1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Who blew up the Nordstream pipeline using first principle thinking

Discussion in 'The Kruse Longevity Center' started by Jack Kruse, Oct 28, 2022.

  1. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    We’ve all seen the video on social media of Joe Biden promising last February, “There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2” and “We will bring an end to it.” The history of America’s bellicose threats with regard to Nord Stream were far more expansive than just a clip or two. Stopping Nord Stream was a central goal of American foreign policy for nearly a decade, with politicians from both parties pounding the table to stop it, and all that history was disappeared the moment the blasts took place.

    We can’t say yet who blew up the pipelines. Matt Orfalea’s video above captures three troubling things we already know about the Nord Stream blasts:
    1. American officials have an extensive, years-long record of promising action to stop or disable the pipeline.

    2. those earlier statements were ignored both by officials and press commentators in asserting ad nauseam that the West did not have motive for the attack.

    3. despite a total absence of evidence, American voices repeatedly insisted Russia was behind the attack. The first weeks of coverage featured a blitz of commentary from politicians and intelligence and military officers who declared the unknown to be fact, often pointing a finger and admitting ignorance at the same time.

    Mainstream mockingbird media provided Americans with a strident chorus of voices proclaiming that Russia sabotaged its own $11B pipeline. That was a clue that Brandon told the media how to spin it. After all, why would it be in Russia's best interest to destroy an $11B asset that would generate massive funds for years?

    The Germans certainly wouldn't do it. Merkel went all in on the pipeline when all the while people were telling her she was dealing with the devil, to whose tune she would have to dance should Germany have a dispute with him. And sure enough Putin refused to send gas to Germany this coming winter. So now Germans are cutting trees for fuel and concerned mightily about the coming cold.

    Trump was one of the most vocal critics of the Nord Stream pipeline despite his supposedly being in the pocket of Putin, at least according to the left-leaning crowd. He warned the Germans (above) what would happen if they became solely dependent on Russia's providing most of their fuel. I love the video below in which the Germans laugh when he tells them. They aren't laughing now.

    So who do I think destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline?
    Many Ukrainian jock strap holders have tried to blame shoddy Russian maintenance on the blow up but this is pure nonsense. Physics and thermodynamics rule it out. Why? The curvature is not sharp enough in the pipeline to allow a hydrate plug to break though the pipe. Also, if such a plug were to break through it wouldn't create an explosion that was 2.2 on the Richter scale as measured in Sweden. The fact that Sweden has uncovered some ordinance near the blow and is staying mum about it speaks volumes about who had the capability and means to pull it off.

    From a critical perspective, there are only two countries that would gain from destroying this pipeline: The US and/or Ukraine.

    Ukraine would gain because until the pipeline was finished, the Russians sending gas to Europe had to pay Ukraine a $2B per year toll as the pipeline went through that country. That is a lot of clams until you realize this----->. So it would be in the Ukrainians' best interest to have the pipeline shut down because a total shut down also would deprive the Russians of a source of cash to continue its invasion of Ukraine.

    The US would gain by being able to sell more LNG to Europe and by maybe not having to send so much money to Ukraine. Did you see the earning announced today of Exxon and Chevron? This quarter was Exxon best ever in its 152 yr history! Chevron posted its second best ever quarter in its corporate history. Guess what drove the earnings? LNG

    From everything I've read, Ukraine doesn't have the physical or militry capability to pull a demolition like that off. So that leaves only one culprit standing. Brandon and his buds in the Pentagon.

    Matt Taibbi said this:
    Trade routes, access to energy, and spheres of influence are the stuff that inspires world wars, and the fight over who would get to be the main supplier of European energy is a powerful casus belli. The United States has every right to lobby against the completion of a Russian-German pipeline. To an extent, it even makes some sense that our government would try to dissemble about who’d benefit from sabotage of the pipeline, after the fact.
    However, national press going along with the transparent deception is a lot less forgivable. We’re headed toward a major war and not telling the population the reasons for it. New York Times writer David Sanger for instance knows better than to look into a CNN camera and say, hoping to be taken seriously, that it’s “hard to imagine others with a significant motive.” That such an experienced reporter would pretend he didn’t live through ten years of American politicians screeching demands to stop the pipeline tells you the extent to which government and media have merged. There’s no discernible difference now between the Sangers and Chuck Todds of the world and the craggy-faced retired CIA flacks the networks bring on as guests. The media performance on this one was and is as bad as it gets.

    This is why America needs Elon Musk to free the press on Twitter. If you are an American you cannot listen to anything the press says now seriously.

    The First Amendment is truly broken. Mind you this is not just a sad state of affairs, but actually dangerous, is that our form of government--a constitutional republic, which, by the way, is not a democracy--depends upon a free and fair press for its survival.

    Recall what that Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    A fellow MD said this: "If there is no freedom of the press, then we go from being a constitutional republic to basically a dictatorship run by an oligarchy. And the press becomes Pravda of old. The government is always going to try to suppress information that makes it look bad. It's the presses sacred duty to expose it.

    Remember the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg got his hands on classified information showing that the war in Vietnam wasn't as presented by government officials. Presidents from Truman through LBJ had withheld information. The government tried to suppress the information and ended up getting a court order prohibiting the NY Times from publishing more of these papers. Then the Washington Post intended to publish, and again the government sued to suppress, but the courts ruled in favor of the Washington Post. Then SCOTUS came down in favor of the NY Times in New York Times Co. v. United States, which opened the door for both the NY Times and Wapo to publish the Pentagon Papers.

    That would never happen today. I'm not talking about the SCOTUS ruling. I'm talking about the lawsuit against the government. All the presidents involved in withholding information save one--Eisenhower--were Democrats. Today's press would never have released the info anyway. Back in the days of the Pentagon Papers, both the NY Times and the Washington Post were liberal papers, but they didn't hesitate to go after Democrats if those Democrats had something to hide.

    Not today, however.

    Hunter Biden's laptop, the Russia collusion hoax, false info presented to the FISA court, and a host of other issues that would make Democrats look bad were at best ignored by the press and at worst canceled by social media. These were all significant issues that should have seen the light of day, but weren't. The Russia hoax got plenty of airtime, but that was when it was presented as real. The hoax revelation barely got any airtime at all. Same with all of them."

    Maybe Elon can change the playing field? We'll he has started clearing house as soon as the deal closed last night.

    Where this all becomes problematic is during the election season. Democrats and their press allies are all about dragging everyone they can get their hands on to vote and screaming voter suppression about anything done to tighten up the election process. But what they don't want is a knowledgeable electorate. So they suppress info."

    I agree. The State of our Union is no longer strong. We blew up the pipeline. Game, Set Match.
  2. Thank you for sharing - Jack !
  3. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Trust is built and maintained by many small actions over time.
    Trust is not a matter of technique, tricks, or tools but of character. We are trusted because of our way of being, not because of our polished exteriors or our expertly crafted communications by our supporters. Trust is like blood pressure. It's silent, vital to good health, and if abused it can be deadly. Today the American people have been diagnosed with hypertension because their trust has been violated. Our once great democracy still tend to believe that an ignorant person is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them. Our media is the puppeteer of the act of treason. When the trust account is high, communication is easy, instant, and effective. Today we have opaqueness. Americans need to have some level of trust and right now we're tinkering on the age of tyranny.
  4. Today - our government controls our speech; the agency - The ‘Disinformation Governance Board' uses search engines to find potential "Home-Land-Security" threats and marks them for deletion.

    Many "scientific" articles are now removed from public access. Only those who made private archives, hard non-internet storage, microfiche or paper have a copy.
    John Warner and JanSz like this.

Share This Page