Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[JayUtah]

This is what happens when CTists talk in circles.

Right, it's an easily-discerned feature of arguments that run away (in any an all directions) from an undesired conclusion instead of toward (the few directions) where all the evidence actually points.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I love how suddenly there was no way the Estonia should have sunk due to a mythical buoyancy which has never existed in any seagoing vessel unless there were other holes in the ship other than the OPEN CAR DECK RAMP.

Once the ship was on its side the exterior upper decks were accessible to the high seas meaning ventilation ducts, unsecured doors, broken windows, and eventually the smoke stack would have allowed for flooding.

I don't know why this needs to be explained.

It must be pointed out that this is also inconsistent with a conspiracy where explosives were used to sing the ship since the obvious weak point would have been the visor. This is what happens when CTists talk in circles.

Explosive charges were used to either blow off the visor, blow a hole in the hull or in the form of torpedoes or stray WW2 mines.

Or a combination of all of the above including being rammed by a submarine.

 

[GlennB]

Explosive charges were used to either blow off the visor, blow a hole in the hull or in the form of torpedoes or stray WW2 mines.

Or a combination of all of the above including being rammed by a submarine.

You forgot the radioactive waste eating its way through the visor.

 

[Myriad]

A boat is designed to float. Why would anyone deliberately try to make it sink. It doesn't disprove anything, does it? You can make it sink by simply drilling a hole in the hull. Why waste time filling it with water?

To test your claim, of course. This one:

Take a simple rowing boat, wood frame, operated by oars. There are no leaks.
Any imbalance or inflow of water, the boat simply capsizes toppling its contents into the water. It doesn't sink, it floats upside down ceteris paribus.

If I drilled a hole in it, there would no longer be "no leaks." Since you haven't put any constraints on any imbalance or inflow of water, it would appear I can wield my bucket however I see fit. But I don't want you to be able to say I've somehow gotten the inflow of water wrong violating some condition hidden in "ceteris paribus", so I await your instructions for how to sink my rowboat with a flow of water that will cause it to float upside down.

 

[GlennB]

To test your claim, of course. This one:

If I drilled a hole in it, there would no longer be "no leaks." Since you haven't put any constraints on any imbalance or inflow of water, it would appear I can wield my bucket however I see fit. But I don't want you to be able to say I've somehow gotten the inflow of water wrong violating some condition hidden in "ceteris paribus", so I await your instructions for how to sink my rowboat with a flow of water that will cause it to float upside down.

There is no rational response to your points, so they need to be subsumed into a sea of obfuscation, waffle and Gishing. Or totally ignored. We shall see.

 

[Vixen]

So you think it's an either/or situation. Either a ship capsizes or it sinks.

Is that what you are saying?

No.

 

[Vixen]

What is your reference for this claim please?

Also can you confirm you are talking about the windows in the car deck doors (the subject of the post you replied to) and not other windows on other decks?

There are no side windows in the car deck so the JAIC must be referring to inner windows.

 

[Vixen]

I love how suddenly there was no way the Estonia should have sunk due to a mythical buoyancy which has never existed in any seagoing vessel unless there were other holes in the ship other than the OPEN CAR DECK RAMP.

Once the ship was on its side the exterior upper decks were accessible to the high seas meaning ventilation ducts, unsecured doors, broken windows, and eventually the smoke stack would have allowed for flooding.

I don't know why this needs to be explained.

It must be pointed out that this is also inconsistent with a conspiracy where explosives were used to sing the ship since the obvious weak point would have been the visor. This is what happens when CTists talk in circles.

That might be so but it wouldn't sink in record time.

 

[Vixen]

Explosive charges were used to either blow off the visor, blow a hole in the hull or in the form of torpedoes or stray WW2 mines.

Or a combination of all of the above including being rammed by a submarine.

Many a true word spoken in jest, except torpedoes can be small and likewise limpet mines, not necessarily WWII ones.

 

[Vixen]

You forgot the radioactive waste eating its way through the visor.

There's that, too, according to Harri Ruotsalainen, JAIC engineer investigator.

 

[Vixen]

To test your claim, of course. This one:




If I drilled a hole in it, there would no longer be "no leaks." Since you haven't put any constraints on any imbalance or inflow of water, it would appear I can wield my bucket however I see fit. But I don't want you to be able to say I've somehow gotten the inflow of water wrong violating some condition hidden in "ceteris paribus", so I await your instructions for how to sink my rowboat with a flow of water that will cause it to float upside down.

Myriad, I don't want you to sink your rowboat.

 

[Kid Eager]

Many a true word spoken in jest, except torpedoes can be small and likewise limpet mines, not necessarily WWII ones.

That would be those Swedish Jumping Torpedoes, that leap out of the water and explode above the waterline, no doubt.

 

[Vixen]

That would be those Swedish Jumping Torpedoes, that leap out of the water and explode above the waterline, no doubt.

It is no more outrageous than the idea of the bow visor falling off because of the slap of a wave at Swedish midnight.

 

[GlennB]

Myriad, I don't want you to sink your rowboat.

You avoided his very simple question, one that stemmed from your self-contradictory statements. Why?

 

[Vixen]

Here is the effect of a limpet mine. Doesn't need to blow the whole ship out of the water, as Captain_Swoop claims.

 

[junkshop]

It is no more outrageous than the idea of the bow visor falling off because of the slap of a wave at Swedish midnight.

Not a claim anyone has made (well, except you).

 

[Mojo]

It is no more outrageous than the idea of the bow visor falling off because of the slap of a wave at Swedish midnight.

Just as well that nobody is suggesting that, then.

 

[junkshop]

Here is the effect of a limpet mine. Doesn't need to blow the whole ship out of the water, as Captain_Swoop claims.

I don't recall Captain_Swoop making this claim. Would you care to link to the post where this happened, please?

Maybe you have confused him with another poster, or maybe you misread a post, or misunderstood one.

Maybe you're just lying.

 

[Mojo]

Here is the effect of a limpet mine. Doesn't need to blow the whole ship out of the water, as Captain_Swoop claims.

Doesn’t seem to have sunk the ship either.

 

[junkshop]

You forgot the radioactive waste eating its way through the visor.

There's that, too, according to Harri Ruotsalainen, JAIC engineer investigator.

I thought his 'theory' was the one about opening the cardeck en route, and pushing vehicle/s out?

Was he just throwing every ******* crazy idea at the wall to see what would stick? That's a weird way to proceed, if you want anyone to take you seriously.