I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

  • 14391 Replies
  • 3075571 Views
*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9990 on: October 04, 2018, 04:53:54 AM »

Incorrect. The top section is hardly small and weak!
On WTC 1 the impact was near the centre and between the 93rd and 99th floors of 110 floors and
on WTC 2 the impact was near a corner and between the 72nd and 85th floors.
So there were at least 11 floors above on WTC 1 and over 25 floors above on WTC 2.

Those top section would have tremendous kinetic energy by the time they hit the lower sections.
The top section C is about 1/10th of the bottom section A. So it is small. Top section C only carries the roof of the building. Bottom section A carries top section C and is therefore much stronger than C.
When a top section C drops and impacts immobile bottom section A, bottom section A also impacts moving top section C. It is called a collision!
And as A is much bigger and stronger than C, it is C that is crushed most in the interface C/A absorbing some kinetic energy.
But don't worry - the kinetic energy involved is so small that it is easily absorbed elastically by bottom part A so that top C bounces on intact A.
Just do the calculations I have done at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45082
  • +87/-110
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9991 on: October 04, 2018, 06:54:30 AM »

Incorrect. The top section is hardly small and weak!
On WTC 1 the impact was near the centre and between the 93rd and 99th floors of 110 floors and
on WTC 2 the impact was near a corner and between the 72nd and 85th floors.
So there were at least 11 floors above on WTC 1 and over 25 floors above on WTC 2.

Those top section would have tremendous kinetic energy by the time they hit the lower sections.
The top section C is about 1/10th of the bottom section A. So it is small. Top section C only carries the roof of the building. Bottom section A carries top section C and is therefore much stronger than C.
When a top section C drops and impacts immobile bottom section A, bottom section A also impacts moving top section C. It is called a collision!
C is only impactibg the top floor of A, not all of A.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9992 on: October 04, 2018, 08:09:13 AM »

Incorrect. The top section is hardly small and weak!
On WTC 1 the impact was near the centre and between the 93rd and 99th floors of 110 floors and
on WTC 2 the impact was near a corner and between the 72nd and 85th floors.
So there were at least 11 floors above on WTC 1 and over 25 floors above on WTC 2.

Those top section would have tremendous kinetic energy by the time they hit the lower sections.
The top section C is about 1/10th of the bottom section A. So it is small. Top section C only carries the roof of the building. Bottom section A carries top section C and is therefore much stronger than C.
When a top section C drops and impacts immobile bottom section A, bottom section A also impacts moving top section C. It is called a collision!
C is only impactibg the top floor of A, not all of A.
Wrong again (as usual). When top part C (being dropped) contacts/impacts top of A (the bottom part), the complete part A (connected at the lower end to the ground) reacts like a spring being compressed. Same with C - it also compresses like a spring when contacting A. The result is a bounce.
Only terrorists believe that skyscrapers collapse into dust from top down after an airplane has landed into the top.

*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9993 on: October 04, 2018, 12:02:20 PM »
<snip>
There is a French company that destroys buildings by gravity by destroying and weaken load carrying members (walls) at the bottom of the building, i.e. the top part is >70% of the building. Only in such case the big top can crush the little bottom part.
And there you go lying through you teeth again.  We both know the patent is specifically for bringing the building down without pre-weakening the structure. It's the whole point of their patent.

You're nothing but a lying little weasel.

Mike
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9994 on: October 04, 2018, 12:17:12 PM »
<snip>
There is a French company that destroys buildings by gravity by destroying and weaken load carrying members (walls) at the bottom of the building, i.e. the top part is >70% of the building. Only in such case the big top can crush the little bottom part.
And there you go lying through you teeth again.  We both know the patent is specifically for bringing the building down without pre-weakening the structure. It's the whole point of their patent.

You're nothing but a lying little weasel.

Mike
No Mikrobrain. Wrong as usual. The building is emptied of valuable items before demolition. Then vertical load carrying structural members down in the bottom are weakened, etc. And then hydraulics are used to suddenly destroy some of these structural members and ... the intact top part drops down and the whole thing is demolished into a heap of damaged items. Little dust!
Why do you post stupid posts all the time calling me names? I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • +2/-1
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9995 on: October 04, 2018, 12:44:28 PM »
3 seconds . . .


*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-35
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9996 on: October 04, 2018, 01:49:50 PM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9997 on: October 04, 2018, 06:42:53 PM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.



*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9998 on: October 07, 2018, 04:00:12 AM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com sinbyce >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
Only a lot of wasted time wading through you explaining that because you can't understand something it isn't possible.

*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #9999 on: October 07, 2018, 05:28:30 AM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
No it doesn't but it also doesn't cost anything to view you're website using archive.org.

That way you don't get any visits/page views.

It also has the added benefit of seeing your lies over time.

Mike
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10000 on: October 07, 2018, 07:27:03 AM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
No it doesn't but it also doesn't cost anything to view you're website using archive.org.

That way you don't get any visits/page views.

It also has the added benefit of seeing your lies over time.

Mike
Mikrobrain, why do you waste time with your nonsense? Best is of course to watch my updated website + new photo from my internet providers. All info is of course correct and I pay anyone €1M to show I am wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .



*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10001 on: October 07, 2018, 08:09:35 AM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
No it doesn't but it also doesn't cost anything to view you're website using archive.org.

That way you don't get any visits/page views.

It also has the added benefit of seeing your lies over time.

Mike
Mikrobrain, why do you waste time with your nonsense? Best is of course to watch my updated website + new photo from my internet providers. All info is of course correct and I pay anyone €1M to show I am wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

What, is your fuckin' Goggle broken.  The Internet Archive has all versions of your website up through 2018.  Maybe you should lookup the correct information before making such stupid comments.
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10002 on: October 07, 2018, 10:16:46 AM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
No it doesn't but it also doesn't cost anything to view you're website using archive.org.

That way you don't get any visits/page views.

It also has the added benefit of seeing your lies over time.

Mike
Mikrobrain, why do you waste time with your nonsense? Best is of course to watch my updated website + new photo from my internet providers. All info is of course correct and I pay anyone €1M to show I am wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

What, is your fuckin' Goggle broken.  The Internet Archive has all versions of your website up through 2018.  Maybe you should lookup the correct information before making such stupid comments.
Mikrobrain, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and I assure that all info about safety at sea and similar (safety in space and targets of nuclear attacks) is correct. Who cares about some 'Internet Archive'? Why don't you ask for assistance to cure your cognitive dissonance?

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-35
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10003 on: October 08, 2018, 07:32:22 AM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
No it doesn't but it also doesn't cost anything to view you're website using archive.org.

That way you don't get any visits/page views.

It also has the added benefit of seeing your lies over time.

Mike
Mikrobrain, why do you waste time with your nonsense? Best is of course to watch my updated website + new photo from my internet providers. All info is of course correct and I pay anyone €1M to show I am wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

What, is your fuckin' Goggle broken.  The Internet Archive has all versions of your website up through 2018.  Maybe you should lookup the correct information before making such stupid comments.
Mikrobrain, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and I assure that all info about safety at sea and similar (safety in space and targets of nuclear attacks) is correct. Who cares about some 'Internet Archive'? Why don't you ask for assistance to cure your cognitive dissonance?

You aren't the only "expert" on maritime safety.  In fact most experts in maritime safety would disagree with your assertions made on your conspiracy theory website.  Why don't you do something constructive with your maritime expertise and design a tanker that no one will use.
If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10004 on: October 08, 2018, 12:27:18 PM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
No it doesn't but it also doesn't cost anything to view you're website using archive.org.

That way you don't get any visits/page views.

It also has the added benefit of seeing your lies over time.

Mike
Mikrobrain, why do you waste time with your nonsense? Best is of course to watch my updated website + new photo from my internet providers. All info is of course correct and I pay anyone €1M to show I am wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

What, is your fuckin' Goggle broken.  The Internet Archive has all versions of your website up through 2018.  Maybe you should lookup the correct information before making such stupid comments.
Mikrobrain, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and I assure that all info about safety at sea and similar (safety in space and targets of nuclear attacks) is correct. Who cares about some 'Internet Archive'? Why don't you ask for assistance to cure your cognitive dissonance?

You aren't the only "expert" on maritime safety.  In fact most experts in maritime safety would disagree with your assertions made on your conspiracy theory website.  Why don't you do something constructive with your maritime expertise and design a tanker that no one will use.
Conspiracy theory website! You sound like a twerp! My website is about safety at sea and how to improve it - http.heiwaco.com . Since when is safety at sea a conspiracy?

*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10005 on: October 08, 2018, 01:13:50 PM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
No it doesn't but it also doesn't cost anything to view you're website using archive.org.

That way you don't get any visits/page views.

It also has the added benefit of seeing your lies over time.

Mike
Mikrobrain, why do you waste time with your nonsense? Best is of course to watch my updated website + new photo from my internet providers. All info is of course correct and I pay anyone €1M to show I am wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

What, is your fuckin' Goggle broken.  The Internet Archive has all versions of your website up through 2018.  Maybe you should lookup the correct information before making such stupid comments.
Mikrobrain, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and I assure that all info about safety at sea and similar (safety in space and targets of nuclear attacks) is correct. Who cares about some 'Internet Archive'? Why don't you ask for assistance to cure your cognitive dissonance?

You aren't the only "expert" on maritime safety.  In fact most experts in maritime safety would disagree with your assertions made on your conspiracy theory website.  Why don't you do something constructive with your maritime expertise and design a tanker that no one will use.
Conspiracy theory website! You sound like a twerp! My website is about safety at sea and how to improve it - http.heiwaco.com . Since when is safety at sea a conspiracy?
You crappy little site has more pages that have absolutely nothing to with safety at sea than pages that do.  You have much more information on crackpot conspiracy theories than anything else. 

You are delusional if you think your site is about safety at sea.  Any visitor expecting to see a marine engineer discussing safety at sea and sees all those pages about no planes and man can't fly in orbit is think..."this guy's a crackpot.  He must be a hack so I'll move on."

Seriously, anyone going to your site will see nothing but a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

Mike
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10006 on: October 08, 2018, 09:52:10 PM »
I post at http://heiwaco.com since >20 years and everything there is true.

It doesn't cost anything to visit my web site.
No it doesn't but it also doesn't cost anything to view you're website using archive.org.

That way you don't get any visits/page views.

It also has the added benefit of seeing your lies over time.

Mike
Mikrobrain, why do you waste time with your nonsense? Best is of course to watch my updated website + new photo from my internet providers. All info is of course correct and I pay anyone €1M to show I am wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

What, is your fuckin' Goggle broken.  The Internet Archive has all versions of your website up through 2018.  Maybe you should lookup the correct information before making such stupid comments.
Mikrobrain, I am the web master of http://heiwaco.com and I assure that all info about safety at sea and similar (safety in space and targets of nuclear attacks) is correct. Who cares about some 'Internet Archive'? Why don't you ask for assistance to cure your cognitive dissonance?

You aren't the only "expert" on maritime safety.  In fact most experts in maritime safety would disagree with your assertions made on your conspiracy theory website.  Why don't you do something constructive with your maritime expertise and design a tanker that no one will use.
Conspiracy theory website! You sound like a twerp! My website is about safety at sea and how to improve it - http.heiwaco.com . Since when is safety at sea a conspiracy?
You crappy little site has more pages that have absolutely nothing to with safety at sea than pages that do.  You have much more information on crackpot conspiracy theories than anything else. 

You are delusional if you think your site is about safety at sea.  Any visitor expecting to see a marine engineer discussing safety at sea and sees all those pages about no planes and man can't fly in orbit is think..."this guy's a crackpot.  He must be a hack so I'll move on."

Seriously, anyone going to your site will see nothing but a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

Mike
As usual you are wrong. My popular website includes of course a few pages about fake US nuclear weapons, fake US manned space trips and fake US 911/2001 real estate destruction but most pages are about the 1994 sinking of an unsafe ferry, when ~1000 persons drowned. Three governments agreed that the ferry was in perfect condition and floated on a bow visor high above water. When the bow visor dropped off, the ship just sank, they say! When I showed it was nonsense and started my website, the three governments and their co-conspirators got upset. Luckily I live far away from them.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-35
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10007 on: October 09, 2018, 12:01:09 AM »
When the bow visor dropped off, the ship just sank, they say!

Actually that isn't what they say.  For someone supposedly in tune with this particular catastrophe, you are quite wrong on what the reported cause was.  The bow visor broke away and caused damage to the bow ramp.  The failure of the bow ramp allowed water into the vehicle deck.  The flooding of the vehicle deck was the main cause of the capsizing and sinking of the Estonia due to the free surface effect.  The report was also critical of the crews actions to include failure to reduce speed before investigating the bow noises, and failure to realize that the list was a result of water on the vehicle deck.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 12:05:28 AM by NotSoSkeptical »
If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10008 on: October 09, 2018, 08:00:56 AM »
When the bow visor dropped off, the ship just sank, they say!

Actually that isn't what they say.  For someone supposedly in tune with this particular catastrophe, you are quite wrong on what the reported cause was.  The bow visor broke away and caused damage to the bow ramp.  The failure of the bow ramp allowed water into the vehicle deck.  The flooding of the vehicle deck was the main cause of the capsizing and sinking of the Estonia due to the free surface effect.  The report was also critical of the crews actions to include failure to reduce speed before investigating the bow noises, and failure to realize that the list was a result of water on the vehicle deck.
The proximate cause of accident 1994 was incorrect bow visor design but it couldn't be noticed by due diligence, the investigators concluded 1997. Nobody heard or saw that the bow visor fell off and pulled open the ramp, so that water could enter the superstructure to sink the ship killing ~1000 persons, the investigators invented. The truth is that no bow visor fell off at all. It was removed from the ship at the bottom of the sea after the sinking. I show it at http://heiwaco.com . Imagine what three corrupt governments supported by immoral media invented 1994/7, which plenty twerps believe today.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45082
  • +87/-110
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10009 on: October 09, 2018, 08:58:50 AM »
The proximate cause of accident 1994 was incorrect bow visor design but it couldn't be noticed by due diligence, the investigators concluded 1997. Nobody heard or saw that the bow visor fell off and pulled open the ramp, so that water could enter the superstructure to sink the ship killing ~1000 persons, the investigators invented.
Are you saying that no one noticed any banging noises before the ship sank?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-35
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10010 on: October 09, 2018, 11:59:16 AM »
When the bow visor dropped off, the ship just sank, they say!

Actually that isn't what they say.  For someone supposedly in tune with this particular catastrophe, you are quite wrong on what the reported cause was.  The bow visor broke away and caused damage to the bow ramp.  The failure of the bow ramp allowed water into the vehicle deck.  The flooding of the vehicle deck was the main cause of the capsizing and sinking of the Estonia due to the free surface effect.  The report was also critical of the crews actions to include failure to reduce speed before investigating the bow noises, and failure to realize that the list was a result of water on the vehicle deck.
The proximate cause of accident 1994 was incorrect bow visor design but it couldn't be noticed by due diligence, the investigators concluded 1997. Nobody heard or saw that the bow visor fell off and pulled open the ramp, so that water could enter the superstructure to sink the ship killing ~1000 persons, the investigators invented. The truth is that no bow visor fell off at all. It was removed from the ship at the bottom of the sea after the sinking. I show it at http://heiwaco.com . Imagine what three corrupt governments supported by immoral media invented 1994/7, which plenty twerps believe today.

Wrong.  Those on the bridge could not see the bow visor fall off because the bridge was located too far back on the ferry with no direct line-of-site.  There were video monitors of the inside ramp, but those monitors were not at the conning station in the bridge. Noises from the bow visor were heard by passengers and other crew members.
If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10011 on: October 09, 2018, 12:41:44 PM »
The proximate cause of accident 1994 was incorrect bow visor design but it couldn't be noticed by due diligence, the investigators concluded 1997. Nobody heard or saw that the bow visor fell off and pulled open the ramp, so that water could enter the superstructure to sink the ship killing ~1000 persons, the investigators invented.
Are you saying that no one noticed any banging noises before the ship sank?
No, according survivors I know there was a big bang and a minute or so later the ship rolled heavily and all people awake tried to go up to open decks. You really should read my books about it. http://heiwaco.com

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10012 on: October 09, 2018, 12:44:57 PM »
When the bow visor dropped off, the ship just sank, they say!

Actually that isn't what they say.  For someone supposedly in tune with this particular catastrophe, you are quite wrong on what the reported cause was.  The bow visor broke away and caused damage to the bow ramp.  The failure of the bow ramp allowed water into the vehicle deck.  The flooding of the vehicle deck was the main cause of the capsizing and sinking of the Estonia due to the free surface effect.  The report was also critical of the crews actions to include failure to reduce speed before investigating the bow noises, and failure to realize that the list was a result of water on the vehicle deck.
The proximate cause of accident 1994 was incorrect bow visor design but it couldn't be noticed by due diligence, the investigators concluded 1997. Nobody heard or saw that the bow visor fell off and pulled open the ramp, so that water could enter the superstructure to sink the ship killing ~1000 persons, the investigators invented. The truth is that no bow visor fell off at all. It was removed from the ship at the bottom of the sea after the sinking. I show it at http://heiwaco.com . Imagine what three corrupt governments supported by immoral media invented 1994/7, which plenty twerps believe today.

Wrong.  Those on the bridge could not see the bow visor fall off because the bridge was located too far back on the ferry with no direct line-of-site.  There were video monitors of the inside ramp, but those monitors were not at the conning station in the bridge. Noises from the bow visor were heard by passengers and other crew members.

No. All on the bridge died BUT the whole engine crew survived (or were kidnapped) - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm . Why do you lie about it?

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-35
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10013 on: October 09, 2018, 01:17:16 PM »
When the bow visor dropped off, the ship just sank, they say!

Actually that isn't what they say.  For someone supposedly in tune with this particular catastrophe, you are quite wrong on what the reported cause was.  The bow visor broke away and caused damage to the bow ramp.  The failure of the bow ramp allowed water into the vehicle deck.  The flooding of the vehicle deck was the main cause of the capsizing and sinking of the Estonia due to the free surface effect.  The report was also critical of the crews actions to include failure to reduce speed before investigating the bow noises, and failure to realize that the list was a result of water on the vehicle deck.
The proximate cause of accident 1994 was incorrect bow visor design but it couldn't be noticed by due diligence, the investigators concluded 1997. Nobody heard or saw that the bow visor fell off and pulled open the ramp, so that water could enter the superstructure to sink the ship killing ~1000 persons, the investigators invented. The truth is that no bow visor fell off at all. It was removed from the ship at the bottom of the sea after the sinking. I show it at http://heiwaco.com . Imagine what three corrupt governments supported by immoral media invented 1994/7, which plenty twerps believe today.

Wrong.  Those on the bridge could not see the bow visor fall off because the bridge was located too far back on the ferry with no direct line-of-site.  There were video monitors of the inside ramp, but those monitors were not at the conning station in the bridge. Noises from the bow visor were heard by passengers and other crew members.

No. All on the bridge died BUT the whole engine crew survived (or were kidnapped) - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm . Why do you lie about it?

The bow visor was not physically visible from the bridge, don't need the bridge crew to testify to that, it is a fact of the ships design.  No where did I say the other crew that heard the noises were members of the bridge, they were just other crew members.
If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • +0/-0
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10014 on: October 09, 2018, 07:41:58 PM »
When the bow visor dropped off, the ship just sank, they say!

Actually that isn't what they say.  For someone supposedly in tune with this particular catastrophe, you are quite wrong on what the reported cause was.  The bow visor broke away and caused damage to the bow ramp.  The failure of the bow ramp allowed water into the vehicle deck.  The flooding of the vehicle deck was the main cause of the capsizing and sinking of the Estonia due to the free surface effect.  The report was also critical of the crews actions to include failure to reduce speed before investigating the bow noises, and failure to realize that the list was a result of water on the vehicle deck.
The proximate cause of accident 1994 was incorrect bow visor design but it couldn't be noticed by due diligence, the investigators concluded 1997. Nobody heard or saw that the bow visor fell off and pulled open the ramp, so that water could enter the superstructure to sink the ship killing ~1000 persons, the investigators invented. The truth is that no bow visor fell off at all. It was removed from the ship at the bottom of the sea after the sinking. I show it at http://heiwaco.com . Imagine what three corrupt governments supported by immoral media invented 1994/7, which plenty twerps believe today.

Wrong.  Those on the bridge could not see the bow visor fall off because the bridge was located too far back on the ferry with no direct line-of-site.  There were video monitors of the inside ramp, but those monitors were not at the conning station in the bridge. Noises from the bow visor were heard by passengers and other crew members.

No. All on the bridge died BUT the whole engine crew survived (or were kidnapped) - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm . Why do you lie about it?

The bow visor was not physically visible from the bridge, don't need the bridge crew to testify to that, it is a fact of the ships design.  No where did I say the other crew that heard the noises were members of the bridge, they were just other crew members.
LOL. You have never been on the bridge of ship, it seems. On some ships the bridge is 250 meters from the bow. In this case it was 15! And waves impacting the bow are heard and felt like cannon balls hits ... so you slow down. Why do you enter a discussion about something you don't know anything?

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11242
  • +9/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10015 on: October 09, 2018, 08:00:55 PM »
I don't agree with you on space travel Heiwa, however, I do on the Estonia case. It is just silly to present the idea that a ship the size of the Estonia can sink in less than 30 mins (or at all) even if the bow visor was completely removed. It was above the sea line, had doors and sank bow up, it makes no sense.

Then you add the way the government covered up everything, did not allow investigations, would not allow the dead to be recovered, even at one point tried to cover the wreck with concrete. They did this and much more to try and slide this under the rug.

I watched a swedish documentary on this a while back...the evidence is overwhelming there was fowl play involved, not to mention an explosive pack being found latched on the hull (which was removed the next time they went down) and explosive residue being found on damaged parts of the metal. Even the swedish coast guard and other agencies were there in attempts to scare the private investigation team off every time they went to the site, fortunately it is in international waters so they have no actual jurisdiction over the wreck.

It reminds me of a 9/11 situation...all the families and other concerned citizens wanting an actual investigation, knowing something isn't right and the government denying it every time with dumber and dumber excuses..it is really sad.

And one of the saddest things is they could actually retrieve the wreck if they wanted, not only to put the bodies to rest, but to actually get the truth. There were teams that actually offered to do it at cost, the government refused but was willing to spend 350 million to cement the wreck....
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-35
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10016 on: October 09, 2018, 08:38:28 PM »
When the bow visor dropped off, the ship just sank, they say!

Actually that isn't what they say.  For someone supposedly in tune with this particular catastrophe, you are quite wrong on what the reported cause was.  The bow visor broke away and caused damage to the bow ramp.  The failure of the bow ramp allowed water into the vehicle deck.  The flooding of the vehicle deck was the main cause of the capsizing and sinking of the Estonia due to the free surface effect.  The report was also critical of the crews actions to include failure to reduce speed before investigating the bow noises, and failure to realize that the list was a result of water on the vehicle deck.
The proximate cause of accident 1994 was incorrect bow visor design but it couldn't be noticed by due diligence, the investigators concluded 1997. Nobody heard or saw that the bow visor fell off and pulled open the ramp, so that water could enter the superstructure to sink the ship killing ~1000 persons, the investigators invented. The truth is that no bow visor fell off at all. It was removed from the ship at the bottom of the sea after the sinking. I show it at http://heiwaco.com . Imagine what three corrupt governments supported by immoral media invented 1994/7, which plenty twerps believe today.

Wrong.  Those on the bridge could not see the bow visor fall off because the bridge was located too far back on the ferry with no direct line-of-site.  There were video monitors of the inside ramp, but those monitors were not at the conning station in the bridge. Noises from the bow visor were heard by passengers and other crew members.

No. All on the bridge died BUT the whole engine crew survived (or were kidnapped) - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm . Why do you lie about it?

The bow visor was not physically visible from the bridge, don't need the bridge crew to testify to that, it is a fact of the ships design.  No where did I say the other crew that heard the noises were members of the bridge, they were just other crew members.
LOL. You have never been on the bridge of ship, it seems. On some ships the bridge is 250 meters from the bow. In this case it was 15! And waves impacting the bow are heard and felt like cannon balls hits ... so you slow down. Why do you enter a discussion about something you don't know anything?
Yeah, and here is a picture of the MS Viking Sally before she was sold and renamed to the Estonia in 1993.



The bridge is about a good 20m back and look at that there is observation deck in front of the bridge.

And what were you saying about that unobstructed line-of-site.
If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-35
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10017 on: October 09, 2018, 08:53:24 PM »
I don't agree with you on space travel Heiwa, however, I do on the Estonia case. It is just silly to present the idea that a ship the size of the Estonia can sink in less than 30 mins (or at all) even if the bow visor was completely removed. It was above the sea line, had doors and sank bow up, it makes no sense.

Then you add the way the government covered up everything, did not allow investigations, would not allow the dead to be recovered, even at one point tried to cover the wreck with concrete. They did this and much more to try and slide this under the rug.

I watched a swedish documentary on this a while back...the evidence is overwhelming there was fowl play involved, not to mention an explosive pack being found latched on the hull (which was removed the next time they went down) and explosive residue being found on damaged parts of the metal. Even the swedish coast guard and other agencies were there in attempts to scare the private investigation team off every time they went to the site, fortunately it is in international waters so they have no actual jurisdiction over the wreck.

It reminds me of a 9/11 situation...all the families and other concerned citizens wanting an actual investigation, knowing something isn't right and the government denying it every time with dumber and dumber excuses..it is really sad.

And one of the saddest things is they could actually retrieve the wreck if they wanted, not only to put the bodies to rest, but to actually get the truth. There were teams that actually offered to do it at cost, the government refused but was willing to spend 350 million to cement the wreck....


Wrong.

MS Herald of Free Enterprise Sank and Capsized in under 30 minutes in the same manner as the Estonia 7 years prior in 1987.  Biggest difference is the Estonia's bow visor failed and broke off, while the Herald of Free Enterprise the bow doors were left open.  The flooding of the vehicle deck capsized and sunk both ships.

Quote
tests by the Danish Maritime Institute after the accident found that once water began to enter the vehicle deck of a RORO, it was likely that the vessel would capsize within 30 minutes, while other tests showed that the lack of watertight subdivision (which were common on other vessels) allowed the weight of water to flow freely and increase the likelihood of capsizing

If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11242
  • +9/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10018 on: October 09, 2018, 09:07:36 PM »
I don't agree with you on space travel Heiwa, however, I do on the Estonia case. It is just silly to present the idea that a ship the size of the Estonia can sink in less than 30 mins (or at all) even if the bow visor was completely removed. It was above the sea line, had doors and sank bow up, it makes no sense.

Then you add the way the government covered up everything, did not allow investigations, would not allow the dead to be recovered, even at one point tried to cover the wreck with concrete. They did this and much more to try and slide this under the rug.

I watched a swedish documentary on this a while back...the evidence is overwhelming there was fowl play involved, not to mention an explosive pack being found latched on the hull (which was removed the next time they went down) and explosive residue being found on damaged parts of the metal. Even the swedish coast guard and other agencies were there in attempts to scare the private investigation team off every time they went to the site, fortunately it is in international waters so they have no actual jurisdiction over the wreck.

It reminds me of a 9/11 situation...all the families and other concerned citizens wanting an actual investigation, knowing something isn't right and the government denying it every time with dumber and dumber excuses..it is really sad.

And one of the saddest things is they could actually retrieve the wreck if they wanted, not only to put the bodies to rest, but to actually get the truth. There were teams that actually offered to do it at cost, the government refused but was willing to spend 350 million to cement the wreck....


Wrong.

MS Herald of Free Enterprise Sank and Capsized in under 30 minutes in the same manner as the Estonia 7 years prior in 1987.  Biggest difference is the Estonia's bow visor failed and broke off, while the Herald of Free Enterprise the bow doors were left open.  The flooding of the vehicle deck capsized and sunk both ships.

Quote
tests by the Danish Maritime Institute after the accident found that once water began to enter the vehicle deck of a RORO, it was likely that the vessel would capsize within 30 minutes, while other tests showed that the lack of watertight subdivision (which were common on other vessels) allowed the weight of water to flow freely and increase the likelihood of capsizing

Ok, maybe it can happen.. yes I know they don't have water tight compartments. I also know of the possibility of capsizing if too much water gets in the vehicle hold...but the Estonia doors weren't left open though?? Not to mention they had no alarms on the bridge of either the doors being open or the bow visor not being there?

Also what about all the other evidence pointing to fowl play?
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-35
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #10019 on: October 09, 2018, 09:30:41 PM »
I don't agree with you on space travel Heiwa, however, I do on the Estonia case. It is just silly to present the idea that a ship the size of the Estonia can sink in less than 30 mins (or at all) even if the bow visor was completely removed. It was above the sea line, had doors and sank bow up, it makes no sense.

Then you add the way the government covered up everything, did not allow investigations, would not allow the dead to be recovered, even at one point tried to cover the wreck with concrete. They did this and much more to try and slide this under the rug.

I watched a swedish documentary on this a while back...the evidence is overwhelming there was fowl play involved, not to mention an explosive pack being found latched on the hull (which was removed the next time they went down) and explosive residue being found on damaged parts of the metal. Even the swedish coast guard and other agencies were there in attempts to scare the private investigation team off every time they went to the site, fortunately it is in international waters so they have no actual jurisdiction over the wreck.

It reminds me of a 9/11 situation...all the families and other concerned citizens wanting an actual investigation, knowing something isn't right and the government denying it every time with dumber and dumber excuses..it is really sad.

And one of the saddest things is they could actually retrieve the wreck if they wanted, not only to put the bodies to rest, but to actually get the truth. There were teams that actually offered to do it at cost, the government refused but was willing to spend 350 million to cement the wreck....


Wrong.

MS Herald of Free Enterprise Sank and Capsized in under 30 minutes in the same manner as the Estonia 7 years prior in 1987.  Biggest difference is the Estonia's bow visor failed and broke off, while the Herald of Free Enterprise the bow doors were left open.  The flooding of the vehicle deck capsized and sunk both ships.

Quote
tests by the Danish Maritime Institute after the accident found that once water began to enter the vehicle deck of a RORO, it was likely that the vessel would capsize within 30 minutes, while other tests showed that the lack of watertight subdivision (which were common on other vessels) allowed the weight of water to flow freely and increase the likelihood of capsizing

Ok, maybe it can happen.. yes I know they don't have water tight compartments. I also know of the possibility of capsizing if too much water gets in the vehicle hold...but the Estonia doors weren't left open though?? Not to mention they had no alarms on the bridge of either the doors being open or the bow visor not being there?

Also what about all the other evidence pointing to fowl play?

The rough seas and the speed of travel exerted enough force that exceeded the bow visor's design.  The force was enough to cause the bow visor and ramp to be torn off.  This occurred at points that would not trigger an open status.  Which is why no alarm occurred. (I can provide an relatable example of how that would happen, if you don't understand how that is possible.)

This is all stated in the official report.

As for the other evidence pointing to foul play:

Quote
Alternative theories exist about the cause of the sinking. German journalist Jutta Rabe and the left-wing magazine New Statesman claim that laboratory tests on debris recovered illegally from Estonia's bow yielded trace evidence of a deliberate explosion, which they allege was concealed by the Swedish, British, and Russian governments to cover up an intelligence operation smuggling military hardware via the civilian ferry.[25] Members of the Joint Accident Investigation Commission denied these claims, saying that the damage seen on the debris occurred during the visor's detachment from the vessel. The JAIC cited results from Germany's Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, which found that Jutta Rabe's samples did not prove an explosion occurred.[26]

In the autumn of 2004, a former Swedish customs officer claimed on Sveriges Television that Estonia had been used to transport military equipment in September 1994.[27] The Swedish and Estonian governments subsequently launched separate investigations, which both confirmed that non-explosive military equipment was aboard the ship on 14 and 20 September 1994. According to the Swedish Ministry of Defence, no such equipment was on board at the day of the disaster, and previous investigations by the Swedish Customs Service found no reports of any anomalous activity around the day of the disaster.[28][29]
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 09:35:18 PM by NotSoSkeptical »
If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.