• 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.
Captain_Swoop said:
'device-looking package'?

One looks like an old, taped up cardboard box, the other is something square.

What kind of 'device' do they look like?

If they are explosives why are they there?
If they exploded they wouldn't be there.
If they didn't explode how did the bow come off?
Click to expand...

You use a series of explosives. The survivors heard a series of bangs, remember.

It's the military way. You don't just attack once you follow it up.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
'device-looking package'?

One looks like an old, taped up cardboard box, the other is something square.

What kind of 'device' do they look like?

If they are explosives why are they there?
If they exploded they wouldn't be there.
If they didn't explode how did the bow come off?
Click to expand...

It's covered in waxed material that such explosives are usually packaged in.
 
Vixen said:
You use a series of explosives. The survivors heard a series of bangs, remember.

It's the military way. You don't just attack once you follow it up.
Click to expand...

Why do you use a 'series of explosives?

If you use a charge to blow the bow off, what are you 'following up'?

How big do you think the charges needed to blow the bows off a ship are going to be?
 
Here_to_learn said:
That is your statements. I've shown that your initial statement is wrong, by quoting directly from the JAIC report:


We can all see that their scope was not limited they way you claim it was.




You haven't been able to link to a single statement from a member of JAIC that show that they were forbidden/stopped from investigating inline with the full scope.

Then you claim this:



So exactly what have you changed your statement to now? You agree that your statement about the scope was wrong, and that potential sabotage was within the scope? You agree that nobody in the JAIC was stopped from investigating potential sabotage? You just are not happy with that the final report doesn't mention it?

What else should they have mentioned that they excluded? Hitting an iceberg? Colliding with another ferry? Running aground? Having a controlled demolition remotely initiated from a grassy knoll, after having been signaled by a flag that should't have moved due to lack of wind?
Click to expand...

Here we go with the logical fallacy of ridicule.

I am guessing that you would be outraged that the relatives of the Hillsborough stadium football disaster at Liverpool FC dared criticise the Hillsborough Report. <splutter> How dare they dispute the SUN newspaper calling them a bunch of thieves and pickpockets, who shoved their way in? How ridiculous of them to imagine that anyone was to blame but themselves!
 
Vixen said:
It's covered in waxed material that such explosives are usually packaged in.
Click to expand...

Are explosives usually packaged in 'waxed material' that looks like an old cardboard box covered in tape?

If you were transporting explosive charges to plant on a ship would you have it in a cardboard box?

Wouldn't the crew notice all the wires and 'waxed material' strapped to the bow visor?

When do you think the charges were planted?
 
Vixen said:
148kg is 23 stone. I think you mean 148g = 15kg
Click to expand...

No. Dear Lord, you can't even convert gms to kgs :rolleyes:

Do you really suppose a 2' x 8" steel bar would weigh 148g? Or even as little as 15kg?

Screen shot below, and other calculators agree.
 

Attachments

  • steel weight.jpg
    steel weight.jpg
    30.5 KB · Views: 5
Vixen said:
148kg is 23 stone. I think you mean 148g = 15kg
Click to expand...


1. WHAT??? LMAO

2. You're scientifically illiterate.


Steel has a density of around 8,000kg/m3

For a bolt of diameter 200mm (ie a radius of 100mm) and a length of 600mm, its volume is:

Pi x r2 x length.


So, using metres as the unit (as we should), its volume is:

3.14 x 0.12 x 0.6

= 0.01884m3

To get its mass, we multiply its volume (in m3) by the density of steel (in kg/m3).

Therefore, the mass of a bolt with those dimensions is:

0.01884 x 8,000

= 150kg
 
GlennB said:
No. Dear Lord, you can't even convert gms to kgs :rolleyes:

Do you really suppose a 2' x 8" steel bar would weigh 148g? Or even as little as 15kg?

Screen shot below, and other calculators agree.
Click to expand...


I've shown the calculation from first principles as well - check out my post.

Vixen's level of scientific illiteracy is both embarrassing and a hindrance to decent debate.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why do you use a 'series of explosives?

If you use a charge to blow the bow off, what are you 'following up'?

How big do you think the charges needed to blow the bows off a ship are going to be?
Click to expand...

Are we going back into the realms of double-headed hammers and cannonballs again?

On 7 February 1991. The IRA launched three homemade mortar shells at 10 Downing Street, London.

In 1945 the Soviets attacked the Wilhelm Gustloff with a triple torpedo.

If the devices are situated at the bow visor side locks and/or the Atlantic lock, then it will have the effect of loosening them and then - come on waves! do your thing!

Likewise, similar explosives in the car deck along the starboard side, or in the swimming pool area, as some believe.
 
LondonJohn said:
1. WHAT??? LMAO

2. You're scientifically illiterate.


Steel has a density of around 8,000kg/m3

For a bolt of diameter 200mm (ie a radius of 100mm) and a length of 600mm, its volume is:

Pi x r2 x length.


So, using metres as the unit (as we should), its volume is:

3.14 x 0.12 x 0.6

= 0.01884m3

To get its mass, we multiply its volume (in m3) by the density of steel (in kg/m3).

Therefore, the mass of a bolt with those dimensions is:

0.01884 x 8,000

= 150kg
Click to expand...


But that’s far too big to fit Vixen’s argument.
 
Vixen said:
Are we going back into the realms of double-headed hammers and cannonballs again?

On 7 February 1991. The IRA launched three homemade mortar shells at 10 Downing Street, London.

In 1945 the Soviets attacked the Wilhelm Gustloff with a triple torpedo.

If the devices are situated at the bow visor side locks and/or the Atlantic lock, then it will have the effect of loosening them and then - come on waves! do your thing!

Likewise, similar explosives in the car deck along the starboard side, or in the swimming pool area, as some believe.
Click to expand...

What do hammers, and cannonballs have to do with it? Do you think the ship was attacked with hammers and cannonballs?

Similarly for torpedoes and mortars?

If the charges were designed to sever the fixings for the bow visor then there would only be one for each item to be severed. How would a second device survive the detonation of the first?

Were the explosives designed to sever the fixings or just 'loosen' them? How would that work?

Why would they use explosives to blow a hole in the ship above the waterline?
Why didn't any of the crew notice an explosive charge strapped to the inside of the ship on the car deck?
Why wasn't an explosion on the car deck noticed?

What does the swimming pool have to do with it?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
You seem not to understand the rules of honest debate, Vixen.

Anyone who makes a claim should be able to present evidence supporting that claim if/when asked to do so.
Click to expand...
Vixen has claimed that her posts are properly cited, referenced and sourced. I don't think anyone, including Vixen herself, actually believes that.
 
LondonJohn said:
I've shown the calculation from first principles as well - check out my post.

Vixen's level of scientific illiteracy is both embarrassing and a hindrance to decent debate.
Click to expand...

Yep, yet she supposedly has 5 years of formal education in physics. I don't believe it.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why do you use a 'series of explosives?

If you use a charge to blow the bow off, what are you 'following up'?

How big do you think the charges needed to blow the bows off a ship are going to be?
Click to expand...


Maybe the mythical saboteurs were stopped from detonating their "follow-up" explosives by their leader shouting at them <fx cockney voice>

"You're only supposed to blow the bloody bow door off!"
 
Vixen said:
Here we go with the logical fallacy of ridicule.

I am guessing that you would be outraged that the relatives of the Hillsborough stadium football disaster at Liverpool FC dared criticise the Hillsborough Report. <splutter> How dare they dispute the SUN newspaper calling them a bunch of thieves and pickpockets, who shoved their way in? How ridiculous of them to imagine that anyone was to blame but themselves!
Click to expand...
Nice try to get away from having to accept that you are wrong, and cannot support your statements. However, it's still there for all to see.

I've met a survivor from Estonia. I've been at the Estonia Cross at the same time as relatives. I volunteer a substantial amount of time for SAR work, in the hope that it makes a positive change in the world.

I'm a firm believer of scientific investigations, and of due process. But people that show themselves unwilling to listen or learn may bring out the worst in me. There may also be people that are unable to listen and learn, and they may be hurt along the way.

I apologize to anyone that was hurt by the ridicule in my post.

So back to the question - I've shown you wrong or unable to support your earlier statements - what exactly is your statement now with regards to JAIC?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom