• 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:
Rubbish. He is just highly visible on Google search. I have been following the Estonia disaster from Day One and only came across Bjorkmann when finding citations here for posters who demand them.
Click to expand...

He's been one of the chief MS Estonia conspiracy theorists since Day One and is widely cited by other conspiracy theorists, including yourself. You have been evidently cribbing from his material all along. And if someone asks you for the authority behind your claims, and you name Anders Björkman, then he is your source. That's how sources work. If you stop naming him, but continue to use and rely upon the material, he's still your source. But then you're just being dishonest about it.

You and Reformed Offlian want me to slag him off but I don't know anything about him to do any such thing.
Click to expand...

Straw man, and patently false. You've been presented with adequate material to judge his competence as a scientist or engineer. He is not a reliable source for engineering expertise. But nobody is asking you to "slag him off." You're being asked to own up to, and defend, your sources. Or falling that, to stop using them -- not just stop revealing them.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It would depends on the remaining buoyancy and the flooding rate. It is nothing to do with your imagined 'point of stability'
Most ships do not capsize as they sink.
Click to expand...

Specifically nothing to do. The metacentric-height model of transverse stability has to do with externally imposed roll moments -- wind, wave, or a sharp turn. That's not the case when a ship floods. The ship's roll angle is still dictated by the physics underlying that model, but the model changes to accommodate the effects of flooding.
 
To revisit this one:

Jukkelus said:
The only dynamite you can buy without being licensed exploder is "snail dynamite" what is an expanding mortar used to crack rocks concrete.
.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Here you go:

https://www.bauhaus.fi/halkaisusementti-rakennuskemia-5-kg.html
Click to expand...

Don't you claim to speak Finnish?

From that page:
Etanadynamiitti. A safe material for breaking and excavating rock and concrete structures. Suitable for breaking stones and rock, splitting concrete and reinforced concrete structures such as piers and plinth structures. Swells in a slowly drilled hole.
Click to expand...

What does "Etana" mean, I wonder? According to Google translate, the Finnish for 'snail' is 'etana'.

So, even having been warned by Jukkelus that snail dynamite was a local name for expanding mortar, not actual dynamite, you presented a link to the same thing presumably after a perfunctory search. Your research skills are sadly lacking.
 
zooterkin said:
What does "Etana" mean, I wonder? According to Google translate, the Finnish for 'snail' is 'etana'.
Click to expand...

'Etana' is 'snail'.

So the mortar is "dynamite acting on a snail's pace"

Which means, of course, that it isn't dynamite like Vixen believes. Or any sort of explosive.
 
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...

But what you achieved was to clearly demonstrate that you have no grasp at all of which parts of the visor bore the loads.

The visor was designed such that it could be held in any position by its two hinges and its two hydraulic rams. The three locks were there to provide much more strength in the closed position as the rams and hinges alone would not be strong enough to resist the battering of the sea.

You didn't consider whether any of the three locks was designed so as to draw the visor shut against its rubber seal or whether the hydraulics did that job and the locks simply slid into place. You certainly didn't attempt to grasp why Dr Hoffmeister thought the starboard lock specifically would fail first, nor how much margin he thought there was between that and the Atlantic lock failing first. You just spotted a difference and tried to hammer a wedge in between the two with the ludicrously simplistic model of a sheet of paper flopping under gravity when one upper pin is removed.

You don't understand enough even to grasp how bad your argument is.
 
Vixen said:
The maximum list IIRC for the Estonia is roughly 40° before capsizing becomes almost inevitable save for some drastic action. As of 0130 it was at 70° or more, and thus was no longer resting on its beams with the hull keeping it afloat, it would be virtually at a near right angle to the sea. There is no way a vessel, especially of that great size and weight, that will carry on floating in that position for a further twenty minutes. If you recall, Oceanos once past the point of stability, sank within nine minutes.
Click to expand...

When a ship is described as resting on its beam ends that means that it is lying on its side, listing at roughly 90°. You seem to have forgotten that but retained and used the phrase as decoration. Can you indicate what size and weight have to do with the matter? Rhetorical question of course. No. You can't.
 
abaddon said:
You want a conspiracy.

As The Rolling Stones aptly put it "You can't always get what you want!"

Argument by song lyrics has to be the most moronic tactic ever.
Click to expand...

Hold on now. I Suspect that AC/DC must be the source of Vixen's dynamite sidetrack"

"I'm TNT, I'm dynamite!"
 
Vixen said:
Rubbish. He is just highly visible on Google search.
Click to expand...

He is highly visible on *your* Google search. He isn't highly visible on mine if I simply Google "Estonia disaster"

As you should know, Google's algorithm adjusts search results to the user's history. Google is showing you Bjorkman because your search history and/or choice of keywords suggests that you're the sort of conspiracy hound who would be interested in Bjorkman.

And even if he is high on your Google search, that is not really relevant to your decision to use him as a source. That still just represents poor choices on your part. Choices you have doubled down on long after being shown how poor they are.
 
Last edited:
Marras said:
'Etana' is 'snail'.

So the mortar is "dynamite acting on a snail's pace"

Which means, of course, that it isn't dynamite like Vixen believes. Or any sort of explosive.
Click to expand...


Perhaps it’s a very slow explosive, something like the “Silent But Deadly” that featured in Brass.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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:



Are you going to smear him as a conspiracy theorist, too, who has no idea what he is on about?
Click to expand...


Do you understand that “the suspect package could have been an explosive device containing between one and three kilograms of explosive” is not a statement that it actually was an explosive device?
 
Vixen said:
So the guys were Egyptians. They must be the same as the people who flew into the 9/11 Towers. Bloody terrorists. Nice.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were just jerks with a dangerous ideology, and Sweden found an excuse to get rid of them.

This has nothing to do with the Estonia's bow-visor being knocked off in rough seas that it was never designed to sail in.
 
Last edited:
Vixen, do you not realise it's patently obvious that you're attempting to use Bjorkman as a source, and that simply claiming you are not doing so while regurgitating his points wholesale doesn't convince anyone?

This is toddler level of transparent dishonesty. You're doing the same thing as a 3 year old demanding we accept that they did not eat the cake despite having cake smeared all over their face. It's pathetic.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Vixen, do you not realise it's patently obvious that you're attempting to use Bjorkman as a source, and that simply claiming you are not doing so while regurgitating his points wholesale doesn't convince anyone?

This is toddler level of transparent dishonesty. You're doing the same thing as a 3 year old demanding we accept that they did not eat the cake despite having cake smeared all over their face. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
She even regurgitated the following claim, copied and pasted word for word (apart from the "or before" bit, that Erich Moik, was sacked from Estline for a TV interview he gave.

Heiwa said:
After (or before?) such a frank interview captain Moik was dismissed from Estline.
Click to expand...

She copied and pasted it from Bjorkman's website without giving any citation that that's where she got the claim from. She didn't even reword it to hide the source.

So much for Bjorkman being a reliable authority for the topic of ship engineering and ship design and that's why she cites him, she's using him for other claims surrounding the Estonia conspiracy that have nothing to do with the physics or engineering of ships.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Vixen, do you not realise it's patently obvious that you're attempting to use Bjorkman as a source, and that simply claiming you are not doing so while regurgitating his points wholesale doesn't convince anyone?

This is toddler level of transparent dishonesty. You're doing the same thing as a 3 year old demanding we accept that they did not eat the cake despite having cake smeared all over their face. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
Hmm. My kids are adults now. I would mock them now if they invented such a stupid argument. Hell they would mock me if I made up such nonsense. And rightly so.
 
JesseCuster said:
And her argument is that because you can stick pins in a piece of paper on a wall and it behaves a certain way, she can conclude the reasons for the use of the Atlantic lock was that it was just an accessory to make people feel safe, absent any actual evidence of the hows and whys of the actual design and implementation of the actual lock used on the Estonia. (edit: already mentioned in post above) (edit2: how is the Atlantic lock meant to make passengers feel safe when no-one actually on a passenger ship knows about the existence of Atlantic locks or anything about the locks used on bow doors?)

This is the level of argument we're dealing with here.
Click to expand...

Not sure what's with the 'An Angry Baby Writes' act. The information about the Atlantic lock was something I read on an interesting website. Unfortunately, I can't remember where, and can no longer find it. However, it was not about the Atlantic lock on the Estonia it was about that type of lock in general. I think Atlantic lock might even be the name of the original manufacturers, in the same way we call things 'Stanley knife','Hoover' or 'Biro'. Thus the 'feel safe' factor was to do with vessels in pretty much open sea, or ocean. More to do with the ship owners and buyers than anything to do with Estonia passengers. Someone at the Papenburg shipyard in Germany would have made the decision to incorporate such a lock.

When you bear in mind the Finnish, Swedish and German car ferries already had the safety features The Herald of Free Enterprise did not (for example, the bow visor [gate to protect the car ramp], a hydraulically-activated sensor light when the Atlantic bolt was latched into place, flexible cctv cameras to surveille the car deck and fitted with an automatically activated (HRU) float-free EPIRB either side of the bridge [although the Estonia one mysteriously failed to activate despite apparently being released], together with the additional Atlantic lock, you can see it was nothing like the Herald of Free Enterprise in terms of lack of safety.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
You've said that, but it's patently untrue. He was one of your first sources, remains one of your primary sources, and you're trying to rehabilitate him even now (for the umpteenth time) as an expert witness.
Click to expand...

He's not my main source and never has been. As you have been told my main sources are newspaper accounts as of the time, together with other eclectic sources, including Drew Wilson and Jack A Nelson.

Clear now?
 
JesseCuster said:
Oh dear.

You were asked of evidence that dynamite could be bought in hardware stores, so you frantically googled for something and posted a link without reading or understanding it.

So much for your touted research skills. You suck at it.
Click to expand...

Nothing 'frantic' about it. Dynamite-type supplies are in common use here for reasons already stated. As I don't frequent hardware outlets much I wouldn't know one brand from another. The point being made is that it is not a difficult task for a determined person to get hold of the type of stuff needed to make an IED, as Michael Fellows points out. Or does he 'suck at it', as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom