• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
The Ministry of Transport will show you a valid, genuine certificate declaring my car roadworthy.

I agree with the MOT. It's a valid certificate.

They haven't seen the state of corrosion on the sills since its inspection last year though.
Click to expand...

An official accident investigation committee has no mandatory compulsion to state that soemthign was seaowrhty or road worthy just because the owner/s are in possession of a sea/roadworthy certificate.

the whole point of an investigation is to ascertain the actual state of the vessel/vehicle as of the time of the accident. There is no compulsion that states they are not allowed to, as you and Captain Swoop keep claiming.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please of where I said everything I said was sourced.
Click to expand...

You have assured us a number of times that all your posts are carefully researched and documented from primary source.

Are you now changing your claim?
 
Vixen said:
You are approaching it from the wrong angle. History shows us that where there is a major accident involving members of the public, there is invariably charges brought to answer for. For example some of my work colleagues were involved in the Leeds train accident, where some carriages overturned. Thankfully, they were fine, if somewhat shaken up, but as I recall the train company had a prosecution slapped on it. The prosecutors in the case of the Estonia accident seem strangely apathetic.
Click to expand...

JAIC were not the prosecutors.

Who should have brought a prosecution?

Who had jurisdiction over the ship?
 
Vixen said:
Read Braidwood's and Fellows' report and you will see they have no doubt what the laboratory results show. What they cannot do is apportion blame. That is not within their remit.
Click to expand...

But they don't say there were explosives.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They never inspected the ship before it sailed, all they can do is report on it's certification.
If you read the report here are entire chapters detailing the defects with the ship and why neither it or any other of the ferries at the time complied with SOLAS requirements.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. They have the legal powers to enforce inspection post-accident to assess whether the vessel was seaworthy. There is no edict that says they must accept à prior seaworthiness.
 
Vixen said:
No it doesn't. It states very plainly that the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure.

It doesn't qualify it as you claim.
Click to expand...

JAIC were reporting on the state of the ships certification atthe time it sailed.
They obviously could not have inspected the ship before it sailed so can only go on the documentation.
If you read the report they go in to great detail as to why the ship was not correctly certified and list the problems and defects that came to light.
Their investigation reveals that even though it appeared to be certified ads seaworthy it wasn't.
That's what an investigation and report is for.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
JAIC were reporting on the state of the ships certification atthe time it sailed.
They obviously could not have inspected the ship before it sailed so can only go on the documentation.
If you read the report they go in to great detail as to why the ship was not correctly certified and list the problems and defects that came to light.
Their investigation reveals that even though it appeared to be certified ads seaworthy it wasn't.
That's what an investigation and report is for.
Click to expand...

The JAIC report states:

5.2 Status of the vessel on departure

On departure from Tallinn on 27 September the ESTONIA was seaworthy and properly manned. There were no outstanding items either from the authorities or from the classification society's surveys. The maintenance standard of the vessel was good as witnessed by various instances.
Click to expand...

There are many experts who would disagree with that.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please of where I stated I was not allowed to write from experience or knowledge?
Click to expand...

I have no objection to posts from experience and knowledge but you should tell us which is which and check what you claim before you post it.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC report states:



There are many experts who would disagree with that.
Click to expand...

Including the report itself.
It goes on to list the defects and none compliance that their investigation uncovered.
You should read it sometime
 
Vixen said:
Citation please of where I said everything I said was sourced.
Click to expand...


OK.

Post #212, from Part II of this thread:

Vixen said:
At least my posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced, even if people don't like them. (cf. James Meek.)
Click to expand...


Oh, by the way, what do you think OP means?


ETA: Curses! Ninja'd by erwinl.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It should be obvious that that referred to factual issues. So, were I to say today is Wednesday it is wholly disproportinate and unreasonable to claim I failed to cite a source for it. OTOH were I to say this witness said this that or other re the Estonia accident, then of course, I'll provide the reference.

Clear now?
Click to expand...


Nice flail.

You made this demand:

Vixen said:
Citation please of where I said everything I said was sourced.
Click to expand...


You were given two. Now, in the spirit of fair play, how about you answer a question:

What do you think OP means, Vixen?
 
Vixen said:
It should be obvious that that referred to factual issues. So, were I to say today is Wednesday it is wholly disproportinate and unreasonable to claim I failed to cite a source for it. OTOH were I to say this witness said this that or other re the Estonia accident, then of course, I'll provide the reference.

Clear now?
Click to expand...

Well.
You also said 'I never make anything up. All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.', did you not?
 
Vixen said:
Point me to where it mentions the leaking car ramp door and the worn car ramp. Point me to where it mentions the faulty Atlantic lock.
Click to expand...

Three quotes just from Chapter 15

The interior of the visor shows several dirty ”waterlines” indicating that water had been standing inside the visor for some time. Some oil, presumably hydraulic oil leaking from the hydraulics of the bottom lock, had floated on top and had settled on the vertical surfaces giving the ”waterlines”. The sealing on the forepeak deck had clearly not always been in a condition to keep the lower part of the visor watertight
Click to expand...

Some indications of old cracks have been found in welds, primarily in those between the stem post and the side plating and between the side plating and the bottom plating
Click to expand...

The visor of the ESTONIA was not fully watertight, and probably some water penetrated into it in the rough head and bow sea the vessel encountered.
Click to expand...

I can show more if you want
 
Vixen, will you be commenting further on the below? Or will you be hiding from your own words?

Is this yet another instance where your good memory has totally failed you and you cannot even remember what you have posted in your own thread?

Vixen said:
Citation please of where I said everything I said was sourced.
Click to expand...

erwinl said:
Le Voilá!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13602517#post13602517
Click to expand...

junkshop said:
OK.

Post #212, from Part II of this thread:




Oh, by the way, what do you think OP means?


ETA: Curses! Ninja'd by erwinl.
Click to expand...

junkshop said:
Ooh, I found another one!

Post #2781 from Part I of this thread:





Anyway, what do you think OP means, Vixen?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom