Conspiracy "theories"

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Cinga said:

 

I had to look it up cause I didn't think that was right given that even oil has heating and pumping stations along the way you that can't have at the bottom of the ocean and it's not. You can't transport LNG through a pipeline...

https://www.naturalgasintel.com/can-lng-be-transported-by-pipeline/

Part of the process to liquify is to chill it to -260 degrees and that cannot be maintained through a pipeline and it would be too volatile. However volume is decreased dramatically that way allowing transport in tanks, then it is re-liquefied  at it's destination to be piped wherever it is going

 

My fault for taking Wikipedia at it's word.

 

The point still stands: "not pressurized" is not "empty."  There's still gas in it, even if delivery's suspended.

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, Koko said:

 

Well, even at low PSI with no active flow, there's still a lot of natural gas left in the pipe over that big of a distance.

 

even at low pressure it would dissipate almost immediately if the pipe is broken, think of it like disconnecting an air hose from a compressor. Pressure equalizes again within seconds, not hours. I have thought a bit on it and it is quite possible instead the bubbles are from water filling the pipes and evacuating air/gas inside of it

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

I have thought a bit on it and it is quite possible instead the bubbles are from water filling the pipes and evacuating air/gas inside of it

 

 

IT's not like disconnecting an air hose from a compressor.  It's about 70 miles of 48" pipe, leaking through what's likely a small hole.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Crap Throwing Clavin

[Deranged Rhino]

51 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Wrong.

 

Why not irrevocably cut trade with NATO - who you're effectively at war at - when it doesn't discomfit you in the slightest?  

As Meazza pointed out above, they already had cut trade, without damaging their pipeline project which they spent billions to built.
 

How does it makes sense to then blow up said pipeline, limiting any future economic gains post war (especially if you subscribe to the belief Putin wants to conquer more than just Ukraine), when that adds nothing to the equation? 
 

You’re suggesting there’s a tactical or strategic benefit to that move but I don’t see one. What do they gain? 
 

They don’t gain victim hood. 
They don’t gain new allies or a moral high ground. 
They don’t increase the pressure put on their enemies economically or otherwise. 
 

Help me see what I’m missing. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

As Meazza pointed out above, they already had cut trade, without damaging their pipeline project which they spent billions to built.

 

But they can be pressured back in to trade with an intact pipeline.  Can't sanction them back into delivery with no delivery method.

 

Plus, if you really want to &#%$ with Western Europe's economy...irrevocably cut off their energy supply.  That's the crux of the question: Putin has a long history of weaponizing energy supplies.  Would he weaponize energy supplies as far as disabling infrastructure, even Russian-owned infrastructure?  

 

Ultimately, though, the "whodunnit" exercise is masking one simple observation: for anyone, physically sabotaging the pipeline is an irrational act.  Particularly in this manner - I can think of three easier, less traceable ways to sabotage this pipeline (the physical turbine pumps, the controllers for the pumps, damaging the welds between segments.)  

[Nouseforaname]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Which only makes it less likely Russia was behind it. If it's like you said, the economic damage was already being wrought due to Russians stopping the flow. Blowing it up wouldn't change that outcome, thus that removes the biggest motivation Russia would have for blowing up their own $20 billion project.

 

Right? 

Or you could look at it from another angle.  Energy prices have been dropping and this hurts russia.  Removing a potential source of energy can only bring up the market price of energy and can benefit Russia.

 

Either way I don’t know for sure who did it but i don’t personally think it changes the outcome of the war either way in my opinion.

[Nouseforaname]

30 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

But they can be pressured back in to trade with an intact pipeline.  Can't sanction them back into delivery with no delivery method.

 

Plus, if you really want to &#%$ with Western Europe's economy...irrevocably cut off their energy supply.  That's the crux of the question: Putin has a long history of weaponizing energy supplies.  Would he weaponize energy supplies as far as disabling infrastructure, even Russian-owned infrastructure?  

 

Ultimately, though, the "whodunnit" exercise is masking one simple observation: for anyone, physically sabotaging the pipeline is an irrational act.  Particularly in this manner - I can think of three easier, less traceable ways to sabotage this pipeline (the physical turbine pumps, the controllers for the pumps, damaging the welds between segments.)  

Has there been any actual assessment on the damage ? I haven’t seen anything concrete.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

8 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

Has there been any actual assessment on the damage ? I haven’t seen anything concrete.

 

None that I've heard.  I imagine it can't be catastrophic, or it wouldn't be bubbling up as it seems to be.  Can't be a pinhole leak either, or gas wouldn't be making it to the surface. 

 

I'm not going to do the math...but figure a break on the order of "cracked weld."  Not literally a cracked weld, necessarily...just a breach on the order of that size.  

[Taro T]

32 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

None that I've heard.  I imagine it can't be catastrophic, or it wouldn't be bubbling up as it seems to be.  Can't be a pinhole leak either, or gas wouldn't be making it to the surface. 

 

I'm not going to do the math...but figure a break on the order of "cracked weld."  Not literally a cracked weld, necessarily...just a breach on the order of that size.  

 

Which, regardless of who did it, Russia could probably repair within a month or 2 (can't see it taking more than 4 months once they actually decide they want the pipeline back in service) once the war is actually over and the crews sent to repair the pipeline don't have to fear being blown up themselves.

 

It keeps Russia from being able to open the spigot on demand but it also isn't like they have to start from scratch to get the pipelines running again.

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Which, regardless of who did it, Russia could probably repair within a month or 2 (can't see it taking more than 4 months once they actually decide they want the pipeline back in service) once the war is actually over and the crews sent to repair the pipeline don't have to fear being blown up themselves.

 

It keeps Russia from being able to open the spigot on demand but it also isn't like they have to start from scratch to get the pipelines running again.

 

 

 

Probably longer than that. After replacing or patching a segment, you'd have to dry and clean out the pipeline pretty well - the interior of the pipeline has to be very dry, and I don't imagine any salt residue would do any good either.

[Spartacus]

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-evidence-us-involved-nord-stream-pipeline-attack-because-pentagon-says-so

 

Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin has confirmed that the U.S. was not responsible for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline explosion, because the Pentagon told her so.

 

 

Despite accusations flying that the United States could have been involved in the blasts that have reportedly could scupper the pipelines permanently, and without any investigation having taken place, Griffin’s crack journalism has solved the case.

 

“There is no evidence or indication the US was involved in any way with the Nordstream 2 pipeline explosions,” Griffin tweeted.

 

“My question at the Pentagon briefing today: Can you rule out that the U.S. was involved? Senior Military Official: ‘Yeah, we were absolutely not involved.’ ”

[Billsandhorns]

1 minute ago, Spartacus said:

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-evidence-us-involved-nord-stream-pipeline-attack-because-pentagon-says-so

 

Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin has confirmed that the U.S. was not responsible for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline explosion, because the Pentagon told her so.

 

 

Despite accusations flying that the United States could have been involved in the blasts that have reportedly could scupper the pipelines permanently, and without any investigation having taken place, Griffin’s crack journalism has solved the case.

 

“There is no evidence or indication the US was involved in any way with the Nordstream 2 pipeline explosions,” Griffin tweeted.

 

“My question at the Pentagon briefing today: Can you rule out that the U.S. was involved? Senior Military Official: ‘Yeah, we were absolutely not involved.’ ”

How many people actually believe them

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

13 minutes ago, Billsandhorns said:

How many people actually believe them

 

I do...but not because they say so, or because Jennifer Griffin "confirms" it.

[Nouseforaname]

54 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

I do...but not because they say so, or because Jennifer Griffin "confirms" it.

Are you a neo con shill?

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

13 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

Are you a neo con shill?

 

You people have it all wrong.  I'm not a shill for the neo-cons, Big Pharma, George Soros, the Illuminati, the CIA, the military-industrial complex or any of those other piddly little wannabes.  I'm a shill for the real power-brokers in the world.

 

Metro-Goldwin Mayer.

[SackMan518]

On 9/29/2022 at 3:17 PM, Billsandhorns said:

How many people actually believe them

 

I could think of a couple here. LOL

[devnull]

3 hours ago, Paulus said:

Why don't people talk about how WWI and WWII were the same?

 

The Second Thirty Years War

[devnull]

28 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Wow, you are plebians. No, the war began in 1500, for you retards.

 

Your post is the most useless pile of crap I've endured since the last office retirement at Olive Garden

[devnull]

29 minutes ago, Paulus said:

until I die ugly death.

You live as you die

[Spartacus]

Far-right pundits baselessly claim Hurricane Ian was created by the 'deep state' to target Gov. Ron DeSantis and other red states: 'They are angry with us' (msn.com)

 

Two far-right pundits are spewing baseless a conspiracy theory about "weather manipulation" — claiming that Hurricane Ian was created by the so-called Deep State to target Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other GOP-led states as "punishment."

 

"We understand that the 'deep state,' they have weather manipulation technology," Lorraine said on her Telegram show, per a clip posted by the group on Friday, referring to the hurricane that struck the Sunshine State. 

 

"These huge hurricanes always seem to target red states, red districts, and always at a convenient time — typically right before elections," she added. "Or, in this case, possibly because Ron DeSantis has been stepping out of line a lot and challenging, fighting the 'deep state."