• 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:
It is not a joke. It is presented as satire but there are people who are convinced this was the scenario.
Click to expand...
And how does a satire site support that? The question is what purpose you had in citing a source that expressly isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a question about your scholarship skills.
 
Vixen said:
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'?
Click to expand...


Oh my days. It just keeps on coming.

Has it not occurred to you that:

1) the ship was pitching up an down in the storm swell - which would easily have effected sufficient angular momentum to swing the bow visor up and down from its top attachment, and;

2) water has a mass of around one ton per cubic metre - meaning that the volumes/masses of water slamming into & around the now-broken bow visor would easily be able to effect sufficient angular momentum to the visor all by itself?


And, erm, would you mind explaining what you mean when you say "the waves are going aft because of the wind", please and thank you?
 
Vixen said:
Why are bows designed to be the shape they are? To cut through the water.
Click to expand...


Until they break.

At which point they are more likely - as was the case here - to create significant drag. Plus they are also potentially prone - as was the case here - to allow serious volume/mass of seawater to enter the ship.
 
Progress on the Kurm Expedition

26.9.2021

Swedish specialist Linus Andersson said that this time they are thoroughly researching the ferry, and not just collecting materials for a documentary. “We are collecting a three-dimensional image of the ship. We just finished one dive that lasted three hours. During this time, we explored the vessel about half - from the propellers to the center of the ferry, ”he says.

Source: Postimees
 
Vixen said:
26.9.2021

Swedish specialist Linus Andersson said that this time they are thoroughly researching the ferry, and not just collecting materials for a documentary. “We are collecting a three-dimensional image of the ship. We just finished one dive that lasted three hours. During this time, we explored the vessel about half - from the propellers to the center of the ferry, ”he says.

Source: Postimees
Click to expand...


Well, I hope they enjoy themselves, while spending a whole shed-full of money. I imagine it might not be long before they're all arrested and escorted to shore.

And even if that doesn't happen, what they'll end up with - provided that their survey and analysis of the wreck is competent, objective and honest* - is a finding that....... the Estonia sank because the lower lock on its bow visor failed (owing to metal fatigue and stresses from sailing in a storm swell); which eventually caused the top attachments to fail in turn; which then in turn, as the bow visor was finally detached completely from the ship, caused significant displacement of the bow ramp; which in turn allowed extremely large volumes/masses of seawater to enter the vehicle deck; which in turn quickly caused the ship to list, lose buoyancy, and become effectively uncontrollable; which in turn caused the ship to sink.


* and given the obvious vested interests of this group, I start from a position of deep scepticism in this regard.
 
Vixen said:
I am not ruling anything out, as I have seen what happened in Paldiski.
Click to expand...

What happened in Paldiski?


How would 'nuclear waste' dissolve the bows of the ship?

If you aren't ruling anything out, how do you know it wasn't a Kraken that did it?
 
Vixen said:
I am not ruling anything out, as I have seen what happened in Paldiski.
Click to expand...
You have no problem ruling out the theory that heavy seas caused a poorly maintained bow visor to detach and thus caused the ferry to ship water. But please by all means cling to the most absurd conspiracy theory and pretend that makes you fair-minded.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I am not ruling anything out, as I have seen what happened in Paldiski.
Click to expand...

Ok there are 2 problems with this.

1. Your statement is trivially easy to prove wrong, unless you are willing to state that you don't rule out time travelling metal-fatigue faeries causing the sinking.

2. How could nuclear waste possibly destroy the ship's bow? You do know what nuclear waste is right?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Yes, what is your point? (pun intended)

There is still a lot of force involved. If you force a ship in to a heavy sea then it will dive in to some of the waves, that puts a huge force on to the hull, even ships designed to take it like Frigates and Destroyers built for patrolling in Atlantic winters can be damaged.

What do you think it will do to a bow held on by a few fasteners?
Click to expand...

Well, you are trying to explain to Vixen something that should be obvious to anyone who:

Has the most rudimentary understanding of basic physics.

or:

Has ever been in any sort of boat in rough water.

Clearly, neither of those apply to Vixen.
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, I hope they enjoy themselves, while spending a whole shed-full of money. I imagine it might not be long before they're all arrested and escorted to shore.

And even if that doesn't happen, what they'll end up with - provided that their survey and analysis of the wreck is competent, objective and honest* - is a finding that....... the Estonia sank because the lower lock on its bow visor failed (owing to metal fatigue and stresses from sailing in a storm swell); which eventually caused the top attachments to fail in turn; which then in turn, as the bow visor was finally detached completely from the ship, caused significant displacement of the bow ramp; which in turn allowed extremely large volumes/masses of seawater to enter the vehicle deck; which in turn quickly caused the ship to list, lose buoyancy, and become effectively uncontrollable; which in turn caused the ship to sink.


* and given the obvious vested interests of this group, I start from a position of deep scepticism in this regard.
Click to expand...

I hate to think what is hidden under your carpet.

Why should they be 'escorted to shore and arrested'? Did you not know that the Act enforcing the Treaty has been amended to 2024 allow for for investigation?

If you were one of the 852 persons who had no means of escape and died a horrible death in great stress and fear wouldn't you want your loved ones to know what happened on your behalf, together with the other eight hundred or so including little children and young adults, and to allow them to 'bring you home' as it were and give you a decent burial?

Why would these four or five lower rank surviving crew need to be interviewed six or seven times over several years before they get their stories straight. Clearly, the Sapo and Supo were deeply suspicious as they had Sillaste in handcuffs, as witnessed by Linde (a drug smuggler who likely had been at it for years before being caught and probably used his job in order to do so) and an Interpol arrest warrant out for Arvo Piht, who was initially believed to have survived. The captain of the Concordia was arrested and charged. Imagine if Boris Johnson immediately after your imaginary demise announced they 'no-one is to blame' and wanted to bury you in concrete. You'd be demanding to know what he wants to cover up exactly.
 
Vixen said:
... Clearly, the Sapo and Supo were deeply suspicious as they had Sillaste in handcuffs, as witnessed by Linde (a drug smuggler who likely had been at it for years before being caught and probably used his job in order to do so)
Click to expand...

I'm losing track. Are we supposed to treat the drug smuggler as a reliable witness now?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Ok there are 2 problems with this.

1. Your statement is trivially easy to prove wrong, unless you are willing to state that you don't rule out time travelling metal-fatigue faeries causing the sinking.

2. How could nuclear waste possibly destroy the ship's bow? You do know what nuclear waste is right?
Click to expand...

If you were such an expert in the Baltic States as you claim you would know Paldiski was a massive Russian military base complete with nuclear power stations. When they were made to get out after 1991 it all had to be decommissioned; there was a huge amount of arms smuggling and also, highly dangerous contaminants, such as nuclear reactor rods, fell into the 'wrong' hands (a civilised version of the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan recently, if you like). A lot of this stuff found its way to the west. Russian military didn't even know where their next pay packet was coming from. So it is actually quite probable there was all kinds of stuff being carried on the passenger ferries. When the Swedish government does it, too, it is not all right.

 
JayUtah said:
You have no problem ruling out the theory that heavy seas caused a poorly maintained bow visor to detach and thus caused the ferry to ship water. But please by all means cling to the most absurd conspiracy theory and pretend that makes you fair-minded.
Click to expand...

Given you claim to be a great expert in engineering and metallurgy, please explain how you know for a fact that it has been established that it was 'a few strong waves' that caused the contraption to fall off and not something else?

<fx gets into listening pose>


Or is it just an untested (and unproven) hypothesis?
 
Vixen said:
Given you claim to be a great expert in engineering and metallurgy, please explain how you know for a fact that it has been established that it was 'a few strong waves' that caused the contraption to fall off and not something else?

<fx gets into listening pose>


Or is it just an untested (and unproven) hypothesis?
Click to expand...

For the 12th time.

It was not just a 'few strong waves'
It was fifteen years of 'strong waves'
You even admit that the visor and fastenings had been distorted so that big hammers had to be used to force the bolts in to place.

Maybe the fact that the bow visor is detached and a distance away from the hull is a clue.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom