What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

. . . . . . .
.
For supposedly a villa, those are quite some hardened walls.

Don't get me wrong any living thing inside cannot suvive the shockwave, but those walls still standing is unusual, even for a middle eastern area where their is heavy emphasis on concrete structures.
I agree. So why do you think the shells stand although pounded by multiple astonishingly powerful missiles shattering windows miles away? What could possibly explain that seeming contradiction? And, no, hardened structure is not the answer. 😎
 
.
For supposedly a villa, those are quite some hardened walls.

Don't get me wrong any living thing inside cannot suvive the shockwave, but those walls still standing is unusual, even for a middle eastern area where their is heavy emphasis on concrete structures.

We're not being shown the true extent of damage that was inflicted on this Mossad facility.

The videos show that several or more missiles entered the building practically on-top of each other so it's most likely safe to say that the inside of the structure is "hollowed-out" with any soft bodied target being completely obliterated.

The entire structure is reinforced to fortress-esque levels of resistance. It's quite remarkable actually. Next time Iran might need to use heavier warheads to completely demolish targets akin to this one.
 
.
We're not being shown the true extent of damage that was inflicted on this Mossad facility.

The videos show that several or more missiles entered the building practically on-top of each other so it's most likely safe to say that the inside of the structure is "hollowed-out" with any soft bodied target being completely obliterated.

The entire structure is reinforced to fortress-esque levels of resistance. It's quite remarkable actually. Next time Iran might need to use heavier warheads to completely demolish targets akin to this one.
Given the ostensible power of warheads I believe they penetrated very deep before exploding. The real target was deep underground. As such, the top structure might survive although it’ll settle a bit but not far as it’s sitting on a thick hardened platform which is yet another major protection point of the deep earth structure.

The counter argument is the structure was the target. Which means two unlikely things: 1. the work was being done above ground and 2. the missiles lacked the destructive power to annihilate the structure.

The seeming paradox of powerful explosions and the structure standing leads to the inevitable conclusion the missiles did their job underground. If the target were the structure it would’ve been powder.

Finally my question is why on earth would opponents think they can hide any of this without being identified a priori or immediately after any action? This points to a buckshot strategy of doing anything that might stick. Buckshot strategy is a sign of desperation.
 
Last edited:
.
And here we have the clearest picture to date on the scope of destruction caused to the Mossad facility.


Indications of fortified underground section to the base.

1647716232293.png


They really got them this time, no questions asked.

It's entirely destroyed......
 
Last edited:
. . . .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom