• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
Jay, if these summaries are correct, you really do owe the survivors an apology. They weren't being conclusory for the most part. That was all Vixen, near as I can see.
Click to expand...

Point well, taken; thank you. I can still see several statements that I would consider conclusory, but I don't dispute your point that Vixen's subsequent glossing perhaps commits a greater sin.
 
Vixen said:
This eyewitness is explaining in his own words what he saw, felt and heard. If he identifies the sound as being like sledgehammers, who are you to mock him.
Click to expand...


I wasn’t mocking him, I was mocking you.

And, specifically, I was mocking your claim that if we don’t take witnesses’ descriptions of what they had heard as being literally accurate descriptions rather than accounts of what things sounded like we are “denying survivors' life-threatening experiences”. You find this behaviour “pretty disgusting”, remember? And now here you are doing it yourself.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Sorry, I'm a little unclear here. Do you interpret "bang" and "crash" to mean "explosion"?

Because all of a sudden, it doesn't seem like the passengers are drawing conclusions willy-nilly. It seems like you are. A bang is a description of a sound. So is (in some contexts) a crash. An explosion is something more than that.

My screen door sometimes bangs in the wind. It doesn't usually explode in the wind.
Click to expand...

Your screen door is orders of magnitude lighter than your house so I have it on good authority that you wouldn't be able to hear it.:rolleyes:
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Your screen door is orders of magnitude lighter than your house so I have it on good authority that you wouldn't be able to hear it.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah!
But according to Einsteins theory of Relativity, you can also see it as the house slamming into the screen door.
And as the house is orders of magnitude heavier than the screen door, the resulting noise should be deafening.

:cool::D
 
JayUtah said:
Excellent, thank you. One good turn deserves another, although I don't think everyone needs to be reminded of the rebuttal.

Twinning is also an indicator of cyclic deformation, which is the most effective way, and the second most common way, to induce metal fatigue. I gave the metallurgical details previously. Your response was a deflection that presumed incorrectly you knew what cyclic deformation was. You didn't pursue it further, even when prompted.

You're still trying to measure force in meters per second. I'm surprised you didn't remember the entire discussion that ensued from that. The number you quoted is not a force, but a detonation rate. Yes it's possible to infer a detonation rate based on twinning in metals, but only under the assumption that the twinning occurred from a high strain-rate deformation. If it didn't, then it doesn't even make sense to ask the question.

A few people have noted the cyclically deranged nature of this thread, which seems to arise from your inability to read or remember the rebuttals given to points you raise. You just repeat the same copypasta, even retaining the same errors you made earlier that others corrected. Is it possible to make some progress, or are you stuck in an insurmountable rut?
Click to expand...

As usual with conspiracy threads, the proponent is happy just to keep the thread going.
 
phiwum said:
Sorry, I'm a little unclear here. Do you interpret "bang" and "crash" to mean "explosion"?

Because all of a sudden, it doesn't seem like the passengers are drawing conclusions willy-nilly. It seems like you are. A bang is a description of a sound. So is (in some contexts) a crash. An explosion is something more than that.

My screen door sometimes bangs in the wind. It doesn't usually explode in the wind.
Click to expand...

So in your view, what these survivors heard, felt and experienced was no different from someone slamming a front door. Nice.
 
Mojo said:
I wasn’t mocking him, I was mocking you.

And, specifically, I was mocking your claim that if we don’t take witnesses’ descriptions of what they had heard as being literally accurate descriptions rather than accounts of what things sounded like we are “denying survivors' life-threatening experiences”. You find this behaviour “pretty disgusting”, remember? And now here you are doing it yourself.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything of the kind.
 
JayUtah said:
Excellent, thank you. One good turn deserves another, although I don't think everyone needs to be reminded of the rebuttal.

Twinning is also an indicator of cyclic deformation, which is the most effective way, and the second most common way, to induce metal fatigue. I gave the metallurgical details previously. Your response was a deflection that presumed incorrectly you knew what cyclic deformation was. You didn't pursue it further, even when prompted.

You're still trying to measure force in meters per second. I'm surprised you didn't remember the entire discussion that ensued from that. The number you quoted is not a force, but a detonation rate. Yes it's possible to infer a detonation rate based on twinning in metals, but only under the assumption that the twinning occurred from a high strain-rate deformation. If it didn't, then it doesn't even make sense to ask the question.

A few people have noted the cyclically deranged nature of this thread, which seems to arise from your inability to read or remember the rebuttals given to points you raise. You just repeat the same copypasta, even retaining the same errors you made earlier that others corrected. Is it possible to make some progress, or are you stuck in an insurmountable rut?
Click to expand...

So are you claiming to be more of a naval military explosives expert than Braidwood and the three independent laboratories he sent the sample to?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Who says they did?
Click to expand...

phiwum says I am being disrespectful to those survivors who witnessed the bow visor version if one respects the accounts of those claiming to have heard/felt/experienced explosions/bangs/crashes or collisions. So, I'd like to see all those bow visor witness accounts. Presumably phiwum has seen them.
 
Vixen said:
phiwum says I am being disrespectful to those survivors who witnessed the bow visor version if one respects the accounts of those claiming to have heard/felt/experienced explosions/bangs/crashes or collisions. So, I'd like to see all those bow visor witness accounts. Presumably phiwum has seen them.
Click to expand...

His point is there are contradicting accounts by survivors.
Was the ship rammed? bombed or did the visor fall off?
Was it a combination of the above?

None of the passengers were eye witnesses to any of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom