Was the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza hit by an Israeli airstrike or PIJ rocket?

or just send pictures, and have them be discounted as being from a different explosion when they come back as israeli
you dont send them, you film them in place the next morning. the bomb guys may not be able to tell depending on what pieces are left, but i doubt you need a lab because metal is metal. like how airplane guys can sometimes tell if pieces of plane came off a certain type of aircraft etc.

just saying. if you can opine a light in the sky proves such and such. then i can opine it's suspicious they didnt attempt to show fragments on film.
 
to actually know things like that if you immediately disbelieve the authorities in gaza, you need independent qualified people on the ground
If they were confident that the hospital was damaged by an Israeli airstrike, Hamas could have documented the recovery of fragments using phones to record their collection and storage.

There are UN personnel on the ground who could be given the evidence.
 
There are UN personnel on the ground who could be given the evidence.
what's your basis for that claim?

"Explainer: UN on the ground amid Israel-Palestine crisis", UN News, 10/10/23,
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/1...oyees continued working for other UN agencies.

External Quote:
The UN relief agency for Palestine refugees, UNWRA, currently has 13,000 national and international staff, most of them refugees themselves, in Gaza and nearly 4,000 in the West Bank.
In addition, hundreds of employees continued working for other UN agencies.
External Quote:
The World Food Programme (WFP) and UNRWA were coordinating the distribution of bread to displaced people in the shelters in Gaza.

"Israeli PM Netanyahu says military is 'preparing for ground operation' as Gaza aid runs out",
ITV News, 25/10/23,

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-25...ue-to-lack-of-fuel-as-third-of-hospitals-shut
External Quote:
The main UN agency working in Gaza says it will be forced to halt its aid operations later today due to a lack of fuel.
External Quote:
The UN has warned its main agency working in Gaza will be forced to halt its aid operations for its civilians due to fuel shortages.

"11 UN staff, 30 pupils at UN schools, killed in Gaza, says spokesperson",
The Times of Israel, 25/10/23,
https://www.timesofisrael.com/11-un-staff-30-pupils-at-un-schools-killed-in-gaza-says-spokesperson/

External Quote:
At least 11 UN staff and personnel, as well as 30 students at UN schools, have been killed in the Gaza Strip since Hamas terrorists launched their devastating shock attack on Israel, a spokesman said Wednesday. “30 UNRWA students have also been killed and another eight have been injured,” she added.
https://twitter.com/UNRWA
 
"Explainer: UN on the ground amid Israel-Palestine crisis", UN News, 10/10/23,
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142127#:~:text=The UN relief agency for Palestine refugees, UNWRA,,of employees continued working for other UN agencies.

External Quote:
The UN relief agency for Palestine refugees, UNWRA, currently has 13,000 national and international staff, most of them refugees themselves, in Gaza and nearly 4,000 in the West Bank.
In addition, hundreds of employees continued working for other UN agencies.
External Quote:
The World Food Programme (WFP) and UNRWA were coordinating the distribution of bread to displaced people in the shelters in Gaza.

"Israeli PM Netanyahu says military is 'preparing for ground operation' as Gaza aid runs out",
ITV News, 25/10/23,

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-25...ue-to-lack-of-fuel-as-third-of-hospitals-shut
External Quote:
The main UN agency working in Gaza says it will be forced to halt its aid operations later today due to a lack of fuel.
External Quote:
The UN has warned its main agency working in Gaza will be forced to halt its aid operations for its civilians due to fuel shortages.

"11 UN staff, 30 pupils at UN schools, killed in Gaza, says spokesperson",
The Times of Israel, 25/10/23,
https://www.timesofisrael.com/11-un-staff-30-pupils-at-un-schools-killed-in-gaza-says-spokesperson/

External Quote:
At least 11 UN staff and personnel, as well as 30 students at UN schools, have been killed in the Gaza Strip since Hamas terrorists launched their devastating shock attack on Israel, a spokesman said Wednesday. “30 UNRWA students have also been killed and another eight have been injured,” she added.
https://twitter.com/UNRWA
Yes I’m aware the UN and in particular UNRWA has been in Gaza for many decades and has been critical to Palestinian society. I don’t know why you think that in the midst of this horrific siege, any UNRWA worker would be willing, able, equipped to accept, transport, safeguard bomb fragments.
 
Yes I’m aware the UN and in particular UNRWA has been in Gaza for many decades and has been critical to Palestinian society. I don’t know why you think that in the midst of this horrific siege, any UNRWA worker would be willing, able, equipped to accept, transport, safeguard bomb fragments.
You asked for evidence for my claim that there were UN personnel "on the ground",
I presented it.

The practicalities of the situation might well prevent UN staff from being in a position to collect or receive debris.
But humanitarian workers in (broadly) analogous situations have done so in the past, re. chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, and collection of evidence in the former Yugoslavia, often at great risk to themselves.

If whoever had de facto physical control of the hospital's environs made no attempt to collect and preserve evidence (and I don't know whether that's the case or not), it would necessarily raise questions about their account of events.
 
Rockets clearly can unintentionally change direction, including turns of 180 degrees (and more):
Von Braun and team joked that the V2 had a radius of the height of the rocket, as it so frequently fell straight from the gantry without blasting off at all. When one landed across the Mexican border in Juarez, enterprising salesmen stripped junk appliances of anything metallic they could sell as "rocket parts".
 
You asked for evidence for my claim that there were UN personnel "on the ground",
I presented it.

The practicalities of the situation might well prevent UN staff from being in a position to collect or receive debris.
But humanitarian workers in (broadly) analogous situations have done so in the past, re. chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, and collection of evidence in the former Yugoslavia, often at great risk to themselves.

If whoever had de facto physical control of the hospital's environs made no attempt to collect and preserve evidence (and I don't know whether that's the case or not), it would necessarily raise questions about their account of events.
I guess I wasn’t clear. You said there are UN workers *who could be given the evidence.* I was asking for evidence of that claim. Anyway, I agree with your other points
 
"Explainer: UN on the ground amid Israel-Palestine crisis", UN News, 10/10/23,
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142127#:~:text=The UN relief agency for Palestine refugees, UNWRA,,of employees continued working for other UN agencies.

External Quote:
The UN relief agency for Palestine refugees, UNWRA, currently has 13,000 national and international staff, most of them refugees themselves, in Gaza and nearly 4,000 in the West Bank.
In addition, hundreds of employees continued working for other UN agencies.
External Quote:
The World Food Programme (WFP) and UNRWA were coordinating the distribution of bread to displaced people in the shelters in Gaza.
To be fair, relief agencies are there to give relief, not forensic evidence. In the midst of a humanitarian crisis, ascribing blame is not their raison d'être.
 
Yes I’m aware the UN and in particular UNRWA has been in Gaza for many decades and has been critical to Palestinian society. I don’t know why you think that in the midst of this horrific siege, any UNRWA worker would be willing, able, equipped to accept, transport, safeguard bomb fragments.

You asked about transporting evidence, and the answer to that has already been given: "using phones"
 
Here's my analysis of the Camera 1 video:


Screen Shot 2023-10-24 at 9.38.54 PM.png


Location: Bat Yam, Israel - Looking generally south. Maybe 190 degrees...


The two buildings on the left edge of the frame are:
Taller and closer to camera: The Sunset Beach Hotel (This name is my best guess. This property seems to have a troubled history and doesn't appear to be open. No lights. But I think that's the name.)
Shorter and farther from camera, with vertical line of windows: Beach Colony Apts.

Sunset Beach Kropped.png




The most likely camera position: Somewhere (perhaps the roof) on The Arena Hotel By The Beach.
Arena Hotel By The Beach Kropped.png

Note The Sunset Beach Hotel to the south. I chose the Arena Hotel building as the most likely camera position because there's no taller building between it and the The Sunset Beach Hotel. Also, the Arena Hotel is not visible in the camera frame.



Analysis of what is within the camera frame, and line of sight to Qassam rocket launch site:
In the Camera 1 view, we are looking generally SSW. The left side of the frame is on the east and the right side is on the west.

I've added some lines to the Google Earth View of this area. The top of this map is south. The lines diverge from the Arena Hotel. The line on our left (east side of this map) represents the left side of the Camera 1 video frame. Nothing to the left (east) of this line would be visible in the frame.

The line on our right (west) stretches all the way to the Qassam rocket launch site in Gaza.
Left Frame and Site large.png




Identification of lights marked by red arrows: The Port of Ashdod, Israel
Camera 1.png


Port of Ashkod.png


Note that the Port of Ashdod is within the frame. The Port is closer to Camera 1 than is the City proper. The Port mostly hides the lights of the City of Ashdod.

The Port of Ashdod at night. Lots of lights.
harbor-6929982.png


The Eshkol Power Station is in the Port area.
1200px-WikiAir_IL-13-06_010.JPG


Cranes on the north side of the Port, nearest to Camera 1
Cranes 2.png

So, lot's of tall structures such as cranes and smokestacks which must have lots of lights, including blinking lights.

Daytime tourist photo from the Arena Hotel. We can see the Port of Ashdod, the power plant, and so on.
Arena Hotel.jpg


The line of sight to the launch site goes right by the far end of the main breakwater.
breakwater.png


I think that fits pretty well with the position of the Qassam rockets in boost phase relative to the lights of the Port of Ashdod, seen here.
Qassams.png




B is the location of the hospital. you can see the second ground explosion there, 7 seconds after the rocket explodes, if you watch the al jazeera segment. the WSJ thing doesn't show it
Screen Shot 2023-10-24 at 9.38.54 PM.png



Does "B" mark the light from the explosion at the hospital?: No.

Reason 1: The hospital is 38.8 miles from the camera. In the best of conditions would this mediocre camera be capable of seeing such a faint light at that distance; mostly hidden from sight by the hospital buildings and other ground clutter? Maybe.

But in this multi-generation video, there are a lot of compression artifacts and few pixels, which makes it even more doubtful we could pick out such a distant explosion mixed in with the bright ground lights.

What about the rockets? Why can we see them so clearly? Rocket exhaust is much brighter. A factor of one hundred? A thousand? They are also seen in the dark sky. Not comparable.

Reason 2: Even on a Flat Earth there's too much ground clutter between the camera and Gaza. I don't think we see much of the City of Ashdod itself. The Port is in the way. Let alone Gaza.

Reason 3: The explosion is hidden by the curvature of the Earth.
Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Distance in Miles: 38.8
Viewer height in Feet: 250

Geometric results (no refraction)
Geometric Horizon = 19.36 miles (102234.16 feet)
Geometric Drop = 1003.9 feet (12046.85 inches)
Geometric Hidden= 251.94 feet (3023.27 inches)
Geometric Horizon Dip = 0.280 Degrees, (0.0049 Radians)

In the best of conditions we would only be able to see some light from the explosion diffusely reflected from clouds.

Conclusion: You were looking at blinking lights on tall structures in the Port of Ashdod area and/or compression artifacts.
 

Attachments

  • cranes.png
    cranes.png
    1 MB · Views: 35
  • cranes.png
    cranes.png
    1 MB · Views: 41
  • harbor-6929982.png
    harbor-6929982.png
    223.5 KB · Views: 36
Last edited:
What about the single rocket just to the left (east) of center?
Screen Shot 2023-10-24 at 9.38.54 PM.png


Even though the launch sites are hidden below the horizon, it's clear this one rocket was not launched from the same site as the Qassams on the right side (West) of the frame.

Was it launched from Gaza or Israel? I can't tell.
`

About WSJ video

The WSJ states that it was a long range rocket launched from Gaza on a NE trajectory toward Israel. It turned to the west and exploded. A fragment caused the explosion at the hospital.

True?: I now consider this very doubtful.

As previously explored here, the timing isn't right. This distant view shows that this rocket was too high when it exploded for pieces to reach the ground in such a short time.

I have no confidence in their assertion the crater was caused by something coming in from the east. Too many unknown variables for such a definite conclusion. And I don't think it fits in with the direction the rocket fuel traveled.

I'm going back to my first, quick speculation. Connecting this visible rocket in the sky to the explosion seconds later was a post hoc error.


The Camera 1 video, and the line of sight I drew on the Google Earth Map, support the IDF identification of the Qassam rocket launch site: 3.2 miles to the SW of the hospital.

I speculate that an unseen Qassam artillery rocket from that launch site was responsible. In my speculative scenario, it likely failed very shortly into boost phase. From then on it was unseen because there was no rocket exhaust to see. It continued on due to inertia, but at a relatively low speed. It tumbled and fractured. The fragments followed an uneven trajectory because of aerodynamic forces on the unstabilized fragments. Two unseen fragments hit the ground and exploded. There might have been more fragments, but they were inert. The largest fragment hit the hospital driveway from almost due west and rocket fuel continued due east because of inertia. This accelerant set fire to the cars to the SE, E, and NE. The warhead also played a part. Possibly turning over the nearest car. Possibly adding atomized gasoline to the fireball.

That's my best guess. Only speculation.
 
Last edited:
edit: too much stuff, removed pedantic bit.

all the way to the Qassam rocket launch site in Gaza.
you keep mentioning this, where did you read they know where the launch site was?


True?: I now consider this very doubtful.
can you line it up with the al jezeera vid? (camera 3) . i cant do 3d spatial stuff from different directions well.

that camera i confirmed (visually, buildings, tree angle of the solar panels etc) is 'due' west of the hospital.
3.png

10-28-2023 12-12-21 PM.jpg


2:05 shows path

Source: https://youtu.be/yyNLvL_8SeY?t=125
 

Attachments

  • 1698508258216.png
    1698508258216.png
    1 MB · Views: 56
  • Bat-Yam-beach-south-2.webp
    Bat-Yam-beach-south-2.webp
    183.4 KB · Views: 53
  • 1698509803599.png
    1698509803599.png
    654 KB · Views: 55
Last edited:
Does "B" mark the light from the explosion at the hospital?: No.

Reason 1: The hospital is 38.8 miles from the camera. In the best of conditions would this mediocre camera be capable of seeing such a faint light at that distance; mostly hidden from sight by the hospital buildings and other ground clutter? Maybe.

But in this multi-generation video, there are a lot of compression artifacts and few pixels, which makes it even more doubtful we could pick out such a distant explosion mixed in with the bright ground lights.

What about the rockets? Why can we see them so clearly? Rocket exhaust is much brighter. A factor of one hundred? A thousand? They are also seen in the dark sky. Not comparable.

Reason 2: Even on a Flat Earth there's too much ground clutter between the camera and Gaza. I don't think we see much of the City of Ashdod itself. The Port is in the way. Let alone Gaza.

Reason 3: The explosion is hidden by the curvature of the Earth.
Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Distance in Miles: 38.8
Viewer height in Feet: 250

Geometric results (no refraction)
Geometric Horizon = 19.36 miles (102234.16 feet)
Geometric Drop = 1003.9 feet (12046.85 inches)
Geometric Hidden= 251.94 feet (3023.27 inches)
Geometric Horizon Dip = 0.280 Degrees, (0.0049 Radians)

In the best of conditions we would only be able to see some light from the explosion diffusely reflected from clouds.

Conclusion: You were looking at blinking lights on tall structures in the Port of Ashdod area and/or compression artifacts.
Do you dispute that we see the *first* ground explosion on the Bat Yam video, or that that explosion happens in Gaza City?
 
Last edited:
Recent additions to the Times article:

“The footage also suggests that Israeli bombardment was taking place and that two explosions near the hospital can be seen within two minutes of it being struck. Maj. Nir Dinar, an Israeli military spokesman, told The Times that military forces were not striking “within a range that endangered the hospital,” but declined to say how far away the nearest strike was.

[…]

U.S. intelligence officials said on Tuesday that agencies had assessed that the video shows a Palestinian rocket launched from Gaza undergoing a “catastrophic motor failure” before part of the rocket crashed into the hospital grounds. A senior intelligence official said the authorities could not rule out that new information would come to light that would change their assessment but said they had high confidence in their conclusions.

Asked about The Times’s findings, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said The Times and American intelligence agencies had different interpretations of the video.

Discerning what happened is especially complicated because Israel and Hamas have been firing at each other since the war began.

Israel has fired more than 8,000 munitions into Gaza, in what has become a brutal assault, and had even hit Al-Ahli Arab Hospital with an illumination artillery shell three days earlier, according to video evidence and the hospital’s official Facebook page.

[…]

In addition, the videos show that the projectile in the Al Jazeera footage was launched after the barrage of Palestinian rockets Israeli officials assessed was responsible for the hospital explosion.

From 6:59 p.m. on Oct. 17, barrages of Palestinian rockets are fired from two positions southwest and northwest of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, the videos show. Flames from the Palestinian rockets are visible in the nighttime sky as their engines propel them northeast toward Israel. More than 25 seconds elapse between the final Palestinian rocket and the hospital explosion.”
 
So it seems the public assessment by US intelligence is based, at least partially, on the Al Jazeera video. Meaning that they (claim to) think the object on that video is what struck the hospital.
 
and, i dont have acccess to the NYTimes (which you also did not include a link)..was this saltwater quote in your New York TImes article?

2 days ago

But we have not seen any evidence of weapon fragments being recovered and there has been no significant update from officials in Gaza about their investigation.

Hamas told the New York Times that the missile had disintegrated beyond recognition. "The missile has dissolved like salt in the water. It's vaporised. Nothing is left," said Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official.

Experts have said it is extremely unusual for a blast site such as this not to yield debris of this kind.

Former UN war crimes investigator Marc Garlasco tweeted: "In 20 years of investigating war crimes this is the first time I haven't seen any weapon remnants. And I've worked three wars in Gaza."
 
Last edited:
U.S. intelligence officials said on Tuesday that agencies had assessed that the video shows a Palestinian rocket launched from Gaza undergoing a “catastrophic motor failure”


OCTOBER 25, 2023
U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that they used signals intercepts, multiple video sources, photographs and geolocation technologies to arrive at a "high confidence" assessment that Israeli munitions were not the source of the deadly blast at Gaza's Al-Ahli hospital last week, laying out new details about an incident that has inflamed tensions across the Middle East.

....
Secondly, they said multiple flight videos of the launch indicated that the rocket was launched from within the Gaza strip and traveled northeast. Within seconds of its launch, officials said the "fluctuating intensity" of the rocket's plume suggested an unstable motor combustion, which was followed by one object hitting the ground, and was soon followed by a second.

"Our conclusion is that there was a catastrophic motor failure that likely occurred, which separated the motor and the warhead," one of the officials said. "The warhead landed in the hospital compound, and that was the second explosion, and a much bigger one."

 
the explosion was likely caused by a rocket launched by Palestinian militants that suffered from "catastrophic motor failure," which split off and then propelled the weapon's warhead into the hospital compound.
This would seem to imply that the fragment was still under power. This could solve the timing problem.

But, there were two ground explosions. It's unclear what the exact scenario would be in this case.

There were two fragments under power, somehow? How would that work?

And these fragments were unseen, yet still there was some kind of thrust? How is that possible?

Has a hypothetical flight path of these fragments been put forth? It would have to account for inertia.

The article continues:
The officials detailed two reasons for their more conclusive judgment that Israeli forces were not responsible for the Oct. 17 explosion. First, they said, the light structural damage caused to the hospital was consistent with a rocket and "inconsistent with the larger craters and broader blast effects" that are associated with air-dropped munitions or artillery rounds.
I think everyone has agreed on this section in bold. The initial Hamas report, (and Internet rumors), that this was a large high explosive munition is not credible.

Secondly, they said multiple flight videos of the launch indicated that the rocket was launched from within the Gaza strip and traveled northeast. Within seconds of its launch, officials said the "fluctuating intensity" of the rocket's plume suggested an unstable motor combustion, which was followed by one object hitting the ground, and was soon followed by a second.
Which would happen In too few seconds, we agree here, to be credible, due to the altitude and the timing; if we assume objects falling.

Also, I think trajectory would be a problem. Objects don't hit the ground directly under the object that dropped them. You have to account for inertia. Like bombs dropped by a plane.

"Our conclusion is that there was a catastrophic motor failure that likely occurred, which separated the motor and the warhead," one of the officials said. "The warhead landed in the hospital compound, and that was the second explosion, and a much bigger one."
This would seem to contradict the first paragraph I quoted above.

This would imply that the two ground explosions were caused by the remnants of the rear section and by another section with warhead still intact. This might account for the inertia and trajectory question, as the two ground explosions are widely separated.

But, the altitude and timing issue would remain. In the Camera 1 video, I'm going to call the rocket in question, Rocket A, for clarity. In this video we clearly see Rocket A achieve an altitude that is inconsistent with the two fragment theory. The timing is not credible.

We would have to go back to my three fragment scenario: The rocket fractured into 3 fragments. The first two fragments would have to separate well before the "catastrophic motor failure" which caused that visible fireworks-like display. The impact of the rear most section is not accounted for in this scenario; which is possible because the rear section may have been chemically inert by the time it hit, and inertia would have carried it far beyond the hospital area.



I still think my suggestion that this whole thing is a post hoc error and the rocket visible in the sky was not involved at all, is the simpler scenario. I also think it is more consistent with what we see on site.
 
Last edited:
The initial Hamas report, (and Internet rumors), that this was a large high explosive munition is not credible.
I believe that report would've been based on the hundreds of casualties reported, which was mistaken for the number of dead—we agreed above that a proper warhead would have caused that kind carnage, but as seen by daylight we now know that (thankfully) didn't happen.

I believe it's a typical fog-of-war issue of people acting in good faith on incomplete or slightly misreported information.
 
Do you dispute that we see the *first* ground explosion on the Bat Yam video, or that that explosion happens in Gaza City?
Your scenario - that you've identified the ground explosion at the hospital in the Camera 1 video - is not credible. I would say it isn't even theoretically possible.

I gave an alternative explanation. You are looking at blinking lights in the Port of Ashdod area and/or video artifacts and calling it the distant explosion.
 
Last edited:
Please clarify, then. Your style is consistently muddled and unclear, which is what I meant when I said,

You just seem to be spamming this thread with nonsense.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wa...strike-or-pij-rocket.13217/page-4#post-304387
I have to add to that. Your research is not methodical and your presentations are unclear and lazy. You don't include visuals or make an effort to present your ideas methodically. You also throw out wild ideas, haphazardly. I'm asking you to put in more effort. It's kind of expected here.
 
Last edited:
and the rocket visible in the sky was not involved at all, is the simpler scenario

why again? we see it explode in air. what goes up must come down. what is the other scenario that would have dropped two small unseen things at and near the hospital?

is the guess that we are seeing an iron dome missile, but what fell to the ground was the hamas invisible (to our eye) missile the iron dome one exploded near? or pieces of both fell?
 
I should summarize, as my points are spread out across this thread.

Post 212
What about the single rocket just to the left (east) of center?
View attachment 63874

Even though the launch sites are hidden below the horizon, it's clear this one rocket was not launched from the same site as the Qassams on the right side (West) of the frame.

Was it launched from Gaza or Israel? I can't tell.
`

About WSJ video

The WSJ states that it was a long range rocket launched from Gaza on a NE trajectory toward Israel. It turned to the west and exploded. A fragment caused the explosion at the hospital.

True?: I now consider this very doubtful.

As previously explored here, the timing isn't right. This distant view shows that this rocket was too high when it exploded for pieces to reach the ground in such a short time.

I have no confidence in their assertion the crater was caused by something coming in from the east. Too many unknown variables for such a definite conclusion. And I don't think it fits in with the direction the rocket fuel traveled.

I'm going back to my first, quick speculation. Connecting this visible rocket in the sky to the explosion seconds later was a post hoc error.


The Camera 1 video, and the line of sight I drew on the Google Earth Map, support the IDF identification of the Qassam rocket launch site: 3.2 miles to the SW of the hospital.

I speculate that an unseen Qassam artillery rocket from that launch site was responsible. In my speculative scenario, it likely failed very shortly into boost phase. From then on it was unseen because there was no rocket exhaust to see. It continued on due to inertia, but at a relatively low speed. It tumbled and fractured. The fragments followed an uneven trajectory because of aerodynamic forces on the unstabilized fragments. Two unseen fragments hit the ground and exploded. There might have been more fragments, but they were inert. The largest fragment hit the hospital driveway from almost due west and rocket fuel continued due east because of inertia. This accelerant set fire to the cars to the SE, E, and NE. The warhead also played a part. Possibly turning over the nearest car. Possibly adding atomized gasoline to the fireball.

That's my best guess. Only speculation.


Post 89
That was an early speculation. Maybe based on the intercepted conversation.

This is the updated version. But I'm not certain if this is an accurate version or just an artist's concept:
View attachment 63684
 
Last edited:
Camera 1, in Bat Yam, Israel. The big picture.

Camera 1 Big Picture.png


The red line represents the line of sight from the camera on the Arena Hotel By The Beach to the launch site. This line of sight is 41.2 miles, according to Google Earth.


This is my idea of where the launch site is. I've located it to the best of my ability here:

Launch Site Maybe.png


I don't know what this area really is. We can see that it's surrounded by an embankment, and seems to be an area that's been excavated, so that it lies below the surrounding land.

An old gravel pit or quarry??? Given the long history of this area it may be an ancient quarry. But that's almost idle speculation.
 
Last edited:
Please clarify, then. Your style is consistently muddled and unclear, which is what I meant when I said,



https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wa...strike-or-pij-rocket.13217/page-4#post-304387
I have to add to that. Your research methods are not methodical and your presentations are unclear and lazy. You don't include visuals or make an effort to present your ideas methodically. You also throw out wild ideas, haphazardly. I'm asking you to put in more effort. It's kind of expected here.
please lmk what is "muddled" about this question and i will try to clarify:

"Do you dispute that we see the *first* ground explosion on the Bat Yam video, or that that explosion happens in Gaza City?"
 
please lmk what is "muddled" about this question and i will try to clarify:

"Do you dispute that we see the *first* ground explosion on the Bat Yam video, or that that explosion happens in Gaza City?"
Suffering succotash, son. If you don't know, then how can I explain? At this point, we're just bandying words. Maybe Metabunk isn't for you.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: qed
please lmk what is "muddled" about this question and i will try to clarify:

"Do you dispute that we see the *first* ground explosion on the Bat Yam video, or that that explosion happens in Gaza City?"

i saw one possible light glow. that would certainly have to be the SECOND explosion, as the first was way to small not to be obscured by the horizon lights. and if it was the first then where's the bigger second?

"in Gaza City" ..are you asking if that glow would have been in the location of Gaza City?
 
To clarify once again. I don't think it's even theoretically possible to see either explosion in the Camera 1 video. So please forget that.
 
To clarify once again. I don't think it's even theoretically possible to see either explosion in the Camera 1 video. So please forget that.
[snip for politeness] I will break down my compound question for you:

1. Is the first ground explosion visible on the Bat Yam video?
2. Do you believe that explosion occurred in Gaza City?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To get a feeling of where the hospital site might be in the Camera 1 video, let's look at the clearly visible Qassam rockets in boost phase.

Qassams.png


Given that the launch site is 3.2 miles SW of the hospital and:
-the launch site is 41 miles from the camera
-both the launch site and the hospital are hidden by the curvature of the Earth; approximately 250 feet below the local horizon as seen from the roof of the Arena Hotel (not accounting for refraction)
-all visible lights in this video are local to Bat Yam, Israel and have nothing at all to do with Gaza
-this is a medium or wide angle lens

We can say that the hospital is, very approximately, at the point where we see the rockets first become visible above the local Bat Yam lights.

We can only eyeball it, though.
 
Last edited:
Before I leave for good, due to your persistent rudeness, I will break down my compound question for you:

1. Is the first ground explosion visible on the Bat Yam video?
2. Do you believe that explosion occurred in Gaza City?
If you watch the video and consider the chronology, you will find it very difficult to say "no" to either question. This refutes your argument that it is not possible for the Bat Yam camera to show the *second* ground explosion. Incidentally there is even a third explosion in Gaza visible from bat yam. it occurs very shortly after the rocket barrage stops. Alright bye.
 
I'm not going to re-subscribe to the NYT just to see this article.

This is not for some ideological reason. I unsubscribed from the NYT and WP for the same reason I unsubscribed from cable TV, years ago. I wasn't using the subscription often enough to justify the expense.

I've looked around for some 2nd hand description of what the article says:


According to this, the NYT article says that the visible missile/rocket - I'm calling it Rocket A - was launched from Israel and was likely unrelated to the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion.

It appears that the NYT agrees with me that connecting this visible missile/rocket to the hospital explosion is likely a post hoc error.

The post hoc fallacy occurs when we draw a causal conclusion without sufficient evidence to support it. “Post hoc” is a shortened version of the Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” meaning “after this, therefore because of this.”

Post hoc fallacies are committed when one argues that because B happened immediately after A, A must be the cause of B. The point is not that there can’t be a causal connection between A and B but rather that there isn’t adequate evidence for the conclusion.

[And I'd say that in this case, there's evidence against the conclusion. The timing issue.]
 
Last edited:
This two day old video on the Israel Defense Forces YT channel reiterates their scenario that a Qassam type artillery rocket hit the hospital.



It shows the launch site here:
IDF  Video.png


Here's a picture of where those rockets were fired from. IDF radar footage shows quite clearly that at the exact time that that the hospital was hit, rockets were being fired from a cemetery towards Israel, and that those Rockets were fired right by the hospital.



Parking Lot.png

...this picture for example presents what you would expect to see when a rocket that still has propellant lands during its boost phase; and that fuel catches fire again.


I disagree that the rocket was still in boost phase. I think this was more likely a type of CATO.


https://www.rocketmime.com/space/glossary.html
CATO: A motor failure, generally explosive, where all the propellant is burned in a much shorter time than planned. This can be a nozzle blow-out (loud, but basically harmless), an end-cap blow-out (where all of the pyrotechnic force blows FORWARD which usually does a pretty good job of removing any internal structure including the recovery system) or a casing rupture which has unpredictable, but usually devastating, effects.

A CATO does not necessarily burn all of the fuel in a rocket motor (especially true for composite fuels, which do not burn well when not under pressure). For this reason you should be especially careful when approaching a CATO.

This is why I don't think the rocket was still in boost phase:
-The boost phase is short, 1 to 5 seconds. This explosion happened well after that window.
-This rocket, or fragments of such, where not seen. They wouldn't be seen after the fuel stops burning fast enough to produce thrust.
-A CATO shortly into the boost phase would just give the rocket a push. Enough momentum to send it a short distance. But potentially leave a lot of unburned fuel inside the water pipe/rocket body.


...composite fuels, which do not burn well when not under pressure
That describes the type of fuel used in these Qassam-type artillery rockets.

The fuel may still have been burning. But slowly.

The rocket may have fragmented during the CATO and two pieces full of solid rocket fuel were blown into the sky in a ballistic trajectory. The one with the warhead hit the hospital driveway.
 
Last edited:
This rocket has the same sort of solid fuel - sugar and an oxidizer. Note the debris blown into the air.

150 mm (6") sugar rocket CATO
 
Last edited:
Note the fragment of the rocket body blown into the air at 0:11. It hits the dirt at 0:26. One difference is that the Qassam rocket would have been launched at an angle, while the rocket in this video was supposed to go straight up. How far would the fragment have traveled if this rocket had been on an angled launch stand?

R28000 Solid Rocket Motor CATO
 
Last edited:
Back
Top