• 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 am not going to continue arguing about something that is factual and easily looked up.
Click to expand...

We looked up the facts. They don't agree with you. A large portion of that disagreement seems to have been your misunderstanding regarding what the various parts of the system do. You continue that misunderstanding in the subsequent parts of your post. It's no more correct now than it was then.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please can you quote me where I said there was 'evidence for explosives'? Please quote in full and in context. Thanks.

Then we can both be talking about the same thing.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Free floating is not automatic activation.
We know what model they carried and they were recovered
They were manual activation and still turned off.
When they were turned on they operated correctly.

At the time the manufacturer used one retainer for their EPIRBs. It was used for all their units.

Stop spouting ****

As an aside, when my brother and I bought our boat last year, it had an EPIRB mounted inside the cabin. It was automatic but didn't have a hydrostatic release, just a float free.
We relocated the holder to the cockpit and put upgraded the holder to an enclosed hydrostatic one.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Please can you quote me where I said there was 'evidence for explosives'? Please quote in full and in context. Thanks.

Then we can both be talking about the same thing.
Click to expand...

I never said you claimed that. There you go attempting to cram words into my mouth again.

I stated that people who heard explosions were mistaken.

You claimed that I was dismissing them out of hand.

I explained no, I'm not because there is no evidence for explosives, therefore the people were mistaken.

"Where did I say there was evidence of explosives?"

It's really obvious what you're trying to do Vixen. Stop it. It's impolite and stunningly dishonest.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
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.
Click to expand...

He wanted a link to where any eyewitness mentioned hearing an explosion-type noises (using Mojo's term). Just because the person translating the Swedish language witness statements prefers to use the term 'hard bang' it does not mean the witness did not experience any such thing. Your extrapolating that they meant bomb is also your presumption as the general consensus is that the vessel crashed into something or had run aground.

bang1
/baŋ/
noun


1.
a sudden loud, sharp noise.
"the door slammed with a bang"
Similar:
sharp noise
crack
boom
clang
peal
clap
pop
snap
knock
tap
slam
bump
thud
thump
clunk
clonk
clash
crash
smash
smack
stamp
stomp
clump
clomp
report
explosion
detonation
shot
wham
whump

1.
strike or put down (something) forcefully and noisily.
"he began to bang the table with his fist"
Similar:
hit
strike
beat
thump
hammer
knock
rap
pound
thud
punch
bump
thwack
smack
crack
slap
slam
welt
cuff
pummel
buffet
bash
whack
clobber
clout
clip
wallop
belt
tan
biff
bop
sock
lam
whomp
slosh
boff
bust
slug
whale
dong
adverbINFORMAL•BRITISH
exactly.
"the train arrived bang on time"
Similar:
precisely
exactly
right
directly
immediately
squarely
just
dead
promptly
prompt
dead on
on the stroke of …
on the dot of …
sharp
on the dot
spot on
smack
slap
slap bang
plumb
on the button
on the nose
smack dab
spang
exclamation
1.
used to convey the sound of a sudden loud noise.
"party poppers went bang"
2.
used to convey the suddenness of an action or event.
"the minute something becomes obsolete, bang, it's gone"
Similar:
suddenly
abruptly
immediately
instantaneously
instantly
in an instant
straight away
all of a sudden
at once
all at once
prompt
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was asking lobusrul5. He wanted to know because Mojo suddenly started posting about explosions. I thought I was being helpful but it seems no good deed goes unpunished and received jeers instead.
 
Vixen said:
He wanted a link to where any eyewitness mentioned hearing an explosion-type noises (using Mojo's term). Just because the person translating the Swedish language witness statements prefers to use the term 'hard bang' it does not mean the witness did not experience any such thing. Your extrapolating that they meant bomb is also your presumption as the general consensus is that the vessel crashed into something or had run aground.

bang1
/baŋ/
noun
1.
a sudden loud, sharp noise.
"the door slammed with a bang"
Similar:
sharp noise
crack
boom
clang
peal
clap
pop
snap
knock
tap
slam
bump
thud
thump
clunk
clonk
clash
crash
smash
smack
stamp
stomp
clump
clomp
report
explosion
detonation
shot
wham
whump

1.
strike or put down (something) forcefully and noisily.
"he began to bang the table with his fist"
Similar:
hit
strike
beat
thump
hammer
knock
rap
pound
thud
punch
bump
thwack
smack
crack
slap
slam
welt
cuff
pummel
buffet
bash
whack
clobber
clout
clip
wallop
belt
tan
biff
bop
sock
lam
whomp
slosh
boff
bust
slug
whale
dong
adverbINFORMAL•BRITISH
exactly.
"the train arrived bang on time"
Similar:
precisely
exactly
right
directly
immediately
squarely
just
dead
promptly
prompt
dead on
on the stroke of …
on the dot of …
sharp
on the dot
spot on
smack
slap
slap bang
plumb
on the button
on the nose
smack dab
spang
exclamation
1.
used to convey the sound of a sudden loud noise.
"party poppers went bang"
2.
used to convey the suddenness of an action or event.
"the minute something becomes obsolete, bang, it's gone"
Similar:
suddenly
abruptly
immediately
instantaneously
instantly
in an instant
straight away
all of a sudden
at once
all at once
prompt
Click to expand...

Nope, you're lying.

Lobosrul asked for "a link to the report, and a page number, or witnesses who say they heard an explosion, not: loud noise that may have been an explosion."

Very specific. Witnesses who heard AN EXPLOSION. You responded with the link that Lobosrul then responded that your link didn't say what you claimed it did.
 
Vixen said:
I see you are not posting in good faith just enjoying teasing.
Click to expand...
Dismissing people because you can't deal with their posts isn't a good look either.

I'm hardly teasing you Vixen, I'm pointing out your multiple, egregious lies and distortions. Like my previous post in fact!
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I never said you claimed that. There you go attempting to cram words into my mouth again.

I stated that people who heard explosions were mistaken.

You claimed that I was dismissing them out of hand.

I explained no, I'm not because there is no evidence for explosives, therefore the people were mistaken.

"Where did I say there was evidence of explosives?"

It's really obvious what you're trying to do Vixen. Stop it. It's impolite and stunningly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Please try to be objective:

- I was at a karaoke bar with a friend when I heard an unusual sound. I thought it sounded like an explosion.
Quote:
. Ulla Marianne Tenman - cabin 1098 - 30 years old


- after a 'silence' of 30-40 seconds the next really extreme crash followed in connection with an abrupt stopping of the ferry which was so 'sudden' that he was thrown against the front wall of his bed;
it was a short, sharp intense crash as if the ship had struck against something;
Carl Övberg - cabin 1049

. Nikolajs Andrejev - cabin 1016 - Enclosure 21.3.1.303:

- was asleep in the lower bunk when the vessel heeled so much that he fell out of his bunk on to the floor;
- at the same time he heard and felt an extremely hard bang which was so hard that he was thrown against the cabin wall;
- he was unable to identify from where the bang came, but it felt as if the vessel had collided with something and at the same time was heeling over extremely;


Anders Ericson - cabin 4131 - 45 years old - port outside (3rd cabin from forward)

went to cabin at 22.15 hours (Swedish time), but impossible to sleep, each time the vessel met a wave it was shaking/vibrating severely;

ca. 24.00 hours (Swedish time) came suddenly two heavy bangs, one straight after the other which almost threw him out of his athwartships bed, he realised that something must be wrong, thus got up and dressed himself
Click to expand...

Continues with dozens of similar reports. What are you trying to deny?
 
lobosrul5 said:
Yeah, I've let myself be bamboozled by her walls of text yet again.

There's no witness testimony that anyone heard explosions, that's Vixen's overreaching to find something, anything, she can grab hold of to support her CT.

Loud bangs could be explosions, OR they could be caused by something else. That something else is supported by actual physical evidence, the visor banging against the hull.

And since Vixen loves personal anecdotes as evidence, my right ear is currently ringing. Why? Because I dropped some slate* on a concrete floor last weekend, I have personally heard gunshots that were not as loud as that when I was the shooter.

*or ceramic tile of some kind, it was in my garage from the previous owner who decided to be too lazy to tile behind the fridge, which caused a whole issue I wont get into to
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
You are incorrect; there is ample witness testimony to this effect.

You say you dropped a slate on a concrete floor that was louder than some gunshots you have heard. Suppose I told you that what you heard 'could be caused by something else'?
Click to expand...

lobosrul5 said:
Well then, you'll need some evidence of a bomb going off in my garage at the exact moment my clumsy ass dropped some tiles onto the floor.

Oh and gimme a link to the report, and a page number, or witnesses who say they heard an explosion, not: loud noise that may have been an explosion.
Click to expand...
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...
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...

That's the quote trail. Every one of those posts is quoted in the post above it.

You're a liar Vixen. You claimed there was evidence that witnesses heard explosions, you were asked for a link, and when the link you provided was checked it didn't say what you said it did, then you tried to weasel out of it by attempting to claim that the previous conversation didn't happen like it did.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Nope, you're lying.

Lobosrul asked for "a link to the report, and a page number, or witnesses who say they heard an explosion, not: loud noise that may have been an explosion."

Very specific. Witnesses who heard AN EXPLOSION. You responded with the link that Lobosrul then responded that your link didn't say what you claimed it did.
Click to expand...

Read the witness statements instead of assuming they were all imagining things and handwaving it away.
 
Vixen said:
Please try to be objective:



Continues with dozens of similar reports. What are you trying to deny?
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to deny anything, I'm just stating that there's no physical evidence for explosives, so anyone who says they heard an explosion is mistaken. Not that they are lying. Not that they didn't hear anything, that they are mistaken in attributing the noise they heard to an explosion. Because there wasn't one.

Vixen said:
Read the witness statements instead of assuming they were all imagining things and handwaving it away.
Click to expand...



Again, you can't be failing to get this, and it must be deliberate at this point.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm operating on the actual evidence.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
That's the quote trail. Every one of those posts is quoted in the post above it.

You're a liar Vixen. You claimed there was evidence that witnesses heard explosions, you were asked for a link, and when the link you provided was checked it didn't say what you said it did, then you tried to weasel out of it by attempting to claim that the previous conversation didn't happen like it did.
Click to expand...

One can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If you blindly refuse to even consider what the eyewitnesses said because you have some kind of resistance to eyewitness accounts, then I am not sure how I can help you with key information.
 
Vixen said:
One can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If you blindly refuse to even consider what the eyewitnesses said because you have some kind of resistance to eyewitness accounts, then I am not sure how I can help you with key information.
Click to expand...

You're deflecting even now! I've demonstrated that you outright lied and you're still attempting to push me into the role you want me to play despite me not actually doing what you're claiming!

Even if I was blindly refusing to consider it, that's irrelevant to the post you quoted.

I just demonstrated you lying about a conversation and your only recourse is to accuse me of something else in a desperate attempt to distract from it.

Absolutely pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
Be sensible. You are the Chief of Police of Stockholm. Word comes in that 500 of your fellow countrymen, women and children have suddenly died. It doesn't cross your mind that somebody is responsible for gross negligence, gross manslaughter or even mass murder?

"Oh, it's OK, it's only the bow visor dropping off. Bit of a wind."
Click to expand...
Be sensible. When a ferry sinks is your first thought "Forget the rescue mission; top priority is to find the ships officers and abduct them"?
 
Vixen said:
I was asking lobusrul5. He wanted to know because Mojo suddenly started posting about explosions. I thought I was being helpful but it seems no good deed goes unpunished and received jeers instead.
Click to expand...


You're telling porkies again. Here is the first post in this particular thread in which I mentioned explosions:
Mojo said:
It's not the first time Vixen has had this problem, see for example the inability to distinguish between actual explosions and sounds that are like explosions.
Click to expand...


Here is the post which includes the first use in the thread of the word "explosions" and which led to the discussion of the evidence for explosions:
Vixen said:
What do you mean 'no evidence'? Half the survivors testified independently of each other in their signed statements to the police of having heard what sounded like an explosion or a series of explosions, together with a shudder and a violent list, the massive hole in the hull, the eye witnesses seeing a military truck being loaded at the last minute, delaying departure by fifteen minutes, the communications blackout...how does that qualify as 'no evidence'? Sheesh. Talk about arguing 'on paper'.

Where did the 'accusation' re Charlie Sargent come from unless someone was leaking information?
Click to expand...


Have a look at the time stamps, and see if you can figure out who "suddenly started posting about explosions".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom