Why is the media ignoring the Nord Stream pipeline disaster? Could it be because it makes Joe Biden the biggest environmental terrorist in history?

[RichJ]

Just now, ICRockets2 said:

You know Nordstream isn't in Ohio, right?  

that went over your head as usual. 

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, RichJ said:

that went over your head as usual. 

This thread is about a pipeline that was blown up, and you're trying to make it about train derailment.  I'm not the one for whom this thread is confusing.

[RichJ]

36 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

This thread is about a pipeline that was blown up, and you're trying to make it about train derailment.  I'm not the one for whom this thread is confusing.

its about environemntal disasters ...they both happened under  Bidens watch.   I didnt think anyones IQ could be lower than your buttboy F8. You've proven me wrong. 

[micknaboz]

18 minutes ago, RichJ said:

its about environemntal disasters ...they both happened under  Bidens watch.   I didnt think anyones IQ could be lower that your buttboy F8. You've proven me wrong. 

STFU you ignorant pos, son of an anal crack whore.

LOL

[SackMan518]

World's most ridiculous fact-checker mistakes a verb for a noun, pens four nonsense paragraphs explaining why Hersh's Nord Stream reporting must be wrong because explosive seaweed is impossible

Last summer, the plague chronicle got debunked by man-bun sporting “fact-finder” Pascal Siggelkow. This bizarre mediocrity writes for the clown car license-fee funded state media operation known as Tagesschau, and his latest foray into debunkery (knowledge of which I owe to Florian Warweg on Twitter) really sets a new bar for media ineptitude. As you read, remember that Tagesschau is not some stupid blog or a regional television show, but rather a leading German television news service produced by ARD with an associated online operation which reaches millions of Germans everyday.

Recently, Siggelkow directed both digits of his IQ to the problem of debunking Seymour Hersh’s Nord Stream story. His objections are mostly the usual stuff that everyone is complaining about, but at some point his beleaguered brain stumbled across what he thought was new and heretofore undeboonked detail. Specifically, he found Hersh’s report that divers would “plant shaped C4 charges” on the pipelines wildly improbable, because …C4 charges do not generally come in the form of plants.

With the help of an equally absurd “explosives expert” named David Domjahn, who looks like this …

 

… and who runs a creepy website where he talks about how exciting it is to be licensed to use explosives and how blowing things up is full of artistic possibilities, Siggelkow penned four full paragraphs debunking the possibility of plant-shaped C4 charges. All four of these paragraphs somehow made it through the entire Tagesschau editorial process unmolested and appeared on their website yesterday:

Explosives in plant form unlikely

There is also uncertainty about the details of the detonations. Hersh writes that the divers placed the plastic explosive C4 “in the form of plants on the four pipelines with concrete protective covers.” Only three of the four pipelines were destroyed, however, and one Nord Stream 2 pipe remains undamaged. Whether explosive charges failed or the attackers spared a quarter of the capacity is unclear as of today.

Additionally, experts say the seismographic recordings of the explosions show that the detonations must have had a TNT equivalent of several hundred kilogrammes. “It would be a safer bet to use 300 to 400 kilogrammes of C4 explosives per detonation," says David Domjahn, a lecturer in explosive technology at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). Against this background, the thesis that the explosives were placed in plant form is “unrealistic”.

“The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline was just recently completed, so plant growth on the order of 300 kg would have required a corresponding amount of time to grow and so wouldn’t be suitable for camouflage,” says Domjahn. The shape of the plant also raises questions, he adds. “Thick tree roots – which are unlikely at a depth of 80 metres – could be simulated with plastic explosives. When mimicking the filigree structures as on seaweed, the challenge is not to fall below the so-called limiting diameter of the explosive.”

Due to the plasticity and associated fragility, Domjahn considers it “impossible” that inconspicuous plant dummies robust to the water currents could have been used. The lack of splitting at the broken ends of the pipe also speaks against the thesis. It’s likely that the explosive charges were not placed directly on the pipelines, but at some distance from them, in order to achieve a “pushing effect” through the intervening water and at the same time to conceal the traces of the explosives used.

Within hours, Siggelkow and his crack fact-checking team were widely lampooned, and the article was swiftly corrected, complete with this brief and humiliating lesson on the various meanings of “plant”:

Note: An earlier version of this article referred to explosives “in the form of plants.” This was a translation error. Hersh writes of “plant shaped C4 charges.” In this case, the word “plant” should be translated as “place.” The paragraph has been corrected.

There are a lot of problems with the press, but the biggest one is just that they are extremely, profoundly, unimaginably stupid.

 

[HipKat]

On 2/23/2023 at 11:04 AM, Very Wide Right said:

LOL, so Russia blew up their own pipeline that delivers them enormous financial gain? REALLY?

 

Enormous?

[Very Wide Right]

2 hours ago, HipKat said:

Enormous?

Yes, you read that correctly.

[HipKat]

2 hours ago, Very Wide Right said:

Yes, you read that correctly.

How much money was that making them again?

[Very Wide Right]

58 minutes ago, HipKat said:

How much money was that making them again?

Last report I saw was 97 billion from natural gas exports

[SackMan518]

NORD STREAM UPDATE: German media report that state investigators believe a six-person team, likely from Ukraine, planted the explosives at the beginning of September
The vague, anonymously sourced account emerges exactly a month after Seymour Hersh published his story on How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

 

Almost a month to the day after Seymour Hersh posted his bombshell report on the Nord Stream pipeline bombings to Substack, Die Zeit and German state media have published a vague, anonymously sourced story strongly suggesting that Ukraine is to blame for the attacks, without actually saying so:

German investigators have reportedly achieved a breakthrough in solving the attack on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. According to joint reporting by ARD’s capital city studio, Kontraste, SWR and Die Zeit, investigators have largely reconstructed how and when the explosives attack was prepared, and clues point in the direction of Ukraine. Yet the investigators have not yet found any evidence as to who ordered the attack …

Specifically … investigators have identified the boat that was presumably used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht rented from a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation was carried out by a team of six people, said to be five men and one woman. According to the report, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a female doctor, who are reported to have transported the explosives to the crime scene and planted them there. The nationality of the perpetrators is apparently unclear. They reportedly used professionally forged passports to rent the boat, among other things.

According to the investigation, the team set sail from Rostock on 6 September 2022. The equipment for the secret operation was transported to the harbour in a van beforehand ... Investigators have succeeded in locating the boat again the next day in Wieck (Darß) and later on near the Danish island Christiansø, northeast of Bornholm. The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. Investigators found traces of explosives on the table in the cabin. According to information … a Western intelligence service is said to have sent a tip to European partner services as early as autumn, shortly shortly after the explosions, pointing to the responsibility of a Ukrainian team. Afterwards, there reportedly emerged further intelligence suggesting that a pro-Ukrainian group might be responsible.

No German officials will go on the record to confirm or deny the reporting, but Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak continues to insist that it’s far more likely the Russians blew up their own pipeline:

Ukrainian presidential advisor Mychajlo Podoljak told ARD capital city studio, Kontraste, SWR and Zeit in a statement that Ukraine “of course had nothing to do with the attacks on Nord Stream-2".” There was “no confirmation that Ukrainian officials or the military took part in this operation or that persons were sent to act on their behalf.” It is conceivable that Russia was behind it, he said. “There are many more motives and many more possible operations in this scenario,” Podoljak said.

A nearly identical but separately reported story, which also appeared yesterday in the New York Times, has “U.S. officials” saying basically the same thing, but with even less detail:

New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year …

U.S. officials said there was much they did not know about the perpetrators and their affiliations. The review of newly collected intelligence suggests they were opponents of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation.

U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained or any details of the strength of the evidence it contains. They have said that there are no firm conclusions about it, leaving open the possibility that the operation might have been conducted off the books by a proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services. …

Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two. U.S. officials said no American or British nationals were involved.

The plausibility of the Nord Stream attacks being the work of two divers on a rented yacht who planted eight to sixteen explosives – the equivalent of many hundreds of kilogrammes of TNT – on four pipelines at the considerable depth of 80 metres, is something my readers will have to decide themselves. The fact checkers will not help you here; indeed, as the story echoes through the German media, it seems our journalists have already forgotten their misgivings about anonymously sourced investigative pieces. I do find it surprising that both American and German officials seem willing now to throw Ukraine under the bus – even in this attenuated way – for no apparent purpose beyond serving the public a better alternative to Hersh’s story than the threadbare Russia-did-it thesis.

 

 

[HipKat]

2 hours ago, SackMan518 said:

NORD STREAM UPDATE: German media report that state investigators believe a six-person team, likely from Ukraine, planted the explosives at the beginning of September
The vague, anonymously sourced account emerges exactly a month after Seymour Hersh published his story on How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

 

Almost a month to the day after Seymour Hersh posted his bombshell report on the Nord Stream pipeline bombings to Substack, Die Zeit and German state media have published a vague, anonymously sourced story strongly suggesting that Ukraine is to blame for the attacks, without actually saying so:

German investigators have reportedly achieved a breakthrough in solving the attack on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. According to joint reporting by ARD’s capital city studio, Kontraste, SWR and Die Zeit, investigators have largely reconstructed how and when the explosives attack was prepared, and clues point in the direction of Ukraine. Yet the investigators have not yet found any evidence as to who ordered the attack …

Specifically … investigators have identified the boat that was presumably used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht rented from a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation was carried out by a team of six people, said to be five men and one woman. According to the report, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a female doctor, who are reported to have transported the explosives to the crime scene and planted them there. The nationality of the perpetrators is apparently unclear. They reportedly used professionally forged passports to rent the boat, among other things.

According to the investigation, the team set sail from Rostock on 6 September 2022. The equipment for the secret operation was transported to the harbour in a van beforehand ... Investigators have succeeded in locating the boat again the next day in Wieck (Darß) and later on near the Danish island Christiansø, northeast of Bornholm. The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. Investigators found traces of explosives on the table in the cabin. According to information … a Western intelligence service is said to have sent a tip to European partner services as early as autumn, shortly shortly after the explosions, pointing to the responsibility of a Ukrainian team. Afterwards, there reportedly emerged further intelligence suggesting that a pro-Ukrainian group might be responsible.

No German officials will go on the record to confirm or deny the reporting, but Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak continues to insist that it’s far more likely the Russians blew up their own pipeline:

Ukrainian presidential advisor Mychajlo Podoljak told ARD capital city studio, Kontraste, SWR and Zeit in a statement that Ukraine “of course had nothing to do with the attacks on Nord Stream-2".” There was “no confirmation that Ukrainian officials or the military took part in this operation or that persons were sent to act on their behalf.” It is conceivable that Russia was behind it, he said. “There are many more motives and many more possible operations in this scenario,” Podoljak said.

A nearly identical but separately reported story, which also appeared yesterday in the New York Times, has “U.S. officials” saying basically the same thing, but with even less detail:

New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year …

U.S. officials said there was much they did not know about the perpetrators and their affiliations. The review of newly collected intelligence suggests they were opponents of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation.

U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained or any details of the strength of the evidence it contains. They have said that there are no firm conclusions about it, leaving open the possibility that the operation might have been conducted off the books by a proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services. …

Officials who have reviewed the intelligence said they believed the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two. U.S. officials said no American or British nationals were involved.

The plausibility of the Nord Stream attacks being the work of two divers on a rented yacht who planted eight to sixteen explosives – the equivalent of many hundreds of kilogrammes of TNT – on four pipelines at the considerable depth of 80 metres, is something my readers will have to decide themselves. The fact checkers will not help you here; indeed, as the story echoes through the German media, it seems our journalists have already forgotten their misgivings about anonymously sourced investigative pieces. I do find it surprising that both American and German officials seem willing now to throw Ukraine under the bus – even in this attenuated way – for no apparent purpose beyond serving the public a better alternative to Hersh’s story than the threadbare Russia-did-it thesis.

A blog from someone who Chronicles Covid in Germany. Cool!!

Quote

Welcome to my plague chronicle. Here I post primarily on matters related to SARS-CoV-2 and containment policy, in Germany and internationally. Occasionally I will also consider broader political and historical matters, various conspiracy theories, and the absurdities of modern academia.

 

[shiva2999]

Ukrainians on a yacht did it?

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Sure.

[SackMan518]

10 hours ago, shiva2999 said:

Ukrainians on a yacht did it?

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Sure.

I'm considering many possibilities and thought this one was interesting. 

[shiva2999]

16 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

I'm considering many possibilities and thought this one was interesting. 

I'm not criticizing you for posting it. If you hadn't, I would have.

It's the smart thing to do to try to get people to consider the Ukrainians did it because that's excusable, whereas NATO doing it is not.

A variation of the "limited hangout".

I'm sure a number of different responses to Sy Hersch were considered and this one was picked as the least absurd.

[shiva2999]

 

 

 

[shiva2999]

https://mate.substack.com/p/in-nord-stream-attack-us-officials

 

Aaron Mate

 

In Nord Stream attack, US officials use proxy media to blame proxy Ukraine

One month after Seymour Hersh reported that the US blew up the Nord Stream pipelines, US officials find a scapegoat in Ukraine and stenographers in the New York Times.

Aaron Maté

 

Mar 8

 

(Photo by Swedish Coast Guard via Getty Images)

Nearly six months after the Nord Stream pipelines exploded and one month after Seymour Hersh reported that the Biden administration was responsible, US officials have unveiled their defense. According to the New York Times, anonymous government sources claim that "newly collected intelligence" now "suggests" that the Nord Stream bomber was in fact a "pro-Ukrainian group."

The only confirmed “intelligence” about this supposed “group” is that US officials have none to offer about them.

“U.S. officials said there was much they did not know about the perpetrators and their affiliations,” The Times reports. The supposed “newly collected” information “does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation.” Despite knowing nothing about them, the Times’ sources nonetheless speculate that “the saboteurs were most likely Ukrainian or Russian nationals, or some combination of the two.” They also leave open “the possibility that the operation might have been conducted off the books by a proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services.” (emphasis added)

When no evidence is produced, anything is of course “possible.” But the Times’ sources are oddly certain on one critical matter: “U.S. officials said no American or British nationals were involved.” Also, there is “no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.”

Despite failing to obtain any concrete information about the perpetrators, the Times nonetheless declares that the US cover story planted in their pages “amounts to the first significant known lead about who was responsible for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines.”

It is unclear why the Times has deemed their evidence-free “lead” to be “significant”, and not, by contrast, the Hersh story that came four weeks earlier. Not only does Hersh’s reporting predate the Times’, but his story contained extensive detail about how the US planned and executed the Nord Stream explosions.

Tellingly, the Times distorts the basis for Hersh’s reporting. “In making his case,” the Times claims, Hersh merely “cited” President Biden’s “preinvasion threat to ‘bring an end’ to Nord Stream 2, and similar statements by other senior U.S. officials.” In falsely suggesting that he relied solely on public statements, the Times completely omits that Hersh in fact cited a well-placed source.

By contrast, the Times has no information about its newfound perpetrators or about any other aspect of its “significant” lead.

“U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained or any details of the strength of the evidence it contains,” The Times states. Accordingly, US officials admit that “that there are no firm conclusions” to be drawn, and that there are “enormous gaps in what U.S. spy agencies and their European partners knew about what transpired.” For that apparent reason, “U.S. officials who have been briefed on the intelligence are divided about how much weight to put on the new information.” The Times, by contrast, apparently feels no such evidentiary burden.

In sum, US officials have “much they did not know about the perpetrators” – i.e. everything; “enormous gaps” in their awareness of how the (unknown) “pro-Ukraine group” purportedly carried out a deep-sea bombing; uncertainty over “how much weight to put on” their “intelligence”; and even “no firm conclusions” to offer. Moreover, all of this supposed US “intelligence” happens to have been “newly collected” — after one of the most accomplished journalists in history published a detailed report on how US intelligence plotted and conducted the bombing.

Given the absence of evidence and curious timing, a reasonable conclusion is not that a Ukrainian “proxy force” was the culprit, but that the US is now using its Ukrainian proxy as a scapegoat.

As the standard bearer of establishment US media, the Times’ “reporting” is perfectly in character.  Days after the September 2022 bombing of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, the Times noted that “much of the speculation about responsibility has focused on Russia” – just as US officials would certainly hope. The narrative was echoed by former CIA Director John Brennan, who opined that “Russia certainly is the most likely suspect,” in the Nord Stream attack. Citing anonymous “Western intelligence officials”, CNN claimed that “European security officials observed Russian Navy ships in vicinity of Nord Stream pipeline leaks,” thus casting “further suspicion on Russia,” which is seen by “European and US officials as the only actor in the region believed to have both the capability and motivation to deliberately damage the pipelines.”

With the story that Russia blew up its own pipelines no longer tenable, the Times’ new narrative asks us to believe that some unnamed “pro-Ukraine group”, which “did not appear to be working for military or intelligence services” somehow managed to obtain the unique capability to plant multiple explosives on a heavily sealed pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

That narrative is already being laundered through the German media. Hours after the Times story broke, the German outlet Die Zeit came out with a story, sourced to German officials, that claims the bombing operation was carried out by a group of six people, including just “two divers.” These supposed perpetrators, we are told, arrived at the crime scene via a yacht “apparently owned by two Ukrainians” that departed Germany. How a yacht managed to carry the equipment and explosives needed for the operation is left unexplained.

The saboteurs somehow possessed the capability to carry out a deep-sea bombing, but not the awareness to properly clean up their floating crime scene. According to Die Zeit, the boat was “returned to the owner in an uncleaned condition,” which allowed “investigators” to discover “traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.” Should this lean “pro-Ukraine” crack team of naval commandos conduct another act of deep-sea sabotage, they will only need to hire a cleaning professional to get away with it.

As for motivation, we are somehow also asked to forget that Biden administration officials not only expressed the motivation, but the post-facto satisfaction. “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward,” senior US official Victoria Nuland vowed in January 2022. President Biden added the following month that “if Russia invades... there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” After the Nord Stream pipelines were bombed, Secretary of State Antony Blinken greeted the news as a “tremendous strategic opportunity.” Just days before Hersh’s story was published, Nuland informed Congress that both she and the White House are “very gratified” that Nord Stream is “a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

Not only are global audiences asked to ignore the public statements of Biden administration principals, but their blanket refusal to answer any questions. This was put on display in Washington this past weekend, when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz paid Biden a White House visit. Unlike Scholz’s last DC trip, there was no joint news conference. This was understandable: the last time they appeared together, Biden blurted out that he would “bring an end” to Nord Stream, leaving Scholz to stand next to him in awkward silence. This time around, the two briefly sat before a group of reporters who were quickly shooed out of the room, much to Biden’s apparent glee.

Aaron Maté @aaronjmate

Scholz's visit underscored that US media is state media. No joint presser, for obvious reasons: they can't risk a question from a German reporter about Sy Hersh's Nord Stream scoop. Everyone here got the memo: no US outlet covering Scholz's visit even mentioned Hersh's story.

 

6:21 PM ∙ Mar 6, 2023

---

4,655Likes1,612Retweets

US media outlets got the memo: in a sit-down interview with Scholz, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria did not find the time to mention Hersh’s reporting. In covering the German Chancellor’s visit, US media outlets like the Times and the Washington Post adopted a similar vow of silence.   

Max Blumenthal @MaxBlumenthal

Not one question from Fareed Zakaria about Nord Stream as German Cuckmeister Olaf Scholz rambles on about his country's supposed energy independence Fareed intervenes only to push Scholz to commit more money to Ukraine's military – and therefore less to German social welfare

 

7:47 PM ∙ Mar 6, 2023

---

2,573Likes694Retweets

Inadvertently, the Times’ account exposes new holes in the failed attempts to refute Hersh’s story.

Members of the NATO state-funded website Bellingcat, falsely presented to NATO state audiences as an independent investigative outlet, have attempted to cast doubt on Hersh’s claims by arguing that open-source tracking at the time of the bombing fails to detect the vessels he reported on. But as the Times story notes, investigators are seeking information about ships “whose location transponders were not on or were not working when they passed through the area, possibly to cloak their movements.” Hersh has made this same point in interviews, noting that when Biden flew into Poland before his visit to Kiev last month, his “plane switched off its transponder” to avoid detection, as the Associated Press reported. Unfortunately for self-styled digital sherlocks, major international crimes – particularly those involving intelligence agencies – cannot be solved from their laptops.

Hersh was also pilloried for citing a single anonymous source. The Times’ story, by contrast, relies on multiple anonymous sources, who, unlike Hersh, have no tangible information to offer. After ignoring Hersh’s story for a full month, the Times’ news section was forced to acknowledge it for the first time. And the best that its anonymous sources could come up with is not only an evidence-free, caveat-filled narrative, but a story that does not challenge a single aspect of Hersh’s detailed account.

In another contrast, Hersh is one of the most accomplished and impactful journalists in the history of the profession. Two of the journalists on the Times story, Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman, have bylined multiple stories that spread demonstrable falsehoods sourced to anonymous US officials.

In the summer of 2020, Barnes and Goldman were among the Times journalists who laundered CIA disinformation that Russia was paying bounties for dead US troops in Afghanistan. When the Biden administration was forced to acknowledge that the allegation was baseless, the Times tried to water down its initial claims in an attempt to save face.

In January, Barnes co-wrote a Times story which claimed, citing unnamed “U.S. officials” more than a dozen times, that “Russian military intelligence officers” were behind “a recent letter bomb campaign in Spain whose most prominent targets were the prime minister, the defense minister and foreign diplomats.” But days later, as the Washington Post reported, Spanish authorities arrested “a 74-year-old Spaniard who opposed his country’s support for Ukraine but appears to have acted alone.” (Moon of Alabama is one the few voices to have called out the Times’ fraudulent reporting).

That same month, Goldman shared a byline, alongside fellow “Russian bounties” stenographer Charlie Savage, on a Times story which argued that Special Counsel John Durham has “failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry,” even though Durham’s findings have yet to be released. As I reported for Real Clear Investigations, the Times made its case by omitting countervailing information and distorting the available facts – as is the norm for establishment media coverage of Russiagate.

The US officials behind the Times’ latest Nord Stream tale presumably believe that they have offered the best counter to Hersh that they could. That it is devoid of concrete information, and written by Times staffers with a track record of parroting US intelligence-furnished propaganda, ultimately has the opposite effect.

The Times’ narrative can only be seen as further confirmation that Hersh found the Nord Stream bomber in Washington. That explains why anonymous US officials are now using proxies in establishment media to scapegoat their proxy in Ukraine

 

 

[shiva2999]

 

[Very Wide Right]

If Trump ever did this, they would have had a field day in the media for six months and several "hearings". Those of you who still support these lying leftist media soldiers need to wake up.

[SackMan518]

NORD STREAM UPDATE: Danish authorities invite the Russian company that operates Nord Stream 2 to observe the recovery of an unidentified object resting near the sole intact pipe

 

From Reuters:

Last week, Danish authorities said a tubular object, protruding around 40 cm (16 inches) from the seabed and 10 cm in diameter, had been found during an inspection of the last remaining intact pipeline by Swiss-based operator Nord Stream 2 AG.

“With a view to further clarifying the nature of the object, Danish authorities have decided to salvage the object with assistance from the Danish Defence,” the country’s Energy Agency said in a statement on Thursday.

“The Danish Energy Agency has in that context invited the owner of the pipeline, Nord Stream 2 AG, to participate in the operation,” it said, adding it was awaiting a response from the operator.

Spiegel reports that the Danes are saying it could be a smoke buoy, which is interesting, because Seymour Hersh’s original report on How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline featured a sonar buoy allegedly dropped to trigger the pipeline charges. Naturally, I have no idea whether such a buoy would be so small, and it seems improbable that it would’ve ended up directly adjacent to the intact Nord Stream 2 pipe. Perhaps this is all part of a publicity operation to disarm this aspect of the sabotage story.

At any rate, the timing is odd, for this latest report comes two days after Seymour Hersh’s follow-up piece on the origins of the sailboat-saboteur account of the attack. This, you’ll recall, is the story that appeared simultaneously in major American and German media, directly after the early March meeting between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and U.S. Presdent Joe Biden in Washington. Hersh seems to confirm widespread suspicions about how that report originated:

I was told by someone with access to diplomatic intelligence that there was a discussion of the pipeline exposé and, as a result, certain elements in the Central Intelligence Agency were asked to prepare a cover story in collaboration with German intelligence that would provide the American and German press with an alternative version for the destruction of Nord Stream 2. In the words of the intelligence community, the agency was “to pulse the system” in an effort to discount the claim that Biden had ordered the pipelines’ destruction.

Thoughts?

 

[HipKat]

Does that really look like it's been there for anytime less than maybe 10 years?