From the info that's out there, his "proof" is as substantial as yours.
Nobody knows with any certainty what happened and who did it.

You know how I know you haven't actually been reading what I've been posting?

I offered no proof because I'm making no claims, because there is no proof. That my my first post in this stupid thread said.

If anyone finds this response TL/DR, I understand. If I was a better writer it would be briefer.

I don't think most folks argument is "Biden was inadvertently leaking plans for a super secret U.S. plan...", and you attempting to shift it as such is a canard.

The argument is "Biden was making a veiled threat that, by one means or another, that pipeline wouldn't go through if Russian invades Ukraine." Biden was attempting to influence Russia into NOT invading Ukraine, by putting the future revenues of the pipeline on the table. Again, incredibly hard to take you at your word that this is not blatantly apparent to you (and OTHERS). Did this veiled threat become pointless once Russia shut it down themselves? Yes. Does that lend credence to the argument that we didn't do it, given what had already unfolded. Yes.

Does this mean the U.S. sabotaged NS1 and NS2? No. Does it look bad? Yes.
Did the U.S. damage the pipelines to make a point not to call our 7 month old bluff? Unlikely but possible.
Did Russia damage them in an "I am taking my ball and going home, fuck you guys" act of spite? Unlikely but possible.

If the U.S. in fact did it, would it be an evil act? Not necessarily. If Germany did it would it be an evil act? Not necessarily.
As many have recently pointed out, Zelenski saying Russia wasn't going to invade was an acceptable and necessary lie.
Might the attack of the pipelines also be acceptable and necessary? I can see where it would be in regards to getting in front of certain potential events.

You attempting to shut down the "it's looks bad" narrative with these paper thin arguments actually makes it look even worse. Because now we have at least two well respected posters, known for intelligent responses, responding with what appears to be illogical emotion based ad hominems. It is out of character and I am not the only one who has noticed it.

It makes one wonder if you (and OTHERS) have made a deliberate choice to influence the narrative for what you see as the greater good (which may in fact be the righteous cause), knowing full well that a certain segment of this board is going to see past the emotion of your argument and realize the logic behind most of your assertations doesn't hold water?

I would not sacrifice my credibility so easily, but maybe you see this as an 11th hour issue? I would think trading away a lot of your reputation to score on this one issue would be short sighted. But maybe I am not aware of just how important this issue is. Maybe you are correct in doing so, but it isn't going unnoticed.

I think there are quite a few people on this board (who are not "commie Putin dick sucks") that think there are any number of players that may have reason to damage the pipelines. Using the available information they are trying to discuss who may, or may not, have reason to do so, and the validity of said reasons. I see this as a reasonable topic for discussion. Then certain folks, you among them, come in and disparage anyone who doesn't toe the line. Not a good look.

If you are true to recent form, you or OTHERS will respond with something along the lines of a dismissive "you must be compromised, looks like "somebody" loves commie balls, you cannot be this dumb, it is amazing how easily dumb people fall into the trap..etc." one liner.

Russia was going to turn on the taps at the last minute with a big "just kidding," and be a hero, but big meanie Biden and the Nazi CIA FBI had to go and ruin everything.

It is blatant to anyone that you do not honestly think this is his, or anyone else's, argument. You are just trying to buffoon him.
I don't think you are scoring any points with anyone who isn't already a die hard fan of yours.

The argument, which I am sure you are aware of, is that Putin was hoping that dangling the carrot of cheap gas turned back on in Germany, would influence the German people to put pressure on their own government, potentially through riots if things get bad enough, in an effort to force them to end sanctions and get cheap energy back. You know, like what happened in the U.S. when public sentiment turned against the Vietnam war?

The damaging of the pipelines takes a lot of wind out of the argument that ending the sanctions would result in cheap energy. Now that is not a certainty any time soon. The immediacy of relief is gone.

Are you going to ignore that as a factor? Dismiss it out of hand?

Thank you for contributing something meaningful, that is a pretty compelling argument.

I mean it's not "If you don't believe me you are an idiot that loves to smell Putin's gooch" level of persuasive, but it is pretty good.

My only issue with what you typed is the “we’re the good guys” part.  That’s not a true statement in my opinion. The federal government said we’re the enemy. Couple that with the lies/propaganda starting with the Steele dossier, and then the Covid BS, and I trust our government about as much as the Russian government.

One being available is finally something.

How would it turn Europe against the war? It should have the opposite impact. If both pipelines were completely disabled, there would be much less for Germany and Europe to lose by continuing the war.

Russia already shut the pipes off. How much more economic panic can you create?

The obvious number one culprit is the US, followed by the German military, in order to prevent the political side from caving to Russia to turn the gas back on.

I'm against Russia's invasion, I'm against the west intervening, but if we're going to do this, we should destroy both Nordstream pipelines. Strategically, it's a "duh" move.

It's economic warfare against the people of Germany to break their morale by denying them energy.  The Russians hope that cold people and shut down factories will make it more likely that they will attempt to barter an acceptable peace. It's the same reason we bombed civilians in WW2. I still think that the primary audience is Russian. The secondary audience is Germany.

Who wins in a war of the USA vs Russia? China.

Why didn't the USA blow the Nordstream back at the beginning, when it was still pumping gas?

Who has to gain from increased tensions between USA & Russia?   China.

200ft isn't shit regarding special diving techniques or even submersibles placing a Limpet mine.

During October 1971, Operation Ivy Bells, USS Halibut tapped the Soviet underwater phone cables between their base in Kamchatka and Soviet Navy HQ in Vladivostok, 400ft of water.

Attached File

This threads premiss is dumb

here is better "PROOF" Putin did it, much more recently, and much more clearly.

"Will there be any political decisions that contradict the contracts? Yes, we just won't fulfill them. We will not supply anything at all if it contradicts our interests," Putin said at the Eastern Economic Forum in Russia's far east.

"We will not supply gas, oil, coal, heating oil   we will not supply anything," Putin said.


"We would only have one thing left to do: as in the famous Russian fairy tale, we would let the wolf's tail freeze," he said.

Attached File

Yeah last time I checked Germany and the rest of Western Europe are supposed to be democracies. They aren’t, but they do like to keep up appearances I suppose.

If a vast majority of those populations wanted trade with Russia there would be.

The only way to remove that possibility from the board is the destruction of the pipelines.

I don't know who did it. But we are incredibly lucky the pipeline was destroyed. The petro dollar relies on that whole Russian system not working.  With Russia and others now officially off the petrodollar, They are offering cheap energy to Europe with payment in rubles. Not US dollars like before.  Once one or two NATO nations leaves the petrodollar, it snowballs from there. Now that the pipeline is down, the political decision making is now off the table for Germany, Hungry, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Austria and Czecha . Whom thahose pipelines would have served. All tempted at continuing to use Russia's cheap energy through those pipelines. Paying in the Rubal. Not US dollars. Now they are forced to use petro dollar sources of energy and continue an adversarial footing with Russia.

So basically, Putin is actually retarded by helping us in a significant way. by blowing up those pipes. And maybe.. just maybe.. delayed or halted the collapse of the US dollar.

Don't know if this has been posted, but a oilfield/pipeline guy weighs in:

https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html



More at link.

So pipes encased in cement under the water have a tendency to explode? Learn something new everyday.

You can all stop your bickering.  China Did It.

That's called liberal damage control.

This guy gets it. It leaves no options.

Not buying it, and the child speak down tone is just weird.  I've dealt with dozens of pipeline failure, never a scenario of multiples under a waterway.....and without an environmental condition to entertain it's possibility.  Besides it's pretty easy to tell if the pipe blew from the interior or initiated from an external event.

Every country lies if it helps them accomplish something.

So that's how you decide your position on every topic. It all makes sense now. Thank you for that admission!

Or you could come to the opposite and more sensible conclusion that the US destroyed the pipelines to protect the petrodollar.

This would be believable if we all heard about pipelines blowing up regularly. It doesn't seem to be as common an event as this guy would have us believe.

Wow first post after 15 years of being a member.

You can't say that without first knowing how many unused, but still pressurized undersea pipelines there are.  No that's not right.
You can't say that without first knowing how many unused, but still pressurized Russian-operated undersea pipelines there are.

Lol.....this was no accident......get that out of your head so you can contribute something to the conversation.

They'll try any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to try to obscure the obvious.

Lurkers are lurking among us!

Hey!! did you get your draft notice yet?

That Russia is waging a genocidal war of conquest on it's neighbors and is upset Nato is doing something about it?

Most of the basic information is sound and even supported with links. There was no down talking unless the listener is just a modern over sensitive woke little fuck. The language style is common amongst Texas and Oklahoma oil field guys that went all  over the world in the 70's building and operating petro infrastructure. I work with a boomer like that now who isn't quite at the technical level of the article poster but his experiences are mostly correctly self-interpreted.

The article poser even admitted he went a bit too far with the diesel effect example. It appears that large numbers of people aren't understanding that the word explosion is not exclusive to chemical reaction explosion. The water hammer effect is real in creating pressure spikes and does not require chemical reaction explosions to over pressurize components to failure.  

Most challengers presented childishly ignorant and one dimensional counter arguments typical of many arfcom threads on technical matters.

Counter arguments included false assumptions that explosion exclusively implies chemical explosion. Numerous people where unable to understand that mechanically damaging an pressure vessel can cause a rupture described as an explosion. Apparently, these people have never popped a balloon or heard of someone being killed by an overfilled tire. These same people could not understand that a rupture in a 48" pressure vessel that is 759 miles long would result in a seismic reading equivalent to a hundred or two kilos of TNT. Many of those people aren't even capable of understanding that equivalent does not mean actual TNT was used.

Other counter arguments implied large US assault ships being in the area as proof of American sabotage while ignoring Soviet activity.

Everything is speculation at this stage. Some speculation is not credible or highly unlikely. Other speculation is credible. I don't think it will be too difficult to find out the cause and I would bet there are lots of orgs with resources that really want to know.

The last two sentences are true, although your first sentence contradicts them a bit.

Just grasping to understand your point.

Because, from here, it sounds like you are 100% agreeing with the way I've characterized the supposed motivations for the U.S. to do this.

Nope, still waiting!

Well, at least you admit it was a NATO country that blew up the pipelines. We're getting somewhere!

Yawn.....you guys are relentless and ignorant....NG is compressible so the examples don't even jive.  Have you ever worked any type of line blow out???  

Nope.

People of low information and intelligence frequently come to wrong conclusions or think things are obvious because they aren't capable of fully considering alternatives, understanding probabilities or requiring even a spec of proof to substantiate their claims. They speak in absolute terms and allow no possibility that they might be wrong. Such people have little experience in working with complex processes or if they do, are the ones responsible for fucking them up.

I once came upon one of these clowns who was running a pump dry. It was squealing. I told him to shut it down, he was running it dry. He was an enormous man as in very tall and not a fat slob. He angrily shouted back that it couldn't be dry, it had pressure in it, pointing at the gauge. I told him his tires have pressure in them too, doesn't mean they are full of water.

I doubt that's anything he'd have to worry about.

Agreed, but the problem is that every government institution is under the control of the relatively small cabal of individuals.

No, he lied to protect his re-election efforts, what makes it particularly bad is that he promised not to run again. The guy truly is a piece of shit.

I demonstrated this earlier with references and the Ukraine Bros denied it. It was really pathetic.

No he didn’t. He downplayed the possibility of invasion for personal gain and instead of preparing his country and possibly discouraging the invasion his failure encouraged the invasion.

No, you have made sorry excuses for his bad policies. It is sad.