The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

For example Vixen, you have claimed more than once that Aleksandr Voronin had previously suffered from "heart attacks and strokes" before the Estonia sinking. You've been asked repeatedly for evidence of that, which you have repeatedly not supplied.

I'm going to ask again for evidence of this claim, or for you to admit you are incapable of supplying the evidence. And you're going to refuse to post a proper citation and reference for this claim. You'll invent some sad and pathetic excuse for why you don't have the evidence.

I guarantee you are incapable of defending this claim with a proper citation and reference, and are also incapable of admitting that you have no evidence to back it up. You're just that predictable.
 
Myriad said:
...then it descended completely underwater without sinking. My god, Holmes, you've solved it! The passengers never drowned at all, they merely stopped breathing due to asphyxia while submerged!
Click to expand...
I suspect your point is being made much too subtly.

@Vixen, what do you think "capsize" means? In what way is a ship with a list of 90° not capsized?
 
Mojo said:
Oh, and please can you provide precise references and quotations for the JAIC saying that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", and "was functioning on a 90° list", all of which you have claimed it said?

Or, alternatively, withdraw your claims that they said this.
Click to expand...
Let's recap what the JAIC preliminary report of April 1995 says:

1763906159853.png
1763906199518.png

1763906255255.png

So all we have is the engineer (Sillaste), who was in the Engine Room, Deck 0. who saw water coming in 'at the sides' of the closed car ramp door on a monitor screen. After this, it is assumed the entire bow visor came off, taking with it the car garage door causing mass ingress of water (but only up to the capacity of 2,000 tonnes), and assumed doors at centre of the garage were somehow open and the windows on the upper decks smashed by waves as it leaned over. Sillaste had left the ship by 1:20 - he was on a raft with Linde, Kikas and Treu in his survivors suit, complete with wallet and passport. Question: why would Sillaste's version of events be taken at face value? And if it indeed floated on a 90° list whilst still afloat, what is the premise? We are not told.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
You seem to have quoted this post but not actually answered it. I wonder why?
Click to expand...
Look. If you mentioned you went to Tescos a few weeks ago and I said, you are a liar, you did not go to Tescos a few weeks ago, and you went to some trouble to explain where Tescos was and why you went and yet I still insisted you hadn't proven it and were a disgusting scurrilous liar, what would your thoughts be?
 
Vixen said:
Let's recap what the JAIC preliminary report of April 1995 says:

View attachment 66321
View attachment 66322

View attachment 66323

So all we have is the engineer (Sillaste), who was in the Engine Room, Deck 0. who saw water coming in 'at the sides' of the closed car ramp door on a monitor screen. After this, it is assumed the entire bow visor came off, taking with it the car garage door causing mass ingress of water (but only up to the capacity of 2,000 tonnes), and assumed doors at centre of the garage were somehow open and the windows on the upper decks smashed by waves as it leaned over. Sillaste had left the ship by 1:20 - he was on a raft with Linde, Kikas and Treu in his survivors suit, complete with wallet and passport. Question: why would Sillaste's version of events be taken at face value? And if it indeed floated on a 90° list whilst still afloat, what is the premise? We are not told.
Click to expand...
Blatantly begging the question.

And, once again, you have failed to quote the rest of what it said about the capsize and sinking. Here it is again:
The vessel continued to heel over and the accommodation decks started to take on water at about 0130 hrs. Flooding of the accommodation continued with considerable speed and the starboard side of the bridge was submerged at about 0135 hrs as indicated by the chart room clock which had stopped at this moment. The list was at this stage more than 90 degrees.

[paragraph about escape of survivors omitted]

The vessel made a port turn whilst the starboard list was developing. It has not been possible to to ascertain what action was taken on the bridge at this stage. The ship lost propulsion and drifted, lying across the seas, whilst flooding continued. It sank completely at 0148 hrs when the last visible indication disappeared from the radar screen of a Finnish radar station. The position at the sinking was N58°22'.9, E21°41'.0. The wreck had turned to a heading of 95 degrees as she went down.
Click to expand...

You failed to quote the second paragraph, which describes it sinking, not floating, once it had reached a 90° list.

You claim that the JAIC said that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", or even "was functioning on a 90° list". Please quote the passage or passages where they said this, and provide precise citations for them.

Or withdraw the claims.
 
Vixen said:
I've never understood group bullying but as long as it's me and not some other poor sod, that's fne with me as I understand the psychology behind it.

Reminds me of one particular workplace when a colleague approached me and said they were all going to give another colleague some kind of group treatment so that they 'get the message by osmosis' but this person had never crossed my path so I couldn't see why I should join in, other than the fact bullying is great fun for some.
Click to expand...

Your attempts to play the victim of "bullying" are risible. People are repeatedly telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, your arguments are borne of ignorance and poor reasoning, and you're scientifically illiterate, because........ you don't know what you're talking about, your arguments are borne of ignorance and poor reasoning, and you're scientifically illiterate.
 
Vixen said:
Look. If you mentioned you went to Tescos a few weeks ago and I said, you are a liar, you did not go to Tescos a few weeks ago, and you went to some trouble to explain where Tescos was and why you went and yet I still insisted you hadn't proven it and were a disgusting scurrilous liar, what would your thoughts be?
Click to expand...

Totally incomparable attempt at an analogy. For shame.
 
Mojo said:
Blatantly begging the question.

And, once again, you have failed to quote the rest of what it said about the capsize and sinking. Here it is again:

You failed to quote the second paragraph, which describes it sinking, not floating, once it had reached a 90° list.

You claim that the JAIC said that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", or even "was functioning on a 90° list". Please quote the passage or passages where they said this, and provide precise citations for them.

Or withdraw the claims.
Click to expand...
I quoted the parts salient to my point. Nobody wants to wade through stuff about what passengers were doing when we were specifically talking about the listing. Why would the JAIC assume that Sillaste seeing water entering the sides of the car ramp explains the ingress of water causing ithe vessel to sink. The Jan Heweliusz was in terrible condition yet it did capsize and floated keel up for at least five hours. So the premise is that the accommodation windows should have smashed (it was in hurricane force conditions of >44 m/s and a gust of wind caused it to list over, similarly).

But the bow visor falling off isn't necessarily due to a couple of strong wave impacts.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Look. If you mentioned you went to Tescos a few weeks ago and I said, you are a liar, you did not go to Tescos a few weeks ago, and you went to some trouble to explain where Tescos was and why you went and yet I still insisted you hadn't proven it and were a disgusting scurrilous liar, what would your thoughts be?
Click to expand...
If Mark claimed that the JAIC had said he'd visited Tescos, but when challenged was unable to cite or quote them saying this, would you believe his claim about the JAIC?
 
LondonJohn said:
Total and utter nonsense that you simply made up. As per usual.
Click to expand...

Wrong in principle, though in this particular instance there was of course a bloody great hole in the hull where the bow visor and bow ramp used to be, resulting in the ship scooping huge volumes of water into its vehicle decks every time it dug down into an oncoming wave.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom