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

[GlennB]

But why would the Russians put their own vehicles on a ferry that they were planning to sink (with “military precision”, indeed)?

Well, d'uh. So that they could push the radioactive waste out of the front in a storm. Or was it to use the radioactive waste to burn a way through the bow apparatus in order to sink the ship? I'm hugely confused.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, have you found your references and citations for the following claims, you said you'd find sources for them.

1. Erich Moik was fired by Estline for saying that Piht was seen on TV.

2. Captain Andresson was under contract to ensure punctuality.

3. The Atlantic lock was only added to the bow visor to give an illusion of safety.

You know perfectly well I modified statement no.1. Why are have you ignored it?

I gave you the link to Andresson being under contract for punctuality.

When I find the Atlantic Lock article you will be the first to know.

 

[Vixen]

But why would the Russians put their own vehicles on a ferry that they were planning to sink (with “military precision”, indeed)?

How do I know? That this is the wheel of a Russian truck is one guy's opinion. However, you don't have to be Russian to drive one, especially if it is stolen.

 

[JayUtah]

I gave you the link to Andresson being under contract for punctuality.

No, you admitted that you had no idea what his contract actually said because you lately believe that it's private and not disclosed.

When I find the Atlantic Lock article you will be the first to know.

What have you done to look for it since you were last asked for it?

 

[junkshop]

Well, d'uh. So that they could push the radioactive waste out of the front in a storm. Or was it to use the radioactive waste to burn a way through the bow apparatus in order to sink the ship? I'm hugely confused.

Your confusion is caused by your pathetic kowtowing to the 'official' investigation (or cover story) from the PTB.
As any fule no, the wheeled Russian minisub^*, after heroically launching itself through the hull of the infamous smugglers' ship MS Estonia (hence the breach in the starboard side, which is totally way bigger than it looks, honest) was trapped by teh ebil Swedish/Finnish/CIA/Blairite/Clintonista/whatever conspirators, and it's noble crew were drowned like rats (this is, obviously, why the wreck was declared a gravesite - so that truthyseekers wouldn't be able to find the truthy things that they were seeking).

It's not rocket surgery, people. Quo Vadis, and <fx Brummie accent> Veni, Vedi, Vici!

This is proven by my linking an entiirely irrelevant PDF here.

<fx adopts listening pose, with swivelling eyes, in the style of a loon>





_{^*crewed, as is (IMV) SOP, solely by families along with their innocent offspring. Will nobody think of the children?}

 

[Vixen]

No, you admitted that you had no idea what his contract actually said because you lately believe that it's private and not disclosed.



What have you done to look for it since you were last asked for it?

I linked you to a senior person at the shipping line who confirmed it.

Einar Kukk in his testimony says when he was on the bridge, he heard Andresson say they were thirty minutes late. That's a clue, is it not?





English subtitles.

 

[JayUtah]

Einar Kukk in his testimony says when he was on the bridge, he heard Andresson say they were thirty minutes late. That's a clue, is it not?

A clue to what? You claim he was contractually obligated to be on time. Noting that they're late doesn't establish that, does it? You either know what his contract says or you don't. Do you know what his contract says?

 

[Vixen]

A clue to what? You claim he was contractually obligated to be on time. Noting that they're late doesn't establish that, does it? You either know what his contract says or you don't. Do you know what his contract says?

It is your prerogative to believe he was not, in the face of all evidence Andresson had clear performance targets as confirmed by the senior management.

 

[junkshop]

A clue to what? You claim he was contractually obligated to be on time. Noting that they're late doesn't establish that, does it? You either know what his contract says or you don't. Do you know what his contract says?

It is your prerogative to believe he was not, in the face of all evidence Andresson had clear performance targets as confirmed by the senior management.

That smells an awful lot like a big fat 'no' to me.

 

[Steve]

It is your prerogative to believe he was not, in the face of all evidence Andresson had clear performance targets as confirmed by the senior management.

You should look up the meaning of that word. You obviously have no idea what evidence actually is.

 

[JayUtah]

It is your prerogative to believe he was not, in the face of all evidence Andresson had clear performance targets as confirmed by the senior management.

Do you know what Andresson's contract says? Yes or no.

 

[JayUtah]

It is your prerogative to believe he was not...

Yes, it is my prerogative to disbelieve your specific claim that Andresson was contractually obligated to operate his ship according to the timetable regardless of conditions. My prerogative is informed by a lifetime spend designing, building, and operating machinery for the transportation industry -- both mundane and exotic. I know more about this than you do.

...in the face of all evidence Andresson had clear performance targets as confirmed by the senior management.

You given no evidence whatsoever. Your latest citation is simply that one witness recalled Andresson noting that they were 30-40 minutes behind their timetable. That does absolutely nothing to establish that there was any sort of contractual obligation or penalty if he did not dock his ship on time. You're reading into the situation an obligation you cannot document, and which is objectively contrary to standard transportation practice.

 

[Pooneil]

It is your prerogative to believe he was not, in the face of all evidence Andresson had clear performance targets as confirmed by the senior management.

Changing horses. "Performance targets" are not the same thing as contractual obligations.

 

[Mojo]

How do I know? That this is the wheel of a Russian truck is one guy's opinion. However, you don't have to be Russian to drive one, especially if it is stolen.

It was stolen Russian military trucks that were being smuggled?

 

[Mojo]

How do I know? That this is the wheel of a Russian truck is one guy's opinion. However, you don't have to be Russian to drive one, especially if it is stolen.

You posted the following:

This guy here claims to have identified the type of wheel that could be seen in the July 2021 expedition video. He says the wheel is of a type used by Russian military and designed to bear a weight of 60 tonnes.

Two witnesses came forward to said they saw military vehicles being loaded onto the vessel at the last minute (Hedrenius, Övberg).

You were clearly insinuating that Russian military transporters were on the ship. But then, once it’s pointed out that this doesn’t fit the rest of your conspiracy theory, it suddenly becomes “one guy’s opinion”. Do you think the guy’s opinion is reliable?

 

[erwinl]

You posted the following:





You were clearly insinuating that Russian military transporters were on the ship. But then, once it’s pointed out that this doesn’t fit the rest of your conspiracy theory, it suddenly becomes “one guy’s opinion”. Do you think the guy’s opinion is reliable?

Aside from the fact that this guy's opinion is rather unreliable (but let's go with it, for this moment), we've got yet another example of Vixen's inability to accurately report what is being said.

According to Vixen this

wheel is of a type used by Russian military and designed to bear a weight of 60 tonnes

.

No! That is not what the guy says.
Yes, he mentions the wheel. Yes he mentions a connection to the Russian military. And yes, he mentions the weight of 60 ton (to be exact he says '50 to 60 tons').
But he never says

wheel is of a type used by Russian military and designed to bear a weight of 60 tonnes

.
That is what Vixen has made of this story.

 

[Andy_Ross]

50 to 60 tons?

So an articulated lorry cab or trailer?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, here's a nice easy question, it's a yes or no!

Do you know what were the terms of Andresson's contract? Not "can you guess" or "what do you infer" but do you know?

 

[Mojo]

50 to 60 tons?

So an articulated lorry cab or trailer?

I’m sure a Russian army truck is just the thing someone would use if they wanted to inconspicuously smuggle Russian military hardware.

 

[Steve]

I’m sure a Russian army truck is just the thing someone would use if they wanted to inconspicuously smuggle Russian military hardware.

The bigger the truck the more inconspicuous it becomes.