Absurd conspiracy theories never go away. People believe nonsense because nonsense is sexier or more exciting or whatever. Tell me.
As expected, when I wrote the article “Nord Stream Pipeline Setback: Germany Stops All New Aid to Ukraine,” Armstrong and Hersh supporters came crawling out of their holes—and they did.
Comments ranged from “Novice divers couldn’t do this, the ship couldn’t carry the required amount of explosives and they couldn’t possibly locate the pipeline at this depth.” Another asked “Where was the decompression chamber?”
None of these respondents have bothered to read easily accessible material that refutes these ways of thinking.
And on top of that, Hersh made a number of serious errors. I wrote some of them as an addendum, but then decided to write this follow-up post.
Blow up the Hersh BS
Please note: All at Sea: Seymour Hersh and his story of the Nord Stream sabotage
“Anyone who takes this subject seriously knows that you cannot anchor a sailboat in 260-foot-deep water.”
Although this statement is factually correct, it is still stupid: The boat would not have to anchor,
Hersh makes a factually correct statement, but it is 100% meaningless.
Medium writer Brian Whitaker addresses most of the nonsense that a tiny 49-foot boat can’t do this or that.
Hersh: “You can’t just walk off the street with a fake passport and lease a boat.”
More nonsense.
This too far surpasses Whitaker.
The captain and the divers would have to prove their competence, but it is unclear why the expert thinks this would be a problem. If you’re going to blow up pipelines, it’s best to have competent people doing it. They won’t want their real names on the certificates, but for people who know how to get fake passports, it shouldn’t be too difficult to get the extra documents.
Actually, it’s quite clear why Hersh would do this. He sells conspiracy theories.
That reminds me of all that nonsense about Lee Harvey Oswald not being able to get to the location in the time allotted or not being able to fire the shots in the time allotted. Then a lot of people did both.
Decompression BS
A reader just asked: “Where was the decompression chamber?”
The short answer is: Although many people say so, it was not necessary.
Brian Whitaker discussed this in a follow-up article Nord Stream Sabotage: A Look at the Evidence So Far
It has been repeatedly claimed that it would not be possible to conduct 80-meter dives from such a small boat because the Andromeda had no room for a decompression chamber. However, a mention of helium in the intelligence report on the Ukrainian plan suggests an alternative solution. By breathing a mixture of oxygen and helium and taking occasional breaks when surfacing, the need for a decompression chamber could be avoided. A Dutch military website describes the procedure as used by naval divers.
The extreme diver and trainer Achim Schlöffel said in an interview with the Ostsee-Zeitung that the difficulties were exaggerated. The pipeline could be easily located using nautical charts or a depth sounder, which costs about $3,000. The location could be marked by dropping a 15 kg weight on a line with a marker buoy at the other end, and divers would follow the line to the exact location. Explosives could be routed along the line in the same way. The boat would continue on and return to the marker buoy to pick up the divers when they surface.
“Anyone who has completed level two in our diving school would be able to do it,” Schloeffel told the paper. “Especially for those who regularly go wreck diving, a dive to the pipeline would not be a problem.”
Regardless, the most widespread (and most believed) theory on social media is that the US blew up Nord Stream. This is largely the result of an article by American journalist Seymour Hersh, who claims that US Navy divers carried out the attack with the assistance of Norway.
More mistakes by Hersh
Please note: Further errors regarding Norwegian interference in the Nord Stream sabotage translated from Norwegian to English.
The latter is the claim of US journalist Seymour Hersh. On February 8, he published an article detailing how the Norwegian Defense Forces are said to have contributed to the sabotage attacks in the Danish and Swedish economic zones in the Baltic Sea.
Over the past month, the article has been shared around the world, including on Norwegian alternative websites.
Among other things, Hersh mentions Norwegian naval bases that do not exist and ships that were reportedly in Norway during the period in question. He also writes that Jens Stoltenberg was already a trusted source for American intelligence as a teenager.
Ship data, satellite images and documentation reviewed by Faktisk.no show, among other things, that:
- None of the Norwegian Alta-class minesweepers took part in the NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea.
- Satellite images confirm that a ship was at Haakonsvern naval base three days after the launch of BALTOPS 22.
- Satellite imagery, ship data and pictures indicate that the second ship was undergoing maintenance at the Umoe shipyard.
- The Norwegian P-8A Poseidons were not operational at the time. Hersh writes that one such aircraft was on a “routine flight” over the Baltic Sea. Avinor informs Faktisk.no that no P-8 aircraft took off from Evenes Airport on September 25 or 26. It must also be assumed that the aircraft would have been visible on the radars of several countries that monitor the airspace over the Baltic Sea.
One detail that many Norwegian readers probably stumbled upon in Hersh’s article is the section where he explains why Norway is the perfect partner for the United States.
NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg is described as a staunch anti-communist who has been a trusted source for US intelligence since the Vietnam War.
The Vietnam War lasted from 1957 to 1975. Jens Stoltenberg was born on March 16, 1959, and was therefore a teenager when the war was over.
Hersh has also published a map showing Norwegian naval bases in Evenes, Sola and Rygge, and air force bases in Tromsø and Ramsund. Hersh clarifies that the map is “not accurate.” That is an understatement.
You can find many more debunkings and details in the article above.
That won’t convince many people, and maybe no one. People who believe nonsense generally stick to believing nonsense.
The true story of Nord Stream
The Wall Street Journal comments: A drunken evening, a rented yacht: The true story of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline
Occam’s Razor
I am one of the biggest fans of Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions, is the one most likely to be true.
Having disproved the nonsense about the amount of explosives needed, the diving training required, the ease of finding the pipeline and the decompression chambers, what is left?
Competing theories
- A group of dedicated Ukrainians rented a boat, located the pipeline using published documents and a $3,000 locator, deployed high-yield timed explosive devices (traces of which were found on the boat), set timed stops to avoid decompression, and blew up the pipelines. They accidentally hit one pipeline twice and missed the fourth. As amateurs, they failed to remove all evidence of explosives from the vessel. The WSJ spoke to four senior Ukrainian defense and security officials who were either involved in the plot or had direct knowledge of it. All said the pipelines were a legitimate target in Ukraine’s defensive war against Russia.
- The US, in cooperation with Norwegian forces, blew up the pipelines and planted evidence pointing to Ukraine. The US and Norwegian forces were not competent enough to reach all four pipelines (or deliberately missed one to divert suspicion). Meanwhile, evidence disproves the notion that Norwegian forces were in the area. As professionals, they deliberately failed to remove all evidence of explosives on the ship. The failure to remove all evidence was part of the plot to make it look like amateurs did it. The operation involved minesweepers and Poseidon aircraft that were not even in use, and no radar picked up the planes, or the radar is fake and there are even more accomplices involved. The WSJ is lying or complicit in the US cover-up. Finally, the fact that Zelensky did not deny the WSJ report is meaningless or US blackmail.
To dispel the notion that the US warned Ukraine about this, one reader suggests: “Yes, of course – the CIA warned Zelensky. Don’t you think they gave Zelensky an order, otherwise the next tranche of blood money would have been stopped?”
The above idea adds even more complexity and obvious contradictions to the US-Norway idea.
Now tell me which of these competing versions makes more sense. If you still believe #2, you are hopelessly delusional.
My guess: If you were a hopeless conspiracy theorist before, you probably still are. Maybe I’m wrong. Have I convinced anyone?
Shame Shame
According to the WSJ, Zelensky authorized the attack on the pipeline. And he did not deny it. That alone should clear things up.
Shame on the US for causing this whole mess. It started with US interference in 2014.
But I do not approve of Russia’s actions. Shame on Russia. But the US knew Russia’s red lines and ignored them.
Shame on British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who told Zelensky shortly after the invasion not to enter into a peace deal. Johnson put pressure on Kyiv to continue the fight. David Arahamiya, the leader of the Ukrainian ruling party, confirmed this in an interview.
And finally: shame on Zelensky for not accepting a good deal when he had one.
Yes, there is a lot of shame!
