4 ms·

>>That proves the explosion was deliberate. >No it doesn't. No one denies that the explosions are an act of sabotage. How do you imagine non-deliberate explos

by fuoqi 4y ago

>>That proves the explosion was deliberate. >No it doesn't. No one denies that the explosions are an act of sabotage. How do you imagine non-deliberate explosions happening approximately at the same time and of such power as to cause seismic sensors to reliably detect them?

progre 4y ago
Also, a lot of explosives was used. A lot more than what would have destoyed the pipes. So not only were the pipes sabotaged, whoever did it wanted to make it obvious.
- vintermann 4y ago
  No, we don't know that. It might just have been easiest. It would be obvious anyway.
computerfriend 4y ago
I personally believe that it was sabotage. But this doesn't prove it.
- fuoqi 4y ago
  Ah, sure. It could've been swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket, which has reflected the light from Venus.
  - libraryatnight 4y ago
    Uncle Dave?
    - narag 4y ago
      Man in Black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TgSGylIw2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TgSGylIw2A That in turn were quoting usual explanations from the Blue Book Project era.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    The thing is, the prime suspect(s) of this operation have means to do this much more stealthily. Why send a 95 to 130 meter ship to do that? I believe this is sabotage. I have no idea who did it and why, but saying "Hey, there are two ships, miles away from the site with transponders off. It's them!" is a bit of a stretch.
    - fuoqi 4y ago
      I am not saying that it's proven that the "dark" ship is responsible here. I am objecting to the opinion that blowing up NS/NS2 is somehow not an obvious act of sabotage. With all the rhetoric from the US about not allowing NS2 using any means, I think that it's quite possible that charges were planted long before the explosions and were activated remotely.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > I am not saying that it's proven that the "dark" ship is responsible here. I am objecting to the opinion that blowing up NS/NS2 is somehow not an obvious act of sabotage. Then you completely misread the comment you originally responded to, and this entire thread is a waste of time. All they said was that the dark ship evidence does not prove sabotage. And you say the same thing, that the dark ship may or may not be responsible.
    - narag 4y ago
      The thing is, the prime suspect(s) of this operation have means to do this much more stealthily. Maybe they didn't expect to get caught. It seems we're assisting to a recalibration of what's possible in several fields.
    - bongoman37 4y ago
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      Because passing merchant vessels attract less attention from ASW assets than submarines? At a wild guess, there'd be multiple merchant vessels travelling past the point where the pipes were attacked. Who would notice if a group of divers happened to leave a ship as it transited? And of course, those vessels could be flagged under many a convenient jurisdiction. Liberia used to have the world's largest merchant marine, theoretically. Whereas if you go in with a submarine, and it gets detected in the vicinity, it's far harder to plausibly deny that your country wasn't involved. TL;DR - you're assuming a submarine would be stealthier, but there's a lot of stealth to be had from hiding in the crowd.
  - jfghi 4y ago
    Did you make that up on the spot or was it recycled?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- masswerk 4y ago
  Video images (taken after the removal of the debris from the site) apparently show that at least one pipe was vertically driven into the ground over a length of about 50 meters. Provided that this rift seen in the video is not manufactured evidence, this seems to hint at an external force, probably applied at two separate points, something like mines.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Exactly. I feel absolutely certain that it was sabotage. But the presence of unknown military ships doesn't prove it. That is very strong evidence but technically it could be a freak coincidence. The stronger proof is the condition of the pipes, obviously sabotaged. That's evidence strong enough to reasonably call "proof."
pdntspa 4y ago
There have been stranger coincidences

by fuoqi 4y ago

progre 4y ago

Also, a lot of explosives was used. A lot more than what would have destoyed the pipes. So not only were the pipes sabotaged, whoever did it wanted to make it obvious.

vintermann 4y ago
No, we don't know that. It might just have been easiest. It would be obvious anyway.

computerfriend 4y ago

I personally believe that it was sabotage. But this doesn't prove it.

fuoqi 4y ago
Ah, sure. It could've been swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket, which has reflected the light from Venus.
- libraryatnight 4y ago
  Uncle Dave?
  - narag 4y ago
    Man in Black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TgSGylIw2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TgSGylIw2A That in turn were quoting usual explanations from the Blue Book Project era.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  The thing is, the prime suspect(s) of this operation have means to do this much more stealthily. Why send a 95 to 130 meter ship to do that? I believe this is sabotage. I have no idea who did it and why, but saying "Hey, there are two ships, miles away from the site with transponders off. It's them!" is a bit of a stretch.
  - fuoqi 4y ago
    I am not saying that it's proven that the "dark" ship is responsible here. I am objecting to the opinion that blowing up NS/NS2 is somehow not an obvious act of sabotage. With all the rhetoric from the US about not allowing NS2 using any means, I think that it's quite possible that charges were planted long before the explosions and were activated remotely.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > I am not saying that it's proven that the "dark" ship is responsible here. I am objecting to the opinion that blowing up NS/NS2 is somehow not an obvious act of sabotage. Then you completely misread the comment you originally responded to, and this entire thread is a waste of time. All they said was that the dark ship evidence does not prove sabotage. And you say the same thing, that the dark ship may or may not be responsible.
  - narag 4y ago
    The thing is, the prime suspect(s) of this operation have means to do this much more stealthily. Maybe they didn't expect to get caught. It seems we're assisting to a recalibration of what's possible in several fields.
  - bongoman37 4y ago
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    Because passing merchant vessels attract less attention from ASW assets than submarines? At a wild guess, there'd be multiple merchant vessels travelling past the point where the pipes were attacked. Who would notice if a group of divers happened to leave a ship as it transited? And of course, those vessels could be flagged under many a convenient jurisdiction. Liberia used to have the world's largest merchant marine, theoretically. Whereas if you go in with a submarine, and it gets detected in the vicinity, it's far harder to plausibly deny that your country wasn't involved. TL;DR - you're assuming a submarine would be stealthier, but there's a lot of stealth to be had from hiding in the crowd.
- jfghi 4y ago
  Did you make that up on the spot or was it recycled?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
masswerk 4y ago
Video images (taken after the removal of the debris from the site) apparently show that at least one pipe was vertically driven into the ground over a length of about 50 meters. Provided that this rift seen in the video is not manufactured evidence, this seems to hint at an external force, probably applied at two separate points, something like mines.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Exactly. I feel absolutely certain that it was sabotage. But the presence of unknown military ships doesn't prove it. That is very strong evidence but technically it could be a freak coincidence. The stronger proof is the condition of the pipes, obviously sabotaged. That's evidence strong enough to reasonably call "proof."

pdntspa 4y ago

There have been stranger coincidences