• 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.
Vixen said:
That's what happened two to Egyptian suspected terrorists in Sweden in 2002 IIRC. They were 'disappeared'.

The fact there is a Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law) that forbids the disappearance of suspects, must mean that it had been happening.
Click to expand...

No, they got sent back to Egypt. Both men are very much alive today.

Thanks for playing.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Evasion noted. This is completely irrelevant to my point.




Now I wonder whether you are being deliberately obtuse. I quoted from Björkman's own website where he claims the atomic bombings were faked, and that "only [a] few Japanese died." How is denying the deaths of at least 300,000 Japanese not as offensive as denying the Holocaust?




So you have no opinion one way or the other about whether nuclear weapons exist, whether space travel is possible, or whether the US government staged the September 11 attacks?
Click to expand...

Obviously they all exist. There are question marks over the 9/11 about the role of Saudi Arabia IMV and why Tower Two appeared to implode, but nothing that causes me to have much current interest in these matters.

I think it is clear that when things get 'classified' that is when people start getting curious. It is human nature.

It doesn't mean that there is a 'guru' called Bjorkmann or Icke to whom people turn to, because most people are quite capable of forming their own view. They can see that Icke is a bit of a joke...except he was right about Jimmy Savile. So there's a thing.
 
Seriously Vixen, what did you mean when you said that "starboard is 45 degrees and port is 135 degrees" (or was it the other way round?)

A 45 degree list means that a ship is listing 45 degrees to the vertical.

A 135 degree list means that a ship is listing 135 degrees to the vertical, i.e. is has listed so far that it has is now partly upside down (180 degree means that the ship is exactly upside down).

So what on earth does it mean to say that "starboard is 45 degrees" or "port is 135 degrees". It's entirely nonsensical and no-one can understand what you mean by it. I'm not sure you understand what you mean by it.
 
Vixen said:
Why would 0° usefully refer to a mast or funnel that sits perpendicular to the deck and when the ship is at rest on a calm surface?

No, in simple terms, it doesn't mean "capsizing 90° to either port or starboard would then see the mast parallel to the water's surface, while 180° would see the mast pointing straight down, i.e. a precise 'turtling'."

Forget about listing for a moment.

Think of a number... <snip for sanity's sake>
Click to expand...

This is just a performance now. It's gibberish in the fashion of Stanley Unwin yet without the comedic charm. Having lost hope of browbeating people by bluffing this is just a resort to nonsense to try to provoke a response and set off in an orthogonal direction to the dead end you find yourself in. Tedious.
 
Vixen said:
It is presumed the Rockwater divers filmed faces but it is not specified in the JAIC whether they did or did not. Privacy laws protect police and medics from revealing whether or not they did this.
Click to expand...

So your "If no attempt was made" gambit was based on a hypothetical you presume is not true. Hmm. Is that quite honest?
 
Vixen said:
Obviously they all exist.
Click to expand...

And the person you're trying to set up as an expert in physics denies the existence of all of them, and insists that he has incontrovertible physics proofs for that denial. It's not just that he believes wacky things. It's that he distorts science to support his belief. For some reason, you insist on specially pleading that MS Estonia is somehow not one of the science and engineering topics he's slaughtering.
 
JesseCuster said:
Clerical error, according to you. Or don't you remember saying that?
Click to expand...

JAIC never explained how it happened. It is noticeable that rather than saying anything that is not true, it simply just doesn't mention it.

For example, the communications interference, the crew habitually using bedding to plug the leak in the car ramp door. the mystery of the EPIRB's, etc.
 
Vixen said:
My google lens identified that vessel as the following the MV Tricolor:


Marine Insight

That ship is not floating, old chap, it is sinking. It had an enormous breach in its hull which was letting in water (letting in water).
Click to expand...

And it was floating on its side until it went under, right, old girl? Something you say cannot happen as a listing ship is bound to go 'full turtle'
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Obviously they all exist.
Click to expand...
It's not obvious to Bjorkman.

In fact, it's obvious to him that space travel is a gigantic conspiracy and that we've been hoodwinked for over 60 years by governments, space agencies, news reporting, etc. into believing that space travel is a thing that exists.

Bjorkman believes that all 135 space shuttle missions were fake. Bjorkman believes the ISS does not exist. Bjorkman believes that all photos taken by Mars probes and rovers are fake. Etc. etc.

He has similarly dumb ideas about a gigantic conspiracy to fake nuclear weapons going back to 1945.

He believes that he has scientific and engineering proof that these things are true.

How can someone that you think displays sound scientific and engineering reasoning with regard to the Estonia sinking get science and engineering so laughably, pathetically, hilariously wrong with regard to space travel and nuclear weapons? Never mind the insanely convoluted and huge conspiracies that must exist in order to fool us all into thinking that "obviously they all exist".
 
Vixen said:
Obviously they all exist. There are question marks over the 9/11 about the role of Saudi Arabia IMV and why Tower Two appeared to implode, but nothing that causes me to have much current interest in these matters.
Click to expand...


But you just said you have no opinion on Björkman's so-called theories. Are you now saying you don't agree with them?

Vixen said:
I think it is clear that when things get 'classified' that is when people start getting curious. It is human nature.
Click to expand...


As I've mentioned, Björkman does not exhibit even the least bit of curiosity.

Vixen said:
It doesn't mean that there is a 'guru' called Bjorkmann or Icke to whom people turn to, because most people are quite capable of forming their own view. They can see that Icke is a bit of a joke...except he was right about Jimmy Savile. So there's a thing.
Click to expand...


This makes no sense.

Finally, I renew a question from my earlier post that you failed to answer: How is Björkman's denying the deaths of at least 300,000 Japanese any less vile than denying the Holocaust?
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, are you claiming a boat can float at a list of 90°?, 100°? 120°? or even 180°?
Click to expand...
Didn't you say that the Estonia should have turned turtle and floated upside down instead of sinking? What's the difference between a list of 180 degrees (i.e. the ship is upside down) and turning turtle (i.e. the ship is upside down)?
 
Vixen said:
Only a silly person answers a silly question.
Click to expand...

In what way are my questions silly? You answered questions about whether you claimed to have done 5 years of physics and about being a forensic specialist, but you skipped over the question of whether you claimed you were a scientist. Why did you feel it ok to answer questions 1 and 3 Abaddon asked but not question 2?

I have a theory. It's because while you could answer questions 1 and 3 in the affirmative without any issues, because hey, you claimed them and they were true, you can't answer question 2 because you know that you claimed it and you know it's a lie.

Why do you constantly denigrate your interlocutors by accusing them of asking silly questions (myself), attempting to browbeat people (JayUtah) or assorted other insults, and yet you throw a massive hissy fit whenever anyone says anything that you could possibly look sideways at and see an insult? Why are you a giant hypocrite when it comes to politeness?

Why do you continue to make claims about things you clearly do not understand? Your recent contributions on the roll physics and buoyancy of boats are so laughably bad that even I know what's wrong with them, and I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Your contention that a ship at no list would not be 0o in particular is hilariously wrongheaded. Why do you keep making these bizarre claims of knowledge when you clearly don't have the expertise to make the assessments you are attempting?

Why do you continue to defend Anders Bjorkman despite everyone very clearly explaining why he's not an expert in anything?
 
JesseCuster said:
Didn't you say that the Estonia should have turned turtle and floated upside down instead of sinking? What's the difference between a list of 180 degrees (i.e. the ship is upside down) and turning turtle (i.e. the ship is upside down)?
Click to expand...

At 180° it would no longer be subject to the same list that capsized it.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
We used to own a sailing dinghy that was intentionally designed to *not* be in danger of capsize even beyond the 45-degree roll point.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Mr. Justice Sheen in his inquiry into The Herald off Free Enterprise deemed that the maximum list allowable on such a ro-ro car ferry should not be greater than 20°. Beyond that, if your ballasts are already at full capacity and you are going too fast, then the chances of righting the vessel before it gets to the inevitable stage of capsize begin to lessen rapidly.

Questioned regarding the residual range of stability and the contrast between the maximum heel figure of 7" proposed by the United Kingdom 53 and others as against the proposed by the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., Mr. Taggart said that to achieve the latter angle would be extremely difficult. "I would think to achieve 20" in most vessels there are so many problems in passenger vessels with accesses within the ship to below decks that effectively your curve is terminated because of progressive flooding problems well before 20" of heel. That is not 20" angle of heel from upright; that is 20" from the equilibrium position . . . So that you are talking about possibly 27" or more. You would require to keep all your openings safe so that no progressive flooding could occur within say It would be a major problem . . . It is most important in these things not to impose criteria which are impossible to achieve."

However the flooding calculations indicated quite clearly that once water started to enter the vessel there would be an initial very rapid lurch to around 30°, this taking place in approximately 6-7 seconds. A steady heel of 25-30 lasted for a short time and then the capsize proceeded.
Click to expand...
Justice Sheen re The Herald of Free Enterprise

Compare and contrast with the Estonia when Ainsalu/Tammes made their first [received] Mayday. By then they were already reporting a 30° to 40° list. This was logged 01:22.

According to JAIC, the vessel turned to 70° circ 01:30 and 90° shortly after...and then it floated on its superstructure before sinking stern first and then turning forward. Hull intact, no problems with fire or pipes or anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom