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

[JayUtah]

You seem to have the belief that give something a comfortable name and the thing goes away.

Straw man.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stop avoiding the issue. The DC-3 crew members' families could have been told their own were missing, presumed dead. A relative of mine is still missing from the Continuation War. The family has been told he was kidnapped and has never been seen again. People are now searching Karelia for missing soldiers. All dead soldiers were brought home and properly buried ASAP.

Stop pretending it is OK to not tell families the fate of their loved ones and to not bother bringing them home to rest.

They were told they were missing, presumed dead.

 

[Vixen]

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

No, it doesn't. It never explained how water got into the superstructure beyond a hypothesis that it floated on its side for twenty minutes whilst the windows on deck 4 broke. It never bothered to show equations. It had to concede that free surface water in the car deck would not have caused the vessel to capsize.

It had to make an assumption that X tonnes of water flooded in via the broken windows.

It never established that it was a 'strong wave' and not sabotage that caused the visor to break off.

 

[JayUtah]

No, it doesn't.

All of these concerns have been previously raised and addressed.

 

[Steve]

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.

The highlight is incorrect and merely emphasizes your biased hyperbole.

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

There seems to be a very small minority of people who think the sinking does not make sense

The only explanation -

Because you have steadfastly refused to consider other explanations.

given the obvious immediate cover up - is that the cause of the accident is 'classified'

No cover up is evidenced, or obvious, or immediate.

and that is why the public has been given an anodyne story about how it was The Herald of Free Enterprise Mark

The public has been given no such story.

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.

So you reject the JAIC report but have nothing to offer in its place but incredulity. You refuse to listen to recognized experts in any aspects of the sinking and instead substitute your own amateur speculation. Seems that you have nothing to show but 6 months of wasted effort with not one knowledgeable rational person convinced that any of your ramblings contain a modicum of truth. In short, after all this time you have no better idea of what caused the Estonia to sink than you did when you started. A pointless waste of time.

My only remaining (mostly rhetorical) question is, given the the cover up has been so effective and iron clad for so many years, why would you expect a new investigation to return different results?

 

[Vixen]

They were told they were missing, presumed dead.

That is not what the Wallenberg blog says.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

So why did it sink?

You have avoided answering the question.

 

[Steve]

So why did it sink?

You have avoided answering the question.

The post you quoted is just Vixen's convoluted way of saying she has no idea. Even though the answer is obvious to almost everyone.

 

[Vixen]

The highlight is incorrect and merely emphasizes your biased hyperbole.



There seems to be a very small minority of people who think the sinking does not make sense



Because you have steadfastly refused to consider other explanations.




No cover up is evidenced, or obvious, or immediate.



The public has been given no such story.



So you reject the JAIC report but have nothing to offer in its place but incredulity. You refuse to listen to recognized experts in any aspects of the sinking and instead substitute your own amateur speculation. Seems that you have nothing to show but 6 months of wasted effort with not one knowledgeable rational person convinced that any of your ramblings contain a modicum of truth. In short, after all this time you have no better idea of what caused the Estonia to sink than you did when you started. A pointless waste of time.

My only remaining (mostly rhetorical) question is, given the the cover up has been so effective and iron clad for so many years, why would you expect a new investigation to return different results?

I was reporting a news item in current affairs. The fact the knee jerk reaction was extreme fear that - horrors it might be a conspiracy theory - that the Estonia sinking is not a straightforward as the JAIC would like to have you believe from Day One, tells me that people are actually fearful of independent thought. Do you really think the Thought Police will be knocking on your door if you say, hey, wait a minute...?

Maybe it is the social fear of all the tabloid readers snorting down their noses at you because you do not believe what you are told.

If the new investigation turns up anything that hints of anything other than the official line, of course it will be 'classified' (all in the public and national interest, you understand) and you will find out about it in 70 years time.

You know I think John Lennon was right when he wrote, 'You think you're so clever and classless and free'.

You think you have free speech, chattering away and all that, but you know what? You actually don't and you choose not to. That is the sad part.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, it doesn't. It never explained how water got into the superstructure beyond a hypothesis that it floated on its side for twenty minutes whilst the windows on deck 4 broke. It never bothered to show equations. It had to concede that free surface water in the car deck would not have caused the vessel to capsize.

It had to make an assumption that X tonnes of water flooded in via the broken windows.

It never established that it was a 'strong wave' and not sabotage that caused the visor to break off.

Did you read the report and the supporting documents?

Again with the ‘floating on it’s side’ and broken windows.
Water got in to the superstructure because a ship’s superstructure is not watertight.
Free surface water on the car deck pushed the ship past it’s recovery point. Water flooding in to the machinery spaces contributed to this. Together they capsized it.

Please read the report and the supplemental works.

 

[JayUtah]

I was reporting a news item in current affairs.

Asked and answered. You used the excuse of a new investigation to resurrect all the decades-old conspiracy theories regarding the sinking of MS Estonia. You are promoting any or all of several conspiracy theories. That's why you're being treated like a conspiracy theorist.

The rest of your rant in this post doesn't merit attention.

 

[Vixen]

So why did it sink?

You have avoided answering the question.

It was a political issue. Hence the need to classify it as being a national security protection.

Same reason the DC-3 thing was classified all those years.

Note the person who likely ordered the Russian FSU esponiage stuff was the military chief Uwe Wictorin...the same guy who gave Svensson the highest medal of the land.

It is in plain sight.

But I guess you are waiting for the newspapers to confirm it before you dare believe it.

 

[Vixen]

Did you read the report and the supporting documents?

Again with the ‘floating on it’s side’ and broken windows.
Water got in to the superstructure because a ship’s superstructure is not watertight.
Free surface water on the car deck pushed the ship past it’s recovery point. Water flooding in to the machinery spaces contributed to this. Together they capsized it.

Please read the report and the supplemental works.

“The death of dogma is the birth of morality.”

~ Immanuel Kant

 

[JayUtah]

It was a political issue.

You were asked to tell us what you thought caused the damage that sank MS Estonia. You literally can't do it. When asked, all you can do is to retreat behind a lot of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-political handwaving.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It was a political issue. Hence the need to classify it as being a national security protection.

Same reason the DC-3 thing was classified all those years.

Note the person who likely ordered the Russian FSU esponiage stuff was the military chief Uwe Wictorin...the same guy who gave Svensson the highest medal of the land.

It is in plain sight.

But I guess you are waiting for the newspapers to confirm it before you dare believe it.

You avoided the question again
So how did it sink?
What caused it?

 

[SpitfireIX]

No. SpitfireX claimed the extract was by Bollyn. I have no idea whether or not it was in context or a genuine extract.

I provided a link to where the material appears on Bollyn's own web site. The fact that you chose not to follow the link seems to indicate that either 1) you aren't interested in the truth about Bollyn's views, 2) you don't want to know the truth about Bollyn's views, or 3) you already know or suspect the truth about Bollyn's views, but are hoping to maintain a fig leaf of deniability by pleading ignorance.

Look. You do not need to go to Bollyn or Bjorkman to know it is highly unlikely the WT7 building will free-fall collapse of its own accord, without being struck by anything. If you believe it was 'caused by a fire from nearby burning debris' . . .

If it's so transparently obvious even to a layman that the building shouldn't have collapsed, then kindly explain why structural engineers in Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba haven't blown the whistle. What a great opportunity to damage American prestige and credibility that would be.

or that Estonia suddenly sank 'because of a wave', that is your prerogative.

As noted, we've been over this many times already.

The thinkers amongst us can see what is plain to see.

That's absolutely true, but "what is plain to see" is not what you think it is.

I have not read Bollyn's theory about 9/11 but he is hardly the first to write about it. He is supposedly a PhD in Middle East History from a decent institution (California). If that is based on his intricate expert historical knowledge of the region, branding him an anti-Semite just sounds like name-calling. People can disagree with other people without descending into a race to the bottom of playground jibes. It is a controversial area. Some would say it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether the US invasion of Afghanistan was justified and whether 9/11 was a false flag by Bush to do so. Calling someone names to close down debate is exactly what seems to happen in this thread a lot.

The excerpt I posted has little directly to do with Bollyn's theories about who staged the September 11 attacks. It's mainly general anti-Semitic bilge, and you initially professed mortification at the views expressed. But now you're pretending that he was simply accusing Israel of being behind the September 11 attacks.

Here again is my post, including the link to his website. Kindly follow the link this time, or else stipulate that the quote is genuine and not taken out of context.

Excerpt from his book on the September 11 attacks:

This chapter examines an extensive Zionist criminal network, which the evidence indicates is behind the false-flag terrorism of 9/11. The information in this chapter strongly supports the thesis that senior officers from Israeli military intelligence agencies were the chief architects of 9/11. . . .

Aware of the increasing prevalence and dominance of Zionist Jews in the political, financial, and academic sectors, I came to the conclusion that I was living in Jewish times. As an American raised with traditional Christian values, I realized that the culture I had grown up in was under attack and being reduced to a sub-culture. Through the Jewish-controlled media, a distinctly foreign and anti-Christian culture of pornography, perversion, and violence was being pushed. The producers of this "new culture" were primarily Jews of Eastern European origin. Through their control of the mass media, film, radio, and television networks, a diet of perverse entertainment and un-American values was being force-fed to the unsuspecting American population.

Concurrent with the rise of the Jewish-Zionist faction in the U.S. media there was a significant increase in Zionist power in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. This influence could be seen in the way the U.S. government and federal courts unfairly prosecuted innocent people, including the president of Austria, on unfounded allegations of crimes having been committed decades ago against Jews in distant countries. Meanwhile, there was a noticeable increase in the number and magnitude of crimes committed by Jews in the United States and the international arena that went completely unpunished.

As in the Soviet Union, Jewish criminals in America used the "holocaust" and the slanderous charge of anti-Semitism as a shield to protect their criminal network and extortion rackets by intimidating and silencing those who would dare to expose the monstrous crimes they were involved in. A secret "combination" or Zionist network was clearly at work pulling the strings at the highest level behind the scenes.​

Additionally, I earlier posted an excerpt from an ADL article describing Bollyn's antisemitism, but you either didn't notice or simply ignored the source.

If Bollyn's partner is a direct victim of Estonia in that her husband died in that disaster, then why would Bollyn not want to write a blog about it.

No one said there was anything wrong per se with blogging about the Estonia.

What, in addition, does it have to do with his 9/11 views, which may or may not be anti-Semitic, as you claim.

As with Björkman, it goes to (extreme lack of) credibility.

Have you actually read his book?

I read enough of it to know he's a rabid anti-Semite; see above.

Or is it a knee jerk reaction to anyone who can spot a lie when they see one?

Back to the old "you don't need to be an expert" canard, I see.

 

[Andy_Ross]

“The death of dogma is the birth of morality.”

~ Immanuel Kant

Avoiding the question again.

Have you read the report and it’s supplemental documents?

 

[LondonJohn]

Stop avoiding the issue. The DC-3 crew members' families could have been told their own were missing, presumed dead. A relative of mine is still missing from the Continuation War. The family has been told he was kidnapped and has never been seen again. People are now searching Karelia for missing soldiers. All dead soldiers were brought home and properly buried ASAP.

Stop pretending it is OK to not tell families the fate of their loved ones and to not bother bringing them home to rest.

WHAT????????

Nobody's "pretending it is OK".

The point here is that you still (astonishingly, even for you) don't know what is meant by the State "disappearing" people.

Because Sweden did not "disappear" those servicemen. Just as Sweden did not "disappear" those two Egyptians.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Oh FYI, I'm very confident that I know what happened, and why. That's because I understand the relevant science sufficiently; and because I am prepared to countenance & assimilate the views of people who a) are more educated and experienced that I am in certain important aspects of the matter, and b) have the authority and credibility to give probative weight to their opinions.

Unlike you.

 

[LondonJohn]

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).

Aaaaand... here comes the "you sheeple believe everything the gutter press tells you" bit of strawman bollocks again.


And BTW Vixen: I label certain beliefs (not people, please note) crackpot... if they're crackpot. Anyone with sufficient knowledge and critical thinking skills is well able to make that assessment purely on the (lack of) merits of the belief itself. But if it turns out that the belief has been born and incubated by someone who's provably disappeared deep down the CT rabbit hole.... well that's just a bit of a Brucie Bonus "icing on the cake" situation.