Remember the drone attack on an airfield near Pskov?
Well, new satellite images just got published, where half of the dispersals aren't obstructed by the clouds.
4 planes did indeed get wacked.
Remember the drone attack on an airfield near Pskov?
Remember the drone attack on an airfield near Pskov?
Well, new satellite images just got published, where half of the dispersals aren't obstructed by the clouds.
4 planes did indeed get wacked.
Crafty edits, but the drone video quality is definitely an edited rendering of the area.
Proofs?
Not my job. OP has to prove his evidence is credible.
kys zigger
You raised the credibility yourself, the burden is on you to prove that its a worthy contention worth discussion.
Read a book.
I feel like this is a flawed way about it, in cases like this why don’t we all just work together and agree to actively prove our own stance instead of forcing it all on the other person
okay i'll start, even though proving a negative is a bit retarded. i see no obvious signs of image manipulation or other editing artifacts in the picture here
and google maps show that those coordinates are indeed the Pskov Air Base, and the layout of the base matches with other satellite images of the base prior to the attacks. now, what is the evidence that this picture is fake? i request that the other user is very specific with whatever details are in question
Because then refuting untruths would be dismissed which is an important aspect of discerning what is accurate information and what is not.
Well, shouldn’t the more reasonable conclusion bear itself out in the actual argument itself too, not just by dismissing it without elaborating? A lot of the time what one person thinks abides by Occam’s razor seems like a reach to others and couldn’t this be solved more easily by forcing them to confront the details they’re basing their more intuitive conclusion off of, like this
guy did?
edit: I agree that it’s a necessary rhetorical tactic, but this is an obscure corner of the internet not a debate stage
Smartest Russian logician
So you're just shitposting based on a tingly feeling in your balls. Got it.
Total Zigger Death.
Muscovia Delenda Est.
None of those are drone footage retard, the grainy looking pictures are SAR, synthetic aperture radar.
Your posts formatting told me immediately this is a Russian strawman post and some form of lie to try and discredit Ukraine or spread disinformation
And there is is.
>Russian strawman post
I heard it was 4 destroyed and 2 or 3 damaged. In another satellite image you can see big holes in some of the planes.
It seems there are 2 heavily damaged + 2 totally destroyed
2 are atomized, 2 complete destroyed from the inside, 2 were pulled from damage.
Look at the picture you just posted. Those are completely destroyed from the inside.
>Those are completely destroyed from the inside.
I obviously hope so, but it's hard to evaluate the state of the plane's internals, just going off a few satellite photos.
IT'S A GIANT FUCKING BURNT HOLE IN THE TOP OF A PLANE
YOU THINK THAT'S JUST HOW THEY LOOK
LIKE THESE TYPES OF PLANES ALL HAVE GIANT BURNT HOLES I THE MIDDLE
7/10 IF BAIT
0/10 IF SERIOUS
YOU MADE ME SMILE HAVE A YOU
Thanks for a (You), but I'm serious. It's just wierd that there hasn't been a fire, like with the other 2 planes and the rest of the fuselage looks "intact". But in all likelihood they are salvage now anyway.
They went into the planet after penetrating and blew everything up inside. That's why the juncture is targeted.
Those planes can't be salvaged. Everything is broken. I can't be much clear
Plane*
Much clearer.
I'm running errands at the minute.
>It's just wierd that there hasn't been a fire, like with the other 2 planes and the rest of the fuselage looks "intact"
it's possible firefighters managed to localize fire before whole plane burned down
see the video of how the Aussie paper planes detonate
they have a fragmentation charge like an AA missile, but it's directed down
the result is the same as tungsten rain, but in a smaller area
tungsten rain (or an AA missile) don't blow up planes, they turn the fuselage into a colander and the internal structures lose integrity.
>colander was mentioned
>ramen
Paper planes were not used in Pskov attack, they attacked much closer airfield
It's just shape charges blowing up machines from the inside. The wholes size, color and shape looks like it was a penetrating charge, which is what should be used rather than a incinerator. The other places look like the charges full shattered the planes and they have fuel in them hydraulic fluid.
It could be a thermite explosive but I haven't seen Ukrainians do it yet with drones. If it is thermite explosive and Ukrainians are producing then Russians are going to have major problems everywhere in Russia.
>probably the center tank did not have any fuel in it.
a hole in the wing box is a death sentence to any airplane
I heard they managed to hit a Colonel while mowing his lawn?
We've gotten to the point where ziggers who won't even admit they are ziggers
Post two planes with giant fucking gaping holes in them showing a burnt up inside next two destroyed planes
Asking for proof 4 planes were completely fucking destroyed
What the fuck happened today this is insane
literally just contrarian shitposting for the sake of it from mega-spergs
Sometimes it's pure shit posting and I do it.
Then alot of times it's someone shit posting but trying to win an argument with what they think is logic
I enjoy watching people trying to do Socratic method badly, the sophist crap and terrible logic they try to use.
The subject isn't the funny thing, it's how they try to argue. I mean fallacious arguments are fun if a person is aware they are doing it and it's really obvious.
>Remember the
bro it was a day and a half ago and several countries including Russia almost got nuked :^)
>He thinks this was real and not just made up for the domestic Russian audience's benefit
Shiggy diggy.
>made up for the domestic Russian audience
None of those fake or not scenarios are good propaganda anon.
>None of those fake or not scenarios are good propaganda anon
Neither are Russian version of events how Moskva sunk or airfields get bombed
>you see, enemy didn't hit us, it's just our men are so incompetent they keep blowing up all our equipment
>Shoigu is tough.
>Gerasimov is smart.
>Putin is in control.
>NATO is our enemy.
>Our air defense doesn't suck, the attacker is just cheating.
>The whole thing is Ukraine's fault anyway.
Sounds like good propaganda to me.
Well, I guess I perceive time goes at a different pace for me. Seemed like it was week ago already
Tsar good, boyars bad.
Actually, Pskov is being attacked AGAIN just as we speak
GIGA KEK
Details plz
Well, no information on the hits yet, just a few videos of russians shooting at something in the sky.
And you'll keep doing it?
🙂
Fake, Budanov can muster up a Droopy the Dog tier smile at most.
>Literal fucking cardboard drones
jesus
>Literal fucking cardboard drones
I think there is more to it (
)
what types of aircraft were these?
?
Scroll up. IL-76s.
How does a drone even do that? Why did it literally burn from the inside out? Is the interior flammable or something?
jet fuel cant melt steel beams my friendo
yes
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111
modern insulation will stop burning after while but if it's soaked in fuel it will keep on burning for a long time
on top of that, planes are usually made from aluminium, so a fire burning for a while won't just leave a burnt out hulk like with a tank, it will literally melt everything but the engines down to the ground.
The ukies seem to lie/exaggerat a bit less than the Russians.