• 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:
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...


Ah, I missed this one earlier.

Now..... you report this metallurgy professor as stating that the steel bow visor had been exposed to temperatures higher than 1600 degrees. And since the professor is in Norway, and since every interested party is in Europe, it's not a stretch to assume that the temperature he's quoting is in Celsius.

But....

Steel melts at between 1400 and 1550 degrees Celsius (depending on the precise type of steel).

So is the professor claiming that he's seen evidence of parts of the steel visor having melted then re-hardened? (And even a flash exposure to that temperature would have caused melting, owing to steel's low specific heat capacity (which means it does not take much externally-applied cumulative heat energy to raise the temperature of the steel quickly and to a greater extent))


ETA: Ah, I see that as I was writing my post, you added in an erratum on the reported temperature (incidentally, and without me having to plough through the primary source material, was the error made by you, or by the "Focus Group", or by the professor?)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...


Google translate keep giving 'car-tire' as the translation of 'car-deck'. I think I miscorrected when I put 'bulbous bow' and what it should be is 'the pointy bit on the bow visor'.
 
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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

They seem to be making stuff up as they go along.
 
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...

They are making stuff up as they go along.
 
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...

They are making stuff up as they go along.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, I missed this one earlier.

Now..... you report this metallurgy professor as stating that the steel bow visor had been exposed to temperatures higher than 1600 degrees. And since the professor is in Norway, and since every interested party is in Europe, it's not a stretch to assume that the temperature he's quoting is in Celsius.

But....

Steel melts at between 1400 and 1550 degrees Celsius (depending on the precise type of steel).

So is the professor claiming that he's seen evidence of parts of the steel visor having melted then re-hardened? (And even a flash exposure to that temperature would have caused melting, owing to steel's low specific heat capacity (which means it does not take much externally-applied cumulative heat energy to raise the temperature of the steel quickly and to a greater extent))


ETA: Ah, I see that as I was writing my post, you added in an erratum on the reported temperature (incidentally, and without me having to plough through the primary source material, was the error made by you, or by the "Focus Group", or by the professor?)
Click to expand...

The Fokus Group.
 
Vixen said:
When the news is eventually endosred by the Murdoch media, will you be humbly apologising?
Click to expand...

Why would I do that when they are just making stuff up?

When will they present some actual evidence rather than speculation?
 
Last edited:
The number one 'most read' news article in the TURUN SANOMAT today is about the Evertsson photographer, Linus Andersson, who has now been revealed as also being on the Kurm expedition.

Well-known Swedish submarine photographer Linus Andersson took robot shots of the wreck of a hard-luck car ferry overnight, says the Estonian magazine Postimees, which is traveling by a private research group. Andersson raised the big headlines a year ago after describing a big rupture on the Estonian side. An independent research team now working at the burial ground says its goal is to find out why Estonia sank exactly 27 years ago from the morning of September 28, 1994.
Click to expand...


Over 70% now filmed as of yesterday. They should be finishing today so I expect they will have been tying up loose ends as much as possible. Marine Traffic shows the RS Sentinel to still be in place (together with Finnish coastguard, Uisko).
 
Vixen said:
The Swedish Accident officials gave them open access to the bow visor.

When will it sink in it is current affairs news and not a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

They may have had access but they are just spewing speculation.
 
Vixen said:
When will it sink in it is current affairs news and not a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

When will it sink in that those are not mutually exclusive concepts? If you quote a news story in which would-be investigators are engaging in irrational speculation, then it's both a current news item and a conspiracy theory.
 
Vixen said:
When will it sink in it is current affairs news and not a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Rogue KGB agents, disappearing crew members, mysterious cargo flights used to disappear people, mine laying minisubs, torpedo shooting minisubs, explosive charges, nuclear waste dissolving the bow visor, secret escort submarines, a government led cover-up, bridge hijackings, arms deals to Israel, CIA/KGB/MI6/Spetsnaz involvement, etc.

You can scream till you're blue in the face that you're not promoting conspiracy theories, but you are.

The fact that there is a current new investigation into the sinking of the Estonia does not absolve all the guff you've dropped in this thread from being common or garden conspiracy theory nonsense.

Even your tactics and talking points are straight out of the conspiracy theory playbook, accusing your critics of being unable to think for themselves and swallowing what the mainstream media tells them (your repeated references to Fox News, the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch), a government led cover-up by an investigation designed to tell a false narrative, a willingness to give credence to all sorts of mutually exclusive hypotheses just because they're something other than the "official theory".
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
When the news is eventually endosred by the Murdoch media, will you be humbly apologising?
Click to expand...


Ah this old chestnut again.

Does your worldview consider the mainstream media to be part of this grand conspiracy, in cahoots with governments, big business, and "the establishment"?

And are your views on the Estonia disaster motivated, at least in part, by a latent mistrust of those involved in this grand conspiracy? That you're speaking "truth to power"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom