by Peter Löcke//
The attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines.
Alongside 9/11 and the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001, the destruction of the former main artery of the German energy supply is the most exciting criminal case of the 21st century. The case remains unsolved to this day. The interest of political and media commissioners in helping to solve the crime remains within manageable limits. At least in Germany. So, as an interested person, you look outside the box and find what you are looking for in Seymour Hersh.
Journalist Seymour Hersh
On September 26, 2023, just in time for the one-year anniversary, the American reporting legend published a sensational article. It bears the self-explanatory title "A Year of Lying about Nord Stream". A year of lying about Nord Stream. In the sources we have the English original [1] and here the German translation of the text as audio. The text reads like a thriller. The resolution of the thriller, Hersh's conclusion, is anticipated.
"The Biden administration blew up the pipelines, but the action had little to do with winning or ending the war in Ukraine. It resulted from a fear in the White House that Germany would waver on turning off the Russian gas tap and that Germany, and then NATO, would fall under the sway of Russia and its vast and cheap natural resources for economic reasons. And from this came the real fear: that America would lose its long-standing supremacy in Western Europe."
Hersh reconstructs the events before, during and after the destruction of the pipelines. His analysis is sound and plausible. Many of his quotes are verifiable. There are statements by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, his current deputy and then Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and US President Joe Biden. Victoria Nuland? She's the diplomat who said something extremely undiplomatic about European interests back in 2014: "Fuck the EU!" [2]
Hersh also quotes an anonymous source, a whistleblower. This brought the Pulitzer Prize winner into the crosshairs of the fact-checkers last year. His claims, according to the leading American and German media, could not be verified. Knowing full well that this criticism awaits him again, the Pulitzer Prize winner, who has fallen out of favor with the mainstream, mocks his attackers in the text with foresight.
"I should note here that I have won literally dozens of awards in my career for stories in the New York Times and the New Yorker that did not rely on a single named source."
After reading the Hersh thriller, the reader has two options. You can relegate the article or parts of it to the realm of speculation and fiction. One considers the conclusion that the USA is responsible for the attacks to be almost unbelievable. You believe ARD fact checkers, t-online, Correctiv and co. That is legitimate.
Or you could take Seymour Hersh's crime story for reality. If this is the case, further questions open up, which Hersh answers only in passing and vaguely. Quote:
"The German head of government was then - and still is today - considered by some members of the CIA team to be fully aware of the secret plans to destroy the pipelines."
What did Germany know, what did Olaf Scholz know? Was the German chancellor privy to the American plans, as Hersh claims? And if so, did Scholz even have the opportunity to contradict the USA as a global power? Could Germany have decided otherwise? Please keep this question in mind. Was Germany able to decide against blowing up the pipelines?
This lies in the realm of speculation. It is impossible to prove whether the German head of government was "fully aware", as Hersh claims according to CIA sources. What can be proven, however, is another sentence. This trace of the criminal case leads into the past.
A look back at February 7, 2022, shortly before the outbreak of war. The German Chancellor is on his inaugural visit to Washington. Afterwards, Olaf Scholz and the US President hold a joint press conference. The German simultaneous translation [3] of this press conference and the video in the original English [4] can be found on a source considered to be reputable. The website of the German Federal Government. After the press conference, there was much discussion about a Biden statement. It was made at the end of the press conference and led to incredulous questions from American journalists at the time. Biden quote:
"For example, if Russia crosses the border to Ukraine with tanks and troops, Nord Stream 2 will no longer exist."
The beginning of the press conference received little media attention. This is understandable from a journalistic point of view. Friendly words of welcome were spoken. The polite phrases are to be expected, as at any meeting between two friendly statesmen. This is also the case here. Biden thanks Scholz. Biden emphasizes the rules-based world order, partnership, common values, unity, solidarity against the common enemy Russia.
And in the middle of it all, this one sentence appears that doesn't fit in at all with the American president's polite greeting. It seems out of place because it comes across as a blatant threat. The sentence is lost in the sonorous tone of the US President. Did you memorize the question? Joe Biden said the following on February 7, 2022:
"But if Germany decides otherwise, then we are ready."
Editorial note / Correction
The article concludes with a Biden quote that did not happen.
Background
The website of the German Federal Government (transcript and audio/video) served as supposedly reputable sources (3 & 4). The incorrect quote I used can be found there twice in text and as subtitles. Unfortunately, Biden's voice is not audible in the video.
Correction
An attentive reader has done what I, as the author of this article, should have done. Check the supposedly reputable source again! In the original, Joe Biden actually said the following:
"But if Russia makes a choice to further invade ukraine we are jointly ready and all of NATO is ready."
("However, should Russia decide to invade Ukraine further, we are ready together and the whole of NATO is ready.")
See https://youtu.be/15XFSRhENk8?t=1848
Conclusion
The Biden sentence really seems out of place. But the reason for this is simple. The sentence didn't come out like that/the simultaneous translator mistranslated Biden.
Thanks to the attentive reader.
Peter Löcke, author of the article
English 
German 
Spanish
8 Responses
You should watch the videos of WT 7, after that the last critic should realize that it was expertly blown up - absolutely perfect. To my knowledge, no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire, especially when you consider that it was a very bold burn, the flames were somewhere between orange and red in color i.e. a relatively cold burn with lots of black smoke.
If someone really wants to make me believe that a chemical reaction of kerosene, oxygen and office furniture can be used to create a new type of fuel,
Anyone who can not only bring down a skyscraper made of inner and outer box sections consisting of 6cm-thick steel plates, but also turn these steel beams into white powder as if by magic, must be either particularly stupid or particularly cheeky.
Anyone who believes that these steel beams are made of an alloy of aluminum, magnesium and some titanium,
can be cut smoothly like a knife without bending the edges, he has never attended a physics class and has at most learned to dance his name.
And since these are not the only lies of this gang of emigrant foam and mass murderers (only a dead Indian is a good Indian)
I tend to classify almost everything that comes from these people in the realm of fairy tales and legends. It is almost certain that I will also be right when it comes to Nord Stream.
When I heard the news of the blast, I felt sick to my stomach. A direct attack on Western Europe, carried out by whom? An act of war or a terrorist attack? If Seymour Hersch has done his research correctly and it was actually an intelligence operation by the USA and Norway, it is not an act of terrorism according to my understanding of the law. I am sure that the parliaments of the USA and Norway would never have given their consent to an act of war against a NATO member and that this attack was therefore illegal. The consequence is a further erosion of the original mutual trust within the defense alliance, which could ultimately lead to Germany's withdrawal or a de facto dissolution of NATO. This would not make Europe a safer place. I see an important function of NATO in ensuring that peace is also maintained among the allies - just think of the ongoing conflict between Greece and Turkey. The EU has a similar task. Unfortunately, many key political functionaries have forgotten this important aspect in the recent past, for whatever reason.
"Could Germany have decided otherwise?" - Isn't this the tiresome, classic question of how sovereign the FRG actually is? Despite the 2+4 treaty, still an existing occupation statute, yes or no? Some say so, others say so.
The demolition of NordStream 2 and the "spectacle"(?) of Biden/Schröder in the White House suggest in any case: de facto it is as it is ...
Let's go through the matter according to the rules of logic.
The US has repeatedly expressed its interest in destroying the pipelines before and after September 26, 2022.
The perpetrators of the attack had to undertake extensive planning, as a whole series of high technical hurdles had to be overcome. Anyone who undertakes something like this naturally also plans in advance to cover up their perpetration. This requires a third party to pretend to be the perpetrator, as it is clear that the public wants to know who might be behind it.
Depending on its authenticity, the Andromeda story indirectly provides a clue to the perpetrator. There are two possibilities:
If the story is true, it was the crew of the sailboat.
If, on the other hand, it is false, the forgers had the motive of leaving the real perpetrators undiscovered. The motive of simply earning money with a fictitious story can be safely left aside, because it is not a fictitious story, but a deliberately prepared one. It was absolutely necessary to prepare it in connection with the attacks.
The perpetration of the sailboat crew fails due to the insurmountability of technical hurdles, so the story is false. It is almost certainly the case that the crew were contracted actors. Expert reports suggesting the feasibility of the attack from the sailing boat are not convincing. A forensic reconstruction of the course of events would be appropriate, which would not even involve any special effort. For good reasons, nothing is done in this regard.
Well, I have diving experience up to 50 meters. Just a hobby. There are 10,000s of divers who are better and more experienced. The pipeline is at a depth of 70 meters. It's a piece of cake to reach it - if you have the right equipment. Any cave diver or professional diver could do the same. The only thing missing is an explosive charge. You can get one from any secret service via the military. The most difficult thing would be to find the exact position. I don't know anything about that. But of course you can find the pipelines exactly using GPS, underwater cameras and ground scanning equipment. For a few euros you can buy so-called fish finders in any fishing store, which will find every pike, zander or eel exactly. Why shouldn't there be devices that can do this for pipelines? You can also find cannons and wrecks at greater depths. It's all pretty easy with the right money. The people on the sailing boat would have been perfectly capable of installing the appropriate explosive charges. The name of the client and possible middlemen is interesting. Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine and the UK are conceivable.
I am not concerned with whether or not it would be feasible to blow up the pipelines from a sailing boat like the Andromeda under minimal conditions. I am only concerned with the quality and quantity of the blasting that was actually carried out. Perhaps I sometimes write too condensed, as I don't want to overload the comments section.
In a forensic reconstruction of the preparations for the crime, strict attention would have to be paid to ensuring that the weight of the explosive devices is in a realistic proportion to the damage caused. The destruction that is already known cannot have been caused by just a few tons of explosives. Be sure to watch a video by Dirk Pohlmann, who was heard by the UN Security Council on this matter:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tMPge7HV8oEG/
A comparison with 9/11 raises another question: how long did it take to identify the perpetrators of that attack?
And how and where do we receive or received support from our major ally in investigating the attack on our infrastructure?
Even the research by the magazine "Frontal21", which I otherwise hold in high regard, doesn't provide anything substantial: different opinions (not to say conspiracy theories) are brought up in turn 😉, and the report on the mysterious voyage of the sailing yacht "Andromeda" is more in the category of a robber's tale for me. Because anyone with yachting experience knows that boats of this size are quite slow (even under engine power) and the risk of accidental control would be far too high.
So we can remain curious as to when we will finally find out the truth about this.