...and have 22 + 34 = 56 minutes to spare, here are a couple of videos dealing with this story:

Seymour Hersh: Der BEWEIS, North Stream waren die AMIS! Oder doch nicht? Aufarbeitung des Artikels. (22:04)

and

Seymour Hershs Geschichte ist eine klassische Verschwörungstheorie. Aktueller Stand & Quellenkritik (33:43)

Militär & Geschichte mit Torsten Heinrich is a rather popular (66.9K subscribers) German vlog that deals with the Ukraine war. Torsten lives in Central America; AIUI in, of all places, Panama. (Maybe he came across this story because it's part of his regular internet search routine?) He is, as you can see from the video lengths above, rather prone to going on (and on and on...), and as you also can see quite sensationalist in his headline setting. But the actual content, beneath the waffling, is more sensible and balanced, so much of what he says seems quite reasonable. (In large part, of course, because it's so obvious as to be self-evident.)

On the whole, I agree with his take here, which IIRC was:

TL;DW -- German vlogger thinks, first video:

1) Is that even Hersh? If it's him, why is this (his only!) article on Substack, and not on the NYT / WaPo / The Atlantic, etc?

2) If it's him, has he gone troll / Putler agent?

3) Or has he been duped by his single source, who might be
.. a) a troll
.. b) a Putler agent
.. c) someone else who has been duped by a troll / Putler agent?

Second video:

1) Summary of first video

2) Means and deception
.. a) Why would one put up a NATO exercise as camouflage, and then use a Norwegian ship to do it, when the Norwegians aren't participating in the exercise?
.. b) Stuff about which ships and planes were going where and when.

3) Classic hallmarks of conspirace theory:
.. a) Single source, weird publication site (as per first video).
.. b) No ships / planes near enough where it happened, 2b above -- Tinfoil hatters go "They had their transponders off!" In the middle of an exercise with a lot of other warships with theirs on, and none of those wondered about this?
.. c) Nobody else has got a whiff of this, the mysterious single source hasn't talked to anyone else?

4) Qui bono? In stead of asking, "Who had an interest in blowing up the pipeline", should one ask who had an interest in not blowing up all the pipelines? Remember, Nord Stream 1 and 2 each consisted of two pipes each. Only three of the four were blown. And Heinrich notes that the one that wasn't was one half of NS2, for which no usage contract is in place.

Food for thought, somewhat convincing IMO.

And NS1 is under a contract that for all I know reads something like "Germany has an exclusive right to get as much gas as it wants through this pipe". So if Germany says "the amount we want is zero", Putler isn't going to sell any gas through NS1 for however long that contract is. But since Germany doesn't have any such deal on NS2, he could well write a contract to pump gas through NS2 to, say, Serbia or Hungary.