> е успял да получи информация за саботажа от неназован източник, който е участвал пряко в подготовката на операцията.
Сигурно от стандартния източник от който идват останалите конспирации.
Aaaa, тука не говорим лошо за САЩ.
Обществена “тайна”…..
Чети, споделяй и вярвай на сайт наречен епицентър точка бъгъ….
Байдън обеща публично ,че ако Русия влезе в Украйна Норд Строим ще спре да съществува. Русия влиза стриима гръмна. А хората които претендират,че са и формирани и много обективни се правят на приятно разсеяни. https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8
Последен пост в тази тема защото наистина не ми се занимава с конспиратори
>Hersh uses the testimony of one person, mixed alongside that aforementioned historical or political commentary, as evidence for every significant aspect of the alleged conspiracy.
>
>The source is first described as “a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning” and a second time as “the source with direct knowledge of the process,” indicating these were the same person. All other references to a source refer, in the singular, to “the” source. This source, for example, is responsible for the claim that Biden created a task force to look into options to destroy the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
>
>The source, evidently a legal expert, is also behind the claim that Biden’s actions at a news conference created some sort of loophole that allowed a covert sabotage mission to go ahead without notifying high-ranking congressional leaders:
>
>This same source, evidently, is knowledgeable about internal CIA, State Department, and deep sea diver politics in addition to the specific deliberations held by a secret interagency panel. He is, in Hersh’s reporting, the sole basis for claims of Norway’s knowledge of and involvement in the operation
>
>The only other source mentioned in Hersh’s report is a retired professor with no connection to, or ability to confirm the existence of, any potential covert operation in the Baltics. His information, regarding a sonor-activated detonator, does not confirm the existence of the operation, and is speculative.
Логични заключения? Ако този “източник” съществува е много лесно да се намери защото е съмнително много хора да знаят всичката тази информация. Разбира се, по-вероятно е това да са измислици. Нещо което Пулицъра на стари години явно харесва
11 comments
[On the surface Seymour Hersh’s story looks passable, but as you dig deeper it has more holes than the Nord Stream pipeline.](https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe)
[Every single Alta and Oksøy class ship in the Norwegian Navy was accounted for during the period where Seymour Hersh claimed one was used to plant the charges on the Nord Stream pipeline.](https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/debunking-seymour-hershs-alta-class)
> е успял да получи информация за саботажа от неназован източник, който е участвал пряко в подготовката на операцията.
Сигурно от стандартния източник от който идват останалите конспирации.
Aaaa, тука не говорим лошо за САЩ.
Обществена “тайна”…..
Чети, споделяй и вярвай на сайт наречен епицентър точка бъгъ….
Байдън обеща публично ,че ако Русия влезе в Украйна Норд Строим ще спре да съществува. Русия влиза стриима гръмна. А хората които претендират,че са и формирани и много обективни се правят на приятно разсеяни.
https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8
Последен пост в тази тема защото наистина не ми се занимава с конспиратори
>Hersh uses the testimony of one person, mixed alongside that aforementioned historical or political commentary, as evidence for every significant aspect of the alleged conspiracy.
>
>The source is first described as “a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning” and a second time as “the source with direct knowledge of the process,” indicating these were the same person. All other references to a source refer, in the singular, to “the” source. This source, for example, is responsible for the claim that Biden created a task force to look into options to destroy the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
>
>The source, evidently a legal expert, is also behind the claim that Biden’s actions at a news conference created some sort of loophole that allowed a covert sabotage mission to go ahead without notifying high-ranking congressional leaders:
>
>This same source, evidently, is knowledgeable about internal CIA, State Department, and deep sea diver politics in addition to the specific deliberations held by a secret interagency panel. He is, in Hersh’s reporting, the sole basis for claims of Norway’s knowledge of and involvement in the operation
>
>The only other source mentioned in Hersh’s report is a retired professor with no connection to, or ability to confirm the existence of, any potential covert operation in the Baltics. His information, regarding a sonor-activated detonator, does not confirm the existence of the operation, and is speculative.
Логични заключения? Ако този “източник” съществува е много лесно да се намери защото е съмнително много хора да знаят всичката тази информация. Разбира се, по-вероятно е това да са измислици. Нещо което Пулицъра на стари години явно харесва
>Such a story falls prey to the same [**criticisms**](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/22/allegation-false-turkey-chemical-attack-syria) of other more recent work published by Hersh, which has [**relied on**](https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1623694965606957059) similarly questionable anonymous sources.
Keep trusting unverified sources, kids!
Путин каза ексклузивно пред Novini4ka.net 🤷♀️
О не, поредната глупост на Хърш, какво ще правим ?
Ок може, ама може ли повече доказателства от анонимен източник каза.
Четох оригинала му: [https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream?r=5mz1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web](https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream?r=5mz1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
Едно доказателство не показва. Само “… according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning…”. От там нататък е само “вервайте ми”.