The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Only an idiot would claim that as it was obviously not banging on the bulbous bow but the area above it.
Quite.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The bow visor lower part (atlantic lock area) would be banging on the bulbous bow area every time the thing moved forward and down.

Well done! You spotted I said 'bulbous bow area' just as I said I did.

That’s a flat-out lie.

Bulbous bow area != area above the bulbous bow.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If only we could go back and look at earlier posts in the thread!

 

[LondonJohn]

How did these two guys manage to climb down it then?


Antti Arak and Ain-Alar Juhanson are the two persons on the bow of M/S Estonia. They claim they walked on the horizontal side of the ship to the bow and climbed down on a closed ramp, the ship was rolling in full storm, when the list was 90° at around 01.30 hrs ... and that the visor was missing! Where did they grip their hands?

See Strathclyde Uni graphic.

1) Where would they have "gripped their hands" if the bow ramp had been in its fully-stowed position?

2) Since nobody (including the official report) is claiming that the bow ramp had been yanked into its fully-deployed/fully-lowered position - but rather that the ramp had merely been pulled ajar (by the bow visor as it tore away from the ship) sufficiently to allow seawater to enter the vehicle deck quickly and easily - how would it have been any more difficult for them to have climbed down a partially-lowered bow ramp as opposed to a fully-raised bow ramp?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How did these two guys manage to climb down it then?

Antti Arak and Ain-Alar Juhanson are the two persons on the bow of M/S Estonia. They claim they walked on the horizontal side of the ship to the bow and climbed down on a closed ramp, the ship was rolling in full storm, when the list was 90° at around 01.30 hrs ... and that the visor was missing! Where did they grip their hands?

Can you link to any original source for what they actually said rather than your paraphrase?

In all the times you've raised it, I think this is the first time you've declared they walked on the side of the ship (a change which comes after it was pointed out to you that due to the list they wouldn't have been able to walk on the deck). So I'd also like independent confirmation of whether they said the ramp was closed or if that's your invention.

 

[Vixen]

That’s a flat-out lie.

Bulbous bow area != area above the bulbous bow.

Isn't it lying by omission to claim I said 'bulbous bow' when you produced a quote from me saying 'bulbous bow area'?

You can have the last word but before you do, do study the following diagrams and let me know whether you believe it is at all possible for the bow visor to extend as far as the bulb itself.

 

[Vixen]

If only we could go back and look at earlier posts in the thread!

Be my guest. There is no ambiguity.

 

[Axxman300]

1) Where would they have "gripped their hands" if the bow ramp had been in its fully-stowed position?

2) Since nobody (including the official report) is claiming that the bow ramp had been yanked into its fully-deployed/fully-lowered position - but rather that the ramp had merely been pulled ajar (by the bow visor as it tore away from the ship) sufficiently to allow seawater to enter the vehicle deck quickly and easily - how would it have been any more difficult for them to have climbed down a partially-lowered bow ramp as opposed to a fully-raised bow ramp?

If you look at the visor's design, the ramp was tucked up inside of a lip to keep everything nice and tight. The modeling suggests the ramp was wrenched open, which would account for some of the banging later. As the ship capsized the ramp could have been pushed around by the large waves. When Estonia hit the bottom the ramp had returned to the closed position. I don't know how close they inspected it, but the fact it has completely fallen off the wreck and now lies crooked at the bow today suggests significant damage to the mechanism which held it in place. Compare that to the rear car deck ramp which is still intact.

And yes, the survivors who climbed down the ramp said it was open.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... do study the following diagrams and let me know whether you believe it is at all possible for the bow visor to extend as far as the bulb itself.

Not until it fell off into the sea. That's the very point everyone else has been making all along. What was the point of your using the term "bulbous bow area"? With all this pointless back and forth I've lost track of whatever your original point was. Something about there not being any impact marks somewhere, but goodness knows where because everything from the lower part of the visor down is all just some vague "bulbous bow area".

 

[Vixen]

Can you link to any original source for what they actually said rather than your paraphrase?

In all the times you've raised it, I think this is the first time you've declared they walked on the side of the ship (a change which comes after it was pointed out to you that due to the list they wouldn't have been able to walk on the deck). So I'd also like independent confirmation of whether they said the ramp was closed or if that's your invention.

It comes from Kurm's report. Kurm was public prosecutor and on the JAIC. He got to interview everybody, except the divers. The interviews are classed as classified by the Swedes but there is a summary in his report.

 

[Vixen]

Not until it fell off into the sea. That's the very point everyone else has been making all along. What was the point of your using the term "bulbous bow area"? With all this pointless back and forth I've lost track of whatever your original point was. Something about there not being any impact marks somewhere, but goodness knows where because everything from the lower part of the visor down is all just some vague "bulbous bow area".

We were talking about the bow visor flapping about? It was claimed this caused mechanical damage to its peak (at the bottom near the atlantic lock towards the waterline) yet Professor Ida Westermann could find no such damage.

 

[Mojo]

Not until it fell off into the sea. That's the very point everyone else has been making all along. What was the point of your using the term "bulbous bow area"?

Most likely this:

With all this pointless back and forth I've lost track of whatever your original point was.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

We were talking about the bow visor flapping about? It was claimed this caused mechanical damage to its peak (at the bottom near the atlantic lock towards the waterline) yet Professor Ida Westermann could find no such damage.

Who made the claim and what damage did they claim occurred?

 

[Andy_Ross]

We were talking about the bow visor flapping about? It was claimed this caused mechanical damage to its peak (at the bottom near the atlantic lock towards the waterline) yet Professor Ida Westermann could find no such damage.

Your original comment was

The Swedish authorities took heir own scan of the bow visor six months after Prof Anders Ulfvarson et al. So if Westermann found significant deformations not concommitent 'banging on the bulbous bow area', then the Swedes will have obtained the exact same results.

As the visor was not 'banging on the bulbous bow area' why would there be any deformations 'concommitent' with banging on that area?

Who claimed it was 'flapping about'? it weighs more than a Challenger Tank or fully loaded articulated lorry, it would not 'flap about'

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It comes from Kurm's report. Kurm was public prosecutor and on the JAIC. He got to interview everybody, except the divers. The interviews are classed as classified by the Swedes but there is a summary in his report.

That excerpt describes what it speculates was the ramp but doesn't definitely claim it was, nor does it explicitly say that they climbed onto it, nor does it say that it was shut. (So if that's your source then it appears your claim that they said it was shut was indeed your own invention.)

I found this old press report where Juhanson says "I and Anti jumped into the water from 10 meters" so they could very well have made their way as far forward as they could down the curve of the bow then jumped.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/09/30/Two-athletes-swam-from-sinking-ferry/1283780897600/

 

[Vixen]

If you look at the visor's design, the ramp was tucked up inside of a lip to keep everything nice and tight. The modeling suggests the ramp was wrenched open, which would account for some of the banging later. As the ship capsized the ramp could have been pushed around by the large waves. When Estonia hit the bottom the ramp had returned to the closed position. I don't know how close they inspected it, but the fact it has completely fallen off the wreck and now lies crooked at the bow today suggests significant damage to the mechanism which held it in place. Compare that to the rear car deck ramp which is still intact.

And yes, the survivors who climbed down the ramp said it was open.

It is all guess work by the JAIC as they announced all of this (17 October 1994) before the bow visor had even been found (18 October 1994). There is no evidence anyone saw the bow visor or the ramp fall off or open and nor is there any evidence that the car deck was flooded as a cause of the accident. The JAIC are going by the word of third engineer Treu, who claimed to have seen water entering the ramp at 1:15 on his monitor in the engine room.and before the vessel started to list and AB Seaman Linde, the fire patrolman, who kept changing his story. He told Dagens Nyheter 7 October he was on the bridge and was then sent down to inspect the car deck because of water on inside the area. He told the commission he was on the bridge with different persons and this time he was sent down to check the noise.

Instead of waiting to examine the bow visor and carry out a proper investigation, the JAIC already decided to run with the observations of two or three of the crew. Whilst eyewitness accounts are invaluable, an eyewitness can't necessarily determine the cause of an accident if it is based on intricate technical faults such as weak mechanics.

It decided that the car ramp was open by 10° leaving a gap of about a metre and too small for them to send in their ROV's. They didn't really test their own hypotheses. It is hard to see how water flooded in through this relatively small gap to an area 5m high to sink the ship so quickly.

 

[Vixen]

Your original comment was



As the visor was not 'banging on the bulbous bow area' why would there be any deformations 'concommitent' with banging on that area?

Who claimed it was 'flapping about'? it weighs more than a Challenger Tank or fully loaded articulated lorry, it would not 'flap about'

Isn't that what people said the 'bangs' were? Yet there is no evidence it flapped about, let alone managed to rise 1.4m in order to pull off the car ramp via the cleating. So if the bow visor was indeed doing this weighing 55 tonnes there would surely be damage caused by it striking the forepeak deck with its peak.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because the ramp was free to move after it was wrenched open by the failing visor.
The visor was found detached and a distance away from the ship, this confirmed the witness statements.
Also the visor was known to be faulty, even you have admitted that.

This has all been gone over at length in the thread already.

Why is a small hole on the side of the ship and above the waterline a better explanation?

I notice you seem to have given up on mines, torpedoes and submarines now.

 

[Vixen]

That excerpt describes what it speculates was the ramp but doesn't definitely claim it was, nor does it explicitly say that they climbed onto it, nor does it say that it was shut. (So if that's your source then it appears your claim that they said it was shut was indeed your own invention.)

I found this old press report where Juhanson says "I and Anti jumped into the water from 10 meters" so they could very well have made their way as far forward as they could down the curve of the bow then jumped.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/09/30/Two-athletes-swam-from-sinking-ferry/1283780897600/

If you read the Kurm paragraph carefully - and it is not an invention - bear in mind it is an English translation from Estonian it does indeed mention they saw the bow was damaged (= presumably the visor not there_ which thus revealed a ramp with the type of pattern the guys described, that is with transverse and longitudinal grids, which is exactly what it does look like. In addition, these two guys are professional athletes and I have no doubt they managed to do what they said they did. As I said, I am not sure I believe they would have been able to grip the wedges with their fingers. Like most people they had no choice but to jump into the sea. The breadth of the Estonia was 24.5m.

 

[Mojo]

I notice you seem to have given up on mines, torpedoes and submarines now.

I’m still holding out hope for the ekranoplan.

 

[Vixen]

Because the ramp was free to move after it was wrenched open by the failing visor.
The visor was found detached and a distance away from the ship, this confirmed the witness statements.
Also the visor was known to be faulty, even you have admitted that.

This has all been gone over at length in the thread already.

Why is a small hole on the side of the ship and above the waterline a better explanation?

I notice you seem to have given up on mines, torpedoes and submarines now.

A breach of the keel - which we now see there is indeed - explains the water seen on deck 1 and the rapid sinking. The numerous witnesses who heard bangs or a series of bangs circa 1:00 could well be describing explosions and/or some kind of collision.

Kurm in his recent expedition has found yet a third breach of the hull, albeit too early to know what type of breach.

I rule nothing out.