this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38969 readers
2223 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Ukraine’s security service blew up a railway connection linking Russia to China, in a clandestine strike carried out deep into enemy territory, with pro-Kremlin media reporting that investigators have opened a criminal case into a “terrorist attack.”

The SBU set off several explosions inside the Severomuysky tunnel of the Baikal-Amur highway in Buryatia, located some 6,000 kilometers east of Ukraine, a senior Ukrainian official with direct knowledge of the operation told POLITICO.

“This is the only serious railway connection between the Russian Federation and China. And currently, this route, which Russia uses, including for military supplies, is paralyzed,” the official said.

Four explosive devices went off while a cargo train was moving inside the tunnel. “Now the (Russian) Federal Security Service is working on the spot, the railway workers are unsuccessfully trying to minimize the consequences of the SBU special operation,” the Ukrainian official added.

Ukraine’s security service has not publicly confirmed the attack. Russia has also so far not confirmed the sabotage.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It must be very hard for Russia to detect Ukrainians that work under cover in Russia, this must be a major vulnerability for Russia. Unfortunately the same is probably true the other way.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Probably not so much the other way, most Ukrainians are fluent in Russian, I doubt many Russians are fluent in Ukranian

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes that's exactly what I meant, the similarity of the languages, but I didn't know whether that is equal both ways. I sincerely hope you are right, that it's more difficult for the Russians.
I noticed this in the beginning of the war, that it would be relatively easy for Ukraine to perform sabotage in Russia. I'm kind of surprised it's not more wide spread?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

It's quite easy to understand each other for both parties, but Ukrainians actually learn the Russian language in school, so they can speak good Russian. Russians can't speak good Ukrainian as they don't learn it. And speaking is very important for sabotage operations.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

OP missed the fun bit after the tunnel bombing:

The first cargo train exploded directly in the Severomuysky tunnel.

To continue transportation, the Russians began to use the detour route through the so-called Devil’s Bridge — a 35-meter high viaduct structure, which is part of the Trans-Siberian Railway. At that point, SBU saboteurs struck again.

“When the train was passing over this 35-meter high bridge, the explosive devices embedded in it went off,” the same official added.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the details

Just to add, according to Denys Davidov's report on ukraine, the first train was carrying jet fuel, which added to the whole explosion.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Jet fuel can't blow up steel beams! Wake up sheeple!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Jet fuel can’t blow up steel beams! Wake up sheeple!

Wasn't that the reason though that the Twin Towers in NY fell, because the jet fuel melted the steel beams infrastructure?

I had read/seen that the buildings were actually designed to handle a plane crashing into them, but the architects didn't expect the metal beams to melt from the high-temperature burning jet fuel.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Melted beams or not, the WTCs design is what made it collapse like a peeling banana. The floors were essentially cantilevered out and held in place with a load bearing facade (for an open floor concept) There wasn't much holding the floors onto the facade, once the weight of the floors began to sag down it essentially started to lever and pull the beams of the central core apart from all sides like a banana peel.

I don't think those buildings were built to withstand an airplane, at least not the one they were hit by. In hindsight that open floor concept may actually have been a stupid idea, at least the way it was executed.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

I don’t think those buildings were built to withstand an airplane, at least not the one they were hit by.

From what I saw on a show that covered that a long time ago, they were, but not for the larger planes that we have today, but the ones that flew back in the 70's.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is that the beams were sprayed with a fire retardant foam that is designed to protect it in the event of a typical building fire. But the violent impact of the jets would have stripped most of it off, and the jet fuel did indeed weaken the beams. They wouldn’t have melted outright, but softening them after already being damaged by the impact was more than it could handle.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's my understanding as well.

And that the fire retardant foam was designed to be hit by an airplane and stay on, but it was just designed in those days for a smaller 737 impact, and not for a heavybody plane, so it got knocked off, exposing the beams.

Edit: Lol, ok, meant beams, not beans.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's a conspiracy theory, and not a particularly intelligent one. Us normies like to make jokes like this mocking people who believe it, but they do actually believe it and will come up with some batshit insane logic to support their theories.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I haven't heard of anything to refute that, and have heard things to confirm that.

If you have any info you'd like to submit, please do so.

Edit: By refute that, I mean refuting that the jet fuel burning caused the metal to weaken onto collapse.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you have any info you’d like to submit, please do so.

Well, here's what 5 minutes of research yielded

For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fahrenheit-2777/

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300°C and increases rapidly after 400°C. By 550°C steel retains approximately 60% of its room temperature yield strength, and 45% of its stiffness.

https://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork#:~:text=All%20materials%20weaken%20with%20increasing,and%2045%25%20of%20its%20stiffness.

Jet fuel burns at 1500f, which is 815c. At 800c steel retains less than 20% of the strength that it has at room temperature. There you go, fully debunked with minimal effort and extremely basic facts.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well, here’s what 5 minutes of research yielded

The problem is, I read contradictory information, so both sides say they're correct..

For example, this...

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, not hot enough to melt steel (2750 degrees Fahrenheit). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't look like contradictory information to me.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I meant contradictory to the origional comment I was replying to, that was talking about alt reasons for the tragedy. Replied to the wrong comment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The internet since 2001...? There's reams of examples of people who believe this crap and have posted it. I wouldn't be surprised if people have done PhDs where this conspiracy theory is featured heavily.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just to make sure we are on the same page, are you saying that the jet fuel burning the metal beams of the building is true, or a conspiracy?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying the part of the comment you initially highlighted is a joke based on a well known conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. It's been so long since I read up on it, the beams may not have burnt. They just may have been weakened by the heat. Either way, it matters not as we have pretty good evidence that the twin towers did fall after two planes loaded with fuel hit em.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.