• 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.
So in your view, what these survivors heard, felt and experienced was no different from someone slamming a front door. Nice.

Strawmen are a specialty, ain't they?

As you bloody well know, my point is merely that describing a sound as a "bang" or "crash" does not imply that the cause was either an explosion or collision. The words are ambiguous as to the cause.

You can go through the same list you pointed me to and tell me which people you think are reporting explosions and which are reporting collisions. I gave my opinion. Most of them are describing loud sounds but only one person even mentioned the possibility of an explosion while a few others said they thought there had been a collision.

Not one of them was so confident in their reports as to literally say, "I heard a collision/explosion." Well, I must admit here some uncertainty since I haven't English translations of the transcripts and am going from a summary.
 
Posts discussing flight TWA800 have been moved to the appropriate thread here.
Posted By: Agatha
 
phiwum: don't forget to cite all of those survivors claiming to have seen the bow visor falling off/pounding the ship. We are waiting.

None of them were in a position to see anything, but the reports of loud noises could well be consistent with the bow visor hypothesis.

Moreover, I don't think the eyewitness reports are really essential to the visor hypothesis, some crew members notwithstanding. There is independent evidence for the visor hypothesis. So long as the testimony does not conflict with the hypothesis, then it is in good standing.

The passenger testimony is much more essential for any of your pet theories, which are legion. The only physical evidence you can point to is a hole in the hull, easily explained, and one expert's testimony that some images show explosives. Everything else must be filled in by pretending that "bangs" necessarily entail "explosions" while "crashes" are inevitably collisions. Furthermore, you must ignore sledgehammer-like sounds which are inconsistent with both explosions and collisions and you must treat the report of unusual amounts of water coming through the bow visor as a red herring.

But all of this is beside the point. I have no expertise in the factual matters. I'm simply asking what testimony actually points to collision and/or explosion without also supporting the bow visor hypothesis. The answer, given my limited information about testimony, is damned little.

You keep saying we have to treat the testimony of those reporting explosions and collisions with respect. Trust the survivors or some such. But the survivors have not really said much about either of these possible causes.
 
phiwum says I am being disrespectful to those survivors who witnessed the bow visor version if one respects the accounts of those claiming to have heard/felt/experienced explosions/bangs/crashes or collisions. So, I'd like to see all those bow visor witness accounts. Presumably phiwum has seen them.

Man, that's a boldfaced lie or seriously inept reading comprehension. I didn't say anything about survivors who witnessed the bow version.

Go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me where I said that.

Now, what I have said is that you say many folks said there was a collision and many folks said there were explosions. I don't see many saying either, but let's suppose so. Either you must be claiming that both explosions and a collision occurred or you are, by your own standards, disrespecting many survivors.
 
Strawmen are a specialty, ain't they?

As you bloody well know, my point is merely that describing a sound as a "bang" or "crash" does not imply that the cause was either an explosion or collision. The words are ambiguous as to the cause.

You can go through the same list you pointed me to and tell me which people you think are reporting explosions and which are reporting collisions. I gave my opinion. Most of them are describing loud sounds but only one person even mentioned the possibility of an explosion while a few others said they thought there had been a collision.

Not one of them was so confident in their reports as to literally say, "I heard a collision/explosion." Well, I must admit here some uncertainty since I haven't English translations of the transcripts and am going from a summary.

Not being funny, phiwum, but your screen door slamming shut in the wind would not cause you to fall off your feet, slam into a wall or make you fall out of bed.

Your demand that the survivors prove in detail that they experienced an explosion and or a collision is not the purpose of an eyewitness report. All an eye witness can relate is what they personally saw, heard or felt. There is no requirement for them to prove they felt what they believe they felt. OK, so for you it is not good enough for several eyewitnesses to report hearing a series of two or three explosions followed by a crash or a 'heavy push' (= as translated from Swedish) you want them to prove their experience was caused by an actual explosion or a collision but you know as well as I do that that is not the eye witnesses' job.
 
They weren't eye witnesses to the cause of the sound or movement of the ship.
 
Not being funny, phiwum, but your screen door slamming shut in the wind would not cause you to fall off your feet, slam into a wall or make you fall out of bed.

No, it wouldn't.

But explosions and collisions are not the only things that would make me fall off my feet, etc. If I tell you, "I heard a bang and fell off my feet," I did not testify that there was an explosion. Oh, there might have been, but I didn't say that there was.

Your demand that the survivors prove in detail that they experienced an explosion and or a collision is not the purpose of an eyewitness report. All an eye witness can relate is what they personally saw, heard or felt. There is no requirement for them to prove they felt what they believe they felt. OK, so for you it is not good enough for several eyewitnesses to report hearing a series of two or three explosions followed by a crash or a 'heavy push' (= as translated from Swedish) you want them to prove their experience was caused by an actual explosion or a collision but you know as well as I do that that is not the eye witnesses' job.

No, I demand that if you say survivors claim there was an explosion that they actually claimed it.

Name these several eyewitnesses with their testimonies or summaries thereof. Who reported hearing a series of explosions? Several heard a series of bangs and a violent motion of the ship, but that's not the same as saying "I was a witness to a series of explosions."

Look, all we have is what they actually said (well, even less -- all I can find are summaries written by third parties due to my linguistic limitations). So you tell me who reports a series of explosions and show me your evidence of this report.

For a long time, we more or less took your word that there were reports of explosions. It seems we should not have done so. You've given us next to nothing when it comes to explosions. One person -- one -- said that it "sounded like" an explosion. Others said nothing about an explosion.

Prove me wrong. Show me that I've missed some important testimony.
 
They weren't eye witnesses to the cause of the sound or movement of the ship.

Only one person even said something about an explosion, far as I have found. Don't take her word for it when she says several reported hearing an explosion. It don't seem to be the case.
 
You can view Braidwood's report here, together with the relevant photos.

Page 7 has his conclusions Concerning the hole.
He does a lot of jumping to them from the evidence he gives.

Page 17 is the conclusions concerning other damage.

All the damage was done by explosives is the conclusion he comes to.
 
You can view Braidwood's report here, together with the relevant photos.

That’s some serious damage on that starboard actuator.
At least. I suppose it’s not meant to be this bend.

Must have been quite the strain, to bend an actuator like that.
 
So in your view, what these survivors heard, felt and experienced was no different from someone slamming a front door. Nice.


Seriously? Seriously??

If that's what you think the post meant, I advise you to read it again.

And once again, you're seeking improperly to inject elements of emotion (and emotional blackmail, for that matter) into the discussion. No surprise there, unfortunately.
 
Hardly a conspiracy theory. It is a current affairs news item. The thread will stay open all the way until we get the Arikas analysis.


No: the reopening of the investigation is a current affairs news item. The nonsense being thrown into this thread - by you exclusively - is a conspiracy theory. That's why this thread is (correctly) in that section.
 
phiwum: don't forget to cite all of those survivors claiming to have seen the bow visor falling off/pounding the ship. We are waiting.


This is breathtakingly illogical.

Look: we know that the bow visor fell off. And we also know that because it fell off - and because we know it must have fallen off at the surface, and because we know that in falling off, it also displaced the bow ramp, and because we know that this in turn must necessarily have resulted in hundreds of tons of seawater pouring into the vehicle deck....

....we know that the failure and detachment of the bow visor was indeed the proximate cause of the ship's sinking.

There's no reason why (or indeed how) any of the survivors would/could have seen the bow visor fall off. And there's no necessity whatsoever to have such eyewitness testimony.


ETA: ninja'd by phiwum!
 
Last edited:
No, it wouldn't.

But explosions and collisions are not the only things that would make me fall off my feet, etc. If I tell you, "I heard a bang and fell off my feet," I did not testify that there was an explosion. Oh, there might have been, but I didn't say that there was.



No, I demand that if you say survivors claim there was an explosion that they actually claimed it.

Name these several eyewitnesses with their testimonies or summaries thereof. Who reported hearing a series of explosions? Several heard a series of bangs and a violent motion of the ship, but that's not the same as saying "I was a witness to a series of explosions."

Look, all we have is what they actually said (well, even less -- all I can find are summaries written by third parties due to my linguistic limitations). So you tell me who reports a series of explosions and show me your evidence of this report.

For a long time, we more or less took your word that there were reports of explosions. It seems we should not have done so. You've given us next to nothing when it comes to explosions. One person -- one -- said that it "sounded like" an explosion. Others said nothing about an explosion.

Prove me wrong. Show me that I've missed some important testimony.

. Anders Ericson - cabin 4131 - 45 years old - port outside (3rd cabin from forward)

went to cabin at 22.15 hours (Swedish time), but impossible to sleep, each time the vessel met a wave it was shaking/vibrating severely;

ca. 24.00 hours (Swedish time) came suddenly two heavy bangs, one straight after the other which almost threw him out of his athwartships bed, he realised that something must be wrong, thus got up and dressed himself

Mikael Öun - cabin 4217 - port inside, middle.

was in bed and continuously heard banging noises which he believed to be caused by the waves hitting against the bow;
he slept a bit and woke up again and finally was fully awake when he heard a particularly loud bang and because the vessel started to behave differently in the sea state;
he noticed that the vessel started to roll from side to side instead of pitching against the sea;
he also heard 3 heavy scraping noises which followed straight one after the other with some seconds in between and after these scraping noises the vessel heeled severely to starboard;

Eckard Klug - cabin 4214 - 54 years old - port inside middle

was in bed, heard many bangs which he had never heard on his many previous voyages, in his opinion these were cars floating on the car deck;
in his opinion the unsecured cars and trucks had moved forward against the bow ramp due to the hard setting in of vessel's bow and forced the bow ramp open and this is the cause of the casualty;
Klug heard in addition to the above explained bangs a bang which was heavy as if breaking of a thick plate;

Stephan Duijndam - cabin 4221 - port inside middle

at 23.00 hours to bed;
woke up at 01.00 hours from a noise as if the vessel had collided with something, heard several cracking/crashing noises thereafter;
a little later the vessel heeled to starboard to such an extent that he was thrown out of his bed

Jukka Pekka Ihalainen - cabin 4212 - port inside - (cabin mate of truck driver Leo Sillanpää)

truck driver who had previously been with the Coast Guard/Navy at Russarö;
to bed at 22.30 hours, woke up due to radio music at 00.32 hours, turned down the sound and slept again;
woke up again shortly afterwards from 3 very hard bangs/crashes;

Morten Boje Jensen - 28 years old - cabin 4603 - port outside, 2nd cabin behind the Reception

ca. 22.40 hours Swedish time in bed - 23.00 hours switched off the light, but could not sleep, he heard continuous "small banging noises" which did not appear to him to be natural.
after a certain time, cannot say how much later, he heard 3 "bangs" one after the other.

Sten Jolind - cabin 5135 - first outside cabin, port side, forward

was on deck 7 several times and looked over the foreship; heard heavy bangs and thought that the vessel was going much too fast;
at 00.00 hours to bed;
before 01.00 hours 2-3 really heavy bangs from forward;


Leif Bogren - cabin 5128 - port inside, 4th cabin from forward

to bed at 23.30 hours (Swedish time);
vessel behaved like a small boat also does when slamming over the waves - explains the many noises created by a vessel proceeding against heavy seas;
so he was lying there and listened and suddenly there was the bom-bom, which was no more the same noise, it was not a good noise;
he continued lying still and listening, and was fascinated about why they were proceeding so fast?
from the time he went to bed to the first unusual noise bom-bom to when the engines stopped maybe 10-15 minutes had passed, i.e. it was 23.40/23.45 hours Swedish time;
at first there was an additional sound with this bom - an enormous bom-bom - then came bom;
he was lying awake and then came the next BOM.

This was definitely a different noise, now the sea was higher and they were proceeding slowly against it and then came the next VROM BOM, now they were smashing in the hull plates of the vessel and then there was also a CRASH.

Sarah Hedrenius - in the Café Neptunus

asleep since ca. 21.30 hours, but felt the hard movements;
woke up from two heavy bangs which made the vessel shake (she thought they had hit a rock), vessel moved up and down

Paul Barney - in the Café Neptunus

woke up from a bang/shock and thought there had been a collision;
then he heard cracking and scraping noises and something was gliding along the vessel's hull side;

. Pierre Thiger - Admiral's Pub on deck 5 - together with Altti Hakanpää

ca. 23.45 hours (Swedish time) = 00.45 hours ship's time he heard a dull bang and ca. 1/2 minute later a similar bang, these were really sharp and short sounds which he clearly heard in spite of the music. The vessel was shaking somewhat. The noises were not created by waves striking against the bow;


Ronnie Bergqvist - Policeman ST Section

vessel started to shake and vibrate;
bar personnel took down the bottles from the shelves;
just after 01.00 hours the vessel heeled first to port, then followed a very hard push combined with a bang/crash and then the vessel heeled very severely to starboard.


Kent Härstedt - member of a social team

was sleeping in his cabin on deck 4;
ca. 00.00 hours woke up from a "muffled" sound which was nevertheless "heavy" - like something moving from side to side and then crashing against the hull with force;


Marianne Ehn - cabin 6222 - 59 years old


it was 01.00 hours;
shortly afterwards the vessel was diving into a deep wave trough, there was a heavy bang - the vessel heeled severely and the engines stopped;
before this she had already noticed that something was beating heavily against the vessel.


Alexander Voronin - cabin 6320 or cabin 6230

cabin 6320 together with cousin Vassili and uncle Vasili Krjutjkov;
ca. 00.30 hours very hard bang;
slight heel to starboard, some minutes later another much stronger bang, more heeling;
another bang and vessel heeled further;


Christer Eklöf - cabin 4219

The vessel was pitching extremely hard which caused the hull to shake and vibrate almost continuously.
After a while, he believes it was ca. 24.00 hours ST / 01.00 hours ET, the first of three very heavy bangs was felt and the foreship was rising and fell back and there was another heavy bang, the foreship rose again and the third bang - metal to metal - was heard and felt, followed by the heel to starboard.
There was less than one minute between the last bang and the heel to starboard.

Ervin Roden - safety officer - cabin 7013

to bed at 21.00 hours, had been on car deck before;
felt one bang and the vessel was shaking, after some time another bang, the vessel rocked;
heavy heel to starboard, which caused him to slide to the foot end of his bed

Ulla Marianne Tenman - outside on deck 7 - starboard side

from her cabin 1098 she went up to deck 7 and waited, suddenly heavy bang and the vessel heeled;
some time before casualty heard heavy bangs and something beating against the hull.


If you do not believe these passengers experienced what they say they experienced or that it was 'like a screen door slamming in the wind', that is your prerogative. There is no requirement for them to have investigated the cause of their experiences. It is enough they managed to get out alive.
 
Page 7 has his conclusions Concerning the hole.
He does a lot of jumping to them from the evidence he gives.

Page 17 is the conclusions concerning other damage.

All the damage was done by explosives is the conclusion he comes to.

What is important is to identify who or what is responsible for the damage Braidwood claims he noted, bearing in mind several diving teams had already been down there.
 
So are you claiming to be more of a naval military explosives expert than Braidwood and the three independent laboratories he sent the sample to?

To someone with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You couldn't address the points the first time I raised them, and you still can't. I'm a licensed professional engineer with decades of experience that a includes forensic engineering investigation. So yes, I am more qualified than Braidwood to investigate such matters. And more qualified than you to interpret the claims of others' investigations. Whether you or he likes it or not, twinning in metals is not conclusive evidence of high strain-rate deformation such as occurs in an explosion. It happens for a number of reasons. But if you tell a lab to look for evidence of explosives, and they find twinning, they will have satisfied your request. If you ask them to compute the detonation rate of an explosion that would have produced such twinning -- assuming it came from high strain-rate deformation -- they will certainly comply. None of that proves that damage was caused by explosives.

What a shocker that the exact cause that would have doomed the visor purely accidentally over years of use also produces the evidence discovered in metallurgical examination. But all you have to do is not ask the wrong questions and you can go on blissfully believing the evidence told you what you wanted to hear.

While I have some experience with explosives -- especially the kind used to sever metals on purpose -- I am not a "military explosives expert." However, I do know a shaped charge when I see one, and what has been proffered as "military explosive" doesn't look like any that I've ever used. Fair enough, it doesn't have to be a shaped charge, or it could be outside my personal experience. But it's not like there's an infinite variety of "military explosives." It's one thing for someone to raise his finger pontifically in the air and declare that in his opinion something is a certain thing. But if he has identified the conveniently disappearing package as an example of that certain thing, he should be able to show us other uncontested examples of it to illustrate his point.

If I say that a certain part is a fuel injector from a Wärtsilä marine diesel or a vertical stabilizer lug from a Boeing 767, I should be able to show pictures of that part so that the person to whom I'm reporting can judge the fidelity of the identification. Braidwood should be able to show us a picture of, say, a Swedish Army Börk Type 42 satchel charge so that we can see for ourselves that the photographed object is probably what the author says it is. That is the common practice, and Braidwood doesn't do that. That's suspicious in my book.

You seem to live in this cartoon world where only JAIC are mustache-twirling victims and everyone else who deigns to investigate MS Estonia are honest, straightforward, virtuous experts who only want to know the truth.

It is not my aim to establish an explosion or a collision. I will leave that to the experts.

Oh, look. Another motte-and-bailey argument. You demand that we take as incontrovertible truth what Braidwood and his labs have said, but you reserve the right to believe or disbelieve as you please -- and this absolves you of any obligation to discuss the evidence intelligently with those who understand it better than you do. You're still stuck measuring "force" in meters per second, so please let us experts do our thing.
 
No: the reopening of the investigation is a current affairs news item. The nonsense being thrown into this thread - by you exclusively - is a conspiracy theory. That's why this thread is (correctly) in that section.

In which way is it a conspiracy theory? A documentary film maker filmed a significant hole in the starboard side. The three sovereign nations to the Estonia Treaty have amended the law to enable it to be investigated. They do not do that unless there is a genuine concern it is of significant value.

The question is what caused the hole. Various professors, former chief prosecutors and the ship builder's insurance claims investigators have put forward their expert opinions. If you wish to dismiss these as 'conspiracy theory' that reflects on your inability to discern factual news from fantasy.

Your claiming it is a conspiracy theory does not make it so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom