Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[JayUtah]

These were quotes from experts, who know better than you.

Hypocrisy. You've ignored plenty of experts who know better than you.

You really are gullible if you think a cruise ferry with 70 Stockholm civil service police on board sinking in 35' is normal.

Just to remind everyone: exactly what is your experience in shipbuilding, engineering, and forensic accident investigation? From what position of knowledge and experience are you calling other people gullible?

For you, the sudden death of almost 1,000 people is quite natural and there is not a flicker of curiosity about it.

Straw man.

 

[JayUtah]

These are the opinions of the German shipbuilders, for one, together with the former public prosecutor for Estonia.

Asked and answered many times. The opinions of a shipbuilder trying to find alternate excuses for the loss of one of their vessels are not generally considered objective truth.

What is your experience in forensic engineering investigation again? Remind the thread.

 

[JayUtah]

It is one of the leading shipbuilders in Europe. You can say it's 'incompetence' but that is just a knee jerk opinion of a man in the street.

While I'm not going so far as to say they're incompetent, I do not trust an investigation carried out by a company with a clear motive to try to clear its name and restore its reputation. My opinion on that matter is not simply the "knee jerk opinion of a man on the street." I have extensive training and experience in such things. Address that.

Also, please convince me that your conclusions regarding MS Estonia are not just the knee-jerk opinion of a woman on the street, keeping in mind that I'm exceedingly well aware of all the ad hoc contradictory arguments you've made in this thread.

 

[JayUtah]

They built the ship; they have all the specifications. I'm not sure how that counts them out.

You didn't address the issue of bias. Having a lot of information doesn't remove the motive to frame it so as to lead the reader to a desired conclusion.

You cannot claim it is orthodox.

What is your basis for assessing orthodoxy? How many forensic engineering investigations have you participated in?

If that were the case it wouldn't be being revisited by Estonia, Finland and Sweden today.

That's your conclusion. Cite to where the official ongoing investigation gives their motive substantively as the unorthodoxy of the JAIC investigation.

The points in the rest of your post have been addressed repeatedly at length.

 

[Axxman300]

They built the ship; they have all the specifications. I'm not sure how that counts them out.

Please don't expect me to explain how lawsuits work.

The JAIC report is a compromise of three solid years of bitter disagreements and resignations of the panel, who largely met now and then and rarely kept proper minutes. You cannot claim it is orthodox.

I can. This was a panel of people who were not on the ship, trying to solve a mystery of the entirety of the events of the sinking. Not just the visor failure, the whole thing. They knew why the ship sank with certainty within a week. The rest was mostly a formality with the goal of making recommendations to avoid this kind of disaster from happening again.

Please provide us with an example of an accident investigation of this scale that was "normal".

If that were the case it wouldn't be being revisited by Estonia, Finland and Sweden today.

Sometimes the best way to shut people up is to give them what they want. They can do a more comprehensive survey today than 20 years ago.

As for the captain, a diver claimed to have seen his body with a bullet wound to the head so it is quite reasonable to speculate whether the bridge was hijacked as a group of men were seen in fierce argument with him. Guy in a red jacket on the bridge, never identified, plus guy with tattooed hand under a cabinet.

And yet NONE of the survivors reported a hijacking. They reported other - actual criminal acts preformed by some serious losers during the sinking, but nothing about armed me. And the diver was not a doctor. Everything you wrote here is speculation, not rooted in fact.

Captain Makela said he was surprised to see no remnants of the ship at all when he arrived because normally, a ship floats for quite a bit before vanishing all together.

 

[JesseCuster]

You really are gullible if you think a cruise ferry with 70 Stockholm civil service police on board sinking in 35' is normal.

Civilian police employees are no different that other ferry passengers.

Why shouldn't they drown if the ship goes down like the rest of the passengers who drowned?

edit: Where did I say anything the sinking of the Estonia being "normal"? You made that up.

 

[JesseCuster]

These were quotes from experts, who know better than you.

Your bizarre rambling incoherent attempt at explaining list angles was not a "quote from an expert". It was a laughable attempt at explaining something extremely simple from someone (you) who hasn't the most basic understanding of the subject matter at hand.

I'll remind you that you have boasted about having studied physics for 5 years and have used this supposed fact to bolster your claims. To those who don't know, Vixen's "5 years of physics studies" was high school level physics.

Hell, I've got 5 years of physics studies under my belt by that criterion.

 

[JesseCuster]

These were quotes from experts, who know better than you.

What expert claimed that a wheeled submarine was involved in the Estonia disaster?

Where's your evidence for the contents of Captain Andersson's contract?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Civilian police employees are no different that other ferry passengers.

Why shouldn't they drown if the ship goes down like the rest of the passengers who drowned?

edit: Where did I say anything the sinking of the Estonia being "normal"? You made that up.

In fairness to Vixen she isn't saying that the individuals should float or sink any better than random people. She's instead suggesting that the idea that it sank due to an accident is "suspicious" because of their presence.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 12.

 

[Steve]

In fairness to Vixen she isn't saying that the individuals should float or sink any better than random people. She's instead suggesting that the idea that it sank due to an accident is "suspicious" because of their presence.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 12.

Would that be more or less suspicious than the Russian military vehicles secretly boarded at the last minute? Or the transport of materials radioactive enough to melt the bow door steel? Or the disappearing of key survivors who could have shed light on what really happened?

 

[Vixen]

Civilian police employees are no different that other ferry passengers.

Why shouldn't they drown if the ship goes down like the rest of the passengers who drowned?

edit: Where did I say anything the sinking of the Estonia being "normal"? You made that up.

You are missing the point that these included key members investigating the Olaf Palme assassination.

 

[Vixen]

In fairness to Vixen she isn't saying that the individuals should float or sink any better than random people. She's instead suggesting that the idea that it sank due to an accident is "suspicious" because of their presence.

<snip>

The snipped bit is not correct.

 

[Vixen]

2 years physics was a standard option in my high school for students on the academic science track. I took Physics 11 and Physics 12. Just regular optional physics classes - could have selected Chem 11 and 12 or Biology 11 and 12. There was also a physics component in Science 8, 9, and 10, so I could stretch it into a claim that I took 5 years of physics in high school.

The school I went to you did five years Physics, five years Chemistry and five years Biology as separate subjects, plus two foreign languages, depending on what stream you were in. As I said, I was more into Chemistry than Physics beyond the fifth form. (Age 11/12 to 15/16, depending on your birthday.)

I never claimed to be a physicist. The extent of my scholastic physics is here:

 

[JayUtah]

I never claimed to be a physicist.

Straw man.

You insisted you were competent in physics when your dubious physics-based arguments were challenged. That's why you assured us that you studied physics for five years. No one is saying you claimed to be a physicist. However, the level of education you've claimed on the subject, if taken at the college level, would be consistent only with physics majors. It took much effort to get you to reveal the actual details. Obviously you wanted to convey the impression--however inaccurate--that you could formulate and understand arguments based on principles of physics, because you had made a suitable academic study of the field.

You have deployed arguments that would ordinarily require specialized physics knowledge to understand--and therefore to present correctly and defend. You presented a YouTube video on metacentric height as it applied to a schooner-type hull. You insinuated that it was a subject you understood and your critics did not, and insisted that the video proved your errant belief regarding transverse ship stability.

But when you tried to restate the principles in the video, you could not do it. You failed on basic concepts such as the difference between a point and a line. When asked how changing the hull shape would affect the computation, you ignored the question. When asked how the model would have to change in order to accommodate flooding, you ignored the question. I say you're ignoring the questions to avoid having to reveal your ignorance. I think you want people to believe you have more knowledge and expertise than you actually have.

You are not at all competent in physics.

The extent of my scholastic physics is here:

This would be roughly equivalent to two semesters of American college freshman physics--or advanced high-school physics--such as would satisfy the physical science course requirement for all graudates at the university where I taught. Your illustration appears to be the syllabus for physics O-Level exams, roughly equivalent to college admissions exams. That is a basic level of instruction in physics, probably not even incorporating calculus.

Regardless, you have not demonstrated any competence whatsoever in physics at this forum.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You DID claim to be a scientist though. Which you are manifestly not.

 

[Vixen]

Straw man.

You insisted you were competent in physics when your dubious physics-based arguments were challenged. That's why you assured us that you studied physics for five years. No one is saying you claimed to be a physicist. However, the level of education you've claimed on the subject, if taken at the college level, would be consistent only with physics majors. It took much effort to get you to reveal the actual details. Obviously you wanted to convey the impression--however inaccurate--that you could formulate and understand arguments based on principles of physics, because you had made a suitable academic study of the field.

You have deployed arguments that would ordinarily require specialized physics knowledge to understand--and therefore to present correctly and defend. You presented a YouTube video on metacentric height as it applied to a schooner-type hull. You insinuated that it was a subject you understood and your critics did not, and insisted that the video proved your errant belief regarding transverse ship stability.

But when you tried to restate the principles in the video, you could not do it. You failed on basic concepts such as the difference between a point and a line. When asked how changing the hull shape would affect the computation, you ignored the question. When asked how the model would have to change in order to accommodate flooding, you ignored the question. I say you're ignoring the questions to avoid having to reveal your ignorance. I think you want people to believe you have more knowledge and expertise than you actually have.

You are not at all competent in physics.



This would be roughly equivalent to two semesters of American college freshman physics--or advanced high-school physics--such as would satisfy the physical science course requirement for all graudates at the university where I taught. Your illustration appears to be the syllabus for physics O-Level exams, roughly equivalent to college admissions exams. That is a basic level of instruction in physics, probably not even incorporating calculus.

Regardless, you have not demonstrated any competence whatsoever in physics at this forum.

Let's get this into context. YOU were the one who asked me what physics background I had and I duly replied. I have never claimed to have expertise in the matter, so your snorting derisively at O-level Physics is your strawman, as is your demand that one needs a college degree in the topic to debate the unusual sinking of a passenger ferry ship.

Just because you fell out with Heiwa and he has some whacky views in other areas (I see nothing wrong with considering the logistics of Apollo or the Atom Bomb or even 9/11; why shouldn't people talk about topics that intrigue them?). However, he is a qualified ship architect and some of his calculations and graphs pertaining to the stricken Estonia are perfectly factually sound. In one place he expresses an opinion that the Estonians are to blame in some way. (Which I don't agree with.)

Why are you so fearful of people expressing an opinion? It is not the end of the world if someone has an opinion you oppose.


In addition, you do not need special qualifications to debate the various expert views on what sank this ship.

 

[Vixen]

You DID claim to be a scientist though. Which you are manifestly not.

My science degree with honours got me exemptions from post-graduate professional exams, masters level, heavily mathematics-based, so not everyone agrees with you.

 

[LondonJohn]

My science degree with honours got me exemptions from post-graduate professional exams, masters level, heavily mathematics-based, so not everyone agrees with you.

But at the same time, your attempts to utilise even basic scientific principles/equations/dimensions within this thread have been astonishingly inept.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

My science degree with honours got me exemptions from post-graduate professional exams, masters level, heavily mathematics-based, so not everyone agrees with you.

It's not a science degree. Its accounting isn't it?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh look, we're back to attempting to rehabilitate heiwa again. Vixen, do you understand that the problem with heiwa isn't that we 'had a falling out' with him but that his views on certain topics prove him to be incompetent?