Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[JayUtah]

Mindless acceptance...

Who says the acceptance is mindless?

"I know it's true. It says so here.'

Nobody is quoting the JAIC as scripture. But your attempts to impeach it show only how little you know about the subject. You may think you've beaten it down, but you really haven't.

 

[Vixen]

No. It may be that some Swedish journalist reported it, but that is not a primary source. The primary source is Bollyn's own claims. And those are particularly nutty claims.

Let's have a look at Bollyn's actual 911 claims.

911, according to him, was arranged by the jooooooos as a false flag to provoke the US to attack the arabs. Or muslims. Or whoever.

And please don't pretend he is not a real person. We know he is a real wingnut. He may have some other online identities that are fake for all I know and I suspect so. I could research it, but I don't care about bollyn's nonsense.

But you do for reasons you fail to explain. Why are you so convinced that Bollyn is in any way trustworthy? For me he has hurled an incredible amount of flat out lies. At that point, it doesn't even matter. He, whoever he might be, matters not. It could be you for all I know. Or me, I suppose.

The problem is that you can furnish no support for your claims and I have not made any. Apart from those that are most obviously true. But you even deny those too.

That is what a forum is for. If someone is knowledgeable about the Middle East - or any topic - censoring them just because they mention 'Zionists' or 'Muslim fundamentalists' is an elementary mistake of assuming that all Jews and all Muslims are fanatical Zionists/Fundamentalists.

News for you: that is just your ignorant idea.

I did not say Bollyn was trustworthy. I have no idea what his views are other than people here insisting he must be an anti-Semite because of his views on 9/11, which for all you know, might be based on his study of the Middle East and not from a position of bigotry.

 

[Steve]

Hey, Vixen, What caused the Estonia to sink? I am not interested in what any of your dubious sources have to say. I would like your own conclusion. You have spent the past 6 months apparently examining this topic in exhaustive detail. Surely by now you have determined exactly what happened. What, exactly, caused the damage that resulted in the sinking?

 

[Vixen]

LOL
Your continuing ignorance of a) what actually happened to culminate in the bow visor detaching (hint: it was an awful lot more than "a wave"), and b) how & why a RORO ship can sink very quickly indeed once its bow opening is catastrophically compromised....

...is well noted.

You perhaps ought to at least try to educate yourself on these two matters before making any more of these risible (and wholly incorrect) assertions. Just a suggestion.

Perhaps you should throw off your arrogant attitude that you know what happened without ever having studied the facts of the matter. Just a suggestion.

 

[JayUtah]

Denial does not make the fact go away.

What's being denied? Your critics have universally relied upon the documented facts of the Egyptian's deportation. You, on the other hand, desperately read into these facts the fantasy conveyed to you by Bollyn. The facts don't support your belief. Calling people denialists for resisting your frantic question-begging doesn't fly.

 

[JayUtah]

I did not say Bollyn was trustworthy.

You imply he is when you cite him as an authority. It's a necessary premise to citation.

 

[Vixen]

Hahaha still trying to find ways to 1) lessen/minimise the de-platforming of Bollyn and 2) absolve yourself of blame wrt using Bollyn to support your crackpot CTs, eh Vixen?

So much more fun and less work to write off any debating point that hasn't been endorsed by Rupert Murdoch first, eh? Just so you can feel a momentary wave of faux superiority by calling true thinkers 'crackpots'. Haha, done.

Whatever floats your boat (or sinks it, as it were).

 

[Vixen]

But it's extremely easy for anyone - even you - to do the most cursory of investigations in order to find out.

Why did you not do that? Why, instead, are you trying to weasel out of it via your handwaving (and entirely unsubstantiated) doubt over Bollyn's true witterings and their true context?


(The irony, of course, is that others in this thread are, by way of the most cursory of investigations, riding a coach and horses through your own ludicrous claims and your own presentation of laughably unreliable "sources"....)

Perhaps try removing all of your trite platitudes and well-worn clichés and see whether there are any nuggets of wisdom in there at all?

Not one soupçon as far as I can discern.

 

[Steve]

Perhaps try removing all of your trite platitudes and well-worn clichés and see whether there are any nuggets of wisdom in there at all?

Not one soupçon as far as I can discern.

Well you certainly are the recognized authority of such things, in this thread at least.

 

[JayUtah]

So much more fun and less work to write off any debating point that hasn't been endorsed by Rupert Murdoch first, eh?

Straw man. No one is doing this.

Just so you can feel a momentary wave of faux superiority by calling true thinkers 'crackpots'. Haha, done.

Bjorkman is a crackpot. Bollyn is a crackpot. They're not "true thinkers." That you really, really need to cite them as sources does not impress us. But it does tell us something about you.

 

[Vixen]

Hey, Vixen, What caused the Estonia to sink? I am not interested in what any of your dubious sources have to say. I would like your own conclusion. You have spent the past 6 months apparently examining this topic in exhaustive detail. Surely by now you have determined exactly what happened. What, exactly, caused the damage that resulted in the sinking?

I have been musing on the issue of Estonia ever since the morning I heard it had sunk like a stone with 900 people drowned. Just like that.

It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. The only explanation - given the obvious immediate cover up - is that the cause of the accident is 'classified' and that is why the public has been given an anodyne story about how it was The Herald of Free Enterprise Mark Two, when a cursory examination of the facts shows that the Estonia has nothing in common with The Herald of Free Enterprise and it already had all the safety features it did not have.

 

[Vixen]

Straw man. No one is doing this.



Bjorkman is a crackpot. Bollyn is a crackpot. They're not "true thinkers." That you really, really need to cite them as sources does not impress us. But it does tell us something about you.

Calling someone a crackpot does not make it so. That is the debating level of five-year-olds in the playground.

'My Daddy's bigger than your Daddy'.

'You smell of p- WAAAAAHHH Teacher! He hiiiiiiiit meeeeeee - '

We-eell.

 

[JayUtah]

Calling someone a crackpot does not make it so.

True. Which is why you've been provided with examples of their crackpottery, which you assiduously declare to be irrelevant. Turning a blind eye to the evidence of their indefensible thinking does not allow you to say everyone else has wrongly accused them.

 

[JayUtah]

It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now.

And what we've discovered over the past few hundred pages is first that it doesn't make sense to you because you lack the foundational knowledge in several areas to understand what happened and what others have said about it. And you're simply too stubborn to learn. Second, you really, really want this to be a conspiracy. You display no desire for it to make sense, except according to a wholly fanciful alternative set of facts and narratives.

 

[Axxman300]

Mindless acceptance of a thing is passable in the tabloids but is it apposite in a debate? Is that really the height of your perspicacity?

"I know it's true. It says so here.'

You're the one citing questionable sources and mis-quoting documents, and cherry-picking information.

If they take samples from the wreck they'll find the visor failed because the bolts and locking mechanism was under extremes stress from sailing in rough seas the ship was never designed to endure.

 

[Vixen]

True. Which is why you've been provided with examples of their crackpottery, which you assiduously declare to be irrelevant. Turning a blind eye to the evidence of their indefensible thinking does not allow you to say everyone else has wrongly accused them.

I don't buy it. Whilst I may disagree with a person's views, such as Bjorkman and Bollyn on politics and other issues, if they have expertise on the political background of 9/11, as Bollyn claims to have, and naval architecture, as Bjorkman does, then it is very easy to see which parts of their theories are based on the laws of physics or area studies (and let's face, it the Middle East conflict is not just a matter of 'goodies versus baddies' [and Arabs are 'Semitic' too, so much for vocabulary skills]) and which are mere opinion and conjecture.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Mindless acceptance of a thing is passable in the tabloids but is it apposite in a debate? Is that really the height of your perspicacity?

"I know it's true. It says so here.'

It doesn’t just ‘say so here’ It has support for what it says.

 

[Vixen]

And what we've discovered over the past few hundred pages is first that it doesn't make sense to you because you lack the foundational knowledge in several areas to understand what happened and what others have said about it. And you're simply too stubborn to learn. Second, you really, really want this to be a conspiracy. You display no desire for it to make sense, except according to a wholly fanciful alternative set of facts and narratives.

You seem to have the belief that give something a comfortable name and the thing goes away. For example, let's call what is known colloquially as the 'disappeared' and rename them 'deported', 'repatriated' or 'extradited', or in the case of the missing Estonian crew members, 'They are dead <shrug> who cares?' then that is that. End of.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Denial does not make the fact go away.

You are right, the fact is they were returned to Egypt, they didn’t disappear.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't buy it. Whilst I may disagree with a person's views, such as Bjorkman and Bollyn on politics and other issues...

Asked and answered. Your sources are not being rejected for their "politics and other issues," but because they are shown to be unreliable exactly in the areas you need them to be experts in.

...and naval architecture, as Bjorkman does, then it is very easy to see which parts of their theories are based on the laws of physics...

And we have shown you at length where his theories are not based on the laws of physics. You simply declare yourself to be uninterested in them. This includes attempting to show you were Bjorkman is wrong on the topic of ships. But in your mind you simply believe his claim to be a skilled naval architect. And even though you're not qualified or competent to evaluate his claims on your own, you declare him to be the authority that the rest of us must respect.

You cite external authorities -- as do we all -- because you accept that they are presenting expertise and knowledge you yourself do not possess. Trying to say you'll be able to tell when they're fibbing denies the very reason you want to use them. And in your case, we can plainly see you're not competent to evaluate your authorities.