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

[Andy_Ross]

Now you are being obtuse.

Why? you are the one claiming that lists were changed.

 

[Vixen]

Because in the confusion some mistakes were made?
Are you now saying the helicopter crews weren't part of the conspiracy?

Not just 'some' mistakes, this was nine to eleven people, including three 'head honchos', whom one would expect to be first to escape, their being near the life saving equipment and the survivor suits, which I believe were stored on the bridge.

Arvin Rodun, I believe the Estonian health and safety chap, witnessed Piht getting in a life boat. Three other witnesses claim to have seen him in Rostock. German tv viewers are convinced they saw him on German news. His widow Sirje had a phone call telling her what flight he would be on home.

Likewise, weird stories about the twins.

Jutta Rabe claims that the Security Services seized the news reels and banned the tv stations from ever showing the now notorious clip again.

Why would you label it a conspiracy? Is that your new buzzword?

How do you know it wasn't a 'witness protection' scheme, or a disappearance to face in camera trials elsewhere?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The presenter, Lars Angstrom (_sp?) is a politician, hence his advocacy and pushing for a more affirmative conclusion didn't sit well with Westermann an academic scientist whose only professional remit was to state what she empirically observed, not come to a conclusion what caused the accident. So we had the persuasive politician and the clinical professor.

Nonetheless, the results conveyed were astonishing, given the JAIC never mentioned any deformations and just made assumptions. It now seems that key information was withheld from them and all they could do was make their own assumptions from what little they had.

But we know the visor and it's lock were deformed even before the sinking, they had to hit them with big hammers to get them to lock remember?
When they broke they were deformed, we can see that by looking at them, why do we need a microscope?

Why do you think the information was 'withheld'? Who 'withheld'. Are you claiming that the JAIC never looked at the visor or had any reports presented?

 

[Vixen]

I was curious why the various slides that Vixen showed us were inconsistently formatted, so I followed the provided link.

The images Vixen shared in post #3128 are from a PDF described as "Professor Ida Westermanns (sic) paper on findings". It consists, in it's entirety, of the same images Vixen posted.

Nothing more.

That is it.

Two pages; 10 images and 529 words (including all titles and annotations).

That, according to Fokus Estonia, is a 'paper'.

It was not included in the press conference.

The slides with the 'NTNU' branding ( posts #3129, #3130 and #3131) accompanied Associate Professor Westermann's presentation.

The remaining slides (posts #3133 & #3135) accompanied Lars Angstrom's portion of the presentation.




I watched the whole damn video. All 46 minutes and 34 seconds of it.
I don't know what I did to hurt me, but must really hate myself.

Maybe you really hate the survivors families as these are the people looking for the answers. Why would you mock their need to know?

 

[JayUtah]

Maybe you really hate the survivors families as these are the people looking for the answers. Why would you mock their need to know?

Questioning you and the sources you rely upon does not equate to hate for the victims and their families. You've been asked several times to stop this blatantly emotional pandering. You're just reporting the news, right? So stop trying to paint those who respond as if they were monsters.

 

[The Man]

Probably not in the way I believe Prof. Westermann intended the term. Here she's probably talking about very high kinetic-energy impacts between solids, such as projectile impacts. It's an allusion to what she is interpreting as similar to explosive welding.

I'd expect so, it's just that splitting it up as high energy than -high impact didn't make any sense at all. High energy what? High energy density, high energy soft drink, high energy particle beam. Same with high impact, does that mean getting punched in the face instead of being kicked in the shins or does it mean you were totally baked when you walked into a light pole?

Naturally you'd expect some contact deformation somewhere with a bunch of stuff getting tossed around and certainly one can't extrapolate from just a few samples lacking such that there weren't none nowhere. My point still being, water is a great way of distributing loading to get serious deformation without localized contact deformation.

Back when I was working in the lab our products were connectors for power utilities. One product line was compression splicers for transmission lines. Normally they were compressed incrementally with a small portable hydraulic press. For a while we were looking into and actually did some testing with an explosively compressed splicer. In the end, the problems with getting enough even compression all around plus the inherent dangers of producing and selling an explosive device put the kibosh on it.

I also recall some artist (decades ago) specializing in explosively clad art they'd use leaves and fathers and such to create texturing areas in the cladding. Looked great, wish I could find some pictures.

 

[JayUtah]

I'd expect so, it's just that splitting it up as high energy than -high impact didn't make any sense at all.

I agree, the paraphrase of Westermann's findings and conclusions was simply wrong.

 

[Vixen]

What if (as I'd deem to be significantly possible) some of the rescued passengers/crew were so hypothermic and/or exhausted that they were either unconscious, semi-conscious or unable to communicate clearly. Which would potentially make it somewhat difficult for rescue operatives to determine their identity accurately at the time of rescue, which in turn would potentially lead to confusion over who'd genuinely been rescued alive and who had not.






I expect that headcounts weren't high on his agenda. Why would you think he should have known this info? What impact would it have had on anything? If he'd known (for example) that there were precisely 27 survivors on his ship, what use would that information have been at that point? His only responsibility was to contribute to the rescue effort as effectively as he could, and then to take every reasonable step to get those survivors who were on his ship to shore (and on to hospital as required). Headcounts and more strenuous identification attempts would have been taking place onshore.


On top of all of this, I really don't know what you're insinuating here. Are you alleging incompetence? Or are you alleging participation in your conspiracy by people such as the rescue-helicopter crew and/or the crew of the Mariella? Or are you just reflexively questioning as much of the official version of events as you possibly can, because..... stuff?

...Or maybe perhaps he had already given a newspaper interview stating the exact number of people rescued, when - whoops! - like Pilot Y64 Kenneth Svensson, who received a medal anyway - the numbers had to be revised down. So rather than lying, easier to say, can't remember exactly.

 

[Vixen]

But we know the visor and it's lock were deformed even before the sinking, they had to hit them with big hammers to get them to lock remember?
When they broke they were deformed, we can see that by looking at them, why do we need a microscope?

Why do you think the information was 'withheld'? Who 'withheld'. Are you claiming that the JAIC never looked at the visor or had any reports presented?

Ahem. The Atlantic lock lies on the seabed, Has not been analysed.

The Finnish company VTT were given the remit by the Swedish government of analysing the bow visor for explosives. It has been assumed that these results were negative but now we discover that the JAIC never had the results as they are locked up and labelled 'confidential'.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe you really hate the survivors families as these are the people looking for the answers. Why would you mock their need to know?

Oh for......... goodness' sake.

Will you please stop, once and for all, with these pathetic (and wholly improper) attempts at emotional blackmail? You do realise that they're completely antithetical with both the scientific method and logic/reason, don't you?

 

[Vixen]

"The wreck has shifted by 10m" ~Margus Kurm Expedtion Interim Report

12.10.2021

Expedition leader Margus Kurm, has appeared at a press conference today to provide an interim update. He advocates for the survivors group Mare Liberum Foundation which received a donation of €800K from an Estonian media group, Postimees for the recent September 2021 expedition to the Estonia wreck.

The main points are the discovery that the wreck has shifted some ten metres to the south (>30 feet). He says the original survey in 1994-1996 showed it to be in soft clay. However, if it had landed on a rock outcrop it is possible the shift heightened any existing deformations.

Kurm discovered an indentation between the two holes since discovered, one of which is 22m x 4m. It is too early to conclude what caused the breaches.

Kurm believes they are almost certainly collision impacts, but whether that was by submarine or by rock would need to be analysed by experts.

Kurm believes the shift was likely caused when the Swedish government hired contractors to build a ridge along the perimeter, the purpose of which being to then pour gravel, pebbles and concrete over the vessel. However, that plan was abandoned, due to the port side resting in several metres ofsoft clay and thus the foundations were not firm enough.

Kurm discovered that the diver (not sure if this was an individual or a firm)had been sued by the Swedish government at the time for damaging the seabed. Kurm plans to find out more to investigate the actions and the consequences of this that led to the suit.

The other main finding was that contrary to the JAIC’s assumption in their report that the sliding doors in the car deck or which there were six that the glass therein had smashed, due to the pressure of the water on one side and air pressure on the other as it listed at 30 °, the doors were intact, still shut and not broken at all. However, it is difficult to send n an ROV to examine the others because of the debris and poor visibility.

Kurm wants to bring up the car ramp so that it can be forensically examined. However, Rene Arikas of the official OJK July expedition prefers to examine it underwater.

With the 25,000 images taken during Kurm’s expedition, he hopes to be able to carry out new simulations based on the damage seen to evaluate what exactly happened on the night of 28 September 1994.

Margus Kurm, the director of the Mare Liberum Foundation, pointed out in the mid-term review of the private investigation into the wreck of Estonia that the research is more complicated than expected because the ship has moved ten meters on the seabed.

[...]

... the shipwreck has shifted more than ten meters south on the seabed.
"Wreck wrecking was not a spontaneous and natural process, but a larger wreck wreck took place in 1996, when preparations were made for concreting the shipwreck," Kurm said of the reasons why the wreck is no longer in place.
Kurm explained that the soil was then covered with geotextile, on which sand and gravel were poured. "It is believed that the mass became so heavy that the clay slipped down the slope and the wreck slipped along it. Some of the sand and gravel sank into the crater left by the wreck."


At the same time, Kurm wants to find out the details of why this was the case in 1996.
"The case allegedly culminated in a lawsuit in which the Swedish state sued a worker to damage the seabed and allow the wreck to move," he told himself of new information he intended to investigate further. "Based on the information, experts can assess what might happen during a shipwreck slip."

[...]

.. he admitted that the injuries and dents found indicated a collision, but that he was not competent to say whether the other side was a submarine or a land.

[...]

...two passenger doors in its central section were closed. Kurm explained that the discovery is important because previous simulations have assumed that the doors broke.

[...]

...bringing the ramp off the seabed would help to examine the ship's nose more closely. "It's not a technically very complicated operation."

[...]

...one of the goals of the next expedition could also be to clean the right side of the wreck, where there are several injuries. Mud and soil should be removed to remove them.

ERR

.... The 3D model takes 3-4 weeks.

[...]

It is understandable. You have offered different theories yourself. For example, a collision with a submarine. Do they refute the theory?

Kurm: Neither. If there are penetrating injuries between the hull with a large dent between them, such a dent indicates that the other party to the collision was a submarine or land. But I dare say that it still refers to a collision. I am not competent to say whether that probability is greater - whether it was by submarine or by land.

[...]

... We now have more data on injuries included in these simulations. If so far it has been served that the hull is intact and so simulated, then now we know that the injuries are and it is possible to perform simulations based on new assumptions. Of course, it is possible to analyze and draw conclusions as to why these holes have occurred.

[...]This bottom has been studied in 94 and 96 years. The results of these studies showed that there was clay. If I remember correctly, six different places were studied - the clay layer was different.
This Year-94 diver's film shows clay, but that doesn't mean there's no bedrock inside. That is the work that needs to be done now. Unfortunately, the task is more complicated than it seemed a year ago.

Visually you saw the openings. Can you describe them?

Kurm: These are larger spaces. And in both spaces, the loading is rather flexible. In the event of a collision, he should also destroy the ship's internal structures. I can't tell the exact size right away. This will be clear when our model is ready. The advantage of the model is that then we can measure the injuries and the large dent between the two holes.

12:30
10/12/2021
Kurm: What else to do at the bottom of the sea?
- Bring up the ramp. He's in the mud. It is not a technically complex operation, but it also allows you to explore as a ship.

- Metal samples (larger pieces) from damaged areas so that they can be examined later. These pieces must be large enough to be examined objectively. If a piece of a few centimeters is welded loose from there, the metal is affected during welding. And then is a distinction made between later and earlier influences.

- Clean the left side of the sand. There is 15-20 m of sand in the bow part. Probably the part cast in 96 has been wrecked.

- Clean the side of the mud. There are injuries and then the injured area can be seen better. It is in the shadow of the ground. Removing this so-called mud and soil so that the injuries would come out better. That could be one goal for the next expedition.

12:26
10/12/2021
Kurm: The situation is that it is more difficult to investigate the injuries on the right side and find out the causes, than you might have thought a year ago, because there has been a big slip. If there were injuries before, these injuries could deform, depending on how the wreck shifted.

[...]

... Going a little further, it has become clear that the wreck shift has not been a natural process. In 1996, there was a movement of the wreck as preparations were made for pouring concrete.

Basically, then, the plan was to lay a very long layer of clay and then a layer of soil of gravel and the bottom of the geotextile. All this wreck from the south and bottom covered with geotextile. It is then thought that what happened was that the mass became so heavy that the clay slipped from there with the sand and geotextile. That's how the wreck moved.

[...]

... Kurm: OJK's films also show that there is a white mass that looks like a stone. That's not it - it's soft sticky clay. Here is a picture of larger and smaller stones above the mass. What their origin is, I can't say. Have they been inside this clay in the original already? Or is it the soil material that was poured into it. In 96, when the concreting works were being made, soil material was also placed there.

But between the two large holes there is one area with a larger smooth rock. What can be the bedrock.

12:19
10/12/2021

Kurm: The last and most difficult topic is the seabed. I'll start with some pictures on the screen. Basically, a big injury remains on the right side, there is a rampart in front of it ... What looks like a stone. But this is not a stone.


Kurm: It has also been said through vents. But I mentioned that there are six of these openings and they are located above the car deck. In other words, it is not possible to move water down the openings from the very beginning of the accident.

12:16
10/12/2021

Kurm: The question is not whether they were open or closed. The premise is that the doors broke. It can be seen from the SSPA simulation that the angle of inclination is 35 degrees - that is, all the doors are completely under water and they are under 10 m of water column pressure, and since they are not specially built to be watertight, it has been assumed in the past that they broke. If there is a water column on one side and air on the other, there is a rupture.

Press conference ERR

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah we all know the wreck has shifted by this order of magnitude. That's how/why the impact damage to the starboard hull (which occurred when the ship hit the seabed on the night of its sinking) is now visible - together with the area of the seabed (complete with rock outcrop) which caused the damage.

 

[Steve]

Maybe you really hate the survivors families as these are the people looking for the answers. Why would you mock their need to know?

Oh for......... goodness' sake.

Will you please stop, once and for all, with these pathetic (and wholly improper) attempts at emotional blackmail? You do realise that they're completely antithetical with both the scientific method and logic/reason, don't you?

No, it's ok. I will play along because I would like to see where Vixen will take it.

Vixen, you are correct. I absolutely abhor the entire family of each and every survivor. I think they are complete fools and deserving only of mockery for accepting a single thing that you have posted in this thread as an "answer" or a "fact". They are being completely emotional and are unwilling to accept any science based explanations for any aspect of the sinking. This could all be avoided if you would only provide a coherent narrative for them of what actually happened that night. Can you do this and put me to shame for having such a callous, hateful, mocking attitude toward those families?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Ah, it's clear now that you don't understand the meaning of the term.

I'll give you an example of a Gish Gallop concerning just the Gospels, to enlighten you:

Gish Galloper (GG): Jesus walked on water.

Respondent (R): He did what now? How did he do that? I don't believe that's possible in the real world. I need more explanation.

GG: Jesus turned water into wine.

R: Woah hold on! You haven't explained about the "walking on water" stuff yet! Maybe you'll now explain how he did both these things, seeing as they're both beyond the realms of all known science and human experience.

GG: Jesus raised a man from the dead.

R: Stop changing the subject with these fresh claims! Please can we go back to the first one, and deal with them properly in the order you raised them?

GG: Jesus himself rose from the dead, on Day 3 after he'd been pronounced dead.

R: *bangs head on keyboard*.


Any clearer now as to what a Gish Gallop is? And why the term applies to much of your...uhm..."work" in this thread?

Instead of motte-and-bailey, a Gish Gallop is more of a motte and motte and motte and motte and motte and motte strategy. Many mickles make a muddle.

 

[junkshop]

Maybe you really hate the survivors families as these are the people looking for the answers. Why would you mock their need to know?

Excuse me?

Please illustrate in what way I have mocked "the survivors families".

Do you care so little for the families of those that didn't survive that their desire for answers doesn't deserve mention?

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed reference to material since sent to AAH

 

[ferd burfle]

Try it. Unwind a paper clip and bend it back and forth. It will fatigue and break, and it will be noticeably warm.

yes, I'm familiar with how some metals fatigue when flexed until they yield. but I never knew the underlying mechanism of the adhesion e.g., in explosive cladding. Thanks again.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree, the paraphrase of Westermann's findings and conclusions was simply wrong.

To me, this speaks to a critical factor: the total lack of corroboration/refutation or cross-examination of a witness.

The "Fokus Group" were able to take the work they'd commissioned from Westermann, and (mis)represent her findings with gay abandon - all the while (falsely) imbuing their "interpretations" with the scientific reputation of Westermann. And of course they were able to do this because they knew very well that there was/is no direct mechanism to challenge their "interpretations" - or, for that matter, Westermann's findings. Were Westermann being hired as an expert witness (and then called to testify wrt her findings) for the prosecution in a court of law for example, there would exist - in the self-same forum, in the same timeframe - the opportunity for her to be cross-examined by the defence, and (later) for the defence to address any prosecution interpretations of her work. In addition of course, the defence would have had the opportunity to consult and call their own expert witnesses to offer the court a potentially-different viewpoint.

The 9/11 "truth" movement has utilised this very same tactic for years now: putting a heavily-skewed spin on scientific findings, knowing all the while that there's really no equivalent forum to challenge or refute their spin. And to me, this is one of the major reasons why a certain proportion of the public get sucked into their falsehoods: they (the public) see/read things put out by the "truthers" such as Loose change video, hear an unchallenged (mis)interpretation (such as the one about it being impossible for a Jet-A and office furniture fire to "melt" steel girders, and that therefore this in itself is proof that something like Thermite must have been used), and consequently start to believe that logic and science are actually on the side of the conspiracy theorists.

I believe that the two conspiracy-theory groups that are currently "investigating" the Estonia disaster understand - and are utilising - this sleight-of-hand as well. They know that it can be difficult to challenge inferences and conclusions once those inferences/conclusions are "out there", and have not been challenged at source. Yes, forums such as ISF can - and do - do an excellent job of holding these sorts of claims up to the light; but it's highly likely that an awful lot of people will read about things like the "Fokus Group" findings in the media without ever getting a proper appraisal of those findings.

 

[Vixen]

To me, this speaks to a critical factor: the total lack of corroboration/refutation or cross-examination of a witness.

The "Fokus Group" were able to take the work they'd commissioned from Westermann, and (mis)represent her findings with gay abandon - all the while (falsely) imbuing their "interpretations" with the scientific reputation of Westermann. And of course they were able to do this because they knew very well that there was/is no direct mechanism to challenge their "interpretations" - or, for that matter, Westermann's findings. Were Westermann being hired as an expert witness (and then called to testify wrt her findings) for the prosecution in a court of law for example, there would exist - in the self-same forum, in the same timeframe - the opportunity for her to be cross-examined by the defence, and (later) for the defence to address any prosecution interpretations of her work. In addition of course, the defence would have had the opportunity to consult and call their own expert witnesses to offer the court a potentially-different viewpoint.

The 9/11 "truth" movement has utilised this very same tactic for years now: putting a heavily-skewed spin on scientific findings, knowing all the while that there's really no equivalent forum to challenge or refute their spin. And to me, this is one of the major reasons why a certain proportion of the public get sucked into their falsehoods: they (the public) see/read things put out by the "truthers" such as Loose change video, hear an unchallenged (mis)interpretation (such as the one about it being impossible for a Jet-A and office furniture fire to "melt" steel girders, and that therefore this in itself is proof that something like Thermite must have been used), and consequently start to believe that logic and science are actually on the side of the conspiracy theorists.

I believe that the two conspiracy-theory groups that are currently "investigating" the Estonia disaster understand - and are utilising - this sleight-of-hand as well. They know that it can be difficult to challenge inferences and conclusions once those inferences/conclusions are "out there", and have not been challenged at source. Yes, forums such as ISF can - and do - do an excellent job of holding these sorts of claims up to the light; but it's highly likely that an awful lot of people will read about things like the "Fokus Group" findings in the media without ever getting a proper appraisal of those findings.

For the umpty-ninth time, it is not a conspiracy theory.

Nobody believes the JAIC report.

The findings of Westermann are just the beginning of the new investigation.

 

[JayUtah]

For the umpty-ninth time, it is not a conspiracy theory.



Nobody believes the JAIC report.



The findings of Westermann are just the beginning of the new investigation.

It's obviously a conspiracy theory. You don't speak for everyone regarding the JAIC report. Prof. Westermann explicitly refused to endorse any theory. Don't try to pin your fantasies on her.

 

[junkshop]

Vixen, please address this:

You posted:

Maybe you really hate the survivors families as these are the people looking for the answers. Why would you mock their need to know?

And I responded:

Excuse me?

Please illustrate in what way I have mocked "the survivors families".

Please support your allegation, or admit it was a baseless ad hominem and withdraw it.