• 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 is not the point. That is the same reasoning as the JAIC, 'It doesn't matter the communications were down or that the EPIRB's didn't activate. Nor does it matter if there was illicit cargo, or a fire or explosions or even that it wasn't well maintained or cared for: that doesn't change our verdict of poor design of the bow visor locks so we will just ignore all of that.'
Click to expand...

radio communications were not 'down' Estonia's distress transmission was heard and responded to by ships in the area.

EPIRBs didn't activate because they weren't activated by the crew.

There was no illicit cargo aboard the Estonia.

There was no fir and no explosions.

It does matter that it wasn't well maintained or cared for, this is addressed in the report.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please of where it says it was a mistake.
Click to expand...
You didn't give the original citations you claimed, just a secondhand version from a crank. Then you had the gall to claim there were no corrections issued even though you had no idea whether that was true or not. You have a flaming cheek.
 
Vixen said:
So if a ship sinks tonight nearby you and you are the Coast Guard in charge, your attitude will be, 'I don't see any reason to assume anyone is responsible'. <shrug>
Click to expand...

If I was the coastguard I wouldn't care who was responsible, that would not be my job.
My job would be to rescue anyone aboard.
 
Vixen said:
Whilst Russia is a strong candidate if it was sabotage, we do not actually know that.

What we do know for sure is that Sweden covered it up.

That is one certainty.
Click to expand...


See Vixen.... when you use definitive words such as "certainty", the foolishness of your position manages to surpass even its previous high.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there's literally zero credible, reliable evidence pointing anywhere in the direction of a Swedish cover-up re the Estonia disaster. Probably because it's crystal clear that there was no cover-up. Probably because the true cause of the Estonia disaster is crystal clear, and in no way involves malevolent agents deliberately sinking the ship.

Got that?
 
Vixen said:
Hoffmeister showed that it would not have been the Atlantic Lock to fail first but the starboard side, with the Atlantic lock last, by FEM calculations which look at how much tension the locks can bear.
Click to expand...

Hoffmeister's calculations are first-order constitutive relationships in a single plane only. They are not sufficient to establish a failure sequence to the exclusion of other sequences.
 
JesseCuster said:
Let me try again.

The Chinese government covered up an atrocity that they were responsible for in order to not make themselves look bad for committing an atrocity involving the massacre of hundreds of civilians

But according to your hare-brained idea, the Swedes covered up an atrocity committed by someone against Swedish civilians involving hundreds of innocent deaths, in order to hide the fact that they were smuggling Russian military electronics on the Estonia? Hardly any reward and a huge amount of risk.

What sense does it make?
Click to expand...

So who did Sweden bring to justice?
 
Vixen said:
JAIC spokesman Kari Lehtola said on Day One that the bow visor had been 'lifed up' by a strong wave and this caused the other locks to weaken.

Hoffmeister showed that it would not have been the Atlantic Lock to fail first but the starboard side, with the Atlantic lock last, by FEM calculations which look at how much tension the locks can bear.

Thus, the bow visor could not 'have lifted up' if the Atlantic lock was last to fail.
Click to expand...

It would have lifted up after the 'Atlantic lock failed' If one of the side locks failed before the lower lock is just a detail, the result is the same.
 
Vixen said:
So if a ship sinks tonight nearby you and you are the Coast Guard in charge, your attitude will be, 'I don't see any reason to assume anyone is responsible'. <shrug>
Click to expand...
Nope. Will yours be to take aside one rescuer and give them secret orders to find, kidnap and "disappear" the captain?

How will you tell them to do that? Do they have to throw back anyone they rescue who isn't the captain?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
But how do you know that sabotage wasn't involved?
Click to expand...

The poor business methods - quick turnaround ASAP - poor maintenance and care, overloading passengers, lazy ill-disciplined crew, with a 'not my job' attitude, all of this was listed and revealed to the public.


Transparency is all.


Where there is no transparency, for example 'The vessel was seaworthy when it left Tallinn and had no outstanding issues' then it is corrupt.
 
Vixen said:
They had been warned and ignored it...?
Click to expand...

Who had been been warned and what had been ignored?

How does that justify an act of war in sinking a foreign ship and murdering over 1000 people?

Why would Sweden or Finland or Estonia cover something like that up?

Why do you lay everything at Sweden when Finland and Estonia are also involved?

The Commission consisted of three members from each state and was chaired by an Estonian.

The report was published by Estonia.

Why would Estonia cover up that the Russians had sunk one of their ships?
 
Vixen said:
The fact that Dr_Ing Hans-Werner Hoffmeister of Hamburg University showed that their calculations on the bow visor were incorrect and that he obtained different results, was just ignored, proves the JAIC report was just a glossy brochure for people to put on their coffee tables.
Click to expand...

You aren't competent to evaluate the work done by Hoffmeister, or to determine whether it trumps computations done by others. He got a different answer than someone else, but not because his answer is necessarily the right one. There are a number of assumptions inherent to any such model. And the crudity of the model does not make answers conclusive.

You've latched onto Hoffmeister not because you understand his work, but because it's the answer you want to hear. It gives you an excuse to reject your predetermined enemy.
 
JesseCuster said:
And how does a rescue man as a part of a search and rescue crew on a helicopter in the middle of the sea in the middle of the night with hundreds of bodies and survivors in the water do that exactly? :confused:
Click to expand...

There are elite 'trident' teams of frogmen who are trained to do exactly all of that stuff, you know.
 
Vixen said:
By classifying the whole thing.

What you see in the JAIC is a narrative description that doesn't really deal with anything.
Click to expand...

Who classified anything and what was classified?

How would Sweden classifying anything stop Estonia or Finland from reporting it?
 
Vixen said:
JAIC spokesman Kari Lehtola said on Day One that the bow visor had been 'lifed up' by a strong wave and this caused the other locks to weaken.



Hoffmeister showed that it would not have been the Atlantic Lock to fail first but the starboard side, with the Atlantic lock last, by FEM calculations which look at how much tension the locks can bear.



Thus, the bow visor could not 'have lifted up' if the Atlantic lock was last to fail.
Click to expand...
You have no clue what you are talking about.
 
Vixen said:
It matters not a jot how they sink. Someone is responsible, is the view.
Click to expand...


...is the view of idiots and conspiracy theorists*

If anyone is responsible for this disaster, it's the shipyard which designed and built the not-fit-for-purpose bow visor mechanism & locks, and probably also the ship's owners/operators for operating the bow visor locks improperly.

Hmmm.....I wonder why the shipyard has set up its own, umm, "Group of Experts"? Surely the aim of that operation couldn't be to come up with some way of absolving the shipyard from any culpability? Surely not??


* And is not the view of anyone who knows anything about the subject, and who possesses the required level of expertise, experience and research/deduction skills...
 
JayUtah said:
Hoffmeister's calculations are first-order constitutive relationships in a single plane only. They are not sufficient to establish a failure sequence to the exclusion of other sequences.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter anyway. if a side lock failed first it wouldn't mean the bottom lock didn't fail, in fact it would contribute to the failure of the bottom lock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom