• 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:
It holds true to this day.

It took 18 hours for all of the stuff you mention to happen to the Oceanos.

It needs a better explanation than, 'it happened because t happened'.
Click to expand...

Oceanos flooded through a broken sea pipe, it took a long time to fill the ship up. Once power was lost it was doomed. How could the sinking be stopped when the crew had abandoned the ship?
 
Vixen said:
It holds true to this day.

It took 18 hours for all of the stuff you mention to happen to the Oceanos.

It needs a better explanation than, 'it happened because t happened'.
Click to expand...


Can you even conceive of the difference between 1) the flow rate of seawater into a vessel via a broken engine ventilation pipe which vented aft, and 2) the flow rate of seawater into a vessel via a badly-compromise and opened bow door/visor mechanism, while the ship is sailing at high speed and repeatedly digging into ocean swells?

Perhaps you'd benefit from thinking through what I've just written here. If you think through it properly and logically, you'll realise that the rate of seawater ingress was vastly greater in the case of the Estonia than it was in the case of the Oceanos.

Hence the sizeable difference in the time before which the two ships sank.

But (again, if you're able to think this thing through logically) other than the differences in the place and rate of water ingress, the capsize/sinking process was effectively very similar for both ships: they both took on so much seawater that they became fatally unstable while also sitting much lower on the water. As a result, both ships capsized. And once the ships had capsized - meaning that water was now able to enter via deck-level openings and pressure-broken windows - both of them sank soon thereafter. Neither ship "turned completely upside down". And nor did Archimedes' Principle require either ship to "turn completely upside down".
 
Vixen said:
12.6.1:

JAIC Report


It has the Estonia floating on its superstructure as the means of its reserve buoyancy (air) being displaced by water.

If that was the case it should have capsized in literally minutes, as the Herald of Free Enerprise or MS Jan Heweliusz did.
Click to expand...

Again with the 'floating on the superstructure' thing.

That is something you made up.
 
Vixen said:
Oh rubbish.

I've been to the Holy Land and fell in love with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Wonderful people. I have friends who are avidly pro-Palestinian and others, actively Zionist. Myself, I keep out of the politics.

Why can't people just live in peace.
Click to expand...


Oh. My. Word.

(Not to mention that this.......uhmmmmmm...... "response" of yours does not address in any way the post of mine which you were quote-replying to.)
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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?
Click to expand...

If some scientist in a laboratory is examining the nuts and bolts of the bow visor, independently and as a respected practitioner, why would he or she be dishonest or a liar if they do not mention say, the starboard hole.

They are looking at the bow visor locks, hinges, lugs and bolts in fine detail.

Nothing else. It is all they have been asked to do and all that they say they will do in their scope.

Just as your dentist looks at your teeth and not your flipping toes.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Wait. You were asked to explain your much repeated mantra "a ship cannot float on its superstructure". When challenged you claimed the JAIC said it. (I guess you mean they said it could?) And when challenged again you quoted them saying water on the car deck couldn't have sunk the ship if water had not been able to enter other parts of the ship.

You know they conclude that water *did* enter other parts of the ship. You know they said windows on the higher decks would have broken in and allowed faster flooding. But that's specific to this ship.
Where does your justification for your mantra that a ship cannot float on its superstructure come in?
Click to expand...

How else do you think the windows got smashed by the waves, according to JAIC?
 
Vixen said:
If some scientist in a laboratory is examining the nuts and bolts of the bow visor, independently and as a respected practitioner, why would he or she be dishonest or a liar if they do not mention say, the starboard hole.

They are looking at the bow visor locks, hinges, lugs and bolts in fine detail.

Nothing else. It is all they have been asked to do and all that they say they will do in their scope.

Just as your dentist looks at your teeth and not your flipping toes.
Click to expand...

they concluded that the visor failed due to fatigue and corrosion.

If they thought that something else was responsible why would they sign off that conclusion?

It shows that your claims of explosive charges blowing the bows off are false.
Your RN expert conclusion from looking at fuzzy video that there were explosives used on the bow is mistaken.
 
Vixen said:
12.6.1:

JAIC Report


It has the Estonia floating on its superstructure as the means of its reserve buoyancy (air) being displaced by water.
Click to expand...
What you quoted says nothing about “floating on its superstructure “.

If that was the case it should have capsized in literally minutes, as the Herald of Free Enerprise or MS Jan Heweliusz did.
Click to expand...
Are you saying it didn’t sink in minutes? If so, how long?
 
Vixen said:
They are looking at the bow visor locks, hinges, lugs and bolts in fine detail.
Click to expand...

...which is where you claim the sabotage occurred using the explosives Braidwood purports to have seen. Changing horses now to talk about the starboard-side hole is dishonest.

We asked for evidence of sabotage. You pointed us at the Hamburg University report. There is nothing in that report that supports a claim of sabotage. What is your evidence for sabotage?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


LOLOLOL

I'm going to fire off Freedom of Information requests to MI6 and GCHQ tomorrow, asking them to supply me with information about exactly what surveillance they're currently carrying out (and against whom), and what clandestine activities they're currently undertaking. Wish me luck!!
 
Vixen said:
If they were in a ship that sank and shared a cabin with a 'missing' captain, yes, it would be relevant.
Click to expand...

Why? How do you know he shared a cabin with a missing captain?

Where has that been claimed in any of the reports?

Was the missing captain a Russian Zionist Jew Captain?
 
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...
And they described how they thought the visor locks would have failed as it was forced open. Not how bombs would have smashed it. Not how radioactive waste would have.. whatever you imagine. Not how torpedoes would have blasted it off. Just how the pounding of diving into heavy seas would have overwhelmed the strength of its fixings.
 
Vixen said:
How else do you think the windows got smashed by the waves, according to JAIC?
Click to expand...

Windows high on the superstructure would not be designed to resist large waves. If they were in proximity to waves it would mean the ship was already sinking and in terrible trouble. Also, in addition to wave action they were broken by hydrostatic pressure after they were submerged.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Obviously the Israelis wanted to replace all their new American electronics and weapons with old Russian stuff.
Click to expand...

Arms trading from newly-independent Estonia? You can't see anything controversial about a politically active Russian Estonian taking advantage of the fall of the Soviet Union to help a cause felt strongly by someone who is an arms dealer and knows his way around the arms trading market.

The last of the Soviet military had only just left the month before the Estonia disaster.

The answer will surely lie behind the political machinations of the day.
 
Vixen said:
Arms trading from newly-independent Estonia? You can't see anything controversial about a politically active Russian Estonian taking advantage of the fall of the Soviet Union to help a cause felt strongly by someone who is an arms dealer and knows his way around the arms trading market.

The last of the Soviet military had only just left the month before the Estonia disaster.

The answer will surely lie behind the political machinations of the day.
Click to expand...

So why would Israel want old Russian electronics when they have an advanced arms industry of their own and also access to state of the art US equipment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom