• 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 Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
In my case, I generally have the professional training to evaluate reports pertaining to transportation accidents.

What did you do to verify that the information you got from Anders Bjorkman was verified or fake? Seriously, tell us what you did to vet him as a source.
Click to expand...

Sorry to sound sarcastic but did you really believe the bow visor fell off 'because of a few strong waves'?

One can see how and why Lychencko was so successful for so long.
 
Vixen said:
What do you mean my 'worldview'? My world view is extremely down to earth and objective. ******** detector top of the range.
Click to expand...

Shame that you seem unable to detect your own *******.
 
Vixen said:
You will have to remind me.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I will. I think I'll let it stand as evidence for what I claimed before: You can't be bothered to remember or address what your critics say, so you really can't make much of a claim to be fair-minded. You'll have to convince us that your activity here rises above mere performance.

What about the second part of my post? What did you do to vet Anders Bjorkman as a respected engineering expert before relying on him?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Sorry to sound sarcastic but did you really believe the bow visor fell off 'because of a few strong waves'?

One can see how and why Lychencko was so successful for so long.
Click to expand...

Foe the thirteenth time. It was not just a 'few strong waves. It was fifteen years of 'strong waves' dodgy design and manufacture, lack of maintenance and misuse.
 
JayUtah said:
No, I don't think I will. I think I'll let it stand as evidence for what I claimed before: You can't be bothered to remember or address what your critics say, so you really can't make much of a claim to be fair-minded. You'll have to convince us that your activity here rises above mere performance.

What about the second part of my post? What did you do to vet Anders Bjorkman as a respected engineering expert before relying on him?
Click to expand...

The same way any highly trained professional person sifts out information.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC did not say that. It said it was seaworthy and the only damage was to the bow area.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. You do not know what a declaration of seaworthiness means, and you keep returning to the one sentence you have cherry-picked from their report and giving it a straw-man meaning.
 
Vixen said:
You are in denial.

The Swedish government itself is now releasing the original Rockwater videos to new investigators, which they will do bit by bit, after removing sensitive material showing human remains.

Sweden has accepted that this needs to be re-investigated, thanks to the new evidence of Evertsson's film and Linus Andersson's clear pictures of the hole in the starboard. Once Arikas report comes back in the Spring then there will be a review of what the next steps will be.

I am so proud of these guys. At last the relatives of the victims will get real answers, assuming Sweden retains its transparency. What is needed next is for Sweden to come clean and declassify all of the stuff that prevents the victims' loved ones from knowing the circumstances surrounding the accident. It is always better to know than not know.
Click to expand...



Do you really think the official investigators are granting this new access in the hope/expectation/fear that it will result in the "true" cause of the accident being discovered?

No: the Swedes are granting access because a) they've decided they want to be seen to be acting transparently and in good faith, and b) they've also decided that withholding access - especially so long after the event - would probably give the wider impression that they must have something to hide.

Those who have been granted access will not find any evidence (any reliable, credible evidence, that is....) which contradicts or contraindicates the official findings. And this, in a very real sense, is precisely why they've been granted access in the first place.
 
JayUtah said:
Hardly. Do you really think your ignorant waffling about in this forum has the slightest thing to do with real investigators doing the real work of investigation? You've simply latched onto whatever source tells you a different story than the conventional narrative, no matter how farfetched, contradictory, or ludicrous. Do you understand how your critics can support addition investigation without indulging the nonsense you've clung to in this thread? The fact that you can't see any difference between those two concepts speaks volumes.
Click to expand...


Ah yes. But "sticking it to The Man" can be a strangely intoxicating driver of conspiracy theories.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC did not say that. It said it was seaworthy and the only damage was to the bow area.
Click to expand...

You yourself have posted descriptions of the bolts being modified by the ship's engineer and the crew having to hammer them in to position.
We know the ship had fifteen years of pounding by storms.
JAIC didn't inspect the ship. It being seaworthy at the time it was last inspected says nothing of it's condition on the night of he sinking or the underlying condition of components.

We went through discussing how your example of a car MOT test only tells us it was roadworthy a the time of inspection and doesn't stop a component failing right after.
 
Vixen said:
Apparently, nobody is allowed to question 9/11 investigations for fear of being called a 'conspiracy-theory nutter' by LondonJohn, who claims to have special powers of perception.
Click to expand...

Can you link to these posts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom