• 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.
Why? He was off watch.
The Officer Of The Watch was in charge of the ship.
What could be reported before it was investigated?

If you watch this interview with the Captain of the nearby M/S Viking Mariella, Jan-Tore Thörnroos, he explains, he immediately jumped out of bed to run to his bridge as soon as there was an alert from his crew.



I am guessing Captain Andresson would have done the same. According to Rockwater divers, he was seen with a bullet through his head, as reported by former head of the JAIC, Andi Meister.
 
Oh good. Off we go again.

Look:

Arikas, in that quote you provided,

1) talks about the damage to the side of the hull (the damage you seem to be insinuating came from a colliding vessel or a torpedo or some other unsubstantiated crap)

then

2) points out that this damage (the damage he's talking about in (1) above) correlates in its geometry (ie size, shape) with the rock outcrop which is right next to this damaged part of the hull.


It doesn't take a genius to work out that the only reasonable inference to take from Arikas' statement is that it was the rock outcrop which caused the damage to the side of the hull. (the precise area of damage which you insinuate was caused by your batguano conspiracy theories)


Let me know if you'd like any further clarification.

Wrong. The 22 meters x 4 metre deformation is a separate one. If you read the Baltic News it lumps the sentence 'geological match' with this whereas the ERR Posti has it as a separate paragraph. These are likely both from the same news agency, which are well-known for avoidance of stating anything controversial.

Fact is, Arikas has not yet committed himself as to what the cause of the hole, as found by Evertsson et al is.
 
I think you just answered your own question.



Which damaged occurred before as opposed to after the ship sank is precisely the point under discussion. You don't get to beg the question that the hole in question was formed before.

Nope. According to Evertsson, there are no rocky protusions in the region the ships sank that could have caused that shape of deformation. In addition, it has been known of since Swedish Navy diver Hakan Berkman (_sp?) was part of an early team of divers reported it. He revealed his claim in 1999, and which was published in the Swedish national papers.

So, not caused by 26 years of 'wear and tear'.
 

Attachments

  • 2021-08-19 (2).jpg
    2021-08-19 (2).jpg
    25.1 KB · Views: 6
  • images.jpg
    images.jpg
    5 KB · Views: 85
You claimed that "force" and "impact" are synonymous. So the gas must be exerting a static 800 psi impact on the inner surface of the bottle, right?

Nope. I paraphrased Arikas as stating that a particular deformation seen by his ROV device on the starboard side must have been caused by an enormous impact.

Someone claimed his exact quote was 'by an enormous force' not impact.

However, Arikas is an Estonian speaker and I doubt Estonian has a hundred and one different words for the same thing, as English does.

So, in the above case, it is a correct use of synoym.

We were not talking about Chemistry so you are simply dealing in sophistry with your example.
 
Probably no good reason to investigate it, certainly no reason to think that he was involved in a hijacking of the bridge.

The idea that the bridge might have been hijacked is your fantasy and is not just a "current news item", no matter how much you twist and turn and refuse to take responsibility for your inane ideas.

You've thrown out ideas of hijacked bridges, accidental collisions with escorting British subs, accidental collisions with spying Russian subs, revenge seeking rogue KGB agents, the sinking being caused by explosives planted on the ship, nine crew members mysteriously disappearing after the sinking, a NATO naval exercise suspiciously not getting involved in a rescue effort, a submarine torpedoing the Estonia... I can't even remember all the nutty mutually exclusive ideas you've bombarded the thread with.

Your wild-eyed speculation about rogue KGB agents seeking revenge, or unidentified people hijacking the bridge, or submarines surreptitiously torpedoing the ship, or Russian spy submarines accidentally sinking the ship and other arrant nonsense are straight up conspiracy theory lunacy, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

So do you think the Russian shooting down of a plane or poisoning its ex-spies and daughter in Salisbury is conspiracy theory. You think the cold war doesn't exist, even today? As I said, it is your prerogative to wait until Rupert Murdoch gives you the go ahead to believe something.

AFIAAC credible eye witnesses, who were actually there at the accident, have confirmed they experienced a series of explosions (two or three is the common claim) and/or a collision of such force that they thought the ship had crashed into something. These are 29 independent survivors out of just 137 (of whom 58 were crew). Both Sarah Hedrenius and Carl Oxberg saw the military vehicles board the vessel. Paul Barney is convinced of MI6 involvement as he is unable to obtain any transparency whatsoever under the Freedom of Information Act, despite this being a public accident occuring on public transport. Sweden did eventually, ten years later, admit it did use the Estonia to smuggle FSU military equipment.

So just because you can't get your head around it, it doesn't mean it did not happen. Maybe you are not as sceptical as you think you are if you are waiting for Fox News to tell you what to think.
 
This is an eminently bad example because the kinetic-molecular theory of gases states that static pressure of a contained gas is exactly the sum of collisions of moving gas molecules with the container. But the point everyone's trying to make with it is clear and correct: static loading and dynamic loading are very different kinds of things.

Structural engineers are laboring diligently to preserve Frank Lloyd Wright's famous house Fallingwater, which he infamously designed in about an hour after hearing that the client was on his way to see Lloyd Wright's progress. Sadly after many years, the cantilevered steel beams are "hogging," threatening the integrity of the building. That's persistent static loading, involving only the building's dead weight (which means almost the exact opposite in architecture as it does in seafaring). Yes, the same result could have been obtained by dropping giant heavy weights onto the structure when it was freshly built. But that's not what happened.

A ship sitting on its side (or nearly upside down) on an uneven surface is subject to the same sort of problem, just from static loading. And the result will be buckling and tearing. There was posted plenty of photographic evidence of this happening to ships on the surface (because sagging and hogging occur there too), with very similar results to what we see on Estonia. Certainly I haven't ruled out a penetrating injury. But to me there are two points of evidence that make stress fracture the best hypothesis for Evertsson's hole: the lack of coating transfer or damage, and the buckle in the indented portion of the hole. If that were a penetrating injury it would have been more likely to tear at that point. But since I don't get to inspect the hole close up, and others do, what those others have to say is more important than what I have to say.

Maybe you were not listening to Professor Amdahl carefully enough. He points out in Evertsson's documentary that paint has flaked as he would expect in a collision. He is an expert specialist in marine collisions.
 
Indeed, after lecturing us about the importance of respecting context in quotations, Vixen largely ignores the context of Arikas' statement in which he clearly opines that the damage occurred on the seabed, not on the surface. Of course it doesn't rule out that it could have occurred on the surface, but to continue trying to cite the witness as sustaining authority for the surface-collision hypothesis is completely wrong. The witness here clearly makes a case for a different specific cause.

Wrong again. Arikas has gone to enormous pains to make it clear that he is providing a purely descriptive narrative which is non-committal and pending investigation.

Descriptive means exactly that.
 
Please try to stay within a nautical mile of the topic, and refrain from personalising your posts.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Wrong again. Arikas has gone to enormous pains to make it clear that he is providing a purely descriptive narrative which is non-committal and pending investigation.



Descriptive means exactly that.
He describes the damage he sees as conforming to the seabed near that part of the ship. How is that not a hypothesis of cause?
 
He describes the damage he sees as conforming to the seabed near that part of the ship. How is that not a hypothesis of cause?

There is damage from at least four different sources:

  • damage from the stern hitting the seabed: geological conformity
  • damage to the bow car ramp area
  • damage caused by shifting and sea currents - there have been at least four shifts
  • damage to the starboard side including a deformation 22m x 4m.

Here's a summary of what Rene Arikas said:

A dive robot provided evidence that only a small part of the ramp is still attached to its hinge, while the ramp as a whole has, as noted, fallen fully open, for reasons still to be established.

The force that caused damage in the side of the hull, on the other hand, would have to be "enormous", Arikas said, adding that the exact extent of the damage is not known as it could also reach below the hull; the ferry's seventh and eighth decks (of 10) remained inaccessible, he said.

The dive robot also found significant volumes of debris inside the car deck, though it was not able to penetrate further inside, while some of the damage in the hull plating are on the opposite side from that which struck the seabed first, Arikas said.

Stern ramps remain closed

A deformation of 22 meters in length and four meters in height was registered in the middle part of the vessel on the starboard side.

The vessel's plating has outward deformations as well as in some inward ones, while a side fender has been forced inside the vessel. The deformations generally match the local geological profile.

As to the stern, its ramps had remained in a closed attitude.

The wreck rests on a slope with a gradient close to 30 meters. There is a protruding outcrop near the middle segment of the vessel, on which it rests on its starboard side – a fact already known in 1996 after the first investigation.

The soil around the wreck has collapsed on four occasions at different times.

The dive had seen interference which reduced sonar penetration from 150 meters, to 20 meters later on in the investigation.

Some objects lying close to the wreck also need to be identified, while a device left behind to measure sea current speeds will need to be retrieved in due course to extract data, Arikas said.
https://news.err.ee/1608284421/estonia-wreck-survey-summary-starboard-side-crushed-significantly
 
So do you think the Russian shooting down of a plane or poisoning its ex-spies and daughter in Salisbury is conspiracy theory. You think the cold war doesn't exist, even today? As I said, it is your prerogative to wait until Rupert Murdoch gives you the go ahead to believe something.



AFIAAC credible eye witnesses, who were actually there at the accident, have confirmed they experienced a series of explosions (two or three is the common claim) and/or a collision of such force that they thought the ship had crashed into something. These are 29 independent survivors out of just 137 (of whom 58 were crew). Both Sarah Hedrenius and Carl Oxberg saw the military vehicles board the vessel. Paul Barney is convinced of MI6 involvement as he is unable to obtain any transparency whatsoever under the Freedom of Information Act, despite this being a public accident occuring on public transport. Sweden did eventually, ten years later, admit it did use the Estonia to smuggle FSU military equipment.



So just because you can't get your head around it, it doesn't mean it did not happen. Maybe you are not as sceptical as you think you are if you are waiting for Fox News to tell you what to think.
Other conspiracies do exist =/= this conspiracy is real

A person doesn't believe your nonsense =/= that person is not a skeptic

Shaming people into no longer questioning your premises by suggesting they need Rupert Murdoch's permission to say something = you demonstrating your character for everyone to see.
 
Nope. I paraphrased Arikas as stating that a particular deformation seen by his ROV device on the starboard side must have been caused by an enormous impact.

Someone claimed his exact quote was 'by an enormous force' not impact.

However, Arikas is an Estonian speaker and I doubt Estonian has a hundred and one different words for the same thing, as English does.

So, in the above case, it is a correct use of synoym.

We were not talking about Chemistry so you are simply dealing in sophistry with your example.


Foster Zygote was not talking about chemistry either :covereyes

And I very, very strongly suggest that Estonian has different words for "force" and "impact", and that the distinction between the two Estonian words is the same as it is for the English ones.
 
This is an eminently bad example because the kinetic-molecular theory of gases states that static pressure of a contained gas is exactly the sum of collisions of moving gas molecules with the container. But the point everyone's trying to make with it is clear and correct: static loading and dynamic loading are very different kinds of things.

Structural engineers are laboring diligently to preserve Frank Lloyd Wright's famous house Fallingwater, which he infamously designed in about an hour after hearing that the client was on his way to see Lloyd Wright's progress. Sadly after many years, the cantilevered steel beams are "hogging," threatening the integrity of the building. That's persistent static loading, involving only the building's dead weight (which means almost the exact opposite in architecture as it does in seafaring). Yes, the same result could have been obtained by dropping giant heavy weights onto the structure when it was freshly built. But that's not what happened.

A ship sitting on its side (or nearly upside down) on an uneven surface is subject to the same sort of problem, just from static loading. And the result will be buckling and tearing. There was posted plenty of photographic evidence of this happening to ships on the surface (because sagging and hogging occur there too), with very similar results to what we see on Estonia. Certainly I haven't ruled out a penetrating injury. But to me there are two points of evidence that make stress fracture the best hypothesis for Evertsson's hole: the lack of coating transfer or damage, and the buckle in the indented portion of the hole. If that were a penetrating injury it would have been more likely to tear at that point. But since I don't get to inspect the hole close up, and others do, what those others have to say is more important than what I have to say.

I took a Characteristics of Natural Gas Components 70+ years ago and that was sounds like the definition that I remember although I don't have the textbook to prove it to see it, Professor Utah.
 
According to Arikas, there is. Evertsson's claims are not a basis for glossing Arikas'.

There is a protruding outcrop, which is a long ridge and not a pointed rock. The bridge has come to rest on it. The vessel sank face forward so the hull would not have hit this ridge, although the stern may or may not have hit the moraine clay slope, which is formed of hard rock.

There is a protruding outcrop near the middle segment of the vessel
ibid
 
Wrong. The 22 meters x 4 metre deformation is a separate one.


Evidence please. If you're going to announce - in the face of the very press report that you yourself provided here(!!) - that I'm wrong, then I'm going to want to see your working. Or is this nothing more than your own (mis)interpretation?



If you read the Baltic News it lumps the sentence 'geological match' with this whereas the ERR Posti has it as a separate paragraph. These are likely both from the same news agency, which are well-known for avoidance of stating anything controversial.


Uhm this makes no logical sense at all. Firstly, how are you coming by the idea that if there's a paragraph separator in the text, this somehow means or implies that the thing being discussed in Para 2 must be different from the thing being discussed in Para 1? And secondly, what on earth does your last sentence above mean? What is - or is not - "controversial" here in your view, especially as it pertains to what you believe the original news agency report to have been? (Do you even have any evidence that this was indeed an instance of wire copy which was picked up by two different news media and re-reported slightly differently?)



Fact is, Arikas has not yet committed himself as to what the cause of the hole, as found by Evertsson et al is.


Fact is, Arikas - by virtue of the press report which you yourself provided here(!!) - has very clearly expressed his own opinion, by way of an obvious implication, as to how that hull damage came about.
 
Foster Zygote was not talking about chemistry either :covereyes



And I very, very strongly suggest that Estonian has different words for "force" and "impact", and that the distinction between the two Estonian words is the same as it is for the English ones.
Estonian physics must differentiate between force and impact too. Physics is physics. Each language has precise words for physicists to use to maintain the distinction.
 
Other conspiracies do exist =/= this conspiracy is real

A person doesn't believe your nonsense =/= that person is not a skeptic

Shaming people into no longer questioning your premises by suggesting they need Rupert Murdoch's permission to say something = you demonstrating your character for everyone to see.

I am afraid that the person who writes about an unknown tattooed character on the bridge lying under a cabinet and Captain Andresson claimed to have been seen by a Rockwater diver with a bullet in his head is the former Head of the JAIC who resigned because he claimed the Swedish side were withholding and censoring information from him. For example, it only let them see an edited clip of what the outsourced Rockwater divers filmed. Your calling it 'wild-eyed nonsense' reflects on YOU. Because - hello? - the Treaty - an Act of government by three sovereign states - has been amended. Therefore it is not a conspiracy theory dreamt up by a Big Foot 9/11 truther.
 
Gish gallop. Your source is not merely describing. He is opining as to cause. He does not support your claims.


Exactly. It's clear as day that Arikas is giving his opinion that the hull damage he's just talked about - the only hull damage that's being talked about full stop - was caused by the rocky outcrop which is immediately adjacent to that part of the hull and which matched in size & shape to the damage observed on the hull.

If there could ever be such a thing as an explicit implication, Arikas provided one here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom