The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Axxman300]

What the captain was wearing made no difference to the sinking

Maybe the entire bridge crew wore red-shirts like in Star Trek.

 

[Axxman300]

The problem with the JAIC report is the number of unanswered questions.

You can count the number of accident inquiries that answered all the questions on one hand.

The Titanic inquiry dispelled the claim the ship broke in two on the surface, but it's not relevant because the ship hit an iceberg, and much later we learned the ship did in fact break in two.

The HMS Hood's detailed cause of destruction is still being debated, and updated as new surveys of the wreck are done. But in the end the cause of the Hood's sinking is the Bismarck.

We marked the 50th anniversary of the sinking of the Edmond Fitzgerald. Guess what? There is no definitive cause for the sinking, just three three theories based on surveys of the wreck. The list of unanswered questions in this sinking is long, BUT at end of the day the ship, like many before her, sank in a nasty storm. If tomorrow all of the answers come they change nothing.

I can go on but just everyone here can list ships, planes, bridges, and two towers in Manhattan wherein the accident reports didn't answer all the questions...just the relevant ones...mostly...

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

Because it doesn't matter. Even if he stayed on the bridge under the known circumstances the ship still sinks. The instant the visor fell into the sea the captain became a non-factor because he didn't have all the information due to a substandard damage-control party inspection, and no indicator lights on the bridge telling him the visor was gone.

and whether or not he was in control

The ocean and the weather were in control.

It is simply not credible that divers made no attempt to find out.

Not credible to you. To those with common sense it's reasonable to accept that the divers had a list of tasks to perform. Most of their dive footage is online, I've viewed all I can find. They entered the bridge to record the positions of the various controls, and get numbers of dials, and so-on. It wasn't a crime scene investigation, it was an accident investigation. Every minute underwater counts. They CAN'T waste time screwing around on an easter egg hunt. A shipwreck is a dangerous environment, and depth adds to the risks by a huge factor. The dives as they took place were borderline acceptable risks, but the deeper they'd go into the wreck the more dangerous things became.

To be blunt, sending divers down to locate specific people is insane, and homicidal.

You should be more interested in the extensive damage to the bow caused by the hammering of the visor, which is clear in the ROV footage. The Estonia sank exactly as the JAIC said it did. The new report will say the same thing but in all caps.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

On this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.

@Vixen defies the laws of thermodynamics:

HELLO! Unexpected disaster 28 Sept 1994. Urgent survey put to tender. Given to Rockwater 24 November 1994. HELLO!!! Up pops Dick Cheney as Halliburton CEO very shortly after.

To be scrupulously fair, Vixen didn't claim that Cheney was CEO. She claimed that he owned Halliburton at the time.

OK so I misspoke, meaning CEO.

Which was wrong, as has been pointed out. He was not CEO or owner at the time.

Almost an entire year later = "very shortly after". Still struggling with the whole how time works thing, aren't you?

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..."

With my highlighting:

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.

Light dawns, for five full words, before a rush to close the curtains.

 

[Vixen]

No, you're a coward. You pretend you know how everyone else got it wrong. But you don't dare put it on the table and demonstrate that you know how to do it right. Because you can't. You're not smart enough.

Here we see a demonstration of the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack. Then we have another one that brings in the faux concept of 'everybody': the logical fallacy of appealing to the crowd.

 

[Vixen]

What the captain was wearing made no difference to the sinking

Here we see the logical fallacy of the non-sequitur, possibly the most common one of all.

 

[Vixen]

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.

And the bow door fell open because..?

 

[Vixen]

You can count the number of accident inquiries that answered all the questions on one hand.

The Titanic inquiry dispelled the claim the ship broke in two on the surface, but it's not relevant because the ship hit an iceberg, and much later we learned the ship did in fact break in two.

The HMS Hood's detailed cause of destruction is still being debated, and updated as new surveys of the wreck are done. But in the end the cause of the Hood's sinking is the Bismarck.

We marked the 50th anniversary of the sinking of the Edmond Fitzgerald. Guess what? There is no definitive cause for the sinking, just three three theories based on surveys of the wreck. The list of unanswered questions in this sinking is long, BUT at end of the day the ship, like many before her, sank in a nasty storm. If tomorrow all of the answers come they change nothing.

I can go on but just everyone here can list ships, planes, bridges, and two towers in Manhattan wherein the accident reports didn't answer all the questions...just the relevant ones...mostly...


Because it doesn't matter. Even if he stayed on the bridge under the known circumstances the ship still sinks. The instant the visor fell into the sea the captain became a non-factor because he didn't have all the information due to a substandard damage-control party inspection, and no indicator lights on the bridge telling him the visor was gone.


The ocean and the weather were in control.


Not credible to you. To those with common sense it's reasonable to accept that the divers had a list of tasks to perform. Most of their dive footage is online, I've viewed all I can find. They entered the bridge to record the positions of the various controls, and get numbers of dials, and so-on. It wasn't a crime scene investigation, it was an accident investigation. Every minute underwater counts. They CAN'T waste time screwing around on an easter egg hunt. A shipwreck is a dangerous environment, and depth adds to the risks by a huge factor. The dives as they took place were borderline acceptable risks, but the deeper they'd go into the wreck the more dangerous things became.

To be blunt, sending divers down to locate specific people is insane, and homicidal.

You should be more interested in the extensive damage to the bow caused by the hammering of the visor, which is clear in the ROV footage. The Estonia sank exactly as the JAIC said it did. The new report will say the same thing but in all caps.

It was a crime scene investigation as the over all supervisors were the police. You have not seen the entire video because it was heavily edited. Rockwater claim to have destroyed the original 'as per contract'. The Estonian element of the JAIC complained they were only given a heavily edited version of it. The survey we know about seems to be that particular one. However of course there will have been another survey to inspect the bridge and all that was in it. The JAIC Report concentrates heavily on what Linde and Treu said but according to Meister, they were coached by the American, Einseln. As you now know, Linde was subsequently a convicted drug smuggler, a person with zero scruples and feint respect for the law or for honesty.

 

[Mojo]

And the bow door fell open because..?

you have repeatedly cited a Hamburg University report that explains this. Did you read it?

 

[Mojo]

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

A quotation that says he left the KGB in 1991 doesn't support your claim that he was head of the KGB in 1994, even if you leave a fragment of the next sentence on the end of it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

And the bow door fell open because..?

You really must read the actual report sometime.

Because it wasn't strong enough to survive the battering it took at that speed into those heavy seas.

 

[Spektator]

Wrong thread, deleted.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Here we see a demonstration of the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack. Then we have another one that brings in the faux concept of 'everybody': the logical fallacy of appealing to the crowd.

That isn't an ad hominem. You still don't know what the term means.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

In addition to flooding through windows and the bow, when the ship went over far enough for the upper deck windows to contribute to flooding, various other openings would have been submerged and and also contributing to the flooding.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And the bow door fell open because..?

Because of a design not suitable for the job it was doing, because of previous damage not correctly repaired, because of poor maintenance, because of using the ship offshore against it's certification, because the captain was going too fast for the conditions, because of poor crew procedures.

You know all this.

 

[JayUtah]

Here we see a demonstration of the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack.

Nope.

If you propose to characterize your role in this debate, you make it ripe for rebuttal. It's therefore appropriate to note that the actual role you are paying bears no resemblance to the one you claim. This is part of what it means to argue in good faith. You have claimed moral superiority over your critics by pretending to speak truth to power and pretending to deliver justice to the survivors and victims. But when it comes doing the hard part of that task, you shy away. If you won't tell us what you think really happened to MS Estonia and defend it to the standard of proof you impose on others, your virtue-signaling is just bunk.

As a teacher I had to tell some people they simply weren't smart enough to participate in the field in which I stand as an expert. As an employer I've had to tell many more applicants that they weren't smart enough to do what I would need to ask of them. It's not ad hominem in any of those cases. You have claimed to possess a world-class intelligence, and on that basis to be able to make authoritative statements about a wide variety of topics, and to impugn the skills and motives of your betters. However you simply don't know the facts, skills, and techniques that one would need to bring meaningful criticism to this question. That's not a personal attack. That's just an observation made according to years worth of testing your knowledge and skill. You are not competent to the task before you, and this is a far better explanation for your reluctance to undertake it.

And as usual: if you believe you have been personally attacked, report the post for moderation. Do not simply use it for rhetorical purposes.

Then we have another one that brings in the faux concept of 'everybody': the logical fallacy of appealing to the crowd.

Are you worried you'll lose your audience?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Common sense trumps actual expertise for you does it? Afterall, the actual experts disagree with you.

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?

Well Vixen?

 

[Vixen]

A quotation that says he left the KGB in 1991 doesn't support your claim that he was head of the KGB in 1994, even if you leave a fragment of the next sentence on the end of it.

Big deal. Factual error soon corrected.

 

[Steve]

And the bow door fell open because..?

You have read the report? Carefully? Several times? And you still don't know this? I strongly recommend seeing a doctor about your memory issues.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Big deal. Factual error soon corrected.

Was it though? I mean, you claim to have knowledge of how intelligence operations work and you made two utterly stupid factual errors in one sentence. Not only that, but you didn't just make that statement apropos of nothing, you were attempting to weave Putin into the pulp spy novel you were writing your claims about the Estonia and what happened to her. Your argument at the time partially rested on the "fact" that Putin was head of the KGB in 1994 despite the fact the KGB didn't exist then, he was never the head of it, and he had left the security services 3 years earlier.

 

[Vixen]

Nope.

If you propose to characterize your role in this debate, you make it ripe for rebuttal. It's therefore appropriate to note that the actual role you are paying bears no resemblance to the one you claim. This is part of what it means to argue in good faith. You have claimed moral superiority over your critics by pretending to speak truth to power and pretending to deliver justice to the survivors and victims. But when it comes doing the hard part of that task, you shy away. If you won't tell us what you think really happened to MS Estonia and defend it to the standard of proof you impose on others, your virtue-signaling is just bunk.

As a teacher I had to tell some people they simply weren't smart enough to participate in the field in which I stand as an expert. As an employer I've had to tell many more applicants that they weren't smart enough to do what I would need to ask of them. It's not ad hominem in any of those cases. You have claimed to possess a world-class intelligence, and on that basis to be able to make authoritative statements about a wide variety of topics, and to impugn the skills and motives of your betters. However you simply don't know the facts, skills, and techniques that one would need to bring meaningful criticism to this question. That's not a personal attack. That's just an observation made according to years worth of testing your knowledge and skill. You are not competent to the task before you, and this is a far better explanation for your reluctance to undertake it.

And as usual: if you believe you have been personally attacked, report the post for moderation. Do not simply use it for rhetorical purposes.


Are you worried you'll lose your audience?

No, I have never claimed to possess a world-class intelligence. I was challenging your claim I was a moron. You further claimed I was a 'coward'. But my favourite line from a hymn during schooldays was 'but for strength that we may ever, live our lives courageously' (L Whitcomb 1859) a value I have always strived to emulate. So when you call me stupid and a 'coward' I feel comforted that I am the opposite and in addition, it really has zero to do with debating the topic at hand, so yes, I would say it was ad hom, because I have never attacked yourself on a personal level. I don't need to ask anyone's permission to hold a view.