The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

Only the maximum load line.

I think there's some confusion about whether we're talking about load lines, which are very much the waterlines that matter when you're loading the ship, and the operational waterline, which is physically where the water comes to on the ship's hull at some instant. The latter is what dictates where on a ship something riding on the surface or below it can collide with it.

 

[Vixen]

How would a lab determine that the deformation was caused by an explosive?

What sample did they test and how did they test it?

If the ship had been repainted at any time it would have been shot blasted to remove the old paint. We know the ship was more than a decade old, it has been repainted several times at least.

Because of the type of deformation. An explosion causes a particular type of deformation in that type of metal.

Do you think forensic metallurgy laboratories don't know about shot peening or shot blasting?

 

[Vixen]

Braidwood only watched the lousy video. He hasn't dived on the wreck himself or examined any of the supposed charges and explosive bags.

He did dive on the wreck. He cut out a panel from the port side bulk head, where he spotted a hole.

 

[lobosrul5]

How does that answer the question?

Why would that make a difference if the ship wasn't overloaded?

I have no idea what difference it would even make if the ship was or wasn't overloaded Or is that part of the conspiracy now, the Swedes loaded the MV Estonia with 10,000 tons of TNT or something??

 

[Vixen]

Very true. Which made me think of how he was asked to identify things he was shown. Shame he is no longer with us so can't verify his report.

For the record, I don't think the ship was sunk with explosives but because of the calibre of the expert used it seemed worth bringing up. I totally get your "James Bond" point.

He did dive down and cut out a panel from the Estonia.

At least he actually had the Estonia tested and not use a dummy model as the BAM did.

 

[Vixen]

Wouldn't it be easier to recover bodies from plane wreckage than from a ship?

The plane was at the bottom of the Atlantic - much deeper than the Baltic by a country mile - and scattered over a wide area.

When the Ehime Maru was salvaged, just off the coast of Hawaii, what they did was simply move the wreck to more shallow waters, and then the recovery of the bodies was made much easier than having to keep diving down into very deep waters.

 

[Vixen]

Can you think of any differences between the Estonia and Tsunami victims or aircraft passengers strapped in seats?

The majority of the 852 passengers who died would have been still trapped in their cabins. At least 630 remain underwater, with the others recovered or rescued. Some will be huddled in door wells and corridors and some lost forever. There were some seen on the sea bed around the vessel, as caught by the ROV cameras.


Do you really believe passengers in a plane crash, perhaps caused by explosives, remained strapped together with all the other passengers intact?


The sheer water pressure will have crushed many of them.

 

[Vixen]

Only the maximum load line.

How much do you think it would change the waterline on a ship like the Estonia?

Here is a clue, in the winter the waterline is lower on the hull.
It would put the hole further above the waterline.

This time it was a storm, making it higher.

 

[JesseCuster]

I had initially thought they had found explosives but what they found was a twinning deformation which was caused by a force of between 3,000 - 5,000 metres per second. A force of 1,000mps is categorised as an explosion. These were the results of three independent laboratories (including one that did police forensics) in the USA, UK and Germany.

So you were wrong when you (at least twice) said that independent labs found traces of explosive on pieces of the wreckage.

1,000mps is a velocity, not a force. Can you quote a reliable source that says "a force of 1000mps" is categorised as an explosive? Because that doesn't make sense to me. An explosion may indeed contain shockwaves travelling at that speed, but that doesn't mean that anything that speed is therefore an explosion.

For example, the International Space Station travels at 8,000 meters per second, but the ISS is not "categorised as an explosion". Because that would make no sense.

 

[Vixen]

So you were wrong when you (at least twice) said that independent labs found traces of explosive on pieces of the wreckage.

1,000mps is a velocity, not a force. Can you quote a reliable source that says "a force of 1000mps" is categorised as an explosive? Because that doesn't make sense to me. An explosion may indeed contain shockwaves travelling at that speed, but that doesn't mean that anything that speed is therefore an explosion.

For example, the International Space Station travels at 8,000 meters per second, but the ISS is not "categorised as an explosion". Because that would make no sense.

A force acting on the metal. I don't know the physics of it but a force above 5,000mps is categorised as damage resulting from military explosives.

If you are testing for explosives on a blown up metallic object such as a tank or aircraft, this equation and type of deformity is identifiable.

Nothing to do with an object travelling at 8,000 mps, although I dare say if the ISS crashed into a metallic structure the metal would show the same type of deformation.

 

[JesseCuster]

I had initially thought they had found explosives but what they found was a twinning deformation which was caused by a force of between 3,000 - 5,000 metres per second. A force of 1,000mps is categorised as an explosion. These were the results of three independent laboratories (including one that did police forensics) in the USA, UK and Germany.

Earlier in the thread you said that someone reckoned the damage was caused by something weighing between 1 and 5 tonnes and travelling between 2 and 4 knots.

Now you've got someone saying that it was caused by an explosion with a "force" of 3 to 5 kilometers per second?

If one of those is correct then the other is very, very wrong.

 

[JesseCuster]

A force acting on the metal. I don't know the physics of it but a force above 5,000mps is categorised as damage resulting from military explosives.

5,000mps is not a force. It's a velocity.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't know the physics of it but a force above 5,000mps is ...

Force is not measured in meters per second. Clearly you don't know anything about the physics, so maybe you should consider that you may not be accurately representing your source material.

If you are testing for explosives on a blown up metallic object such as a tank or aircraft, this equation...

What equation?

...and type of deformity is identifiable.

All you can really say about deformities is that they are consistent with various patterns of force used to create them. You cannot say what produced the force without further investigation.

What happened to the submarine theory?

 

[Vixen]

Explanation of the laboratory results on the panel here:

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/chapter06/06-0.html

 

[GlennB]

A force acting on the metal. I don't know the physics of it but a force above 5,000mps is categorised as damage resulting from military explosives.

5,000mps is a speed, not a force.

This thread is getting a little disturbing. Vixen, take a break.

 

[Vixen]

Earlier in the thread you said that someone reckoned the damage was caused by something weighing between 1 and 5 tonnes and travelling between 2 and 4 knots.

Now you've got someone saying that it was caused by an explosion with a "force" of 3 to 5 kilometers per second?

If one of those is correct then the other is very, very wrong.

Not necessarily. Professor Jørgen Amdahl was presented with a life size model of the hole on the starboard side, as highlighted by Henrik Evertsson, and asked his expert opinion, as a a specialist in marine collisions, what type of object or force might be responsible.

He then did some calculations and in very simple language for a tv audience to understand, he gave a broad range of possibilities. He initially, before doing anything, said he was sure the JAIC was right but when he did his modelling he was not so sure.

This is objectivity. Can't ignore something just because it doesn't fit with the theory.

Imagine someone is determined to destroy that ship, then they may well attack it in severl different ways to be absolutely sure. It could just be sheer coincidence. One could be due to poor maintenance and just by the by, or it could be the cause of the accident and at the same time it was hit by the sub shadowing it when it violently turned slightly because of the explosion at the hull. Because the JAIC never looked at anything else other than the visor falling off, all these questions remain unanswered.

 

[JayUtah]

Professor Jørgen Amdahl was presented with a life size model of the hole on the starboard side, as highlighted by Henrik Evertsson, and asked his expert opinion, as a a specialist in marine collisions, what type of object or force might be responsible.

So if you start with the assumption that it's collision damage...

He then did some calculations and in very simple language for a tv audience to understand, he gave a broad range of possibilities.

Inconsistent estimates, and too broad to be credible, and inconsistent with any actual vessel that would credibly be in the vicinity. That matters, whether you like it or not.

This is objectivity.

Evertsson specifically ignored data that didn't fit his story: the other stress fractures he discovered on the hull. When asked to explain why, he specifically said they didn't fit the story he wanted to tell. That's not objectivity. That's someone trying to sell his documentary.

Can't ignore something just because it doesn't fit with the theory.

You're doing that in massive swathes.

 

[lobosrul5]

Not necessarily. Professor Jørgen Amdahl was presented with a life size model of the hole on the starboard side, as highlighted by Henrik Evertsson, and asked his expert opinion, as a a specialist in marine collisions, what type of object or force might be responsible.

He then did some calculations and in very simple language for a tv audience to understand, he gave a broad range of possibilities. He initially, before doing anything, said he was sure the JAIC was right but when he did his modelling he was not so sure.

This is objectivity. Can't ignore something just because it doesn't fit with the theory.

Imagine someone is determined to destroy that ship, then they may well attack it in severl different ways to be absolutely sure. It could just be sheer coincidence. One could be due to poor maintenance and just by the by, or it could be the cause of the accident and at the same time it was hit by the sub shadowing it when it violently turned slightly because of the explosion at the hull. Because the JAIC never looked at anything else other than the visor falling off, all these questions remain unanswered.

So you think there was an explosion that ripped open the bow visor, which caused the ship to shudder, turn, and that a sub was shadowing the Estonia ... while surfaced(?!?!?), and SOOO closely that they couldn't make a course change in time. Thats getting well beyond bad movie shown at 2 AM on Cinemax script bad.

 

[JayUtah]

So you think there was an explosion that ripped open the bow visor, which caused the ship to shudder, turn, and that a sub was shadowing the Estonia ... while surfaced(?!?!?), and SOOO closely that they couldn't make a course change in time. Thats getting well beyond bad movie shown at 2 AM on Cinemax script bad.

Conspiracy theories are almost never about establishing a more credible alternate story. They're mostly about finding fault with the conventional narrative. So the set of "everything wrong with the conventional narrative" is what gets deployed, even if taken together it paints a ludicrous picture. The double standard is pretty obvious: the conventional narrative must be complete in all particulars and explain all available evidence, while the alternate narrative can be full of holes and the proponent can just shrug and say, "Don't ask me, I don't know how it happened."

 

[Andy_Ross]

Waves in a Beaufort scale 7 of 6 - 8 m high south westerly do not have a force of 3,000 - 5,000 mps.

Metal fatigue doesn't work like that.