What needs to be done to reinstate my deleted answer?

Question

A question here raised scepticism about a news report of how the US sabotaged the Nordstream pipeline in Europe - Did the CIA blow up the Nordstream 1 pipeline?

As @Joe-w pointed out in the comment, I too felt the question couldn't be really answered factually because it was a current event and a military operation and the accepted answers is thus, well, "questionable". Yet, as the question was allowed (I have created a separate meta question to discuss that), and the answers too were allowed and highly upvoted, I too decided to write an answer on this subject that was relevant and offered a different perspective but again, obviously couldn't be of "high standards" because of the lack of real data (though still equivalent or better than the other answer, in my opinion).

The scepticism in the question was directed against a whistle-blower(s)'s account detailing how the US / NATO used a regular multi-nation joint military drill to mask a secret mission to plant remote controlled bombs on the Russian-European NordStream pipelines in the Baltics. And then a few months later detonate it by dropping a buoy there and remotely triggering the bombs.

Again, note that this was a(n) (allegedly) military operation during a time when NATO is on high alert due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and information on any military operation from all sides are really scant. Moreover, countries investigating the blasts have refused to share the information publicly yet. Thus, I felt that nobody can really contest the news report factually - it would be just another "trust me bro, I know best" and "he says, she says account". (The reference to so-called "open source" intelligence during war time to contest the report is also equally laughable - to believe that you would have to subscribe to the view the US / NATO military is just as incompetent as the Russian military as to allow the leakage of data on military assets or operations during a war!).

Note that I don't doubt the report due to the credibility of the journalist (and other factors outlined in my answer) and so do accept that the US (and allies) did blow up the pipeline. So my approach to answer the question (that was really unanswerable due to lack of data) was to address the areas that may have caused the scepticism about the report in the first place.

In another words, use circumstantial evidence to suggest why the report is credible.

Here's a screenshot of my answer for those who can't read it any more. And here's the explanation of why the answer was deleted:

I'm removing this answer as it does not actually focus on the specific question on whether the US sabotages the pipeline but on various other topics around Hersh himself and other political aspects. And the main conclusion is not referenced, only the tangential aspects are and then you just claim that there is not much room to doubt. That does not meet our requirements for referenced answers.

(That was funny as the accepted answer is a low quality one due to the questionable data it references).

As I explained though, due to the lack of any credible info, I decided to indirectly approach and address the scepticism by presenting circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is:

Proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts may be inferred.

Circumstantial proof means evidence that does not directly prove a key fact. Rather, this type of evidence:

proves another fact, and
a person can then reasonably conclude that a key fact happened.

The reasoning process was to identify the areas of scepticism that someone may have after reading the report and address that. For example, the scepticism may be due to questions like:

1. Is the author credible? (A: Yes)
2. Why aren't the media reporting on this? (A: Past historical pattern)
3. Why isn't there more verifiable info on or from the whistleblower? (A: Protection of source from persecution)
4. Is the US / NATO capable of this? (A: Yes)
5. Does it benefit them to do it? (A: Yes)
6. Have they publicly discussed this? (A: Yes)
7. Are the other answers doubting the report credible? (A: Not really)

If you follow this train of thoughts in my answer - https://i.sstatic.net/7eQZA.jpg - you'll see that I have presented verifiable facts to back up each assertion of mine. And based on these facts inferred my conclusion. (Note that in the comments I have shared some additional views that I didn't include in the answer even if I believe it because it is my opinion but there are no publicly verifiable source to support it. For those who do want to verify the factual references please see my answer here in Po.SE where I have made similar arguments (you can see, they are not some "reddit links" as some commenter derisively suggested to me here).

(There were additional criticisms in the comments about my answer, and at that time I felt I couldn't adequately answer it all in the limited space the comments provide. Hopefully my reasoning here does address some of them - if not, feel free to ask clarifications. A comment also pointed out that one of my cited reference which contested the accepted answer was actually better than my own answer. Maybe, but obviously I did not write it and so can't reproduce it in good faith as an independent answer).

In my opinion either the whole question should be deleted, following your own rules, or my answer reinstated (with edits if necessary). I don't see how my answer is in anyway more sub-par (and thus worthy of deletion) than the accepted answers that relies on questionable data, not facts, or worse than other answers. And when there is already an accepted answer why was mod intervention really required in such a case as to go out of the way to delete my answer (which, if cynically viewed, happened only because it started receiving upvotes)?

If you don't think that my answer is "good enough" (in comparison to the other answers) do point out where my own reasoning (as outlined here) is flawed and I have misunderstood how Skeptics like an answer to be.

Though cynical, I do have to point out that all this unnecessarily aggressive reviewer / mod actions against my contributions here (not limited to me alone though) is more indicative of a pattern of either unconscious or deliberate western political bias that I have often observed here on Skeptics.SE, on History.SE and Politics.SE, where counter views not receptive to western views are shut down or immediately discouraged without much consideration despite the hard and decent effort behind it. All this is demotivating for us non-westerners (I am from India), and I suspect perhaps that is the intent behind it - just discourage us from presenting views that are unpalatable to some here.

Answer 1

The other answers are examining specific claims Hersh made about how the operation allegedly happened. Those are claims that can be examined and verified.

Your answer boils down to "Hersh is a reliable source and we should trust him without question" and "The US has an interest in blowing up the pipelines". That is not a valid answer on this site.

Using the reputation of a source can be a useful proxy in some cases, but it's not an answer alone. It's mostly useful if the source is questionable, and even then only as a supporting argument. Even reputable sources are sometimes wrong. And in this case there have been widely reported criticisms of Hersh's recent works even before the pipeline article, so his reputation is not universally good these days.

Motivation is not sufficient, it does not say anything about what actually happened. So even if your argument about the motivations of the US here were valid, it would not constitute a valid answer on its own here.

And then you make a gigantic leap from those two arguments and simply declare that the US must be the one behind the pipeline explosions. Your conclusion is simply not supported by your arguments here.

Answer 2

I agree with what Mad Scientist wrote. Additionally, you're also claiming that info about routine Western military flights/operations is not available as OSINT, but that's just your assertion. Even the Russian and Indian press were filled with detailed flight paths of US helicopters (during BALTOPS) from said sources, that (US) P-8 which I mentioned in my answer. Etc.

So your answer that such info is generally unavailable isn't true with respect to routine military flights/operations in the West. It may be true with respect to Indian operations, which is perhaps why you're so surprised. Whether some well disguised/non-trackable flights etc. might have taken place and carried out some covert ops is another matter, but the gist of Hersh's claim is that it was all done under the cover of routine operations, which can generally be examined from OSINT sources in the West.

I personally found it very strange the way Hersh's story was constructed, i.e. why he claims some Norwegian minelayer was involved etc. It almost sounds to me like someone fed him the most implausible version of events and he bought it as-is due to his heavy anti-US bias. But that's what he claimed, that the Norwegians played a big role in both laying and detonating the explosives, so that what we're looking at in that question. It's also why the Norwegian press paid a lot of attention to his claims, by the way. (After listening to a bit more of what Hersh said in a follow-up interview, I think it rather more plausible that he came up with this version of events because he is a strong believer in CIA's off the book operations. He said the Pentagon wasn't informed. So, I think he's imagining this took place with the CIA using the Norwegians roughly in the same way [Hersh says] the CIA are using the M.e.K in Iran.)