• 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:
Brian Braidwood was a specialist Royal Naval diver - he famously defused the Greenpeace bomb - and if he says that is how they did it - assuming he is referring to a separate communication in the other ear - in a highly specialised unit of the Navy then I believe him. Maybe even the microphone was dual.
Click to expand...

He didn't say so. He's only quoted as saying they had two earpieces. He did not say they had different feeds to each ear.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So may we presume that you do accept that the dive support vessel would be equipped with at least the basic tools required to inspect and measure the items they recovered, and that their description of the bolt's condition was more likely based on inspection and measurement rather than immediately throwing it back into the sea and making a measurement up, like you said?
Click to expand...

No. I don't do 'would, could, should'. Fact is, it was thrown back onto the seabed, a grossly reckless and negligent act. This is because the JAIC hinge (no pun intended) their key conclusion on the failure of the Atlantic lock, thus it was imperative it was available for examination, if only for reasons of transparency. The bow visor supposedly hung on this lock whilst it bashed about, yet one wonders whether it was ever bolted at all, given the crew's penchant for hammering the dashed thing in, as witnessed by passengers.

For those who aren't aware, the Atlantic lock was a bolt lock.
 
Vixen said:
Brian Braidwood was a specialist Royal Naval diver - he famously defused the Greenpeace bomb - and if he says that is how they did it - assuming he is referring to a separate communication in the other ear - in a highly specialised unit of the Navy then I believe him. Maybe even the microphone was dual.
Click to expand...

If that's what he says he is either a liar or a fool
 
Vixen said:
The reference to a tape measure was a quip.
Click to expand...

Fine, but you intended it to make a point. You asserted that the part had been measured only "by eye," and seemed to consider it absurd that any sort of measuring tool might have been employed because such tools would have been unavailable. Do you still assert that the part was measured only "by eye?"
 
Vixen said:
People do not trust the JAIC conclusions, did you not understand that? Did you really believe the controversy surrounding the Estonia were to do with CT and not genuine concerns? Maybe develop critical thinking skills a bit more?
Click to expand...

Some people do not trust them. Some people don't trust the NIST conclusions on 9/11 either. Doesn't mean anything.

Also, you advising me to develop my critical thinking skills? Hilarious.
 
Vixen said:
However, this thread has nothing to do with conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

It is nothing but a conspiracy theory. You argue that any of a number of secretive, subversive activities took place which resulted in (possibly intentionally) sinking MS Estonia. You argue that the official investigation deliberately ignored evidence and sought only to sustain a predetermined conclusion. You accept nearly every claim -- however farfetched -- so long as it is not the mainstream narrative. Your evidence comes from sources that are unreliable for various reasons.

This is exactly a conspiracy theory. You are exactly a conspiracy theorist. That you find such a description somehow distasteful doesn't concern me. You made your bed, now lay in it.
 
Vixen said:
No. I don't do 'would, could, should'. Fact is, it was thrown back onto the seabed, a grossly reckless and negligent act. This is because the JAIC hinge (no pun intended) their key conclusion on the failure of the Atlantic lock, thus it was imperative it was available for examination, if only for reasons of transparency. The bow visor supposedly hung on this lock whilst it bashed about, yet one wonders whether it was ever bolted at all, given the crew's penchant for hammering the dashed thing in, as witnessed by passengers.

For those who aren't aware, the Atlantic lock was a bolt lock.
Click to expand...

You do plenty of would could should. I just picked you up on your assuming what Braidwood meant above and beyond what he was quoted saying.

There was nothing whatsoever reckless or negligent about not keeping the bolt after it was inspected and measured and found to be undamaged, other than the obvious effect any unavailable evidence has on excitable conspiracy theorists. The parts of the lock which failed were kept. If the pin was not shot home the lugs would not have been ripped apart as the visor was pulled open, and the hydraulic actuator would not have been fully extended, as it was when found.

Tell us what testing you want done with the bolt assuming it's found.
 
JayUtah said:
Fine, but you intended it to make a point. You asserted that the part had been measured only "by eye," and seemed to consider it absurd that any sort of measuring tool might have been employed because such tools would have been unavailable. Do you still assert that the part was measured only "by eye?"
Click to expand...

We don't know do we because we are just expected to take Stenström's word for it. Note the JAIC glibly do not even mention it was thrown back onto the seabed nor that nobody else had a chance to verify what Stenström recorded about it. How difficult is it to insert a sentence to this effect?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Not what I asked.

If Ian Wright stated on MOTD that football is a 13-a-side sport would he be a credible expert?
Click to expand...

And I thought I responded that I didn't answer hypothetical questions.

In any case, Wright would hardly be appointed as a football pundit by the Beeb if Wright thought football was rugby, so what a stupid question!

Do do better.
 
Vixen said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Well your first sentence has nothing to do with the JAIC, it's just another repeat of your twisted version of what a politician said at a press conference, reworded by you to try to make it sound absurd to suggest that a mere wave can damage a ship (just like they did in those dozen previous incidents involving Baltic ferries which I suspect you still haven't read).

Need I go on?
 
Vixen said:
And I thought I responded that I didn't answer hypothetical questions.

In any case, Wright would hardly be appointed as a football pundit by the Beeb if Wright thought football was rugby, so what a stupid question!

Do do better.
Click to expand...
As I responded, it was your hypothetical. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

If Ian Wright made obviously incorrect statements about how football was played would he be a credible expert on football, yes or no? It's a very simple question with a very obvious answer but you're doing everything you can to get out of answering it.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Well your first sentence has nothing to do with the JAIC, it's just another repeat of your twisted version of what a politician said at a press conference, reworded by you to try to make it sound absurd to suggest that a mere wave can damage a ship (just like they did in those dozen previous incidents involving Baltic ferries which I suspect you still haven't read).

Need I go on?
Click to expand...

The captain of Europa and On Scene Commander extraordinaire doesn't seem very impressed with your view. Do you know better than him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom