• 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:
Comparisons are odious.


Let's stick to the accident investigation at hand, the Estonia and not false equivalents.
Click to expand...

How is it a false equivalent?

It is a ship of the same design and construction operating in the same waters.

The Administration says that no information on the incident was received until after the Estonia accident.
An inspector from the Administration visited the Diana II about one month after the visor incident.
He was called to survey a gangway and says that at the time of the visit, he had no information on any damage to or repair of the bow visor or its attachments.

Do you think that if the ship or shipping line had passed on the information about the damage the Administration could have inspected both the bow of the Dianna II and the Estonia?
 
Oh and I would also like the evidence that Bildt sent Clinton a proposal for a government for his approval, as I am confident he did no such thing.
 
Vixen said:
Bjorkman has nothing to do with the German Group, Braidwood, Hummel, Jutta Rabe or Kurm.

Talk about logical fallacy. Find a bum rock star you think is bum and then label all rock stars as bum.
Click to expand...

None the less Bjorkman is your "expert" that you have referenced many times in these bizarre threads.

Were any rock stars involved in the sinking? Should we add them to the conspiracy?
 
Vixen said:
This was a normally bad autumn storm in the Baltic, not Shakespeare's Tempest, with sorcerers and magicians able to conjure up a supernatural wave cast by the diabolical hand of the wicked one.
Click to expand...

Downplaying the dangers of a storm at sea now? Just when you thought your credibility couldn't get any lower.
 
Vixen said:
See wikileaks memo re Carl Bildt and the CIA.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not doing your work. Show me the document that shows that Card Bildt contacted Bill Clinton to get approval for forming a government..

Vixen said:
There were reports of fifteen men in US Marine uniform escorting two mysterious trucks onto the vessel. One entered onto the consignment notes at the last minute and the other - oddly - notified to the Port Authorities/Customs by Andresson during the journey.
Click to expand...
And again, no sources, but can I assume that Bildt somehow was involved in this also according to your story, since you bring it up?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
and yet just yesterday and earlier today you were making comparisons with a liner that sank for different reasons to those of the Estonia.
Click to expand...

Haven't you noticed? Comparisons, hypotheticals and analogies are really useful...until they highlight that Vixen is wrong, at which point they become odious, useless and a pain.
 
Vixen said:
This was a normally bad autumn storm in the Baltic, not Shakespeare's Tempest, with sorcerers and magicians able to conjure up a supernatural wave cast by the diabolical hand of the wicked one.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a storm. What is with all the odd descriptors you are trying to add to my plain words? Do you get satisfaction from pretending that people have posted things they have not?
 
Vixen said:
IMV it probably was sabotage, from what I know of the case so far.
Click to expand...


What do you know of the case so far, and how does it support your conclusion?

Why did you expect Hamburg University to look into sabotage when their remit was to analyse the nuts and bolts of the bow visor?
Click to expand...


Why did you expect their report to be relevant to your claim?
 
Vixen said:
Comparisons are odious.


Let's stick to the accident investigation at hand, the Estonia and not false equivalents.
Click to expand...
So I guess comparisons to other incidents are fine only when you use them.:rolleyes: Something is odious, and it's the aroma of the bovine excrement arguments you've splattered around this thread.
 
Vixen said:
Meyer-Werft strongly disputed it. It and Bureau Veritas won its case brought in France. It obviously convinced the court of its case.

This of course was deeply disappointing for the victim's families as they have yet to receive proper compensation for the loss in which they were in no way to blame, apart from a nominal sum. (€18,000 according to a Swedish survivor, who could not work for two years afterwards anyway. The deceased families' likely got more than this, but nowhere near what they would get had there been someone to sue.)
Click to expand...

The locks obviously failed and the locks of the same design on the Diana II also failed.
As there were no standards for either lock design or strength at the time, how do we know they weren't faulty?

Both sets of locks on ships with the same design failing points to some kind of problem with them.
 
Vixen said:
IMV it probably was sabotage, from what I know of the case so far.

Why did you expect Hamburg University to look into sabotage when their remit was to analyse the nuts and bolts of the bow visor?
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is sabotage if the reports don't show sabotage?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I will freely admit that I am unsure of what he has said regarding the Estonia. My point however, is not "He got this wrong" but "his opinion is worthless because he's not a credible expert". He could, for example, be correct in some specifics regarding the Estonia, however my knowledge of how much of a delusional moron he is indicates that this is unlikely.

You do understand my point, right? My point isn't "This specific thing he said is incorrect" it is "You can't use this guy as an expert". Joe Bloggs could say that taking asprin is good for thinning the blood, that doesn't make him a medical expert.

That said, let's have a little look at his site and see if I can find any glaring errors of fact or ideas that violate physics specifically regarding the Estonia shall we?

Again, I'm not an expert on maritime disasters, physics, boat building or metallurgy so anything I spot will have to be really bad.

From the front page. Not the front page of his estonia page, but the very front page of his poorly formatted disaster of a website.



Even you agree that the Estonia did indeed lose it's bow visor. You disagree on how and how important this was, but this is a clear statement of nonsense from a deluded crank.

Here he repeats the lie, and couples it with another lie!



That's two in as many minutes. Again, I do not have the technical expertise to go into his calculations, but having done so on 9/11 and with his insane ideas about nukes and the Apollo missions, I have no doubt they are wrong.

Again though, back to what my point actually was, which you know full well but are transparently and desperately trying to avoid. If someone can get physics so wrong as to think that nuclear weapons and the Appolo missions are impossible, how can you trust anything he says regarding anything physics based? He has shown previously that he is either so grossly incompetant that anything he says should be given no weight, or so willing to lie about things to serve his own delusions that anything he says should be given no weight.
Click to expand...

It is true nobody saw the visor fall off. Nobody saw the car ramp open. There is a very good chance that the visor was still hanging off when the ship sank.

There is zero evidence the bow visor fell off at 0115 as the JAIC claim. That is purely hypothetical.

Sillaste, whom Bildt and Lehtola quote, in an early press release, has never said the bow visor was missing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom