• 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.
JayUtah said:
What does that have to do with anything? You have no evidence that Sweden "disappeared" the officers of the ferry. Grasping at every opportunity to trash Sweden for other reasons doesn't fix that.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure trashing Sweden for whatever reason has been one of the main points of this entire exercise.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The 'Y' helicopters were not SAR helicopters, they were Anti Submarine helicopters. They would not have been fitted with winches designed for continual heavy use like a SAR helicopter.
I wouldn't think they had done much winching at all prior to the Estonia.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were sabotaged to keep the wrong helicopters from picking up Piht from his posh lifeboat.
 
Vixen said:
Not necessarily. Terry Waite disappeared as a hostage for several years. The fact he reappeared and was alive does not cancel out the fact he was disappeared by his captors.
Click to expand...
Terry Waite wasn't disappeared. He was held hostage. It was known that he was held hostage and who took him hostage. Therefore he wasn't disappeared.

You really are clueless, aren't you?
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Maybe they were sabotaged to keep the wrong helicopters from picking up Piht from his posh lifeboat.
Click to expand...

Reading the descriptions of the events some of the failures seem to be down to wires getting tangled in wreckage and having to be cut free, one at least was jammed and the rescue man was flown to, and lowered on to one of the ships as he couldn't be recovered.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Reading the descriptions of the events some of the failures seem to be down to wires getting tangled in wreckage and having to be cut free, one at least was jammed and the rescue man was flown to, and lowered on to one of the ships as he couldn't be recovered.
Click to expand...

I just saw that. That was Y 65. Crazy ride.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It was something that had been done many times before, it was routine. It was stealthy but not 'highly dangerous'.
They di ddeserve their medals though.

You will notice that since 2007 the medal has been awarded four times for unspecified reasons to unnamed individuals.
That is how it is done for secret stuff. You don't invent fake stories for the press and parade the recipients for interviews.
Click to expand...

It had to in Svesson's case because the Swedish press had already hailed him as a hero for presumably rescuing the eight survivors who later disappeared (assuming that they were rescued and did disappear).

So the charade had to be kept up, as publicly, Helicopter Y64 associated with Svensson is only credited with one survivor and he needed to be kept sweet.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
I'm pretty sure trashing Sweden for whatever reason has been one of the main points of this entire exercise.
Click to expand...

I love Sweden* with my heart and soul. The first time I ever stepped foot in Sweden, getting off the ferry, I felt a powerful sense of dejà vu. I thought, 'Wait! this is a continuation of Finland: same-style houses, countryside, forests, lakes, boulders'.

So you are wrong to claim I hate Sweden. I will call out perceived injustice anywhere.

*Except in ice hockey, football, slalom. cross country skiing.
 
Vixen said:
My source? I have been following this story ever since the day I heard the news, so the sources are myriad (no not that one).
Click to expand...
On that specific claim, I mean.
Vixen said:
Sometimes, when an expert in his field or an investigative journalist is trashed, it can be because they are too close to the truth (cf David Kelly and the Weapons of Mass Destruction) so their reputations are smeared in the press, or alternatively, disinformation agents do the opposite, in order to depict them as extremists and lunatics, whilst pretending to promulgate the same views and aligning them with unsavoury types.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you can name some examples of this happening can you?
Vixen said:
This is why it is important for people to think for themselves instead of mindlessly accepting what they are told.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that coming to a different conclusion to you is mindlessly accepting the truth?
 
Vixen said:
It had to in Svesson's case because the Swedish press had already hailed him as a hero for presumably rescuing the eight survivors who later disappeared (assuming that they were rescued and did disappear).

So the charade had to be kept up, as publicly, Helicopter Y64 associated with Svensson is only credited with one survivor and he needed to be kept sweet.
Click to expand...

After the winch failed he could no longer rescue survivors back to Y 64. It had to return for repairs.
He was recovered by Y 74 and continued rescuing survivors when he replaced the Y 74 rescue man.

If he never did any of it, why would the press have heard it and started hailing him as a hero?
If the earlier flight has been so well hidden that there is absolutely no record or trace of it, why tell anyone about anything the rescue man did?
 
Vixen said:
It doesn't release the buoy until it is under one to four metres (12 feet and a bit) of water. Hence the term hydrostatic release.
Click to expand...

Correct. And it doesn't matter in the slightest what is being released. It might be an emergency beacon. It might be a ham sandwich. Hydrostatic release does not do anything except release the object. It's up to the object to do separately whatever it's meant to do.

How can any crew member manually activate it when the ship is at that stage?
Click to expand...

Why do you persist in this bafflingly daft, and completely incorrect, assumption that someone must wait until the buoy is released by the automatic mechanism in order to activate it? The buoy can be released from its holder at any time, such as would be needed for servicing and battery checks. And the preferred method of operation for all such buoys is for the responsible crewperson to remove it manually from the holder and activate it manually and either throw it clear of the ship or carry it with them on a lifeboat.

Hydrostatic release of the buoy is quite advantageous when the buoy is also immersion-activated. But nothing prevents the stowage of a manually activated buoy in a holder that features both manual and hydrostatic release. Of course that would result in an inactive buoy being deployed in the case of an sudden sinking. Which is exactly what the facts show happened in the case of MS Estonia.

The same thing happens for the airplane-mounted models. While there are various mechanisms to activate the emergency beacon in the event of a crash, it is still the pilot's responsibility to manually activate the beacon from the cockpit, if able to do so after the crash.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
On that specific claim, I mean.


Ok, so you can name some examples of this happening can you?

Why do you assume that coming to a different conclusion to you is mindlessly accepting the truth?
Click to expand...

Christopher Bollyn, for example, claiming the world is being taken over by Zionists, so he is trying to link anyone not convinced by the JAIC as some kind if disgusting extremist who believes the same garbage as himself, although I am sceptical he believes his own garbage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom