Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[Andy_Ross]

Are you seriously claiming (and in fact you clearly are claiming) that the JAIC investigators, because they had some sort of "need" to lie about the cause of the sinking, also therefore actively lied in what they said they'd found in their survey of the wreck?

Do you not realise (and in fact you clearly do not recognise) how far down the rabbit hole you are by now?


At least it's incontrovertible by now that your dishonesty in claiming to be "merely reporting what some other groups/people are saying" has been fully exposed. You're a conspiracy theorist yourself. And because a) you think you're acting in a "noble cause" (AKA "will nobody think of the poor grieving families?!"), and b) you think your claims are reasonable and evidence-based - when in fact none of these things is true - you'll probably never be able to reconcile yourself with the magnitude of your wrongness.

Several times it has been suggested that the Swedish navy removed the bow visor

 

[JayUtah]

Then you need to correct wikipedia because it is wiki that says it did not.

Which is why many universities, including the one I taught at, do not allow Wikipedia as a source. Just admit that you used a poor source and that much more reliable sources -- the ship's plans and the published legal findings of the relevant investigative board -- contradict your belief. Just admit you said something that wasn't correct. Is that too much?

Further, the suggestion that a large, oceangoing, passenger-carrying vessel would have been built and operated in the past hundred years without a compartmentalized hull should have been an immediate "Wait, what?" moment for anyone who remotely knows about passenger shipping. Your first reaction should not have been that Wikipedia is the hill you're going to die on. Rather you should have said to yourself, 'Either that's wrong or I'm reading it wrong." It comes down to knowing the topic you're debating.

 

[JayUtah]

And you love your little mantras like "a ship cannot float on its superstructure". It's really becoming this thread's "jet fuel cannot melt steel beams".

Yes, Björkman would be so proud.

 

[JayUtah]

Several times it has been suggested that the Swedish navy removed the bow visor

Ostensibly, it appears, the theory goes that the Swedish are trying to concoct evidence for a false narrative. The "real" cause of the ship sinking is the starboard-side hole. But inasmuch as that would be an obvious effect of collision -- say, with a secrete Swedish submarine -- then a more ambiguous cause has to be found. So the Swedes remove the bow, carry it many meters away from the main wreck, and dump it there. Then they railroad the investigation to suggest it was an accident, the bow having fallen off in heavy seas, and then they propose to bury the wreck in concrete to preclude further investigation.

Not sure where the Spetznaz or smuggled cesium comes into play, but there we are.

 

[Vixen]

"Bulbous bow unscratched + detonating cord"

This guy here - using the recent official Estonian film - claims the bulbous bow shows no signs of having been hit by the bow visor. He also shows some cables which he asserts are 'detonating cords'.

 

[LondonJohn]

This guy here - using the recent official Estonian film - claims the bulbous bow shows no signs of having been hit by the bow visor. He also shows some cables which he asserts are 'detonating cords'.

Why would it matter (to the official theory of the disaster) whether or not the bulbous bow had been hit by the bow visor?

(We covered this one off several pages ago...)


And the "detcord" nonsense isn't even worth worrying about.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ostensibly, it appears, the theory goes that the Swedish are trying to concoct evidence for a false narrative. The "real" cause of the ship sinking is the starboard-side hole. But inasmuch as that would be an obvious effect of collision -- say, with a secrete Swedish submarine -- then a more ambiguous cause has to be found. So the Swedes remove the bow, carry it many meters away from the main wreck, and dump it there. Then they railroad the investigation to suggest it was an accident, the bow having fallen off in heavy seas, and then they propose to bury the wreck in concrete to preclude further investigation.

Not sure where the Spetznaz or smuggled cesium comes into play, but there we are.

Bu then the Swedes leave unexploded demolition charges on the ship bows.

 

[Vixen]

How you twist peoples words. It really is something to behold. And you love your little mantras like "a ship cannot float on its superstructure". It's really becoming this thread's "jet fuel cannot melt steel beams".

I really cannot be bothered to pick through every little twist here to untangle your disingenuity with stuff like "all its windows and dividers smashed as the JAIC claims" vs "the doors and windows were not smashed at all" but everyone can see the false narrative you're peddling.

You didn't spot the JAIC's use of the word 'possibly'? IOW it is pure conjecture.

Of course, one understands that it would not necessarily be all windows and doors broken but we would expect that to be a significant outcome and available to evidence. The Rockwater divers did not report any broken windows or dividers when they broke in at the aft, the same location referred to by the JAIC.

Pictured: the JP Morgan Chase Tower in Houston, Texas, USA, after the 2008 hurricane. Not ALL of its windows are smashed but it is safe to describe the building having 'its windows smashed by the hurricane.'

 

[Vixen]

That’s in the lead of the page, which is supposed to summarise the article, and so doesn’t need to cite a source. The sourced passage of the article that it seems to be summarising actually says, “Unlike other ships, which are subdivided into watertight compartments, the vehicle decks of RORO vessels are normally contiguous: any flooding on these decks would allow the water to flow the length of the ship” (my emphasis).

That doesn't apply to the Estonia, built three years before The Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy.

 

[GlennB]

This guy here - using the recent official Estonian film - claims the bulbous bow shows no signs of having been hit by the bow visor. He also shows some cables which he asserts are 'detonating cords'.

We discussed this at great length some days ago. That another nutcase CTist repeats the claim doesn't make it worth discussing again.

 

[Vixen]

No. The stern is the back bit. "Aft" means nothing more or less than "towards the rear of the ship".

If they'd been referring to windows/doors along the "back bit" of the ship, they'd have written "stern".

You don't understand maritime terminology. It's more and more embarrasing. Even the graphic you chose shows you perfectly clearly what the distinction is. You don't know what you're talking about. And it's increasingly tiresome having to correct you.

Do. Some. Proper. Research. Before. Making. Incorrect. Claims.


ETA: Ninja'd by many other posters!

Do study the diagram again.

 

[Vixen]

Oh bloody hell. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yah boo shucks to you.

 

[Vixen]

No. They're the stern windows.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're way, way out of your depth in this debate.

Learn some maritime terminology. OK?

Yah boo shucks to you, too.

 

[Vixen]

No. It would not. Those windows facing the stern are the stern windows.

You don't know what you're talking about. Even after this has all now been repeatedly explained to you. That's a special kind of factual illiteracy.

Yah boo shucks to you, too. I can repeat myself as well.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You didn't spot the JAIC's use of the word 'possibly'?

I didn't spot the JAIC's use of the word 'all'.

I did spot you trying to stuff that word into their mouths, as if we wouldn't notice.

 

[Vixen]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_356196173fb400df20.jpg[/qimg]

These are the large windows on decks 4 and 5. They are the ones which the JAIC believe were broken in by the sea.

Note that they're aft.

Citation please of where JAIC say 'the starboard aft is where the large windows on decks 4 and 5 the JAIC believe were broken in by the sea'.

It said nothing of the kind. You just made it up.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do study the diagram again.

Do also study the other diagram too.

The one which shows the large windows on deck 4 are all aft, while the forward windows are much smaller.

 

[GlennB]

Yah boo shucks to you.

It's 'sucks'. You look stupid when you get colloquialisms wrong.

 

[Vixen]

What the hell is this constant batcrap about "replaced the air in the... superstructure"? Is this a mantra of Bjorkman's or something. Because it's demonstrative of a hearty dose of scientific illiteracy when it comes to the reasons why/when ships sink. I've explained this to you in some detail already. Yet you plough on regardless with this nonsense.





Are you seriously claiming (and in fact you clearly are claiming) that the JAIC investigators, because they had some sort of "need" to lie about the cause of the sinking, also therefore actively lied in what they said they'd found in their survey of the wreck?

Do you not realise (and in fact you clearly do not recognise) how far down the rabbit hole you are by now?


At least it's incontrovertible by now that your dishonesty in claiming to be "merely reporting what some other groups/people are saying" has been fully exposed. You're a conspiracy theorist yourself. And because a) you think you're acting in a "noble cause" (AKA "will nobody think of the poor grieving families?!"), and b) you think your claims are reasonable and evidence-based - when in fact none of these things is true - you'll probably never be able to reconcile yourself with the magnitude of your wrongness.

Of course the JAIC lied. Do you really believe Sillaste and Treu escaped the Engine Room (in the port aft hull) at between 1:24 and 1:30 when the list was 80°?

Look at this diagram and let me know if it is possible to climb ladders or stairs at that angle.

Truth is, Treu, Sillaste, Linde and Kadak all likely amongst the first to leave the vessel. Nearer 1:05 than 1:30. All had survival suits on. According to survivor Rolf Sorman, Treu even had his passport with him (amazing - he had time to return to his cabin all the way from deck 0 when the floors were walls and the doors were just 40cm high as they were now on their sides.

And what about this for a spooky coincidence, given the ship was 155metres long and there was a tumultuous storm raging, when Sillaste threw himself of the vessel after coming out of the funnel...guess who should be riding by?...Yes...Linde, Kadak and Treu...all in the same life raft together.


<fx Brummie accent: "Yes mate!">

 

[Vixen]

Your own quote was "window panels and aft doors". When did it become aft windows and doors?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

When JAIC described them thus in 12.6.1.