The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Andy_Ross]

Archimedes Principle.

What about it?

What is 'Archimedes Principle'?

 

[Steve]

What is your evidence for this?

 

[Vixen]

Apart from the one the ship is draped over and causing the hull to tear you mean?

That is a rocky ridge of a few metres long of where the Estonia came to rest. It's position is such, with the upside down bridge propped up against it, that the starboard side didn't come into contact with it for it to be in that position. In any case, it is a long ridge, not a pointed one.

 

[Vixen]

I'm slightly surprised at your apparent inability to remember what you wrote in this respect..... but, well, here you go (my highlights for emphasis):




http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13565443#post13565443

Now explain how that demonstrates my being wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Look, ships not turning turtle as they sink.

Estonia went down by the stern, it did not turn turtle.
Most ships sink without turning turtle.
Most ships do not turn over and stay afloat for any length of time.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1371&pictureid=12889[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1371&pictureid=12888[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1371&pictureid=12887[/qimg]

You haven't stated the cause of the accident for these ships. If they collided or were torpedoed of course they would have sunk quite quickly. That doesn't mean they all sink quickly, just that Estonia compared to other ships sank extremely quickly, yet the JAIC never bothered to find out why, despite 21% - one fifth - of the survivors reporting a sound or sensation equivalent to an explosion or a collision with something.

 

[LondonJohn]

Now explain how that demonstrates my being wrong.

Not sure I'm quite following you here.

In that quote, you're specifically and explicitly stating that it was Braidwood who retrieved the piece of metal. Or do the laws of physics work differently below sea level or something?

 

[RolandRat]

I used the name Braidwood as it was his dive and he wrote the report. It was Braidwood's project. I also said we call it Scott's Expedition to the Antarctic, it doesn't mean he is a one-man band.

I said in my view it was Braidwood himself who cut them out.

I thought your question was in good faith and that you sincerely wanted to know. Now it has become apparent that you are just indulging in group personal attack. So rather than thanking me for taking the trouble to find out the information for you I discover your true aim is to mock.

Enjoy the brinkmanship. However, I find it boring, so I shan't contribute anything else to this particular issue.

Oh please, don't pull that card. I simply stated your claims back to you. You literally stated he personally dived the wreck and cut the pieces. You have changed that story since. I asked you to clarify which version you were sticking with.

For the record. It wasn't his dive, it wasn't his project. He was asked to review the footage and the lab results, that's it.

 

[LondonJohn]

You haven't stated the cause of the accident for these ships. If they collided or were torpedoed of course they would have sunk quite quickly. That doesn't mean they all sink quickly, just that Estonia compared to other ships sank extremely quickly, yet the JAIC never bothered to find out why, despite 21% - one fifth - of the survivors reporting a sound or sensation equivalent to an explosion or a collision with something.

The Herald of Free Enterprise sank in a matter of minutes once she passed the harbour wall. Without being torpedoed. Or in a collision with another vessel. Or in a collision with anything else. Or with any breach of her hull at or below the waterline.

 

[Vixen]

Submarine identified?

Re: Cart Reitmaan's eye witness account of seeing something white, or bright, moving away from the ship as he looked over the rails after running up from his cabin in Deck 1, which was below the waterline, because of water coming into his cabin.

He was surprised when some Finnish police made their way to Estonia to question him specifically about his sighting.

Here's a submarine that fits that description:

In 1996, the book Soviet Diesel Electric Submarines from the Post-War Period (1996) was published by Vladimir Gagin - who authored many books on military history. In Russian, the book title reads Soviet Diesel-Electric Substitutes . In the book's section on the mini submarine project 865 Piranja you can read:

“These were not simple submarines. Several of them have no connection with the VMF [Soviet / Russian Navy]. They are used for special operations of the former Soviet KGB. In June 1988 in [Oxelö] sound, the Swedes found […] a small submarine lying on the bottom, its length did not exceed 30 meters. The submarine, determined by sonar, attracted anti-submarine helicopters, and, since it was Sweden's territorial waters, an attack was immediately launched with sinking bombs […] The small Soviet submarines not only annoyed the Swedes, who even discovered them in Stockholm Bay. ”

[...]


“A unit disappears from the unit, the one who knows where [they have gone] tiger. He who does not know does not ask. When you return after a month or two, of course no one asks where we were. Of course, we conducted operations in peacetime. […] Even today they are considered secret. " (from the documentary “Podvodnyje ninja”)

Pictured: a Russian Former Soviet Union mini-submarine in use in the 1990's.

And a K-278 Komosomolets, which I believe now lies at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea encased in concrete.

 

[Vixen]

Not sure I'm quite following you here.

In that quote, you're specifically and explicitly stating that it was Braidwood who retrieved the piece of metal. Or do the laws of physics work differently below sea level or something?

That is correct AFAIAC.

 

[Vixen]

Oh please, don't pull that card. I simply stated your claims back to you. You literally stated he personally dived the wreck and cut the pieces. You have changed that story since. I asked you to clarify which version you were sticking with.

For the record. It wasn't his dive, it wasn't his project. He was asked to review the footage and the lab results, that's it.

Really? Citation please for this claim.

 

[Vixen]

The Herald of Free Enterprise sank in a matter of minutes once she passed the harbour wall. Without being torpedoed. Or in a collision with another vessel. Or in a collision with anything else. Or with any breach of her hull at or below the waterline.

Complete non sequitur.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That is a rocky ridge of a few metres long of where the Estonia came to rest. It's position is such, with the upside down bridge propped up against it, that the starboard side didn't come into contact with it for it to be in that position. In any case, it is a long ridge, not a pointed one.

A ship is designed to be supported along it's full hull length not by the middle.

It will sag and the hull will fracture and tear.
It happens to ships that aren't supported correctly in dry dock and to ships not loaded correctly.
Estonia was supported midships and the ends sagged. that is where the hole came from. It is a tear.

 

[LondonJohn]

And by the way, Vixen: Of those "21% of survivors reporting a sound or sensation equivalent to an explosion or a collision with something"*...

.... how many of them do you think had prior personal experience of either an explosion aboard a large ship upon which they were a passenger, or a collision involving a ship upon which they were a passenger?

In other words, how are we to judge the literal accuracy of any of these (alleged) claims - however sincerely they may have been held by each of those involved - if many or all of those people had no frame of reference for what they (allegedly) sensed or heard? After all, for someone who's never experienced a genuine explosion or collision aboard a large ship, it's hardly difficult to suppose that what they interpreted as an explosion or collision might, for example, have actually been a bow visor slamming the ramp on its way to being torn off, or several heavy goods vehicles sliding across the open deck and colliding with each other and the inner wall of the superstructure?


* If indeed this statistic is factually correct to start with....

 

[LondonJohn]

Complete non sequitur.

Ceteris paribus, and vis-a-vis your claim here, I think you'll find it absolutely is not a non sequitur. Kemo sabi?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

For (sadly) relevant comparison:

Lots of witnesses reported hearing "explosions" at ground level of the WTC towers, as I recall.

We're those noises a result of explosives?

 

[LondonJohn]

That is correct AFAIAC.

What's correct? That the laws of physics work differently below sea level?

Or that you claimed that a named individual personally dived the wreck and removed a portion of the hull, when that individual not only didn't dive the wreck, but in fact he had nothing whatsoever to do with the expedition to dive the wreck (and instead was merely asked to conduct a desk review)?

Which one?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You haven't stated the cause of the accident for these ships. If they collided or were torpedoed of course they would have sunk quite quickly. That doesn't mean they all sink quickly, just that Estonia compared to other ships sank extremely quickly, yet the JAIC never bothered to find out why, despite 21% - one fifth - of the survivors reporting a sound or sensation equivalent to an explosion or a collision with something.

It's bows fell off and it flooded, just like the Herald Of Free Enterprise

 

[LondonJohn]

BTW, I'm interested (and in no small way amused) in the fact that - as per Vixen's version of events - the Finnish authorities and individuals tend (perhaps without exception) to be the noble, fair-minded actors in the drama.

Sheer coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[Vixen]

And by the way, Vixen: Of those "21% of survivors reporting a sound or sensation equivalent to an explosion or a collision with something"*...

.... how many of them do you think had prior personal experience of either an explosion aboard a large ship upon which they were a passenger, or a collision involving a ship upon which they were a passenger?

In other words, how are we to judge the literal accuracy of any of these (alleged) claims - however sincerely they may have been held by each of those involved - if many or all of those people had no frame of reference for what they (allegedly) sensed or heard? After all, for someone who's never experienced a genuine explosion or collision aboard a large ship, it's hardly difficult to suppose that what they interpreted as an explosion or collision might, for example, have actually been a bow visor slamming the ramp on its way to being torn off, or several heavy goods vehicles sliding across the open deck and colliding with each other and the inner wall of the superstructure?


* If indeed this statistic is factually correct to start with....

Oh course people know, to be able to describe it. I lived in London when the IRA had their bombing campaigns. I was actually working at an office in Victoria when I had a bird's eye view of the cannon going off in the erstwhile PM John Major's back yard at No. 10 Downing street. I looked out of the window at the commotion to see a startled workman hanging on to scaffold for dear life having almost fallen off in fright. Likewise, people recognise when something has collided.

Of course, the survivors of the Estonia might have been mistaken but that doesn't mean their eye witness accounts should be ignored and not investigated.

Calculate it for yourself: 29 out of 137 survivors.