• 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 VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I haven't insinuated that you were calling them liars. What I said was that you appear to prefer to handwave away a thing dismissively rather than look into it.
Click to expand...


Except that isn't what I'm doing.


Vixen said:
For example, you scoffed at the witnesses inside one of the WTC on 9/11 having heard what they perceived as explosions. <fx hand wave>
Click to expand...
Because they didn't. Not bombs certainly.

You know that they studied 9/11 right? That there were no explosions aside from the planes going up when they crashed? That there were no bombs used on the day, and the people who thought they said they heard them were mistaken?
 
Vixen said:
For example, you scoffed at the witnesses inside one of the WTC on 9/11 having heard what they perceived as explosions. <fx hand wave>
Click to expand...


Of course, Mark didn't scoff at witnesses inside the WTC, he used them as an example of witnesses being mistaken about the cause of the sounds they heard. This is just Vixen once again trying to deflect criticism of her argument by hiding behind the victims of terrible events.
 
Vixen said:
You can read the anthologized signed police statements here:

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/21.3.htm


By the way only, one of the survivors was English so these are translations from Swedish mainly and possibly other languages, so any translation is open to interpretation by whoever translated them.
Click to expand...

The word explosion, explosions, explosive, or explosives is only mentioned in your link in the following:

(g) The noise scenario:
Most of the survivors reported at least one very heavy bang, crash, impact combined with an abrupt stopping of the vessel as if the vessel had collided with something, which was so strong that they were thrown against the walls, etc. Before this very dramatic crash/impact noise, which apparently caused the vessel to stop abruptly and which was clearly before the sharp and wide heels to starboard, there had been other noise scenarios heard by survivors, which were different. While Carl Övberg was in his cabin in the 4th compartment he heard hydraulic and sledge-hammer type banging noises. The others further forward and aft heard howling, squeaking and, most dominantly, scraping noises which were combined with the shaking of the vessel and which sounded as if the vessel proceeded through ice.

(n) This noise scenario has been explained in detail to the diving and underwater explosives expert Brian Braidwood, who has excluded, with a high degree of certainty, that any of the noises heard by the survivors could have been caused by explosions. See also Chapter 32.


So you have not given me what I asked, an official report or transcript that explosions were heard. We have scrapes, impact noises, and sledgehammer banging.

Its your, and other CT'ers, contention that witnesses described hearing explosives, and their testimony has been ignored. This is a falsehood.

Is it your contention that Brian Braidwood is included in this huge Estonian/Swede/CIA/MI6 conspiracy circle?
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Except that isn't what I'm doing.


Because they didn't. Not bombs certainly.

You know that they studied 9/11 right? That there were no explosions aside from the planes going up when they crashed? That there were no bombs used on the day, and the people who thought they said they heard them were mistaken?
Click to expand...

Ohhh ****... I was trying to use 9/11 to convince her how crazy this CT is. I'm now coming to realization that she's a 9/11 CT'er?
 
Vixen said:
The military operation conveying that military truck that was seen being loaded onto the Estonia.
Click to expand...

So a green Honda hatchback.
But one guy who saw it was in the Boy Scouts, so it’s military information.
 
autumn1971 said:
So a green Honda hatchback.
But one guy who saw it was in the Boy Scouts, so it’s military information.
Click to expand...

You know being more serious, it could've been an actual Russian military truck... that someone bought for 500 rubles from a motor pool sergeant who hadn't even been paid in 6 months, and they hadn't gotten around to repainting... because thats the kind of thing that was happening in 1990's Russia.
 
lobosrul5 said:
You know being more serious, it could've been an actual Russian military truck... that someone bought for 500 rubles from a motor pool sergeant who hadn't even been paid in 6 months, and they hadn't gotten around to repainting... because thats the kind of thing that was happening in 1990's Russia.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of thing that's still happening in 2020's Russia.
 
Vixen said:
This is what it said in Helsingin Sanomat 25.1.1995:




I get that you have convinced yourself they were manual but you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

We know they were manual, we know what model they were
When recovered and turned on they worked as they should
 
All this talk of an explosion yet zero evidence on the Estonia. No hull breach found, even after the wreck has rolled further, exposing the side that was hidden back in the 1990s.

You're arguing a null point. The passengers thought they heard explosion(s). They were mistaken. The new investigation has spent two summers investigating the wreck itself.

It was an accident. You're done.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Except that isn't what I'm doing.


Because they didn't. Not bombs certainly.

You know that they studied 9/11 right? That there were no explosions aside from the planes going up when they crashed? That there were no bombs used on the day, and the people who thought they said they heard them were mistaken?
Click to expand...

So you are extrapolating from the POV that 'people who thought they heard bombs at 9/11 were found to e mistaken!' translates into, 'All people who hear loud bangs must therefore also be mistaken'.

Can I suggest that you treat each case on its own individual merits instead of making sweeping generalisations, itself a logical fallacy.
 
Vixen said:
So you are extrapolating from the POV that 'people who thought they heard bombs at 9/11 were found to e mistaken!' translates into, 'All people who hear loud bangs must therefore also be mistaken'.

Can I suggest that you treat each case on its own individual merits instead of making sweeping generalisations, itself a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

No, that's not even remotely what I'm doing. There's no way you don't get this.

They found no evidence of explosives on the Estonia. None. Zero. Nada.

There was no evidence for explosives. Therefore the people who thought they heard explosives (if there even were any, given the post above showing that even your link doesn't claim what you said it does) were mistaken.

You do understand that the Estonia has been investigated right? Twice now? They found no evidence for explosives, evidence for explosives would have been seen with the tests they did, ergo there were no explosives. No explosives means that anyone on the Estonia who claimed they heard explosions were mistaken.

It's not difficult Vixen. At this point I've got to assume that you're not misunderstanding this but are deliberately pretending not to get it.
 
lobosrul5 said:
The word explosion, explosions, explosive, or explosives is only mentioned in your link in the following:

(g) The noise scenario:
Most of the survivors reported at least one very heavy bang, crash, impact combined with an abrupt stopping of the vessel as if the vessel had collided with something, which was so strong that they were thrown against the walls, etc. Before this very dramatic crash/impact noise, which apparently caused the vessel to stop abruptly and which was clearly before the sharp and wide heels to starboard, there had been other noise scenarios heard by survivors, which were different. While Carl Övberg was in his cabin in the 4th compartment he heard hydraulic and sledge-hammer type banging noises. The others further forward and aft heard howling, squeaking and, most dominantly, scraping noises which were combined with the shaking of the vessel and which sounded as if the vessel proceeded through ice.

(n) This noise scenario has been explained in detail to the diving and underwater explosives expert Brian Braidwood, who has excluded, with a high degree of certainty, that any of the noises heard by the survivors could have been caused by explosions. See also Chapter 32.


So you have not given me what I asked, an official report or transcript that explosions were heard. We have scrapes, impact noises, and sledgehammer banging.

Its your, and other CT'ers, contention that witnesses described hearing explosives, and their testimony has been ignored. This is a falsehood.

Is it your contention that Brian Braidwood is included in this huge Estonian/Swede/CIA/MI6 conspiracy circle?
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the exact post of mine you are referring to as you appear to be claiming that Mojo's post about explosions were my words. Please don't put other people's words into my mouth.
 
Vixen said:
Can you point me to the exact post of mine you are referring to as you appear to be claiming that Mojo's post about explosions were my words. Please don't put other people's words into my mouth.
Click to expand...

The lack of self awareness is staggering.

He quotes your post in the one you're responding to! With the link YOU provided!

You're yanking our chains now right? You can't possibly be serious.
 
zooterkin said:
That would be neat summary of your contribution to this thread, indeed.
Click to expand...

I have asked you before to quote me properly and in full context and to desist from cutting my posts into chunks that change their meaning.

I take it that when you claim everything I write is a lot of nonsense, this constitutes a personal attack? But it is OK if you do it and the object is myself.
 
Andy_Ross said:
We know they were manual, we know what model they were
When recovered and turned on they worked as they should
Click to expand...

I am not going to continue arguing about something that is factual and easily looked up. For those who still have doubts, please note the following information.



You can see the instruments Rockwater divers retrieved at circa 1:32:00 onwards. The diver places what looks like the hydrostatic release mechanism* into the netting to bring up.

At 1:43:00 the divers then move into the bridge to attempt to retrieve a logbook and 'GPS Navigation', at 1:51:00 (so it did exist in 1994).


Rockwater Survey Report

"Also under the direction of the authorities, divers accessed the Bridge of the vessel and retrieved a number of navigational aids, a man-overboard beacon and the hydrostatic release mechanism for one of the vessel’s EPIRB beacons. The bodies of 3 of the victims of the disaster were found on the Bridge.
--

13. EPIRB beacon.
One casing for an EPIRB beacon was found on top of the bridge, the other position was inaccessible for the diver. The casing was open and empty. The casing was recovered for further investigation."



https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/enclosures HTM/enc5/37.2.457.htm

There was a requirement for at least one automatically-activated EPIRB.

In the SOLAS resolution dated Nov 1991 it does use the singular:

"not
later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite
EPIRB on every ship as part of the global maritime distress and safety system".**

*Only the automatic EPIRBs have an hydrostatic release mechanism.

**Note the changes to SOLAS as a result of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster are dated 1991 with the new regulations coming into force by 1 Aug 1993.

That settles it.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
All this talk of an explosion yet zero evidence on the Estonia. No hull breach found, even after the wreck has rolled further, exposing the side that was hidden back in the 1990s.

You're arguing a null point. The passengers thought they heard explosion(s). They were mistaken. The new investigation has spent two summers investigating the wreck itself.

It was an accident. You're done.
Click to expand...

The investigation is still being carried out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom