The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

And all that has nothing to do with your claims.

You claimed the ship would have sunk faster because it was heavier due to modifications involving (gasp!) concrete. You didn't care at the time that the ship didn't fully submerge. That's what you're harping on now to draw attention away from your embarrassing lack of expertise. The ship wasn't unseaworthy because it was too heavy; it was unseaworthy because it was top-heavy. That has nothing to do with reserve buoyancy, flood rates, or anything that involves how fast a ship will founder.

But by all means keep proving my point. You're trying to wiggle around what you originally said in order to find some way in which you can convince someone it still might be true. You're still trying to save face instead of admitting even the simplest, most irrelevant error.

You're not trying to find the truth. You're trying to show how smart you are for having discovered what "really" sank MV Estonia. That's why you can't let anyone think you made even a small mistake. It destroys the illusion of being right when everyone else is supposedly wrong.

Takes one to know one.

 

[JayUtah]

The paintwork would have transferred onto the colliding object.

Because you say so?

 

[JayUtah]

Takes one to know one.

Looks like I touched a nerve.

 

[Vixen]

"We dedicate this report to all those who lost their lives at sea as a result of a ships lack of seaworthiness.

If MV Estonia had been seaworthy many of the more than 850 persons who lost their lives would have had a chance to survive."

http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb576311/factgroup/est/visor.html

Indicates to me that they believe the ferry sank because of its poor condition not because it was rammed by a sub.

It doesn't say anything about a submarine in the link you provided.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What would have stopped paint transfer both ways?

 

[Steve]

Do keep up.

wiki

I don't need to keep up. I will just ask you, as our resident expert.

So thanks for the link that confirms this:

"Eastland lurched sharply to port, and then rolled completely onto her port side, coming to rest on the river bottom, which was only 20 feet (6.1 m) below the surface;"

So it actually sank as far as to could given the depth of the water.

Did you, or did you not write : "It wasn't on the bottom"?

 

[Vixen]

Why?

Buoyancy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Mine clearing ships have advanced sonar for scanning the seabed and divers very experienced in clearance diving.

Are you making a claim that there were mines involved as well as submarines?

Are you claiming that the Swedish Navy removed the visor from the wreck?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Buoyancy.

What about it?

 

[Vixen]

A point that comes up repeatedly is that when Estonia was laid down there were no design standards for retention systems in articulated bow structures. Even though the ro-ro design pattern was reasonably common, and engineering standards were in place for other aspects of it, the crucial elements that the report blames for the failure of the visor were not governed by an accepted body of standards specifying required loads and behaviors. It was up to each shipyard to develop suitable standards according to its own methods. Consequently it's possible to conclude both that the ship was unseaworthy and that the builders were not at fault. Design standards are an agreement between builders and operators that if the ship is operated within certain limits, the relevant engineering is expected to perform safely. As far as ro-ro ferry bow visors were concerned, the only agreement in place was that each party would do its part responsibly.

Oh, but I thought you were an advocate for the accuracy of the JAIC report?

The JAIC very clearly states the Estonia was seaworthy.

 

[Vixen]

Looks like I touched a nerve.

Not at all, old chum.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, but I thought you were an advocate for the accuracy of the JAIC report?

Where did I mention or invoke the JAIC report in my statement?

 

[Vixen]

What would have stopped paint transfer both ways?

Many submarines - or at least the Russians did - would put some form of rubber/foam? coating around the submarine to avoid detection whilst snooping around under the sea.


So the answer is, not necessarily.

 

[JayUtah]

Not at all, old chum.

Good. Then go back and address the actual points I made in the post you quoted and then dismissed with a single-sentence playground taunt.

 

[Steve]

Oh, but I thought you were an advocate for the accuracy of the JAIC report?

The JAIC very clearly states the Estonia was seaworthy.

Perhaps you missed this post of Jay Utah's upthread:

Quite true. I have no problem with wanting to open a new investigation in the loss of MV Estonia. It's absolutely true that we have better forensic techniques now than we did in the 1990s. And with so much loss of life and other emotional impact, it's not as if we can stop people from wanting to know more and doing whatever they can to learn it. The official investigations into RMS Titanic were concluded long ago, but that sinking has been under more or less constant investigation for more than a hundred years -- because we simply want to answer the question "How?"

But the admixture of pointless and unevidentiary conspiracy rhetoric helps no one. It doesn't determine cause. It doesn't credibly assign responsibility. It doesn't soothe loss. All it does is advance the careers and interests of people trying to prey on tragedy.

 

[Vixen]

Mine clearing ships have advanced sonar for scanning the seabed and divers very experienced in clearance diving.

Are you making a claim that there were mines involved as well as submarines?

Are you claiming that the Swedish Navy removed the visor from the wreck?

The Baltic is full of mines, especially around the old Soviet bloc states. It's a vital part of defence for many countries, especially those in key conflict areas, such as the Baltic.

 

[JayUtah]

Many submarines - or at least the Russians did - would put some form of rubber/foam? coating around the submarine to avoid detection whilst snooping around under the sea.

Yes, most submarines have an anechoic coating that has elastomeric properties. They also have radar absorbent coatings on their upper structures.

So the answer is, not necessarily.

What makes you think such coatings do not transfer in a collision?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Many submarines - or at least the Russians did - would put some form of rubber/foam? coating around the submarine to avoid detection whilst snooping around under the sea.


So the answer is, not necessarily.

Foam rubber?

Ok, so why wasn't any of the foam rubber transferred, or the paint it was coated with?
We are talking about a collision big enough to supposedly sink a ship.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Baltic is full of mines, especially around the old Soviet bloc states. It's a vital part of defence for many countries, especially those in key conflict areas, such as the Baltic.

Where are these mines?

How many is 'full'?

How many ships have been damaged by mines in the Baltic in the last fifty years?

 

[Vixen]

Yes, most submarines have an anechoic coating that has elastomeric properties. They also have radar absorbent coatings on their upper structures.



What makes you think such coatings do not transfer in a collision?

It might well do. However, rubber tends to rot in water so might not necessarily be visible when inspected, should it have washed away.

After the war the technology was not used again until the late 1960s when the Soviet Union began coating its submarines, starting with the Victor class, in rubber tiles.[17] These were initially prone to falling off, but as the technology matured it was apparent that the tiles were having a dramatic effect in reducing the submarines' acoustic signatures. Modern Russian tiles are about 100 mm thick, and apparently reduced the acoustic signature of Akula-class submarines by between 10 and 20 decibels, (i.e. 10% to 1% of its original strength).

Wiki