Play with Data aka Magic tell. Why September the 26th, I don't have a good picture, but I know for the first half the intelligence was saying it's gonna be a long war. He decided then to do it, and he had set it up so he could just say yes and a day later would blow away. You said it and say work by sonars. Frequency, you can blow them up, you can do it. So tough thing to do. And so why at that point, whether he was deciding is this is going to be a long war, it's going to cost a lot of money. I'm going to go all the way. He's now moving a lot of American troops and equipment into Poland. I don't know if he's going to commit native to it. I don't know if NATO wants to go, but he basically gave Chancellor Schultz, took away the option of Schultz to say I'm going to stop giving them arms. Winter's coming. I want that pipeline. I want to keep my people warm and wealthy. So he blew it up. So there's been a lot of news reporting, a lot of interest on this very simple question. Who blew up the North Stream pipelines? Remember in September of last year, the North Stream One and N Stream Two, which are two parallelly running pipelines carrying natural gas from Russia to Germany, were blown up. There were massive explosions which happened 250 feet are below the sea. Now the first report that came out, which was last month by a famous American journalist, which seemed to suggest that this was an inside job, it was carried out by the United States using state actors. now just this past week there's been some follow up reporting September the 26th last year and. I there was no way. Common sense. You have to deal with common sense. Well, let's see. I knew that no Russia would have done it because of Putin already had responded. There's two major pipelines, N Stream one, which has been alive for since 2011, and Nord Stream two, which is. These are huge. They moved millions of whatever the measurement is of natural gas. There is a different measurement and it's not cubic feet, it's they they they move in, they mouth stream one turn Germany because they supplied cheap natural gas. That was very clear. Then they needed it anyway. I'm just giving you all this because I'm not here. I can answer your question, but I be coming from the blue one. I don't want to come from the blue. I want people to understand I've done this a long time. So the White House, Mr. Hush, they have rejected your story outright. They've called it a figment of your imagination. More fiction than fact is the wording that they used. Germany has also taken a very cautious mind on your story. You referred before in your first answer to Western media like the New York Times, The Washington Post. Had you taken your story to the editors there, would they have published such a consequential story basis, Just one single, unnamed anonymous source? How would you react to that? This source? Would I the way described the story and the intent of how I sourced it? Was to be as as vague as possible.