• 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 IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spektator said:
It occurs to me that for more than forty years I have lived in close proximity to turtles. A colony of them lived in the lake just beyond our back yard. In the warm months I saw them daily on my walks along the nature trail on our campus. They densely populated the beaver pond alongside the trail. Many, many times I saw sea turtles as I snorkeled in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Bahamas. While canoeing, I saw swamp tutles, including a snapper the size of a truck wheel, in the Okefenokee. And not a one of them turned upside-down. Maybe a more appropriate description is called for.
Click to expand...


Here's one that's turned turtle:

picture.php



Not the one on top, of course.
 
Vixen said:
Look up the MS Jan Heweliusz a car ferry in terrible condition. Like the The Herald of Free Enterprise it capsized with no hull breach. It turned turtle and floated for about five days before sinking, where it still lies at 27m below the surface. The The Herald of Free Enterprise would also have turtled had it been in deeper water.
A Swedish rescuer who went to the rescue scene of the MS_Jan_Heweliusz and also to the Estonia stated he was shocked to see nothing but debris at the Estonia accident scene. Likewise, the captains of Mariella and Europa were both expecting it to be in a similar semi-submerged state.

Diana II did not sink.
Click to expand...


No. No it wouldn't have done. You don't know what you're talking about. Your ridiculous contention that these sorts of ships must somehow turn upside-down and float in that position for some time before eventually sinking... a) is ignorant of the actual physics and b) has been comprehensively demolished (with evidence) in this thread already.

Funny how all of these demonstrations of your embarrassing misunderstanding appear to have gone in one ear and out the other, meaning you plough on unfettered with your "turning turtle" batguano....


(And do have another look at the video of the Oceanos sinking. On its side. Without turning turtle upside-down/keel-up)
 
junkshop said:
Hang on, you appear to be in the USA! How do you know the difference between a tortoise and a turtle?

Is everything I 'know' about british vs. american english just lies??!??!


:D
Click to expand...

I’ll go one more pedantic point for the USA and say that the ones in fresh water rivers and lakes are neither tortoises nor turtles, but terrapins
 
Vixen said:
The interview took place in his retirement and is dated 26.09.2014 06:00.


Do you think lawyer Lehtola knows more than a Baltic sea captain in charge of a 2,500 person cruise ferry? Which one of the two knows about marine dynamics?
Click to expand...


I think the JAIC and its retained team of experts know an awful lot more about marine dynamics (and especially the modes/causes of sinkings) than a Baltic sea captain in charge of a 2,500-person cruise ferry.

Next?
 
Has anybody addressed why JAIC would suppress evidence of sabotage?

Only reason I ask is because the idea is flipping stupid.

Safety is the number-one priority of every accident investigation; what can be learned to prevent similar disasters in the future, and what kind of design flaws need to be addressed.

Number two? Security. If someone got explosives onboard, and then wandered around the car-deck unfettered to place their charges then that's a problem.
 
JesseCuster said:
No-one said it was.

However, rambling on about wheeled submarines, minisubs, blank torpedos, limpet mines, WW2 mines, Spetzsnaz commandos, CIA rendition flights, secret trials, nuclear material dissolving the bow locks, detonation charges doing the same thing, trucks full of heroin being pushed through the open bow doors in the middle of a storm, etc. etc., in relation to the sinking of the Estonia, well, that's full bore tinfoil hat conspiracy thinking, that is.
Click to expand...
It's worse. Don't forget that 3 governments, or 4, or 5 colluded to cover it all up, disappeared material witnesses, planted evidence, removed evidence, fabricated evidence and covered all of that up. They even made up a compliant joint investigation committee to whitewash their actions, but no, it isn't a conspiracy theory! Heaven forfend! We can't be having that sort of thing.
 
abaddon said:
It's worse. Don't forget that 3 governments, or 4, or 5 colluded to cover it all up, disappeared material witnesses, planted evidence, removed evidence, fabricated evidence and covered all of that up. They even made up a compliant joint investigation committee to whitewash their actions, but no, it isn't a conspiracy theory! Heaven forfend! We can't be having that sort of thing.
Click to expand...


Ahhh..... but you misunderstand! What Vixen is actually proposing is a theory about a conspiracy. Which is a noble and intellectually-rigorous/honest pursuit, obviously.

And which is totally different from a "conspiracy theory".

:rolleyes:
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Because I'm a hopeless optimist, I am going to post a list of the questions I have yet to receive satisfactory answers for:




(The following are not linked because they're from the previous thread)





Those are a number of the posts of mine you've tried to handwave away or just flat out ignored. Your attempts at deflection are obvious. You just don't want to be pinned down on anything concrete or answer questions that prevent you from Gish galloping.
Click to expand...

Your questions all seem to be of a, 'When did you stop beating your wife?'-style logical fallacy, or the ad hominem, 'Who do you think you are?'-type and thus, I shall not be giving any of them the dignity of a response.
 
Pathetic.

Absolutely pathetic Vixen.

How is "What is long term memory?" one of those? How is "How does the JAIC report violate Archimedes?" one?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
No. No it wouldn't have done. You don't know what you're talking about. Your ridiculous contention that these sorts of ships must somehow turn upside-down and float in that position for some time before eventually sinking... a) is ignorant of the actual physics and b) has been comprehensively demolished (with evidence) in this thread already.

Funny how all of these demonstrations of your embarrassing misunderstanding appear to have gone in one ear and out the other, meaning you plough on unfettered with your "turning turtle" batguano....


(And do have another look at the video of the Oceanos sinking. On its side. Without turning turtle upside-down/keel-up)
Click to expand...

Er, Justice Sheen who issued the The Herald of Free Enterprise Report 1987, himself said the The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turned over completely but for the sand bar on its port.

Thereafter the HERALD capsized to port rather more slowly until eventually she
was at more than 90". It is not possible to say whether the ship reached more than while
still floating or whether this was only when she reached the sea bed. There is some reason for
thinking that the ship floated more or less on her beam ends for about a minute before finally
resting on the sea bed.
Click to expand...
Section 9.3

In addition, the critically acclaimed account of the accident by Stephen Homewood, in Zeebrugge: A Hero’s Story writes:

This water settled on the port side, causing that first roll. [Briefly] the ship then steadied; but as more water rushed in, the extra weight sent the ship into its final death roll. Floating on its side for a minute, it [soon and providentially] settled on the sandbank that [mercifully] saved the ship from turning completely turtle.
Click to expand...

Goodreads says:

Assistant purser Stephen Homewood gives an eyewitness account of the tragedy, his survival and the manner in which he helped others to safety
Click to expand...

I'll leave the reader to judge which of us is 'ignorant of physics', 'embarrassing', 'pathetic', 'full of bat iguano' and 'you don't know what you are talking about' for him- or herself. It's amusing you feel so incredibly threatened by me you are reduced to hurling childish abuse. I am flattered.
 
Vixen said:
Your questions all seem to be of a, 'When did you stop beating your wife?'-style logical fallacy, or the ad hominem, 'Who do you think you are?'-type and thus, I shall not be giving any of them the dignity of a response.
Click to expand...

Well you tell us that you are a psychiatrist, a physicist, a scientist, an accountant, a journalist, a forensic specialist, a marine engineer and more besides. Who on earth are you really?
 
LondonJohn said:
I think the JAIC and its retained team of experts know an awful lot more about marine dynamics (and especially the modes/causes of sinkings) than a Baltic sea captain in charge of a 2,500-person cruise ferry.

Next?
Click to expand...

Legal bod, Mr. Justice Sheen, is on mine. Thörnroos' and Mäkelä's side, albeit in retrospect.
 
Vixen said:
I'll leave the reader to judge which of us is 'ignorant of physics', 'embarrassing', 'pathetic', 'full of bat iguano' and 'you don't know what you are talking about' for him- or herself. It's amusing you feel so incredibly threatened by me you are reduced to hurling childish abuse. I am flattered.
Click to expand...

That judgment happened long ago. Too late to go back now.
 
Vixen, are you claiming that you know more about the physics of ships and ship sinking than everyone else here? Are you claiming that you are competent in your knowledge of physics?

Why do you consider Anders Bjorkman a reliable expert despite his knowledge of physics being so poor he doesn't think nukes or space travel are possible?
 
Axxman300 said:
Has anybody addressed why JAIC would suppress evidence of sabotage?

Only reason I ask is because the idea is flipping stupid.

Safety is the number-one priority of every accident investigation; what can be learned to prevent similar disasters in the future, and what kind of design flaws need to be addressed.

Number two? Security. If someone got explosives onboard, and then wandered around the car-deck unfettered to place their charges then that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Why would the Finnair incident of 1987 have been suppressed until 2014, or the Swedish government smuggling of former Soviet Union espionage secrets in 1994 until 2005?

Compare and contrast how the The Herald of Free Enterprise and the recent Scot Carrier incidents are both immediately under prosecutor investigation. Criminal proceedings were brought against The Herald of Free Enterprise owners, Townsend Thoresen, who changed their name to P&O ferries as a consequence. The Herald of Free Enterprise in addition to not bothering with shutting the car ramp regularly in order to achieve a high turnaround, also had a habit of boarding an excess number of passengers, unlike the Estonia on the night running at about half capacity.

Think about it, the Swedish government immediately announced that 'No-one is to blame' as did their hastily convened JAIC who stuck rigidly to the 'bow visor hit by strong wave' line from Day One. Instead, an easily disprovable claim it was a design fault (cf Hoffmeister, University of Hamburg report) leaving the victims' relatives zero means of redress.

You do not think that the slightest bit odd?


Cui bene?

The culprit of course!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom