• 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.
Vixen said:
No stone should be left unturned. The JAIC should have investigated what triggered the 'Mr Skylight 1 or 2' tannoy messages and also whether the sprinklers or valves had been turned on in the car deck.
Click to expand...


They did. Those messages referred to general alerts. And it was easy for the official investigation to understand that they referred to the catastrophic ingress of water into the vehicle deck (caused by the failure of the bow visor and bow ramp).
 
JayUtah said:
Don't change the subject. Why are you citing to parody sources?
Click to expand...

A Finnish expert - Harri Ruotsalainen - on 10 Sept 2021 made a presentation to the Estonia riiksrugu (riksdag) as a member of a survivors committee that the vehicles in and around the vessels should be checked against consignment notes to see whether any were missing. He said this would rule out the possibility that someone had opened the car ramp mid-journey to dispose of illicit cargo.

One of the reasons for wanting to dispose of it could be that it was smoking. For example, cobalt was a common substance that was smuggled from the FSU. Used to make nuclear stuff.

There was definitely a lorry on board whose number plates showed no registered driver. This was totally against the law, so somebody acted illegally there, and why the anonymity?
 
Has there ever in the history of ferry operations ever been an example of a bow being opened up in a storm to try and dump a lorry overboard?

Do you think one crewman could open the bow visor and ramp then manoeuvre a lorry overboard without anyone noticing?
 
junkshop said:
Look again at the text you quoted, just before your highlight:


https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net...eport/29.3.htm

Do you see this bit "the video camera transferring pictures from the partly open bow ramp to the monitor"?

In what way does this suggest that camera is facing away from the ramp? It doesn't, does it?

Look again at the drawing you posted. Do you see the text at the top? The text that reads "Drawing made by the system engineer showing what he saw in the surveillance monitor"?

Do you think that that might suggest it was not "from his generalised memory of previous voyages"?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what engineer Treu says in his various interviews.

(1) the statement of the watch engineer Margus Treu that a jet of water hit the lens of the video camera transferring pictures from the partly open bow ramp to the monitor in the engine control room (ECR) where he was watching - see his statement dated 29.09.94 Turku - Enclosure 21.2.3.263.
Click to expand...

But if the bow visor didn't fall off until 1:15 as claimed by the JAIC how could there have been a 'partly open bow ramp'?
 
LondonJohn said:
LOL. I'm sure they never even considered putting appropriate fire suppression systems into a vehicle deck, where the obviously-predominant risks of fire were from gasoline/diesel or motor oil combustion.

They just thought: "Oh, well if there does happen to be such a fire, we'll just have to cobble together some sort of way of fighting it. And luckily we've got plenty of seawater available, so why not let's have a crack at using that?"

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

An independent passenger, Bengt Nilsson saw what he assumed were fire-fighting materials just before the ship heeled violently to starboard.

The passenger Bengt Nilsson has testified that he saw white powder and foam inside the centre casing on car deck level next to the 4th car deck door from forward on starboard side. He rushed past this door on his way up when the vessel heeled abruptly to starboard and he had to hold with his hands against the wall when he noted the above. It was so fresh that the foam was still running down the wall.
Click to expand...
https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/29.3.htm
 
Vixen said:
Yes, that is what engineer Treu says in his various interviews.
Click to expand...
So you agree that the evidence you presented to support your claims in fact disproves them?



Vixen said:
But if the bow visor didn't fall off until 1:15 as claimed by the JAIC how could there have been a 'partly open bow ramp'?
Click to expand...
This is unrelated to anything I asked.
 
Vixen said:
Let's face it,
Click to expand...

There's something about the phrase "let's face it" which instantly makes me assume what follows will be misdirection.

...is the CCTV going to be aimed at the car ramp or down on the vehicles below?
Click to expand...
Ah, there we go. I wonder if you have considered whether a CCTV system might use more than one camera, to serve more than a single function.
 
Vixen said:
But if the bow visor didn't fall off until 1:15 as claimed by the JAIC how could there have been a 'partly open bow ramp'?
Click to expand...

As the visor broke loose it didn't immediately drop off into the sea, as evidenced in part by the multiple bangs which were heard as waves pounded it against the ship. And after it came loose it was hanging on to the top of the ramp which projected up into it. You know all this.

Your question "how could there have been a partly open bow ramp?" when there were tens of tons of visor hanging off it seems hard to begin to answer. If that were genuinely confusing, how simple an explanation is required and where does one start?
 
Vixen said:
Yes, that is what engineer Treu says in his various interviews.



But if the bow visor didn't fall off until 1:15 as claimed by the JAIC how could there have been a 'partly open bow ramp'?
Click to expand...

Because it was a progressive failure.
 
Vixen said:
An independent passenger, Bengt Nilsson saw what he assumed were fire-fighting materials just before the ship heeled violently to starboard.

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/29.3.htm
Click to expand...

I guess the storm must have set the beach on fire at Whitby, look at all the foam!

picture.php
 
JayUtah said:
Don't change the subject. Why are you citing to parody sources?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
A Finnish expert - Harri Ruotsalainen - on 10 Sept 2021 made a presentation to the Estonia riiksrugu (riksdag) as a member of a survivors committee that the vehicles in and around the vessels should be checked against consignment notes to see whether any were missing. He said this would rule out the possibility that someone had opened the car ramp mid-journey to dispose of illicit cargo.

One of the reasons for wanting to dispose of it could be that it was smoking. For example, cobalt was a common substance that was smuggled from the FSU. Used to make nuclear stuff.

There was definitely a lorry on board whose number plates showed no registered driver. This was totally against the law, so somebody acted illegally there, and why the anonymity?
Click to expand...
How is that an answer to the highlighted question which you were responding to?
 
Vixen said:
Treu looking at a black and white monitor could not possibly have known for sure the exact source of the water splashing over the CCTV.
Click to expand...

Why not? What does being black and white have to do with it?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
As the visor broke loose it didn't immediately drop off into the sea, as evidenced in part by the multiple bangs which were heard as waves pounded it against the ship. And after it came loose it was hanging on to the top of the ramp which projected up into it. You know all this.

Your question "how could there have been a partly open bow ramp?" when there were tens of tons of visor hanging off it seems hard to begin to answer. If that were genuinely confusing, how simple an explanation is required and where does one start?
Click to expand...

Oh please. How do waves pound against a 55 tonne piece of solid steel and cause it to create 'multiple bangs'?

The waves are going aft because of the wind. For the bow visor to lift up and go forward it would need some kind of mechanism becuase it is either stronger than the waves/wind or it is not. If not stronger than the waves/wind it would simply remain firmly shut. if stronger, how could a wave/wind cause it to shut in order to 'bang'?
 
Vixen said:
Treu looking at a black and white monitor could not possibly have known for sure the exact source of the water splashing over the CCTV.
Click to expand...

If he had a colour monitor do you think he could have told whether the water was salt or fresh?

Since water was cascading in on both sides of the ramp to the full height of the car deck roof, and the only source of water in front of the ramp was the sea, and there wasn't a fire, what were the other possible sources?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom