• 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 Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
Again, she's pointing to the final report of the German group on that site. As far as I know, that section of the site is the verbatim report from the German group. It's not part of the original material from the site owner.

I don't know of any other site that has the German group final report.

You can criticize the reliability of large swaths of EstoniaFerryDisaster and you can criticize the German group itself, but I don't think that you should criticize Vixen for citing the report, since it's relevant.
Click to expand...


The "German Group" is getting its marching orders from the shipyard that designed and built the ship. The job of the "German Group" is to try to lend weight to alternative theories - any alternative theories, it would seem - that would lay the blame for the disaster somewhere other than at the door of the German shipyard (who, as things stand in the official report, still face considerable liabilities related to poor design and poor construction of the bow mechanics).

So, in other words, the views of the "German Group" can immediately and safely be disregarded as subjective, biassed, and with an overarching need to disprove the official report. QED.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
That's true. Unfortunately for you Anders isn't one of them, because his nutter butters ideas on 911 directly contradict engineering and architectural principles. Again the fact that the man is a loon isn't the issue, it's that he has decided that his lunatic ideas trump architectural and engineering principles.

He is no longer considered an expert. The rest of his contemporaries are of the opinion he no longer has credibility even in the area of his supposed expertise.

To put it another way, let's say that you have a noted expert on Finland, Jon Jonsson. Jon has studied in depth Finnish studies and has previously been noted as an expert in the field of Finland. What would you say if he then started spouting off that all Scandinavian countries were islands and everyone there spoke Flemish. Would you still use him as an authority?
Click to expand...

My view is that Bjorkman's diagrams and factual information look perfectly correct. Whether I subscribe to any of his theories or not depends on my own critical faculties. All Bjorkman has said is that the ship would not have sunk to the bottom as it did without first capsizing and then floating upside down for a period.

It seems pretty well established to my mind that (a) there was a hole in the starboard side, as a result of whatever reason and that (b) this is a far more logical reason for the ship sinking as rapidly as it did stern first and then face forward like a domino. It is also clear (c) that an incident happened at the bow which caused it to come loose.

My personal view, which is my own - subject to revision - is that there was an incident at both the bow and the starboard. The evidence IMV points to someone wanting that ship to end its journey and that it was planned in advance by use of timed devices, together with a back up attack. For example, in the old Royal Navy they would fire a double headed hammer from a cannon aimed at the sails to bring the masts down, followed up by a cannonball travelling at 900mph to hit the side of the ship, causing it to invariably break in half and sink. If it was a planned sabotage, it has strategy written all over it IMV, and not some amateur hour jihadists as in the USS Cole incident.

My view has zippo/zilcho/zero to do with Bjorkman's views.
 
phiwum said:
I understand what you're saying. But if you're right, the wording of the JAIC report is misleading, since it explicitly refers to fire stations and fire crews. That's all I'm pointing out.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I think the confusion arises because - obviously - crewmembers would be expected to deal with all sorts of emergencies. It's ridiculous to suggest that there'd be one group of crewmembers who were tasked with responding to fire emergencies (and only fire emergencies), and a whole separate group of crewmembers who were tasked with responding to (say) flood-related emergencies (and only flood-related emergencies).

I think it's clear from the report (and from other comparative material) that 1) "Dr Skylight" was a general alarm, and 2) the following words "number 1" and "number 2" referred to the two groups of crewmembers, telling group 1 to go to their number 1 muster point, and telling group 2 to go to their number 2 muster point.
 
phiwum said:
I'm a little puzzled. Are you committed to the claim that the ferry was seaworthy and thus could not have sunk in a storm or are you committed to the claim that it was a floating junkpile lucky to get out of the harbor?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that just because the bow visor and car ramp was clearly dodgy, or that because they even fell off ipso facto makes them the primary cause of the accident. The JAIC never investigated any alternative cause and this is where it erred. An error in logic over causation and correlation. In fact, one wonders whether it knew perfectly well something was not right about it but decided it would be enough to appease everybody all round.
 
whoanellie said:
So you disagree with what is written here:
https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/7.3.htm
Click to expand...


LOL

Even that tainted source explicitly states that "Mr Skylight" would also be used for, say, collision damage. And, interesting, it talks in that same paragraph about the summoned groups going to their "fire station". In other words, the term "fire station" does not specifically refer to a fire - but rather that these muster points (regardless of which type of emergency was occurring) were referred to as "fire stations".

So a PA message of "Mr Skylight, number 1" was communicating the following to the crew: "We have a general alarm, and those crewmembers in group 1 are ordered to go to their muster point #1"
 
whoanellie said:
Well there was water on the car deck whether from the faulty bow visor or from a fire suppression system. Where did it go?
Click to expand...

As with water on the decks, it simply washes out over the sides. There were side pipes that allowed water to drain off. As soon as the ramp came open, it should all have washed away, as the car deck is above the water line.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC official (establishment) view is that the ship was seaworthy. Period. Full stop. It never investigated that it may not have been.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you about the JAIC view, I asked about your view. Was the visor faulty with respect to design or maintenance?
 
phiwum said:
Neither Vixen nor her sketchier sources made up the term. It appears in the JAIC report, where they even give the etymology.
Click to expand...


I was pointing out that this lock was simply annotated as the "bottom lock" in the illustration from the report that Vixen had provided. But it's interesting to know that the term at least exists (something Vixen could have provided far, far earlier in time...).

In any case, the important part of my post was to contradict Vixen's snippy post "correcting" me on how the bow visor had failed - when in fact it was she who was wrong, since the first lock to fail was indeed the bottom lock (or Atlantic lock" if one prefers that term :D)
 
LondonJohn said:
The "German Group" is getting its marching orders from the shipyard that designed and built the ship. The job of the "German Group" is to try to lend weight to alternative theories - any alternative theories, it would seem - that would lay the blame for the disaster somewhere other than at the door of the German shipyard (who, as things stand in the official report, still face considerable liabilities related to poor design and poor construction of the bow mechanics).

So, in other words, the views of the "German Group" can immediately and safely be disregarded as subjective, biassed, and with an overarching need to disprove the official report. QED.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that have been the JAIC's job? To examine the the accident as a whole and not just focus on the bow visor and car ramp? It even states in its report that the only damage observed to the vessel was at the bow. We know that is factually incorrect. I would suggest it knew it was untrue as any diver going down would have spotted the starboard damage.
 
Vixen said:
My personal view, which is my own - subject to revision - is that there was an incident at both the bow and the starboard. The evidence IMV points to someone wanting that ship to end its journey and that it was planned in advance by use of timed devices, together with a back up attack. For example, in the old Royal Navy they would fire a double headed hammer from a cannon aimed at the sails to bring the masts down, followed up by a cannonball travelling at 900mph to hit the side of the ship, causing it to invariably break in half and sink. If it was a planned sabotage, it has strategy written all over it IMV, and not some amateur hour jihadists as in the USS Cole incident.

My view has zippo/zilcho/zero to do with Bjorkman's views.
Click to expand...

I'm betting that you are going to claim that '900mph' was a typo.......
 
Vixen said:
As with water on the decks, it simply washes out over the sides. There were side pipes that allowed water to drain off. As soon as the ramp came open, it should all have washed away, as the car deck is above the water line.
Click to expand...

Would the ability of the side pipes to drain the water depend on the amount of water and the rate it was coming in?

Are you claiming that a substantial amount of water would sit on the car deck until the bow and ramp were opened?
 
LondonJohn said:
This is precisely why codewords such as "Mr Brightside" are used for the crew alarms. If a crew alarm said something like "Message to all crew: the ship is in significant trouble", even you might be able to understand the effect on passengers.
Click to expand...

If The Killers were actually involved in all this, it makes me wonder why they didn't change their name to be less inculpatory.
 
Vixen said:
Shouldn't that have been the JAIC's job? To examine the the accident as a whole and not just focus on the bow visor and car ramp? It even states in its report that the only damage observed to the vessel was at the bow. We know that is factually incorrect. I would suggest it knew it was untrue as any diver going down would have spotted the starboard damage.
Click to expand...


If you're talking about the damage to the starboard hull....... it's very clear that this is almost certainly damage that was caused as the ship impacted the seabed on the night it sank: we know that the size and shape of the damage is a close match to the topology of the seabed at that point (including the rock outcrop which caused the puncture damage). It seems near-certain that the ship's resting position moved at some point between 1994 and 2015 - something that's entirely feasible given the strong currents - exposing both the damage and the part of the seabed that caused the damage.

(And of course that would also fully explain how/why the original investigation didn't see the damage: the ship was resting on that damaged part at the time, and only shifted to expose the damage many years later)
 
Vixen said:
That is what the graphics at the recently visited Greenwich Maritime Museum say.
Click to expand...


The very fact that you even claim this to be the correct number.... just goes to show how horribly lacking in physics comprehension your posts truly are.

(Hint: cannonballs do not travel faster than the speed of sound. Rifle bullets? Yes. But cannonballs? Not even close.)
 
Vixen said:
My view is that Bjorkman's diagrams and factual information look perfectly correct. Whether I subscribe to any of his theories or not depends on my own critical faculties. All Bjorkman has said is that the ship would not have sunk to the bottom as it did without first capsizing and then floating upside down for a period.

It seems pretty well established to my mind that (a) there was a hole in the starboard side, as a result of whatever reason and that (b) this is a far more logical reason for the ship sinking as rapidly as it did stern first and then face forward like a domino. It is also clear (c) that an incident happened at the bow which caused it to come loose.

My personal view, which is my own - subject to revision - is that there was an incident at both the bow and the starboard. The evidence IMV points to someone wanting that ship to end its journey and that it was planned in advance by use of timed devices, together with a back up attack. For example, in the old Royal Navy they would fire a double headed hammer from a cannon aimed at the sails to bring the masts down, followed up by a cannonball travelling at 900mph to hit the side of the ship, causing it to invariably break in half and sink. If it was a planned sabotage, it has strategy written all over it IMV, and not some amateur hour jihadists as in the USS Cole incident.

My view has zippo/zilcho/zero to do with Bjorkman's views.
Click to expand...
Well done, you completely missed the point.

My poit was that Anders is such a lunatic that he is willing to ignore reality, including the laws of physics in order to get the results he wants.

Why did you not address my hypothetical example of the expert in Finland? What would you do if I started quoting the hypothetical Jon Jonsson in a discussion on Finland and claimed that Finns obviously speak Flemish because renowned expert Jonsson says they do?

Furthermore you have routinely demonstrated that you are simply not competent to judge if Anders' diagrams and calculations are correct. You have no expertise and you dismiss those who DO have the expertise who have explained why Anders' is to put it mildly, full of it.
 
LondonJohn said:
The very fact that you even claim this to be the correct number.... just goes to show how horribly lacking in physics comprehension your posts truly are.

(Hint: cannonballs do not travel faster than the speed of sound. Rifle bullets? Yes. But cannonballs? Not even close.)
Click to expand...

Not that I think it will actually help her but please no coaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom