The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. Flood rate is a relatively straightforward computation.
Click to expand...

For your information, three sovereign states agreed to amend the Estonian Graveside treaty - an act of parliament in Sweden, Finland and Estonia - and took the steps to legally amend the Act so that a further investigation can take place and that provision goes up to Year 2024.

Thus what some hack said to Reuters ten months ago has zippo relevance to what we are discussing today.
 
Vixen said:
I made it quite clear it was my opinion citing the reason for that opinion, viz-a-viz the UK having signed a Treaty of Estonia Gravesite making it a criminal offence for a British national to breach it.

You are asking who torch-cut the two panels from the bow bulkhead. I said the diver/s were not named by Braidwood.

That is clear enough, surely.

So, which bit do you reckon is wrong or let me guess, this is a game.
Click to expand...


No, you explicitly stated that it was he himself who'd actually wielded the blowtorch etc. You could very easily have conceded, a looooong time ago, that you overclaimed - and it would all have been put to bed quickly and easily. But instead................

(And it's "vis-à-vis" (or "vis-a-vis"). Those French or Latin terms look so much more sophisticated and impressive when they're spelled correctly, I always think)
 
LondonJohn said:
I suspect, in Vixen's trademark sloppy and imprecise manner, what she meant by "intact" was "without the hull having been breached at or below the waterline by an external object". Amirite?
Click to expand...

Which Estonia wasn't. It has a hole above the waterline.
 
Vixen said:
For your information, three sovereign states agreed to amend the Estonian Graveside treaty - an act of parliament in Sweden, Finland and Estonia - and took the steps to legally amend the Act so that a further investigation can take place and that provision goes up to Year 2024.

Thus what some hack said to Reuters ten months ago has zippo relevance to what we are discussing today.
Click to expand...
None of that has the slightest thing to do with a computation of flood rate. But I see you're still adept at calling experts names when they cross you.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
The ship is longer than the depth of the ocean in the spot where it sank. At some point, since we know it is currently on the sea floor, the stern made contact with the sea bed. And as described in the update, the center of the ship's mass is resting on hard rock...right where the crack is.





That would be the bow-cover failing.



And if you had paid attention you would have read that I said the investigation is ongoing. This article is just an update. The findings will be issued this fall.



Which is true.



Every time you state something is clear to you comedy ensues.

The article said they will be examining the dislodged ramp, so we'll know if someone tampered with it, or it gave up the ship.




No true, the current side-scan sonar imaging and the documentary itself show a large rock outcrop in the area where the hole is located.
Click to expand...

Evertsson says that the area in which the Estonia fell has no rocky outcrop that could have caused the side hole.
 
LondonJohn said:
Uhmmmmm..... I beg your pardon? "Displacement of air"?

Enlighten me from my state of ignorance, I beseech you.
Click to expand...


Vixen: I'd still be very much obliged if you could educate me (and perhaps others too) about this whole "displacement of air" thing, and specifically how it pertains to ships' hulls filling with enough water to cause them to become terminally unstable and non-buoyant, thereby causing the ship to sink. Would you come to my aid??
 
Vixen said:
Evertsson says that the area in which the Estonia fell has no rocky outcrop that could have caused the side hole.
Click to expand...

Apart from the one the ship is draped over and causing the hull to tear you mean?
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, it did sink. It didn't sink entirely, but it did sink. You probably ought to learn the meaning of the term "sink" as it applies in these sorts of contexts.






And just how do you know this?

You didn't just....... make it up..... did you?!!
Click to expand...

Do have a look at the MS Jan Heweliusz.
 

Attachments

  • 2021-08-15 (2).jpg
    2021-08-15 (2).jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 3
LondonJohn said:
No, you explicitly stated that it was he himself who'd actually wielded the blowtorch etc. You could very easily have conceded, a looooong time ago, that you overclaimed - and it would all have been put to bed quickly and easily. But instead................

(And it's "vis-à-vis" (or "vis-a-vis"). Those French or Latin terms look so much more sophisticated and impressive when they're spelled correctly, I always think)
Click to expand...

Citation please and make sure you quote me in full context.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Which Estonia wasn't. It has a hole above the waterline.
Click to expand...


I'm as bamboozled as you when it comes to trying to figure out Vixen's theory (or perhaps theories) as to how/why the Estonia sank. All we seem to know is that she entirely excludes the official report's findings in this respect - though quite why she summarily dismisses those findings (which tally extremely well with all the known evidence) while preferring sundry other theories (which are contradicted by the known evidence, and appear to require extremely far-fetched scenarios and/or conspiracies) is rather difficult to determine as an observer.
 
JayUtah said:
None of that has the slightest thing to do with a computation of flood rate. But I see you're still adept at calling experts names when they cross you.
Click to expand...

Sorry? 8 July 2021 supercedes Oct 2020. How can a new research take place in July 2021 and yet have its conclusion made ten months earlier.


Or has Carl Bildt been wheeled in to help focus our minds.
 
LondonJohn said:
Vixen: I'd still be very much obliged if you could educate me (and perhaps others too) about this whole "displacement of air" thing, and specifically how it pertains to ships' hulls filling with enough water to cause them to become terminally unstable and non-buoyant, thereby causing the ship to sink. Would you come to my aid??
Click to expand...

Surely you can look this up on wiki.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry? 8 July 2021 supercedes Oct 2020. How can a new research take place in July 2021 and yet have its conclusion made ten months earlier.





Or has Carl Bildt been wheeled in to help focus our minds.
Click to expand...
Computation of flood rate is straightforward and can be done with the data in hand. None of your frantic handwaving changes that.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please and make sure you quote me in full context.
Click to expand...


I'm slightly surprised at your apparent inability to remember what you wrote in this respect..... but, well, here you go (my highlights for emphasis):

Vixen said:
The piece of metal that was retrieved by Brian Braidwood, an ex-Royal Navy (UK) diver and military explosives expert working for the German Group of Experts (Werner Hummel, marine claims investigator) was tested at three independent laboratories....
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13565443#post13565443
 
Vixen said:
Surely you can look this up on wiki.
Click to expand...


I'm too stupid to do that. But you clearly know what it is, and why it's critically important to any discussion about tupperware boxes (or ships' hulls) being flooded with water and consequently sinking without there needing to be any externally-caused breach of the box (or hull). So it'd really help me - and, I'm guessing, very many others in this thread - if you could explain it all. Thanks!
 
Vixen said:
Do have a look at the MS Jan Heweliusz.
Click to expand...

Look, ships not turning turtle as they sink.

Estonia went down by the stern, it did not turn turtle.
Most ships sink without turning turtle.
Most ships do not turn over and stay afloat for any length of time.

picture.php


picture.php


picture.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom