• 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 IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
You're the one trying to compare them. You're claiming Hoffmeister should have used the same procedure as Westermann in order to find evidence of explosives, and since he didn't, he wouldn't have found them. You're wrong on both counts. Westermann's techniques are not required to see evidence of explosives. Hoffmeister's inspection was proper and sufficient to discover evidence of explosives. He didn't find any.
Click to expand...

No, you are the one saying Hoffmeister, instead of wasting his time comparing his results with the JAIC, should have busied himself looking for explosives damage instead.
 
Vixen said:
Don't twist my words. We were discussing the Atlantic lock, when a poster came along and sneered, 'How does that prove sabotage?' apropos of nothing. Don't put someone else's words in my mouth.

Please keep to the context, which is the bow visor locks.

Are you claiming to be Hoffmeister's superior and deign to advise him his report is defective?
Click to expand...

You seem to be the one claiming it is defective.
If there had been evidence of damage he would have reported it.
Why do you think he would be deceptive and not mention it?
 
Vixen said:
"Brian Braidwood, a diving and blasting expert who worked for the British Navy and was advised by the research team, considers the holes to be caused by the explosions, and the same view is shared by Michael Fellows, a blasting expert with a military background . In August 2000, the team of the German journalist Jutta Rabe photographed and took metal samples from one such hole in the hull, defying the diving ban imposed on the wreck. Rabe says she has received confirmation from several research laboratories that the explosives remain in the samples." - HS
Click to expand...

Your under water ninja only looked at some pictures, he never examined the holes.

Where did she receive confirmation "from several research laboratories that the explosives remain in the samples."

Did you make that up yourself?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Virtually all of the ship sinkings I have looked at have had them sinking bow first.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't looked at many.

Most sinkings are caused by flooding when a sea pipe breaks and the machinery space floods.
That's one of the weak points in all ships designs, you have to have lots of holes below the waterline to allow water to be pumped in to the ship to cool the engines, generators and air conditioning, supply the fresh water makers and plumbing and also the fire main.
If a through-hull fitting or pipe fails then a lot of water can come in very quickly in to the largest space below deck.

Machinery spaces are big, flooding them removes a lot of buoyancy from a ship. It also stops the machinery which means the pumps no longer work and the flooding can't be countered.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
There is a reason for that. Can you figure it out?

Oh and it only applies in modern peacetime. Can you figure out why that is?

Bet you can't.
Click to expand...

She is wrong, most sinkings are by flooding in machinery spaces, they don't tend to be on the telly.
What we see are the high profile sinkings resulting from rammings, explosions or running in to rocks etc.
 
Vixen said:
Hirschfeldt is a High Court Appeal Judge, he was appointed by the Swedish government. Are you now claiming the Swedish government are corrupt for ordering Hirschfeldt to classify his findings?
Click to expand...

No, I just think it's convenient he claims to have destroyed all his documents and reports.
 
Vixen said:
But you said:


"It did not 'float on it's superstructure' It was still flooding in the hull.
After it capsized it took just 9 minutes to sink. How is that 'floating' on anything."


How do you reconcile your two statements?
Click to expand...

This is in reference to your film of a boat undergoing a capsize test. It was not sinking.
 
Vixen said:
No, you are the one saying Hoffmeister, instead of wasting his time comparing his results with the JAIC, should have busied himself looking for explosives damage instead.
Click to expand...

He was looking for the cause of the failure. Explosive damage would be a part of that if it existed.
 
Vixen said:
Don't twist my words. We were discussing the Atlantic lock, when a poster came along and sneered, 'How does that prove sabotage?' apropos of nothing. Don't put someone else's words in my mouth.

Please keep to the context, which is the bow visor locks.
Click to expand...
You are claiming sabotage. So far you have claimed various submarines, a spetsnaz suicide squad, explosives of various sorts, nuclear waste melting the hinges, personel opening the doors to jettison cargo and who knows what else.

You are plainly claiming a CT, you simply cannot seem to decide which one.

Vixen said:
Are you claiming to be Hoffmeister's superior and deign to advise him his report is defective?
Click to expand...
Are you claiming he is a marine engineer with expertise appropriate? If your doctor presumed to instruct you how to recondition the turbo charger on your car, would you automatically assume he was a heart surgeon? Or knew anything about turbo chargers? How does one balance a turbo charger? Have you any idea?

The point is that an expert in one area does not automagically become an expert in any other areas.
 
Vixen said:
Enlighten us.
Click to expand...
NO.

If it is not clearly obvious to you then you have no business pontificating on the matter.

Nobody here is your research monkey. If you cannot work it out yourself, then it tells us all we need to know about the level of your knowledge on the subject matter.
 
Vixen said:
This is what the JAIC claim.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Why do you continue to lie?

Why won't you answer any of my many, many questions Vixen? Are you just ignoring me because you don't like being pinned down to anything so you can't Gish Gallop or are you simply a coward?

Again I ask, do you think you know more about these subjects than Jay?
 
abaddon said:
We all know that. What I wonder about is where the stupid term came from in the first place. Probably Heiwa, but I can't be bothered to check. It seems like the kind of nonsense he would make up.
Click to expand...

It's grasping at a straw to explain why it didn't 'turn turtle' maybe?

Only the originator of the term can tell us.
 
Vixen said:
No, you are the one saying Hoffmeister, instead of wasting his time comparing his results with the JAIC, should have busied himself looking for explosives damage instead.
Click to expand...

He should have busied himself looking for the factors that would have affected the strength of the steel, so that his finite-element model could be parameterized accurately. And he did so. Among the items he looked for diligently -- fatigue cracks take some effort to uncover -- is not damage from explosives.

You seem to have this presupposition in your head that a "search for explosives" is some magical process that has to be done specially, and only if asked. For the umpteenth time: what part of "I've done this for a living for 30 years" has failed to gain a toehold in your brain?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom