Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[GlennB]

Automatic buoys can be turned off and they often are whilst docked on land. This is because it is a frightful waste of time and money if they are set off when there is no emergency.

Automatically activated buoys are set off by immersion in water. How would they be set off accidentally while a ship is docked?

Some guy in Finland was recently fined for setting off some kind of emergency flare as a prank in the countryside.

So what? This has no bearing on the subject under discussion. It's yet another example of you over-explaining in an attempt to appear knowledgable.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Had Captain Andresson survived and Avo Piht captured they would almost certainly be charged by sheer dint of being in charge. When the SS Park Victory smashed on rocks due to poor anchoring in Uto in 1947, the captain was charged with negligence. The buck stops with the captain.

If grossly obese Voronin and his family managed to survive without any problem and the 1917 born sea captain and his wife, then it seems obvious that those in the adjacent cabins and in the ones in the deck above, had an excellent chance of surviving. Likewise, Brit Paul Barney and Swede Sara Hedrenius, who had been kipping at the promenade deck cafeteria.

What does any of that have to do with the engineers?

 

[Axxman300]

It is no coincidence that the crew were safely on life rafts whilst the passengers were still asleep in their cabins.

Yes, it is no coincidence - the crew sucked. Hence the whole sinking bit.

 

[JesseCuster]

What happened to Vixen's claim that the supposed disappeared 9 was just probably a clerical error and they weren't actually disappeared?

She seems to have gone full conspiracy mode on them and has concocted a rather fantastical scenario of them being secretly whisked from the scene of the sinking by a secret helicopter flight, by authorities that somehow knew exactly who to disappear, how to find them in the darkness and chaos of the aftermath, and were able to put their plan into operation almost immediately after the sinking actually happened.

 

[LondonJohn]

It was the hydrostatic release unit. This is triggered when water [=hydro] of about one to four metres envelopes the casing. It releases an automatically activated buoy up to the surface whereupon it commences to emit a signal to copsas-sasart.

Epic fail.
(Yet again. Vixen: is it that you're still incapable of understanding this whole subject matter properly? Or is it that you do (kind of) understand it, but you think somehow that if you repeat your bogus claim enough times, it'll turn it into factual reality?)

 

[Andy_Ross]

From Svenska YLE:

ibid

That is wrong in that they are always switched off

They have only one switch that activates them
They are protected from accidental activation by having a cover over the switch.

Only removing the battery would deactivate a buoy any further, which can only be done in a workshop by a service engineer.

 

[Axxman300]

Hello? These were >6,000 civilians. Any male over the age of 16 on this ship had to explain why he was not on the front line fighting (IOW injured and part of the hospitalised mob).

wiki

These were ordinary North Germans civilians.

The point being made is that just because there is a news blackout (= a cover up) does not make it a 'conspiracy theory'.

Point being; Nazi Germany is not a good example of anything. And the Estonia had nothing to do with Nazi Germany, or WWII.

Up your game to a first-grade level, please.

 

[JesseCuster]

It was the hydrostatic release unit. This is triggered when water [=hydro] of about one to four metres envelopes the casing. It releases an automatically activated buoy up to the surface whereupon it commences to emit a signal to copsas-sasart.

That's BS, any you know it because it's been explained to you on countless occasions.

The HRU releases the buoys, but the buoys themselves may be of the automatically activated type or of the manually activated type.

There's nothing about the HRU which dictates that the buoys are automatically activated.

This is what's commonly known, on these forums, as a "fringe reset", where someone of fringe beliefs (paranormal, conspiracy theories, etc.) goes back to claiming a well debunked claim, as if it had never been debunked and is if no-one else will notice that they've gone back to repeating old debunked claims.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not talking about names but a proper list of who rescued whom instead of a nightmare hodge-podge of guys trapped in winches and sharing credit for survivors, simply to fudge the true number of survivors, AFAICS.

The true number of survivors isn't 'fudged' at all.
The number rescued by each helicopter is detailed in the report.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Y64 rescued = 1

Which is correct.

 

[Axxman300]

They complied with CIA requests. According to wikileaks, Cark Bildt was a CIA agent.

This is a lie.

I posted the link - TWICE - , it's not what Wikileaks said at all.

You are really bad at this.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of the 22 aircraft listed by the Swedish government, Y64 is joint 13th with just one rescued, together with three others. The seven below it had none rescued.

Obviously some will just be reconnaisance or back up helicopters who found only empty rafts or the dead.

I believe Aftonbladet. The JAIC simply left it out because it made the number of survivors too high.

And herein lies your problem, Vixen.

See: there's every reason to believe that these contemporaneous media reports turned out to be unreliable and misleading. That happens in the immediate aftermath of pretty much every single momentous public event. You simply can't fail to have experienced this phenomenon yourself wrt other events (assuming, that is, you kept your eyes and ears properly open....).

And the thing is: you choose to believe an early media report for the sole reason that it suits your thesis to do so. No other reason than that, Vixen.

If I were to adopt your phoney reasoning, I'd be continuing to insist that Dewey defeated Truman in the 1948 US Presidential Election. (Though you're probably unfamiliar with that example also....)

 

[LondonJohn]

The what?

You mean you don't remember that famous footage of Stalin standing alone on the roof of the Lenin Mausoleum on Red Square, tears rolling down his cheeks, as the Berlin wall came down in 1989?

Sheeeesh. You clearly know nothing about the history of the USSR, Captain_Swoop....

 

[JesseCuster]

If I were to adopt your phoney reasoning, I'd be continuing to insist that Dewey defeated Truman in the 1948 US Presidential Election. (Though you're probably unfamiliar with that example also....)

Or that the BBC knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse hours before it did, because they erroneously reported that it had collapsed long before it actually did collapse.

Occam's razor suggests that they made a mistake. Conspiracy thinking says that anything which disagrees with the 'official' theory is evidence of the conspiracy.

 

[LondonJohn]

A saboteur set up a 22m by 4m gash in the hull which, when photographed, looks like a 4m by maybe 1.5m gash above the water line?

That's all down to the sheer genius of the saboteur(s) though! Not only did they create the damage of sufficient size, in the right location, to sink the ship...... but they then had the immense skill to make it look a lot less severe/serious and in a place which would have had little/no effect wrt sinking the ship.

I tells ya, some of these Russki operatives are damn clever!!

 

[JesseCuster]

Just as the IRA bombing campaign in the UK was directed against military targets, it was not rocket science to work out the sudden sinking of the Estonia pointed to a strong suspicion of sabotage, especially if illicit cargo was involved that the Swedish intelligence forces knew about.

Uh, what?

Canary Wharf was not a military target.

Bishopsgate was not a military target.

The Baltic Exchange was not a military target.

They were all specifically economic targets.

Manchester City centre was not a military target.

The Birmingham and Guildford pubs were not military targets.

Etc. etc.

 

[LondonJohn]

Heh, at least I don't believe, 'A ship will land in the same position that it began to sink in', as you do.


<fx slaps thighs, bangs table, snorts with laughter>

Oh dear.

An alluring combo of 1) misrepresenting my position in order to (attempt to, but fail miserably to) mock it; and 2) doubling down on stupid wrt your own bogus claims about the inevitability of turning turtle.

I've come to expect nothing better from you though, unfortunately.

 

[LondonJohn]

Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot.

Do you actually know what the idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" means, Vixen? Because this suggests that you do not.

 

[LondonJohn]

Automatic buoys can be turned off and they often are whilst docked on land. This is because it is a frightful waste of time and money if they are set off when there is no emergency.

LMAOOOOO

You have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about, Vixen.

Some guy in Finland was recently fined for setting off some kind of emergency flare as a prank in the countryside.

Ah but was it an automatically-activated flare, or a manually-activated one? That distinction is rather important to your analogy (even though it's clear you don't realise that).

 

[LondonJohn]

The scoundrel's last resort: the good old ad hominem.

And again..... you appear ignorant* over the meaning of term "ad hominem".

One might almost say: the scoundrel's last resort is the good old false accusation of an ad hominem attack.


* But as a hint: the post you were addressing here was not an example of an ad hominem attack