Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "The Grayzone"
channel.
-
80
-
62
-
48
-
39
-
30
-
29
-
Saw an analysis of the damage to the pipeline.
The cut that was seen on a drone video was done afterwards, because Sweden cleaned up the whole place and cut off the destroyed ending for analysis.
Overall the pipeline was 'stomped' into the ground, means an explosion from below or inward is impossible.
It was also explained, that the way a pipeline worokds makes it impossible to just put something inside, that would massively hinder the gasflow for which you even got a coating on the inside to reduce friction to a minimum (that's also a reason why just replacing the damage segments is not enough, because seawater flowing into the now open pipeline will damage the coating).
The expert for explosives also said, that this wasn't just destruction of the pipeline, it was a message, since it could have done far better with way less, so little, that no one would have detected the explosion itself.
15kg of special explosives would have been enough to cut it, but instead half a ton or more was used.
That's also something a combat diver can't transport anymore or a small ship.To place such a mass needs way more infrastructure than that.
Most likely it was something alike a "(sea) ground mine" used for it or something alike.
The idea, that Russia could have put explosives there with the idea to detonate it at any point makes little sense, since the way explosives work would make it unlikely to function. Exposives aren't very stable, they decay, you would have to switch the detonator every now and then and all that being underwater makes it not only harder in general to do that, but overall more likely to fail.
It's not unusual that explosives fail, especially in such depths. You got a failure rate of 20% and more.
20
-
14
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@eemoogee160 What exaxtly should they know? That you got endless rows of clubs and whatever on the world where some women tend to work to entertain the guests in on way or another?
What you want to do? Forbid this? Sure, can do.
When it comes to hiring teenager, well, do you think those who do this will tell others? Or that the teenager will tell the guest "That's just the make up, I'm actually not 18+ yet."
Of course they won't.
With make up you can look like 15 if you are 30 and like 30 if you are 15. That's what is used there, nothing new.
And guess what: many teenage do that on purpose, because they dislike those of their own age and want to get that so more handsome or so more rich adult guy. What then can quickly be abused by others.
"I want to be a model, I want to meet the rich guys" bla bla bla.
"Sure, honey, just sign here, I'll do the rest. Just be sure to be nice to them." And so on.
You will not have people who are 100% forced into this on that level (= grabbed from the street and forced into prostitution). Wouldn't work.
Is it illegal? Obviously, since you got these lies about the age and all follow up. Is it that easy as in some movie, where they are just forced to, everyone knows and enjoy this? No of course not.
Officialy that was that Island of Epstein where all kind of people visited - including family members of victims, what doesn't mean that any vistors did anything illegaly. Some may, those have to be prosecuted, but you can't just take anyone who was there and condemn them, that's not how a justice system works.
If anything than Bill Clinton was accused of sexual intercourse with one of the teenagers. There is not even any accusation against Trump, in contrary, the questioned witness explicitely said that this not the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1