• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Jack by the hedge said:
You were astounded that anyone would suggest welding might involve melting steel. It went downhill from there. You insisted that even if it did involve melting, this could only be achieved in a laboratory because you misunderstood what the professor said.

Have you forgotten you did all of that?
Click to expand...

Vixen's utter scientific illiteracy shines out once again!
 
Vixen said:
That was to do with the hole found in the side by those two Swedish filmmakers because that hole had not been mentioned in the original JAIC report. Knowing the parameters of that split in the hull and the estimated knots being travelled, experts were able to hypothesise what might have caused it.
Click to expand...
So how does it fit with explosives blowing the bow door off?
 
Vixen said:
I think it's plausible because Braidwood, an explosives expert and at arm's length from the ship's crew and interested nations, being from the British Royal Navy and a respected trainer/lecturer, recognised what he identified as an explosive attached to one side of the bow, that had failed to ignite. You recall teams of British and Irish divers went in to survey the vessel. Jutta Rabe, too, is a serious journalist and isn't going to get involved in fake news.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, Braidwood, the explosives expert who "famously disarmed the bomb on the Rainbow Warrior"? *snort*

Do you think that the proximate cause of the Estonia sinking being something large and slow moving (you claimed that this was what the evidence shows according to an expert) is as plausible as the proximate cause being the detonation of high explosives (you also claimed that the evidence shows this according to an expert)?

Do you think that the helicopter rescue crew being bribed with medals to lie about them being involved in the rendition of Swedish citizens is as plausible as the crew being whisked away in a minisubmarine (which may or may not have been Russian)?

You have been wildly vaccilating between mutually exclusive claims. There's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind between different hypotheses, but you've been bouncing all over the place, insisting that every expert, eyewitness, etc. you cite (when you bother to actually cite anything at all) points toward whatever your theory of the day is, so we get you citing experts who say the damage was probably caused by a large slow moving object, hence your theory about an escorting British submarine crashing into the Estona, only to completely abandon that line of questioning before launching into a brand new theory involving Spetsnaz operatives and explosives...

Similarly we get theories of the crew being whisked away on minisubs before you decide to abandon that line of reasoning and launching into a new theory involving bribing helicopter crews with medals to get them to lie about the rendition of citizens...
 
JesseCuster said:
Oh yeah, Braidwood, the explosives expert who "famously disarmed the bomb on the Rainbow Warrior"? *snort*

Do you think that the proximate cause of the Estonia sinking being something large and slow moving (you claimed that this was what the evidence shows according to an expert) is as plausible as the proximate cause being the detonation of high explosives (you also claimed that the evidence shows this according to an expert)?

Do you think that the helicopter rescue crew being bribed with medals to lie about them being involved in the rendition of Swedish citizens is as plausible as the crew being whisked away in a minisubmarine (which may or may not have been Russian)?

You have been wildly vaccilating between mutually exclusive claims. There's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind between different hypotheses, but you've been bouncing all over the place, insisting that every expert, eyewitness, etc. you cite (when you bother to actually cite anything at all) points toward whatever your theory of the day is, so we get you citing experts who say the damage was probably caused by a large slow moving object, hence your theory about an escorting British submarine crashing into the Estona, only to completely abandon that line of questioning before launching into a brand new theory involving Spetsnaz operatives and explosives...

Similarly we get theories of the crew being whisked away on minisubs before you decide to abandon that line of reasoning and launching into a new theory involving bribing helicopter crews with medals to get them to lie about the rendition of citizens...
Click to expand...

My all-time fave still has to be when Vixen misunderstood the use of the word "submarine" as an adjective in the phrase "submarine tracks" - boneheadedly thinking that it referred to the tracks of a submarine (LMAO) rather than tracks under the surface of the sea. Still makes me smile in a mixture of referred embarrassment and sheer pity.
 
Vixen said:
That was a theory presented by a Norwegian lecturer of Physics. That was his view.
Click to expand...
What do you think about his theory? Do you still think it's plausible? Is it still on the cards to you as a valid hypothesis for the sinking?

If you think it still might be the cause of the sinking, then why do you no longer mention it? You seem to have abandoned that for no reason only to latch onto the idea that the evidence shows something completely different (high explosives detonation vs. large slow moving object).

What do YOU think about the theory about the Estonia being sunk because of an accidental collison with a Royal Navy submarine escorting it?
 
Vixen said:
The welding thing refers to the Norwegian lady, Ida [Name?] who said in her demonstration that in order to recreate the same deformation forms for steel exposed to explosive impact on to steel, it could only be done artificially in a lab. So people tried to make out they could reach those temperatures in their living room with their welding arcs, completely deliberately twisting mine and her words.
Click to expand...
No, that's a flat out lie. What actually happened was that you claimed without caveats that the temperatures that supposedly caused the damage could not have been achieved outside a scientific laboratory. I then casually pointed out that you can heat steel to melting point with a basic welding kit (because that's how welding works).

You then doubled down and claimed it doubtful that it was possible to melt steel with a welding torch. You could just have Googled it, but instead you just blurted out something really stupid and false as a desperate defense of your claim and you were rightly called on it.

No-one here is fooled by your gaslighting. You can continue to double down on your claims, but it's trivial to search the forums and dig up old posts to show what you actually said, and in context.
 
Vixen said:
We were talking about distinctive deformation in metal caused by a high explosive (=high temperatures). Ida [name_?] is an expert in Metallurgy. I like how people here just assume they know better than her.
Click to expand...
I don't know better than her. I know better than you. You can melt steel with a welding machine. A simple claim that anyone with 30 seconds to spare can check on Google or Wikipedia. You claimed without any sorts of caveats that such a thing (melting steel with a welding kit) was implausible.
 
LondonJohn said:
My all-time fave still has to be when Vixen misunderstood the use of the word "submarine" as an adjective in the phrase "submarine tracks" - boneheadedly thinking that it referred to the tracks of a submarine (LMAO) rather than tracks under the surface of the sea. Still makes me smile in a mixture of referred embarrassment and sheer pity.
Click to expand...
Perhaps explain what this is then?

1756322427529.png
 
JesseCuster said:
What do you think about his theory? Do you still think it's plausible? Is it still on the cards to you as a valid hypothesis for the sinking?

If you think it still might be the cause of the sinking, then why do you no longer mention it? You seem to have abandoned that for no reason only to latch onto the idea that the evidence shows something completely different (high explosives detonation vs. large slow moving object).

What do YOU think about the theory about the Estonia being sunk because of an accidental collison with a Royal Navy submarine escorting it?
Click to expand...
You have to remember that at the time, a documentary came out titled, 'This Changes Everything' re the long 22m split in the hull, which wasn't mentioned in the JAIC report. The filmmakers interviewed various experts as to what and how such a split could have occurred. I get some people are not interested in this stuff but I was and am.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom