• 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:
If the ship's side came away during the imputed impact, the floor would also have done so, surely.
Click to expand...


1) The ship's side didn't "come away" during the impact. It dented and tore.

2) If by "floor" you mean "deck", then your assertion of "surely" is just plain wrong also: the deck would easily have been supported and held in place by its attachments to the hull on either side of the damaged area. It might - indeed would - have buckled somewhat, in line with the inward deformation of the hull. But nothing more than that.
 
Update - 'Fender plate pushed out with violent force' - Fokus Group

From the Fokus Estonia Group* 28.9.2021

A statement put out by this group claims that from the images on the film released yesterday that the fender beam, which is welded on the outside of the ship appears to have been 'torn off' and 'bent outwards'. In addition, another hole has been found 20 - 30 metres further aft wherein they claim it shows the plate has been 'pushed out with a violent force'. Three frames are 'completely worn', with the plate protruding out sharply from the hull. Inside this hole, the inner beams are 'completely off'.


The fender beam that is welded on the outside of the vessel has been torn off and is bent outwards. It is also clear that the beams that formed the frame on the inside have come off. The ship's plate has been bent outwards.

If you follow the hole and the crack, you will see that it extends a good distance below the waterline. It is completely out of the question that the large hole could have been caused by the vessel lying on the bottom. An estimated 20-30 meters further aft, another hole was found where it can be seen that the plate was pushed out with a violent force. Three of the frames are completely worn and the plate protrudes strongly from the hull. Inside the hole, additional beams can be seen that are completely off. That stones on the bottom must have caused this is completely non-existent as the bottom is completely smooth. The protruding plate could not possibly have been caused by the bottom.”
Click to expand...


*Lars Ångström, born in 1955 in Stockholm, is a Swedish politician, environmentalist, who was chairman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association 1985–1995, CEO of Greenpeace 1995–1996 and member of parliament in the defense committee 1998–2006. Lars Ångström has long been committed to a new and more reliable accident investigation of Estonia. He was previously a member of the Export Control Council. Focus Estonia is a project run by Lars Ångström, Rolf Sörman, survivor and Åsa Myrberg, relative.
 
Vixen said:
From the Fokus Estonia Group* 28.9.2021

A statement put out by this group claims that from the images on the film released yesterday that the fender beam, which is welded on the outside of the ship appears to have been 'torn off' and 'bent outwards'. ...
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, is that "torn" and "bent" fender beam welded to the side of the ship which hit the seabed when it sank and then became exposed as the wreck shifted?

I wonder how it got damaged.
 
Fokus Group - 'Estonia's bow visor blown away' film

28.9.2021

The Fokus Group has held a press conference in which they claim a new film shows that the bow visor was 'blown away' and contrary to the JAIC report, 'there are no contact marks at all' supposedly caused 'by severe mechanical blows' from the visor hanging off the vessel before falling off. It asserts that the base plate is pushed in by 70cm (about two and a half feet) and shows 'severe deformations'. The material has been 'torn apart by such force' that the steel plate has caved in on itself and the colour removed.

The dent on the bow visor cannot be compatible with with hitting the bulbous bow, as there are no marks on the bulbous bow, either around the edges or the tip.

Instead, you only see severe deformations where the base plate of the visor is pressed in 70 centimeters.

The JAIC does not even mention in the report that the base plate has been torn apart and pushed back closer to one meter. And with such force that the material has been torn apart. The power, speed and heat have been so enormous that the steel plate has calved over itself and most of the color has disappeared. You can compare the damage with the large dent on the front of the visor. This is a clear example of an injury caused by mechanical contact. There are no mechanical impact marks from the edges or tip of the bulbous bow. Instead, a very strong soft impression is visible. It becomes even clearer in the photogrammetric 3D model that we have had made. The absence of mechanical blows is even clearer when we remove the surface layer.
Click to expand...

The group declares that 'These are injuries that have been caused by one or more detonations.'. A finnish company VTT had examined the parts in 1994, and contrary to my belief that the findings were negative (for explosives) possibly as conveyed by the JAIC report, the information is actually 'classified'. The Fokus Group have been given permission to examine the bow visor stored at Karlskrona, which they say they examined for a few days. They then sent samples to a Norwegian institute. Some are saying that permission has been granted by the Swedish authorities only now because they want to pre-empt the findings that will almost certainly come out from the Arikas and the Kurm expeditions.

Three parts are of particular interest as these have been close to where probable detonations have taken place. Parts show damage that could not have occurred due to impact with the bulbous bow. We want to have these parts examined.

Focus Estonia is advised not to hand in the parts to any Swedish institution, but instead hand them in to NTNU in Norway and to professor of metallurgy Ida Westerman, who directly states that the damage could not possibly have been caused by mechanical blows. The results also confirm changes in the steel. Studies show that the steel has been exposed to temperatures above 1600 degrees. We do not know if Estonia's visor was blown off before or after the accident. Our preliminary assessments are that the visor was blown off the bottom after Estonia had sunk. If the visor was blown off the surface, it is not in itself sufficient to lower the ship.
Click to expand...

The Fokus Group seems to ascribe to Jutta Rabe's theory that a series or detonations loosened the visor and they believe the bow visor was blown off after the Estonia sank, which seems to support a theory that the Swedish Navy removed it.


The plot thickens.
 
No, the plot doesn't thicken. It's as runny as water.

The bow visor fell off because its bottom lock failed, owing to the combination of metal fatigue and high stresses on the lock on the night of the sinking. This failure set off a domino-effect series of further failures, which directly resulted in the loss of the ship.
 
LondonJohn said:
So, to get this straight: this is a report in a Polish newspaper, regarding something reported on a Swedish radio station, regarding something to do with the recent official inspection of the wreck?

I see........
Click to expand...

You do know the press get their stories from press agencies, such as AP or Reuters? No surprise several papers run the same story. You don't really think their journalists were all there and present on the frontline being reported from?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Just to clarify, is that "torn" and "bent" fender beam welded to the side of the ship which hit the seabed when it sank and then became exposed as the wreck shifted?

I wonder how it got damaged.
Click to expand...

The Focus Group say, 'That rocks on the bottom [of the seabed] must have caused this is completely non-tenable as the bottom is completely smooth. The protruding plate could not possibly have been caused by the bottom of the sea.”
 
LondonJohn said:
No, the plot doesn't thicken. It's as runny as water.

The bow visor fell off because its bottom lock failed, owing to the combination of metal fatigue and high stresses on the lock on the night of the sinking. This failure set off a domino-effect series of further failures, which directly resulted in the loss of the ship.
Click to expand...

The Baltic Sea at that depth is on average about 1°C. It is impossible that a deformation consistent with a temperature of 1600° could have been caused by anything other than an explosive in those conditions.
 
Vixen said:
The Baltic Sea at that depth is on average about 1°C. It is impossible that a deformation consistent with a temperature of 1600° could have been caused by anything other than an explosive in those conditions.
Click to expand...

Tell us how you can be certain it's impossible, as opposed to you simply being unable to imagine other ways in which such indications might arise.

(Cue shifting of the burden of proof in 5... 4... 3...)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Focus Group say, 'That rocks on the bottom [of the seabed] must have caused this is completely non-tenable as the bottom is completely smooth. The protruding plate could not possibly have been caused by the bottom of the sea.”
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say that view is not undisputed. What work have they done to establish that the Estonia did not contact any rocks under the soft mud/clay seabed?
 
Vixen said:
You do know the press get their stories from press agencies, such as AP or Reuters? No surprise several papers run the same story. You don't really think their journalists were all there and present on the frontline being reported from?
Click to expand...


No. I'm pointing out that - once again - you're using nested "sources of sources of sources". Which, rather obviously (to most people) introduces all sorts of opportunities for honest or dishonest alterations from the primary source.

(And yes thanks, I know very well indeed how news-gathering works. I also know that a Swedish radio station is not a press agency.)
 
Vixen said:
Vitrually all the news you see is secondary source unless it is a live broadcast.
Click to expand...


No. You were claiming that

Swedish Radio is like the BBC so I wouldn't call it secondary
Click to expand...


So, perhaps you will explain that statement (which was the one I was referencing in my post), in the light of your new-found understanding (hopefully) of what a secondary source is - and what it is not.


ETA I notice now that I spoke too soon: just because a media organisation has a "live broadcast" does not magically mean that it's not still a secondary source. I suggest some further reading up on the meaning of "secondary source".
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Focus Group say, 'That rocks on the bottom [of the seabed] must have caused this is completely non-tenable as the bottom is completely smooth. The protruding plate could not possibly have been caused by the bottom of the sea.”
Click to expand...


Nope. There is a rock outcrop right next to the now-exposed damaged part of the starboard hull.

I'm afraid this is a big black mark (and red flag) for this "Focus Group" wrt its neutrality, objectivity, analytical ability, scientific integrity, and commitment to truth
 
Vixen, please could you link to the statement, I would like to read it. It's not on their youtube channel or their website (which is unfinished, and hasn't been update since May). It may be on their facebook page, but I don't have access to that.
 
Vixen said:
28.9.2021

The Fokus Group has held a press conference in which they claim a new film shows that the bow visor was 'blown away' and contrary to the JAIC report, 'there are no contact marks at all' supposedly caused 'by severe mechanical blows' from the visor hanging off the vessel before falling off. It asserts that the base plate is pushed in by 70cm (about two and a half feet) and shows 'severe deformations'. The material has been 'torn apart by such force' that the steel plate has caved in on itself and the colour removed.

The dent on the bow visor cannot be compatible with with hitting the bulbous bow, as there are no marks on the bulbous bow, either around the edges or the tip.
Click to expand...


Why would there need to be any marks on the bulbous bow?

If the bottom lock on the bow visor failed (which it did, demonstrably), then the visor would have been swinging up on its top hinges then banging down again - but the point of impact would have been precisely at the attachment point of the bottom lock to the bow. Nowhere near the edges or the tip of the bulbous bow itself.

And, even more ironically, the report of seeing "severe deformations" and inward caving of the base plate is entirely consistent with the visor slamming down against at the point of the now-broken bottom lock (until eventually the struts and top pivots suffered failures of their own (stress and internal vibration), causing the entire visor to detach from the ship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom