It was one of those

It was one of those

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you're gonna need a bigger boat.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Think another way. How many explosives can you afford to carry in your truck without being detected at the checkpoint? Are you sure it wouldn't fit in that boat?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        blowing it up at the checkpoint would be sub optimal but not a total loss.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      one the size of a truck

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    tell me about the black kayak

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like a self propelled semi-submersible (SPSS). Cartels use them to traffic cocaine

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Seconded.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But what do the kids call them on the street?

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    who would win: the whole puccian black sea fleet or one little swimmyboi

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >explosion happened on the top side of the bridge
    nah

    it was a carbomb or a rocket

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, it was from below.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nope, if you slow the vid down you not only see the explosion starts whilst the truck is still completely intact but that it also comes from below or to the side.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >comes from below

        Debunked

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It was a drone boat

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The wave you're seeing is 1: not a boat, amd 2: not under the span which bore the brunt of the explosion
            Also, other angles clearly show the flame front originates on the road surface, not below.
            You'd see swirling vortexes of flame front expanding around the road and spilling out on their way upwards of the explosion was on the waterline.
            It wasn't a boat

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >You'd see swirling vortexes of flame front expanding around the road and spilling out on their way upwards of the explosion was on the waterline.
              correct

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think that's just a wave bro. Everyone is freaking out, I think it was just a couple of uke tbms.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            looks more like it was that truck

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Except the explosion comes from several spans away from that? Retard.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The wave you're seeing is 1: not a boat, amd 2: not under the span which bore the brunt of the explosion
            Also, other angles clearly show the flame front originates on the road surface, not below.
            You'd see swirling vortexes of flame front expanding around the road and spilling out on their way upwards of the explosion was on the waterline.
            It wasn't a boat

            small square, large square is bow wave

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              And so why did the flame front not spill over the sides of the road, but rather originate on the road surface, like they would if it was a VBIED truck?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the flash is caught on tape in a few frames with the truck still intact.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >originate on the road surface
                it didn't

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I don't think the damage pattern is consistent with that. Standoff greatly reduces the effects of blast, read up on the difference between tamped and untamed charges in bridge demolition. The boat would have to be huge to do any meaningful damage. At which point the Russians would have noticed. It was probably a missile.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It was a drone boat
            No. It was not. You're too stupid to be on the Internet. Go away.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            a wave hit it

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              a wave hit it?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ever see what a seriously fat woman can do in a pool? One dive by LaQueefa and you have a storm surge of unstoppable foulness and power.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No. From:

            No "boat" anywhere near the origin point.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why have the dolphins betrayed RUSSIA?

    Fucking HATO with their gay AQUAMAN! This means WAR!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This picture is hilarious considering Sevastopol itself doesn't even have proper anti-air defences.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It will be eben more hilarious when the bridge drops.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pictured
      >russian dreams and fantasy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this explains why the cope is that it was a suicide truck.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this looks like a 5-year-old's drawing of war make
      believe

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >deflagration type explosion with visible flamefront in videos
    >flamefront begins on top of road surface and propagates upwards then outwards
    >no vortexes of flames coming up around the bridge as they would if the explosion was from the waterline
    >water visible in videos, not a giant wavefront of water being pushed out due to exploding boat
    your theory is weak

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It wasnt a truck bomb either though. The explosion was located between the two trucks on the road. The truck that was farther away had alread begun to climb up to the suspended span part of the bridge, but the damaged part is clearly a good distance away from that.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally way too small for the explosion size. It was a massive fuel explosion that barely damaged the bridge, but just enough to make some of the sections cleanly collapse and render it unusable without heavy designated equipment that can't be pulled up and would still leave it out of service for months anyways.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Water is incompressible, so force of the explosion would be directed upwards towards the bridge
      Might not need as much explosive.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also, such a tiny boat can easily povide enough lift for 500-1000 kg

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You started off by saying something that is irrelevant and retarded. I'd tell you to look shit up but it's above your head by miles, there's a reason why nukes are airburst.

        But literally speaking no, the bridge was barely broken (in multiple segments) which the pier's would obfuscate if the explosion was below the bridge.
        The explosion was ontop of the bridge. It didn't go "up and around" the bridge, the bridge wasn't evaporated to allow the fireball to form the way it did, it started ontop and spread evenly.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >saying something that is irrelevant and retarded
          Take a hard look in the mirror.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Oh stop, and don't post the screencap showing the 'boat' under the bridge just before the explosion. This was a wave. You see identical white formations under the bridge before the explosion, and especially at the end of the video, a few more 'boats' are formed on the water surface and disappear

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Give it to me straight guys, is 4chan right?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. This is a nothing burger. Everything is fine and Putin will probably carpet bomb Keev in retaliation.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Its 6:22pm they got less than 2 hours before their next xope

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What makes a Newzealander to shill for ru**morons.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          oceaniafags are mentally ill

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    At least three spans of the bridge have been lifted and dislodged from their pillar sockets. This can only happen when lifting power comes from beneath, There is no damage to the upper side of the roads pavement . If it was an explosion on top, there would be craters and destruction on the top sucface, but the spans would stay in place.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I bet it was filled with ammonium nitrate, of which Ukraine has plenty as an agricultural country.

    reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/xmdz8l/ru_pov_video_of_the_drone_suicide_boat_that/

    reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/xkhoz1/ru_pov_on_the_shore_of_sevastopol_washed_up_an/

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The amount of ammonium nitrate that would fit into that tiny RC boat besides the engine and the fuel tank and the radio equipment would barely be able to crack the asphalt of the road above it, much less blow up the train way up above it too.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They used bigger boat. Small one was test run/recon to probe defenses.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That would actually be possible. The latest StarLink satellite dishes can maintain satellite contact even in very adverse conditions, like on a moving boat so they could control it that way. SapceX has taken to transmitting the video feed of the rocket booster landings on their robot drone ships with their own StarLink system, and it doesnt cut out any linger when the booster lands.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No one with an important target would use ammonium nitrate when military explosives exist and they have the whole EUsian catalog to enjoy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How big is this thing? it only looks about 15 feet long

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They used bigger boat. Small one was test run/recon to probe defenses.

        It looks to me as if they used at least two of these

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What the fuck schizo shit are you retards talking about

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Special military operation warfare and tactics

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The U.K. is giving unmanned underwater vehicles to Ukraine and training Ukrainian personnel in Britain to use them to clear their coastline of mines.
    >Six autonomous minehunting vehicles will be sent to the country to help detect Russian mines in the waters off its coast.
    https://seapowermagazine.org/uk-donating-undersea-minehunter-drones-to-help-ukraine-clear-coastline/

    It was one of these

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But those are just probes, OP's boat is an explosive device.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What's stopping a probe being strapped with explosive?

        Bongs and Americans armed the Ukies expecting them not to improvise from their NATO plan and now their BTFO their expectations.

        I'm sure they are happy with the end results

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bongs and Americans armed the Ukies expecting them not to improvise from their NATO plan and now their BTFO their expectations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I work with these things. They can't carry any kind of payload at all.

      What's stopping a probe being strapped with explosive?
      [...]
      I'm sure they are happy with the end results

      The drone itself only weighs about a hundred pounds. It would take an order of magnitude more than that in explosives to do that shit to a bridge.
      It's about as laughable as saying they blew it up with a moped.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they blew one of the vertical pier supports which made the rest collapse. Behold the angle of the central section of collapsed bridge. The lack of significant surface damage everywhere else confirms this. When blasts happen constraints redirect the energy; even a piece of plywood and tape is enough to direct a blast into steel. If this was a surface blast there would be significant scorching on the mostly undamaged lanes and the asphalt in the water. If this was an underwater blast the central pier supports wouldn't be there holding the drooping sections up at all. This was shaped charges or borehole drilled charges on one of the vertical cylinders of the pier only. BTW to destroy a bridge like this from the surface you would need about 32,000 blocks of C4 spread evenly on cut lines. With boreholes in the vertical pier you could do it with a couple backpacks worth of stuff. Vertical piers are supported internally by a welded rebar web; they're quite fancy but when the concrete is gone they don't hold weight and they sag quickly. Picrel is whats inside piers.
    t. 12 years as cbt eng and now commercial blaster, 16yrs working w explosives daily

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      good post

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for the expertise anon

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How does 12 years of cock and ball torture engineering make you an expert on building demolition ?

      anyway, good post

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Le expert, 16 years of experience at garden gnomestein's Extreme Anal Blasting Company
      >here's my 500 page theory on the subject, you must trust the science I am a respected professional

      Conscripted Ukrainian farmer turned sapper, after 3 months of training
      >just fill a truck with dynamite, bribe the checkpoint guards to let it through

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        then who was driver

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      unfortunately for your story, the vertical pier supports are clearly visible, present, and seemingly undamaged in the videos. also the blast comes from above the road bridge, not below it, not on it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        where are all the sparks coming from

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          thermite charges, the bridge was prewired to make Ukrainians look like terrorists.
          This is a FSB operation.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      A truck explosion, even with just slow burning explosion like fertilizer, would increase the moment point live load pressure, especially on the middle of the spans enough to cause collapse. Once concrete under tensile pressure even begins to deflect slightly it's all ogre.
      Plus the coincidence of specifically a fuel train loaded, being passing in the adjacent bridge. Probably determined when the truck should be set off. As you construct in sequences, you can destruct in sequences and cause chained problems.
      Which is why it was the concrete spans targeted rather than the suspensed steel, which tensile strength could absorb soft fertilizer explosions

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        overall the attack seems to be only a partial success. They just poked the bear. The burning train didn't do anything, it didn't damage the road bridge or the train bridge.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          In a western country not driven by absolute ego and cope, that bridge would definitively be considered "taken out" or at least something you don't want to drive a train with several hundred tonnes of cargo over due to the load bearing materials being weakened by excessive heat exposure. It would be locked down pending the complete replacement of any compromised sections and a new safety inspection.

          In Russia, train bridge is fine. Just an unfortunate accident when 3 weeks down the line the bridge collapses with a train on it and takes out several sections

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Which is why it was the concrete spans targeted rather than the suspensed steel, which tensile strength could absorb soft fertilizer explosions

        Insightful^
        Concrete is used because it is cheaper than steel. It is not otherwise superior and the reinforcement strategies necessary to make it work are supporting (pun of course intended) evidence.

        Bridges built with war aforethought would be more like military bridging which also (see WWII bridging in Europe) stands the test time. If steel is damaged torch out the problem and replace it.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was Rupert Murdoch's stealth ship.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Bong agencies and Bond villains cooperate in helping Ukraine

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So instead of a truck carrying a bomb it was a semi-submersible which went under the bridge and shot upward delivering the blow?
    Extra points for bringing out the mentally challenged.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    My question is why bother bombing out the roadway and not the railway? Russians transport EVERYTHING by rail, that would make more sense.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's possible the railway was the target, but that the missile resolved its final approach and chose the roadway for some reason. The train itself may have been the intended target. It was loaded with fuel and moving at about 5 kph or so, which would have made it ideal to enhance the damage. The sensors & software analyzing the approach might have prioritized the road as the "more favorable" target and optimized the explosion for the road rather than the rail. But, it also seems it may have detonated at the height of the rail. When you watch the explosion light off, the train & rail light up like the heat flash from a nuke. The train appears to have been set on fire by the incidental heat. The water & roadbed would also have helped reflect the explosion back up. It's the same reason nukes have much more effect with an air burst rather than exploding when they contact the ground, this is just a smaller version of the same effect.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        there was no missile
        >inb4 single frame of video is white
        yeah, rolling shutter + recording of a screen + low framerate exacerbating rolling shutter.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The railcarts were carrying jetfuel, something else caused that damage. The bridge was pre-wired with thermite demo charges.
    I mean just look at the sparks.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And the Twin Towers were also pre-wired with several hundred tons of C4 and thermite. Please stop posting on the topic. You have no idea what you're talking about.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny seeing the Ukrainians using terrorist tactics, first with Dugin and now this, while calling Russia a terrorist state.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also the cops inspected the truck and waved it through.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They're russian tho. Incompetence is expected

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yeah because it wasn't the truck. see

          No

          the blast originates above the road.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            circle where the blast is coming from

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              nuclear airblast?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I wasn't going to dignify this with a response, but I really want you to know that I'm disappointed in you anon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I will alleviate your pain by letting you know it was a joke?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Put the complete image. Digital images are normally processed to remove noise, that extra brightness could be simply effect of the post processing, the last tells the exact moment when the CCD sensor was completely saturated.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                also, rolling shutter.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The only inspecting they did was on the rubles being put in their hands.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          maybe their ADE 651 bomb detector was broken

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i assume the idea was that if russians checked the truck it looks like a legit fertiliser shipment.
            only underneath the top layer on AN prills, its mixed with diesel and shredded metal chaff

            Or the guards were simply paid off.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      stop shelling apartments and city centres

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >terrorism is how you make an explosion and not what you explode
      You are a usefull idiot

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The underside is pretty damn clean, little to no soot or explosive residue, truck bomb is the easiest scenario to happen here.
    Whoever inspected that truck is definitely dead now.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      time to stop coping and tune down the damage control. everything closest to epicenter is underwater.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow anons, would you look at that. top of road surface covered in signs of combustion. underside totally clean. turns out schizoposters were wrong and it wasnt a boat

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it didn't damage the road bridge
      uhh... anon?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the train didn't damage the road bridge, the result would have been the same had the train not been there.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Considering the truck was about as far from the train as it could be, I think it's safe to say it wasn't the primary target.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It blocked half the rail lines for the better part of the day. that is if they've even cleared it off yet

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Very good photos anon.

      The explosion looked very big but the damage by pressure isn't that big

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fits with the ANFO truck theory

        It blocked half the rail lines for the better part of the day. that is if they've even cleared it off yet

        As far as I've seen, the train remains.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          course it fits the anfo truck theory. the explosion we saw is pretty clearly not a high explosive, due to the giant deflagration. but it was also powerful and destructive, which fits the profile of anfo, a "medium" explosive.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fits with the ANFO truck theory
            [...]
            As far as I've seen, the train remains.

            >Fits with the ANFO truck theory
            Yet I've seen videos of ANFO with far better damage, they probably didn't get enough explosive booster to set off the ANFO+Al without containment.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It stands to reason that an aluminum box truck would let most of the energy escape upwards and to the sides instead of into the bridge. Path of least resistance is up and out rather than down through the chassis and concrete.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              coukld have had a bad ratio of ammonium nitrate to fuel. too much fuel and yo uget a slower wavefront - i.e more deflagration, a "lower" explosive.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              maybe it was a legitimate truck just carrying fertilizer that the Ukrainians planted a smaller charge within

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have to do a little extra preparation to Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer to get it to blow as far as I know. Just sticking a detonator in it wouldn't do the job.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                on the other hand if some governmental agency can put whatever they want in a truck why even bother with this

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i assume the idea was that if russians checked the truck it looks like a legit fertiliser shipment.
                only underneath the top layer on AN prills, its mixed with diesel and shredded metal chaff

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then they could've put anything under the top layer. I do think your theory is compelling though

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, AN detonations dont make those sparks of incandescent metal and aluminum burning. This explosion looks like AN+Fuel+Al and or quite some incendiary load. Definetly not an accidental admixture.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Yet I've seen videos of ANFO with far better damage, they probably didn't get enough explosive booster to set off the ANFO+Al without containment.
              If it was put together by SBU in enemy territory, they'd have used what they could get.

              overall the attack seems to be only a partial success. They just poked the bear. The burning train didn't do anything, it didn't damage the road bridge or the train bridge.

              >overall the attack seems to be only a partial success
              It let the world laugh at Putin on his birthday, which may have been the main point.
              Would have been nice to completely shut down the bridge but if the trains stop rolling once the cameras leave, that will do too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just stating it again because obviously it needs repeating for people like

            It's possible the railway was the target, but that the missile resolved its final approach and chose the roadway for some reason. The train itself may have been the intended target. It was loaded with fuel and moving at about 5 kph or so, which would have made it ideal to enhance the damage. The sensors & software analyzing the approach might have prioritized the road as the "more favorable" target and optimized the explosion for the road rather than the rail. But, it also seems it may have detonated at the height of the rail. When you watch the explosion light off, the train & rail light up like the heat flash from a nuke. The train appears to have been set on fire by the incidental heat. The water & roadbed would also have helped reflect the explosion back up. It's the same reason nukes have much more effect with an air burst rather than exploding when they contact the ground, this is just a smaller version of the same effect.

            It was a truck filled with multiple tons of explosives, not a missile. The Ukrainians do not have anything with the range or yield to cause such an explosion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The bridge is fine, there is no damage. They'll have it fixed in a week or two.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://streamable.com/bfhbb3

    It wasn't a fucking drone boat jesus christ.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What the fuck is this? Someone taking a video of video on someone else's phone with their own phone? Also, fake.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That video seems to show two missiles but I only see one major explosion here

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe the truck was was carrying something flammable which burst when hit by a missile?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      could have at least TRIED to make sure the arches were the right distance from the explosion

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://streamable.com/bfhbb3

        It wasn't a fucking drone boat jesus christ.

        the missiles in the video come from the north east side of the bridge which is the direction where Ukraine is

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      fake like this video (Im too lazy to remove the audio and upload the webm)

      also, rolling shutter.

      yeah, that also *cmos sensor

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP here. I am now convinced it wasn't a boat. It was either the truck or some rocket that exploded in the air. Damn! I was so damn sure it was a boat!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      An airburst munition wouldn't do this unless the bridge was made out of paper mache. Not to mention that the Ukies don't have anything big enough and with enough range.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    would a drone boat of that size even carry enough explosive to do the damage we saw?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *