• 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

JayUtah said:
Common sense is not sufficient to conduct a forensic engineering examination. You are entirely unqualified to say what a proper one entails. You're simply

Considering a breach in the hull means identifying a potential cause of the breach (e.g., collision or grounding). It means identifying physical evidence consistent with such a breach taking place. That can be done easily in this case, and the proper conclusion reached early on is that a breach is not evident.

While common sense is telling you some wrong thing, engineering expertise tells me that a ship which heels or lists for any reason is in danger of downflooding. Therefore I look for sources and evidence of downflooding.

Stay in your lane.
Click to expand...
The irony is had it been a side-hull breach the crew would have found it, reported it, and began evacuation sooner. As it was, the bridge had no sensors to tell it the bow visor was gone. It's not even circular logic, the only thing that makes sense, and is supported by the evidence is the visor being knocked off wrenching the car ramp open allowing sea water to floor the ship (which left port with a slight list already).
 
Vixen said:
OK so I misspoke, meaning CEO.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you. You made the claim twice: September 12th 2025, and September 24th 2023

ETA: As the links to previous posts don't seem to be working here are quotes -

2025: "...the Halliburton Group, itself owned by Dick Cheney at the time provides the USA link."

2023: "...Halliburton which was owned by US VP Dick Chaney in 1995..."
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know what the captain was wearing when the ship went down?

Your argument that JAIC's apparent disinterest in ascertaining the identities of the victims on the ship's bridge is suspicious. This is predicated on a thing you made up about the identities being easily inferred from their uniforms, and that the JAIC's failure to do so was therefore an intentional act of coverup. All that presumes that the uniforms they were wearing on the bridge can be known and distinguished. Can you please tell us what the captain was wearing at the time of the collision and how you know that?
Click to expand...
I said nothing of the sort. The problem with the JAIC report is the number of unanswered questions. I do not know what the Captain was wearing, I was expressing scepticism because there was no interest shown in the JAIC report as to what had become of him and whether or not he was in control. It is simply not credible that divers made no attempt to find out.
 
JesseCuster said:
Is the universe where Bush Sr. was POTUS in 1994 the same universe that Putin was head of the KGB in 1994?

For someone who prides themselves on their research and debating skills, you sure play fast and loose with facts a lot.
Click to expand...
From wiki:

Putin worked as a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He resigned in 1991 to begin a political career in Saint Petersburg. In 1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin
Click to expand...
 
Here_to_learn said:
And that is why accident investigations are performed by experts and not by a random set of the "common person".

If you want to include a hull breach as part of the accident, you have to produce a full set of actions that explain how things happened, in what order, and how that matches what is known from interviews of the people present.

Please go ahead - describe in detail how a breach happened, how it relates to witness statements, how it related to where the bow ended up, how the list happened and so on.

JAIC has done this, based on expert knowledge, simulations and experiments.
Click to expand...
I obviously have no idea. I am simply the messenger. Andi Meister names names, albeit using poetic language, presumably to avoid legal trouble as of the time he wrote it. This was a guy who was on the JAIC.
 
Vixen said:
I said nothing of the sort. The problem with the JAIC report is the number of unanswered questions. I do not know what the Captain was wearing, I was expressing scepticism because there was no interest shown in the JAIC report as to what had become of him and whether or not he was in control. It is simply not credible that divers made no attempt to find out.
Click to expand...
What the captain was wearing made no difference to the sinking
 
Andy_Ross said:
What the captain was wearing made no difference to the sinking
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But a confident knowledge of what the captain (and everyone else) was wearing is essential to @Vixen's claim that the corpses on the bridge could have been easily (if not trivially) identified from what they were wearing. It's rather fatal to her claim not to be able to say what people were wearing. So maybe that's not a useful inference, and therefore maybe the JAIC was not suspiciously derelict in failing to pursue it—to pursue that thing Vixen infallibly knows they should have done.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
From wiki:
Click to expand...
Which is in direct opposition to the claim of yours being referenced, remember?

YOU claimed that he was head of the KGB in 1994 despite him having left the organisation in 1991 and the KGB not existing anymore by 94. YOU made that claim Vixen. What do you think that linking to this description of a snippet of Putin's life means?
 
Vixen said:
Common sense tells you to consider a breach in the hull. You don't need to confect 'windows got smashed by waves and that's how a further 4,000 tonnes got in' ["in theory"]'.
Click to expand...

The bow door fell off. Common sense tells you that is a breach in the hull. No other breach in the hull is required to explain the rate of the sinking beyond some windows breaking, nor is there evidence any such breach existed until the wreck hit the sea bed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom