• 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.
LondonJohn said:
Oh great. We're back to the "impressive" Latin terms again.

And your fundamental - and fatal - flaw is that you appear to have uncritically decided* that this was not simply a tragic accident**; that it was in fact deliberately planned and executed.

Then, once you've made that (entirely unsupported by any evidence, and in fact contradicted by parts of the evidence set) leap of logic, you appear to believe you can then segue right into a straight-faced "debate" about who would have most benefitted from the total loss of the Estonia.

Breathtaking in its arrogance and its stupidity.


* no doubt due at least in part to your rich diet of ludicrous conspiracy theories from the likes of EFD and Bjorkman

** albeit one caused by human error in the design/construction/maintenance of the bow visor locks
Click to expand...

Quaere Verum is my motto.
 
Vixen said:
The claim the waves knocked off the Atlantic lock causing the bow visor to swing upwards was proven by Dr. Eng. Hans Hoffmeister to be wrong, as he showed it would have been the starboard side lock that would have given way first and the bottom one last. That blows the JAIC early 'Day One' theory out of the water. They completely ignored him.

Helsingin Sanomat 29.9.1994


If the bottom Atlantic lock did not fall off 'causing the bow visor to lift up' then it cannot have happened the way the JAIC claim.
Click to expand...

Why do you lie?
 
Vixen said:
Wrong again. He was giving an official presentation to the JAIC bods, January 1995, with members of the press invited.
Click to expand...


Well now that's very strange, Vixen.

Because this little chain of posts ultimately links back to your post #2115, which refers to comments Montonen gave to the newspaper on 9th October 1994 (ie very shortly after the sinking).


Care to elaborate, Vixen? Perhaps start by informing me in what way I am "wrong"... :D :D :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
It is answering a straightforward question as to why Svensson's rescued survivors was lessened to one.
Click to expand...

It wasn't 'lessened to one' apart from in your
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 12.
ramblings
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
The manual has bee referenced a few times but you keep claiming, 'Ah but that's the updated one'.
Click to expand...


Nope. Try again.

(I mean, we all know that you're categorically wrong about the EPIRBs and their mode of activation.... but nevertheless: if you're making the claim, it's entirely incumbent upon you to provide credible, reliable evidence to support the claim. You've signally failed to do that so far. Of course, you'll never be able to supply such evidence, because these EPIRBs were - beyond all doubt - solely activated by way of a manually-operated switch on the buoy. But still... search away :D :thumbsup::thumbsup:)
 
Vixen said:
Sabotage is often due to terrorists making a political point. The Soviets who torpedoed Wilhelm Gustloff breaching the convention you do not target hsopital ships had written on each of their torpedoes IIRC, one for Russia, one for Leningrad and the other two of a similar gung-ho ilk (one torpedo got stuck).

So the political landscape is salient.

Cui Bono by covering up the Estonia?

A. The party who wants to over the whole thing up.
Click to expand...

This is a gibberish argument.

Terrorism usually involves spectacular attacks to provoke fear, not acts of sabotage. The Soviets did not sabotage the Wilhelm Gustloff, nor did they make a terrorist attack on it, they openly attacked it in an act of war. The Wilhelm Gustloff was not a hospital ship.

So you score zero for you incoherent preamble.

And you have not shown that anyone is "covering up" what happened to the Estonia.

The only one cui bono from this farrago is you, as you seem to enjoy the attention.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
And yet we have no record of the flight that supposedly did this?
We know when Y 64 and Y 74 were alerted, we know they were then fueled and made ready and crews came on duty to fly them. We know the times they took off from their bases and arrived at the rescue area.
We know how many they rescued and when they returned to their bases.

Why do you claim they were involved in the secret flight when it would be easier to suppose that some other, unrecorded helicopter made the secret flights?
Click to expand...

Time line.

  • MRCC Stockholm logs 0200 in its operations log as commencing action
  • At 2:27 (distress transcript) Turku MRCC informs Europa (now designated leader ship)’The first helicopter from Sweden will be here in about ten minutes’.
  • Swedish newspaper states 'hero' Svensson left base 'just after 0200'
  • Jack A Nelson in 'Flashes in the Night' who interviewed peope said Olli Moberg 'arrived at the scene at circa 0300'


Kenneth Svensson received a special medal.
 
Vixen said:
The manual has bee referenced a few times but you keep claiming, 'Ah but that's the updated one'.
Click to expand...

No, you keep posting a service manual for a much later model in the same range as evidence to support your claims about the model fitted to the ship.

In one respect it is relevant in that it shows the buoys only have one switch, an immersion sensor and no means for tuning or otherwise adjusting the buoys apart from in a workshop.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Retreading old ground. We literally did exactly this same nonsense exchange about 1990s EPIRBs in Part III, remember?

You said some crap about "if you said Paris was not the capital of France and couldn't document it.." and I replied that what you were actually asserting was more like Copenhagen was the capital of Denmark in a discussion about the Viking era when that wasn't true.

Then I invited you to show us when the Kannad 406 F had its type approval withdrawn until it was discovered why these ones had not activated and you invited me to use the search function and flounced off the topic for a while.

Did I save us some time repeating ourselves?
Click to expand...

Possibly.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Because the engineers were in the engine room and know how fast it was flooding. Once power was lost there was nothing else they could do. Once the lifeboat station call went out they did what anyone else would do, they got off the ship.

Why do you think the senior officers would not be getting off until later?
Click to expand...

Exactement.



You've got it. By Jove, you've got it.

They were bloody first off!!!
 
Jack by the hedge said:
All the senior officers in one boat is scarcely a "high probability". Did none of them have any duties to perform?

And the chances of their being rescued by a flight that hadn't taken off yet is nil.

Why did your imaginary police chief kidnap and "disappear" the first batch of rescued victims but not the others? Or did someone else do that, in your fantasy?
Click to expand...

It wasn't their watch on the bridge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom