• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I was trying to show that the main tension in the bow visor is borne by the side locks, not the Atlantic lock, and indeed, Dr-Ing Hans Hoffmeister found that the weakest link would have been the starboard side lock, then the port, with the Atlantic lock last of all.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed with you at length.
 
Steve said:
I think it is intended to illustrate exactly how the bow of the Estonia was removed. Just imagine exactly the same process, complete with rock and with bad comedy, occurring at sea at midnight in the middle of a storm.
Click to expand...

D'oh! of course! How dumb of me.

Well, that's me completely convinced. All of Vixen's theories are obviously true and accurate reportage of this current event (especially the contradictory ones).

Congratulations Vixen, you win! I move that this thread be returned post haste to its' rightful home!




:rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
Yes, let's give it a neutral sounding euphemism, such as 'Extraordinary Rendition' and quibble about the exact name of the various Acts and Treaty, instead.
Click to expand...

It's not a "neutral-sounding euphemism." It's an entirely different set of facts and an entirely different set of law than the ones you claimed. The law is all about quibbles. If you accuse someone of a crime, you must provide testable evidence of each of the specific elements of that crime. If you fail, the person is not guilty of that crime. It's that simple.

You reported the accusation that Sweden violated the Rome Statute on enforced disappearances. You reported that an international court had held that they were guilty. The only evidence you have for that is a made-up claim from a notorious activist.

Whatever Sweden may have done, they did not do what you accuse them of doing. Just admit it, apologize, and move on. None of this backpedaling and tap-dancing.

When done by happy...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant rant ignored.
 
Vixen said:
I was trying to show that the main tension in the bow visor is borne by the side locks, not the Atlantic lock, and indeed, Dr-Ing Hans Hoffmeister found that the weakest link would have been the starboard side lock, then the port, with the Atlantic lock last of all.

As the JAIC has the latter first causing the other two to simultaneously detach also, then one has to wonder whether the theory that the bow visor was raising and falling and banging the forepeak deck has to be questioned.
Click to expand...

It was the top pivots that had most of the weight.
 
Vixen said:
...it had to come up with a ridiculous hypothetical scenario of the thing floating on its side until enough windows and dividers were broken.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown that it's ridiculous. I've read many accident reports from smaller vessels that describe -- and provide evidence of -- exactly this kind of scenario. All you've shown is that you just really don't know what you're talking about and hope that bluff and bluster will avail you.
 
junkshop said:
Why? What's its' relevance?


OK, some guys blowing up rocks. I have no idea what supposed relevance this has, as I don't understand whatever language that is, and there are no subtitles.
Click to expand...


A poster expressed scepticism that dynamite* was readily available and I have shown that, on the contrary, it is almost a constant need, even if only licensed builders have a permit to get the stuff.

*I use the term in its slang sense.
 
Vixen said:
A poster expressed scepticism that dynamite* was readily available and I have shown that, on the contrary, it is almost a constant need, even if only licensed builders have a permit to get the stuff.

*I use the term in its slang sense.
Click to expand...

Your claim was we could just walk in to a store and buy it.

That isn't right.

Why would you think dynamite would be suitable to use as a cutting charge for steel?
 
Vixen said:
Easily.
Click to expand...

Priceless. You're asking me to believe that you can "easily" determine the validity of Anders Björkman's expert testimony on ship stability when you couldn't even describe the model in your own words without confusing such elementary concepts as points, lines, and vectors. I would ask what qualifies you to make such a determination, but you answer it:

AS Bob Dylan so nicely put it, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".
Click to expand...

Well now you're trying to backpedal and claim that Björkman is only telling you something you can determine for yourself. Except that you can't. And by that I mean you can't. You cannot demonstrate a correct working knowledge of ship stability, flood rates, or anything else that adheres to the question of how a ship might have sunk.

But getting back to the point you're trying to make, you specifically said that Anders Björkman is a fully-qualified marine engineer. That means, according to you, that he possesses knowledge that others don't -- specialized knowledge regarding how ships behave when damaged or otherwise compromised. And on that basis we must accept his judgment as the product of that superior, not-widely-shared knowledge.

So you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want us to accept Björkman as an expert in engineering and science (when he patently isn't), but at the same time tell us that anyone can tell for himself, intuitively, that what he's claiming is correct. He's either an expert withness or he's superfluous. Make up your mind.
 
Vixen said:
It is best to explain complex things in simple language, no?
Click to expand...
Explaining how the lock mechanism on a vehicle ferry bow door works by using the analogy of a piece of paper pinned to a wall isn't explaining a complex thing in simple language, it's a harebrained way of trying to explain a complex thing by using a very stupid analogy.

What's your actual evidence that the Atlantic lock was only added as an accessory to make passengers feel safer?
 
Vixen said:
1. Bjorkman is not my go-to.
Click to expand...

He is. Repeatedly. You've stopped naming him as a source, but you have not stopped relying on him as one of your primary sources.

2. You don't know what level of physics I have.
Click to expand...

We have discussed your deceptive and overstated claims on this point at length. You can't demonstrate even the slightest competence in physics. Not even a little bit. No one believes you are competent to evaluate Anders Björkman's attempts to play engineer.

Just because you are dependent on what you learnt as a kid, it doesn't mean others do not carry on learning throughout life.
Click to expand...

You're the one claiming that what you learned as a kid -- your "five years of physics" -- qualifies you to understand the physics portions of the arguments you've made. You've made no prior claims to continuing education in physics. But that is largely irrelevant inasmuch as you simply cannot demonstrate any competence in physics when asked.
 
JayUtah said:
You haven't shown that it's ridiculous. I've read many accident reports from smaller vessels that describe -- and provide evidence of -- exactly this kind of scenario. All you've shown is that you just really don't know what you're talking about and hope that bluff and bluster will avail you.
Click to expand...

Citation, please?

Bearing in mind the JAIC found no flooding in ventilator pipes (or, rather, it didn't even go there) or breaches in the hull and certainly there is no mention of water on Deck 0, despite Sillaste having told a Swedish newspaper he, Treu and Kadak were 'up to our knees in water'.

I would be very interested to know which vessel you know of that had none of the aforesaid issues yet capsized, floated on its superstructure (= not the hull) for at least twenty minutes before sinking immediately to the bottom of the sea.

If you recall, the Oceanos floated on its extreme starboard side hull at a list for eighteen hours (due to a slow flood in the ventilation pipes. (The captain & senior crew were out of there in two shakes of a cat's tail). It didn't turn onto its superstructure (= past the point of stability) until then, at which point it sank in nine minutes. The passengers and crew all had ample time to evacuate and I believe most or all got out safely, despite the senior crew deserting ship.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A poster expressed scepticism that dynamite* was readily available and I have shown that, on the contrary, it is almost a constant need, even if only licensed builders have a permit to get the stuff.

*I use the term in its slang sense.
Click to expand...
You have quite the habit of making false claims and then after the fact claiming that you were misunderstood because you were joking, using slang or colloquialisms, etc. in order to justify your falsehoods.

edit: You've even gone so far as to claim (without evidence) that experts you've cited have done the same (e.g. the claim that 500 tonnes must have meant 500 megajoules) when they were found to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Your claim was we could just walk in to a store and buy it.

That isn't right.

Why would you think dynamite would be suitable to use as a cutting charge for steel?
Click to expand...

I quoted Michael Fellows, MBE, DSC, BEM, a bomb disposal and mine sweeper expert with 45 years continuous 'hands-on' experience, and who was awarded the MBE for his work on The Herald of Free Enterprise:

On a balance of probabilities I have concluded that:
I agree that the suspect package could have been an explosive device con taining between one and three kilograms of explosive.

This could have been Plastic or any one of the powerful liquid/powder explosive mixtures readily available (Fixor). The latter are much more powerful than TNT or C4 Plastic explosive. Can be transported easily and are not classified as explosive until mixed.

I agree, there is relatively easy access and availability of materials to make an explosive device and with the possible construction and estimated size of the package. The placing and the arming scenario suggested is however conjecture and one of a multitude of possible scenarios.
Click to expand...

Are you going to smear him as a conspiracy theorist, too, who has no idea what he is on about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom