2023 Israel-Palestine Armed Conflict

calling a rocket engine a rocket motor is pretty amateurish.
Is that actually true? I've seen "solid rocket motor" used pretty much everywhere for decades. People might be more likely to use "engine" for something more complex, i.e. liquid fueled, but they are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned.
 
Would a rocket plummet straight down like that.

I mean, generally when you throw things, they break up, they don't suddenly drop at a 90 degrees angle downwards. This looked like it dropped straight down, without making an arc that you would expect something heavy to do after being pushed by a rocket.

Any smarter Kiwi would check the math on it? The rocket was going fast, than something happened, and than there was an explosion directly under it/behind it. Is the warhead heavy enough to do that, cancel all inertia and just drop like a stone?
 
Is that actually true? I've seen "solid rocket motor" used pretty much everywhere for decades. People might be more likely to use "engine" for something more complex, i.e. liquid fueled, but they are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned.
I looked up a source (https://space.stackexchange.com/que...nterchangeably-in-spaceflight-are-there-any-c) :
"Motor" by convention refers to a solid rocket, "engine" by convention to a liquid rocket. There can be exceptions.

...the word "motor" is as common to solid rockets as the word "engine" is to liquid rockets...
Rocket Propulsion Elements, Sutton, 4th edition, p. 354

Anecdotally, at least on shuttle you could get away with calling a liquid engine a "motor" more than calling a solid motor an "engine". Anyone referring to the "solid rocket engines" would have gotten funny looks.

And then there are "jets" and "thrusters". It all depends on the cultural jargon of the program you are working on.

Seems like it's common at least in some circles. Over here it's definitely not usual.
 
Shame we don't have sound for that Al Jazeera clip given what's been said about the JDAM's audio signature
Best I could do for ya is this JDAM compilation from Iraq/Afghanistan. There's a bunch more in this very thread that can also be used for comparison. Again, you be the judge.
 
Until someone with actual knowledge on the topic analyzes it, I'm not putting too much stock into sound. It's about the weakest possible indicator.
The JDAMs are manufactured by Boeing and were used by the US during Afghanistan, Iraq, the 2022 Russia-Ukraine invasion, and most importantly the Israeli-Gaza conflict of 2023.
1697587020846.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition#Development

and here are a list of the current users of said type of bomb

1697587290755.png


Also the claim of the misfire is just now being corroborated by... the IDF? (nearly 3 hours after their initial post from the official Israel account)
1697587753090.png



https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1714403025136017784 (archive https://archive.ph/ogpcB)
 

Attachments

  • 1697587572892.png
    1697587572892.png
    52.9 KB · Views: 16
Would a rocket plummet straight down like that.

I mean, generally when you throw things, they break up, they don't suddenly drop at a 90 degrees angle downwards.

Any smarter Kiwi would check the math on it? The rocket was going fast, than something happened, and than there was an explosion directly under it/behind it. Is the warhead heavy enough to do that, cancel all inertia and just drop like a stone?
Much faster than a stone.

What makes it tricky is the camera is panning and zooming without a frame of reference.
 
Compare the Al Jazeera footage to the phonefag footage. You be the judge
View attachment 5422762
View attachment 5422764
The shrieking sound can not be accounted for really with a “fragmented rocket” falling. Also the explosion on the ground happens 6 seconds after intercept which means it had time to fall only 600 feet not accounting for the momentum of it heading up(so less a little). I can’t judge if that rocket was higher than 600 feet but I would think being a rocket that it certainly was at a higher altitude than only 600 feet as it had been traveling in an upward trajectory for several seconds prior and would have to have been traveling at terrific speed.
 
An analysis by a "Marine Corps Veteran expert":

Marine Corps Veteran expert analysis of the recent bombing incident at the hospital reveals critical findings:

- Fuel Explosion Duration: The initial explosion likely lasted 0.5-0.75 seconds, emitting light for a brief period. This suggests it is not an incendiary device.

- Parking Lot Damage: The damage in the parking lot is attributed to either overpressure or a fuel explosion. There's minimal debris near the cars.

- Shielding Effect: A surrounding building shielded one side of the parking lot, preventing diesel/gas fires from reaching the vehicles. All windows in nearby buildings shattered due to the primary and fuel explosions.

- Last Video Variation: The final video displays a smaller fuel explosion, and the submunition release is less clear.

CONCLUSION:

- The explosive device likely ranged from 300-600 lbs. Larger bombs would've scattered more debris in the parking lot than on buildings.

- A 700lb+ bomb would've caused more damage to building tops due to shockwaves.

- Most visible damage is attributed to the fuel explosion; the primary explosion likely caused structural damage.

Probable munitions and their possessors:

1. Mk-82/Mk-83 General Purpose Bombs:
- Possessed by: Multiple countries, including the US and NATO members. Versatile, unguided bombs.

2. GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB):
- Possessed by: United States and allies. Known for precision strikes.

3. GBU-12 Paveway II Laser-Guided Bomb:
- Possessed by: United States and allies. Converts unguided bombs into precise munitions.

4. AGM-65 Maverick Missile:
- Possessed by: United States and allies. Air-to-surface missile for precision strikes.

Audio Analysis: Based on the video, we can hear what the Hamas missiles and a JDAM missile sound like. Then, we have the audio of the attack on the hospital, and it sounds very similar to a JDAM missile. Hamas does not have the infrastructure and capabilities to fire a JDAM.

These insights offer clarity into the incident, highlighting potential munitions and the militaries that may possess them, and that could have been behind the attacks.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

Based on the evidence, this could not have been the Islamic Jihad, as claimed by the Israeli Defense Force, based on our analysis of the information we have so far.

They do not possess the capabilities for such advanced weaponry.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:

This is an analysis is preliminary, and is done by a Marine Corps Veteran Explosives & Ordinance Expert, and reviewed by many others.

Source:
 
Much faster than a stone.

What makes it tricky is the camera is panning and zooming without a frame of reference.

The shrieking sound can not be accounted for really with a “fragmented rocket” falling. Also the explosion on the ground happens 6 seconds after intercept which means it had time to fall only 600 feet not accounting for the momentum of it heading up(so less a little). I can’t judge if that rocket was higher than 600 feet but I would think being a rocket that it certainly was at a higher altitude than only 600 feet as it had been traveling in an upward trajectory for several seconds prior and would have to have been traveling at terrific speed.

Yeah. I mean I guess it is not impossible that the missile fargmented in a way that sent the warhead down straight at a hospital with pinpoint accuracy, where it hit and exploded as it should on a normal hit.
But it would need Jahowe and his Messiah Chris Chan's full power to pull off a coincidence of that magnitude.

This definately would benefit from an actual neutral expert analysing the physics of it. But we won't get any.
 
The shrieking sound can not be accounted for really with a “fragmented rocket” falling. Also the explosion on the ground happens 6 seconds after intercept which means it had time to fall only 600 feet not accounting for the momentum of it heading up(so less a little). I can’t judge if that rocket was higher than 600 feet but I would think being a rocket that it certainly was at a higher altitude than only 600 feet as it had been traveling in an upward trajectory for several seconds prior and would have to have been traveling at terrific speed.
Everything falls at the same rate. If the height is known we can calculate how long it would take to fall. The speed of the missile can be estimated pretty well. This is a math problem. Where am I wrong?
 
I'm having a hard time believing Hamas has the weapon capability of launching weapons that can level an entire building. Is there any other evidence of this happening?
There is a solution to the issue that hasn't been considered. Counter fire. The rocket going up would have revealed the launch site to Israeli Artillery. If Hamas launched the rocket close to the Hospital, all it would take is minor mathematical errors in the targeting solution or some counter fire radar operator fat fingering the wrong number to send the counter fire off course by 100 meters. Into the hospital instead of the launch site.
 
Has anyone found pics of the buildings or impact zone? So many articles are using random destroyed Gaza building images and other attacks too. All i've found are right after. A lot of windows still intact right next to burning crap, including cars etc. It seems like the explosion was more of a fireball than full size (for the explosion seen) HE blast. I mean this could all be wrong, as i've said, only found a few images so far.



Would a rocket plummet straight down like that.

I mean, generally when you throw things, they break up, they don't suddenly drop at a 90 degrees angle downwards. This looked like it dropped straight down, without making an arc that you would expect something heavy to do after being pushed by a rocket.

Any smarter Kiwi would check the math on it? The rocket was going fast, than something happened, and than there was an explosion directly under it/behind it. Is the warhead heavy enough to do that, cancel all inertia and just drop like a stone?

I was thinking about that. Do we really have as good of a perspective on that as we think? For all we know it did travel a fair ways on a downward angle. Also it does some weird shit before it actually "fails", it could have already broken apart by that point. Just putting it out there. Lots of questions.
 
Last edited:
Everything falls at the same rate. If the height is known we can calculate how long it would take to fall. The speed of the missile can be estimated pretty well. This is a math problem. Where am I wrong?
You don't have the army of autists that you would have asking this on /pol/ who would be able to "MATH" this out. But right now it's a warzone of it's own.
 
Back