[careinke]

Who benefited from the pipeline explosions? The Russians or the Americans?
Peace

The Chinese. Do try and get just a LITTLE outside the obvious box.

So the Chinese blew up the pipeline? I agree the Chinese have certainly profited from the situation, but I doubt they blew up the pipelines.

Peace

[Newfie]

You and I interpret those statements very differently.

How do you interpret them?

When people threaten to carry out a crime, then said crime happens, then the people who threatened the crime say they are "very gratified" at the result, I pay attention. That is power.

I interpret them as junivile statements.

I see no evidence Biden did anything.

Now however we are told the Danes have pics of just the sort of vessle you would expect to place these charges, at the scene of the crime shortly before.

That is tangible evidence of practical amity to do the deed and also being at the scene.

We've been told lots of stuff, most of it false. Everything you link to says "may have" in their conclusions. They claim to have the evidence but won't produce it. Just trust them....yeah right.

Who benefited from the pipeline explosions? The Russians or the Americans?

Peace

Carinke,

I suspect we are in that area where our biases are in charge. And also there is a large amount of pure BS, the whole thing about the yacht for example.

There is quite a bit of evidence when you start going back over the tracks of naval vessels during the last year. None of it is completely damning but points to Russia.

As to who benefited there are various arguments and we each pick our own to support our belief system. I find my ideas quite compelling.

[AdamB]

Who benefited from the pipeline explosions? The Russians or the Americans?
Peace

The Chinese. Do try and get just a LITTLE outside the obvious box.

So the Chinese blew up the pipeline?

No. They didn't.

I agree the Chinese have certainly profited from the situation, but I doubt they blew up the pipelines.
Peace

Smart guy Hitman. They didn't blow up the pipeline. It was just a precondition to the deal that was cut so that one side lacked the ability to back out of the deal should they change their mind. Think of it like...Cortez having his men burn their boats. The ability to change the deal in the short term was eliminated in the short to medium term to the satisfaction of those helping Russia survive. You understand that Russia is effectively becoming Xi's bitch, right?

[jato0072]

I see no evidence Biden did anything.

Plausible deniability.

"Plausible deniability is the ability of people, typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command, to deny knowledge of or responsibility for actions committed by members of their organizational hierarchy. They may do so because of a lack or absence of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. If illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts to insulate themselves and shift the blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible (credible), but sometimes, it makes any accusations only unactionable."

[AdamB]

I see no evidence Biden did anything.

Plausible deniability.

Good thing that neither the word, nor the definition, means that the US blew up the pipeline.

[jato0072]

Gee Adam, that was real insightful. I am glad to read 1% of what you write on this site.

I could ask you Adam what you think happened to Nordstream, but you won't answer. Instead you will dodge the question.

[AdamB]

Gee Adam, that was real insightful. I am glad to read 1% of what you write on this site.

No need to pretend you are glad of 1% of what I write. But just as chicken little, perma doomer peak oilers morphed into random financial/geopolitical/precious metal conspiracies, my brain was working correctly back then knowing a pile of crap claim and is just as sharp now.

I could ask you Adam what you think happened to Nordstream, but you won't answer. Instead you will dodge the question.

I've already answered the question. Russia blew it up, and the concurrent and knock on effects in their gas sales, and to whom, and the visible consequences in terms of imports/exports and specialized equipment to allow use of that gas by a 3rd party, and their specific actions (not the nonsense blathering of politicians that so fascinate conspiracy folks) are great hints as to the why.

Feel free not to read any speculation not based on random claims of plausible deniability and what some talking head saying something random that supports yet another random conspiracy thought (US bad! Everyone else good!). I mean, folks who couldn't be bothered to understand how things as basic as oil development works probably better just stick with fantasy league geopolitics.

[Newfie]

A thoughtful response is provided at this link. It is a review of major theories and how they stand with info to date.

https://icds.ee/en/pipes-and-mirrors-th ... xplosions/

[jato0072]

By mid-February, the pipe was filled with gas, and the project was ready to go. Yet on the 22nd, Germany terminated it.

With that decision, it removed the motive for destroying the pipelines. That is the key reason why Hersh has no case. Destroying the pipelines would have been an act of war (as Hersh acknowledges). The United States might have had the means, but it no longer had cause. Why destroy the pipelines after the battle had been won and there were far more important things to do? Hersh has not answered that question, and neither has anyone else.

Logic fail. The pipelines were destroyed to prevent Germany from negotiating with Russia and thereby undermining the western coalition.

The USA had the motive. The USA publicly warned multiple times the NS Pipelines would end if Russia invaded Ukraine. After the destruction of NS Victoria Nuland publicly announced her pleasure. All the evidence points to the USA or one of their allies is responsible. I have seen no motive or credible evidence Russia destroyed their own infrastructure and also destroyed a valuable tool with which to subvert Germany.

[careinke]

Carinke,

I suspect we are in that area where our biases are in charge. And also there is a large amount of pure BS, the whole thing about the yacht for example.

There is quite a bit of evidence when you start going back over the tracks of naval vessels during the last year. None of it is completely damning but points to Russia.

As to who benefited there are various arguments and we each pick our own to support our belief system. I find my ideas quite compelling.

You are correct about our biases, guess we will just have to wait and see. Who knows, maybe Putin felt so confident he could easily bypass any Western sanctions he blew up his own already turned off pipeline. Probably to encourage the West into a more aggressive stance thinking he could win WWIII.

Hey, as an aside, I have a question about your plan to restructure the presidential elections (which I Like). Could former Governor's run as long as they served at least one term, or would it be restricted to serving Governor's only? I'd prefer the former.

Peace

[Newfie]

Yes, former Governors. That gives us a pretty large and wide group of people to choose from.

[Newfie]

Frankly I do not ANY of the theories for ANY of the actors compelling. I don’t see any LOGICAL reason for anyone to blow up the pipeline. In essence both sides, Russia and NATO, had turned off the pipeline before the blasts. Recall that dust up about the turbine that was in Canada for repair. The West did not want to return it, but Germany did, and then finally when it was returned Russia would not use it because of some paper work. That was all well before the explosions.

Also recently I stumbled across an old Economist article that said there was no need for NordStream 2 as there was already excess pipeline capacity.

If one is looking at “logic” then both sides had already stopped, or curtailed, the flow. And as long as the pipes worked they could he used as leverage, either to withhold delivery or to withhold acceptance. The destruction removed this from the table, made a strong commitment to breaking ties. Why?

From that point you can spin many different theories as to WHY, but nothing really substantive or verifiable. I have my own pet explanations but they are just satisfying my iwn need to answer “Why?” I believe there is a great chance that we will never know “Why?” even if we do find out “Who?”.

Perhaps the one pointer we have is that the USA seems to have pervasive security leaks, and nothing has leaked on this operation. That is encouraging.

I also believe that we can discount the Hersch story. It has many, many holes he will not attempt to fill. Likewise the yacht story, baloney. There is some possibility it played a support role, perhaps as a secondary communications node. Or perhaps simply as a distraction.

From a very personal point of view, and subjective opinion, a NATO operation would have included too many operators, we can’t agree enough to have done it. Putin, on the other hand, has only himself to answer to. From that perspective Russia is the simplest answer. just my 2¢.

[Tanada]

US knew Ukraine planned to sabotage Nord Stream – WaPo

US knew Ukraine planned to sabotage Nord Stream – WaPo
American spies knew for months that Ukrainian state operatives planned on destroying the Nord Stream gas pipelines, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing leaked Pentagon documents. While the report implicates Kiev in the act of sabotage, it does not disprove the theory – put forward by journalist Seymour Hersh – that the US took out the pipelines.

The Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines were destroyed in a series of near-simultaneous explosions off the Danish island of Bornholm in September. The blasts severed a key conduit for Russian natural gas to Europe, effectively removing the possibility of European countries lifting their sanctions on Moscow and restarting gas purchases.

Three months earlier, the Post reported, “the Biden administration learned from a close ally that the Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network, using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces,” General Valery Zaluzhny.

The CIA learned of the plot from an unnamed European intelligence agency with an agent in Ukraine, the newspaper claimed, citing the so-called 'Pentagon documents', a trove of files shared on a Discord server in February by a US Air National Guard member.

Ukrainian officials, who have previously claimed that Russia destroyed its own pipeline, did not respond to the Washington Post’s request for comment. The CIA likewise remained silent, and the White House refused to answer when asked “whether US officials tried to stop the mission from proceeding.”

The story is similar to earlier reporting by the New York Times, which claimed in March that a “pro-Ukrainian group” took out the gas lines, and by Germany’s Der Spiegel, which separately claimed that the group used a rented yacht to transport explosives to the blast site.

These theories have been contradicted by American reporter Seymour Hersh, who claimed in February that the Biden administration ordered the CIA to bomb the conduits with the help of the Norwegian Navy. The rented yacht story, Hersh said afterwards, was planted in the US and German media as a red herring by the CIA and its German counterpart, the BND.

The yacht appears again in the Washington Post’s latest report, only in this telling, the would-be bombers planned on renting it from a different European port. The Post’s report does not offer any evidence exculpating the US from eventually carrying out the bombing.

[Newfie]

Lots of back and forth on this one.

In an exclusive story, The Washington Post on Tuesday reported that "three months before saboteurs bombed the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, the Biden administration learned from a close ally that the Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network, using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces."
The newspaper wrote that a European intelligence service collected the information and shared it with the CIA in June 2022. The details "provide some of the most specific evidence to date linking the government of Ukraine to the eventual attack in the Baltic Sea, which U.S. and Western officials have called a brazen and dangerous act of sabotage on Europe’s energy infrastructure," the Post reported.
The European intelligence report was shared on the chat platform Discord, allegedly by Air National Guard member Jack Teixeira. The Post said it obtained a copy from one of Teixeira’s online friends.
When asked about the story during a briefing Tuesday, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby declined to “engage in a discussion about intelligence matters from the podium specifically with regard to that disclosure or any of the other,” he said. “And in this case, certainly not going to speak to one that The Washington Post even said was not corroborated by U.S. intelligence agencies.”

IMHO the whole Andromeda yacht story at best a effort to divert attention.

As a diver and yacht owner I am calling BS on the concept.

It is very hard for people, even experienced divers and captains, tk put the pieces together. Can you dive 200 feet? Sure. Can you dive from a yacht? Sure. Can you plant explosives? Sure.

Can 6 people take a sailboat off shore for a week, a sailboat not designed for the work, put divers down multiple times, recover them in 4’ to 6’ seas, with no recovery gear, do it over a precise location, and return the boat in near perfect condition? Not a chance in hell.

I could go on and on. Once you put all the pieces together; boat, weather, task, time frame it just does not add up. For a start stand at you kitchen counter, put a 40 lb pack of potatoes in a back pack. Now imagine getting on the counter as it goes up and down 4 feet every 4 seconds. And the reality is far harder than that for when a sail boat (like the Andromeda) derives its stability from the wind pressure in the sail AND from the water moving over the deep fin keel, which itself is an aerofoil form. Stop the boat and it looses most of its stability, you can’t even steer it. It is nearly impossible to stand up, handholds are required to move around.

Most people have a hard time envisioning what even moderate conditions are like.

[careinke]

Lots of back and forth on this one.

IMHO the whole Andromeda yacht story at best a effort to divert attention.

As a diver and yacht owner I am calling BS on the concept.

It is very hard for people, even experienced divers and captains, tk put the pieces together. Can you dive 200 feet? Sure. Can you dive from a yacht? Sure. Can you plant explosives? Sure.

Can 6 people take a sailboat off shore for a week, a sailboat not designed for the work, put divers down multiple times, recover them in 4’ to 6’ seas, with no recovery gear, do it over a precise location, and return the boat in near perfect condition? Not a chance in hell.

I could go on and on. Once you put all the pieces together; boat, weather, task, time frame it just does not add up. For a start stand at you kitchen counter, put a 40 lb pack of potatoes in a back pack. Now imagine getting on the counter as it goes up and down 4 feet every 4 seconds. And the reality is far harder than that for when a sail boat (like the Andromeda) derives its stability from the wind pressure in the sail AND from the water moving over the deep fin keel, which itself is an aerofoil form. Stop the boat and it looses most of its stability, you can’t even steer it. It is nearly impossible to stand up, handholds are required to move around.

Most people have a hard time envisioning what even moderate conditions are like.

As I am also a Diver and a Sailor, I whole heartedly concur with your assessment. They didn't set the bombs.

I'm thinking the Executive found out about the Ukrainian Nazi plot to blow up the pipelines preventing Germany from purchasing Russian Oil. Finding the Ukrainian plan lacking, we stepped in to ensure the sabotage was successful.

Praise for the leaker.

Peace

[Newfie]

I doubt it but anything is possible.

Speaking of anything possible are you following the alien story?

[Newfie]

News from Aljazerra citing other news reports.

“Taken together, the details show that the boat sailed around each of the locations where the blasts later took place – evidence that fortified investigators’ belief that the Andromeda was instrumental in last year’s destruction of the pipeline,” it said.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/1 ... and-report

It seems they have been able to reconstruct some of the voyage from ships nav equipment and radio logs. And that Andromeda was in the vicinity.

What I find amazing is these sources fail to cite the Russian tanker loitering in the area or the Russian submarine rescue vessel with its own submersible who were photographed in the area during the same period. Nor do they mention the two NATO vessels running search patterns a few days adjacent to the attack site.

So when they say Andromeda was “instrumental” that may be true. But then recall there has not been a single story which has laid ALL of the confirmed information. Of which Andromeda is but a small bit. It may well be that Andromeda had some role in the attack; perhaps as an on site command or communications vessel or as a standby recovery vessel.

Oliver Alexander, a well respected investigator, has done a fair job of pulling it all together, but he has not updated his analysis to include all the recent data into a singular comprehensive report.

Media reports continue to spew BS by publishing discredited (Hersch) and circulating incomplete reports.

[Newfie]

I thought some of you may find the following snippet of discussion concerning the pipeline interesting. It is 2 folks discussion the physical damage data. The first is going off seismic data alone, the second considering the effect the escaping gas may have had.

The intent is just to give some insight into the ongoing thought process.

when considering the means by which explosives were detonated, one factor is the likely location of the explosives on the pipelines ? For NS 1A there were probably two locations ~250 metres apart; for NS1B there were also probably two locations ~290 metres apart and about 9 kilometres from the explosion locations on NS1A. For NS2A(S) there was one location about 3 kilometres from the NS1B explosion locations. At the NS2A(D) location about 80 kilometres away there were possibly two locations about 75 metres apart.

This is based upon the recent information published by Erik Anderson. I say 'probably' or 'possibly' because it seems that there might be some uncertainty; Erik Anderson suggests that there was only one explosion near the centre of the missing sections on NS1A, NS1B and NS2A(D) and that the ruptures and craters were formed by the escaping gas and violent 'whiplash' action of the pipelines. Whilst I have always argued that the force of the discharged gas is being underestimated by many, I'm not convinced that the ruptures and severe damage was caused primarily by the gas and not by two explosive devices on each pipeline. Several reasons for this but either way we can only speculate as to whether it was one or two explosions on these 3 pipelines at this time.

[jato0072]

The Western GAE leaders publicly warned they would bring an end to it. Then they did it. Victoria Nuland gloated in front of the camera. Germany did nothing. The details are trivial. Germany's government does not care. Now they can have their industrial decline a bit early.

[Newfie]

Jato,

That is a nice rant. The problem is there is no data there, no evidence. It could be just as you say but there are other equally valid explanations.

I KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT evidence exists but it is being withheld. WHY is another question. Governments have disclosed they have photographic evidence they will not release.

I think when you draw back and take a look at the bigger picture it becomes clearer that there is some massive strategy being played out we are not privy to.

Why indeed is evidence being withheld?
The propaganda machines are working overtime to throw shade here or there.
REAL information, indisputable, that has been uncovered is left unreported by the media. Satellite and surface pictures of ship movements for example.

This extends to the greater Ukraine war effort. EU/NATO is drip feeding Ukraine arms, enough to keep hope but not enough to win. Why? If NATO was out to simply defeat Russia what better use of their arms than to back Ukraine to the hilt and let their boys die fighting instead of our.

I don’t buy the Military Industrial Complex is getting rich argument. This war is accelerating the fall of globalization, and that is hurting the MIC, who also trade in commercial goods, more than helping. It is putting EU in danger of a immigrant surge that would destabilize all of Europe. The longer the war extends the deeper these scars become. This is not a trivial war in todays over extended and globalized trade environment.

I generally do not like conspiracy theories, they are always too complex to hold together. But perhaps there has been some concurrence of Western thought that is allowing this situation to extend. And somehow, hiding the knowledge of who did the NordStream pipeline is important to the bigger picture.

This is not to point fingers at any one actor; China, Russia, USA, Ukraine whatever. My personal gut says it was Russia, I think the hard evidence leans in that direction, and yet there are viable alternative explanations for everything we know. The simple fact is I, nor anyone else, do not KNOW who did it or why.