• 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.

Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The JAIC do say in their report conclusion the accident was caused by a strong wave. How do you get around that?
Click to expand...

1.No, they don't.

2. Immaterial to the claim you are making that I was addressing.
 
Vixen said:
Er, you do know when something becomes classified, all later mentions are removed.
Click to expand...

Yet somehow you sneaked past the laser beams into spy headquarters, Tom Cruise style, and got the unredacted documents.

You're talking about a story published in early edition of a newspaper and a revised story in a later edition. Not about classified documents. This is bad-spy-story garbage.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Yet somehow you sneaked past the laser beams into spy headquarters, Tom Cruise style, and got the unredacted documents.

You're talking about a story published in early edition of a newspaper and a revised story in a later edition. Not about classified documents. This is bad-spy-story garbage.
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only one who sees it.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, the sounds could easily have been the banging of the bow visor, and there's no evidence from the reports of the disaster that show anything other than what was explained already.

You know that people on 9/11 reported hearing "explosions" too right? That they thought that they had heard bombs going off in the towers? Those people were simply mistaken about the reason for the sound they heard. They heard loud bangs from the damage inflicted to the towers and the destruction of support structures inside the towers before and during the collapses. They were absolutely correct in saying that they had heard noises, but they were wrong in attributing the noises to bombs.

You know that we would require actual physical evidence for any of the wild speculation that you've suggested in the thread? It's all well and good to point to people hearing something they claimed sounded like an explosion and seeing a military truck, but if examination of the wreckage shows no explosive damage, residue or other evidence of explosives, we know those people were mistaken.



1. Because it was a paranoid high control group with people jockying for positions of power within the organisation. It's no coincidence that the person who accused him was also trying to establlsh himself in a leadership role at the time and was pushing for his own vision of what C18 should be.

2. Even if someone WAS passing information to the security services, that is not evidence that C18 was founded by MI5.

C18 was founded by the BNP, particularly it's more violence-oriented members as a security group to stop BNP marches getting the crap kicked out of them by anti-fascists, as had been happening. They thought if they had a notorious paramilitary wing of their "political party" that it would stop people turning up and putting the boot in, or even prevent people protesting their activities at all.
Click to expand...


Or...given the propensity of BNP members towards violence, a great opportunity for M15 operatives to be at the centre of organisation to keep an eye on the potential threat to national security by would-be fascists. It makes sense. In that era the undercover cops were infiltrating all ideologically oriented groups and organisations.
 
Vixen said:
Or...given the propensity of BNP members towards violence, a great opportunity for M15 operatives to be at the centre of organisation to keep an eye on the potential threat to national security by would-be fascists. It makes sense. In that era the undercover cops were infiltrating all ideologically oriented groups and organisations.
Click to expand...

That's fine as speculation, but there's no evidence for it.

You do understand that the founders have spoken about the founding, right?

Like, we know what happened, and the people involved were not MI5 agents.

You're spinning a yarn that doesn't match reality.
 
Vixen said:
What do you mean, 'no they don't'? This again is a matter of your handwaving a recorded fact away because you have the arrogant belief that you know all about a thing without even having looked at it.
Click to expand...

You should read this thread some time. And read the JAIC report too.
 
Vixen said:
What do you mean, 'no they don't'? This again is a matter of your handwaving a recorded fact away because you have the arrogant belief that you know all about a thing without even having looked at it.
Click to expand...

The projection is hilarious.

Cite the specific part of the report that states it was "a big wave".

I'll save you the trouble, you can't. The actual report states that it was wave induced failure of the bow visor locks. Not one wave, multiple. They state that the ship “capsized due to large amounts of water entering the car deck, loss of stability, and subsequent flooding of the accommodation decks.” after being battered by multiple waves causing the bow visor lock to fail.

You're just lying Vixen.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Yet somehow you sneaked past the laser beams into spy headquarters, Tom Cruise style, and got the unredacted documents.

You're talking about a story published in early edition of a newspaper and a revised story in a later edition. Not about classified documents. This is bad-spy-story garbage.
Click to expand...

You forget that pre-online newspapers, people read paper copies and often kept souvenirs of key events. These days, one often sees retrospective 'corrections' to articles, for example in the GUARDIAN. In the 90's people had hard copies of the original!

If you want to watch the Oprah interview with Harry and Meghan, you'll discover it is completely unavailable anywhere. Wiped clean off the internet and all sources. Yet anyone who recorded it at the time, will still have the hard copy of the original.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
The projection is hilarious.

Cite the specific part of the report that states it was "a big wave".

I'll save you the trouble, you can't. The actual report states that it was wave induced failure of the bow visor locks. Not one wave, multiple. They state that the ship “capsized due to large amounts of water entering the car deck, loss of stability, and subsequent flooding of the accommodation decks.” after being battered by multiple waves causing the bow visor lock to fail.

You're just lying Vixen.
Click to expand...

I see you decided to quickly look it up. That is a good habit to adopt when debating.
 
Vixen said:
I see you decided to quickly look it up. That is a good habit to adopt when debating.
Click to expand...

Nope. See, I have this thing called "memory" that allows me to store information I learn from previous discussions and recall it. (ETA: I did look up the direct quote though, that I will say)

Not going to deal with the fact that you lied about the JAIC report?

Vixen said:
Is this personal abuse?
Click to expand...

Nope. You must be really bad at reading to come up with that. Jack was stating you "found the fabulous story spun by some loony more seductive than reality?" which indicated that the "loony" is the person whose ideas you are parroting, not you.

Keep throwing a tantrum though, this is amusing.
 
Vixen said:
What do you mean, 'no they don't'? This again is a matter of your handwaving a recorded fact away because you have the arrogant belief that you know all about a thing without even having looked at it.
Click to expand...


Can you cite and quote the passage of the report that records this fact, please?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom