• 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.
zooterkin said:
If you had a punctured tyre, and found a nail sticking out of it, would you keep looking for the cause of the puncture?
Click to expand...

If the tyre had not yet been found and would not be for some nineteen days, I would not rashly put out a press release stating that a nail caused the blow-out immediately after the accident, especially if no-one saw it happen, all the witnesses are unconscious in hospital waiting to be interviewed, and in addition, the technical guys have yet to dig out the CCTV or request dashcam recordings from the public.


If the passenger was someone like Vilks (accident in Sweden recently) certainly, sabotage needs to be ruled out (as was investigated in Sweden, when his police protection officers inexplicably swerved over the central reservation at high speed and ended under a truck where it caught fire).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
He doesn't think there was an 'atom' bomb. Who cares? I am not interested in personalities.
Click to expand...
That's weird. Those sentences are placed together, so naturally one would assume that the latter follows the former, but they are totally unrelated.

Unless you are trying to claim that a total ignorance of basic physics is a personality deficit rather than a knowledge one?

ETA: Again, this is a perfect map for my hypothetical.

"So Dr Smith doesn't believe in germs, who cares? I'm not interested in personalities, I'm just saying he's a respected doctor and therefore an expert in medicine."
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I was laughing at London John trying to claim Oceanos was flooded the same way as The Herald of Free Enterprise and by extension the Estonia.


If you have a ruddy great hole in the starboard of course you are likely to sink quite quickly.
Click to expand...

How long did Oceanos take to sink?

How big was the hole in the Estonia?

What would be the flood rate through a hole that size?

You do know the hole on the Estonia was above the waterline?
 
Vixen said:
Pure descriptive narrative. No drill down into care and maintenance.
Click to expand...

3.2.10 Maintenance, modifications and damage
3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation
3.6 Certificates and inspections
3.7 Operational characteristics of the vessel

Do you need any more?
 
Vixen said:
Axxman300 claimed one of the engineers saw water on the car deck. That would be newbie Kadak, who retracted his claim as the car deck camera does not show the car deck floor and he was never there. It is accepted he may have seen 30 cm of water in a corner.
Click to expand...

Where is this 'accepted'?

Are you now doubting that water was seen on the car deck?
 
Vixen said:
So why was retrieving an attaché case important but not identifying whether Andresson was on the bridge or not? And if not, then who was?
Click to expand...
The divers photographed the victims on the bridge to attempt ID, did they not? What more do you think they should have done? In the transcript you provided, they enter cabins they can get into and try to identify occupants from suitcase luggage labels and the like. What more do you think they should have done?
 
Vixen said:
Exactly but JAIC seem to think it is enough to state it was seaworthy. End of subject.
Click to expand...

I still await your quoting them saying that.

I mean, I'm not holding my breath, but I note you still haven't managed to support your oft-repeated claim.

"End of subject." LOL
 
Vixen said:
Both Jan-Tore and Esa (plus some experienced Swedish guy who was at the rescue of MS Jan Heweliusz) said they expected to come across Estonia floating upside down, or only semi-submerged, and were shocked to see nothing but bits of debris.

I have no idea if the explosives were those left behind by the navy guys who were there earlier but there is a petal shaped hole in the bulkhead bow, unmentioned by JAIC. Prof Ida Westermann found telling deformations in the metal of the bow visor. No mention by JAIC.

As Carl Bildt was in a hurry with his early conclusion, one has to suspect a guilty conscience. Like denying a fart in a lift. He who denied it, supplied it.

If it was a criminal gang, don't you think they would be going after them and not anxiously stating 'We do not wish to blame anybody'?
Click to expand...


Hey Vixen.

I invite you (once again) to view the video in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13670690#post13670690


Even you - even you - may notice that the large passenger ship in this video does not "turn turtle" and float upside down for a period of time before eventually sinking (after....LMAOOOO...."the air in the hull has been displaced" LOLLLLLLL)

Look at that video, Vixen. Then watch it again. Then watch it a third time. Then come back to apologise for your ignorant and embarrassing insistence that ships, once they've capsized, quickly turn totally upside down and float in that position. Thanks in advance, Vixen.
 
Vixen said:
Oceanos did not sink because of flooding.

Wiki

There was an explosion via the ventilator pipes, which led to flooding in the engine room, which is a breach of its hull.

According to JAIC there was no hull breach of the Estonia. This is what the current affairs expeditions are investigating, i.e., the hole in the starboard.
Click to expand...


1) Where was the breach in the hull of the Oceanos? (I don't think you know what "breach in the hull" actually means)

2) Why is a) a sinking caused by water ingress through a pipe any materially different from b) a sinking caused by water ingress through the bow opening? I'll wait........

3) Where in your (idiotic) insistence that "ships which capsize always turn over completely almost immediately" did you stipulate the precise manner of their capsizing?


Oh, and LOL at you stating "Oceanos did not sink because of flooding", then quoting a document which states that...... Oceanos sank because of flooding. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


This is pitiful. Your posts are a sick joke.
 
Last edited:
Just this morning I saw less than a minute of some "Paranormal Investigator" program on a TV in a waiting room. Don't know what it was about. Three people were asking the locals about some phenomenon. Over and over the interviewees had never heard of it. Just before the dental assistant called me back, one of the investigators said, "We've asked fifty people about this weird local phenomenon and not one has even heard of it. That's what makes me sure that it exists." For some reason I thought of this thread.
 
Vixen said:
I was just trying to point out that the Atlantic lock is an accessory, which was introduced to ease tension on the side locks. In reality, removing the Atlantic Lock doesn't really increase the tension by that much.

The JAIC seem to think the Atlantic lock caused the side locks to come loose the same time as it did, by one wave force.
Click to expand...

Make your mind up. Is the Atlantic lock a mere afterthought unnecessary to the visor design or is its locking bolt a critical component of the visor locking system whose reexamination is vital for reasons you can't quite articulate?

Will you be showing us your calculations for how minor its benefit was to the side locks? No, of course you won't.
 
Vixen said:
Water getting into the ventilation pipes is a well-known cause of ship explosions. Oceanos got flooded because of an explosion.

wiki

Likewise, Estonia was not a true The Herald of Free Enterprise accident either.
Click to expand...


LMAO. Entirely, utterly wrong.

You have idea what you're talking about, Vixen.

And to make it funnier still, you have no idea that you have no idea what you're talking about :D :thumbsup:
 
Vixen said:
I was just trying to point out that the Atlantic lock is an accessory, which was introduced to ease tension on the side locks. In reality, removing the Atlantic Lock doesn't really increase the tension by that much.

The JAIC seem to think the Atlantic lock caused the side locks to come loose the same time as it did, by one wave force.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you're talking about.

You can't even figure out the simple physics as it applies to the bow visor of the Estonia - specifically how it opened, how it locked, and how it hinged.

(Oh and FYI in your ongoing ignorance: the "side locks" were not locks per se at all. They were the hydraulic rams which lifted and lowered the bow visor. You probably can't/don't understand that though, right?)
 
Vixen said:
The sheer speed of sinking, the time and place, communications interference/blackout and eye-witness reports.
Click to expand...


That just looks like your conspiracy theory again, coupled to an appeal to personal incredulity. I was asking about actual evidence, how specific pieces of evidence pointed to sabotage, and who the saboteurs were.

Cui bono?
Click to expand...


Can you answer that without begging the question?
 
Vixen said:
I was laughing at London John trying to claim Oceanos was flooded the same way as The Herald of Free Enterprise and by extension the Estonia.


If you have a ruddy great hole in the starboard of course you are likely to sink quite quickly.
Click to expand...


Except the Estonia sank because - and only because - of water coming in through the compromised bow opening. Nothing to do with the puncture and seam fracture in the starboard hull, which was demonstrably caused by contact between the hull and the sea bed.

Next?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom