On 9/30/2022 4:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 1:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> Checking my Gmail around I see that Krygowski who has
>>> proven wrong on every single thing he has said in 20
>>> years is presently pretending that his God - Biden -
>>> would NEVER say directly that he would commit an
>>> international act of terrorism after saying he would.
>>>
>>> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-happened-nord-stream-pipeline?yptr=yahoo
>>>
>>
>> :-)Â Ah, Tom! I suspected you got your delusion from
>> Tucker Carlson, World's Whackiest News Propagandist!
>>
>> Now to prove your point, please highlight the _quotation_
>> of President Biden saying he would blow up that pipeline.
>> Note, I'm not interested in Tucker Carlson's pretending or
>> rephrasing, because Carlson is as crazy as you. I'm
>> interested in a direct Biden quotation.
>>
>> Here's a hint to help your dismal reading comprehension:
>> When Carlson ends a sentence with a question mark, as in
>> "So once again, did the Biden administration really do
>> this?" it is NOT a statement of fact. It's a hypothetical
>> and inflammatory question intended to suck in idiot right
>> wing "true believers." And predictably, it worked on you.
>>
>> Oddly, other people don't seem to blame Biden.
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-lawmakers-break-europes-silence-105844953.html
>>
>> They tend to suspect Russia. But Carlson and his disciples
>> are willing to attack Biden in order to protect their true
>> love, Putin.
>
> Some corroboration of what I said above: First, Tom's wild
> implications, blaming Biden for blowing up the pipeline, did
> originate with Tucker Carlson. No surprise there.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/wild-baseless-claims-biden-blew-185612325.html
>
>
> "Within hours, the claim was being promoted by far-right
> influencers in the US, and pushed by the network of Russian
> state media networks, despite a lack of credible evidence
> that US warships or operatives had taken part."
>
> Also: "Carlson's coverage of the war in Ukraine has
> consistently aligned with that of Russia's government. He is
> part of a segment of the American right that is blithely
> uninterested in the suffering of Ukrainians, credulous of
> Vladimir Putin's stated motivations, and generally more
> interested in denouncing the US government than the Russian
> one."
>
> And so we have Tom, who accuses others of being communists,
> sucking down any nonsense from a pro-Putin talking head and
> echoing what the Russian propaganda machine pumps out on
> state-run media.
>
> But Tom's too dim to realize he's been recruited to work for
> Putin.
>

January 2022 was only eight months ago:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60151839

In February, a week or so later:
https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-resurfaces-after-pipeline-leak-1747005

I don't know.
I've heard a lot of theories (such as Poland, who recently
opened their new Denmark-Poland pipeline) none of which have
convinced me. Yet.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:53:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/28/2022 1:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> Checking my Gmail around I see that Krygowski who has proven wrong on
>>> every single thing he has said in 20 years is presently pretending
>>> that his God - Biden - would NEVER say directly that he would commit
>>> an international act of terrorism after saying he would.
>>>
>>> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-happened-nord-stream-pipeline?yptr=yahoo
>>
>> :-)  Ah, Tom! I suspected you got your delusion from Tucker Carlson,
>> World's Whackiest News Propagandist!

I suspect Krygowski prefers Joy Ried or Don Lemon for his news..
>> Now to prove your point, please highlight the _quotation_ of President
>> Biden saying he would blow up that pipeline. Note, I'm not interested in
>> Tucker Carlson's pretending or rephrasing, because Carlson is as crazy
>> as you. I'm interested in a direct Biden quotation.
>>
>> Here's a hint to help your dismal reading comprehension: When Carlson
>> ends a sentence with a question mark, as in "So once again, did the
>> Biden administration really do this?" it is NOT a statement of fact.
>> It's a hypothetical and inflammatory question intended to suck in idiot
>> right wing "true believers." And predictably, it worked on you.
>>
>> Oddly, other people don't seem to blame Biden.
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-lawmakers-break-europes-silence-105844953.html
>> They tend to suspect Russia. But Carlson and his disciples are willing
>> to attack Biden in order to protect their true love, Putin.
>
>Some corroboration of what I said above: First, Tom's wild implications,
>blaming Biden for blowing up the pipeline, did originate with Tucker
>Carlson. No surprise there.
>https://www.yahoo.com/news/wild-baseless-claims-biden-blew-185612325.html
>
>"Within hours, the claim was being promoted by far-right influencers in
>the US, and pushed by the network of Russian state media networks,
>despite a lack of credible evidence that US warships or operatives had
>taken part."
>
>Also: "Carlson's coverage of the war in Ukraine has consistently aligned
>with that of Russia's government. He is part of a segment of the
>American right that is blithely uninterested in the suffering of
>Ukrainians, credulous of Vladimir Putin's stated motivations, and
>generally more interested in denouncing the US government than the
>Russian one."
>
>And so we have Tom, who accuses others of being communists, sucking down
>any nonsense from a pro-Putin talking head and echoing what the Russian
>propaganda machine pumps out on state-run media.
>
>But Tom's too dim to realize he's been recruited to work for Putin.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:38:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/30/2022 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>>>
>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>>> to Nord Stream.
>>>
>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>>>
>>> So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>>> places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>>> shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>>> under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>>> collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>>> 981 kPa or 142 psi.
>>>
>>> My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>>> it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>>> let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>>> (methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>>> mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>>> charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>>> be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>>> (pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>>> to the explosion site:
>>> "Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>>> There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>>> pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>>> <https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>>> The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>>> the explosion.
>>
>> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
>> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
>> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
>> see
>> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>>
>> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
>> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
>> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
>> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
>> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
>>
>
>I agree an internal explosive is highly unlikely.
>Meanwhile Norway reports increased 'unidentified drone'
>activity near their oil/gas facilities:
>
>https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/norway-oil-safety-regulator-warns-threats-unidentified-drones-2022-09-26/
>
>https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/26/norway-oil-safety

Yes, I read that but the Norwegian oil fields are a long way from the
pipeline.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/30/2022 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:38:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/30/2022 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>>>>
>>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>>>> to Nord Stream.
>>>>
>>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>>>>
>>>> So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>>>> places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>>>> shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>>>> under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>>>> collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>>>> 981 kPa or 142 psi.
>>>>
>>>> My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>>>> it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>>>> let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>>>> (methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>>>> mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>>>> charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>>>> be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>>>> (pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>>>> to the explosion site:
>>>> "Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>>>> There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>>>> pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>>>> <https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>>>> The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>>>> the explosion.
>>>
>>> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
>>> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
>>> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
>>> see
>>> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>>>
>>> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
>>> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
>>> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
>>> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
>>> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
>>>
>>
>> I agree an internal explosive is highly unlikely.
>> Meanwhile Norway reports increased 'unidentified drone'
>> activity near their oil/gas facilities:
>>
>> https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/norway-oil-safety-regulator-warns-threats-unidentified-drones-2022-09-26/
>>
>> https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/26/norway-oil-safety
>
> Yes, I read that but the Norwegian oil fields are a long way from the
> pipeline.
>

'A long way' tactically, but 'in the sector' strategically.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/30/2022 6:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/30/2022 4:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 1:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Checking my Gmail around I see that Krygowski who has
>>>> proven wrong on every single thing he has said in 20
>>>> years is presently pretending that his God - Biden -
>>>> would NEVER say directly that he would commit an
>>>> international act of terrorism after saying he would.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-happened-nord-stream-pipeline?yptr=yahoo
>>>>
>>>
>>> :-)  Ah, Tom! I suspected you got your delusion from
>>> Tucker Carlson, World's Whackiest News Propagandist!
>>>
>>> Now to prove your point, please highlight the _quotation_
>>> of President Biden saying he would blow up that pipeline.
>>> Note, I'm not interested in Tucker Carlson's pretending or
>>> rephrasing, because Carlson is as crazy as you. I'm
>>> interested in a direct Biden quotation.
>>>
>>> Here's a hint to help your dismal reading comprehension:
>>> When Carlson ends a sentence with a question mark, as in
>>> "So once again, did the Biden administration really do
>>> this?" it is NOT a statement of fact. It's a hypothetical
>>> and inflammatory question intended to suck in idiot right
>>> wing "true believers." And predictably, it worked on you.
>>>
>>> Oddly, other people don't seem to blame Biden.
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-lawmakers-break-europes-silence-105844953.html
>>>
>>> They tend to suspect Russia. But Carlson and his disciples
>>> are willing to attack Biden in order to protect their true
>>> love, Putin.
>>
>> Some corroboration of what I said above: First, Tom's wild
>> implications, blaming Biden for blowing up the pipeline, did
>> originate with Tucker Carlson. No surprise there.
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/wild-baseless-claims-biden-blew-185612325.html
>>
>>
>> "Within hours, the claim was being promoted by far-right
>> influencers in the US, and pushed by the network of Russian
>> state media networks, despite a lack of credible evidence
>> that US warships or operatives had taken part."
>>
>> Also: "Carlson's coverage of the war in Ukraine has
>> consistently aligned with that of Russia's government. He is
>> part of a segment of the American right that is blithely
>> uninterested in the suffering of Ukrainians, credulous of
>> Vladimir Putin's stated motivations, and generally more
>> interested in denouncing the US government than the Russian
>> one."
>>
>> And so we have Tom, who accuses others of being communists,
>> sucking down any nonsense from a pro-Putin talking head and
>> echoing what the Russian propaganda machine pumps out on
>> state-run media.
>>
>> But Tom's too dim to realize he's been recruited to work for
>> Putin.
>>
>
> January 2022 was only eight months ago:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60151839
>
> In February, a week or so later:
> https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-resurfaces-after-pipeline-leak-1747005
>
> I don't know.
> I've heard a lot of theories (such as Poland, who recently opened their
> new Denmark-Poland pipeline) none of which have convinced me. Yet.

I also don't know details of the pipeline attack. That's not my point.
My point is that Tom swallows anything Tucker Carlson ejaculates. And
that Tucker Carlson will do Putin's bidding if he thinks it will help
his ratings.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:58:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/30/2022 6:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/30/2022 4:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 1:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/2022 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Checking my Gmail around I see that Krygowski who has
>>>>> proven wrong on every single thing he has said in 20
>>>>> years is presently pretending that his God - Biden -
>>>>> would NEVER say directly that he would commit an
>>>>> international act of terrorism after saying he would.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-happened-nord-stream-pipeline?yptr=yahoo
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> :-)  Ah, Tom! I suspected you got your delusion from
>>>> Tucker Carlson, World's Whackiest News Propagandist!
>>>>
>>>> Now to prove your point, please highlight the _quotation_
>>>> of President Biden saying he would blow up that pipeline.
>>>> Note, I'm not interested in Tucker Carlson's pretending or
>>>> rephrasing, because Carlson is as crazy as you. I'm
>>>> interested in a direct Biden quotation.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a hint to help your dismal reading comprehension:
>>>> When Carlson ends a sentence with a question mark, as in
>>>> "So once again, did the Biden administration really do
>>>> this?" it is NOT a statement of fact. It's a hypothetical
>>>> and inflammatory question intended to suck in idiot right
>>>> wing "true believers." And predictably, it worked on you.
>>>>
>>>> Oddly, other people don't seem to blame Biden.
>>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-lawmakers-break-europes-silence-105844953.html
>>>>
>>>> They tend to suspect Russia. But Carlson and his disciples
>>>> are willing to attack Biden in order to protect their true
>>>> love, Putin.
>>>
>>> Some corroboration of what I said above: First, Tom's wild
>>> implications, blaming Biden for blowing up the pipeline, did
>>> originate with Tucker Carlson. No surprise there.
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/wild-baseless-claims-biden-blew-185612325.html
>>>
>>>
>>> "Within hours, the claim was being promoted by far-right
>>> influencers in the US, and pushed by the network of Russian
>>> state media networks, despite a lack of credible evidence
>>> that US warships or operatives had taken part."
>>>
>>> Also: "Carlson's coverage of the war in Ukraine has
>>> consistently aligned with that of Russia's government. He is
>>> part of a segment of the American right that is blithely
>>> uninterested in the suffering of Ukrainians, credulous of
>>> Vladimir Putin's stated motivations, and generally more
>>> interested in denouncing the US government than the Russian
>>> one."
>>>
>>> And so we have Tom, who accuses others of being communists,
>>> sucking down any nonsense from a pro-Putin talking head and
>>> echoing what the Russian propaganda machine pumps out on
>>> state-run media.
>>>
>>> But Tom's too dim to realize he's been recruited to work for
>>> Putin.
>>>
>>
>> January 2022 was only eight months ago:
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60151839
>>
>> In February, a week or so later:
>> https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-resurfaces-after-pipeline-leak-1747005
>>
>> I don't know.
>> I've heard a lot of theories (such as Poland, who recently opened their
>> new Denmark-Poland pipeline) none of which have convinced me. Yet.
>
>I also don't know details of the pipeline attack. That's not my point.
>My point is that Tom swallows anything Tucker Carlson ejaculates. And
>that Tucker Carlson will do Putin's bidding if he thinks it will help
>his ratings.

Tucker loves it that the lefty loons hate him, and indeed, like most
Fox news shows, he owns cable news at his time slot.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:06:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:14:51 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>>
>>>Yep.
>>>
>>><https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>>>
>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>>> to Nord Stream.
>>>
>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>>>
>>>So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>>>places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>>>shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>>>under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>>>collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>>>981 kPa or 142 psi.
>>>
>>>My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>>>it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>>>let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>>>(methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>>>mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>>>charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>>>be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>>>(pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>>>to the explosion site:
>>>"Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>>>There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>>>pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>>><https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>>>The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>>>the explosion.
>
>>I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
>>pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
>>dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
>>see
>>https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>>
>>Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
>>would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
>>the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
>>something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
>>https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
>
>Good points and I don't have any answers today. I did make one big
>mistake. At the time, I assumed that the explosion was only in Nord
>Stream 2. However, the two additional leaks discovered are both in
>Nord Stream 1 and sufficiently far away that explosive coupling is
>unlikely. For my guess(tm) to be correct, there would need to be two
>pigs involved, one for each pipe.
>
>According to one expert, all the methane will have leaked out of the
>pipelines by Sunday. That should allow inspection of the explosion
>site. If the edges of the hole point inward, the explosive was
>outside of the pipe. If the edges point outward, the explosive was
>inside the pipe. If debris is found from a pig, then a pig was
>involved.
>
>The methane gas is being displaced by sea water, which will likely
>ruin the steel pipe. The outside of the pipe is obviously well
>protected from sea water corrosion. I'm not so sure about the inside
>of the pipe.
>
>Any idea what "test gas" is composed of? Nord Stream 2 may have been
>filled with the stuff at the time of the explosion. See comments in
>this video at 7:08:
>"Potential sabotage: What's behind the Nord Stream pipeline leaks? |
>DW News"
><https://youtu.be/ShXmPA21j-E?t=417>
>
>Some more on how the pipeline works:
>"The Engineering Behind Russia's Deadlocked Pipeline: Nord Stream 2"
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzibtVSamrY>

You keep talking about a "pig" but that is probably the most unlikely
idea possible as to insert a pig in a pipeline one needs access to the
"pig launcher" which is a chamber large enough to hold a pig see
http://www.jamisonproducts.com/pipeline-products/pig-launchers-receivers.html
https://f-e-t.com/production-equipment/gas-processing-treating-midstream/pig-launchers-and-receivers/
and located at each end of the pipeline.
And "pigging a line" is somewhat of a project as launching the pig is
only part of the project. Pressures have to be maintained with in
certain ranges as too little pressure and the pig stops, and now you
have a stuck pig somewhere in the pipeline.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:51:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 11:17:20 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/30/2022 12:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 10:40:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 9/30/2022 11:06 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:14:51 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yep.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>> >>>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>> >>>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>> >>>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>> >>>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>> >>>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>> >>>>> to Nord Stream.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>> >>>>> places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>> >>>>> shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>> >>>>> under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>> >>>>> collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>> >>>>> 981 kPa or 142 psi.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>> >>>>> it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>> >>>>> let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>> >>>>> (methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>> >>>>> mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>> >>>>> charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>> >>>>> be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>> >>>>> (pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>> >>>>> to the explosion site:
>> >>>>> "Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>> >>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>> >>>>> There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>> >>>>> pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>> >>>>> <https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>> >>>>> The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>> >>>>> the explosion.
>> >>>
>> >>>> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
>> >>>> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
>> >>>> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
>> >>>> see
>> >>>> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
>> >>>> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
>> >>>> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
>> >>>> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
>> >>>> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
>> >>>
>> >>> Good points and I don't have any answers today. I did make one big
>> >>> mistake. At the time, I assumed that the explosion was only in Nord
>> >>> Stream 2. However, the two additional leaks discovered are both in
>> >>> Nord Stream 1 and sufficiently far away that explosive coupling is
>> >>> unlikely. For my guess(tm) to be correct, there would need to be two
>> >>> pigs involved, one for each pipe.
>> >>>
>> >>> According to one expert, all the methane will have leaked out of the
>> >>> pipelines by Sunday. That should allow inspection of the explosion
>> >>> site. If the edges of the hole point inward, the explosive was
>> >>> outside of the pipe. If the edges point outward, the explosive was
>> >>> inside the pipe. If debris is found from a pig, then a pig was
>> >>> involved.
>> >>>
>> >>> The methane gas is being displaced by sea water, which will likely
>> >>> ruin the steel pipe. The outside of the pipe is obviously well
>> >>> protected from sea water corrosion. I'm not so sure about the inside
>> >>> of the pipe.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any idea what "test gas" is composed of? Nord Stream 2 may have been
>> >>> filled with the stuff at the time of the explosion. See comments in
>> >>> this video at 7:08:
>> >>> "Potential sabotage: What's behind the Nord Stream pipeline leaks? |
>> >>> DW News"
>> >>> <https://youtu.be/ShXmPA21j-E?t=417>
>> >>>
>> >>> Some more on how the pipeline works:
>> >>> "The Engineering Behind Russia's Deadlocked Pipeline: Nord Stream 2"
>> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzibtVSamrY>
>> >>>
>> >> NATO has officially stated that the explosions were
>> >> 'sabotage' and that 'collective response' will be
>> >> forthcoming. NATO also notes that both explosions were in
>> >> international waters.
>> > Are you trying to tell the experts all about this?
>> >
>> Nope.
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2p8fs7f4
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>Then perhaps people like Slocumb and Liebermann should stop considering themselves experts because they can get 10% of the story from Google.

Well Tommy, I can't speak for Jeff but yes, I am a bit of an expert as
I have built pipe lines, for both oil and gas.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/30/2022 8:02 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:58:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I also don't know details of the pipeline attack. That's not my point.
>> My point is that Tom swallows anything Tucker Carlson ejaculates. And
>> that Tucker Carlson will do Putin's bidding if he thinks it will help
>> his ratings.
>
>
> Tucker loves it that the lefty loons hate him, and indeed, like most
> Fox news shows, he owns cable news at his time slot.

His viewership proves that idiots abound.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:42:08 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/30/2022 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:38:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/30/2022 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>>>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>>>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>>>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>>>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>>>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>>>>> to Nord Stream.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>>>>> places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>>>>> shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>>>>> under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>>>>> collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>>>>> 981 kPa or 142 psi.
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>>>>> it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>>>>> let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>>>>> (methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>>>>> mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>>>>> charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>>>>> be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>>>>> (pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>>>>> to the explosion site:
>>>>> "Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>>>>> There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>>>>> pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>>>>> <https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>>>>> The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>>>>> the explosion.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
>>>> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
>>>> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
>>>> see
>>>> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>>>>
>>>> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
>>>> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
>>>> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
>>>> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
>>>> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree an internal explosive is highly unlikely.
>>> Meanwhile Norway reports increased 'unidentified drone'
>>> activity near their oil/gas facilities:
>>>
>>> https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/norway-oil-safety-regulator-warns-threats-unidentified-drones-2022-09-26/
>>>
>>> https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/26/norway-oil-safety
>>
>> Yes, I read that but the Norwegian oil fields are a long way from the
>> pipeline.
>>
>
>'A long way' tactically, but 'in the sector' strategically.

I think that the Norwegian oil fields are largely in the North Sea and
the Norwegian Sea. Quite a way from the Nord Stream pipeline which is
relatively close to Poland and N. Germany. On the "other side of
Norway and Sweden, so to speak.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>><https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>>
>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>> to Nord Stream.
>>
>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>>
>>So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>>places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>>shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>>under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>>collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>>981 kPa or 142 psi.
>>
>>My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>>it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>>let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>>(methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>>mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>>charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>>be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>>(pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>>to the explosion site:
>>"Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>>There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>>pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>><https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>>The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>>the explosion.
>
> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
> see
> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>
> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/

The theory does seem to lack even a hint of factual support. On the
other hand, there are many ways to affect pipeline operations, by
infiltrating the control hardware. Here's a story about a Russian
pipeline explosion from 1982:

https://tinyurl.com/muy44mvm

https://www-telegraph-co-uk.translate.goog/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1455559/CIA-plot-led-to-huge-blast-in-Siberian-gas-pipeline.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:

> On 9/29/2022 10:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:52:31 -0400, Radey Shouman
>> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:27:10 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/29/2022 1:01 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:50 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:42:23 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 9:25 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:05:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2022/09/27/the-world-wants-no-part-of-woke-but-its-glad-we-do-n2613688
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't "Americans" who screwed the United States with "woke"
>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, Mr Hanson. It was the Democrat Party pandering to its
>>>>>>>>>>> insane left wing, and its intimidated so-called "centre" or, even
>>>>>>>>>>> more risibly, "moderates" doing absolutely nothing about it for
>>>>>>>>>>> fear of being cancelled.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are too many Americans to be lumped together. The good
>>>>>>>>>>> people need to identify the America-haters and put them down with
>>>>>>>>>>> utmost brutality as an existential threat, for reasons Victor
>>>>>>>>>>> Davis Hanson has pithily summarised in a very short article.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>>>>>>>> Credit where it is due, and specific blame where compromise is no
>>>>>>>>>>> longer possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Slime Stream Media is crying Climate Change but blaming Putin
>>>>>>>>>> for the destruction of the Russian-European natural gas
>>>>>>>>>> pipeline. Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases and
>>>>>>>>>> Biden stated that IF Russia invaded the Ukraine he would blow the
>>>>>>>>>> pipeline up. And you certainly can't blame Russia - a country
>>>>>>>>>> teetering on Bankruptcy for destroying a major source of hard
>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So again the left is exposed for their utter hypocrisy. They
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't care less about climate change - that is for the little
>>>>>>>>>> man that they convinced it was real. Well, Methane (natural gas)
>>>>>>>>>> is real and the destruction of that pipeline was a greater blow to
>>>>>>>>>> the environment than the 1960's to 980's car culture.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The pipeline attack is like an Agatha Christie piece- way
>>>>>>>>> too many actors with both means and motivation.
>>>>>>>> There were THREE very large underwater explosions. There are not a
>>>>>>>> lot of people that can accomplish that without leaving traces all
>>>>>>>> over the place. Andre points out to what occurs to losers in the
>>>>>>>> Russian political atmosphere. Putin used to be the head of the KGB
>>>>>>>> so he is well aware of what can and might be done. Especially now
>>>>>>>> that his attack on the Ukraine has turned into losing the cream of
>>>>>>>> his military might. Does anyone with a shred of intelligence believe
>>>>>>>> that supplying nothing more than cannon fodder is going to change
>>>>>>>> things?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, the only one with a motive and the capability was Biden and he
>>>>>>>> told the entire world in a press conference that he intended to do
>>>>>>>> just that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not a technically daunting problem. No need for submarines or UDT
>>>>>>> or SBS commandos. As noted in a British paper yesterday the routes are
>>>>>>> well publicized. One need only pass a 'fishing' trawler across the
>>>>>>> path, drop a timed explosive and keep moving. 'Timed explosive' can be
>>>>>>> an hour or a day or a week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very near, or inside, the Danish or Swedish economic zones? I'll bet
>>>>>> fishing trawlers are pretty well surveiled. On the other hand I'm not
>>>>>> sure I would bet on dropping an explosive (estimated 500 Kg TNT
>>>>>> equivalent) accurately enough through 90 meters of seawater, that sounds
>>>>>> like a bit of a challenge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. My search yesterday was fruitless and I don't
>>>>> know anyone with relevant military experience so you may be
>>>>> right. Or not.
>>>>
>>>> During WW II the Royal Navy's 450 lb (200 kg) Mark VII depth charge.
>>>> Note, this was the total weight of the device which contained 290 lb
>>>> (130 kg) TNT
>>>>
>>>> As for effectiveness, the following from the Wikki
>>>> The killing radius of a depth charge depends on the depth of
>>>> detonation, the payload of the depth charge and the size and strength
>>>> of the submarine hull. A depth charge of approximately 220 lb (100 kg)
>>>> of TNT (400 MJ) would normally have a killing radius (resulting in a
>>>> hull breach) of only 9.8–13.1 ft (3–4 m) against a conventional
>>>> 1000-ton submarine, while the disablement radius (where the submarine
>>>> is not sunk but is put out of commission) would be approximately 26–33
>>>> ft (8–10 m). A larger payload increases the radius only slightly
>>>> because the effect of an underwater explosion decreases as the cube of
>>>> the distance to the target.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_charge#Effectiveness
>>>
>>> Those radii seem pretty small to me. I can easily imagine a depth
>>> charge drifting horizontally more than 10 feet, due to current and so
>>> forth. I'll bet the pipeline was quite a bit tougher than a WW II sub,
>>
>> The Royal Navy Type D depth charge was designated the "Mark VII" in
>> 1939.Initial sinking speed was 7 ft/s (2.1 m/s) with a terminal
>> velocity of 9.9 ft/s (3.0 m/s) at a depth of 250 ft (76 m) Cast iron
>> weights of 150 lb (68 kg) were attached to the Mark VII at the end of
>> 1940 to increase sinking velocity to 16.8 ft/s (5.1 m/s) The Mark
>> VII's 290 lb (130 kg) amatol charge was estimated to be capable of
>> splitting a 7/8 in (22 mm) submarine pressure hull at a distance of 20
>> ft (6.1 m).
>>
>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>
>
> The pipelines aren't moving, the positions are known and so descent
> rate is immaterial. Despite various impedimenta someone did
> successfully breach them.

The water is always moving. Faster descent means less deflection by
current. Think of windage for bullets in air.

On Sat, 01 Oct 2022 08:15:10 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

(Chomp)
>I think that the Norwegian oil fields are largely in the North Sea and
>the Norwegian Sea. Quite a way from the Nord Stream pipeline which is
>relatively close to Poland and N. Germany. On the "other side of
>Norway and Sweden, so to speak.

This map might help. However, it only shows data to Mar 30, 2022:
<https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNWIxYWYzNzYtMDY3My00NTQ0LThiYzMtOWYwOTZjNTc5Njg1IiwidCI6IjgxMDU4NGZkLTY5ZjktNDEzNy1hNmExLWMwZTMzMjgwYjE1YyIsImMiOjh9>
<https://gasdashboard.entsog.eu>
Note that the map is 3 pages on the PDF. Click on the "1 of 3" at the
bottom of the window. Looks like gas from Norway goes to several
European nations (UK, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and France).

Note that Norway and Ukraine are not members of ENTSOG but rather are
"observers":
<https://entsog.eu/sites/default/files/2022-06/entsog_members_map_2206.pdf>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 9/30/2022 8:15 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:42:08 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/30/2022 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:38:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/30/2022 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>>>>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>>>>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>>>>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>>>>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>>>>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>>>>>> to Nord Stream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>>>>>> places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>>>>>> shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>>>>>> under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>>>>>> collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>>>>>> 981 kPa or 142 psi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>>>>>> it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>>>>>> let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>>>>>> (methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>>>>>> mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>>>>>> charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>>>>>> be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>>>>>> (pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>>>>>> to the explosion site:
>>>>>> "Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>>>>>> There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>>>>>> pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>>>>>> <https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>>>>>> The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>>>>>> the explosion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
>>>>> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
>>>>> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
>>>>> see
>>>>> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
>>>>> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
>>>>> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
>>>>> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
>>>>> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree an internal explosive is highly unlikely.
>>>> Meanwhile Norway reports increased 'unidentified drone'
>>>> activity near their oil/gas facilities:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/norway-oil-safety-regulator-warns-threats-unidentified-drones-2022-09-26/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/26/norway-oil-safety
>>>
>>> Yes, I read that but the Norwegian oil fields are a long way from the
>>> pipeline.
>>>
>>
>> 'A long way' tactically, but 'in the sector' strategically.
>
> I think that the Norwegian oil fields are largely in the North Sea and
> the Norwegian Sea. Quite a way from the Nord Stream pipeline which is
> relatively close to Poland and N. Germany. On the "other side of
> Norway and Sweden, so to speak.
>

I couldn't find a number in km quickly but from the pipeline
breaches across the jutland to a large number of rigs is not
a great distance for unmanned aerial reconnaissance, 350,
maybe 400km roughly.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/30/2022 8:22 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>
>> On 9/29/2022 10:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:52:31 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:27:10 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/29/2022 1:01 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 10:50 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:42:23 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 9:25 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:05:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2022/09/27/the-world-wants-no-part-of-woke-but-its-glad-we-do-n2613688
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't "Americans" who screwed the United States with "woke"
>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology, Mr Hanson. It was the Democrat Party pandering to its
>>>>>>>>>>>> insane left wing, and its intimidated so-called "centre" or, even
>>>>>>>>>>>> more risibly, "moderates" doing absolutely nothing about it for
>>>>>>>>>>>> fear of being cancelled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are too many Americans to be lumped together. The good
>>>>>>>>>>>> people need to identify the America-haters and put them down with
>>>>>>>>>>>> utmost brutality as an existential threat, for reasons Victor
>>>>>>>>>>>> Davis Hanson has pithily summarised in a very short article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>>>>>>>>> Credit where it is due, and specific blame where compromise is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Slime Stream Media is crying Climate Change but blaming Putin
>>>>>>>>>>> for the destruction of the Russian-European natural gas
>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline. Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases and
>>>>>>>>>>> Biden stated that IF Russia invaded the Ukraine he would blow the
>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline up. And you certainly can't blame Russia - a country
>>>>>>>>>>> teetering on Bankruptcy for destroying a major source of hard
>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So again the left is exposed for their utter hypocrisy. They
>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't care less about climate change - that is for the little
>>>>>>>>>>> man that they convinced it was real. Well, Methane (natural gas)
>>>>>>>>>>> is real and the destruction of that pipeline was a greater blow to
>>>>>>>>>>> the environment than the 1960's to 980's car culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The pipeline attack is like an Agatha Christie piece- way
>>>>>>>>>> too many actors with both means and motivation.
>>>>>>>>> There were THREE very large underwater explosions. There are not a
>>>>>>>>> lot of people that can accomplish that without leaving traces all
>>>>>>>>> over the place. Andre points out to what occurs to losers in the
>>>>>>>>> Russian political atmosphere. Putin used to be the head of the KGB
>>>>>>>>> so he is well aware of what can and might be done. Especially now
>>>>>>>>> that his attack on the Ukraine has turned into losing the cream of
>>>>>>>>> his military might. Does anyone with a shred of intelligence believe
>>>>>>>>> that supplying nothing more than cannon fodder is going to change
>>>>>>>>> things?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, the only one with a motive and the capability was Biden and he
>>>>>>>>> told the entire world in a press conference that he intended to do
>>>>>>>>> just that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not a technically daunting problem. No need for submarines or UDT
>>>>>>>> or SBS commandos. As noted in a British paper yesterday the routes are
>>>>>>>> well publicized. One need only pass a 'fishing' trawler across the
>>>>>>>> path, drop a timed explosive and keep moving. 'Timed explosive' can be
>>>>>>>> an hour or a day or a week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very near, or inside, the Danish or Swedish economic zones? I'll bet
>>>>>>> fishing trawlers are pretty well surveiled. On the other hand I'm not
>>>>>>> sure I would bet on dropping an explosive (estimated 500 Kg TNT
>>>>>>> equivalent) accurately enough through 90 meters of seawater, that sounds
>>>>>>> like a bit of a challenge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know. My search yesterday was fruitless and I don't
>>>>>> know anyone with relevant military experience so you may be
>>>>>> right. Or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> During WW II the Royal Navy's 450 lb (200 kg) Mark VII depth charge.
>>>>> Note, this was the total weight of the device which contained 290 lb
>>>>> (130 kg) TNT
>>>>>
>>>>> As for effectiveness, the following from the Wikki
>>>>> The killing radius of a depth charge depends on the depth of
>>>>> detonation, the payload of the depth charge and the size and strength
>>>>> of the submarine hull. A depth charge of approximately 220 lb (100 kg)
>>>>> of TNT (400 MJ) would normally have a killing radius (resulting in a
>>>>> hull breach) of only 9.8–13.1 ft (3–4 m) against a conventional
>>>>> 1000-ton submarine, while the disablement radius (where the submarine
>>>>> is not sunk but is put out of commission) would be approximately 26–33
>>>>> ft (8–10 m). A larger payload increases the radius only slightly
>>>>> because the effect of an underwater explosion decreases as the cube of
>>>>> the distance to the target.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_charge#Effectiveness
>>>>
>>>> Those radii seem pretty small to me. I can easily imagine a depth
>>>> charge drifting horizontally more than 10 feet, due to current and so
>>>> forth. I'll bet the pipeline was quite a bit tougher than a WW II sub,
>>>
>>> The Royal Navy Type D depth charge was designated the "Mark VII" in
>>> 1939.Initial sinking speed was 7 ft/s (2.1 m/s) with a terminal
>>> velocity of 9.9 ft/s (3.0 m/s) at a depth of 250 ft (76 m) Cast iron
>>> weights of 150 lb (68 kg) were attached to the Mark VII at the end of
>>> 1940 to increase sinking velocity to 16.8 ft/s (5.1 m/s) The Mark
>>> VII's 290 lb (130 kg) amatol charge was estimated to be capable of
>>> splitting a 7/8 in (22 mm) submarine pressure hull at a distance of 20
>>> ft (6.1 m).
>>>
>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>>
>>
>> The pipelines aren't moving, the positions are known and so descent
>> rate is immaterial. Despite various impedimenta someone did
>> successfully breach them.
>
> The water is always moving. Faster descent means less deflection by
> current. Think of windage for bullets in air.
>

Good point.
I assume someone skilled and motivated would allow for that
right?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 20:49:53 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/30/2022 8:15 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:42:08 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/30/2022 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:38:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/30/2022 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>>>>>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>>>>>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>>>>>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>>>>>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>>>>>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>>>>>>> to Nord Stream.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>>>>>>> places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>>>>>>> shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>>>>>>> under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>>>>>>> collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>>>>>>> 981 kPa or 142 psi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>>>>>>> it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>>>>>>> let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>>>>>>> (methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>>>>>>> mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>>>>>>> charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>>>>>>> be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>>>>>>> (pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>>>>>>> to the explosion site:
>>>>>>> "Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>>>>>>> There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>>>>>>> pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>>>>>>> <https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>>>>>>> The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>>>>>>> the explosion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
>>>>>> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
>>>>>> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
>>>>>> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
>>>>>> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
>>>>>> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
>>>>>> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree an internal explosive is highly unlikely.
>>>>> Meanwhile Norway reports increased 'unidentified drone'
>>>>> activity near their oil/gas facilities:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/norway-oil-safety-regulator-warns-threats-unidentified-drones-2022-09-26/
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/26/norway-oil-safety
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I read that but the Norwegian oil fields are a long way from the
>>>> pipeline.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'A long way' tactically, but 'in the sector' strategically.
>>
>> I think that the Norwegian oil fields are largely in the North Sea and
>> the Norwegian Sea. Quite a way from the Nord Stream pipeline which is
>> relatively close to Poland and N. Germany. On the "other side of
>> Norway and Sweden, so to speak.
>>
>
>I couldn't find a number in km quickly but from the pipeline
>breaches across the jutland to a large number of rigs is not
>a great distance for unmanned aerial reconnaissance, 350,
>maybe 400km roughly.

From Bergen to Rostock is 816 km and from Bergen to the North Sea oil
fields about 150 km so a total (depending on where the break occurred)
of, maybe 960 km. (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 5:02:20 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:58:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/30/2022 6:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2022 4:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 9/28/2022 1:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 9/28/2022 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Checking my Gmail around I see that Krygowski who has
> >>>>> proven wrong on every single thing he has said in 20
> >>>>> years is presently pretending that his God - Biden -
> >>>>> would NEVER say directly that he would commit an
> >>>>> international act of terrorism after saying he would.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-happened-nord-stream-pipeline?yptr=yahoo
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> :-) Ah, Tom! I suspected you got your delusion from
> >>>> Tucker Carlson, World's Whackiest News Propagandist!
> >>>>
> >>>> Now to prove your point, please highlight the _quotation_
> >>>> of President Biden saying he would blow up that pipeline.
> >>>> Note, I'm not interested in Tucker Carlson's pretending or
> >>>> rephrasing, because Carlson is as crazy as you. I'm
> >>>> interested in a direct Biden quotation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's a hint to help your dismal reading comprehension:
> >>>> When Carlson ends a sentence with a question mark, as in
> >>>> "So once again, did the Biden administration really do
> >>>> this?" it is NOT a statement of fact. It's a hypothetical
> >>>> and inflammatory question intended to suck in idiot right
> >>>> wing "true believers." And predictably, it worked on you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oddly, other people don't seem to blame Biden.
> >>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-lawmakers-break-europes-silence-105844953.html
> >>>>
> >>>> They tend to suspect Russia. But Carlson and his disciples
> >>>> are willing to attack Biden in order to protect their true
> >>>> love, Putin.
> >>>
> >>> Some corroboration of what I said above: First, Tom's wild
> >>> implications, blaming Biden for blowing up the pipeline, did
> >>> originate with Tucker Carlson. No surprise there.
> >>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/wild-baseless-claims-biden-blew-185612325.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Within hours, the claim was being promoted by far-right
> >>> influencers in the US, and pushed by the network of Russian
> >>> state media networks, despite a lack of credible evidence
> >>> that US warships or operatives had taken part."
> >>>
> >>> Also: "Carlson's coverage of the war in Ukraine has
> >>> consistently aligned with that of Russia's government. He is
> >>> part of a segment of the American right that is blithely
> >>> uninterested in the suffering of Ukrainians, credulous of
> >>> Vladimir Putin's stated motivations, and generally more
> >>> interested in denouncing the US government than the Russian
> >>> one."
> >>>
> >>> And so we have Tom, who accuses others of being communists,
> >>> sucking down any nonsense from a pro-Putin talking head and
> >>> echoing what the Russian propaganda machine pumps out on
> >>> state-run media.
> >>>
> >>> But Tom's too dim to realize he's been recruited to work for
> >>> Putin.
> >>>
> >>
> >> January 2022 was only eight months ago:
> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60151839
> >>
> >> In February, a week or so later:
> >> https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-resurfaces-after-pipeline-leak-1747005
> >>
> >> I don't know.
> >> I've heard a lot of theories (such as Poland, who recently opened their
> >> new Denmark-Poland pipeline) none of which have convinced me. Yet.
> >
> >I also don't know details of the pipeline attack. That's not my point.
> >My point is that Tom swallows anything Tucker Carlson ejaculates. And
> >that Tucker Carlson will do Putin's bidding if he thinks it will help
> >his ratings.
> Tucker loves it that the lefty loons hate him, and indeed, like most
> Fox news shows, he owns cable news at his time slot.

There is absolutely nothing that gives Tucker more pleasure than the hopeless hatred that insolent fools like pretend "professors" like Francis posing as experts of everything in this world disliking him when they cannot dispute one word that he says.

Tell you what Francis you helpless and hopeless ass - Tucker is perfectly willing to debate you and your sick ideas on any public forum of your choosing. Might I suggest you tell him that the mRNA vaccines do not cause Myelitis or Pericarditis? I mean, after you proved the rest of us so convincingly that you knew what you were talking about what could be a better subject. Or perhaps you could tell him that Trump said that people could cure covid-19 by drinking bleach. If nothing else you have literally thousands of ideas like that for which you've been attempting to convince the rest of us with the able assistance of idiots like Liebermann, Slocumb, Scharf and other laughing stocks of your own intellectual grade.

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:49:51 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/30/2022 8:15 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:42:08 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/30/2022 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:38:25 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/30/2022 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
> >>>>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
> >>>>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
> >>>>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
> >>>>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
> >>>>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
> >>>>>> to Nord Stream.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
> >>>>>> places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
> >>>>>> shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
> >>>>>> under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
> >>>>>> collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
> >>>>>> 981 kPa or 142 psi.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
> >>>>>> it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
> >>>>>> let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
> >>>>>> (methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
> >>>>>> mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
> >>>>>> charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
> >>>>>> be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
> >>>>>> (pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
> >>>>>> to the explosion site:
> >>>>>> "Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
> >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
> >>>>>> There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
> >>>>>> pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
> >>>>>> <https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
> >>>>>> The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
> >>>>>> the explosion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
> >>>>> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
> >>>>> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
> >>>>> see
> >>>>> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
> >>>>> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
> >>>>> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
> >>>>> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
> >>>>> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree an internal explosive is highly unlikely.
> >>>> Meanwhile Norway reports increased 'unidentified drone'
> >>>> activity near their oil/gas facilities:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/norway-oil-safety-regulator-warns-threats-unidentified-drones-2022-09-26/
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/26/norway-oil-safety
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I read that but the Norwegian oil fields are a long way from the
> >>> pipeline.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 'A long way' tactically, but 'in the sector' strategically.
> >
> > I think that the Norwegian oil fields are largely in the North Sea and
> > the Norwegian Sea. Quite a way from the Nord Stream pipeline which is
> > relatively close to Poland and N. Germany. On the "other side of
> > Norway and Sweden, so to speak.
> >
> I couldn't find a number in km quickly but from the pipeline
> breaches across the jutland to a large number of rigs is not
> a great distance for unmanned aerial reconnaissance, 350,
> maybe 400km roughly.

That is one of the world's busiest cargo routes and it is under radar control 24/7. A ship couldn't even slow down without it being detected and logged. A B2 has a radar cross section of a box a wedding ring comes in and the only way that they can target anything in that area is with the overwhelming speed of delivery. And it would leave evidence on ALL of the radar records. I wouldn't want to go into other things but believe me, there is NOTHING that goes on in the Black Sea above water than isn't known.
And the water is so shallow at about 600 feet deepest that very few undersea craft would be able to remain undetected. And don't believe this garbage about AI drones. Remember way back when I told you that I was interviewed by Tesla about working on their "self driving program" and I pissed the interviewer off by telling him that they should use a name that didn't imply that the car could drive itself? Since then there's been some 240+ deaths due to people allowing these cars to drive themselves. The drones are 100 times less reliable because no one could oversee them. And you couldn't have communications of any kind in the area.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:31:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 6:49:51 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/30/2022 8:15 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:42:08 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 9/30/2022 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:38:25 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 9/30/2022 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:10:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:21:20 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The Nord Stream pipeline is said to be at 80 - 110 meters.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yep.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/27/qa-what-is-known-so-far-about-the-nord-stream-gas-pipeline-leak>
>> >>>>>> Both pipelines still contain gas under pressure,
>> >>>>>> but are not delivering the fuel to Europe.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Each line of the pipeline consists of about
>> >>>>>> 100,000 24-tonne concrete-weight coated steel
>> >>>>>> pipes laid on the seabed. The pipelines have a
>> >>>>>> constant internal diameter of 1.153m, according
>> >>>>>> to Nord Stream.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Sections lie at a depth of around 80-110m.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> So, what could cause a pipeline under pressure to rupture in several
>> >>>>>> places at the same time? It's probably not a bomb, depth charge, or
>> >>>>>> shaped charge from the outside. The pipe was full of non-moving gas
>> >>>>>> under pressure. The pressure is needed to keep the pipe from
>> >>>>>> collapsing from water pressure. At 100 meters, that would be 10 bar,
>> >>>>>> 981 kPa or 142 psi.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> My guess(tm) is something exploded on the inside. I was thinking that
>> >>>>>> it might be that someone injected air or oxygen into the pipeline and
>> >>>>>> let it diffuse. When the stoichiometric mixture of 1:2
>> >>>>>> (methane:oxygen) is achieved, any kind of spark will detonate the
>> >>>>>> mixture, cause a major explosion and destroy the pipe. A shaped
>> >>>>>> charge could burn its way into the pipe from the outside, but it would
>> >>>>>> be easier to just put a timed ignition device on an inspection PIG
>> >>>>>> (pipeline inspection gadget) and have it drive the length of the pipe
>> >>>>>> to the explosion site:
>> >>>>>> "Smart Pig Pipeline Inspection"
>> >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnO8exGgng>
>> >>>>>> There's no way to section off part of the pipeline with valves as each
>> >>>>>> pipe only has a huge valve at each end:
>> >>>>>> <https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/worlds-heaviest-gate-valves-arrive-in-greifswald-for-nord-stream-pipeline-227/>
>> >>>>>> The other leaks are probably marginal welds or seals broken loose by
>> >>>>>> the explosion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I doubt that is defective welds as an undersea gas line would have a
>> >>>>> pretty stringent inspection system set up to check the weld before
>> >>>>> dropping the pipe 100 meters to the bottom of the sea.
>> >>>>> see
>> >>>>> https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part8.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Your "theory" of an explosive "pig" is pretty much fantasy as how
>> >>>>> would you get it into the pipeline? You would have to have access to
>> >>>>> the "pig launcher" and a "pig" for that size pipe wouldn't be
>> >>>>> something that you would smuggle into the yard in your hip pocket.
>> >>>>> https://hollandia.biz/en/projecten/pig-launcher-receiver-heads-for-nordstream-2/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I agree an internal explosive is highly unlikely.
>> >>>> Meanwhile Norway reports increased 'unidentified drone'
>> >>>> activity near their oil/gas facilities:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/norway-oil-safety-regulator-warns-threats-unidentified-drones-2022-09-26/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/26/norway-oil-safety
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, I read that but the Norwegian oil fields are a long way from the
>> >>> pipeline.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> 'A long way' tactically, but 'in the sector' strategically.
>> >
>> > I think that the Norwegian oil fields are largely in the North Sea and
>> > the Norwegian Sea. Quite a way from the Nord Stream pipeline which is
>> > relatively close to Poland and N. Germany. On the "other side of
>> > Norway and Sweden, so to speak.
>> >
>> I couldn't find a number in km quickly but from the pipeline
>> breaches across the jutland to a large number of rigs is not
>> a great distance for unmanned aerial reconnaissance, 350,
>> maybe 400km roughly.
>
>That is one of the world's busiest cargo routes and it is under radar control 24/7. A ship couldn't even slow down without it being detected and logged. A B2 has a radar cross section of a box a wedding ring comes in and the only way that they can target anything in that area is with the overwhelming speed of delivery. And it would leave evidence on ALL of the radar records. I wouldn't want to go into other things but believe me, there is NOTHING that goes on in the Black Sea above water than isn't known.

Whatever are you going on about Tommy? The Black Sea?

Nobody was talking about the "Black Sea" it was the Baltic Sea on the
other side of the continent where the Nord Sea Pipeline was built.
The Baltic Sea - where the pipeline was built, has an average depth of
180 ft.

As for radar coverage, the Baltic Sea is surrounded by nine countries:
Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Finland
and Sweden. Tell us which country is doing the radar coverage.

>And the water is so shallow at about 600 feet deepest that very few undersea craft would be able to remain undetected. And don't believe this garbage about AI drones. Remember way back when I told you that I was interviewed by Tesla about working on their "self driving program" and I pissed the interviewer off by telling him that they should use a name that didn't imply that the car could drive itself? Since then there's been some 240+ deaths due to people allowing these cars to drive themselves. The drones are 100 times less reliable because no one could oversee them. And you couldn't have communications of any kind in the area.

As for drones? MQ-9 Reaper, which offers more capabilities. That
includes visual sensors with a wide range of sight – laser, infrared,
and full motion video – to be the “eyes in the sky.” It has a range of
1,150 miles and a ceiling of 50,000 feet in altitude, and has been
used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and Mali as of
2015. Flown from a base in Nevada.

Tell us Tommy, where do you get these fantasies? Funny cigarettes?
Sniffing the white stuff? Or have you fallen back on the old faithful
bottle of booze?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 01 Oct 2022 12:43:21 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>As for radar coverage, the Baltic Sea is surrounded by nine countries:
>Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Finland
>and Sweden. Tell us which country is doing the radar coverage.

All of them via the MONALISA 2.0 system:
<https://www.seatrafficmanagement.info/projects/monalisa-2/>
<https://www.seatrafficmanagement.info/projects/stm-balt-safe/>

Oddly, there doesn't seem to be much marine traffic near the area in
question, around the island of Bornholm. Most of the traffic goes
north of the island:
<https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:14.5/centery:55.3/zoom:8>
Click on any vessel for details.

Traffic map:
<https://www.vesselfinder.com>
Find the Baltic area and click on "Density Map -> All Types" (icon on
the left edge of the page) to see the traffic lanes.

Instead of radar, commercial shipping use AIS for vessel tracking:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system>
In the Baltic, if something appears on the radar that is not also on
the AIS system, the local coast guard will attempt to identify the
vessel. Military vessels will typically announce their location via
AIS, but will sometimes spoof their location:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system#Spoofing>

In the Baltic, vessel traffic is managed by the IMO which requires all
vessels to be AIS equipped:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Maritime_Organization>
Procedures for collision avoidance and traffic control use Sweden's
STM or MONALISA 2.0 system:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_traffic_management>
Videos on what it does and how it works:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vsswV29uuA&list=UU-CJSsJzqB_MwP1Nkl6m4zg&index=1&t=0s>
Submarines can be AIS equipped:
<https://www.scires.com/What-We-Do/Products/AIS>
<https://professionalmariner.com/true-heading-ais-receivers-to-be-used-on-us-submarines/>

If it floats in the Baltic, it will be identified and tracked.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 01 Oct 2022 00:43:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Oct 2022 12:43:21 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>As for radar coverage, the Baltic Sea is surrounded by nine countries:
>>Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Finland
>>and Sweden. Tell us which country is doing the radar coverage.
>
>All of them via the MONALISA 2.0 system:
><https://www.seatrafficmanagement.info/projects/monalisa-2/>
><https://www.seatrafficmanagement.info/projects/stm-balt-safe/>
>
>Oddly, there doesn't seem to be much marine traffic near the area in
>question, around the island of Bornholm. Most of the traffic goes
>north of the island:
><https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:14.5/centery:55.3/zoom:8>
>Click on any vessel for details.
>
>Traffic map:
><https://www.vesselfinder.com>
>Find the Baltic area and click on "Density Map -> All Types" (icon on
>the left edge of the page) to see the traffic lanes.
>
>Instead of radar, commercial shipping use AIS for vessel tracking:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system>
>In the Baltic, if something appears on the radar that is not also on
>the AIS system, the local coast guard will attempt to identify the
>vessel. Military vessels will typically announce their location via
>AIS, but will sometimes spoof their location:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system#Spoofing>
>
>In the Baltic, vessel traffic is managed by the IMO which requires all
>vessels to be AIS equipped:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Maritime_Organization>
>Procedures for collision avoidance and traffic control use Sweden's
>STM or MONALISA 2.0 system:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_traffic_management>
>Videos on what it does and how it works:
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vsswV29uuA&list=UU-CJSsJzqB_MwP1Nkl6m4zg&index=1&t=0s>
>Submarines can be AIS equipped:
><https://www.scires.com/What-We-Do/Products/AIS>
><https://professionalmariner.com/true-heading-ais-receivers-to-be-used-on-us-submarines/>
>
>If it floats in the Baltic, it will be identified and tracked.

Sp Tommy got one right, did he? That is, what's the score now? 4 right
in 17 years?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 20:14:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/30/2022 8:02 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:58:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I also don't know details of the pipeline attack. That's not my point.
>>> My point is that Tom swallows anything Tucker Carlson ejaculates. And
>>> that Tucker Carlson will do Putin's bidding if he thinks it will help
>>> his ratings.
>>
>>
>> Tucker loves it that the lefty loons hate him, and indeed, like most
>> Fox news shows, he owns cable news at his time slot.
>
>His viewership proves that idiots abound.

People do love hearing him rip leftists into shreds. I know I do, but
to be fair, nowdays Greg Gutfield has become my favorite poitical
show. He does it with humor and is regularly the highest rated late
night show beating not just cable news competition, but also the big
network shows.

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 9:33:58 AM UTC+1, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 20:14:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/30/2022 8:02 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:58:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I also don't know details of the pipeline attack. That's not my point..
> >>> My point is that Tom swallows anything Tucker Carlson ejaculates. And
> >>> that Tucker Carlson will do Putin's bidding if he thinks it will help
> >>> his ratings.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tucker loves it that the lefty loons hate him, and indeed, like most
> >> Fox news shows, he owns cable news at his time slot.
> >
> >His viewership proves that idiots abound.
> People do love hearing him rip leftists into shreds. I know I do, but
> to be fair, nowdays Greg Gutfield has become my favorite poitical
> show. He does it with humor and is regularly the highest rated late
> night show beating not just cable news competition, but also the big
> network shows.
>
Outfield is a genuinely funny man. He'd be funny even of he were a leftwing creepy. (How long they would allow a man whose jokes they don't understand a voice, is another matter.) But here's a challenge: name one (1) leftie or bolshie comedian, excluding Bill Maher, who is starting to see the light, who is still funny. I'll understand if you don't even try because you already know the answer. -- AJ
>

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 1:14:41 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/30/2022 8:02 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >
> > Tucker loves it that the lefty loons hate him, and indeed, like most
> > Fox news shows, he owns cable news at his time slot.
>
> His viewership proves that idiots abound.
>
All you guys who still think of yourselves as Christians or decent people should feel sorry for the fake "professor" Franki-boy. Imagine how he will feel for eight eternal years when, after President Trump's second term, and Governor DeSantis's two terms, Tucker Carlson becomes president.
>
Andre Jute
I'll have to practice a whole lot before I become that good.

On 10/1/2022 2:43 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2022 12:43:21 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As for radar coverage, the Baltic Sea is surrounded by nine countries:
>> Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Finland
>> and Sweden. Tell us which country is doing the radar coverage.
>
> All of them via the MONALISA 2.0 system:
> <https://www.seatrafficmanagement.info/projects/monalisa-2/>
> <https://www.seatrafficmanagement.info/projects/stm-balt-safe/>
>
> Oddly, there doesn't seem to be much marine traffic near the area in
> question, around the island of Bornholm. Most of the traffic goes
> north of the island:
> <https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:14.5/centery:55.3/zoom:8>
> Click on any vessel for details.
>
> Traffic map:
> <https://www.vesselfinder.com>
> Find the Baltic area and click on "Density Map -> All Types" (icon on
> the left edge of the page) to see the traffic lanes.
>
> Instead of radar, commercial shipping use AIS for vessel tracking:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system>
> In the Baltic, if something appears on the radar that is not also on
> the AIS system, the local coast guard will attempt to identify the
> vessel. Military vessels will typically announce their location via
> AIS, but will sometimes spoof their location:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system#Spoofing>
>
> In the Baltic, vessel traffic is managed by the IMO which requires all
> vessels to be AIS equipped:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Maritime_Organization>
> Procedures for collision avoidance and traffic control use Sweden's
> STM or MONALISA 2.0 system:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_traffic_management>
> Videos on what it does and how it works:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vsswV29uuA&list=UU-CJSsJzqB_MwP1Nkl6m4zg&index=1&t=0s>
> Submarines can be AIS equipped:
> <https://www.scires.com/What-We-Do/Products/AIS>
> <https://professionalmariner.com/true-heading-ais-receivers-to-be-used-on-us-submarines/>
>
> If it floats in the Baltic, it will be identified and tracked.
>
>

Some British sources are hinting at prepositioned explosives
with remote detonation.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nord-stream-pipelines-attacked-remote-explosives-uk-intelligence-2022-9?op=1

But again no evidence so it's all yet conjecture.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971