The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

Damn. I thought the screen door was a good example that not every "bang" involves an explosion. I admit I was mistaken.

Americans use the wod 'bang' very differently from the Brits, who would call it 'slamming the door'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Seawater does not cause that type of deformation. And in any case, should not the JAIC have noted it?

Why doesn't sea water cause that type of deformation? When it is hammering a ship a lot of energy is involved.
When a ship floods it is subject to stresses and loading it was not designed for.
When it is on the bottom and shifting it is subject to stresses and strains it was not designed for.

Seawater broke this container ship

 

[Andy_Ross]

Loud bangs do not cause shaking and vibrations. The survivors went to great pains to describe exceptionally loud bangs in quick succession.


'Oh it's OK, Honey, it was just the bow visor.'

Loud bangs are caused by things striking each other or breaking, the bangs are the noises made that things striking and breaking.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Cyclic deformation seems to be a fancy way of saying, 'metal fatigue'. However, the JAIC plainly states the vessel was seaworthy. In any case, I am rather sceptical that a deformation caused by an explosive or explosives would look exactly the same as 'metal fatigue' on a ship deemed as 'seaworthy'.

Braidwood watched hours of Rockwater footage and arranged for the metal samples to be independently tested at three different laboratories, one in Texas, the other two in Germany, one of which also did forensic reports for the police. I daresay Braidwood was commissioned by Meyer Werft to prepare his expert witness statement. However, I don't think it is kind to claim that he was incompetent or didn't know his stuff, just because you refuse to believe there was any explosion.

Metal fatigue would not be visible unless it caused visible cracking or deformation.

Why are you skeptical as to the appearance when you have no experience of either?

 

[Vixen]

How do you know that was their motive?

Because the JAIC had already deemed Werft not liable. In addition, it deemed the ship's inspectors and insurers, Veritas, as being in the clear when it declared and certified the vessel as seaworthy. Clearly Werft didn't agree with the JAIC findings because in their mind it didn't add up.

 

[Vixen]

Why doesn't sea water cause that type of deformation? When it is hammering a ship a lot of energy is involved.
When a ship floods it is subject to stresses and loading it was not designed for.
When it is on the bottom and shifting it is subject to stresses and strains it was not designed for.

Seawater broke this container ship

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=672&pictureid=12873[/qimg]

And how long did it take for that to happen?

 

[Vixen]

Loud bangs are caused by things striking each other or breaking, the bangs are the noises made that things striking and breaking.

At my local church, whenever a parishioner dies and is about to be brought to the chapel of rest awaiting the funeral, the church bells ring for a full eight minutes and it is of such a high volume you can hear it a kilometre away and heaven help your ears if you are next to it. However, although at the top of the decibel range, there is no way anyone would describe it as a 'bang'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And how long did it take for that to happen?

It happened in moments but the fatigue was building since the ship was launched.

Estonia was 14 years old, it's bow visor and mechanism had a lot of wear.

You yourself have told us how it was known to be faulty before the ship sank.

 

[Vixen]

Metal fatigue would not be visible unless it caused visible cracking or deformation.

Why are you skeptical as to the appearance when you have no experience of either?

I am sceptical that a ship can be certified as seaworthy, yet show deformations consistent with a high velocity detonation, or by having been heated >700 in a lab. Werft produced papers to show it had never been shot blasted so that wouldn't be the cause either. If the metal in the bow was in such poor condition in which way is it solely the bow visor bolts at fault?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The container ship was launched in 2008 and broke in two in 2013.
It was built by Mitsubishi Industries, one of the worlds best shipbuilders.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I am sceptical that a ship can be certified as seaworthy, yet show deformations consistent with a high velocity detonation, or by having been heated >700 in a lab. Werft produced papers to show it had never been shot blasted so that wouldn't be the cause either. If the metal in the bow was in such poor condition in which way is it solely the bow visor bolts at fault?

Why do you think those deformations were visible when the ship sailed?

If the parts failed in the storm why would they show any deformation before they failed?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, let me postulate a hypothetical to you.

Let's say we have an event in which people reported seeing a bright flash of light. No one doubts that there was a bright flash of light, and that the witnesses are recounting said flash as accurately as they are able to do so. What can we conclude? We can conclude that something happened and it caused a bright flash of light that witnesses saw.

I hope you're following me and agreeing so far.

Then let's say we have someone come to a discussion of the event and say "I've spoken to an expert in flash photography and he says that the descriptions of the flash of light is consistent with flash photography".

Do you think this is sufficient to conclude that it was a camera flash?

 

[Vixen]

It happened in moments but the fatigue was building since the ship was launched.

Estonia was 14 years old, it's bow visor and mechanism had a lot of wear.

You yourself have told us how it was known to be faulty before the ship sank.

According to folklore the car ramp was leaky, the mating lugs didn't align, the atlantic lock had to be hammered into place, etc., but not according to the JAIC, even though something that looks like a red mattress can clearly be seen in front of the car ramp. Unless it was there so the bosun could have a lie down.

 

[Andy_Ross]

According to folklore the car ramp was leaky, the mating lugs didn't align, the atlantic lock had to be hammered into place, etc., but not according to the JAIC, even though something that looks like a red mattress can clearly be seen in front of the car ramp. Unless it was there so the bosun could have a lie down.

So the ship was an accident waiting to happen?

So why are explosives or ramming needed?

 

[lobosrul5]

How would they note something they couldn't see in 1994?

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/cPHh3vX913rqM/giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=ecf05e47nfk5l243d8x00m396uz86bx59zgvz17nnx3ufhnz&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=g[/qimg]

The Estonia sailed with a list into a storm at her flank speed. The ferries that came to the rescue were sailing at slower speeds.

Safe to say that sea water is responsible for 100% of shipwrecks, either by tearing the ship apart, or just getting into the other side of the hull. Then again I'm not scientist, could be sea monsters.

I'm quite sure that's untrue... since plenty of ships of sunk in fresh water.

 

[phiwum]

You requested a citation which I referred you to and then you barely tried to even look it up. So I kindly compiled a list of the survivors' quotes for you but instead of thanking me and admitting, thanks, that is really useful, I never knew the survivors had claimed to have experienced all of that, you just tried to play on semantics instead, so I don't believe your query was in good faith. It is obvious the summing up in my original post was in my own words and as I don't generally use slang such as 'bangs' I used my normal speech and used the correct term for a 'bang', as conveyed by the survivors.

I initially asked you for the numbers of those who reported explosions and those who reported a collision. Eventually, you pointed me to a list. I assume this post is referring to the list I comment on here

I examined the list. I found that you were grossly exaggerating your claims.[1]

Now, you are saying that the "correct" word for "bang" is "explosion"? Thus, every time the list you cite uses the word "bang" they mean "explosion"?

This is, of course, nonsense. One of the survivors you cite, Leif Bogren, is summarized as reporting, for one example, "low metallic banging noises", which cannot mean "low metallic banging explosions".

Your only cited evidence of eyewitness testimony is this site, but you're telling us that these survivors all intended to convey that they heard explosions. This is not in evidence. We have an English summary of survivors' testimony and we shouldn't depend on its accuracy, but that doesn't mean that we can claim every "bang" really means "explosion".

Sorry you find my response ungrateful, but gratitude for begrudgingly giving me your source does not entail accepting your claims at face value.

It seems churlish to me that all you can do is sneer at the survivors accounts and deny that they experienced what they have recounted they experienced.

No wonder so many criminals get away with their crimes when defence lawyers come along and claim the victim didn't really experience their experiences.

You're being silly. I'm not sneering at survivor accounts. I'm disputing that those accounts say what you claim.

There is only one mention of a sound likened to an explosion, from Altti Hakanpää. I don't know where you got that summary, and it seems the numbering of the posts has been altered, so post #3039 no longer contains your list. The entry for Altti Hakanpää on this page does not mention an explosion, but I am not accusing you of making up that summary. I just can't find it.

You may stop the repeated claims that I'm denying their experiences. I'm denying what you say they experienced, because we have no evidence that they spoke of explosions. That's your word, a blanket re-interpretation of that lowly word "bang" for the much more respectable "explosion", leading us to believe that some explosions are metal-on-metal.

he heard 3 bangs with 15-20 seconds in between, metal to metal and thought it was a collision

Perhaps respect for eyewitnesses involves not putting words in their mouths. If you claim they meant to say (or really did say) explosions, then you need some evidence.

[1] There are two lists being discussed here really. When I say one mentioned an explosion and seven a collision, I am referring to a list once found in post 3039. This is different than the list Vixen highlighted in this post.

 

[Vixen]

The container ship was launched in 2008 and broke in two in 2013.
It was built by Mitsubishi Industries, one of the worlds best shipbuilders.

The M/S Estonia sank in Sept 1994 and on 14 June 1999 the JAIC issued its report. Why didn't it mention the hole in the starboard? A Finnish newspaper Kaleva reported it in 1997.

The newspaper Kaleva reports that it reported on the rupture of the Estonian side already in 1997.
“In the video recordings received by the shipyard, a rather large rupture was found on the right side of the Estonian wreck. on the zero deck with sauna and pool. Above the level was first the deck with its cabs and then the car deck, ”Kaleva wrote decades ago.

Ilta Sanomat (Kaleva is under a paywall)

You saw the Evertsson documentary wherein we can see the towels from the swimming pool area wedged within the aperture.

So not anything to do with wear and tear. Prof Amdahl said such a hole could not have been caused by a 55 tonne visor (which anyway would have immediately sunk, whether it hit the bulbous nose or not).

See swimming pool and sauna area in deck 0 well below the water line.

 

[phiwum]

Loud bangs do not cause shaking and vibrations. The survivors went to great pains to describe exceptionally loud bangs in quick succession.


'Oh it's OK, Honey, it was just the bow visor.'

Like loud noises, it is easy to explain a ship in a storm and in distress shuddering. We can hardly say that the best or only explanation for a loud bang followed by vibrations is an explosion.

But this poor argument is better than pretending that the passengers literally reported explosions, so good for you.

 

[lobosrul5]

Americans use the wod 'bang' very differently from the Brits, who would call it 'slamming the door'.

Interesting:

The word bang looked up on lexico.com which is powered by the Oxford English Dictionary.:


A sudden loud, sharp noise.
‘the door slammed with a bang’

Thats using the UK English drop down box FYI.

 

[phiwum]

Americans use the wod 'bang' very differently from the Brits, who would call it 'slamming the door'.

No matter, unless whoever summarized the reports (or whoever translated them first) uses the word "bang" exclusively to mean "explosion".

But, as you know and have said somewhere (though I can't find the post at present), "bang" often means a loud, unexpected noise. Thus, we can't claim that the survivors reported explosions just because this site uses the word "bang" in its summaries.