Comments by "Cyberfunk" (@cyberfunk3793) on "Nord Stream attack: Does the trail lead to Ukraine? | DW News" video.

@rockbutcher 80m is no problem when you work fast. Just requires a helium mixture instead of regular air and that you don't spend long time at that depth or you will need a long time to decompress also. Free divers go to over 100m with no gear at all just for a moment, military divers can easily get to 80m with the right gear.
8
You sure about that? I'm no expert on the topic but when I did some reading I felt it seemed like it wasn't actually that difficult at all as some "experts" claimed it would be. It would recuire using other than typical air (I think what is called a "technical dive with helium etc) but that isn't so special that many military divers from almost any countries could not easily pull it off. They don't need to stay there for hours, the explosives would only need to weight something like 15kg so easy to transport and probably could be set up in a short time by people with prior training in the military.
8
Total nonsense. All you need is something like 15kg of explosives and team that can do technical diving with helium mixtures which is pretty much every navy on the planet.
7
Many "experts" make all kinds of claims and when you start actually investigating it yourself, turns out it's typically bs what one expert says and there are other experts telling the exact opposite. As far as I could see, the only problem is the depth but that isn't a huge problem either if the dive is short and work is done fast. All you would really need is a tehnical diving team that uses these helium etc. mixtures instead of regular air and about 15kg of explosives to breach the pipeline. The gas exploding and burning out of the pipe will do the rest of damage. You don't need a massive ship to carry say 2 teams of divers and less than 50kg of explosives. And I personally could not care less who did it, if it was Ukraine, good on them, that pipeline had it coming. If I had to guess I still would guess it was Russians themselves, but I don't think we can say anything definitive yet.
6
@klauskainzinger9978 Who said so many explosives were used? Why would anyone use that many explosives to blow up a pipe if 15kg is enough? Maybe the explosives were set precisely like a shape charge, they pierced the pipe and the pressure did the rest.
4
@tordsteiro9838 What I read somewhere was that you need about 15kg of explosives and not 2000kg. And if you think with common sense tank mine is something like 10kg and I'm pretty sure even that might be able to penetrate that type of pipe and set it on fire. If you find the pipe(that might be the hard part), you just attach explosives anywhere on it, why would it need to some specific place on it?
3
@tordsteiro9838 The pipe is about 3cm thick with pressures about 200 bar. That thickness is trivial to pierce with explosives so seems the people you talked to don't know that much then and you couldn't do basic research yourself. The claim about 500kg is ridiculous, I have used explosives in the army myself and know how much damage just a few kg of TNT does. You can obviously use as much as you like but to damage the pipe enough to leak and damage itself further due to the pressure nowhere near 500kg is needed. If you want to blow off some steel enforced concrete foundations there might be, perhaps then you need a lot more but not just for destroying the pipe enough that it could not be used.
3
@ZoragRingael I'm obviously talking about the wall thickness: "Nord Stream designed the pipeline with three different design pressure sections. (220, 200 and 177.5 bar) and pipe wall thicknesses (34.4, 30.9 and 26.8 mm." Nobody needs blueprints or hundred of kg to blow that pipe. If you can find it, you place the shape charges correctly and trigger them on a timer or some remote.
3
That is just utter nonsense. I saw some military diver comment that it would require about 15kg of explosives only. He said it would be difficult though and that only a small number of experts on the planet could do it. When I did further reading that was bs also, it's not that special of a dive at all and pretty much any military divers from any country could do it as they don't need to be at the depth for very long to set it up. It could easily be as simple as one team gets the explosives to the bottom and start assembly, stays there for some 10 to 15 minutes and another team finishes it of if the first team can't do it in time. My friend was a demining diver in the navy and even he told me that they used these helium and other mixtures regularly to dive to deeper depths so it's not really that impossible as someone might tell you. Only the depth is a problem, but if you do it fast it can be done.
3
@thedausthed Yeah I don't buy it unless I see some peer review of actual experts that have done such things in the military somewhere many times. I think the explosives just pierced the pipe around it in multiple places and pressure of the pipeline itself did most of the damage after that.
3
@ZoragRingael Modern depth charges that can damage or destroy a submarine from many meters away are often something like 180kg. The pipe is 3cm thick, you don't need hundreds of kg of explosives to penetrate that with a shape charge that is attached directly to the surface of said pipe.
2
@mortmortannon6640 What is most convincing of a larger amount of explosives like hundreds of kg is seismic evidence and supposedly some of that was analyzed. If they say there was x amount that could be a good way to prove it but I would like to see a few different experts do the calculations on that. I don't claim they didn't use 500kg, but I claim you don't need that much to cause enough damage to make the pipe at least temporarily unusable. If they had the chance to go overkill and place so much explosives that it would be absolutely sure it could not be repaired, maybe they decided to do that. I don't even know if diving would really be needed, what if someone just dumped of a bunch of depth charge type of barrels of explosives with some timer or remote trigger? All they would need to do is sail over the pipeline and drop say 10 of those barrels, then later trigger them if they were not on some timer. With many barrels dropped of some warship, atleast a few would be close enough to blow the pipeline to pieces like a submarine. That would be very fast to set up: would take only a minute to drop them of some ship in the night for example.
2
@aslampervez2294 Ok Boris.
1
@dobbylollol I think it's about 80m where the explosion was, with it being a problem I mean it's not so shallow that it would be easy to operate there with regular scuba gear for extended periods but that it would typically require mixtures of helium instead of air and that the time one can spend there without long depressurisation is limited.
1
@dobbylollol Yep that is true also, many ways it could be done, not just humans going down there.
1
@ZoragRingael It's not an article but an pdf and nobody said a couple. I said 15kg would likely be enough to penetrate the 3cm of steel wall of the pipe so the pipes could be made unusable with lot less than hundreds of kg per explosion site. It's also not impossible to carry 100kg of explosives per explostion site even on a smaller boat. 100kg is about one person, do you think these boats can't carry multiple people at once? It's not a some tiny row boat we were talking about.
1
@tordsteiro9838 it's not irrelevant to refute inaccurate claims on what amount of explosives would be required to damage such pipeline even if in this case more was used. 'Puck Nielsen said of possible sabotage that "technically speaking, this is not difficult. It just requires a boat. It requires some divers that know how to handle explosive devices."' That is from Royal Danish defense college, he isn't talking about a ship but a boat. 'Lund says both the Swedish network and the Danish Seismic Network picked up the explosions on Monday. The first blast occurred at 2:03 a.m. Swedish time, and a second, larger explosion occurred at 7:04 p.m. "Preliminary estimates would say that this is at least equivalent to 100 kilograms of dynamite," he says.' That is the director of Swedish seismic network from Upsala university. What I have seen is them saying it was an explosion but how much TNT varies wildly from something like 100kg all the way up to 900kg and it's not clear if with the numbers they mean per single explosion site or all of them in total. Also how the pressure releasing from the pipe itself after the explosion might affect those readings is unclear so better wait for an actual report with real calculations. In any case, even if it was some 100kg per explosion site, that is very doable with some fishing vessel for example and would not require some warships or submarine to carry the explosives.
1
@mortmortannon6640 You are right about that but I'm not convinced of the analysis until I see multiple real experts make that conclusion. 15kg of high explosives under water where the shock wave propagates differently than air is going to make a sizable dent on any ocean floor and what would be necessary to know is the floor at that point rock solid after 1cm of dust or perhaps very loose, like wet sand. Without knowing how strong the floor at that exact point is it's going to be hard to say what amount of explosives result in what kind of crater. As far as I know, no experts so far have gone down there to do some survey on the sea floor of that point so they are just speculating like the rest of us.
1
@tangfors Yes certainly Russia had ships there and could have done it, very possible if not even the most likely scenario. I'm just saying it would not be so impossible to do with even less means as some have suggested.
1
@jetli740 And you don't seem to know much about English language and reading comprehension but you do know a lot about strawman arguments. Don't imagine what I said when everything is still clearly there.
1
@jetli740 "it cal Debunks" 😂 Can't read or write English confirmed.
1
@jetli740 What a great comeback, you are 7 years old? 😂 Come back when you can understand what you are reading.
1