• 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:
Because you're using it as an authority to support your claims. If you agree it is a parody site, then why would you expect anyone else to take its claims seriously?
Click to expand...

Let's fast rewind back: we were talking about Harri Ruotsalainen's own theory which appears to be similar to that in Hikipedia. Ruotsalainen as part of a working party to the Estonian government, thus becomes current affairs news, whether you think his claim has merit or not.
 
JayUtah said:
Because you're using it as an authority to support your claims. If you agree it is a parody site, then why would you expect anyone else to take its claims seriously?
Click to expand...

Harri Ruotsalainen's claim. He is an expert engineer and was on the original team of JAIC investigators, after all, so his opinion the vehicles in the car deck should be checked against the consignment notes becomes salient to this thread.
 
Vixen said:
Harri Ruotsalainen's claim. He is an expert engineer and was on the original team of JAIC investigators, after all, so his opinion the vehicles in the car deck should be checked against the consignment notes becomes salient to this thread.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make his opinion correct. That doesn't make you use of a satire site ridiculing the claim an addition source of support. The question is not whether one claim or another is salient to the thread. The question is whether the supporting authority you cited is credible.

The question is your use of sources.
 
Vixen said:
There is plenty of material at your disposal about fire and nuclear waste on the internet. For example, https://www.foe.org.au/fire
Click to expand...


That doesn’t say anything about nuclear waste eating away the bows of ships.

Now, can you explain the “elementary chemistry” that you claim is involved in nuclear waste eating away the bow of the ship? Perhaps you could start with the chemical composition of the nuclear waste, then you can explain how species in it react with the metal forming the bow.

If the chemistry involved is elementary you should have no trouble explaining it.
 
Mojo said:
If the chemistry involved is elementary you should have no trouble explaining it.
Click to expand...

Vixen has once more doubled down on a ridiculous claim, when the right answer was to have disavowed the source once it became untenable. She could have said, "No, obviously nuclear waste can't do that," just as she could have said, "No, obviously they didn't open the rear door to vent 'tobacco smoke.'" All these are obvious elements of humor, quite appropriate to the cited source.

But no. When explicitly asked how nuclear waste could dissolve the bow visor, she replied, "Elementary chemistry," as if she believed such a thing was possible and as if we should just take her word for it that it was.
 
Vixen said:
We were talking about Hikipedia's claim there was a fire - causing the panels on the car ramp to darken - so the crew - it claims - hastily opened the car ramp and visor in an attempt to dispose of it, whilst opening the stern ramp door slightly at the top to let the fumes out.
Click to expand...


No, we were talking about your claim that nuclear waste could eat away the bow of the ship via “elementary chemistry”.

That is the claim you are being asked to explain.
 
Mojo said:
No, we were talking about your claim that nuclear waste could eat away the bow of the ship via “elementary chemistry”.

That is the claim you are being asked to explain.
Click to expand...

The CIA identified Caesium as being a commonly smuggled nuclear element in Estonia in 1994.

You can see what happens here, see circa 2.15 minutes in:

 
Vixen said:
The CIA identified Caesium as being a commonly smuggled nuclear element in Estonia in 1994.

You can see what happens here, see circa 2.15 minutes in:

Click to expand...


What was the composition of the nuclear waste?

Are you suggesting that the bow was melted by a fire?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The CIA identified Caesium as being a commonly smuggled nuclear element in Estonia in 1994.
Click to expand...

Yes, cesium reacts with water to form hydrogen, among other things. How much combusting hydrogen would it take to "dissolve" 55 tonnes of steel? How much cesium would be required to produce that much hydrogen? How easy would it be to conceal that much cesium in a vehicle in the car deck? Alternatively, how much energy does the cesium reaction itself produce, and how much would be required to melt 55 tonnes of steel? How does the obviously rapid reaction rate affect whether such heat can be harnessed and used to melt a large mass of steel?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Yes, cesium reacts with water to form hydrogen. How much combusting hydrogen would it take to "dissolve" 55 tonnes of steel? How much cesium would be required to produce that much hydrogen? How easy would it be to conceal that much cesium in a vehicle in the car deck?
Click to expand...

It is all hypothetical. I don't tend to answer hypothetical questions. If my granddad wore tights would he be my grandmother?
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, cesium reacts with water to form hydrogen, among other things. How much combusting hydrogen would it take to "dissolve" 55 tonnes of steel? How much cesium would be required to produce that much hydrogen? How easy would it be to conceal that much cesium in a vehicle in the car deck? Alternatively, how much energy does the cesium reaction itself produce, and how much would be required to melt 55 tonnes of steel?
Click to expand...

A more salient question would be, is it safe to transport this type of stuff on a passenger ferry?
 
Vixen said:
A more salient question would be...
Click to expand...

No, that's the question you're trying to answer instead because you don't know the answer the question everyone is asking, which is the one that pertains to the claim.

Try to understand that people will stop pestering you about nuclear waste if you simply admit that the claim made in your satire source about melting the bow visor is, in fact, satire and should not be taken seriously. You've been given many opportunities to retract that claim, but you keep doubling down on it instead. As long as you keep doing that, people will continue to pester you about it.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
PRIVATE EYE is satirical but that's not to say it doesn't run serious articles and much of the tongue-in-cheek stuff is to protect itself from being sued for libel, as it is regularly.
Click to expand...


Private Eye distinguishes pretty clearly between factual reporting and satire. Which category does the Hikipedia page you’re citing fall into?
 
Vixen said:
If the bow visor was banging about it would be impacting the lower bow area, would it not, below the car ramp, thus below the waterline. See blue area in pic.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that the bottom of the visor is below the waterline? So when the visor was open for loading and unloading the Atlantic lock was underwater?
 
Wait, is the Sun now a credible source now? How about Fate Magazine? They could get some psychics and bust out a OUIJA board and solve this mystery quick if the Sun is considered credible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom