4 ms·

Is it absolutely certain that there were explosives at all? I remember hearing arguments that sufficiently large explosives would have created a seismic signatu

Is it absolutely certain that there were explosives at all? I remember hearing arguments that sufficiently large explosives would have created a seismic signature that was not detected. The claim there was that it was negligence that caused it to collapse. Still absolutely Russia's fault, but it doesn't look like malice. (FWIW this was Ryan McBeth on YouTube, who I don't think is the most credible, but his argument here made sense).

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
From wikipedia: > There were signs of an explosion at the time of the breach. Both Ukrainian and Russian sources reported hearing blasts from the dam's hydroelectric power station,[3][4] regional seismometers detected explosions in the area,[5][8] and a satellite detected the infrared heat signature of an explosion.
Muromec 3y ago
russia will throw in a hundred of bad faith arguments and outright ignore reality (no seismic signature, suuure) to mud the water, so be sceptical about everything anybody is saying about the whole thing. They even blew up the dam before and inflicted more casualties on themselves too, so “look who benefits“ isn’t reliable either
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  Yes, this is their usual MO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
  - thrway63245 3y ago
    And not just theirs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony Before you say "whataboutism": yes, I do know of this word you use to shut down your critical thinking.
    - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
      Of course it's not just theirs, I never said that. Republicans (Trump is the most recent example) are also fans of this approach.
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  The Russians previously blew up the Kakhovka dam, before the time it collapsed? I didn't hear about that. Anyway, this was a distinctly pro-Ukraine source, so I think he was at least in good faith, even if he was way off.
  - Muromec 3y ago
    They blew a different dam on Dnipro during retreat in WW2 and killed about fuckton of civilians and their own troops
squidbeak 3y ago
Norwegian Seismologists believe they detected a signature. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/norwegian-seismologists-say-data-shows-explosions-time-ukraine-dam-blast-2023-06-09/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/norwegian-seismologists... (Not to dismiss the effects of Russia's deliberate overfilling.)
andrewflnr 3y ago
Guess I'll cite my sources, huh? https://youtu.be/6z4rhBKTT5U?si=LAieHjZIPzkQ2S8F https://youtu.be/6z4rhBKTT5U?si=LAieHjZIPzkQ2S8F Short version: he shows satellite photos consistent with progressive damage to the dam (likely due to poor maintenance), especially near the collapse point, in the months prior to the collapse. The evidence seems difficult to fake with too high a risk/reward, and his argument from that evidence is cogent without overreaching like someone who was trying to be sensationalist. He also casts a bit of doubt on the Norwegian seismic detection claim (claim: heavy duty explosives plus a collapse should have produced two distinct bumps, while the trace only shows one), but I definitely remembered wrong on that particular point.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago

From wikipedia: > There were signs of an explosion at the time of the breach. Both Ukrainian and Russian sources reported hearing blasts from the dam's hydroelectric power station,[3][4] regional seismometers detected explosions in the area,[5][8] and a satellite detected the infrared heat signature of an explosion.

Muromec 3y ago

russia will throw in a hundred of bad faith arguments and outright ignore reality (no seismic signature, suuure) to mud the water, so be sceptical about everything anybody is saying about the whole thing. They even blew up the dam before and inflicted more casualties on themselves too, so “look who benefits“ isn’t reliable either

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
Yes, this is their usual MO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
- thrway63245 3y ago
  And not just theirs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony Before you say "whataboutism": yes, I do know of this word you use to shut down your critical thinking.
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    Of course it's not just theirs, I never said that. Republicans (Trump is the most recent example) are also fans of this approach.
andrewflnr 3y ago
The Russians previously blew up the Kakhovka dam, before the time it collapsed? I didn't hear about that. Anyway, this was a distinctly pro-Ukraine source, so I think he was at least in good faith, even if he was way off.
- Muromec 3y ago
  They blew a different dam on Dnipro during retreat in WW2 and killed about fuckton of civilians and their own troops

squidbeak 3y ago

Norwegian Seismologists believe they detected a signature. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/norwegian-seismologists-say-data-shows-explosions-time-ukraine-dam-blast-2023-06-09/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/norwegian-seismologists... (Not to dismiss the effects of Russia's deliberate overfilling.)

andrewflnr 3y ago

Guess I'll cite my sources, huh? https://youtu.be/6z4rhBKTT5U?si=LAieHjZIPzkQ2S8F https://youtu.be/6z4rhBKTT5U?si=LAieHjZIPzkQ2S8F Short version: he shows satellite photos consistent with progressive damage to the dam (likely due to poor maintenance), especially near the collapse point, in the months prior to the collapse. The evidence seems difficult to fake with too high a risk/reward, and his argument from that evidence is cogent without overreaching like someone who was trying to be sensationalist. He also casts a bit of doubt on the Norwegian seismic detection claim (claim: heavy duty explosives plus a collapse should have produced two distinct bumps, while the trace only shows one), but I definitely remembered wrong on that particular point.