• 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.
Steve said:
Well of course they took it. If they had not the entire conspiracy would collapse, enabling an intrepid internet investigator on an insignificant discussion forum to expose the intricate workings of the plot to the entire world.
Click to expand...

They threw it back out of the sea.
 
Vixen said:
...a staunch Russian Jewish Zionist who was an arms trader...


Jutta Rabe says she was informed by an insider that the FSU materiel on board was intended for Israel...
Click to expand...

cf8.png
 
Axxman300 said:
The President is not the head of the CIA, it's structure is insulated from the political appointees who come and go.
Click to expand...

Given all the mistakes that Vixen makes, I'm not sure why folks are disputing this. The Director of Central Intelligence is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President. The Director is a political appointee who comes and goes. Obama had 6. Trump had 3. The history of the CIA is the replete with political interference in the CIA.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
There is no chance the visor was still on the ship when it sank as it fell much too far away. This is evidence the KAIC were right and you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Ah, but you forget that the Grand Conspiracy requires one of the bad actors (the Swedish Government? The JAIC itself? Who knows?) to have physically removed the bow visor from its "original" position attached to the ship soon after the sinking, and to have taken it out a considerable distance from the wreck (but happily, along the line that the ship was subsequently shown to have sailed that night) then re-deposited it to the seabed - whereupon it was "found" the following day or whatever.

I mean: I'd say "you couldn't make it up".... but it's abundantly clear that somebody is making it up.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, but you forget that the Grand Conspiracy requires one of the bad actors (the Swedish Government? The JAIC itself? Who knows?) to have physically removed the bow visor from its "original" position attached to the ship soon after the sinking, and to have taken it out a considerable distance from the wreck (but happily, along the line that the ship was subsequently shown to have sailed that night) then re-deposited it to the seabed - whereupon it was "found" the following day or whatever.

I mean: I'd say "you couldn't make it up".... but it's abundantly clear that somebody is making it up.
Click to expand...

Elite military divers of the Swedish special forces did it but some of their explosive charges didn't work so they just left them laid around the wreck.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Do you have any evidence for this? And no, I don't mean the "staunch Russian Jewish Zionist" or the "arms trader" bit, I mean the "retrieved" bit.

The partial dive transcript you quoted before does not say that the diver retrieved any passengers' effects. Only that he found the case, tried to read the name on it and his contact on the surface said he'd ask if anybody recognised that name.

So, do you actually know if the case was retrieved or is that just an assumption?
Click to expand...


Oh and there's more even than that. Vixen's (or is it EFD's? or Bjorkman's) claim is that the divers went in there under instruction to locate this mysterious attaché case.

And the obvious set of inferences that Vixen (et al) is inviting us to draw is that 1) there was something of significance in that attaché case; 2) the JAIC investigators knew - prior to sending divers down there to investigate - that there was something of significance in that case; and 3) whatever was in that case was deemed to be sufficiently important that, at the very least, it needed to be located and identified (and I guess at most, it needed to be retrieved and secreted back up to the surface before being spirited away....).

I may be wrong, but I think this is the very foundation of those preposterous "secret comms into the divers' other ear" claims. In classic CT logic-in-reverse, they work backwards from the conclusion (here, that the divers were "obviously" under instruction from a handler to find and identify that case); they then look at the official transcripts of the umbilical comms to and from the surface vessel and the divers - and (of course) they cannot see anyone being instructed wrt this case; so they therefore decide - since they have an unshakeable (though entirely unfounded) belief in their own a priori conclusion - that the reason they can't see any such instructions must be because there was a secret second comms channel to the diver(s) through which these secret instructions were being passed.


I know it's somewhat puerile, but so much of the CT content in this thread totally (IMV) earns and deserves it: LMAOOOOOOOOO


ETA: Ah I see now that this was already covered off amply by various other rational posters while I was away from the thread!
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Vixen, stop ignoring me.
Click to expand...

A quick google:

On Friday, the Aftonbladet tabloid reported that Bildt, at the age of 27, reported to the United States about details of closed-door government coalition talks in 1976.

That information was then sent on to the CIA, the paper claimed.

“He was well informed. I reported on everything he told us,” US envoy Ronald E Woods told the paper.

Information about the make-up of the three-party coalition, the parties’ attitudes to nuclear power, and how they would handle a referendum reached the United States before it reached the Swedish people.

Per Ahlmark of the Liberal Party (Folkpartiet) was involved in the talks and emphasized that nothing said in the meetings should have been reported to outsiders.

“Everything we said was secret. Not only for foreign powers, but also for our own parties. We were very thorough about ensuring that nothing would get out,” he said.

“Had I known that Bildt went and blabbed, I would have been very annoyed.”
Click to expand...
The local se
 
It would make more sense for one of the divers to have been given specific instructions to find the case before the dive.
That way there would be no mention of it in the comms and the other members of the team wouldn't even need to know about it.

Vixen hasn't seen Where Eagles Dare.

(Yes, I know WED wasn't about divers)
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
It says fatigue and corrosion did it.
How does that support any kind of sabotage or explosives?
Click to expand...

Citation please of where I claimed it did. The scope of Hamburg University was to examine the various nuts and bolts of the bow visor.


When did you start thinking it had been tasked with discovering sabotage?


Perhaps take a reality check as to what a university laboratory does.
 
That is:

1. Only one of my points. I asked you to deal with several.

2. Not what you claimed anyway. You didn't claim Bildt told Clinton stuff, you claimed he sought Clinton's approval for the makeup of the government. So were you lying when you made that claim?

Come on. Back up your actual claim, or retract it, and answer my other points.

Why did you claim the US president was in charge of the CIA? Why do you endlessly make claims about things you know nothing about? Why are you continuing to defend Bjorkman? Why are you lying about what Bjorkman said in the quote I provided? Why do you think that a total incomprehension of basic physics is a personality quirk, and not something that invalidates someone's claims of expertise on engineering?

Stop deflecting, stop trying to motte-and-bailey your way around people asking you to support your claims and stop being a coward. Answer questions.
 
LondonJohn said:
Why do you keep making this term up? What does it even mean??

Oh and good-o: we're back to this bollocks about "the air being replaced by water" as some necessary precondition of sinking LOLOL. You know, you really should try to learn about basic principles of buoyancy before attempting any more of this stuff. It would be in everyone's best interests if you did so.
Click to expand...

The JAIC claims it.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC claims it.
Click to expand...

Given your colossal inability to truthfully report what even your own sources say to the point where you lie about things even when responding to a direct quote, I do not believe you. I think you are lying.

Prove me wrong. Quote the JAIC making the claim that you are attributing to it please.

ETA: On second thoughts, I may well be incorrect about the above. You may not be lying at all, you may simply be incredibly stupid and unable to understand basic english as it is written.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
How does Hamburg University describing a different scenario from JAIC equate to 'supporting a claim for sabotage'?

Stop reaching.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but are you even aware of the conversation you're having here? I'm serious, are you doing ok Vixen, because a normally functioning human being shouldn't be doing what you're doing here.

Someone asked you to support your claim of sabotage, and you provided the Hamburg report. Do you genuinely not remember this? The idea that the Hamburg report supports sabotage was originally your claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom