[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket
EDIT: typos
Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd caution everyone during this time to take what they see online with a grain of salt. It's propaganda season.
I know my comment is ad hominem, but track records count for something, and while they have no bearing on the value of an argument, they sure should affect your degree of suspicion and scrutiny of said argument.
Personally, the red flags from your post were that you have hardly any post history, you came out claimed to be a munitions/explosives expert, usually you don't have to do that, the knowledge speaks for itself. Your rebuttal didn't seem to be as strong compared to GPs reasoning, and it ended with a conclusion that seemed to be more of an opinion, not objective reasoning.
--
I don't think the ad hominem attack by (epgui) and (jaquesm) is warranted, it definitely isn't "Fact". I reply to many topics both political and technical, as does everyone. If I have such a consistent track record of "patently unreasonable comments" then you should be able to support your argument.
Again, I did not mean any offense by my initial statement.
I'm not claiming to be anything.
> Why should they not?
There's no rule against it, it's just a red flag
> But it gives context.
Not really anymore than going into the details of explosives.
> That's your opinion.
Yes it's my opinion, I never claimed it as fact. That's why I used "seemed".
No, it really isn't. If someone is an expert in some field then that is good context to have.
If there was something that you disagreed with in that post you should have engaged with that like others did instead of trying to discredit the poster based on your personal idea of what is an accounts credibility status.
Personally, orbital-decay's reasoning was more sound and expansive than master_crab's. The source drop that provided no context was a red flag in my eyes combined with the direct countering without sound reasoning. I did NOT want to share my personal reasoning though as I'm not an expert.
Again, I simply wanted to caution others without attacking the GP. I did later have to expand on why I was cautioning in replies, which could be viewed as "discrediting", but I didn't want to divulge those opinions in the first place because it's distracting.
- EDIT because post limit -
> @jacquesm: The irony.
Not really. I initially didn't want to share it, that paragraph was my personal opinion and the last sentence of the paragraph was me saying I didn't want to share it, but I had to in later replies because of the fuss.
You left out the context of:
> I simply wanted to caution others without attacking the GP. I did later have to expand on why I was cautioning in replies.
> I did NOT want to share my personal reasoning though as I'm not an expert.
The irony.
Not only is it small (like you pointed out) AA missiles also tend to focus on fragmentation damage (expanding metal rings, directed frag etc).
Source: I used to be an explosives expert in the military.
Edit: Completely forgot to mention fuzing systems. This missile detonated on contact with the building. I have yet to come across an AA missile that detonates on contact with an object. All (effective) AA missiles use proximity sensors (radar, thermal, etc) to detonate near their target.
Also, if it was a misfire, most modern missiles have fail safes that disable the detonation of the main charge in case of an accidental firing.
Again, I could be wrong and this could be an AA missile, but all signs point to no; it isn’t.