• 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.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lots of people saying and claiming things.

By their nature events are confused at the time.

Look at any major event like an air crash, train crash, ship sinking, mass shooting, earthquake etc and see how reports at the time are confused and corrected later.

Why would any of rth4ese people be 'disappeared'?
 
Vixen said:
Its specifications weren't fit for the type of conditions it encountered. The rivets in the hull simply gave way causing a breach in the hull, as triggered by hitting the iceberg.

The Titanic took four hours to sink.

One clue about the Olympia not sinking after being hit by a Uboat, is that its size was huge:

Class and type Olympic-class ocean liner
Tonnage 45,324 gross register tons; 46,358 after 1913; 46,439 after 1920
Displacement 52,067 tons
Length 882 ft 9 in (269.1 m)[2]

Whereas the Uboat, a U-103, was emerging and ready to torpedo it:

wiki

The U-103 seems to have been very small in comparison

wiki


Less than 1,000 tonnes. Might be a factor that enabled Olympic to limp home after repelling the attack.
Click to expand...


And naturally you ignored the collision with HMS Hawke, which had a displacement of nearly 8000 tons. That collision flooded two of Olympic's compartments and nearly sank Hawke. Further, Titanic sank in two hours and 40 minutes. Fail.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lots of people saying and claiming things.

By their nature events are confused at the time.

Look at any major event like an air crash, train crash, ship sinking, mass shooting, earthquake etc and see how reports at the time are confused and corrected later.

Why would any of rth4ese people be 'disappeared'?
Click to expand...

The only scenario I can think of where a 'mistake' can have arisen is that someone provided a list of the 'missing', which officials misunderstood as 'survived' or 'accounted for'. Think about it. You are sitting on a life raft. A ship bearing several hundred passengers has sunk. You are rescued. You give your name and birthdate as back up ID. How is it possible that someone who was neither rescued from the sea nor was recovered dead can have been listed by one of these officials greeting those being lifted out of the water? Where would that information have come from?


I can think of one other scenario when people are legitimately 'disappeared' and that would be in witness protection, where someone in danger of attack is given a completely new identity and personal history.
 
SpitfireIX said:
And naturally you ignored the collision with HMS Hawke, which had a displacement of nearly 8000 tons. That collision flooded two of Olympic's compartments and nearly sank Hawke. Further, Titanic sank in two hours and 40 minutes. Fail.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't ignore it. I was asked a question about Olympic which i quickly looked up on wikipedia re the submarine U103 bit, as that was the topic. The casework surrounding the Titanic is huge. Why am I expected to be au fait with HMS Hawke when no-one even referenced it?

If you or anyone wants to make a specific point about the Titanic or its sister / adversary vessels then just say what the point is instead of this riddle-me-ree stuff.
 
Vixen said:
No, I didn't ignore it. I was asked a question about Olympic which i quickly looked up on wikipedia re the submarine U103 bit, as that was the topic. The casework surrounding the Titanic is huge. Why am I expected to be au fait with HMS Hawke when no-one even referenced it?

If you or anyone wants to make a specific point about the Titanic or its sister / adversary vessels then just say what the point is instead of this riddle-me-ree stuff.
Click to expand...

Uhm. Hms Hawke was mentioned in the post where you answered on.
Only you chose to go on about the u-boat instead of seeing the significance about the collision with hms Hawke.

And you still got the time the Titanic took to sink wrong.
Not important as such. But it is if your position is purported to be fact based.
 
Vixen said:
No, I didn't ignore it. I was asked a question about Olympic which i quickly looked up on wikipedia re the submarine U103 bit, as that was the topic. The casework surrounding the Titanic is huge. Why am I expected to be au fait with HMS Hawke when no-one even referenced it?

If you or anyone wants to make a specific point about the Titanic or its sister / adversary vessels then just say what the point is instead of this riddle-me-ree stuff.
Click to expand...


No. I mentioned that Olympic collided with a cruiser, a submarine, and a lightship. I italicized the word "submarine" because of your insinuation that Estonia might have sunk due to having been rammed by one. You responded by claiming that the "unseaworthy" Olympic likely only survived the collision with U-103 due to the latter's small size, ignoring the fact that Olympic also survived colliding with the much larger Hawke.
 
Vixen said:
How can three sets of divers (Rockwater) miss it?
Click to expand...

In 1994 the Estonia sat on the bottom with a 120-degree list. In 2019 it had rolled into a 132-degree list. The mystery diver saw the hole in 1999. I'm not great at math but it seems like that side of the wreck might not have been accessible to divers in 1994...for obvious reasons.
 
SpitfireIX said:
No. I mentioned that Olympic collided with a cruiser, a submarine, and a lightship. I italicized the word "submarine" because of your insinuation that Estonia might have sunk due to having been rammed by one. You responded by claiming that the "unseaworthy" Olympic likely only survived the collision with U-103 due to the latter's small size, ignoring the fact that Olympic also survived colliding with the much larger Hawke.
Click to expand...

Perhaps remind me of the point you are making? That Olympic was a sister ship of Titanic but never sank when colliding with things?

You need to state what point you are making and expand on it.

So, 'The point I am making is [...fill in gap...]?

'This is because... [...fill in gap...]?

Just because one ship is rammed by a a cruiser, a submarine, and a lightship and is as right as rain, what does that prove?
 
Axxman300 said:
In 1994 the Estonia sat on the bottom with a 120-degree list. In 2019 it had rolled into a 132-degree list. The mystery diver saw the hole in 1999. I'm not great at math but it seems like that side of the wreck might not have been accessible to divers in 1994...for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...


They actually cut out two panels in the hull and entered by that means. They explored the ship.
 
Vixen said:
Perhaps remind me of the point you are making? That Olympic was a sister ship of Titanic but never sank when colliding with things?

You need to state what point you are making and expand on it.

So, 'The point I am making is [...fill in gap...]?

'This is because... [...fill in gap...]?

Just because one ship is rammed by a a cruiser, a submarine, and a lightship and is as right as rain, what does that prove?
Click to expand...

It proves a ship doesn't sink after being rammed unless there is sufficient damage to cause it to sink.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It proves a ship doesn't sink after being rammed unless there is sufficient damage to cause it to sink.
Click to expand...

RMS Olympic was an ocean liner and massive:

Class and type Olympic-class ocean liner
Tonnage 45,324 gross register tons; 46,358 after 1913; 46,439 after 1920
Displacement 52,067 tons
Click to expand...
wiki


The MV Estonia was merely a cruise ferry Ro-Ro designed originally to connect Turku/Naantali to Marienhaam in the Ålands and Stockholm (really, Södertalje), as MV Viking Sally, only two hours of which was open sea between Kapellskär and Marienhaam (despite the journey being roughly ten hours). She was designed for less wave height for shorter time durations than open-sea designed vessels which have stronger safety and design protocols. In her reincarnation as Wasa King, she had an even shorter route: Vaasa to Umeå.

As MV Estonia her new route was 90% open sea for 12 hours. Estonia should never have been classed or allowed for open sea. I don't see how it was classed as seaworthy.

As for the Olympic being hit so many times but not sinking, well, that is the same type of logical fallacy as the 'My nan smoked 100 cigarettes a day from age nine and lived to 125'.

Olympic was built as an ocean liner and a warship.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Olympic was built as an ocean liner and a warship.
Click to expand...

Warship?

It was a sister ship to Titanic.

HMS Hawke was an Edgar class protected cruiser. it had a reinforced 'ram bow' designed for damaging other ships, it had considerably more force behind it than the glancing blow of any submarine of around 1400 tons.

picture.php


picture.php
 
Last edited:
The MV Estonia was merely a cruise ferry Ro-Ro designed originally to connect Turku/Naantali to Marienhaam in the Ålands and Stockholm (really, Södertalje), as MV Viking Sally, only two hours of which was open sea between Kapellskär and Marienhaam (despite the journey being roughly ten hours). She was designed for less wave height for shorter time durations than open-sea designed vessels which have stronger safety and design protocols. In her reincarnation as Wasa King, she had an even shorter route: Vaasa to Umeå.

As MV Estonia her new route was 90% open sea for 12 hours. Estonia should never have been classed or allowed for open sea. I don't see how it was classed as seaworthy.
Click to expand...

Hang on. I thought you had been telling us it was an amazing ship, built by the best yard to the highest standard.

Now it wasn't seaworthy?

make your mind up.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Hang on. I thought you had been telling us it was an amazing ship, built by the best yard to the highest standard.

Now it wasn't seaworthy?

make your mind up.
Click to expand...

If the bow visor was loose and the car ramp leaky, how can it have been? Yet the inspectors signed it off as seaworthy and the JAIC said it was seaworthy. The fact that it was only a ferry doesn't mean it can't do the job. However, if hit by a submarine or some kind of explosive, it doesn't augur well does it?

Meyer Werft design ships to customer specifications, so with respect to the Veritas inspectors, the fault would lie with them, if there was a fault?
 
Vixen said:
If the bow visor was loose and the car ramp leaky, how can it have been? Yet the inspectors signed it off as seaworthy and the JAIC said it was seaworthy. The fact that it was only a ferry doesn't mean it can't do the job. However, if hit by a submarine or some kind of explosive, it doesn't augur well does it?

Meyer Werft design ships to customer specifications, so with respect to the Veritas inspectors, the fault would lie with them, if there was a fault?
Click to expand...

So now the shipyard produced a shoddy ship to the customer specification?

I thought they were one of the best?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Warship?

It was a sister ship to Titanic.

HMS Hawke was an Edgar class protected cruiser. it had a reinforced 'ram bow' designed for damaging other ships, it had considerably more force behind it than the glancing blow of any submarine of around 1400 tons.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=672&pictureid=12908[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=672&pictureid=12907[/qimg]
Click to expand...

RMS Olympic was used as a war ship in WWI.

If HMS Hawke had a reinforced 'ram bow': that doesn't necessarily follow RMS Olympic should sink, although it sounds fortuitous to me it didn't, rather than a sign of great strength that the hull wasn't breached.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom