• 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

Mojo said:
If you can't remember doing it, just follow the link. Everyone else can.
Click to expand...
Here's what was said as a matter of fact:

LondonJohn said:
Oh dear. So, so wrong. The bow visor fell off because the bottom lock failed [....]
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Then it is a pity the Swedish investigators immediately threw it back into the sea having found it.
Click to expand...

So please stop making specious accusations of wrongdoing.
 
Mojo said:
I'm sure that you are capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Click to expand...
No, it was not impossible to throw the Atlantic Lock back in the sea, because that is exactly what the Swedish investigators did, after having found it. This is factual. Let me know if you still wish to dispute it.
 
Vixen said:
Here's what was said as a matter of fact:

LondonJohn said:
Oh dear. So, so wrong. The bow visor fell off because the bottom lock failed [....]
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Then it is a pity the Swedish investigators immediately threw it back into the sea having found it.
Click to expand...

So please stop making specious accusations of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
Follow the link, and you will be able to see "what was said as a matter of fact".

In case you are incapable of following the link, here's "what was said as a matter of fact":

Vixen said:
lobosrul5 said:
I wonder if she thought the bow visor is something else entirely. Like I have no frickin clue how anyone could think that massive chunk of steel only weighs* 15kg. And she brought its weight up deliberately. I do no think it was an oops I meant tons moment.

*yeah I know technically kg is not a UOM for weight
Click to expand...
With the casing it weighs 55 tonnes.
Click to expand...
You invented a 54,985kg "casing" for the 15kg visor in order to avoid admitting that you had made a mistake.

ETA: this is another example of your poor memory: the two quotations you placed in that post as "what was said as a matter of fact" were nothing to do with the post you were replying to.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Follow the link, and you will be able to see "what was said as a matter of fact".

In case you are incapable of following the link, here's "what was said as a matter of fact":


You invented a 54,985kg "casing" for the 15kg visor in order to avoid admitting that you had made a mistake
Click to expand...
Sorry, are you quoting something from a couple of years ago? For the record, I have never mistaken the bow visor for the Atlantic Lock, so I have no wrongdoing to 'admit to'. Is there any particular reason you desperately need to paint me as a wrongdoer and please advise in which way you believe I am?

JayUtah said:
The generosity extends only so far as the errant quickly corrects and says, "Whoops, I meant ___." Since Vixen habitually makes elementary errors, she doesn't get the defense, "C'mon, you all know what I meant." Many times she is literally so wrong that we don't know what she means. So it looks like it's another example of Vixen being so amazingly and obliviously wrong and deciding to pretend nothing happened.
Click to expand...
I wonder if she thought the bow visor is something else entirely. Like I have no frickin clue how anyone could think that massive chunk of steel only weighs* 15kg. And she brought its weight up deliberately. I do no think it was an oops I meant tons moment.

*yeah I know technically kg is not a UOM for weight quote by lobusrul5
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
He was definitely referrng to 'the bottom lock failing'. To which I responded, "We are talking about the Atlantic Lock, the accessory lock at the bottom." Which part did you think was thrown back in the water?
Click to expand...
It is easy to understand why a triple niner would purposefully use the pronoun "it" in contexts that mention both the bow visor and failure of the "bottom lock", especially when that context is discussing the triple niner's allegation that the bow visor fell off because someone took a photograph of a vaguely rectangular something or other that clearly had not exploded.

Just as it is easy to understand why that triple niner would posit a Simonton gap to explain why her use of the pronoun "it" was not universally understood as referring to the 15kg part that she believes to weigh 55 tonnes "with the casing", and why that triple niner continues to be confused when others assume she was trying to refer to the bow visor when she spoke of that part weighing 55 tonnes.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, are you quoting something from a couple of years ago? For the record, I have never mistaken the bow visor for the Atlantic Lock, so I have no wrongdoing to 'admit to'. Is there any particular reason you desperately need to paint me as a wrongdoer and please advise in which way you believe I am?


I wonder if she thought the bow visor is something else entirely. Like I have no frickin clue how anyone could think that massive chunk of steel only weighs* 15kg. And she brought its weight up deliberately. I do no think it was an oops I meant tons moment.

*yeah I know technically kg is not a UOM for weight quote by lobusrul5
Click to expand...
Anyone following the link, or even just reading what I quoted from it (the entire post linked to) can see exactly what you did. And it's way too late for you to delete it.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
It is easy to understand why a triple niner would purposefully use the pronoun "it" in contexts that mention both the bow visor and failure of the "bottom lock", especially when that context is discussing the triple niner's allegation that the bow visor fell off because someone took a photograph of a vaguely rectangular something or other that clearly had not exploded.

Just as it is easy to understand why that triple niner would posit a Simonton gap to explain why her use of the pronoun "it" was not universally understood as referring to the 15kg part that she believes to weigh 55 tonnes "with the casing", and why that triple niner continues to be confused when others assume she was trying to refer to the bow visor when she spoke of that part weighing 55 tonnes.
Click to expand...
'It' would normally refer to the last noun in a sentence. For example, 'I walked down the road looking for house no.14. It was the last one before the corner'. In any case, common sense should tell you some engineering guy wouldn't have the physique to even pick up a bow visor.
 
Vixen said:
I tried to follow the link and it led me to the land of Dante.
Click to expand...
Here's the link again:
Vixen

Cont: Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI'

lobosrul5 said:
I wonder if she thought the bow visor is something else entirely. Like I have no frickin clue how anyone could think that massive chunk of steel only weighs* 15kg. And she brought its weight up deliberately. I do no think it was an oops I meant tons moment.

*yeah I know technically kg is not a UOM for weight
Click to expand...

With the casing it weighs 55 tonnes.
It leads to one of your own posts.
 
Mojo said:
Here's the link again:
Vixen

Cont: Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI'

lobosrul5 said:
I wonder if she thought the bow visor is something else entirely. Like I have no frickin clue how anyone could think that massive chunk of steel only weighs* 15kg. And she brought its weight up deliberately. I do no think it was an oops I meant tons moment.

*yeah I know technically kg is not a UOM for weight
Click to expand...

With the casing it weighs 55 tonnes.
It leads to one of your own posts.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you are doing an awful lot of reaching here.
 
Vixen said:
We were discussing 'military precision'. That is, planning something in advance.
Click to expand...
No, you said using the handheld radio wasn't "part of the plan". What plan? You inferred you've seen the plan to sink this ship. Yet another lie. You are really bad at this.

Vixen said:
Communications were down. As you can see in the above post, even the captains of Silja Europa and Viking Mariela had to use hand phones to communicate with the coastguard on their landline.
Click to expand...

I have news for you. If communications are knocked out as part of a military operation then ALL comms are down. No phones, no nothing. AND there would be clear evidence of this hostile shutdown across the board. Not something you can hide, and why would you want to on a scale you're lying about.

Vixen said:
Normally, the task of calling MAYDAY is that of the captain.
Click to expand...
Really? Post the specific international maritime laws that state this, and the Estonian law as well.

See, if the ship is in trouble the responsibility falls upon whoever is on the bridge. No one waits for the captain because not everyone is a dumbass.
 
What else could a small rectangular object be? I mean, seriously, rack your brains. Have you ever seen a small rectangular object in civilian life?

Of course not. It requires military precision to create small rectangular objects. This is just common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom