• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The JAIC neither contradicts him nor supports him. It merely states there was no signals and that the buoys were found to be in working order but switched off. It makes no mention of Commander Montonen making a request to Bödo COSPAS-SASART station to search their record for a 'disappeared' signal. He certainly seems to think a signal should have been sent out when the buoy was automatically released from the HRU.



Koivisto explained the thing would be switched off whilst on land but needed to be coupled by ships' electricians and he planned to question them.





These guys know exactly what models the Estonia had and they aren't going to waste their time trying to work out why a manual-operation-only buoy was not switched on as the boat went down, as the answer would be self-evidentiary.
Click to expand...
All of this has been previously addressed.
 
LondonJohn said:
*sigh*

If you're going to make dramatic accusations that I'm "twisting your words", maybe back that up with evidence? Or better still, make the accusation a correct one in the first place?

(Or perhaps you'd be able to tell me now quite how I was "twisting your words".....)
Click to expand...

You took my response to another poster's post out of context.
 
Vixen said:
Whoops. Perhaps read up a bit more?
Click to expand...

He is right to stop the automatic activation you remove the buoy from the water. There is no switch to turn the automatic activation on or off, it is done by the electrodes on the outer casing.
 
Vixen said:
... These guys know exactly what models the Estonia had and they aren't going to waste their time trying to work out why a manual-operation-only buoy was not switched on as the boat went down, as the answer would be self-evidentiary.
Click to expand...

So there was no reason to consider that maybe the fishermen who found them might have switched them off, or they could have a broken switch, or if the battery was flat, or if the transmitter had a fault or if seawater had leaked in and caused a short circuit or anything like that. All they had to do was confirm what they already knew about the model carried and ignore their anomalous failure to activate. Is that what you would have done?
 
Vixen said:
No, they did not work as they were designed to in that they failed to automatically emit signals to the nearest COSPAS-SARSAT station which in the case of the Estonia's location would have been Bödo's in Norway.

As there was no fault with the buoys themselves as tested by Tursas and Russia picking up the signal then the question should revolve around why they did not automatically activate having been hydrostatically released after immersion on over 240 feet of water, as they were designed to do when set up.
Click to expand...


*slaps head with open palm*

Are you genuinely still unable to understand this issue properly?

Or is this some elaborate (though very low-quality) performance art?

It's truly pathetic (in the original sense of that word) at this point.
 
Vixen said:
If the coordinates Estonia gave are where it sank, then why would it take over two weeks to locate the wreckage?

By the time Helsinki Radio got the coordinates - from Silja Europa - it was 0142. It had to wait for a command from MRCC Turku to convey an official Mayday on Estonia's behalf and this happened 0148, the exact moment Estonia disappeared off the radar.

Quit saying 'everybody got the mayday and the coordinates' when the salient issue is getting them on time not after the horse has bolted, as it were.
Click to expand...

The Estonia sank on September 28. They located the wreckage on September 30.

I've never been to England, are days longer than they are here in the US?

While I'm asking questions, does the ocean behave differently in Europe than it does in the rest of the world, wherein currents, wind, and waves can push massive objects a good distance with ease? Only reason I ask is because the coordinates Estonia gave were correct at the time they passed them along, but without power, and engines stopped, she would have drifted quiet a way in the high winds, and heavy seas...I mean if the same laws of nature apply in the Baltic Sea.
 
JayUtah said:
The question is answered. They required manual activation, contrary to your ignorant belief. Simply repeating that belief for 50 pages doesn't change fact.
Click to expand...


"There was a guy firing a rifle on the grassy knoll!"

"No flag would have waved around like that if it was genuinely on the Moon!"

"Buildings like the Twin Towers simply cannot collapse in that way without it being a controlled demolition!"


Part and parcel of espousing a conspiracy theory is a) an ignorant inability to understand and apply even the most basic scientific principles (while at the same time arrogantly holding the belief that you really understand the science fantastically), and b) sticking obstinately to the same repeatedly-demolished claims, on the basis that you've already decided you are right and "da authoriteez" are wrong.

It was ever thus. And so it is in the case of the grand - and grandly stupid, and grandly incorrect - Estonia CT.
 
Vixen said:
Early reports are useful for the historian or sociologist. A report into the cause of an accident that killed 832 at least - probably more as passenger lists don't include those without tickets (children and guests of staff) - is completely different from 'developing news' and should be carried out thoroughly and properly. Then PM Carl Bildt immediately blaming the bow visor and car ramp is actually highly noteworthy, together with the JAIC's anxiety 'not to blame anybody for it', when common sense tells you that at that stage you do not know whether it was a criminal act or not.

In the case of The Herald of Free Enterprise a criminal charge of corporate manslaughter was brought against Townsend Thoreson so don't try to make out that such accidents are 'perfectly natural and that if you think otherwise you are a dirty conspiracy theorist'.
Click to expand...


Which one of those would you say you are, Vixen? (Or perhaps you'd say you're both?).

And if you're correct in that assertion (which you're not), then the "early reports" of Bildt's understanding about the cause of the disaster must be "useful" too, right? Oh no, wrong! Silly me! Only CT-worthy "early reports" are "useful".......
 
Vixen said:
Not that canard again or should it be kannad?

You have been given numerous citations they were automatically-activated EPIRB's and compliant with SOLAS regulations which said such vessels must have automatically activated EPIRB's by August 1993. Nowhere does Koivisto or the JAIC claim Estonia was non-compliant.

In fact, JAIC tasked Koivisto with investigating why the automatically-activated buoys did not automatically activate as they should have done.

If they were 'manual-operation-only'* buoys only there would be zero point using an automatically activated hydrostatic release mechanism which activates in 1 - 4 metres of water.

*All buoys can be manually activated if so desired. Estonia's were presumed HRU released and thus should have emitted the location signal.
Click to expand...


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

There's chutzpah on show here, I'll give you at least that.

LOLOLOL
 
Vixen said:
The official report is simply a descriptive narrative with very little by way of analysis of the accident except in pages and pages of the bow visor sepcifications and its nuts and bolts. The calculations are all based on working backward. For example, taking the conclusion, 'it was the bow visor what done it'', it then carries out calculations to show the amount of water needed to fill te car deck. Houston, we have a problem! No amount of calculations can demonstrate that the ship would have capsized with water on the car deck. So it has to bring in another hypothesis: the windows and watertight doors on Decks 4 and 5 must have smashed and the superstructure was breached that way (not once hypothesizing, actually perhaps the breach was in the hull, that would explain the super-fast sinking perfectly!). Then we have loads of calculations on how strong the bolts and nuts were. The culprit is identified as the Atlantic lock but for some reason no-one physically tested it or examined it as it was thrown back onto the seabed (claims the guy who made the claim).

Not very confidence-inspiring for the relatives of the dead, is it?
Click to expand...


Oh dear. Not only does the ignorance gallop ahead unabated, but we're also being presented with this "won't anyone think of the grieving relatives!" bollocks once again.

This is pathetic. Truly pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
Your question is based on a false premise: the logical fallacy that one has to be a forensic expert in engineering to discuss this topic.
Click to expand...


1. Stop using the term "logical fallacy" when you so clearly don't understand what it means and doesn't mean.

2. As usual, you've grotesquely misrepresented what JayUtah was saying, and what he meant (which any objective observer could readily discern).

3. What else is new?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom