Glad it was helpful!

Glad it helped. The unwitting driver seems more probable than a suicide driver. A suicide driver would have driven in the lane closer to the train or even halfway across both road deck to take both out. As for scanners corruption could have meant they were the wrong cheaper equipment or faulty. The detonation timing was perfect next to the fuel train. As you say fantastic execution 💯

Welcome aboard! Who is Mr Lee?

@@Mike-Bell Lee with KLW

Glad it was helpful!

Please check out the various comments I’ve made on this attack. Everything I think you’re looking for will be explained there. For example, look at the video footage of vehicles as they progressed across the bridge just before the explosion. Ignore everything on the screen except the top left corner of the screen, there you will see special forces personnel moving all over and along the train, probably planting explosives which moment later you see explode. Also, as just reported by me, take a look of the photographs which were taken by the Russian authorities as they were putting out the fires and photographing the damage in daylight. Maybe those who still falsely claim this was in any way truck related (it most certainly was not), can explain why, in those early daylight photographs, you can clearly see at least six possibly more adseil ropes hanging down from the top where the carriages were on fire! No, they’re not wires and yes they’re fastened to the railings in front of the burning carriages … there’s lots more information about this attack for those who want to know what happened. As for a truck explosion there is absolutely no evidence in the available images of any road surface or road furniture, including guard rail and light posts of there being a blast from above the road … there is however such evidence from below the downed and buckled structure.

Look at the four black marks on the rail bridge. Four missiles hit the train. The horizontal movement of the blast site is due to the horizontal direction of the air strike. The first two missiles stopped the train. The second two missiles hit the train after it had stopped. A truck bomb would not have such a horizontal thrust from the blast and would leave one black mark on the rail bridge, not four. If they (obviously) used missiles on the train then, the bridge and the truck were hit by missiles as well. Freeze frame of the Russian surveillance video reveals the missile trails overhead and Russia’s attempt to blur them the entire duration of the video. Look for missing column at bridge support for more evidence of missile attack. Two SU-35s?

@@BiglyfishPlease note that a missile attack on the train would be wholly incomparable with the evidence available. The train was not moving at the time of the attack, photographs taken by Russian railway personnel on the morning of the attack show just one carriage has been blown off the track, straight up and down remaining upright. All carriages are in an upright position and were not hit by either a projectile from left, right or straight down. The damage, including the crumpled fuel carriages, seen in daylight images taken by railway employees (actually next to the carriages) clearly show a blast from below the track and between the carriages, such as demolition explosives, the sort used by special forces, and as seen being moved into place in my flickr images.

At 2:15, I think I see, at the edge of the water, part of the hole in the roadway from the explosion.

@@shanesteven4578 you are wrong and just supporting Putin by claiming it was a attack, please explain the raining down of burning debris after the explosion! It was nothing more than a Russian protest at getting immobilised to go to a war he didn’t believe in! The owner of the truck came forward and it was his uncle!

That makes more sense to me. It could have even been a Russian driver that did it to be honest..

Doesn’t even need to be sabotaged. They are pulling out shells produced back in the 50s. Improperly secured Howitzer shells or even severely degraded crates in the trailer could have popped loose as the truck entered the incline and hit something the wrong way on the way down. The burning embers that shattered on impact with the ground was likely the accompanying propellant pellets that would ordinarily also be stored with the shells.

@@Zeknif1 I guess we know why no one is taking credit.. pure accident.

@@Zeknif1 When they start making movies about this conflict.......it will be some bumbling drunk russian driver that improperly loaded his cargo and blew up the bridge 😂😂🤣🤣.........absolute comedy by the russians

@alfosno pichimauida HE Fragmentation shells are typically designed to fragment in a ring radiating out from the sides of the shell, relying on the shell’s forward momentum to create a conical danger zone with relatively little fragmentation being contributed to by the cone assembly (often occupied by the triggering mechanism and fuse). Stack hundreds of them in boxes mostly arranged parallel to each other, and you’ll likely get that “slicing” against anything in close proximity to the truck. There are signs of minor fragmentation damage to the protective layer of concrete on a small portion of the underside of the rail bridge as well as some of the fuel cars. Not exactly a shaped-charge, but it had a shaped-charge like effect in regards to directing the bulk of its destructive force across a smaller area. Unlikely to be a truly clean cut, but it’s enough force loaded in a small enough area to trigger structurally failure. The far ends of the damaged road segment that crossed 4 spans were pulled off their support pillars at the expansion joints, hence the perception of “clean cuts” at the collapse points on either end of the damaged segment.

Also, the Russians state the bridge is "open." I guess if "open" means you have traffic backed up 3 miles.

I will explain and illustrate in my next video how that happened because of the off centre blast. It is another piece of evidence supporting the truck bomb theory.

3 other things to note that to me indicate that cc tv footage showing from behind the truck is probably a fake(or a composite) and this was probably not a truck bomb is: 1) When you see the first cc tv footage from behind the truck and look at the position of arches in the cc tv footage where the truck is then you see that the arches are hugh in size to the truck and the car next to it. Both vehicles are right at the base of the arches and are starting to go up on the arches before the explosion occurs. But when you see the footage of the damage later that day via the witness at the bomb site or via the satellite footage then the arches seem very small in size are actually very far away.The arches seem way too big and too close for this to be an optical illusion in the cc tv footage. Again when the cc tv footage is shown from the different angle the bright flash instantly fills the whole screen and seems high and far away from the truck . I thought maybe a drone with a bomb above the bridge had exploded in mid-air because of the concussive effect pushing down the road and the train cars with fuel created the 2nd explosion when ignited from the 1st explosion. Because the train bridge and the car bridge are pretty far away and the truck was in the 2nd lane away from the train bridge I am wondering if it was a truck bomb then the explosion would have been too far away to ignite the train cars. 2) if this was a truck bomb and let's say the cc tv footage shows the explosion then I would expect that you would see the explosion start small from the truck and move outward very rapidly and fills the screen(should be able to see something smaller than the entire screen at the very beginning of the explosion when slowed down , which you don't). Instead what you see is a bright flash that fills the entire screen instantly and suddenly the start of the flash seems to be brightest and starting high above the road. 3) Russian explanations always seem way too detailed ,complicated with a lot of unsubstantiated connection of dots. Case in point is the convoluted car bombing explanation of Dugin's daughter.

The timing is too perfect for the way the train was set alight. My guess is remote detonation with unwitting victim truck driver.

Its the new google maps feature 👍🏻

The inspection just before the bridge was not a particularly thorough one. The main theories are that if it was material shipped by the Ukrainians, that the explosives were disguised (as rolls of film by Russian claims) or if the truck was filled with Russian ammunition to supplement logistical efforts to hold Kherson, that the cargo had been expected. The X-ray scan of the truck provided by the Russians were of a different truck. The Russians claim the scan was from an inspection point near their border with Georgia and that the cargo from the photos was transferred to a different truck before it reached the bridge. Up to this date, no evidence had been provided to prove that the cargo transfer ever happened. As for the smoke bellowing under the bridge, that is smoke from material still burning on the top of the collapsed road bridge being blown over and under the standing road bridge by the high winds. Photos of the side of the standing bridge shows partial collapse of the remaining road bridge and significant scorching of its side.

@@Zeknif1 fair.

Yes. And there is the video showing a barge beginning to emerge from under the roadway. No shipping traffic is permitted under the bridge at this point. Nothing should have been under the bridge at this location. Additionally, there are reports the train was not moving but had been stopped at this point for some time ... possibly set up so the railroad bridge also took damage. But it is still a nice animation, a real contribution and does show where the damage actually was in relation to the main span. We don't have enough information to make any definitive answer and probably won't until the end of the war, whenever that may be.

This video changed my opinion, if the explosion was under the bridge we would see damage in the adjacent side. But no, it’s 100% intact and barely has any scorched marks

The essential element on how to destroy constructed structures is to create an event which adds energy to the structure. A bomb is a device that burns a chemical rapidly - so rapidly it creates a glob of heat which creates a spherical shock wave. Part of the shock wave strikes the constructed structure imparting energy to the structure. If the energy is sufficient, it distorts the structure causing its inability to maintain structural integrity and it collapses. Railroad bridges are sufficiently strong the spherical shock wave that strikes it is often not not sufficient energy to destroy. HOWEVER, this event imparts most of the energy to the bridge from the burning fuel tankers. The amount of energy is released over time and EXCEEDS that of the normal bomb. The bridge got quite hot. The steel and concrete was weakened by the 12 hour fuel fire. THIS, and not a bomb, is what has made the railroad bridge unable to handle full loads... no more trains of tanks to Crimea! LOL

The bridge was not broken above the barge/boat /wave. It was unrelated to the blast. I will post a video shortly with more detail.

Thank you too!

There is no blast hole in roadway visible.

@@gogrape9716 there is a section snapped in two in the middle. How large a blast impact are you looking for?

Blast could have been under bridge I.e. boat.

There's no visible burn marks on the bottom side of the bridge but they're definitely is on top blast had to come from the top and if it was the truck bomb it had been foolish for the guy to be in the right lane he's been far more effective in the left lane so I don't think it was suicide bomber

@@jaredschultz7358 agreed... some innocent soul caught up in politics that cost him his life.

@alfosno pichimauida The main structure of the bridge is steel, only the surface is covered with concrete, if it were a controlled detonation it wouldn't look like a ton of TNT blow up

@alfosno pichimauida The video already explains everything very precisely

@@65k25 And what does the video explain very precisely?

@@thomaslunde5014 Explain how the structure collapses after the explosion, I'm sure there will be a video later for better simulation and explanation

@@65k25 It explains one theory, but we have yet to see any evidence of it. But russia has already stated that the latest missile attack was a response to this so im just wondering if russia has evidence that they don't want to show or if they just use this as an excuse to escalate by targeting more civilians while not knowing what actually happened...

I have looked for the video but can’t find one that runs 12 seconds after the explosion. Please post the the link.

I checked the one called "Kerch bridge explosion: CCTV appears to show Crimea bridge blast". The explosion is indeed at 8 seconds and runs until 16 seconds, but no there is no truck visible at 12s, just smoke and sparks from falling ignited metal.

Я житель Керчь, это был грузовик, хватит fake news.

@@user-mc7nn1yv8b Я согласен. Со всеми новыми доказательствами стало ясно, что это на 100% бомба в грузовике. Вы слышали взрыв в Керчи? А время взрыва можете подтвердить? I agree. With all the new evidence it more certain it was 100% a truck bomb. Did you hear the explosion in Kerch? And can you confirm the time of the explosion?

@@Mike-Bell не только слышали, у моих соседей окна повылетали, а от нас по прямой около 4 км. Я фотографии из окна моего дома делал

Train was stopped at signals. There are usually five, six trains at any one time on the bridge.

@@bmin7133 thanks for the info. A stopped train makes sense.

It didn't cut it. There are the expention joints, so it just fell off the supports.

I saw dashcam of a missile hitting the bridge but it was an amateurish faked video.

@@Mike-Bell OK it may be the same one I saw... I also fell for the fighter plane one hook line and sinker.. Soon the bridge will be a tangled mess again..

Well why didn’t the deck fly upwards and why is there no scorching underneath? Only on top. Nope this was not a bomb from below.

@@Mike-Bell @Mike Bell Black scorching is a caricature of explosions. In the docklands and Manchester bombings by the ira neither vehicle left black scorching and a the discolouration was from falling debris. As for the road surface not flying up, again, low velocity explosives create less force against and object but for a longer period relatively speaking to wont blow it sky high like in a film.An explosion takes the pathe of least resistance wothost ofnthe energy disipating either side of the bridge shown by the direction of the blast and a road section that mass (few hundred tons) only needs to move up a small amount before failure, dragging it and adjacent sections in to the water.

And your theory also doesn’t add up to how the fuel train was ignited. The water bomb makes no sense.

@@Mike-Bell fuel,grease and grime soaked rolling stock that's probably in as bad a condition as everything else in Russia. Pressure from the blast could have fractured valves hoses, sight glass tubes and welds. Any peice of debris bigger than a marble will go through the steel and the valves can be knocked off with the energy equivalent to a sledge hammer and sight glass tubes are borderline perishable goods they break so easily on tankers.if it was a truck more than just 4 tankers would have ignited

The train was moving very slowly before the explosion, you can see it on the CCTV, it was waiting on the bridge for some reason. Maybe waiting on another train at a junction. I have no idea.

@@cacojo15 yes you are right the train is stopped already. But why this is not clear as the bridge has parallel tracks. Maybe there was some traffic getting out of the bridge? Really strange, anyway this must ne the luckiest hit ever.

Igniting the fuel car is certainly very lucky but with 4 set alight maybe not so lucky. The charring on the adjacent road deck would suggest the charge was shaped towards the rail lines.

There is no sign of soot on the underside of the bridge deck. Explosives from below theory cancelled

Nothing comes from the wrong direction. There was a thirty miles per hour wind from the Azov. The explosion did it's thing, then the wind blew it back towards the bridge. Look at the smoke after the explosion and it's speed and direction.

@@Mike-Bell no aide of soot on the top side. Checking explosives tables, with this type of construction a hole would be punched through the deck.

I have an additional question with regards to alternative videos posted on the web, with respect to the to the view between the upright piles and roadway. Some claim seeing a vessel of some type; however, this is not my focus. The video seems to be in a security control room, as confirmed in the back ground of many video images of the bridge and the two on line monitors on the desk, standard security operations, my question is “why is someone using a mobile phone to record activity on a monitor on the desk, electing to record the camera of the where the area of the explosion took place and none of the many other views?” I don`t normally follow conspires, however, a number of steps have to be taken to switch one of the many camera views to the on-line monitor on the desk, then to start using a mobile phone to record, zooming in just before the action. It would be interesting to read a transcript of the conversation of the staff in the control room

The road deck sections where tied together across 4 spans with movement joints every 220m 850' and it was at these movement joints where the ends pulled free of the supports as noted in my video at 2:34 The deck structures are not concrete. These are steel girders spanning 65m with a steel plate supporting 200mm of asphalt concrete. The flash at the bottom of the screen in the final frame before explosion is not evidence of a flash from below and the truck still intact during the flash. The white panel is the effect of the "rolling shutter" quirk of the camera. The camera records lines from top to bottom recording different timeslots in a single frame. The truck was not intact after the explosion. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mrSGp7CesdLSn3k.html

It wasn't, because it was not a truck bomb.

You got it wrong , i guess you didn't searched anything by yourself . Back in soviet times Ucrainians were subsidized by the soviets and when the colapse of the USSR happened they found themselved 4x poorer than Russia (without the populous knowing what happened ) and unfortunately the smartest thing they did was to start hating their russians for that reality . Have a look at the right sector party . Well when 2014 happened Crimeea , that did same 1991 referendum that Ucraina had the minimum legal power to reject the new power in Kiev and were populated by a overwhelming number of Russians that even in 91 barely voted themselves out of USSR hoping for a life better than in Russia .In 2014 that was a long long dead hope .Ru ofc helped the process being interested in Sevastopol .Having Crimeea split out made ucrainian far righters mad and doing some clashes in Odessa managed to accidentally kill 48 russians by burning them alivein a sieged building .That is quite a revolution starter - and that caused the eastern parts to try to secede . Situation was stabilized after 2 years and Minsk accords were signed - allowing the provinces a degree of autonomy . Unfortunately the righters didn’t liked this outcome and with US help (US have seen this as a golden opportunity to kll ru with sanctions ) kept poking at the Dnsk until the situation becomed unbearable and Ru invaded .End . Be a good sheep now , downvote and be silent .

@@ketelin4285 ___ You are right about one thing : I do not know enough about the history of the USSR and the precise conditions under which the secession of various nations inside the old Union of Republics unfolded. I have read (a bit) about the 1991 Referendum; that was back in February; I'll have to go back and read again. I will not write until I feel I can do so as a more informed person. Regardless, I do not see the attack on the bridge as a happy event. It is a beautiful bridge and grand feat of engineering. But, Mr. Putin seems to have built the bridge only to "have power over" , not in order to allow an equal blossoming of both economies (Russian and Ukrainian). Mr. Putin did not approach the Ukrainian government to have talks about how a bridge might benefit both sides; no; he annexed Crimea in 2014; he completed the bridge in 2018. There is one topic I have read on; I do not have a lot of knowledge, but I have done some reading on the topic of corruption in the energy sector. There are many, many factors to understand. You are right about that much. What Gorbachev tried, but failed to achieve needs to be examined and both East and West need to see more clearly why Gorbachev was not successful. Mr. Putin has been in office long enough. If he were to announce that he is leaving office, that he is ordering a withdrawal to pre-2014 lines, on condition of the creation of a Commission to address why Gorbachev failed in his plan for Russia, and that there would be a just treatment of Russia, with a view to equitable economic development, that would go a long way to changing the dynamic. The stronghold over energy, by the Oligarchs who only enrich themselves, has harmed Russians far, far, far more than anything that powers OUTSIDE of Russian. Mr. Putin needs to stop Russian soldiers from committing war crimes, particularly against women and children. I will not respond further.

@@redleaf4902 1 . I guess you don't know that Ru invited UN to supervise a remake of the referendum and i guess you don't know what Minsk accords stipulated - is what you requested in your post (and Musk , heh ) . 2 Guess you also don't know that UA does warfare having civilian shields made by women and children. Russian ethnics , from east . And if they need extra drama they provide the killing , like in Bucha . Do you know a known pro ru candidate , Aleksandr Rzhavsky was killed there in his house ? Do you know that the place was shelled by UA all the month before the retreat ? Do you know UA has 13 year olds like Faina Savenkova on killlists ? You people are SUPERFICIAL . Shame on you .

@@ketelin4285 извините, я плохо владею английским, по этому пишу по-русски. Надеюсь гугл спасёт ситуацию. Вы не учитываете тот факт, что в России никогда не утихали империалистические настроения. Основной идеологический враг "правого сектора" - Россия. Где вы видели, чтобы целое движение возникало из ничего? Почему именно Россия, а не Польша или Зимбабве, например? Потому что Зимбабве никак не ущемляли украинцев на протяжении нескольких веков, не пытались украинцев сделать русскими. Зимбабве не запрещали в школах преподавать украинский язык, публиковать украинскую литературу, не говорили украинцам, что это Зимбабве создало Украину, а поэтому украинская территория по праву принадлежит Зимбабве. Дым без огня не бывает. Я не оправдываю криминальные поступки "Правого сектора". Но, если бы у русских, в том числе русских граждан Украины не было империалистических настроений, если бы русские уважали права и свободы украинцев, как это сейчас делает Польша (в прошлом - враг Украины, потому что значительная часть Украины какое-то время была под оккупацией Польши), то никаких "правых секторов" бы не было, а был бы мир и взаимоуважение, как, например, сейчас Швейцарии. Ещё учитывайте, что у России, как и когда-то у Советского Союза большая агентурная сеть по всему миру, тем более в Украине. И не исключено, что среди членов "Правого сектора" были такие агенты и соответственно финансирование из России. Ведь в 14-м году именно беспорядки, которые устроил "Правый сектор" Сыграл ключевую роль в аннексии Крыма и отделении части Донбасса и Луганщины от Украины. Власти в России с момента распада Советского Союза пытались восстановить Российскую Империю, но уже в новом формате. Об этом такие популярные чиновники как Жириновский постоянно говорили ещё задолго до 2014-го года. Украина и её территория имела ключевую роль в Российской Империи. Но как её вернуть, если Европа экономически более привлекательна, а воевать в России мало кто хочет. Российская пропаганда начала 24/7 пугать россиян украинскими нацистами. Но это не действовало на другие национальности граждан России. Ведь это касалось только этнических русских. Тогда начали говорить, что америка хочет построить базы НАТО в Украине и это угрожает существовнию России. Хотя в это время три страны Балтии уже давно в НАТО. И время полёта ракеты от Латвии до Москвы не на много больше, чем от Украины до Москвы. На кого это не подействовало пропаганда стала говорит, что в Украине американские био лаборатории, в которых разрабатываются опасные для российских славян вирусы. Будто славяне других стран сильно отличаются 🤦🏼‍♂️ Много можно приводить аргументов. Но суть вы поняли. Если бы Украина была ангелом и никаких абсолютно угроз не представляла для России, то Россия всё равно рано или поздно, мирно или военным путём пыталась захватить Украину. Это в ДНК русских. Это история. Как таковой и Исак боролись за первородство, так Москва всегда будет пытаться доказать Киеву, что это она первенец, хотя конечно же это не так.

Is thát what your propaganda media told you 🐑 ? And you are from Canada with a dictator for a leader saying such brainless BS about Russia ⁉️😂 You must have forgotten what your socialist leader did to you last winter?

The train wasn't moving. There just happened to be a dozen full fuel cars sitting there. The whole thing was staged by the Russians in my opinion.

The train can be seen moving westwards in the video with the long view down the bridge of before the blast.

@@Mike-Bell Thank you

@@Mike-Bell The train was not moving. If it was moving then the rail cars that were damaged would have been further down the track. As far as I can see (in the only video available) there is no movement on the elevated tracks. There is no way the train was moving, I don't know why you would say it was.

@@Ty_Mathieson i say this because if you look carefully in the video it is moving westwards albeit slowly. And it seems the train moved about 3 carriages on from the centre point of the blast. Ie on hearing the blast the driver stopped the train

Thanks 😊

I'm glad you liked it.

That's an interesting point, maybe the driver did not know what its fate would be, and the charge was remotely detonated. Or maybe the driver was too busy activating the charge he did not bother to change lanes at the last instant. Or maybe he thought it would not matter for only 1 or 2 meters, and staying on the right lane would be less suspicious, as trucks should drive on that lane.

@@cacojo15 definitely remote detonated with the aim of snagging the railway, most bridges it’s the arches and structure that would be the target but not when they wanted to damage the tracks too

Long enough for Ukraine to finish this war especially with Russian military being starved of ammo.

Yes that is quite striking. My guess is the paper was in the truck as distraction for inspectors at security check.

My theory is that the cargo was Howitzer ammunition being shipped to the front. The embers you see floating down after the explosion look very similar to propellant pellets that you can find in artillery and tank cartridges or the propellant canisters for two-piece ammunition. The propellant compound is compacted into either spherical or cylindrical pellets which are then loaded into the cartridge or canister. This helps to “burn” as it travels down the barrel rather than to explode all at once in the chamber and why longer barrels produce higher muzzle velocities. Doing it this way allows you to keep the size of the breechblock down to a reasonable thickness. This also explains why I unbuttoned tanks, which use similar propellant pellets for their ammo, will sometimes spend several seconds cooking off before the high explosive filler of some of its shells finally detonate. A buttoned up tank will often just explode because the penetration hole doesn’t allow the gases to escape fast enough to prevent it from looking for another way out… namely by popping the whole turret off. The pellets themselves are brittle and will shatter on impact with the ground. A lot of them appear to have been shattered by the explosion itself, converting either into smaller pellet fragments, or straight up into powder. Some of it may have contributed to the initial explosion, but much of it will had dispersed over a wide area before they could burn in earnest, contributing a lot of fire and heat in the process, hence why the fireball from the video appears so much larger than the damage would have implied.

Millions of litres of fuel burning on top of the steel rail bridge will definitely affect the structural integrity, so unless they run extremely light loads, they are risking catastrophe not replacing the sections damaged

It seems like the rail sections might be ok. I suspect the survived road might have shifted from the blast. The steel deck is relatively light.

@@Mike-Bell Only half... there's a video where it allegedly shows the first passenger train passing over the bridge and at the end the framing turns to the direction of travel and it shows at least one damaged fuel car parked on the other track. See Adam Something latest community posts for more. He aggregated.

@@Mike-Bell The bridge did get doused in flaming petroleum for some time. The steel may be quite weakened. Or not. ;)

@@geonerd Yeah! We saw what happened in Twin Towers after burning Jet-A1 weakened steel and concrete supports

There is no way the metal under the burning tanks is 'ok'.

No the driver was unaware it was remote detonated

Thanks Sy. I make these videos for you and viewers like you because you appreciate this content 🤙🏻

I’ve mentioned this video three times elsewhere since I’ve watched it in the last hour subscribing Thankyou 🇬🇧

@@syryder3236 Much appreciated.

Russia military pretty much moves all arms by train so I think accidental truck explosion is unlikely. Plus the detonation was perfectly timed right next to a fuel train. A theory by Rybar is a trailer from Georgia was hooked up to an unsuspecting driver and cab and the load remotely detonated. The flying sparks/paper is suggested as rolls of film to hide mask the explosive from the security scanners.

Not so. The flash on the bottom of the screen is the rolling shutter effect

Many Ukrainians have seen the fuel train explode in their dreams 😂

You see waves, breaking between the piers. The 'boat' is not below the sections that collapse.

Wait there were waves in the sea? Something is fishy.

@@Notmeiminmyprime there was a 25 knot wind. The sea was very choppy. It was breaking between the two narrow pier supports. The overbreak off both piers so close together would come together and form a V. The area identified is not the section that was damaged...a boat blew up under a section but it was the next two that collapse? Just sayin'.

@@bmin7133 I know I was being sarcastic for all the conspiracy theorists

@@Notmeiminmyprime yes, I know, sorry mate, just backing you up...my poor command of da English lol

Not the truck.

It was the truck remote detonated don’t be fooled by others, no missiles were used or other bombs either the noise of the extremely high pressured tanker gas release is what people have decided to believe was incoming missiles.....

And yes, I would say it was the truck that caused the explosion. Interesting that it came from Russia and not Crimea. Were the checks on the Russian side less thorough?

The truck bomb theory is the one that best stands up to scrutiny. All evidence supports a truck bomb. Other than the object in the water there is no evidence for a bomb from below. The object in the water is not centred on the damage. The truch is. There is zero scorching below the decks. Only on top.

@@Mike-Bell Sorry but I disagree, the damage to the bridge alone suggests it wasn't the truck, the bridge sits on the columns in road segments, we have 2 segments with broken backs, you can place that truck at any point and it is not going to break it at 2 points given the length destroyed compared to the truck, also as mentioned their is no punch-down damage which always is done by a surface explosion on solid ground, that bridge was lifted from the right hand support, it also was able to lift it on the middle support and it pivoted on the left hand support, as the road crashed back down on the central support and right hand support it broke its back in 2 places, one over each span, a truck bomb would not have raised the bridge or resulted in this outcome. We do not even need to see the video evidence for this, we use explosion forensics to determine what happened, even minor details like lack of damage to the road tarmac surface itself can rule out certain attacks and there is nothing consistent about the damage that suggest that truck was the cause, I dare say although guessing information will be suppressed that the truck is at the bottom of the sea and will provide definitive evidence it was not the cause, unfortunately this is Russia controlled waters and Russia has already pushed the truck bomb scenario albeit putting egg on their own faces, for a truck bomb we need more than just a suicide bomber and the chance of failure but, security at the bridge entrance to be infiltrated at the Russian end given every truck is scanned all having to be timed perfectly further raising the chances of failure, a drone strike from below can be sent anytime and doesn't need a papers to get to its final destination.

@@genome616 i am making a follow up video and will address the issues you raise. The truck driver driving in the lane furthest from the train suggest he was an unwitting victim who had this trailer hooked up, not a suicide driver. The road deck flung sideways away from the surviving deck is in line with the eccentric blast in the outer lane. The 3 points of road deck damage is perfectly logical with placement of bridge deck movement joints. As I said all good evidence leads to a truck bomb.

Thanks Tom 🤙🏻🧨

If a truck bomb then a suicide driver is highly likely

No it seems like cover ?

The evidence points to the driver being and unwitting victim. Truck was in the far lane furthest from the train line. Truck didn’t try and detonate over the gap between the road decks. Was driving at consistent speed till the explosion. It also means the driver would not have shown any signs of suspicious behavior to bridge security checks…. doesn’t look like suicide to me

Ok but then explain no scorching on the underside of the deck

@@Mike-Bell You posted only one picture of the underside. Do you have any pictures/video of the underside of the next section up?

@@wladmuir in the image of the steel dangling/ wrapped over the pier the steel is clean.

I wont do any hyping. Russia is a darling

@@Mike-Bell, ok, I have nothing against you

A piece of truck suspension was lodged into the bridge structure 150m ahead.

@@Mike-Bell thanks 👍

Its the difference between 100lb explosive and a couple of tons. You cant put a ton on a Himar

it was not a bomb under the bridge the damage shows it was over. Maybe a missle strike

No blast damage below the deck sections. No blast or shrapnel damage to the lower pier supports. All shrapnel damage to bridge adove the deck line.

You make a good point. The Russians say an innocent driver n cab had this trailer hooked unbeknownst to him. That would assume the detonation was done by remote when the truck was alongside the fuel train.

@@Mike-Bell Thank you for this obvious explanation - that will certainly do if we assume that the driver himself was completely unaware of what kind of "explosive cargo" he was supposed to deliver for the Crimea region.

On another note: Did the special operation team - who remotely detonated the explosives in the truck - also counted on the fuel-wagons (holding still for whatever reason) also to be a part of the overall devastation of the bridge? Or was it just an unexpected "bonus" for them..?

@@mikkeljrgensen1270 the fuel train in the video appears to be travelling slowly towards Crimea at time of blast. I'm not convinced it was a random unlucky driver. It could be suicide driver who would have found a fuel truck to time the detonation with.

@@Mike-Bell Still, if it de facto was a suicide driver, I´d still think he would detonate his explosives in the inner lane in order to be in the very center of everything - both hitting the railways as well as the outer lane. That is just my humble assumption. But this is a such an interesting riddle I hope to be solved one day.

Ok but where are signs of scorching on the underside of the deck. There aren’t any. The scorching is on the top. It’s curious to me why you and others need a more sexy story like a waterborne bomb. The truck bomb theory fits all the evidence. It happens to be the Russian explanation and happens to be right.

@@Mike-Bell A truck bomb big enough to break a bridge section would surely leave a hole in the road surface, not a scorch mark? We've seen only one image of the underside (at 2:15), which is inconclusive, but there may be scorching and signs of explosive forces acting upwards at the point where the section has fractured and dropped into the sea. I'm not dogmatically wedded to any particular theory - I don't need a 'more sexy story', I'm trying to follow the evidence. After the attack my first reaction was to favour the truck bomb theory because of the CCTV footage showing the truck appearing to be at the heart of the explosion; but I've since listened to the military analysts and explosives experts and am more inclined to trust their judgement. The truck driver (and the 2 occupants of the car) may have just been at the wrong place at the wrong time. We could really do with an independent forensic analysis of the remains of the truck or whatever other vehicle was carrying the explosive charge when the detonation occurred, but since the Russians control the bridge we're never going to see that. At least we can probably rule out the missile theory, because the bridge was very well-defended from aerial threats, and as far as we know the Ukrainians have so far been denied access to that level of long-range missile technology. Also: in the first video the train appears to be stationary on the bridge - I would like to know whether this is true and, if so, why, and whether this is linked in any way to the timing of the attack.

@@johndean4998the road deck under the truck was sliced in half. There is a piece of truck suspension thrown 120 m forward. That fits with explosives in the truck and not with an explosion elsewhere. The rest of the truck is in the water out of sight. The explosive experts I listened to said the bomb was an improvised device with all the flying pieces to set alight other stuff including the train. The fuel train was moving slowly in the direction of Crimea. The truck was driving at around 85 kmh in the direction of Crimea. I am preparing a follow up video.

This was a fast video so it could be posted on the same say of the bombing. I am pro Ukraine and presented my independent conclusions based on the the evidence at hand. It just so happens the evidence lines up with the Russian line and that's fine. The more I look at additional evidence over time the more this is looking like a truck bomb.

Whoever did this could only use the side running towards Crimea which is the outer section. But even so they still managed to set the train on fire which is impressive. It certainly provided the fiery image money shot to aid the psychological war.

One possibility is, to leave an escape route for fleeing civilians and soldiers. And/or to keep bargaining power: they’ve shown they can destroy some, now can threaten to destroy more. The other possibility is, that’s simply the best they could do at the time, or things didn’t go as planned.

I think the driver didn't know anything. like you've said if they wanted to destroy more the truck driver would have switched to the left lane to be closer to the second road. I would guess that "they" tracked the truck with gps and that there was a train was extremely lucky. (?)

It's quite curious how train was affected but other side of street line was barely touched; just slightly bent at the edge.

@@matrixfull It seems shrapnel pierced the fuel train and caught it on fire. The other road was a harder target, and not filled with fuel. Kinda like with a grenade, a piece of concrete right against it can seem pretty intact, but a soldier 2 meters away still gets hurt.

No the noise people mistake for missiles is the high pressure gas release with no chance of igniting for a few seconds the truck snagged the tankers.....