Thread by @nafomono

This🧵is about the @nytimes article on the Kostyantinivka attack and why I think it's unbelievable! 😮 ...in the literal sense. It's another really really ass-long thread of all the "evidence" they collected which doesn't add up.

Part 1:
Disclaimer I can only analyze data, which is known to me. As I did with the thread about the audio recording, when all the "facts" the "journalists" claimed, were a misunderstanding of reflections, acoustics and "people frantically looking up in the sky".

Unlike my journalistic counterparts, I will delete this and the other thread, if I have reasonable doubt that my findings have been disproven and post/pin a correction. Unless the Ukrainian SBU admits it was their missile, I so far see no reason to do so.

Part 2: Trajectory to the truth Facts:
-the missile was subsonic, because we heard it before impact
-the time of the explosion was 14:04:08
NYT: keypoints
-BUK 9M38M1 complex
-NW direction
-unspent fuel
-missile start 1. 14:00
-missile start 2. 14:03
-distance ~16km

Facts:
9M38M1: engine: 15 sec burn time, 2 section 1 stage engine
-fast burning section for accel
-slow burning stage for maintaining speed
- SARH tracking, contact, radar proximity, self-destruct fuse
-velocity 850 m/s
-range: 30-35km

Proven?:
UA anti-air brigade fired 2 missiles.
The 2nd is given a time-frame of 14:03.
That however is from a social media post, so if the reaction time of a guy standing at a window, waiting and then texting is about ~5 sec quick, the total flight time is: 73 sec.

The 9M38 has a semi-active radar homing, meaning it only has a radar-receiver and not a own active radar. The basis station has a data-link connection to each missile fired. Some sources mention capability of remote detonation. This is how a normal launch trajectory looks like.

The reason for this is to accelerate and gain altitude quickly to enter areas of lower air density, so that the slow burning section of the engine can provide the rest of the lift and sustain the velocity. The angle varies according to target height, speed, altitude etc.

The total burn time of the engine is 15sec.
I think 5 sec is a reasonable estimate for the first section. So in 5 sec to 850m/s.
The NYT claims the missile likely had unspent fuel. They speculate about it, because even they know a supersonic missile overshoots by far.

Wtf btw is an "errant" missile?
A missile with unspent fuel which burns in 15sec for a flight time of 73sec is one with a failed engine burn. e.g. a ballistic trajectory from failed start.
So let's do the math for that. We set the velocity limit at impact time to v_sonic.

A good site to test and play with kinematics is:
If we take a look at the equations and do little excel time, we can determine the velocity and range a missile gets at start, based on start height. And...nope, doesn't check out. omnicalculator.com/physics/projec…

As you see, there is no scenario of flight time, range and subsonic impact speed, which checks out with the data from the NYT, for an engine failure. Any increase in speed will lead to drastic overshoot or supersonic impact. Mind you, this is without friction / drag.

However, missiles are designed to have low drag coefficients to travel at supersonic speeds for miles. Any bit of more speed, results in greater heights, resulting in longer descent time, resulting in higher impact speeds.

You easily get a sense of how oddly specific this engine-failure is supposed to happen to support this. So the chance of that type of missile, burning at least through its first section, getting to 850m/s and then suddenly going ballistic, either overshoots or ends supersonic.

One thing they also misunderstood is the range given in the specs.
The 30km range is the active-engagement range, with the missile manoeuvring to hit a target, not its ballistic range. So what about trajectory after successful start? The impact angle and speed is unrealistic.

Part 3: The explosion

The only thing the NYT might be right about, is the type of rocket and warhead. If past terror attacks with S-300 missiles and other incidents are indicative, there would be nothing left of adjacent shops in the impact zone. The S-300 has a 150kg warhead.

Lets take a look at the warhead of the missile.
This illustration reveals a few details about the warhead. From the dispersion angle in static position we can conclude that the majority direction of the blastwave is to the side and the back.

The NYT states that the blastwave (burns and deformations) expand to the front.
Except, this is not how this warhead works.
While it's true that the warhead needs a few ms to explode, due to the low mass, the hot gasses travel supersonic in their pre-determined direction.

This is the fragm. pattern.
The reason why these expand forward is the inertia and impulse they get from the missile.
Expanding gasses with low mass are not influenced by inertia to the same extent.
There is a reason why shaped charges are built to direct the explosion fwd.

According to this sappers guide intact nose cones and fuselages (these more often) can be found.
So while I'm not an explosives expert for the NYT, I highly doubt their conclusion.
If the explosion travelled in hypersonic speed forward we wouldn't find non-melted nose cones.

Lets take a look at this very fateful image. This shows an early stage of the explosion.
We can see a cloud of heavy fragments dispersing in unobstructed view.
We already established the direction of the hot blastwave.
Why is it behind the frag cloud and not in front of it?

Well, the obvious answer would be, because we look at it from the front, the warhead explodes from the SE direction.
The deformations from the shockwave and heavy burns are consistent with the wave travelling backwards for quite a distance, due to reflection from the ground.

Part 4: A short fuse

The narrative goes "It exploded above ground therefore it's a proximity fuse".
The problem is, a safety feature of this missile is, that the proximity fuse is activated in the terminal phase of the flight. If it is activated and fails, it will self-destruct

If a 🇺🇦 missile is not getting to the terminal phase at high mach-speeds, its proximity fuse won't be active. A 🇺🇦 missile getting to terminal range to a target is above the city in greater altitude.
Which therefore by default, can't be the missile that hit the market.

If the active proximity fuse failed to self-detonate, past incidents show (S-300, Poland) that the missile will only explode at ground contact. The sappers guide mentions completely intact missiles as well! Excerpts are from the book: "Proximity Fuzes - Theory and techniques"

AA missiles are not meant to shoot down stationary targets, much less at subsonic speeds. Ground reflections are mostly filtered out, to allow the engagement of low flying aerial targets (10m for 9M38). The difference in radar-cross section, speed and scattering is huge.

From this article about the more advanced 9M317 missile, which is also designed for ground targets:
"To increase the effectiveness of the missile's warhead when working on ground targets, the radio detonator is disabled and a contact fuse is connected." en.missilery.info/missile/bukm1-2

From this I conclude 2 things:
1: proximity and contact fuses are mutually exclusive.
2: even a more advanced missile intended to be able to engage ground targets via its proximity fuse, is not used with it by operating procedure.
It's more effective to use a contact fuse.

If like the 🇷🇺, you love killing innocent civilians, the target you would choose is an intersection in a market street.
The detonator you would use, is a contact one.
The programmable auto-pilot allows to set a course. The active INS will compensate for drag and crosswinds.

Part 5: Really?

In the end you have to decide for yourself which scenario is more likely.
A 🇺🇦 AA missile was fired, failed engine, failed guidance system, failed to reach terminal phase of the intercept trajectory, yet prox. fuse was activated, yet failed to self-destruct.

A miraculously unlucky trajectory, without course compensation for wind and drag, somehow staying subsonic at impact and below 45°.
Somehow the missile hit a target the 🇷🇺 would want to hit, with a prox. fuse which is designed for 10m flight height but has a 17m trigger distance

Is it possible? Everything in the universe is. Is it likely? No. The simplistic reasoning of the NYT "journalists" is: "We have missile fragments, 🇺🇦 shot missiles, its theirs". Never mind, that they themselves mention 🇷🇺using the same missiles for terror attacks.

The @nytimes offers no explanation for pedestrians being able to look at things behind them. Microphones, hearing from behind, yet with no visible or audible proof a missile ever flew by it.
Instead, contradicting evidence is discarded, speculation is presented as fact.

They offer no explanation what happened to the missile the 🇺🇦 targeted and what the boom is we hear in the beginning of the recording.

Part 6: What all the evidence suggests actually happened that day.

Summarized in one image. The time delay between the audible intercept explosion and impact would confirm that these two are related and the approaching missile slowing down to subsonic.

The incoming missile, which might have sustained damage by intercepts, with an active contact fuse, hit the street under a shallow angle and disintegrated (crater, car explosions/fire in the back). The deformed front part was reflected upward and detonated a few ms later midair

This explanation is consistent with all evidence currently available.
To these OSINT groups measuring pixels of reflections: webcams at that price point usually have rolling shutters. High speed objects moving within the shutter and read time of the ccd sensor are cut/blurred.

If you missed my analysis of the audio, it's available here:

If this thread is plausible for you, RT, share, discuss.
If the measure for quality journalism is making uneducated guesses, I hope you will allow me to make some educated ones. 👋🐶x.com/nafomono/statu…

@threadreaderapp unroll
#Kostyantinivka #NYTimes
#NAFO #NAFOfellas
TL;Dr:
Evidence suggests, the @nytimes has no f*ing idea what happened that day, refused to look at contradicting evidence and published an opinion piece, titled as factual "analysis".
🙄🫣🤦