• 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.
JesseCuster said:
Vixen, have you found any references for

1. Your claim about what is in Andersson's contract?

2. Your claim that the Atlantic lock was only added as an accessory to give the illusion of safety?

3. Your claim that Erich Moik was fired by Estline because he said he saw Piht on TV?

If the answer is no, then just say no.
Click to expand...

I gave you the citation of an Estline manager.

As for Moik, it transpires that several of the Estline crew (for example, Linde) all had to reapply for their own jobs after the accident, so I suspect that is what happened to him, too.

I will provide the sources when I find them.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What is your evidence for this?

Is it just the ones you disagree with that are rewritten?
Click to expand...

As I recall when confronted by survivors saying their statements were not included, the JAIC admitted it was just the psychologist summarising what he thought was the general pattern. What the JAIC included was hardly going to differ from its own conclusion without it having to draw attention to it.
 
Here_to_learn said:
He must be a fast learner since he left the post as PM shortly after the accident.

I'm not sure if I dare ask what East European generals were involved with Estonia?
Click to expand...

See Alexander Einseln. A US citizen installed in Estonia:


Aleksander Einseln (25 October 1931 – 16 March 2017) was an Estonian general, the Commander of the Estonian Defence Forces from 1993 to 1995 and previously a United States Army colonel.
Click to expand...
wiki


The order to smuggle FSU state secrets came from a power higher than any government as who else had the authority to order the Swedish customs to wave through smuggled cargo unexamined?
 
Vixen said:
Because:

  • a. the car deck is two metres above water level
  • b. the car deck is five mtres high, or fifteen feet.
  • c. Only waves of >17feet realistically would ingress.
  • d. the list to the back and the side means the bow was higher in the air.
Click to expand...

You continue to be really bad at this.

Clearly the sea wasn't cooperating with the true waterline that night since the car deck spend as much time below sea-level as above it. Especially at those speeds.
 
Vixen said:
He was initially listed as a survivor. No explanation has been given as to why his name was removed or why an International Warrant for his arrest was issued 7th Oct 1994.

Why did Stenmark confirm to Reuters that Piht had survived but Andresson had not? Or that Piht was waiting to be interviewed in Turku?


Where is the retraction?
Click to expand...

There was a retraction. It was a mistake. It was never confirmed. It was always nothing more than misreporting which moved up the line without confirmation.

You choose to believe a lie.
 
Vixen said:
Just because you are 'not able to' doesn't mean others aren't.

Where there is a will there is a way. If you are interested in something enough, you find out about it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't answer my question.

Do you consider yourself well versed enough to be able to accurately asses the science, yes or no?
 
Vixen said:
If Treu could get up to the funnel deck in two minutes from Deck 0 (so he claims) then how come there was virtually ZERO time to arrange an orderly evacuation of the passengers? The Oceanos managed to evacuate all right, as did the Costa Concorda and the more recent Greek ferry, yesterday, albeit sadly not all.

You seem to think it all perfectly normal for 900 to drown just like that.
Click to expand...

And you continue to blow off what was, in fact, a savage storm which is the only reason the Estonia sank.

It's the same as the old joke about a dead man found pulverized in a field, and the cause of death being in his backpack...his unopened parachute.

I live next to the ocean. It dictates everything that happens weather-wise and climate-wise up to 25 miles inland. Not matter how large the ship, nobody wants to sail in rough seas.

You live in a world of spies and conspiracies and evil generals and invisible submarines. Things that are only possible if the storm was not as bad as it was that night.
 
Here_to_learn said:
He must be a fast learner since he left the post as PM shortly after the accident.

I'm not sure if I dare ask what East European generals were involved with Estonia?
Click to expand...

I've noticed that, in her eagerness to make Carl Bildt the villain of the piece, she routinely forgets that he left office a mere ten days after the disaster occurred. She hardly mentions his successor at all, in spite of the fact that any real cover-up would have to have happened under *his* watch and not Bildt's.
 
Vixen said:
Note whilst at least 39 of the passenger survivors mention hearing 'bangs', the JAIC has rewritten it as 'metallic thuds' to avoid the idea of an explosion or explosions and instead to claim what the witness hears was the bow visor pounding on the forepeak deck.
Click to expand...
Where's your source, citation and proper reference for where the JAIC replaced the words 'bangs' with 'metallic thuds'.

Specifics please.
 
Vixen said:
I gave you the citation of an Estline manager.

As for Moik, it transpires that several of the Estline crew (for example, Linde) all had to reapply for their own jobs after the accident, so I suspect that is what happened to him, too.
Click to expand...
You suspect that Moik had to reapply for his own job after the Estonia sinking? :confused:

You said, in no uncertain terms, that he was sacked for saying that he saw Piht on TV. Nothing in your original claim was about being made to reapply for a job or that it was merely a suspicion of yours.

Instead of dumbing down your original claim as to be vaguer and a lesser claim that you originally claimed, why not just provide the evidence asked for?

Because you don't have any evidence.
 
Vixen said:
Because:

  • a. the car deck is two metres above water level
  • b. the car deck is five mtres high, or fifteen feet.
  • c. Only waves of >17feet realistically would ingress.
  • d. the list to the back and the side means the bow was higher in the air.
Click to expand...

When the waves are higher than the bow of the ship and the ship is pitching in to them what difference does the car deck being 2 meters above the waterline make?



 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You should know that a funnel is at the ship's centre. There is no wall nearby which is now a floor, unless you want to dive in a few fathoms below sea level to get to the side of the ship, which by the way, is now 'floating on its superstructure'.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The funnel is a large trunking that reaches through the ship from the engine room to the top of the ship. Inside are exhausts, air intakes, heat exchangers for air conditioning. It also contains a stairway that acts as an emergency escape route from the engine room.

If the ship lists the walls and bulkheads become the floor, it's not a difficult concept. The ladders will still be usable.
 
zooterkin said:
Why didn't you link to something which actually supported your claim?
Click to expand...

Because that report covers some vessels and mentions reinforced windows? That's sufficient for Vixen to carry on the bluster - it gives an impression of answering.
 
Vixen said:
I gave you the citation of an Estline manager.
Click to expand...
I can't find it, can you post it again?

Did the 'citation of an Estline manager' contain evidence that Erich Moik was fired for saying that he saw Piht on TV? Because that's the evidence I'm asking for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom