Ukraine blows up 2 railway connections between Russia and China
www.politico.eu
Kyiv’s saboteurs strike deep in enemy territory, with Russian media reporting that authorities are investigating it as a terror attack.

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.

  • StorminNorman@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        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 materials weaken with increasing,and 45%25 of its stiffness.

        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.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • StorminNorman@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • StorminNorman@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            1 year ago

            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.