BLOWING HOLES IN OLIVER ALEXANDER`S PIPE DREAM OF BLOWING HOLES INTO SEYMOR HERSH`S NORD STREAM ARTICLE
(To use the same phrasing:) On the surface O. Alexander`s attempt at debunking Seymour Hersh´s recent article looks passable, but as you dig deeper it has more holes than the Nord Stream (1) pipeline.
Another Substack writer named Oliver Alexander has recently published a rebuttal to Seymour Hersh`s original article 1 .
It can be found here:
It is on the surface undeniably a well written and visually well presented text (excuse my own definitely being less so!).
But when digging into the factual arguments beneath, one at a time, from the text`s start to finish it reveals itself rather to be a collection of polemics, one-sided mis-representations, useless nitpicking of low hanging fruits and weakest arguments based on hypothetical armchair guess work instead of conclusive evidence.
At least that is my -sorry rather harsh- conclusion, please judge for yourself:
Alexander writes:
Initial US -Air Force Proposals
"The US Air Force officials reportedly proposed “dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely”. One could write an entire post on the reasons why sounds entirely made up by someone with no real grasp of what that suggestion would actually technically entail."
-A) Neither O. Alexander, nor me, nor -presumably- any of the other readers of Hersh`s report (except his source) was/were anywhere near when -allegedly- those meetings took place, so have no capabilities whatsoever to check what exactly the participants may have said or not, how exact their technical proposals were relayed to Hersh (or his source) or how exact his -layman- summarization of their initial -presumably professional- proposals as "dropping bombs with delayed fuses" actually represents an accurate description of their original meaning.
Thus any large theories about exactly what was- purely theoretically- proposed or not and what that may say or not about the participants on either of our parts -IF those exact words were actually used- is at this point purely hypothetical armchair second-guessing and as such entirely worthless until other direct sources/witnesses are presented.
-B) Whatever those initial US Airforce proposals may have been or not, they were obviously - if following the project`s development as reported- discarded early on, adding further moot-ness to the already useless argument.
2. Choice of pipeline section
"I am unsure as to why all the intelligence officials in the initial planning meetings for the mission felt that the only possible way to sabotage the pipeline would be at the short section directly bordering Russia, instead of the large section in more favorable waters."
-Again purely hypothetical armchair second-guessing of others` -alleged- practical decisions at a certain point in time, wholly useless unless Alexander claims to be privvy to every single factor involved in the original decision?
Hersh mentions (Alexander does not) f.ex., as only 2 of those, the special tidal current conditions around Bornholm and russian patrol-routes. How many different contributing factors there actually were in addition to those in practice (in contrast to theory) to the -alleged- final decision none of us can know at this point or does Alexander claim to?
3. Ambiguous/Incorrect statements
"During his introduction of Norway, Hersh makes a very strange remark about NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg implying that he has worked directly with the US intelligence community since the Vietnam War. Jens Stoltenberg was born March 16th 1959. The US involvement in the Vietnam War ended April 30th 1975, meaning Jens had just turned 16 when Saigon fell to the PAVN troops. I doubt Jens Stoltenberg was a US intelligence asset in his early teens."
- Fair point, the original reference by Hersh to the Vietnam War is a strange one.
As also is an earlier one of Stoltenberg being "(..)the supreme commander of NATO", which is a rather surprising mis-statement of fact coming from such a renowned journalist.
Stoltenberg as stated above is General Secretary, NOT Supreme Commander of NATO (that is General Christopher G. Cavoli -see https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=supreme+commander+Nato).
(These and other aspects of his text seem definitely to point to him deciding rather in favor of a quick release into the public than extensive double checking prior, which is unfortunate, though -given the explosive nature of its topic- maybe understandable to some degree. )
But the most curious thing of all being that none of these points -despite, as said, sure warranting questions to and explanations by Hersh- are essential to anything regarding the main point/core of Hersh`s narrative at all.
In addition, when checking the firstmentioned statement further, Stoltenberg did infact become active in politics in his early teens (the timeframe Hersh suggests), though according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Stoltenberg
his stands are reported to have been, at least outwardly, rather anti-US/Vietnam War at the time.
That obviously changed completely in the following years and when he had risen to the leadership of the norwegian Workers`Youth League in 1985 at the latest his views had turned explicitly pro-Nato/US, as he himself describes here (read to end of article/interview!):
https://www.nrk.no/urix/ville-ha-norge-ut-av-nato-1.11637093.
Infact he managed to turn the original anti-Nato policies of his party around full 180 degrees, making him obviously a very dedicated US/Nato-proponent at the age of 26 at the latest and ever since, which of course is Hersh`s essential point in the whole thing.
And these undisputed facts then leaving us with this question:
What is the real point of this specific point of critique, quarrel when exactly he became strongly pro-US/NATO during his political journey from his early teens to mid-tweens, five years earlier or later?
And this:
Is this maybe mere useless nitpicking instead of refuting the main point?
4. Mine-clearing exercises of BALTOPS
"Hersh claims that the Norwegian navy had the idea of using the annual BALTOPS exercise as the cover for the operation to plant the explosive charges on the pipelines. He then claims that the Americans had “convinced the Sixth Fleet planners to add a research and development exercise to the program”
"There are multiple problems with this statement. Firstly, mine clearing has long been a staple of the BALTOPS exercises. Implying that this is something that was added as cover for this operation is honestly laughable."
- Given that the original US Navy report that Hersh links to as source (https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3060311/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunity-for-research-and-testing-new-technology/) not only explains exactly which mine-clearing and detecting exercises had been part of BALTOPS for years and which new ones were added to the 2022 one, this critique is firstly astonishingly absurd and must rather be regarded as deserving the "laughable"-label and being infact solid proof that Alexander seemingly did not even bother to read the linked-to report.
Which states:
"In support of BALTOPS, U.S. Navy Sixth Fleet partnered with U.S. Navy research and warfare centers to bring the latest advancements in Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) mine hunting technology to the Baltic Sea to demonstrate the vehicle’s effectiveness in operational scenarios.
Experimentation was conducted off the coast of Bornholm, Denmark, with participants from Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Pacific, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Newport, and Mine Warfare Readiness and Effectiveness Measuring (MIREM) -- all under the direction of U.S. Sixth Fleet Task Force 68."
Further down:
“In prior BALTOPS we demonstrated advanced capabilities to detect, re-acquire, and collect images of mine contacts, and transfer those images in near real-time to operators through the use of a specialized Office of Naval Research UUV.
This year, through the work of NIWC Pacific and NUWC Newport, we are showing that this capability can be integrated into programs of record by executing complex multi-vehicle UUV missions with modified U.S. Navy Fleet assets.”
-Meaning that firstly the main point of these mine-planting and -detecting BALTOPS exercises was the employment of both divers and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles and especially during the 2022 also executing multi-vehicle UUV missions simultaneously.
So, to sum up- Hersh presents undisputable proof for BALTOPS mine-hunting exercises having been conducted for years and new stages added in 2022.
For this then to be debunked and ridiculed by Alexander with the argument of having found evidence that BALTOPS mine-hunting exercises had been conducted for years...?
5. Exact distance between explosions
"The next major question mark comes after this description by Hersh of how the Norwegian navy found the “right spot” to sabotage the pipeline. It makes it sound like the explosions all took place in close vicinity of each other. "
-Again mere indirect inference and expression-nitpicking, Hersh never says what exact distance he means by "the right spot", thus all further extrapolation is strawman reasoning until Hersh is asked what exactly he meant.
6. Alta versus Oksøy class ships
"Immediately after this Hersh begins to mention some of the details of the diving aspect of the operation. He starts of by mentioning that the divers would deploy off a “a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter”. No Alta-class minesweepers took part in BALTOPS22. “
“One Oksøy-Class mine hunter, the Hinnøy, did take part in the exercises though. The two classes of ship are very similar, though not identical."
-Firstly, Hersh reports from the planning stages of the operation not the executive/executed stage, explicitly employing the word "would" not "was" :
"That would be well within the range of the divers, who, operating from a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter, would dive with a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and helium streaming from their tanks.."
-Secondly, again, given that
a) as even Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta-class_minesweeper) tells us the Alta- and Oksøy- classes are infact "ALMOST IDENTICAL" anyway and
b) it is again such an unessential (100% versus ca 90% exact description of a certain ship type) point in the larger main (mine-planting- exercises in exact area in question, just months prior to explosions) point,
that the question really arises:
Why this strange tendency to nitpick on such low hanging fruits and unessential points, instead of focusing on the essential ones?
7. Regarding the movements of the tracked Oksøy ship and whether in accord with planting explosives or not:
"Here I have marked the locations of the Nord Stream leaks on top of the map of the Hinnøy’s movement during BALTOPS22 that Joe Gavin posted. Note the even at its closest, the Hinnøy is several km from the leak locations. At the location of the two leaks in Nord Stream 1, the Hinnøy never even slows down significantly"
"-For a dive of 260 FSW, assuming that the work to place the charges took somewhere between 15 and 30 mins, the total assent time for the divers would be between 53 and 195 minutes. So for each dive we are looking at a dive time of between an hour and a half to four hours to complete the planting of the charges on the pipeline. Additionally as the three explosive locations were all miles apart, they would require at least 3 separate dives to accomplish the mission"
-As cited above from the Navy`s own BALTOPS 2022 report, the main point of all these mine-exercises was actually the de- and employment of MULTIPLE UNMANNED UNDERWATER VEHICLES in addition to divers for the jobs in question.
Thus unless and until we get to know exactly in which way these vehicles, their operators and divers were deployd/employed and moved during these exercises, how far/fast they could travel, how many functions perform at what time, what exactly the actual job/required depth/presence of the divers and vehicles was and thus what the im-and possibilites were of conducting secret missions in the timeframe and location given, all the arguments above are again mere -though seemingly elaborate- hypothetical guess work-exercises, fully worthless without further proof.
8. Explosives` camouflaging
"Then Hersh goes on to speak absolute nonsense about the US having to “camouflage” the explosives from the Russians by adapting their salinity to that of the water.(...)Russia is not conducting minesweeping operations in the Danish and Swedish EEZ. Even if they were, they are not going to detect what Hersh himself described as a shaped charge placed on the pipeline. The salinity aspect is just random buzzwords."
- Rather large statements, valid only if:
a) firstly Alexander knows exactly what precisely Hersh infact meant by his description and what the original source`s technical description given to him was and
b) Alexander claims to know all surveillance/ detection methods within the russian arsenal?
Maybe a very first step would be to simply ask Hersh what he exactly meant instead of jumping to straw-man accusations?
9. Regarding the P-8 planes -allegedly- employd for dropping the sonar buoy.
"Hersh later states that the charges would be detonated by a “sonar bouy” (sonobouy) dropped as a “Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight”.
"Here I assume that Hersh thought they were in service as they had been delivered and then proceeded to add this detail to his story, without knowing that they were not yet in service. There would be nothing “seemingly routine”
- Instead of "assuming", maybe simply ask Hersh what he actually meant?
While it seems true that officially the planes have/had not been taken into regular service-and thus the Hersh`s statement of "routine flight" definitely warranting explanation on his part- the norwegian army admits to "test-flights"(according to them exclusively though within norwegian airspace- as also mentioned in Alexander`s article already-) :
https://filternyheter.no/forsvaret-ut-mot-konspirasjonsteori-de-norske-flyene-har-aldri-vaert-i-omradet/
Leaving us, until more information/evidence is made accesible about the definite im/possibility of covert flights, unfortunately again in the dissatisfying state of absolut limbo, inconclusive-ness in either direction of argument.
As he also perfectly states himself in the following:
"Open Source ADS-B Exchange information also does not show any Norwegian P-8 activity on September 26th. While it is possible for aircraft to operate without showing up on ADS-B Exchange.."
Indeed.
And thus, as far as I can see, the overall situation is this:
There is, at this point, no conclusive evidence for a P-8 plane dropping anything in the way Hersh describes and if the data presented regarding the fly-over the US Navy P-8 at 3:10 CEST is correct, its involvement is clearly refuted.
On the other hand the absence of proof is no proof of absence and the possibility of a yet to be proven/discovered flight can equally not be ruled out at this point.
Objections?
In general I wonder if we can agree that the whole concept of this -alleged- mission of course was to obfuscate all traces as much as possible, meaning practically the whole -alleged- operation was conducted by highest-level professionals whose daily job it was/is to employ all means of secrecy, deception and cover up available in their (presumably considerable) arsenal to make any re-tracing after the fact as difficult as possible for researchers?
While -as said- of course this absence of proof not being proof of absence, this cuts both ways. To argue that no mission/flight/ship journey could have taken place because easily available public monitoring sources don`t seem to show proof for it is an equally superficial -borderline nonsensical- argument as of course the other way round one that absence of that proof somehow corroborates a secret mission having taken place.
Objections?
10. Secrecy versus Cooperation
"According to Hersh’s source, at some point the Americans and Norwegians decided to brief senior officials in Denmark and Sweden “in general terms about possible diving activity in the area”. This I do not in anyway understand.”
-Begs the question again, how thorough did Alexander actually read Hersh`s article before jumping to critique?
It states:
"In that way, someone higher up could intervene and keep a report out of the chain of command, thus insulating the pipeline operation. “What they were told and what they knew were purposely different,” the source told me. (The Norwegian embassy, asked to comment on this story, did not respond.)"
-What is not to understand in anyway here? Please elaborate.
And further, since this line of argumentation in the form of indirect inference guesswork generally appears to be Alexander`s favourite one - including the seeming discrepancy between keeping the entire operation as secretive as possible and nonetheless involving other parties (Norwegian Navy, to lesser degree Denmark and Sweden as stated above)-:
"Either the same insulated highly secretive operation that must not have any leaks is now bringing further outside actors into the fold or this means that they were just briefed that dives would be taking place"
" This entails bringing the Norwegian Navy and Secret Service in on the details of the mission(...) This is the same mission where Biden still holds secrecy as the top priority(...) for fear of leaks."
-One more argument again resting on nothing but the just described indirect and purely hypothetical inference combined with theoretical second-guessing from an armchair position.
During practical operations, especially of this magnitude, obviously there are always compromises to be made between the often conflicting different aspects necessary to make the whole thing workable on the ground and a multitude of factors to be balanced, sometimes even demanding pure improvisation on the fly.
Which all of course is as messy and real during rubber-hits-the-road operation on the spot as (illusory) clear and non-existent to the armchair second guessing parties after the fact.
If f.ex. employing the exact same indirect inference logic to the author`s work itself one might argue maybe equally:
Why, if secret operations like these are indeed so simple and clear to execute and re-construct as O. Alexander claims, has the top brass not already recruited him into their ranks long ago to run them..?
And in that example the fact that the latter is obviously not the case conclusively proving that obiously neither is the former..
11. Triggering the explosives
"Hersh then goes onto a long rant about how they had to be careful that a random underwater noise did not trigger the explosives, which again makes little sense"
- One more of the same, as stated already in 10. above.
Maybe Alexander should clarify with the original author which exact (mode/frequency...) trigger mechanism he speaks about or does he again claim to know all those available in the arsenal of all parties ?
12. Mystery of only 3 holes
"Finally, through this entire detailed account there is one key thing Seymour Hersh neglects to mention or provide reasoning for. If Biden launched this operation with the express purpose of destroying Russia’s ability to supply Germany with natural gas, why only blow up three of the four Nord Stream pipelines? Why leave one of the two Nord Stream 2 pipelines intact.."
-Perfect final una mas example of the attitude/techniques described already in 10.and 11. above.
Why oh why do things in practice not always turn out fully as planned when everything is so easy and perfect in the minds of armchair theorists?
Why did the (seemingly perfect) bombing-attempt on Adolf Hitler not succeed as planned, nor the sinking of the USS Liberty, the Vietnam war, the perfect set up of Lee Harvey Oswald, Castro`s assassination attempts, the plot against Reagan, the 9/11 flight into the Pentagon, etc......?
Answer: Because it is now proven thanks to O.A. that neither of them did actually happen at all in the first place, due to them not fully succeeding/ turning out as planned...?
CONCLUSION
While at this stage the evidence for the (Hersh`s) case of explosives having infact been planted by those ships and during that exact time is not conclusive- as far as I can see- and it may very well be that he is/was mistaken, at least the same inconclusiveness applies to the recent counter-narratives and especially Alexanders`.
Until more information is made public and the entire flight-,diver- and vehicle- activity during the time in question made fully transparent, the main and rather highly incriminating circumstantial facts/evidence-points remain :
A) Highest ranking US-officials (Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland) threatening in public statements to "have the means/power to shut down Nord Stream" half a year before the actual event takes place exactly in line with those threats.
B) A Nato exercise in exactly that minute area of the world and the time-frame needed with officially documented activities exactly of the same nature as would be necessary to infact plant the devices needed for the event.
C) Purely factually the US (and to lesser degree also Norway, Ukraine, Poland and other countries) are benefitting economically (as well as politically) to a large degree from the destruction of the Pipelines and german-russian energy trade.
D) Russia has no real gain whatsoever from sabotaging its own pipelines, thus can be ruled out from the list of potential perpetrators, narrowing it down to those most hostile to that country.
Interestingly and strangely it is exactly these very main points that are both the forest for/instead of the trees and for some reason also those specifically not adressed at all by O.Alexander in his entire article. Begging the question why not?
All the evidence we have so far is circumstantial, including of course the above A) to D) list and to reach any conclusive verdict more open minded research and evidence is needed.
What is needed least of all (but as usual abundant it seems) are narrow-minded binary party-line argueing and cheap polemics.
Wouldn`t it be nice if some/all of us attempting to find out what happened could cooperatively search for more evidence and try to present it fair to all sides, whatever it may show in the end, maybe worth a try? It certainly seems not to have been tried yet…
And in that regard I for my part would definitely also be very interested to read more by O. Alexander, for obviously he is a capable researcher and writer and much more work/investigation needs -as said- to be done if we want to find out conclusively what the whole truth actually is in this matter.
So, let`s get to it.
(P.S. In response to the (expected) avalanche of accusations and guess-work orgies about the details of his original article, Seymour Hersh just today published an article (probably fittingly) titled “Crap On The Wall”, so far to his subscribers only it seems, but hopefully soon to be made fully public, so anybody interested can check out his side of the stories as well.)
