• 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.
LondonJohn said:
But the "m" in this case is just 20 (ie the 20m length of the hull deformation*); and then also, the ship can't have been travelling at more than, say, 10 knots/hour2, and if the damage had been caused by the ship shifting on the sea bed, this wouldn't have taken more than around 15 seconds maximum - so the "v" here would be 10 divided by 15 = 0.5. So "v2" would be 2.5.

And therefore 1/2mv2 would be 0.5 x 20 x 2.5. Which makes 200 jills. And Archimedes' Principle dictates that this is obviously far too few jills to buckle and twist the hull. Something else must have caused all that deformation while the ship was at the surface.


* I'm even being generous by opting for the 20m length of the deformation, rather than the 4m height
Click to expand...
This reads more like pastiche than parody.
 
Vixen said:
What do you mean there 'is no evidence of an impact'? So 29 survivors, out of just 79 passengers who escaped alive, gave an eyewitness account at the time of having experienced a series of two or three explosions and/or a collision/crash/scraping as though against rocks is not evidence?

So Captain_Swoop knows better than people who were there and were the lucky one in ten to get out alive. Yet their experience counts for nothing in his view.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of impact in anything you wrote. They saw nothing, and heard unexpected loud noises, none of which is inconsistent with the occurrence of the bow cap going AWOL.
 
LondonJohn said:
But the "m" in this case is just 20 (ie the 20m length of the hull deformation*); and then also, the ship can't have been travelling at more than, say, 10 knots/hour2, and if the damage had been caused by the ship shifting on the sea bed, this wouldn't have taken more than around 15 seconds maximum - so the "v" here would be 10 divided by 15 = 0.5. So "v2" would be 2.5.

And therefore 1/2mv2 would be 0.5 x 20 x 2.5. Which makes 200 jills. And Archimedes' Principle dictates that this is obviously far too few jills to buckle and twist the hull. Something else must have caused all that deformation while the ship was at the surface.


* I'm even being generous by opting for the 20m length of the deformation, rather than the 4m height
Click to expand...

How long before we are asked to consider the African Swallow's carrying capacity?

This whole story is so simple:

The Estonia sank when her hood was knocked off by waves of a storm. Lots of people died.

There was likely stolen/black market Russian military/space/missile hardware in one of the vehicles in the car deck which seems to have been important enough for someone to remove covertly in the 4 days between the sinking and the first dives to the wreck. Evidence of which is the railing of the bow ramp cut off and stacked "neatly" on the bottom.

Sweden got weird about surveying the wreck and recovering bodies.

The problem, at least to me, is that the second two have nothing to do with the sinking. It is standard CTist methodology to combine the three elements as proof of evil-doing. The idea that Estonia was sunk to protect Russian secrets is embarrassing as it shows a complete lack of basic naval practices, and I won't get started on the covert stuff.

If the Russians wanted to stop Estonia they would have used surface ships to force her to sail to a Russian port where she would be searched and arrests could be made. To my limited knowledge this is something just about every navy would do. Agents onboard are not going to sabotage the ship because getting off a large vessel, even in calm seas, can be tricky, especially with sensitive equipment. Exiting in a storm would be suicide, especially for a scheme involving a Russian sub, mini or otherwise.

This circles the conversation back to the beginning wherein the Estonia sank because her hood failed and fell off, flooding the car deck. In 70+ pages there has been nothing posted to even remotely draw this fact into question.
 
JayUtah said:
Correct, it is not evidence of a collision.



You're emotionally pleading again as advocate for what you think eyewitness testimony should be taken as. "Won't someone please think of the survivors?"
Click to expand...

Wrong. Eyewitnesses are key to any accident. In fact, police in London have ready made big yellow boards pleading, 'Did you see the accident on such and such a date? Please contact us...'

For Captain_Swoop and yourself to assume the eyewitnesses in the Estonia accident 'must have been mistaken' is patronising to say the least.
 
They never saw an impact or explosion.
Not one person aboard had ever heard an explosion on a ship or been in an impact with another ship.

They heard unusual sounds, they had no direct experience to compare the sounds with.
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. It's nothing more than evidence of:

1) inexpert passengers on a ferry, none of whom (apparently) have any experience of being on a ship which is the victim of a collision,

2) hearing unusual and alarming noises and other sensual stimuli which

a) are well outside the routine type of noises etc that they'd expect to witness while travelling on a ferry (even in adverse sea conditions) and

b) under the circumstances would reasonably be considered by these passengers to be symptomatic of a serious problem with the ship and the ship's ongoing viability

.....leading these passengers to (incorrect) inferences that........

3) the noises and other stimuli they experienced might have been caused by the ship colliding with a large external object.
Click to expand...

What nonsense. One survivor had been using the ferry for thirty years. Another, Carl Ovberg regularly went to Tallinn to sell cars. Swedes have compulsory conscription between the age of 18 and 28 so at least a third will have had naval experience.Sweden has a large navy so it is ill-informed to imagine passengers on the Estonia 'aren't experienced enough to know what an explosion or a collision is'.

People recognise an explosion when they hear one. People know when a vehicle or vessel they are in has suffered a collision. It is not difficult.

Even if they are mistaken it is quite wrong to ignore their statements.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What is their experience with ship collisions?

What is their experience with explosions aboard a ship?

What is their experience of a ship 'scraping as though against rocks'?

If they can't tell the difference, how do they know what it was?
Click to expand...

Carl-Eric Reintaam says he knows perfectly well what a ship travelling through ice sounds like and he realised the scraping noise was not ice.


So what if you disbelieve them? They were a few handful of survivors and if they say they heard explosions or felt a collision, who do you you think you are to say they did not?
 
Vixen said:
What nonsense. One survivor had been using the ferry for thirty years. Another, Carl Ovberg regularly went to Tallinn to sell cars. Swedes have compulsory conscription between the age of 18 and 28 so at least a third will have had naval experience.Sweden has a large navy so it is ill-informed to imagine passengers on the Estonia 'aren't experienced enough to know what an explosion or a collision is'.

People recognise an explosion when they hear one. People know when a vehicle or vessel they are in has suffered a collision. It is not difficult.

Even if they are mistaken it is quite wrong to ignore their statements.
Click to expand...

Using a ferry or doing national service does not mean you would have experience with collisions or explosions on ships.
I don't think anyone serving in the Royal Navy for the last few decades would have experience of either.
 
Vixen said:
Carl-Eric Reintaam says he knows perfectly well what a ship travelling through ice sounds like and he realised the scraping noise was not ice.


So what if you disbelieve them? They were a few handful of survivors and if they say they heard explosions or felt a collision, who do you you think you are to say they did not?
Click to expand...

He was right the sounds weren't the scraping of ice.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
In a way it did collide with a large object, the bow visor hammered against the hull before falling off and striking the hull as it fell away.
Click to expand...

Oh please. The ship was 18,000 tonnage the bow visor just 55 tonnes. In addition, it was afixed to the ship thus had little freedom of movement to do little more than clatter.


In any case, you don't know what came first: the explosion/s and/or the collision or the bow visor loosening.
 
RolandRat said:
This thread has gone full circle so many times I'm getting dizzy reading it.
Click to expand...

Given some real evidence I could accept that there may be a single issue related to this sinking that was inadequately investigated and possibly even swept under the rug by some authority with a vested interest.

The problem with this thread is that there are so many bizarre and unconnected "anomalies" offered that there is no way they can all remotely impinge on reality. How do we connect (partial list):

- Submarines
- explosions
- hijacking
- military transport of secret materials
- crew knew the ship would sink
- "watertight" hull
- NATO intentionally ignored distress calls
- Bjorkman as a reliable source of information
- "disappeared" surviving crew members
- etc
- etc

into any sort of coherent narrative? Any legitimate concern is buried so deep in the CT that it will never reappear.
 
Vixen said:
Wrong. Eyewitnesses are key to any accident.
Click to expand...

You are not an accident investigator. You admit you have no training or experience in it, whereas I and others here have.

For Captain_Swoop and yourself to assume the eyewitnesses in the Estonia accident 'must have been mistaken' is patronising to say the least.
Click to expand...

No, it's how the science is practiced. Conclusory or presumptive statements from a witness are never evidence of the thing presumed or concluded. In fact, in law such testimony is precluded by rules of evidence. Your indignance on the witnesses' behalf is irrelevant.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Using a ferry or doing national service does not mean you would have experience with collisions or explosions on ships.
I don't think anyone serving in the Royal Navy for the last few decades would have experience of either.
Click to expand...

Utter rot. At the Maritime Museum in Greenwich is a graphic illustration of the types of early naval grenades. There was a double headed hammer that came at such force it could knock the masts and sails for six. A canon ball flying at 900 mph could break a ship in half. Don't tell me, 'You can't know this had happened if you had never experienced it before'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom