• 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

JesseCuster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Given this professor was talking about metallurgy deformations caused by explosives - ipso facto extreme high temperatures, I am not sure why people decided it was amusing she said this could only be achieved artificially in a lab. Just because a flame can reach X,000°C, it can take a considerably long time for a metal to reach the same inherent temperature, so I am not sure what the big controversy was.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You can do a search re 'Braidwood' re the explosives claim and a search re 'Harry Ruotsalainen' re the issue of what he claims he saw on a sonar printout as a naval intern. There is really no point in discussing it all over again.
Click to expand...
There was no point in your raising any of it again and we dont need to look it up as we were here the first time all this crap was trotted out.
 
Vixen said:
Perhaps explain what this is then?

View attachment 63227
Click to expand...

1) Explain what this refers to, and link the actual publication rather than a screenshot. Two rather fundamental requirements on a sceptics' forum, as you well ought to know.

2) In any case it's obviously nothing to do with the Estonia disaster, as that ship sank in 80m of water, and it would be an utterly stupid and inept submarine commander who allowed his boat to bottom out in that depth of water.

3) You just googled "submarine tracks" and screenshot an article, didn't you?

4) Well, just the usual.........
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Given this professor was talking about metallurgy deformations caused by explosives - ipso facto extreme high temperatures, I am not sure why people decide it was amusing she said this could only be achieved artificially in a lab. Just because a flame can reach X,000°C, it can take a considerably long time for a metal to reach the same inherent temperature, so I am not sure what the big controversy was.
Click to expand...
You could go back and read the thread again. Or you could just shrug and rummage in your grab bag for the next heap of nonsense you want to air again.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then you should make yourself better educated and informed on assessing the quality/nature of evidence. Oh and maybe take a primary-school science class as well. And a documentary entitled "This changes everything" doesn't at all sound sensationalist and unbalanced, oh no.....
 
theprestige said:
A totally different context.
Click to expand...
What context did you have in mind?
LondonJohn said:
1) Explain what this refers to, and link the actual publication rather than a screenshot. Two rather fundamental requirements on a sceptics' forum, as you well ought to know.

2) In any case it's obviously nothing to do with the Estonia disaster, as that ship sank in 80m of water, and it would be an utterly stupid and inept submarine commander who allowed his boat to bottom out in that depth of water.

3) Well, just the usual.........
Click to expand...
It is the GUARDIAN link I referenced, above, earlier today. When I referred to these types of tracks at the time, I was mercilessly bullied about it and still am, yet here is the GUARDIAN also referring to them. So suddenly the claim is I can't have been referring to whatever the GUARDIAN is referring to.
 
Vixen said:
I get some people are not interested in this stuff but I was and am.
Click to expand...
That program and its evidence was thoroughly discussed but you were not competent or interested enough to address the criticism. Further, Evertsson finally admitted he spun the findings to support his desired narrative, also something you can’t manage to find interesting.
 
Vixen said:
What context did you have in mind?

It is the GUARDIAN link I referenced, above, earlier today. When I referred to these types of tracks at the time, I was mercilessly bullied about it and still am, yet here is the GUARDIAN also referring to them. So suddenly the claim is I can't have been referring to whatever the GUARDIAN is referring to.
Click to expand...

1) What post # did you post this link on? You've made a.....prodigious amount of posts in this thread today.

2) It clearly doesn't pertain to the Estonia sinking for obvious reasons

3) And the reason you were ridiculed when you applied it to the Estonia disaster is the depth at which the ship sank. A submarine would only ever risk bottoming out in extremely shallow water (<20m). There's simply no way that a submarine (unless that submarine was in distress) would ever bottom out at 80m and leave scrape marks on the sea bed.

4) You DID google "submarine tracks", didn't you?
 
JayUtah said:
That program and its evidence was thoroughly discussed but you were not competent or interested enough to address the criticism. Further, Evertsson finally admitted he spun the findings to support his desired narrative, also something you can’t manage to find interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was and am quite aware of documentary bias.
 
LondonJohn said:
1) What post # did you post this link on? You've made a.....prodigious amount of posts in this thread today.

2) It clearly doesn't pertain to the Estonia sinking for obvious reasons

3) And the reason you were ridiculed when you applied it to the Estonia disaster is the depth at which the ship sank. A submarine would only ever risk bottoming out in extremely shallow water (<20m). There's simply no way that a submarine (unless that submarine was in distress) would ever bottom out at 80m and leave scrape marks on the sea bed.

4) You DID google "submarine tracks", didn't you?
Click to expand...
I was quoting someone saying those tracks were seen in the region of the vessel.
 
Vixen said:
I think you'll find it was directly in reference to Professor Iida Westman [_sp?].
Click to expand...

As a general point, would you do us all the favour of actually checking the names of people mentioned in your posts before hitting "send"? These continued "[_sp?]s of yours across the forum are very tiresome and poor etiquette. Many thanks.
 
Vixen said:
I was quoting someone saying those tracks were seen in the region of the vessel.
Click to expand...

If a submarine had been in the vicinity of the Estonia, and if it had left marks from bottoming out on the sea bed, then not only would the commander likely have been court martialled, but also the submarine would have been 80m away from the Estonia on the surface. and in no kind of attitude to fire off torpedoes (or other such nonsense).

The person you quoted was obviously referring to sub-sea tracks rather than tracks made by a submarine. It was entirely clear from the context and the facts of the case. Clear to everyone except you, that is.
 
LondonJohn said:
If a submarine had been in the vicinity of the Estonia, and if it had left marks from bottoming out on the sea bed, then not only would the commander likely have been court martialled, but also the submarine would have been 80m away from the Estonia on the surface. and in no kind of attitude to fire off torpedoes (or other such nonsense).

The person you quoted was obviously referring to sub-sea tracks rather than tracks made by a submarine. It was entirely clear from the context and the facts of the case. Clear to everyone except you, that is.
Click to expand...
If it was so clear to everybody why make a big issue out of it.
 
Vixen said:
Just because a flame can reach X,000°C, it can take a considerably long time for a metal to reach the same inherent temperature, so I am not sure what the big controversy was.
Click to expand...

I don't even know where to start on this latest nonsense. From where did you glean this priceless bit of scientific foolishness? Do you really think that on ISF you'll get away with pulling "facts" straight out of thin air?

(I can assure you that if you heat a steel bar with a C4N2 flame - which burns at around 5,000C - it will soften and start to melt within seconds).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Given this professor was talking about metallurgy deformations caused by explosives - ipso facto extreme high temperatures, I am not sure why people decided it was amusing she said this could only be achieved artificially in a lab. Just because a flame can reach X,000°C, it can take a considerably long time for a metal to reach the same inherent temperature, so I am not sure what the big controversy was.
Click to expand...
Because if these deformations can only be achieved artificially in a lab, it must be that the Estonia also had been in such a lab. Otherwise it could never have shown those deformations.

Or. If the Estonia has not been in a lab, but does show these deformations, maybe, just maybe, these can occur outside of a lab?

So. Has, in your opinion, the Estonia been in a lab?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Given this professor was talking about metallurgy deformations caused by explosives - ipso facto extreme high temperatures, I am not sure why people decided it was amusing she said this could only be achieved artificially in a lab. Just because a flame can reach X,000°C, it can take a considerably long time for a metal to reach the same inherent temperature, so I am not sure what the big controversy was.
Click to expand...
And yet a welder heats metal to those temperatures in seconds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom