• 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.
So now another expert wades in and says the images from Arikas indicates it wasn't a submarine that caused the hole

SVE nyheter


New high-resolution underwater film shows prickly, black sides of the hole in the side of Estonia's hull. There is no submarine collision and no explosion behind it, believes Olle Rutgersson, professor emeritus in ship technology

So....... looks like it wasn't a sub and it wasn't an explosion. Could the sinking PERHAPS have been caused by the bow visor coming detached?
 
It hit a rock and it suffered an explosion in the engine room.

Here's a picture of SS Park Victory hull where we know there is a hole either where it hit a rock or there was an explosion in the engine room.

Hold up a second. You just stated that both these things happened, and now you're saying one or the other happened. Which is it? And, again, how is this comparable to the Estonia?
 
New high-resolution underwater film shows prickly, black sides of the hole in the side of Estonia's hull. There is no submarine collision and no explosion behind it, believes Olle Rutgersson, professor emeritus in ship technology

So....... looks like it wasn't a sub and it wasn't an explosion. Could the sinking PERHAPS have been caused by the bow visor coming detached?

What caused the bow visor to become detached? A few strong waves, or were the crew pissing about with the car ramp, welding equipment, gas canisters and slegehammers, as on previous occasions? We don't know.
 
What caused the bow visor to become detached? A few strong waves, or were the crew pissing about with the car ramp, welding equipment, gas canisters and slegehammers, as on previous occasions? We don't know.

So... it wasn't an explosion, it wasn't Spetsnaz, it wasn't a sub (mini or full sized)... now your theory is changed to the crew sabotaged the bow visor? Them some highly mobile goalposts you got there.
 
So... it wasn't an explosion, it wasn't Spetsnaz, it wasn't a sub (mini or full sized)... now your theory is changed to the crew sabotaged the bow visor? Them some highly mobile goalposts you got there.

WHOA! We only have expert opinion based on an impression from the video. There is a long way to go before establishing anything concrete.

Do have a look at Jutta Rabe's film 'Baltic Storm' 2013 on youtube: I think she pretty much nails it.
 
Swedish Radio is like the BBC so I wouldn't call it secondary. This is a current affairs thread you know, hence the reporting in the mass media is relevant.

It doesn't matter how reliable the radio station or the BBC are, they are not a primary source. I mean unless a reporter directly witnesses something. Thats what a primary source is.
 
It hit a rock and it suffered an explosion in the engine room.

Here's a picture of SS Park Victory hull where we know there is a hole either where it hit a rock or there was an explosion in the engine room.

Hold up a second. You just stated that both these things happened, and now you're saying one or the other happened. Which is it? And, again, how is this comparable to the Estonia?

Hitting the rock caused the engine room to explode so I expect they are located in much the same area.

For the love of ... ******* anything, would you please at least make an attempt at consistency and relevancy!
 
Swedish Radio is like the BBC so I wouldn't call it secondary. This is a current affairs thread you know, hence the reporting in the mass media is relevant.

The ******* newspaper you cited is the secondary source i was referring to.

How like the BBC Swedish Radio is is neither here nor there as

A. I wasn't talking about them, and
B. That is not how primary and secondary sources are defined.
 
Last edited:
Two out of how many?

This is not, by the way, an attempt at a 'gotcha', I genuinely have no idea how many doors there are, and therefore can't judge the weight to ascribe this information.

As regards this:



The fact that the hull comprises of far more than just 'Deck 0' has been covered at length previously, and noone has at any point suggested that water from the car deck would merely 'trickle' down. If they have, and I've missed it, please link to it.


Re the car deck doors question:


The leader of the expedition explained that before the start of the research trip, they raised seven major questions, which are expected to be answered. "One question was how the different parts of the ship were filled with water, ie how did the water get to the decks under the car deck. Previous research has assumed that the doors on the car deck broke due to water pressure and that water escaped to the lower decks. Now that it turns out that the doors are still healthy, the water had to flow under the car deck from somewhere else, ”Kurm justified the importance of the find. They were not able to examine all the doors in the central section of the car deck, as car wrecks block access.

Asked what the impact of the discovery would be on the expedition's further research, Kurm replied that future expert research could no longer simply assume that the doors of the central section of the car deck broke. "Calculations and simulations must now be done on the assumption that the doors are intact," he noted.

According to publicly available information, Mare Liberum's expedition is the first in which an underwater robot entered the car deck of Estonia so deep and studied it so thoroughly and filmed it. The robot moved along the car deck to a depth of about 50 meters. Underwater research this morning suffered a small setback when the robot got stuck for a few dozen minutes as its propellers got stuck in a plastic bag. "As the examination of the car deck is dangerous and the visibility is very poor, we will probably not go there any more," Kurm explained.
Postimees

So these two were the only doors it could safely see. The JAIC assumed the doors to the car deck buckled and gave in due to water pressure of the hypothesized seawater ingress. However, these two clearly did not. Hence, Kurm thinks it reasonable to reject the JAIC's hypothesis and assume the other car deck doors didn't break open, either.
 
Don't forget, the ship is upside down so the vehicle axel is by looking downwards, thus, below the waterline.
Do you think the vehicles were not on the vehicle deck? With the ship upside down the vehicles will be lying on the roof of the deck. Was the roof of the vehicle deck below the waterline?
 
Re the car deck doors question:


Postimees

So these two were the only doors it could safely see. The JAIC assumed the doors to the car deck buckled and gave in due to water pressure of the hypothesized seawater ingress. However, these two clearly did not. Hence, Kurm thinks it reasonable to reject the JAIC's hypothesis and assume the other car deck doors didn't break open, either.

NOT WHAT I ASKED.

Please answer the question asked. If you don't know the answer, then say so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom