• 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:
A quick google:

The local se
Click to expand...


None of that in any way whatsoever supports your claim that details of the new coalition government were passed to the US for approval.

It's those last two words which constitute the epic fail in your claim. And since the "for approval" part is crucial to your claim that Sweden was at that time a "puppet" of the US.... what it boils down to is that your entire claim falls apart.

Unless/until you can supply reliable evidence that Sweden required the approval of the US in matters such as the formation of government, that is.......
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What evidence did they use though?

Your own university report says it was fatigue and corrosion. Is it wrong?



So you don't believe the Hamburg report?
Click to expand...

I believe in getting to the bottom of things. In discussing the Atlantic lock I was specifically focussing on the bow visor locks.

Why that should 'prove' anything other than the situation with the bow visor locks is irrational.
 
Vixen said:
Where does Hamburg University state 'there is no evidence for sabotage'.

You lied. It was not in its remit, for a start.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they don't state there was no evidence pixies did it either. This is pathetic straw clutching.

"There is evidence for wear and tear" and no mention of evidence for anything else is implicitly stating there is no evidence for other theories.
 
LondonJohn said:
But even though the appointment is in the gift of the President (aren't there Senate confirmation hearings though?), I don't think any CIA Director would - in theory at least - ever take unilateral operational orders from the President. When it came to something like the Bin Laden seek-and-capture-destroy operation for example, there was a clear bilateral process: the CIA (and the military) advised the executive and presented options, and the executive decided - based on that advice - what to do. Obama didn't simply call CIA and Pentagon officials into his office one day and say "I hear on the q.t. that Bin Laden is living in this weird house in Pakistan - I've decided that I want you guys to go in there and capture or kill him, mmmkay?"

I guess it's pretty much the same as appointees to SCOTUS: when a vacancy arises, the President of the day has the power (subject, again, to Senate confirmation) to appoint whoever he/she wishes. And it stands to reason that the President of the day will wish to pick someone who is broadly aligned with his/her own politics and policy aims. But once the appointee takes up the position, there's never any question that he/she would ever act simply in craven support of the President.

(Though I guess there is one significant difference between the two: a sitting President can of course remove (either directly or indirectly) a CIA Director who "displeases" him/her, whereas that's not an option which is available when it comes to Supreme Court appointees. But I think the underlying principle still holds pretty well.)
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of Presidential appointments that require Senate confirmation. Usually those confirmations are pro forma. Judges presumably have some independence from the political process because of their lifetime appointments but perhaps you are familiar with the abortion issue in America and the recent Supreme Court hearing on the subject? There are a small number of other Presidential appointments where an effort has been made to insulate holder of the position from the political process, the board of governors of the Federal Reserve comes to mind. The Director of Central Intelligence is not one of them.

Again, the history of the CIA is replete with examples of political interference and framing intelligence to favor approval of a desired operation.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
NSA is an intelligence gathering organisation. Releasing documents would reveal their techniques and sources.

The NSA were not involved in the Estonia sinking.
Click to expand...

You do not understand. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the department has a legal requirement to comply and if not, to state the reason, of which it is only when a document is 'classified', they do not and if it is to do with national security then they have to state it, and that is what they stated about three documents on the Estonia in their possession.

Likewise, when Paul Barney and Graham Philips request information on why the UK signed the Estonia Gravesite Treaty when not being in the Baltic, no reply was given to Barney (the sole Brit survivor, who surely is entitled to know) and Philips, no sensible reply.
 
Vixen said:
Where does Hamburg University state 'there is no evidence for sabotage'.



You lied. It was not in its remit, for a start.
Click to expand...
You didn't address the point. If the university saw evidence of sabotage but chose instead the base their findings on thus-irrelevant fatigue cracks, would they have fulfilled their charge?
 
Vixen said:
12.6.1.

To bring in a hypothesis of flooding to the rest of the vessel, JAIC has the Estonia floating on its superstructure until sufficient windows and dividers were smashed by the waves.

A vessel simply does not do this without turning over.
Click to expand...


Yeah, just like the Oceanos, which *checks notes* capsized and sank without turning over.

Ooops.



If the JAIC are going to postulate that this is what happened, they need to describe how it went against Archimedes Principles, in detail.
Click to expand...


LMAOOOOOOOOO

I wonder if the authorities that looked into the Oceanos sinking were baffled and/or outraged that the ship's sinking had "gone against Archimedes' Principle. :D


(And, for your uneducated info: 1) there's only one Principle (not "Principles"); and 2) (amusingly ironically) the Principle is attributed to Archimedes, so it is written "Archimedes' Principle" (note apostrophe))
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC time it as the bow visor falling off 0115. Estonia officially disappeared from the radar at 0148, so actually, 0h33'.


Wilhelm Gustloff with a triple torpedo to the hull took 0h 45'.

Oceanos took 18h.
Click to expand...

First indications were at 01.00

What does the Wilhelm Gustloff or the Oceanos have to do with it?

HMS Royal OAK sank in just 13 minutes after it was hit by a torpedoes in Scapa Flow, a 30,000 ton battleship designed to withstand torpedo hits.
Royal Oak quickly listed to 15°, sufficient to push the open starboard-side portholes below the waterline. She soon rolled further onto her side to 45°, hanging there for several minutes before disappearing beneath the surface at 01:29, 13 minutes after Prien's second strike
Click to expand...

Your examples of ships of different type sunk in different ways have no bearing.

Why should we consider them when you dismiss a sister ship of the Estonia suffering identical damage and almost sinking?
 
Vixen said:
We were discussing the role of the Atlantic lock, that is how Hamburg University's report came into the picture.
Click to expand...

Yes and it shows that there wasn't any sabotage and came to the same conclusions as the JAIC report differing only in the detail of the order that the locks failed.
 
Vixen said:
12.6.1 Even though the list developed rapidly; the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles. The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.
Click to expand...


Nope.

And it's instructive that you appear not to even realise that the passage you've quoted does not in any way support your claim. Nothing new under the Sun there though.....
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So why mention the 'Zionist Jew' bit?
Click to expand...

Voronin was a Russian Jew. It is a factual statement. He was an arms trader. He was a staunch Zionist. The police (one presumes, as it wasn't in the Rockwater official remit) appears to have been treating the attaché case as an item of interest.

Jutta Rabe claims she was given insider information that the US acquisitioned the cargo for Israel.

As you know the Middle East conflict was very much on the map at that time with Clinton playing peace maker.
 
Vixen said:
12.6.1 Even though the list developed rapidly; the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles. The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.
Click to expand...

And we know water did enter other areas of the vessel, the water on the car deck pushed it past it's point of recovery and water entered through the air intakes and ventilators for the machinery space and the stairs and passageways in the hull.
Engines and generators stopped due to a combination of flooding and angle of heel.
Once power was lost the ship was doomed.
 
LondonJohn said:
D'uh! The pesky CT Rulez clearly state that while it's unacceptable to invoke racist tropes in most circumstances, it's actually wholly acceptable (indeed, it's positively beneficial) to dial them up if they're in support of said CT.

Do make yourself familiar with those Rulez before embarrassing yourself like this again.
Click to expand...

I see nothing racist in it.
 
Vixen said:
Where does Hamburg University state 'there is no evidence for sabotage'.

You lied. It was not in its remit, for a start.
Click to expand...

The report posts conclusions signed off by the author.
If there had been evidence of sabotage how could he sign off the report saying it was fatigue and corrosion?

That would make him dishonest and a liar.
How can you trust the report if you think the author that signed it off is a liar?
 
Vixen said:
I believe in getting to the bottom of things. In discussing the Atlantic lock I was specifically focussing on the bow visor locks.

Why that should 'prove' anything other than the situation with the bow visor locks is irrational.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what that is supposed to mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom