Baltic Pipeline Discussion (Current Events)

Mendel said:
The "weapons release" is implausible because none of the seismographically detected explosions occurred when the P-8 was over the Baltic Sea. Therefore, the P-8 couldn't have caused the explosion.
Click to expand...

thanks i thought that's what you said. and these are the 2 timestamps i'm comparing, right?
Mendel said:
The NS2 explosion south of Bornholm occurred at 0:03 GMT
Click to expand...
Article:
The Navy P8 then continues onto the Nord Stream Pipeline location and descends to an altitude of <10,000 ft at 0345 hrs GMT

The Navy P8 exits the area just prior to 0700 hrs and is the only aircraft over the area the entire time
 
LilWabbit said:
Therefore those of you who wish to indulge in the fringe geekery aspect of the pipeline sabotage in the name of MB guidelines, go for it. Explore the seemingly more outlandish and conspiracy-theoretical claim of the US being the saboteur. It's a claim which Russia is more than happy for all of the world to knock themselves out speculating on while feeling legitimized as a result to pursue its aggressions. The very idea that Biden was at the helm of the sabotage whets the appetite of his domestic adversaries as well and hence, unsurprisingly, the fodder that Russia has fed is being greedily chomped up on the other side of the pond.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that we should not debunk the claim that the USA was involved?

Surely that is our job here?
 
@deirdre Now I don't get it!

You showed me that @Mendel was correct. There is a claim "the USA did it" with evidence "the flight".

deirdre said:
i would say the Monkey guy (post 144) words it more like "the USA was
Article:
very likely
involved.


only in very general terms. the Monkey guy made very specific claims about what the plane did and what the flight path and altitude etc shows. I cant help you too much because i cant convert different time zone times in my head and the flight path shown by Reuters is different from the one this guy shows...i'm not interested enough to figure out which flight path is correct.


you can go through and prove or debunk his specific claims. ex 1 of his specific claims
Article:
note the little hump just before the climb out (red arrow). That is consistent with a weapons release. Pitch down, increased AoA, weapon release, little bubble up, then a climb out (the blue line is the inbound leg of the same flight).


Maybe some of these claims were addressed specifically in this thread, but since the left brained oriented members don't write for an outside audience (or me) i have no idea if they debunked any of the article parts or not.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
One of our local analysts proposed this:
External Quote:
"This version suggests that both the Nord Stream and Kerch explosions were organized by Russia following different motives. In this case, that there are competing factions in Moscow. And there is a group of hawks trying to force Putin's hand to resort to nuclear weapons. The logic behind it is very simple. If he decides to press the nuclear button, he will reveal himself to be a supervillain and can be removed. If he fails to do so, Putin will have shown weakness, and there is once again reason to take him down," Tüür offered.
-- https://news.err.ee/1608743884/analyst-nord-stream-and-kerch-bridge-explosions-linked

He tends to be quite neutral and balanced, not pushing any particular biased narratives, but I know him best because he also owns the best beer shop in Tartu (our 2nd city, and our 1st university city, which provides him with his main job).

External Quote:
Karmo Tüür (born 5 June 1967 in Pärnu) is an Estonian political scientist, beer enthusiast and entrepreneur.

He studied history and political science at the University of Tartu, where he graduated from the Pärnu Ühisgümnaasium. In 2001, he defended his bachelor's degree (dissertation "Cross-border cooperation: the Estonian-Russian example", supervisor Kaido Jaanson).

Tüür is the founder (since 1997) and director of the Academic Centre for Baltic and Russian Studies, and works at the Institute of Political Science, University of Tartu. Previously, he worked at the Pärnu Chapter of the National Institute for the Design of Cultural Monuments and at the Sütevaka Society.

He has been an academic supervisor of the International Relations Circle and has edited its article collections since 2005, as well as ABVKeskus' short-term forecasts on Russia since 2000.
-- https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmo_Tüür via https://www.deepl.com/translator
 
qed said:
@deirdre Now I don't get it!
Click to expand...
you can't debunk the claim "the USA did it" or "the USA very likely did it".

you can only debunk the claimed evidence for that assertion.
Mendel debunked the claimed evidence from MOnkeyboy (paraphrase) the plane was in the area when the explosion happened, by Mendel showing us the times do not match.
But that does not debunk the overall theory that "the USA did it, or likely did it". That theory claim cannot be debunked unless solid real evidence comes to light that someone else did it.

Pretty much everything else in this thread is speculation. everyone speculating WHY the plane was in that area (at a different time) is just that; pure speculation.


add @qed: i'll reword: the real claim is not "the usa did it" the actual claim is "this specific evidence proves the USA did it". But monkeyboys evidence did NOT prove the usa did it, so his claim of "this evidence proves the usa did it" has been debunked by Mendel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: qed
@deirdre or any mod.
deirdre said:
you can't debunk the claim "the USA did it" or "the USA very likely did it".

you can only debunk the claimed evidence for that assertion.
Mendel debunked the claimed evidence from MOnkeyboy (paraphrase) the plane was in the area when the explosion happened, by showing the times do not match.
But that does not debunk the overall theory that "the USA did it, or likely did it". That theory claim cannot be debunked unless solid real evidence comes to light that someone else did it.

Pretty much everything else in this thread is speculation. everyone speculating WHY the plane was in that area (at a different time) is just that; pure speculation.
Click to expand...
If I understand this, we cannot debunk that "the plane was in the area" implies "the USA was involved"?

For example, showing that the plane being in the area is normal and hence does not imply US involvement, is out of bounds?

[... because I was going to argue that we (@Mendel and @Duke ) had effectively debunked this, as @deirdre has addended ...]
 
Last edited:
qed said:
For example, showing that the plane being in the area is normal and hence does not imply US involvement, is out of bounds?
Click to expand...
it's noise. Mendel already proved the plane was not in the area until well after the explosion (3.5 hours it looks like).

So what does it matter? an explosion of a pipeline is not normal, so even if it wasn't normal for a plane to fly near it, it wouldn't be abnormal for a plane to go near it to check out what that explosion was. right?

IF there was a claim say that the plane was already in air when the explosion happened, so it must have pre-known about the explosion; i think you can prove why the plane was there. But proving is different from speculating or "just saying stuff".

Basically we are on page 6, and we have about 2 pages scattered throughout of useful data. :)

qed said:
had effectively debunked this,
Click to expand...
debunked what? i dont recall you and Duke debunking anything, but i guess i'd have to go back and look. The debunk was giving the time of the explosion vs the flight log time.
 
At present, the assertion that the pipeline was sabotaged by anyone is not supported with direct evidence.
 
Landru said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasnt sure if this was common knowledge. I will try and find something though may take a while as the war web/telegram has been very busy the last week with the war information, 2 months ago not much happening, now each day I wake up theres so much new stuff to digest.
 
Had to take a few days off the thread while traveling. I'll just add that the willingness of anyone to ascribe high levels of certainty (or really any specific level of certainty) to the likelihood of any given scenario concerning the pipeline when there is still only a modest amount of circumstantial evidence and very little direct evidence publicly available concerning what happened to it strikes me as a manifestation of overconfidence bias, and, specifically, an error of overprecision, which wikipedia helpfully summarizes as:

Overprecision

Overprecision is the excessive confidence that one knows the truth. For reviews, see Harvey[13] or Hoffrage.[14] Much of the evidence for overprecision comes from studies in which participants are asked about their confidence that individual items are correct. This paradigm, while useful, cannot distinguish overestimation from overprecision; they are one and the same in these item-confidence judgments. After making a series of item-confidence judgments, if people try to estimate the number of items they got right, they do not tend to systematically overestimate their scores. The average of their item-confidence judgments exceeds the count of items they claim to have gotten right.[15] One possible explanation for this is that item-confidence judgments were inflated by overprecision, and that their judgments do not demonstrate systematic overestimation.

Confidence intervals

The strongest evidence of overprecision comes from studies in which participants are asked to indicate how precise their knowledge is by specifying a 90% confidence interval around estimates of specific quantities. If people were perfectly calibrated, their 90% confidence intervals would include the correct answer 90% of the time.[16] In fact, hit rates are often as low as 50%, suggesting people have drawn their confidence intervals too narrowly, implying that they think their knowledge is more accurate than it actually is.
Click to expand...
 
Duke said:
I can't tell if we are looking at seams or production splices/welds. From what I think I see, the edges look relatively smooth and uniform, more indicative of being cut than being blasted. A cutting torch or linear shaped charge would leave that type of cut surface. The latter, if it will work underwater, makes more sense tactically.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Swedish investigators made that cut?
 
Yes I think they cut off and removed some of the pipe for study.
To me the interesting part was the grooves in the sea bed, not sure if they show it in the above video, maybe in another I saw.
Sweden not sharing all their info with other countries because of security concerns, I know they just got a new government so maybe are a bit overwhelmed at present but still not the best look
 
Danish officials have confirmed the "extensive damage" to NS1-2 pipelines was caused by "powerful explosions". According to Defense Minister Morten Bødskov the damage was "by no means a coincidence" and seems not just "planned, but very well planned".

Article:
COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Danish officials on Tuesday confirmed that there has been "extensive damage" to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea off Denmark and that the cause of the damage was "powerful explosions."

In a statement, the Copenhagen Police said it had carried out a number of preliminary investigations of what it called "the crime scenes," with assistance from Denmark's Armed Forces and in collaboration with, among others, the Danish security and intelligence agency.

"It is very serious, and this is by no means a coincidence. It doesn't just seem planned, but very well planned," Danish Defense Minister Morten Bødskov told broadcaster TV2.


According to Expressen (the Swedish rag that published the pipeline damage video) the pipeline in the footage is NS1 and not NS2. According to a military explosives expert Major (ret.) Mika Tyry interviewed by Helsingin Sanomat (a Finnish daily) the featured bit of the pipeline in the footage where it seems neatly broken at the seam is consistent with expected damage from an explosion at a weaker point of welding seams further away from the actual point of detonation. The actual point of detonation wasn't properly featured in the video. The 50-meter-tear in the pipeline and the impact on the seabed are suggestive of a major explosion, whether or not it detonated from inside the pipeline (i.e. an explosive charge is attached to pipeline 'pig' that operates inside the pipeline) or outside.
 
LilWabbit said:
Danish officials have confirmed the "extensive damage" to NS1-2 pipelines was caused by "powerful explosions". According to Defense Minister Morten Bødskov the damage was "by no means a coincidence" and seems not just "planned, but very well planned".

Article:
COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Danish officials on Tuesday confirmed that there has been "extensive damage" to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea off Denmark and that the cause of the damage was "powerful explosions."

In a statement, the Copenhagen Police said it had carried out a number of preliminary investigations of what it called "the crime scenes," with assistance from Denmark's Armed Forces and in collaboration with, among others, the Danish security and intelligence agency.

"It is very serious, and this is by no means a coincidence. It doesn't just seem planned, but very well planned," Danish Defense Minister Morten Bødskov told broadcaster TV2.


According to Expressen (the Swedish rag that published the pipeline damage video) the pipeline in the footage is NS1 and not NS2. According to a military explosives expert Major (ret.) Mika Tyry interviewed by Helsingin Sanomat (a Finnish daily) the featured bit of the pipeline in the footage where it seems neatly broken at the seam is consistent with expected damage from an explosion at a weaker point of welding seams further away from the actual point of detonation. The actual point of detonation wasn't properly featured in the video. The 50-meter-tear in the pipeline and the impact on the seabed are suggestive of a major explosion, whether or not it detonated from inside the pipeline (i.e. an explosive charge is attached to pipeline 'pig' that operates inside the pipeline) or outside.
Click to expand...
That's why I said I couldn't tell if I was looking at a seam or weld. If it wasn't, then it looks cut. If it is, then it's most likely going to come apart at the weakest point (seam/weld) if hit by the force of an explosion.
 
LilWabbit said:
According to a military explosives expert Major (ret.) Mika Tyry interviewed by Helsingin Sanomat (a Finnish daily) the featured bit of the pipeline in the footage where it seems neatly broken at the seam is consistent with expected damage from an explosion at a weaker point of welding seams further away from the actual point of detonation. The actual point of detonation wasn't properly featured in the video. The 50-meter-tear in the pipeline and the impact on the seabed are suggestive of a major explosion, whether or not it detonated from inside the pipeline (i.e. an explosive charge is attached to pipeline 'pig' that operates inside the pipeline) or outside.
Click to expand...
One pertinent quote in his interview ( https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000009143571.html ) is probably this:
External Quote:
Tyry arvelee, että tutkimuksia tehneet viranomaiset ovat jo vieneet mielenkiintoisimmat asiat rikospaikalta mennessään.
~ "Tyry reckons that the investigating authorities have already taken the most interesting things away from the crime scene."
He repeats similar sentiments elsewhere about how little can really be concluded just from this footage. He emphasises things, such that an explosion from without, plus the inherrent prior pressure within, can make it look like an explosion from within, possibly elsewhere along the pipe, so not to jump to hasty conclusions.
 
I know I'm probably repeating, but I'd still lean towards thinking a linear shaped/cutting charge makes most sense after seeing the video, there's a few frames there showing a fairly neat shear line. However it's not exactly the full picture.
LSC would be ideal for this kind of cut. Water aids the effect by providing100% tamping. Fairly simple to emplace altho they are estimating a large explosive quantity...
Alford make something relevant:
https://www.explosives.net/neptunex

"Neptunex™ is an underwater range of versatile, user-filled, explosive, linear cutting charges based on the proven and established Dioplex™ range. Neptunex charges are assembled from pre-formed lengths of extruded aluminium, with the steel box-sectioned liners factory sealed and fitted. This design gives an extremely reliable seal, even at extreme depths, ensuring the linear jet can form in air. The end caps provided fit firmly onto the ends of the charge case and hold the detonator in the correct position for efficient initiation of the charge. Neptunex may be attached to a target by use of Velcro strips, Underwater SquidTape™ or with strong magnets "


Full disclosure, I've not had any direct experience with underwater demo, however work with a few who have. I've used and seen a few types of LSC and effect on car doors and panels through to thick steel construction support beams, its surprising the thickness of cuts using even very small charges.
 
occams rusty scissor said:
I know I'm probably repeating, but I'd still lean towards thinking a linear shaped/cutting charge makes most sense after seeing the video, there's a few frames there showing a fairly neat shear line. However it's not exactly the full picture.

LSC would be ideal for this kind of cut. Water aids the effect by providing100% tamping. Fairly simple to emplace altho they are estimating a large explosive quantity...
Click to expand...
Please explain "100% tamping," not sure what that means. I've never heard the term associated with LSC.

occams rusty scissor said:
Alford make something relevant:
https://www.explosives.net/neptunex
Click to expand...
Very cool design. I wish they would have included a video of their products being fired underwater.
occams rusty scissor said:
Full disclosure, I've not had any direct experience with underwater demo, however work with a few who have. I've used and seen a few types of LSC and effect on car doors and panels through to thick steel construction support beams, its surprising the thickness of cuts using even very small charges.
Click to expand...
Same here, my experience was using Flexible Linear Shape Charge (FLSC) in aircraft...F-111, B-1, and B-2.
 
Duke said:
Please explain "100% tamping," not sure what that means
Click to expand...
I guess "confinement" is more descriptive? (Also 100% in this case probably not accurate as the charge not surrounded completely by water).
Because water is not compressible it effectively creates a backstop of sorts, creates a path of least resistance for the pressure through the front of the charge where the jet forms.

Alford make a whole range of products based on this principle, very versatile and reliable.


Duke said:
Very cool design. I wish they would have included a video of their products being fired underwater.
Click to expand...
Yup, clever stuff. There's a few videos featuring Sid Alford (inventor) using their products on YT, altho can't find any underwater ones atm.
 
Article

External Quote:
Satellite monitors discovered two vessels with their trackers turned off in the area of the pipeline prior to the suspected sabotage in September.
https://www.wired.com/story/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-dark-ships/

A few observations:

1) I find it difficult to believe the US NSA (National Security Agency) and NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) didn't control space based assets that detected these ships. If NATO didn't know this before being notified by SpaceKnow, they should have.

2) The length of the ships (95-130 meters) corresponds to larger offshore patrol vessels (OPV) and frigates. Lots of those around, but knowing the beam (width at its widest point) of the vessels could limit potential candidates. And yes, non-military/commercial ships of that size would need to be considered. I'm guessing copies of Jane's and the Lloyd's Register have been getting perused to identify possible culprits.

3) The article doesn't specify a date(s) or time(s) as to when these vessels were seen. Given that data, it would be interesting to cross reference aircraft tracking systems like Flightradar24 to see what ISR assets, if any, were in the area at time. Remember the P-8s?

4) Just as with aircraft, there are maritime/shipping trackers. While the ships discussed were "dark" at the time they were in the immediate area of the damaged pipeline, it's doubtful they had their transponders turned off upon leaving their points of embarkation. Analysts ought to be able to backtrack to determine what vessels where headed in that direction, but then went "dark."

No need to go through any of this analysis if you sent them, however.
 
Last edited:
Mendel said:
Article:
Russia did not give evidence for its claim that a leading NATO member had sabotaged critical Russian infrastructure

The interesting question is in fact, why have they stopped accusing the US?
Click to expand...
i'm seeing sputnik news say (i had to access with google cache, as main article wouldnt open for me. article title is: What is Known About Ships Spotted Near Nord Stream Pipelines Prior to Blasts?)

Article:
A month-long investigation led the Russian military to conclude that the Royal Navy was behind the sabotage. Moscow has blasted the Nord Stream incident as an "obvious terrorist attack." The spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said the world needed to know more about a text message allegedly sent by ex-UK Prime Minister Liz Truss to US State Secretary Antony Blinken minutes after the targeting of the Nord Stream pipeline network. Earlier, Kim Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload file-sharing website, tweeted that Truss had ostensibly used her iPhone to send a message to Blinken saying "It's done" just minutes after the pipeline explosion. According to the entrepreneur, the text Truss sent is well known to the intelligence service of Russia and it is the reason Moscow believes that the United Kingdom was involved in the bombing attack.
 
deirdre said:
Earlier, Kim Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload file-sharing website, tweeted that Truss had ostensibly used her iPhone to send a message to Blinken saying "It's done" just minutes after the pipeline explosion
Click to expand...
Perhaps she was talking about her leadership?

I'm with Duke, I find it hard to believe that the US doesnt have better satellites that could track everything going on there, also 100m long is huge, Surely if you want to do a clandestine operation you'ld want to use something a bit smaller
Also turning off the tracker seems like doing the equivalent of walking outside a bank with your hands in your pockets whistling"just ignore me", as in if you didnt attract attention before you certainly have now
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
Article

External Quote:
Satellite monitors discovered two vessels with their trackers turned off in the area of the pipeline prior to the suspected sabotage in September.
https://www.wired.com/story/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-dark-ships/

A few observations:

1) I find it difficult to believe the US NSA (National Security Agency) and NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) didn't control space based assets that detected these ships. If NATO didn't know this before being notified by SpaceKnow, they should have.
Click to expand...

Your "if" was a relevant qualifier since the article doesn't state nor logically imply NATO "didn't know" but that they welcome more information from SpaceKnow which is rendering a useful (in fact a brilliant) service. These types of services crunching paid or free satellite data are all great for triangulating data. They help NATO to not exclusively rely on a single/internal/official set of sources (NATO member-states and other collaborating countries/agencies). By extension, a public source outside NATO secrecy helps giving an air of impartiality and investigative rigour (triangulation of sources) if NATO ends up concluding a particular culprit (say, Russia).

Working with a national military command in Europe, we always welcome more information on any relevant issue for which we already have our own datasets generated by our own sources as initial reference points.

Having said that, the lay myth that the likes of Pentagon and NATO are all-knowing and all-powerful are obviously just that. Myths. But indeed for NATO to not have access to better satellite data or data analysis than SpaceKnow, or not having identified the same vessels before SpaceKnow, doesn't make much sense.

Duke said:
4) Just as with aircraft, there are maritime/shipping trackers. While the ships discussed were "dark" at the time they were in the immediate area of the damaged pipeline, it's doubtful they had their transponders turned off upon leaving their points of embarkation. Analysts ought to be able to backtrack to determine what vessels where headed in that direction, but then went "dark."
Click to expand...

Indeed and personally I have no doubt that this part of the analysis has been going on for a spell by now, including international intelligence-sharing.
 
deirdre said:
i'm seeing sputnik news say...
Click to expand...

But, whatever Russia officially or semi-officially says has zero evidence value I think.

Remember when an invasion of Ukraine was 'Western hysteria'? Or the US-Ukraine evil network of weapon biolabs? The dirty bomb of a few days ago? I even think the best evidence we have against the Kerch bridge attack being a truck bomb is that Russians confirmed it :)! They just lie and lie, old honoured Soviet method from what I personally remember from the times when the official Soviet Communist Party newspaper was called Pravda, 'The Truth'. It's often tempting to suppose that the opposite of what they say is actually true, but in effect nothing of what they say can be used as evidence for or against anything, it's impossible to sort the wheat from chaff.

1668329502691.png


They even have a fully-fledged doctrine about deception: Maskirovka, which traces his roots to before World War II.
 
captancourgette said:
Perhaps she was talking about her leadership?

I'm with Duke, I find it hard to believe that the US doesnt have better satellites that could track everything going on there, also 100m long is huge, Surely if you want to do a clandestine operation you'ld want to use something a bit smaller
Also turning off the tracker seems like doing the equivalent of walking outside a bank with your hands in your pockets whistling"just ignore me", as in if you didnt attract attention before you certainly have now
Click to expand...
Choice of assets was almost certainly more a function of capability than size. There may have been smaller ships available, but would they have had the capacity to fulfill mission requirements? A semi educated guess is one of the ships was there to act as "goalkeeper" escort for the other.

Also keep in mind which ever nation sent the "dark" ships into the area should have known which/whose satellites would be over them while they were there. We had that capability at least 35 years ago. While running testing of a classified system at a classified site, I got a daily "bus schedule" briefing every morning detailing down to the minute which satellites, both military and commercial, could compromise us. We planned accordingly.

In this case, the fact the ships were "dark" means whatever mission they were on was being undertaken clandestinely. Having been in a position to have had their photos taken from the "multiple satellites" used by SpaceKnow might indicate the mission took longer than planned, leaving them compromised from on high and potentially visually identifiable.
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
Choice of assets was almost certainly more a function of capability than size. There may have been smaller ships available, but would they have had the capacity to fulfill mission requirements? A semi educated guess is one of the ships was there to act as "goalkeeper" escort for the other.

Also keep in mind which ever nation sent the "dark" ships into the area should have known which/whose satellites would be over them while they were there. We had that capability at least 35 years ago. While running testing of a classified system at a classified site, I got a daily "bus schedule" briefing every morning detailing down to the minute which satellites, both military and commercial, could compromise us. We planned accordingly.

In this case, the fact the ships were "dark" means whatever mission they were on was being undertaken clandestinely. Having been in a position to have had their photos taken from the "multiple satellites" used by SpaceKnow might indicate the mission took longer than planned, leaving them compromised from on high and potentially visually identifiable.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence for these statements? I used to work in this field 22 years ago as a contractor and I know to discuss this in an open forum would violate security.
 
Last edited:
LilWabbit said:
Your "if" was a relevant qualifier since the article doesn't state nor logically imply NATO "didn't know" but that they welcome more information from SpaceKnow which is rendering a useful (in fact a brilliant) service. These types of services crunching paid or free satellite data are all great for triangulating data. They help NATO to not exclusively rely on a single/internal/official set of sources (NATO member-states and other collaborating countries/agencies). By extension, a public source outside NATO secrecy helps giving an air of impartiality and investigative rigour (triangulation of sources) if NATO ends up concluding a particular culprit (say, Russia).
Click to expand...
Also, nobody wants to tip their hand and give away what they do or don't know, ever. Third-party sources give countries the chance to spill some information without actually giving any away - "Here's an outside image showing A, B, and E, and we also suspect F and H." The truth might be that we know most of the alphabet, but pulling out an image from the X-37b or a KH-11 instead risks giving away unknown capabilities or confirming suspected ones.
 
Landru said:
Do you have evidence for these statements? I used to work in this field 22 years ago as a contractor and I know to discuss this in an open forum would violate security.
Click to expand...
I've said nothing classified, and comments were based on personal experience and background. The fact satellite orbits/locations are known is used here to debunk UFO sighting.
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
I've said nothing classified, and comments were based on personal experience and background. The fact satellite orbits/locations are known is used here to debunk UFO sighting.
Click to expand...
Anyone who really knows about the subject would steer clear. Here, you cannot state "I know because I know." Do you have any evidence to support your claims? The Baltic is not a gas station parking lot under constant surveillance even with collection systems overhead.
 
I wish I could say it is inconceivable that Liz Truss, as UK Prime Minister, would have sent an unencrypted message on a secret matter by iPhone to Secretary Blinken, but with Liz Truss no level of incompetence or misjudgement is inconceivable. However, it is almost inconceivable that the UK government would deliberately damage pipelines supplying Europe with gas, because even if the UK itself does not use gas from those pipelines, the effect of damaging them would further increase energy prices in the UK as well as the countries more directly affected.

The Russians have also claimed that the UK was involved in the recent assault on their ships in Sevastopol, but haven't yet produced the promised evidence. Perhaps they are still working on the details.
 
DavidB66 said:
However, it is almost inconceivable that the UK government would deliberately damage pipelines supplying Europe with gas, because even if the UK itself does not use gas from those pipelines, the effect of damaging them would further increase energy prices in the UK as well as the countries more directly affected.
Click to expand...
Not if they are following the American playbook. Apparently they want prices higher to force people to go green.

Article:
"[When] it comes to the gas prices, we're going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it's over, we'll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over," Biden said during a press conference in Japan following his meeting with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top