The end?

Scrote said:
Wouldn't the Russians be doing everything they could to get independent inspections done on the blast site then?

The fact they haven't speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
zzzzz said:
There are approx 200k pipes in the offshore section of the twin NS2 pipelines. How do you blow up that many pipes?
If by damaged you mean from seawater flooding I get that.
Still don't understand why Russia would blow up pipelines they are 'desperate to reopen'
Click to expand...
The damaged pipe work might not be in Russias interest but it would be just the sort of thing Putin would do in the interest of self preservation reducing the chances of being replaced by a more moderate candidate willing to compromise and using gas as a bargain tool
 
Smoggle said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1578617196661833733
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis from this guy (Blue Tick, Australian Army retd Major General) that level of destruction would require either a precision missile strike probably more than one or (reading between the lines) some sort of special forces raid with large demolition charges placed at the right points to "drop a section of reinforced concrete bridge". I'm no structural engineer but that fire on the rail bridge looks to have burned for some time, that damage isn't going to be just a lick of paint and a new bit of rail, that bridge is also out of use for some time.
 
borolad259 said:
Btw, for those who have followed Konstantine on Inside Russia, he has, quite wisely, left Russia now.
I am glad about that as he is an industrialist in the electricity sector and my company is looking to work with him down the line.

It's safe to say it now, but he was one of our sources within Russia (privately). A very clever and well connected man. I am glad he is safe (in one of the Stans).
Click to expand...
He had better wear gloves when opening doors from now on.
 
Subbuteo_171 said:
The attack on the bridge will result in escalation by the Russians. It seems horrific to say this, there's a significant increase in the chance of nuclear weapons being used in retribution - and it won't be military targets, it will be civilian.

Heaven help us all.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no chance whatsoever is Russia nuking civilian targets in response to this.

They'd lose all remaining support they had.
 
Muttley said:
Interesting analysis from this guy (Blue Tick, Australian Army retd Major General) that level of destruction would require either a precision missile strike probably more than one or (reading between the lines) some sort of special forces raid with large demolition charges placed at the right points to "drop a section of reinforced concrete bridge". I'm no structural engineer but that fire on the rail bridge looks to have burned for some time, that damage isn't going to be just a lick of paint and a new bit of rail, that bridge is also out of use for some time.
Click to expand...


That explosion was not a professional job nor was it a missile. Demo charges are all about the bang and overpressure… not huge fire balls. Too much flames and the colour was wrong (yellow/orange colour shows low temperature)

Looks to me to be a truck that blows up first… it will have been packed out with AnFo, cheap and effective
 
Acklam_Lad said:
That explosion was not a professional job nor was it a missile. Demo charges are all about the bang and overpressure… not huge fire balls. Too much flames and the colour was wrong (yellow/orange colour shows low temperature)

Looks to me to be a truck that blows up first… it will have been packed out with AnFo, cheap and effective
Click to expand...
That would require a suicide bomber though presumably?
 
Acklam_Lad said:
That explosion was not a professional job nor was it a missile. Demo charges are all about the bang and overpressure… not huge fire balls. Too much flames and the colour was wrong (yellow/orange colour shows low temperature)

Looks to me to be a truck that blows up first… it will have been packed out with AnFo, cheap and effective
Click to expand...
The analysis of the Major General is based on the damage done. To "drop" the bridge, as has been done here, you need to hit exactly the right spots and the span has collapsed in two places. I think the fireball is secondary as the train carrying fuel goes up.
 
Muttley said:
The analysis of the Major General is based on the damage done. To "drop" the bridge, as has been done here, you need to hit exactly the right spots and the span has collapsed in two places. I think the fireball is secondary as the train carrying fuel goes up.
Click to expand...
Twin towers is all I have to say to that…
 
241217b4-89df-41a2-8b44-c22b7035e614.jpg

The bridge has collapsed in two places, the roadway that we can see appears undamaged/unburnt. Sorry I can see no way in which a truck bomb caused that, nor does it look like a missile strike. Comparing it to 9/11 is comparing apples to pigeons. The towers burnt for several hours before collapsing due to structural failure, IIRC, from heat weakening the steel structure of the building cores and the weight of the upper stories above the floors where the planes hit. The confusing part is the fire on the train, did they just get "lucky" that the train was hit at the same time or was it planned?
 
I’ve looked at a few videos of this. The train doesn’t appear to be moving, looks like two blasts, the blasts are directly alongside an access to the bridge.

Now supposition, SF access from the sea via the access tower (how they got there given it’s the Ruski side?) plant the remotely (drone?) triggered device, maybe frigg with the signals and stop the train then happy birthday mr President. Or it’s a straightforward industrial accident.

i think the road platform collapsed from the force of the blast at train level, although one of the blasts does look to be from road level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top