Quote:
Originally posted by Felix The Assassin:
Your link to that video tells a lot to the trained eye. First lets talk about the pops, and cracks, and the increased fire. Thats called secondary explosions, probably 25mm, belts of 7.62mm, or grenades cooking off.
Now, as the media man walks into view, and the narrator, shrills nobody expected what happened next. Show me where the AH fired, show me what it fired, don't show a burning BFV that is already experiencing secondary explosions. I say it's "look at what the Americans did", when from what I saw, it was a secondary explosion, probably from a TOW missile that destroyed the BFV and the crowd. The AHs were overhead awaiting the CIVPOL and Military to evacuate, and make the area safe. Prior to firing.
Relook the begining of the clip, and it's clear as bottled water, the BFV is already experienceing secondary explosions.
Relook the part where they claim the AH fired. Why all of a sudden did the picture change? I say media work to claim something that never happened! The BFV was destroyed by a secondary explosion from within.
Relook the foreground, if the AH would have fired a 'Hellfire" those two trees would no longer be, and half that city block would be gone, not just the minor concentrated danage.
My final two cents. The major blast was contained with-in the BFV, that is what contained the brunt of the blow. If that would have been a 'Hellfire' there would be no video to examine from that camera!
|
Interesting theory, and kudos to you if it turns out to be true. But as it is right now, it doesn't confirm with witness reports - unless you think the BBC and the Guardian were in on the sham.
Oh, and if what you say is true, wouldn't there have been at least an official US military source issuing statements regarding this? Did the military at least *deny* the accusations, as they've done before?
[ 09-16-2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]