• 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.
Jack by the hedge said:
For the umpteenth time the JAIC report said it was certified seaworthy, which it was. You have constantly relied on that certification to support your various fairy tales of other reasons why the ship sank since, being seaworthy, it couldn't have just failed and sunk on its own. Now this reassessment says that certification ought not to have been issued as the ship was not properly inspected.

I note it was also correct all along that there was no indication of any bombs or torpedoes or ramming or other violent attacks or sabotage.
Click to expand...

No no no, if the new report seems to vary from the JAIC in any way that means Vixen is right, Kemo Sabe?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
For the umpteenth time the JAIC report said it was certified seaworthy, which it was. You have constantly relied on that certification to support your various fairy tales of other reasons why the ship sank since, being seaworthy, it couldn't have just failed and sunk on its own. Now this reassessment says that certification ought not to have been issued as the ship was not properly inspected.

I note it was also correct all along that there was no indication of any bombs or torpedoes or ramming or other violent attacks or sabotage.
Click to expand...

The JAIC at no point looked into the issue of anything other than the bow visor.

I for one welcome the new inquiry looking at all aspects and actually physical examination of the vessel, especially with the advancement in underwater cinematography and 3-D model building, rather than armchair pontification that was the JAIC.

I look forward with fascination in finalising this current affairs news once and for all. Some are satisfied with a few lines in a report, others are interested in the bigger picture. Nobody is forced to look at the bigger picture if they are not interested.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC at no point looked into the issue of anything other than the bow visor.

I for one welcome the new inquiry looking at all aspects and actually physical examination of the vessel, especially with the advancement in underwater cinematography and 3-D model building, rather than armchair pontification that was the JAIC.

I look forward with fascination in finalising this current affairs news once and for all. Some are satisfied with a few lines in a report, others are interested in the bigger picture. Nobody is forced to look at the bigger picture if they are not interested.
Click to expand...

:sdl:
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC at no point looked into the issue of anything other than the bow visor.

I for one welcome the new inquiry looking at all aspects and actually physical examination of the vessel, especially with the advancement in underwater cinematography and 3-D model building, rather than armchair pontification that was the JAIC.

I look forward with fascination in finalising this current affairs news once and for all. Some are satisfied with a few lines in a report, others are interested in the bigger picture. Nobody is forced to look at the bigger picture if they are not interested.
Click to expand...


LOL. The preliminary report makes it perfectly and explicitly clear: the Estonia sank because the poorly-designed and dreadfully-maintained bottom lock of the bow visor failed in rough seas. The Estonia should never have been sailing with the bow visor in such a dangerously poor condition, and it should never have been certified to sail. Furthermore, the report confirms that the damage to the starboard hull was caused when the ship sank and hit the sea bed - the damage clearly matches the rock outcrop on the sea bed.

In other words.... everything that I and others were saying has been validated by the preliminary report; and everything that you were saying has been debunked.

What. A. Surprise.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC at no point looked into the issue of anything other than the bow visor.
Click to expand...

You should definitely read the report some day. You'll be amazed.

I for one welcome the new inquiry looking at all aspects and actually physical examination of the vessel, especially with the advancement in underwater cinematography and 3-D model building, rather than armchair pontification that was the JAIC.
Click to expand...

I imagine you mean photogrammetry rather than cinematography. It's always entertaining to watch you try to gainsay actual experts, with or without armchairs.
 
LondonJohn said:
LOL. The preliminary report makes it perfectly and explicitly clear: the Estonia sank because the poorly-designed and dreadfully-maintained bottom lock of the bow visor failed in rough seas. The Estonia should never have been sailing with the bow visor in such a dangerously poor condition, and it should never have been certified to sail. Furthermore, the report confirms that the damage to the starboard hull was caused when the ship sank and hit the sea bed - the damage clearly matches the rock outcrop on the sea bed.

In other words.... everything that I and others were saying has been validated by the preliminary report; and everything that you were saying has been debunked.

What. A. Surprise.
Click to expand...

Do pay better attention. The report clearly says it is only preliminary and they still have witnesses to interview, as well as other issues.

Half of what you say is inaccurate and not what they said at all.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC at no point looked into the issue of anything other than the bow visor.
Click to expand...

Have you even read the report?

rather than armchair pontification that was the JAIC.
Click to expand...

Ma'am, you're the armchair pontificator in this scenario.

Some are satisfied with a few lines in a report, others are interested in the bigger picture. Nobody is forced to look at the bigger picture if they are not interested.
Click to expand...

No, Vixen, you're not the smartest person in the room. No, your "bigger picture" of Swedish submarines leaving "tracks" underwater, or of contraband cesium melting off the bow locks, or of any of the crackpot theories you've embraced over the years has the slightest to do with the grown-ups doing their jobs. You're not some dogged and brilliantly incisive investigator who stuck with it while the professionals were stumped. You're just a lying conspiracy theorist with delusions of grandeur trying to populate her fantasy world.
 
Vixen said:
Do pay better attention. The report clearly says it is only preliminary and they still have witnesses to interview, as well as other issues.
Click to expand...

From your vast experience as a forensic engineer investigating transportation disasters, to what extent must the conclusions in a preliminary report be supported by evidence?
 
Vixen said:
So it was correct all along that Estonia was not seaworthy. The JAIC said it was seaworthy.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered many times.

You have relied many times upon the JAIC's declaration that MS Estonia was seaworthy to prop up your demand that we cannot look to defectiveness of the vessel or negligence in maintenance as causes and therefore must given credence to more exotic possibilities. And now you're trying to spin that to say you must somehow still have been right all along because this one point in the JAIC report has now been challenged by later work. Equivocation is dishonest.

In contrast, your critics have been consistent in reminding you that a seaworthiness certificate is by no means a declaration that a ship is free from deflects. They have consistently pointed out that the JAIC's finding was based simply on the bureaucratic observation that no outstanding mitigation orders remained after its previous inspection, which remains a true fact. However, the practical seaworthiness of the vessel is and was very much in question. The newer preliminary report—which applies different criteria to the determination of seaworthiness—concurs.
 
To quote myself from a related thread (with addendum):

Front of [poorly maintained and possibly fraudulently, at best negligently certified] boat fell off in storm boat wasn't designed to survive.

Boat sank.

The End.
Click to expand...


Shocking.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
From your vast experience as a forensic engineer investigating transportation disasters, to what extent must the conclusions in a preliminary report be supported by evidence?
Click to expand...


I reckon they were only taking wild and unsupported guesses for the preliminary report. Perhaps they were also parroting stuff written on an obscure internet forum...

:rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
I for one welcome the new inquiry looking at all aspects and actually physical examination of the vessel, especially with the advancement in underwater cinematography and 3-D model building, rather than armchair pontification that was the JAIC.
Click to expand...


Cool - is Jim Cameron making a movie about all this?!!
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered many times.

You have relied many times upon the JAIC's declaration that MS Estonia was seaworthy to prop up your demand that we cannot look to defectiveness of the vessel or negligence in maintenance as causes and therefore must given credence to more exotic possibilities. And now you're trying to spin that to say you must somehow still have been right all along because this one point in the JAIC report has now been challenged by later work. Equivocation is dishonest.

In contrast, your critics have been consistent in reminding you that a seaworthiness certificate is by no means a declaration that a ship is free from deflects. They have consistently pointed out that the JAIC's finding was based simply on the bureaucratic observation that no outstanding mitigation orders remained after its previous inspection, which remains a true fact. However, the practical seaworthiness of the vessel is and was very much in question. The newer preliminary report—which applies different criteria to the determination of seaworthiness—concurs.
Click to expand...


Most, if not all, airliners that have crashed due to mechanical failure in the last 75 or so years have had valid certificates of airworthiness. By Vixen's logic, the actual cause of each of those crashes must have been something other than mechanical failure.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Most, if not all, airliners that have crashed due to mechanical failure in the last 75 or so years have had valid certificates of airworthiness.
Click to expand...

A point I've made many, many times in this thread and which has sailed over Vixen's head without comment.

By Vixen's logic, the actual cause of each of those crashes must have been something other than mechanical failure.
Click to expand...

And in fact many of them can be attributed to such things as pilot error, just as operator error and negligence contributed to the loss of MS Estonia.

The preliminary report seems to emphasize that the JAIC's finding of seaworthiness was an administrative determination only and not a practical determination of its ability to carry passengers safely under some given set of conditions. This is what we've been saying all along.

Vixen is trying to equivocate her earlier citation of the JAIC as authoritative on this point. By straw-manning her critics' position as being required to accept the JAIC findings in all their particulars—and according to her uninformed interpretation—she has attempted to contrive a "gotcha!" moment. Because our goal in her mind is to defend the JAIC at all costs, she can insist that we must accept the ship as "seaworthy" because the JAIC has declared it so (even if her whole point is that the JAIC was wrong). But if another body finds that the purely administrative notice (which we've belabored) was insufficient, then she gets to say JAIC was wrong and that we were wrong for "accepting" their findings in the way she intends to pin on us.

We've never stopped making the point that the JAIC's findings were technically correct on the point of seaworthiness—but that they were administratively performative at best, and that the ship was clearly unseaworthy in all ways that matter. The straw man that says we're beholden to JAIC in every detail has never been my position, at least. And a careful reading of this thread will reveal that I've resisted that every time Vixen has tried to pin it on me.

This particular "gotcha!" strategy is part of every conspiracy theorist's playbook.
 
Update:

The bow ramp - which is at the bottom of the Baltic Sea - is to be salvaged for further examination by the latest official panel of the Estonia board.

Estonia's bow visor was already salvaged in 1994, not long after the disaster occurred. But the bow ramp, which was behind the visor, remains at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

Discussions have been held as to whether the bow ramp should also be salvaged as it is considered an important piece of the puzzle in the sequence of events in the sinking. And now the government has added 25 million kroner following a request from the National Accident Commission to carry out the work.

Damage to the ramp
The dives are being procured, says Jonas Bäckstrand, and the idea is that they will take place during the early summer.

There is some damage to the ramp that they want to examine, among other things they have been able to see marks in the ramp in the shape of a triangle in photographs that correspond well with how it hit the front car deck
Click to expand...
Aftonbladet
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom