Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

Kolga, I'm not sure I agree completely with you, but of course it depends on the type of missile and it also depends on whether the target is already at 9g or needs to build up from 1 to 9g. That particular scenario is one where most modern missiles should do pretty well - especially the ones that also use thrust vectoring.

 

Let's say your scenario starts out like the one example that I described in my last post (target basically at 1g). This is what I wrote: "For example, a given modern missile launched directly from behind on a non-maneuvering target would require no maneuvering at all, which usually reduces the CEP for that geometry to less than 1m in smooth air." Now, if the target maneuvers at 9g from there and we assume it is a very maneuverable target flying at a speed where he is capable of a high g onset rate and therefore can get to 9g quickly, something like an AIM-9X or IRIS-T would probably still be able to follow. However, and this is maybe what you were getting at, the CEP for the changing geometry will get bigger so the missile's accuracy would degrade as it tries to follow the target. It is therefore possible the missile might miss, but since it would still be able to get to the target kinematically (it has the energy and the maneuvering capability), if it misses it will most likely be a very close miss and the proximity fuse will still take care of things.

 

You will note I use a lot of words like "probable" or "possible" - it really depends on so many things that every statement you make usually needs to be qualified. Even if pretty much everything is known about the target and missile and launch geometry, we still end up with dealing with things like CEP, which is a statistical measure. The problem is never really completely deterministic. Throw in external inputs like turbulence and gusts and suddenly your accuracy and repeatability goes down even if everything else stays the same. This is why I disagree with so many of Emu's definitive statements.

Oh, ok thanks for clearing that up!

Okay, I'll rephrase, the image quality is crap.

That still has basically nothing to do with exposure, buddy.

I'd be guessing.

Ok, you sounded like you knew all about small test warhead so i thought i'd ask.

A repair only looks at the damage and you don't know the journalist's source.

And neither do you.

Yes, it had originally locked CoM but then it seemingly deliberately deviates. That wasn't due to missile manoeuvrability.

It may have been losing lock and had to claw at whatever it could lock, its testing.

Before I see a circle with a clear tail. After I see a smaller white dot with no tail. This should at least indicate that the missile is not intact. And need I remind you, I've already mathematically proven that a missile can't produce such a flash with KE alone, so you're trying to undo your own argument that it was fuel here. Clearly the missile's motor can't explode and yet still be running. I also see a missile heading for a miss in the inset.

Looking at it again, it look like you may be right, it looks like the motor may be spiraling after the intercept, the one caveat may be there doesn't seem to be a trail after the intercept, indicating it may not actually be the motor.

That math was proven to be nowhere near legit.

I'm saying I know what I said. You, on the other hand, can't even remember what you said, as shown above.

Ok, give me an example. If you know what you said you can just do a thread search.

The pickups fuel still burns slower and longer because it needs oxygen from the air for that process, whereas the explosive does not. The speed of the process is quite literally why explosive is explosive.

Irrelevant, rocket motors have an oxidizer.

I'm afraid the imagery is indeed in FLIR, what else would it be in? Old school black and white video perhaps? Above you alleged that a missile could produce a flash even if it is intact (the phantom AIM-9X exhaust).

It is FLIR, but the hit is not in the FLIR part.

I've already proven that a live warhead produces a similar sized flash, the job of proving that an inert missile produces the same-sized flash is yours. Good luck. But we do see that a live warhead of the same size produces a bigger flash than the one in the AIM-9X video. So I'd say my argument looks pretty strong at this point.:D

Except for the fact that there is almost no glow in any of the live FLIR hits you have shown, in the op there is loads of glow.

Take a look at this again:

...Inert hit with stinger flashes pretty good (Start at 4:18 )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrDh2K7b8M

A contractor isn't necessarily the best source. What if the magazine source was RSAF itself?

What if you are the av mags source? (kidding) For all we know the source could be floor sweeping dudes.

That is not a sudden flash, it very much mimics the burn of the fuel post-flash in the OP video.

It goes from 0 to huge in 1 or 2 frames.

I need to do that to assess that it's 4-5 vehicle lengths? Nope. Now go measure the live Brimstone flashes vs your AIM-9X test warhead flash. Anywhere even close? Nope.

Yep, go ahead. I think you're right about the AIM-9x though.

The biggest problem is in the hellfire videos there is some type of flash suppression.

New video is a different intercept.

I know, i just said that. But it would make sense that it was a similar setup in both.

Why would it need to glow bigger than the blast size to prove my case? The flash is a similar size to OP video in FLIR and much bigger than AIM-9X test warhead in normal video. Job done.

Lets just make up a completely hypothetical situation to show my point:

Lets say the blast size is 10

lets say the glow factor is x2

so blast + glow = 20

So if we have a video with little or no glow we get more like 10 or 12.

What i am saying is blast + glow = op and blast + no glow = not same size.

Shady car dealerships are shady in terms of their honesty, not their knowledge.

I would say no on the knowledge.

Well in the second intercept the rocket motor is burnt out 5s before impact, so that is clearly not the same as the previous one.

Umm, yep! Why do you only like probably when it suits you?

Nobody who wasn't in the plane or firing the missile knows.

I doubt the pilots are directly involved in the investigation.

I like verifiable sources. But cutting a long story short, I think 343kg, 250s Isp and 135kg fuel still supports my case. 1230m/s peak, 17s flight time. It could have been at 20-30kft...

 

...but certainly well beyond MANPADS range, otherwise Russians would have 10kg missiles on their wings instead of 343kg ones.

Look at the video, it is definite, (absolutely no doubt) the missile burn time is around 6 or 7 sec.

Like Dutch magazines?

Any worse than guy on internet?

That still has basically nothing to do with exposure, buddy.

 

 

 

Ok, you sounded like you knew all about small test warhead so i thought i'd ask.

 

 

 

And neither do you.

 

 

 

It may have been losing lock and had to claw at whatever it could lock, its testing.

 

 

 

Looking at it again, it look like you may be right, it looks like the motor may be spiraling after the intercept, the one caveat may be there doesn't seem to be a trail after the intercept, indicating it may not actually be the motor.

 

That math was proven to be nowhere near legit.

 

 

 

Ok, give me an example. If you know what you said you can just do a thread search.

 

 

 

Irrelevant, rocket motors have an oxidizer.

 

 

 

It is FLIR, but the hit is not in the FLIR part.

 

 

 

Except for the fact that there is almost no glow in any of the live FLIR hits you have shown, in the op there is loads of glow.

 

Take a look at this again:

 

 

 

 

What if you are the av mags source? (kidding) For all we know the source could be floor sweeping dudes.

 

 

 

It goes from 0 to huge in 1 or 2 frames.

 

 

 

Yep, go ahead. I think you're right about the AIM-9x though.

 

The biggest problem is in the hellfire videos there is some type of flash suppression.

 

 

 

I know, i just said that. But it would make sense that it was a similar setup in both.

 

 

 

Lets just make up a completely hypothetical situation to show my point:

 

Lets say the blast size is 10

lets say the glow factor is x2

so blast + glow = 20

 

So if we have a video with little or no glow we get more like 10 or 12.

 

What i am saying is blast + glow = op and blast + no glow = not same size.

 

 

 

I would say no on the knowledge.

 

 

 

Umm, yep! Why do you only like probably when it suits you?

 

 

 

I doubt the pilots are directly involved in the investigation.

Poor video quality.

I know they're used but I don't design or make them.

And neither do you.

Or it may not. The retargeting looked quite deliberate.

The kinetic energy was proven to be nowhere near enough to produce the same sized flash as a warhead + fuel, especially given the modest transfer (e.g. the missile that continues straight through), hence why you fell back on the KE + fuel theory, which you now go back on when it doesn't suit.

If the motor is running, there has to be a tail, if the motor not running then there must have been a warhead, otherwise the missile would smash clean through the thin stab.

You can't even remember that your own theory relied on KE + fuel. It's like arguing with a goldfish. You can't remember back far enough to realise you're wrong.

But they still burn more slowly than a warhead, hence why they're suitable for use as rocket fuel. Nobody wants rocket fuel that reacts like high explosive, it just means the rocket will explode as soon as it's ignited. This should be obvious, Jeez!

Err... yes, the hit is in the FLIR part at 0:40.

What? Of course there's glow. There's glow even in normal video. What the hell are you watching?

Looks like a debris cloud to me, but as usual you've chosen the worst possible video quality you could find to try and blur out the facts. Next you'll probably show Charlie Chaplin using one.

The same might be true at the contractor's.

No it doesn't, the burn last seconds.

Look at the normal video, there is no flash suppression in those. The live warhead flashes are many times bigger than the AIM-9X flash, yet the FLIR videos are the same size as the one in the OP video and the inert Brimstone strikes in FLIR have no flash. Equally, the inert AIM-9X strikes crash straight through intact, so there is no fuel explosion. It should be starting to become obvious that you're wrong by now.

Not at all. It's very possible they were both down to different causes. Other reports have suggested radio command SAMs in operation too.

But you're assuming different glow. Glow is something you've invented to cover up a lost argument. The inert strikes crash straight through. A thin stab simply isn't going to break up a compact 90kg missile. So fuel is retained. Inert strikes with Brimstone show no flash at all in such circumstances. So the glow is irrelevant because there is no flash to begin with.

I wouldn't. They know exactly what's wrong with the junk they're selling you.

I think my argument from the start was that given typical sortie altitude, a surface launched MANPADS would not reach, and a surface launched AAM would struggle to be still in burn at impact. Does this second video contradict either of those assertions. I think not.

I'd imagine they would be. It's called an incident report.

Look at the video, it is definite, (absolutely no doubt) the missile burn time is around 6 or 7 sec.

Nope, it's 10-12s, which makes it an E model. Missile takes off at 0:02 and rocket trail still moving at 0:12 and possibly up to 0:14. If you want to dispute that, go take a frame grab at 0:08 and 0:10, or 0:09 and 0:12, but I think you know you're just trolling.

Additionally, unless it's your assertion that the 2nd missile didn't explode either, given the pilot successfully recovered, it's unlikely that this missile got very close with its 39kg warhead. And indeed, the R-27s track record in the Ethipian-Eritrean conflict shows that it's not the kind of missile that can generally make a direct hit.

You sure it's not a MANPADS there boss? And oh look, the motor of that big ass R-27 has even burned out before reaching the target.

You and your flipping manpads...

It was never about manpads, but rather about the video being legit, which you've been disputing on and off now a hundred times in this thread.

Any worse than guy on internet?

Guy on internet has pictures.

Poor video quality.

Are you still saying that has anything to do with exposure?

I know they're used but I don't design or make them.

ok

And neither do you.

And neither do you. :lol: (Just for the heck of it)

Or it may not. The retargeting looked quite deliberate.

How exactly would you say they cause a retargeting? Do they have some type of datalink?

The kinetic energy was proven to be nowhere near enough to produce the same sized flash as a warhead + fuel, especially given the modest transfer (e.g. the missile that continues straight through), hence why you fell back on the KE + fuel theory, which you now go back on when it doesn't suit.

Your math which "proved" that, was proven to be garbage, what is this new proof you have?

If the motor is running, there has to be a tail, if the motor not running then there must have been a warhead, otherwise the missile would smash clean through the thin stab.

Then what are those white dots after the intercept then?

You can't even remember that your own theory relied on KE + fuel. It's like arguing with a goldfish. You can't remember back far enough to realise you're wrong.

And you can't even remember that we resolved that 14 pages ago, my first post about detonation was about the motor exploding.

We all can forget stuff from time to time, and i try to post a correction when i do, but he amount of hypocrisy coming from you is starting to get a little tiring.

But they still burn more slowly than a warhead, hence why they're suitable for use as rocket fuel. Nobody wants rocket fuel that reacts like high explosive, it just means the rocket will explode as soon as it's ignited. This should be obvious, Jeez!

Solid rocket motor burn rate is determined by the surface area, if you smash the motor it will burn pretty darn fast.

Err... yes, the hit is in the FLIR part at 0:40.

Err... no that is not the hit that is the truck driving off the road, the truck gets hit right by a van and there is no van in the 40 sec FLIR.

What? Of course there's glow. There's glow even in normal video. What the hell are you watching?

The amount of glow in normal video is like 1 or 2% of the blast, in the OP FLIR its more like 200% or much more.

And the apache FLIR is like 20 to 50%

Looks like a debris cloud to me, but as usual you've chosen the worst possible video quality you could find to try and blur out the facts. Next you'll probably show Charlie Chaplin using one.

Most of the unclassified missile test videos are old. When was the last time debris left a cloud of thick black smoke?

The same might be true at the contractor's.

I don't think a janitor qualifies as "the contractor doing the repair".

No it doesn't, the burn last seconds.

Yes, it goes from no blast to full bast in 1 or 2 frames and then continues to burn for a few seconds.

Look at the normal video, there is no flash suppression in those. The live warhead flashes are many times bigger than the AIM-9X flash, yet the FLIR videos are the same size as the one in the OP video and the inert Brimstone strikes in FLIR have no flash. Equally, the inert AIM-9X strikes crash straight through intact, so there is no fuel explosion. It should be starting to become obvious that you're wrong by now.

Yep, i have shown you an inert puny stinger hit in normal video exploding, and in the aim-9x fuselage hit the motor looks burned out anyway, so its sorta irrelevant when referring to motor explosions, and you have yet to show a video of an inert missile (non space travel, although i still haven't seen one of those either) with motor left not exploding.

Not at all. It's very possible they were both down to different causes. Other reports have suggested radio command SAMs in operation too.

Yeah, its possible, but we haven't seen any credible sources stating otherwise. And as for RFCLOS i think you said it best:

...Admittedly the same defence publication that thinks a Coyote drone is a Yemeni SAM...

But you're assuming different glow. Glow is something you've invented to cover up a lost argument. The inert strikes crash straight through. A thin stab simply isn't going to break up a compact 90kg missile. So fuel is retained. Inert strikes with Brimstone show no flash at all in such circumstances. So the glow is irrelevant because there is no flash to begin with.

I don't need to assume glow, its right in front of my face, the burners are like 15m x 25m in the op and the missile motor is like 10m x 5m, and during and after the flash you can never actually see any flames. In the apache videos there is 1 or 2 frames of slight glow and the flames all the way.

I wouldn't. They know exactly what's wrong with the junk they're selling you.

I would say they know something is wrong, but not exactly.

I think my argument from the start was that given typical sortie altitude, a surface launched MANPADS would not reach, and a surface launched AAM would struggle to be still in burn at impact. Does this second video contradict either of those assertions. I think not.

You said on numerous occasions that there was a 0% chance of MANPADS and that the reason was altitude, i have never argued that it was MANPADS, just that altitude was a lame argument.

The second video shows that the intercept happened around 20k ft, so the OP must be quite a bit lower.

I'd imagine they would be. It's called an incident report.

Yeah, do they get interviewed? Of course, but they are not the investigators.

Nope, it's 10-12s, which makes it an E model. Missile takes off at 0:02 and rocket trail still moving at 0:12 and possibly up to 0:14. If you want to dispute that, go take a frame grab at 0:08 and 0:10, or 0:09 and 0:12, but I think you know you're just trolling.

 

it starts at about 2.5 sec and there is visible vapor until 11 sec at the very latest. I think you summed it up nicely:

You say that as if you're having difficulty understanding. Vapour trail != motor still burning, just as not all aircraft wingtips have burning rocket motors attached to them...

Additionally, unless it's your assertion that the 2nd missile didn't explode either, given the pilot successfully recovered, it's unlikely that this missile got very close with its 39kg warhead. And indeed, the R-27s track record in the Ethipian-Eritrean conflict shows that it's not the kind of missile that can generally make a direct hit.

It looks like it detonated, but heck, i don't know, i would think that big of warhead would make a bigger explosion. But I thought missiles in their envelope never ever missed? ;)

Are you still saying that has anything to do with exposure?

 

 

 

ok

 

 

 

And neither do you. :lol: (Just for the heck of it)

 

 

 

How exactly would you say they cause a retargeting? Do they have some type of datalink?

 

 

 

Your math which "proved" that, was proven to be garbage, what is this new proof you have?

 

 

 

Then what are those white dots after the intercept then?

 

 

 

And you can't even remember that we resolved that 14 pages ago, my first post about detonation was about the motor exploding.

 

We all can forget stuff from time to time, and i try to post a correction when i do, but he amount of hypocrisy coming from you is starting to get a little tiring.

 

 

 

 

Solid rocket motor burn rate is determined by the surface area, if you smash the motor it will burn pretty darn fast.

 

 

 

Err... no that is not the hit that is the truck driving off the road, the truck gets hit right by a van and there is no van in the 40 sec FLIR.

 

 

 

The amount of glow in normal video is like 1 or 2% of the blast, in the OP FLIR its more like 200% or much more.

 

And the apache FLIR is like 20 to 50%

 

 

 

Most of the unclassified missile test videos are old. When was the last time debris left a cloud of thick black smoke?

 

 

 

I don't think a janitor qualifies as "the contractor doing the repair".

 

 

 

Yes, it goes from no blast to full bast in 1 or 2 frames and then continues to burn for a few seconds.

 

 

 

Yep, i have shown you an inert puny stinger hit in normal video exploding, and in the aim-9x fuselage hit the motor looks burned out anyway, so its sorta irrelevant when referring to motor explosions, and you have yet to show a video of an inert missile (non space travel, although i still haven't seen one of those either) with motor left not exploding.

 

 

 

Yeah, its possible, but we haven't seen any credible sources stating otherwise. And as for RFCLOS i think you said it best:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't need to assume glow, its right in front of my face, the burners are like 15m x 25m in the op and the missile motor is like 10m x 5m, and during and after the flash you can never actually see any flames. In the apache videos there is 1 or 2 frames of slight glow and the flames all the way.

 

 

 

I would say they know something is wrong, but not exactly.

 

 

 

You said on numerous occasions that there was a 0% chance of MANPADS and that the reason was altitude, i have never argued that it was MANPADS, just that altitude was a lame argument.

 

The second video shows that the intercept happened around 20k ft, so the OP must be quite a bit lower.

 

 

 

Yeah, do they get interviewed? Of course, but they are not the investigators.

So in summary, you believe that an inert missile could have caused that huge 50m flash on the basis of no other similar FLIR, the fact that the missile could have spontaneously exploded, even though other inert missile footage shows a clear through-and-through. And the fact that a small test warhead produced a non-FLIR flash nowhere near as big as live 9kg warheads, which produce a similar sized flash to the OP video in FLIR.

I have an alternative theory. Maybe it was a nuclear warhead. Most videos of such warheads show a completely different-sized flash, but that could just be the glow factor. So this is clearly a sound theory.

You and your flipping manpads...

 

It was never about manpads, but rather about the video being legit, which you've been disputing on and off now a hundred times in this thread.

And the general consensus is that the first video wasn't but yes, we had a good long discussion about MANPADS too.

it starts at about 2.5 sec and there is visible vapor until 11 sec at the very latest. I think you summed it up nicely:

It's at least until 0:12 but it should be out by 0:08 if it was an R-27 non-E variant.

Nice try, but if it was a contrail, then it would not cease for 5s before impact.

It looks like it detonated, but heck, i don't know, i would think that big of warhead would make a bigger explosion. But I thought missiles in their envelope never ever missed? ;)

Modern IIR ones don't, but the R-27ET is not a modern IIR missile and the envelope part is questionable.

You can see a cloud behind the a/c about 22s in. Given that you can't actually see the a/c until it's hit, that cloud must be quite big.

And the general consensus is that the first video wasn't but yes, we had a good long discussion about MANPADS too.

Your opinion does not equate to the general consensus. All available evidence points to the first video being legit, incl. word from the actual contractor who has been contacted regarding parts for & repair of the stricken F-15.

Finally I at no point mentioned manpads as I could care less what missile did it. What I do care about is you throwing out wild claims as if you know anything about what actually went down or wether or not the video is real. Esp. since you bring ZERO evidence to the table, absolutely zilch.

Finally as someone who claims to have a background with missiles testing you've been extraordinarily & suspiciously unscientific about the whole subject.

It's at least until 0:12 but it should be out by 0:08 if it was an R-27 non-E variant.

 

Nice try, but if it was a contrail, then it would not cease for 5s before impact.

The speed probably has something to do with it, look at this MANPADS, it stops smoking before impact but it smokes for like 8 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZAUb9iA5TM&has_verified=1

So in summary, you believe that an inert missile could have caused that huge 50m flash on the basis of no other similar FLIR, the fact that the missile could have spontaneously exploded, even though other inert missile footage shows a clear through-and-through. And the fact that a small test warhead produced a non-FLIR flash nowhere near as big as live 9kg warheads, which produce a similar sized flash to the OP video in FLIR.

 

I have an alternative theory. Maybe it was a nuclear warhead. Most videos of such warheads show a completely different-sized flash, but that could just be the glow factor. So this is clearly a sound theory.

So in summary, you don't like evidence that doesn't support your position, you don't like (and can't admit to) being wrong, and so you try and move the conversation away from the holes in your argument.

you believe that an inert missile could have caused that huge 50m flash

Yes, if it is even real.

on the basis of no other similar FLIR

No, on the basis of the contractor and Mfezi and math.

the fact that the missile could have spontaneously exploded

Which you have yet to show one not (the aim-9x doesn't count, the motor is burned out)

even though other inert missile footage shows a clear through-and-through

The motor is burned out.

And the fact that a small test warhead produced a non-FLIR flash nowhere near as big as live 9kg warheads

If it is a test warhead then it is basically irrelevant.

which produce a similar sized flash to the OP video in FLIR

You have shown no footage of a FLIR hit with similar glow factor making a similar sized flash.

I will say it again (more clearly):

If blast size is 10 for 9kg WH

if blast size is 1 for motor

if apache FLIR glow is 25%

if OP glow is 1300% (conservatively)

then the op video with motor explosion would be 13

with a 9kg WH it would be 117

and the motor on apache would be 1.25

and a 9kg WH would be 11.25

(hypothetical situation)

Test footage shows inert missile crashing straight through fuselage with no damage to missile body and hence no fuel explosion.

Test footage of inert Brimstone shows no flash in FLIR.

Test footage shows small AIM-9X test warhead giving much smaller flash than live Brimstone.

Test footage shows similar-sized warhead giving similar-sized flash in FLIR in multiple Brimstone videos.

Your only explanation for all these points that clearly disprove your theory is 'glow factor', which is just something you've made up. So basically, your explanation for not being able to prove something is something else you can't prove, i.e. glow factor.

The speed probably has something to do with it, look at this MANPADS, it stops smoking before impact but it smokes for like 8 seconds:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZAUb9iA5TM&has_verified=1

It smokes all the way to impact, with the trail getting gradually narrower all the way. The R-27 stops a full 5s before impact.

Your opinion does not equate to the general consensus. All available evidence points to the first video being legit, incl. word from the actual contractor who has been contacted regarding parts for & repair of the stricken F-15.

 

Finally I at no point mentioned manpads as I could care less what missile did it. What I do care about is you throwing out wild claims as if you know anything about what actually went down or wether or not the video is real. Esp. since you bring ZERO evidence to the table, absolutely zilch.

 

Finally as someone who claims to have a background with missiles testing you've been extraordinarily & suspiciously unscientific about the whole subject.

Clearly either the video or the contractor must be wrong, because they both contradict each other. But most people think that sudden roll happened and stopped a little too quickly and all conveniently behind the flash. Kolga thinks this too.

The video being faked doesn't mean the shootdown didn't happen.

I care not for your opinion but how is comparing different missile test videos unscientific? Or discussing KE for that matter.

Test footage shows inert missile crashing straight through fuselage with no damage to missile body and hence no fuel explosion.

Speaking of goldfish length memory, i just said in the post above yours the motor is burned out, so nothing to explode, and you have claimed it was burned out before also.

I am more convinced than ever that rocket motors explode:

Test footage of inert Brimstone shows no flash in FLIR.

Show the inert FLIR video, the one you posted before had no hit in it.

Test footage shows small AIM-9X test warhead giving much smaller flash than live Brimstone.

Basically irrelevant, what do small test warheads have to do with the op?

Test footage shows similar-sized warhead giving similar-sized flash in FLIR in multiple Brimstone videos.

Umm, nope. I measured this brimstone hit (

Your only explanation for all these points that clearly disprove your theory is 'glow factor', which is just something you've made up. So basically, your explanation for not being able to prove something is something else you can't prove, i.e. glow factor.

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

I can;t facepalm that enough, the glow factor is obvious and irrefutable, you see absolutely no smoke or blast in the op, only glow.

It smokes all the way to impact, with the trail getting gradually narrower all the way. The R-27 stops a full 5s before impact.

Not gradual at all, if it had another 5 sec it wouldn't have smoke for the last 5 sec either, watch it again with the pride filter off.

Clearly either the video or the contractor must be wrong, because they both contradict each other.

I have said i don't think the video is 100% real many times. And all i have said is that it is perfectly possible for the flash in the OP to be caused by an inert missile (based on the contractor and Mfezi)

But most people think that sudden roll happened and stopped a little too quickly and all conveniently behind the flash. Kolga thinks this too.

Back to the goldfish are we?

Good find, makes sense! Looks to abrupt for an intentional roll.