• 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 Re-opened Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
As POTUS he is nominally in charge of everything.
Click to expand...

Bahahaha NO! That's not how it works at all.

Why do you feel you can pontificate on things you have zero knowledge of Vixen?

Good grief, the President is head of the CIA...Tell another one!
 
Vixen said:
The Oceans started rolling at 21:30pm and finally sank next day at 15:30 - eighteen hours, is your answer, notwithstanding the explosion in the ventilator pipes causing a breach in the watertight hull and flooding the engine room.
Click to expand...


Nope. Ignorance. And it's "Oceanos". Can't you get anything right?



The Estonia sank in 35".
Click to expand...


It sank in 35 seconds? Wow! That's quick!!! (If you're going to pretentiously use time-unit symbols in this way, you should have written 35'....)



In addition, everybody was successfully evacuated and saved.

wiki


So much for the [he thought] brilliant gotcha by London John.
Click to expand...


Ah but you see, Vixen: if you'd actually taken the time and trouble (and basic decency and intellectual honesty) to go back and read LondonJohn's post on this particular matter.... you'd have seen that he posted the video of the Oceanos explicitly - and solely - to counter your (fatuous, and entirely scientifically-illiterate) claim that ships, when they capsize, always quickly carry on rotating and turn upside down. Which, rather visually, the Oceanos did not do.

That's the thing about attempted slap-downs, Vixen: if one is going to attempt a slap-down, it's rather important to get one's facts straight. Otherwise one ends up looking even more foolish and hapless than previously (if that's even possible).

:thumbsup:
 
Steve said:
More *odious comparisons* :eek:. Why do you keep posting such irrelevant *odious comparisons*? What happened to other ships that night has no bearing on the events on the Estonia. Perhaps you should try to stay on topic and stop responding to *odious comparisons* posted by others.
Click to expand...

Captain Swoop backing up London John claimed Estonia should have stayed close to the coastline, as did the other ships. The other ships were coming from Helsinki and they all stop at Mariehamn in the Ålands, first, before Stockholm, thus, they only face about six - eight hours of open sea, unlike the Estonia which was going directly to Stockholm and in open sea for at least twelve hours, bypassing the Ålands.

How does it 'stay close to the coastline'?
 
In fairness to Vixen, the Oceanos might have auto-corrected to Oceans. My computer is trying to get me to do it now.
 
Vixen said:
Captain Swoop backing up London John claimed Estonia should have stayed close to the coastline, as did the other ships. The other ships were coming from Helsinki and they all stop at Mariehamn in the Ålands, first, before Stockholm, thus, they only face about six - eight hours of open sea, unlike the Estonia which was going directly to Stockholm and in open sea for at least twelve hours, bypassing the Ålands.

How does it 'stay close to the coastline'?
Click to expand...

Mildly amusing non sequitur.
 
Vixen said:
Circular logic. Had explosives been applied to the for'ard bulkead then the thing would have fallen off anyway.

The Estonia bow visor did not fail in the way the JAIC said according to Hamburg University. They cannot both be right. One of these two parties is making a specious claim.
Click to expand...

Where does Hamburg university say this?

Where is the evidence for explosives?

Were explosives used to break the locks on the Diana II?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
That is not what he is saying though, is it? He isn't saying "no one saw it fall off" he's saying it was still attached to the ship when the ship sank.

Stop attempting to stuff words into peoples mouths to get them to say what you want and deal with what is being said. You've done it to several of your interlocutors and now you're doing it to your own source. Anders Bjorkman is a delusional moron, not a credible expert.

Also you still have yet to substantiate your lie that Bildt asked Clinton to approve his government picks. You're now desperately flailing at something, anything that makes Clinton look bad as if it answers our questions to you.
Click to expand...

That is his opinion and nothing to do with the accuracy of calculations of buoyancy or stress tension in the bow visor hinges.

The issue about Bildt seeking US approval in his government is common knowledge, just do a google. It was a scandal at the time it came out.


If it is too much to take in then just mollify yourself with the innocuous wave story.
 
Vixen said:
Don't you need to prove the bow visor was stressed by wave in the first place? On the stroke of Swedish midnight, too.
Click to expand...

It was not stressed on the 'stroke of midnight' It was a cumulative process over decades.
 
LondonJohn said:
Nope. Ignorance. And it's "Oceanos". Can't you get anything right?






It sank in 35 seconds? Wow! That's quick!!! (If you're going to pretentiously use time-unit symbols in this way, you should have written 35'....)






Ah but you see, Vixen: if you'd actually taken the time and trouble (and basic decency and intellectual honesty) to go back and read LondonJohn's post on this particular matter.... you'd have seen that he posted the video of the Oceanos explicitly - and solely - to counter your (fatuous, and entirely scientifically-illiterate) claim that ships, when they capsize, always quickly carry on rotating and turn upside down. Which, rather visually, the Oceanos did not do.

That's the thing about attempted slap-downs, Vixen: if one is going to attempt a slap-down, it's rather important to get one's facts straight. Otherwise one ends up looking even more foolish and hapless than previously (if that's even possible).

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Do not forget, according to Vixen, Oceanos somehow sank without flooding. Who knew it was a submarine?
 
Vixen said:
As POTUS Clinton was presumed head of the CIA (of course his Generals report to him and he does as they say). At the time Clinton was a great peace ambassador. Being potentially caught smuggling stuff to Israel wasn't something it wanted coming out; it just did what it normally does and called it 'classified'.


Image intact.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with the Estonia sinking?

What 'stuff' was being smuggled to Israel?
 
Steve said:
More *odious comparisons* :eek:. Why do you keep posting such irrelevant *odious comparisons*? What happened to other ships that night has no bearing on the events on the Estonia. Perhaps you should try to stay on topic and stop responding to *odious comparisons* posted by others.
Click to expand...

Have a go at London John and Captain Swoop, as they are the ones claiming Estonia 'should have kept to the coastline'.

Help me out. Which coastline would this be?
 
Vixen said:
You need to address that question to Mojo as he seems to think it should.
Click to expand...

If you are using it as evidence for your idea that there was sabotaged then yes, it should show evidence for sabotage.
 
abaddon said:
Do not forget, according to Vixen, Oceanos somehow sank without flooding. Who knew it was a submarine?
Click to expand...

And there it sits to this day, on the bottom of the ocean, perfectly intact with not a drop of water marring the fine interiors of the cabins, galley, engine rooms or other areas.
 
Vixen said:
Have a go at London John and Captain Swoop, as they are the ones claiming Estonia 'should have kept to the coastline'.

Help me out. Which coastline would this be?
Click to expand...

Nah, you are doing a bang up job of "having a go" at all the posters who are using logic to demolish the figments of your fevered imagination.
 
abaddon said:
Israel is not anywhere near the Baltic. What fresh hell is this claim?
Click to expand...

It is quite factual.


The divers who dived in the wreck of Estonia were not interested in the cabins of the ship's management. Instead, several hours were spent looking for the suitcase of businessman Alexander Voronin. A suitcase of a man associated with the arms trade and Russian space technology smuggling into the West was found in the cabin of the missing Captain Avo Piht.

<snip>

The name Voronin is associated not only with the arms business but also with the smuggling of Russian space technology to the west.
Click to expand...
Ohtuleht

Or perhaps just whistle a happy tune.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The other ships were coming from Helsinki, thus they could hug the Finnish coastline. Did you know Tallinn to Stockholm consists of open sea until such point it reaches the Finnish archipelago?
Click to expand...

Ships use alternative routes in storms , it is called 'storm routing' or 'weather routing'

Are you aware that on the Estonia the bow ramp acted as the collision bulkhead supposed to stop flooding if the bow visor failed?
Are you aware that the position and extent of the bow ramp of Estonia did not satisfy the SOLAS requirements for an upper extension of the collision bulkhead and that no exemption was issued?
If it had been given an exemption it would have been on condition that the vessel in the course of its voyages did not proceed more than 20 nautical miles from the nearest land?

It shouldn't have been sailing without certification and if it had been certified it would have been restricted to coastal waters.

Can you think of a reason that the owners of the ship would be keen to avoid having it restricted to coastal waters?
If it had been restricted it would not have been subjected to the full force of the storm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom