The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[Vixen]

It's obviously a conspiracy theory. You don't speak for everyone regarding the JAIC report. Prof. Westermann explicitly refused to endorse any theory. Don't try to pin your fantasies on her.

How it is a conspiracy theory, when these peopel are actually investigating the circumstances surrounding the bow visor. If the bow visor was not the cause of the accident and the inner doors of the car deck remained intact, then no water escaped into the superstruture, to smash windows, as set out by the JAIC, to quickly flood the vessel on its side, causing it to sink rapidly.

Ships are designed to keep in air and windows are rock solid reinforced glass.

In the SS Wilhelm Gustloff, thousands died because at a certain point, the doors to the promenade decks self sealed and people were trapped inside. People could be seen on one promenade deck which was reinforced with thick glass all the way down the railings hammering frantically, with shoes, blunt instruments, but it never gave way once.

The SS Wilhelm Gustloff sunk because its hull had been breached by torpedoes.

We see likewise, the Estonia has a hull breach on the starboard side, which coincidentally is the side of the violent list, after the series of bangs and/or collision.

It is complicated by the fact that it has shifted ten metres south and there have been all kinds of disruptions with the seabed geotexture. However, once the car ramp is brought up and examined, we'll begin to get a ggood idea of what happened and what could not have happened.

 

[Kid Eager]

How it is a conspiracy theory, when these peopel are actually investigating the circumstances surrounding the bow visor. If the bow visor was not the cause of the accident and the inner doors of the car deck remained intact, then no water escaped into the superstruture, to smash windows, as set out by the JAIC, to quickly flood the vessel on its side, causing it to sink rapidly.

Ships are designed to keep in air and windows are rock solid reinforced glass.

In the SS Wilhelm Gustloff, thousands died because at a certain point, the doors to the promenade decks self sealed and people were trapped inside. People could be seen on one promenade deck which was reinforced with thick glass all the way down the railings hammering frantically, with shoes, blunt instruments, but it never gave way once.

The SS Wilhelm Gustloff sunk because its hull had been breached by torpedoes.

We see likewise, the Estonia has a hull breach on the starboard side, which coincidentally is the side of the violent list, after the series of bangs and/or collision.

It is complicated by the fact that it has shifted ten metres south and there have been all kinds of disruptions with the seabed geotexture. However, once the car ramp is brought up and examined, we'll begin to get a ggood idea of what happened and what could not have happened.

This, dear readers, is a Gish Gallop (in case anybody was still wondering).

 

[JayUtah]

How it is a conspiracy theory, when these peopel are actually investigating the circumstances surrounding the bow visor.

The claim is that people conspired to falsify the cause of the accident and cover up evidence pertaining to the alleged real cause. There is no part of the definition of a conspiracy theory that is missing. That people are trying to amass evidence in favor of the conspiracy theory does not negate that it is a conspiracy theory. That's what conspiracy theorists do. They try to make it seem like the evidence supports their theory, generally by selectively presenting and/or misrepresenting the nature of the available evidence.

The rest of your post is a textbook Gish gallop.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, please address this:

You posted:


And I responded:


Please support your allegation, or admit it was a baseless ad hominem and withdraw it.

You said you hated yourself for watching the Fokus Group presentation. I commented maybe you hated the idea of loved ones interested in finding out what happened.

Note the word 'maybe'.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Doesn't answer his question. D-

 

[JayUtah]

For the umpty-ninth time, it is not a conspiracy theory.

Denying it umpty-nine times does not change its essential nature.

Nobody believes the JAIC report.

The credibility of the JAIC report is utterly irrelevant to the credibility of the Fokus group. By your own admission it is being headed by politicians. It is obvious this group has an agenda. It's obvious this group has already drawn its conclusions into which it's trying to shoehorn the evidence.

The findings of Westermann are just the beginning of the new investigation.

That didn't stop the group from writing the headline of the post you linked us to as if they had already reached the desired conclusion.

Aside from one minor contested point, Prof. Westermann's findings are exactly in line with the conventional narrative. Her findings are almost entirely consistent with the metal having been welded and then its having been torn asunder violently. Thanks to you, we can see how the politicians heading up the Fokus group are trying to twist her findings to fit their conclusions. Why? Because that's what politicians do with science.

You need to find yourself new heroes.

 

[JayUtah]

You said you hated yourself for watching the Fokus Group presentation. I commented maybe you hated the idea of loved ones interested in finding out what happened.

Note the word 'maybe'.

And in the second sentence you assumed the maybe was true. Just withdraw the cheap shot and apologize. Or maybe you're not capable of admitting error. Note the word "maybe."

 

[Vixen]

The claim is that people conspired to falsify the cause of the accident and cover up evidence pertaining to the alleged real cause. There is no part of the definition of a conspiracy theory that is missing. That people are trying to amass evidence in favor of the conspiracy theory does not negate that it is a conspiracy theory. That's what conspiracy theorists do. They try to make it seem like the evidence supports their theory, generally by selectively presenting and/or misrepresenting the nature of the available evidence.

The rest of your post is a textbook Gish gallop.

Your stance is textbook denial.

 

[Vixen]

Denying it umpty-nine times does not change its essential nature.



The credibility of the JAIC report is utterly irrelevant to the credibility of the Fokus group. By your own admission it is being headed by politicians. It is obvious this group has an agenda. It's obvious this group has already drawn its conclusions into which it's trying to shoehorn the evidence.



That didn't stop the group from writing the headline of the post you linked us to as if they had already reached the desired conclusion.

Aside from one minor contested point, Prof. Westermann's findings are exactly in line with the conventional narrative. Her findings are almost entirely consistent with the metal having been welded and then its having been torn asunder violently. Thanks to you, we can see how the politicians heading up the Fokus group are trying to twist her findings to fit their conclusions. Why? Because that's what politicians do with science.

You need to find yourself new heroes.

Fokus is headed by one politician, the widow of a victim and Rolf Sörman, survivor.

Another survivor, Kent Horstedt (_sp) became a politician after the accident and got elected.

 

[JayUtah]

Your stance is textbook denial.

Heal thyself. You didn't address a single point I made.

 

[JayUtah]

Fokus is headed by one politician, the widow of a victim and Rolf Sörman, survivor.

Another survivor, Kent Horstedt (_sp) became a politician after the accident and got elected.

None of this addresses the points I raised.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Fokus is headed by one politician, the widow of a victim and Rolf Sörman, survivor.

Another survivor, Kent Horstedt (_sp) became a politician after the accident and got elected.

So that's two politicians?

 

[Vixen]

Heal thyself. You didn't address a single point I made.

Nobody claimed the JAIC was falsified. Rather it failed to consider any other scenario than the one laid down by Carl Bildt/Svensson. Documents were labelled 'classified'. The Estonian members, who were appointed the head of the JAIC were refused information by Sweden, notably the Rockwater diving tapes. The members tried hard to get the rest of the ship looked at. In the end, the JAIC just stuck to the bow visor theory for a quiet life.

 

[Vixen]

So that's two politicians?

Kent Horstedt is not in the Fokus group. I was pointing out that some people go into politics not for self-glory or because they 'went to Eton' but because they believe in a cause. It is one way you can change the world.

 

[JayUtah]

Nobody claimed the JAIC was falsified. Rather it failed to consider any other scenario than the one laid down by Carl Bildt/Svensson. Documents were labelled 'classified'. The Estonian members, who were appointed the head of the JAIC were refused information by Sweden, notably the Rockwater diving tapes. The members tried hard to get the rest of the ship looked at. In the end, the JAIC just stuck to the bow visor theory for a quiet life.

Do you believe that the cause laid out by the JAIC for the sinking is the real cause?

 

[Vixen]

Do you believe that the cause laid out by the JAIC for the sinking is the real cause?

As they never considered the reports of bangs and a collision or looked at the ship as a whole, the whole thing is predicated on a possibly wholly false premise, especially as it was not even aware that Sweden had been smuggling Russian state secrets, which would have alerted them to the possibility of sabotage, especially as it sank so fast.

 

[JayUtah]

Fokus is headed by one politician, the widow of a victim and Rolf Sörman, survivor.

How many leaders of the Fokus group have training and experience in forensic engineering?

Another survivor, Kent Horstedt (_sp) became a politician after the accident and got elected.

Kent Horstedt is not in the Fokus group. I was pointing out that some people go into politics not for self-glory or because they 'went to Eton' but because they believe in a cause.

Do you know why Kent Horstedt went into politics?

It is one way you can change the world.

Not all the ways in which the world can be changed would be considered strictly honest. Not all claims to want to improve the world are strictly altruistic. How closely have you scrutinized the apparent motives of the Fokus group?

 

[JayUtah]

As they never considered the reports of bangs and a collision or looked at the ship as a whole, the whole thing is predicated on a possibly wholly false premise, especially as it was not even aware that Sweden had been smuggling Russian state secrets, which would have alerted them to the possibility of sabotage, especially as it sank so fast.

That's a long-winded way of avoiding answering a simple yes-or-no question. Do you believe that the cause identified by the JAIC report for the sinking is the real cause? Please answer with only yes or no, and please answer only that question.

 

[junkshop]

Excuse me?

Please illustrate in what way I have mocked "the survivors families".

Do you care so little for the families of those that didn't survive that their desire for answers doesn't deserve mention?

Why do you have so little respect for the Kentish Men and Maids so cruelly annexed by London, that you would declare they are Cockneys?

Why do [you]¹ so hate the Cockneys that you would conflate their culture with that of North Kentish interlopers?

You said you hated yourself for watching the Fokus Group presentation. I commented maybe you hated the idea of loved ones interested in finding out what happened.

Note the word 'maybe'.

OK, leaving aside for now your apparent inability to recognise a joke, and your 'novel' views on who is or isn't a Cockney, your 'maybe' is undermined by your follow-up question that assumes a definitive positive. Therefore my request stands:

Please illustrate in what way I have mocked "the survivors families"

Note the part I have, once again, italicised

ETA: I have bolded it too, in order to bludgeon any attempt at subtlety down to a non-specified poster's level of comprehesion.

Please note that if needed I can highlight it too. Would that help, non-specified poster?

¹edited for clarity of meaning

 

[Axxman300]

How it is a conspiracy theory, when these peopel are actually investigating the circumstances surrounding the bow visor. If the bow visor was not the cause of the accident and the inner doors of the car deck remained intact, then no water escaped into the superstruture, to smash windows, as set out by the JAIC, to quickly flood the vessel on its side, causing it to sink rapidly.

1. They have not accounted for all the inner hatches of the car deck being sealed.

2. Sealed and closed are two different things.

3. Nobody can say when these doors were closed. This will take a dive team physically opening the door to see if they'd been dogged from the other side.

The visor WAS the cause of the sinking.

Ships are designed to keep in air and windows are rock solid reinforced glass

I'm no expert but I think large ships are designed to keep water out.

In the SS Wilhelm Gustloff, thousands died because at a certain point, the doors to the promenade decks self sealed and people were trapped inside. People could be seen on one promenade deck which was reinforced with thick glass all the way down the railings hammering frantically, with shoes, blunt instruments, but it never gave way once.

The SS Wilhelm Gustloff sunk because its hull had been breached by torpedoes.

Has nothing to do with Estonia's sinking whatsoever. Please stop.

We see likewise, the Estonia has a hull breach on the starboard side, which coincidentally is the side of the violent list, after the series of bangs and/or collision.

It was listing to the starboard side as soon as she left port. I think they would have noticed any holes in the hull.

And like the hatches, nobody can officially state when those holes were made in the hull, but unofficially there are no reports of a hull breach on the night of the disaster. None, zero, nada.

It is complicated by the fact that it has shifted ten metres south and there have been all kinds of disruptions with the seabed geotexture. However, once the car ramp is brought up and examined, we'll begin to get a ggood idea of what happened and what could not have happened.

Weird, almost as if there are strong currents at that depth combined with the fact the wreck lies on a slope. Makes a sane person wonder what that kind of combined stress from gravity, salt water exposure, strong currents, water pressure, and the passage of 27 years has placed on the hull of the wreck, and what the resulting damage might be...*strokes chin*...