You can parrot Putin's propaganda as much as you like, there is ZERO physical evidence of a truck bomb.

There is no damage like this: -

[Sampanviking]

Have you bothered to watch the video of the blast? A blast bomb merely needed enough power to lift that carriageway which is very weak in tension where connect to the piers when it comes to a blast from below. On the other hand the carriageway spans which are prestressed concrete are very strong horizontally and would as they do show next to no damage.

A lot of people here claim Engineering and Science expertise but few even seem able to understand even O level physics.

A Bomb on the top of the Causeway mid point forces the causeway down at that point. Lever action raises the ends and lifts the connected section with it off of the support columns before breaking
This is exactly what we see

A Bomb underneath at mid point will force the section up at that point and lever the ends down onto the connections on the support piers. They would shear but would not do much damage to the adjoining sections.
This is not what we see.

It was a big bomb on the top of the carriageway, just the sort you would need a 44 ton Artic to deliver..........

[B0ycey]

There is ZERO evidence of a truck bomb. The ONLY way to do the damage that was done is from a massive blast from below.

I'm guessing from this response is you don't have the evidence you claimed you had then. Although it should be said it is an assertion to say there is no evidence of a truck bomb and what you should have said is you haven't seen the evidence if it exists which is exactly what I am saying to you in regards to the 'under the bridge' hypothesis given I asked for it and you haven't provided it.

Nonetheless the Russians have more information on this subject than a guy behind a computer monitor Pappy. They say Truck bomb so explain why they would lie?

[papasmurf]

Perhaps it simply fell down. Poor Russian workmanship! 

Given the size of the blast I doubt that.

[T00ts]

Perhaps it simply fell down. Poor Russian workmanship!  

[papasmurf]

For which there is zero evidence of a blast from below

Have you bothered to watch the video of the blast? A blast bomb merely needed enough power to lift that carriageway which is very weak in tension where connect to the piers when it comes to a blast from below. On the other hand the carriageway spans which are prestressed concrete are very strong horizontally and would as they do show next to no damage.

[Sampanviking]

There is ZERO evidence of a truck bomb. The ONLY way to do the damage that was done is from a massive blast from below.

For which there is zero evidence of a blast from below

[papasmurf]

Without sounding like Nick, I would like to know what visible evidence you have seen given it was a flash of light that could have come from anywhere. The best argument so far is that there was no shrapnel on the deck so can't be a missile but the same is true for the underdeck. The truck bomb theory evidence would centre around the truck given that was ground zero. As I said, I see no reason for Russia to lie here and I guess the Russians have evidence to back it up anyway. Perhaps people have been taken in by the "Russia always lie" narrative that they can't accept their explanation when it may well be the strongest one.

There is ZERO evidence of a truck bomb. The ONLY way to do the damage that was done is from a massive blast from below.

[B0ycey]

It is far easier to blame a truck bomb despite the VERY visible evidence, it was not. What I suspect has worried Putin is the bridge was attacked from something incoming from the air or sea, that the defences did not pick up. (Personally, I suspect the sea more likely under it not on it.)
It has happened once so it can happen again.

Without sounding like Nick, I would like to know what visible evidence you have seen given it was a flash of light that could have come from anywhere. The best argument so far is that there was no shrapnel on the deck so can't be a missile but the same is true for the underdeck. The truck bomb theory evidence would centre around the truck given that was ground zero. As I said, I see no reason for Russia to lie here and I guess the Russians have evidence to back it up anyway. Perhaps people have been taken in by the "Russia always lie" narrative that they can't accept their explanation when it may well be the strongest one.