Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[LondonJohn]

Sillaste claims he was down there fixing a problem with the sewage for a passenger section on Deck 1 - but who the heck fixes a minor issue with the loo at 1:00am in the morning?

Firstly, who's decided that the passenger's issue with his/her/their toilet was "minor"? You? Heaven forfend! So let's start by striking out the adjective "minor", shall we?

And secondly, I should imagine the answer to your question is: the crewmember tasked with fixing the problem, so that a paying passenger isn't prevented from sleeping or going to the toilet by either the smell or the volume of sewage backing up to their toilet. Wouldn't you think?

Or do you think that the "correct" or "normal" customer service response to a complaint of this nature would have been to tell the passenger to simply put up with it. Who the heck fixes a minor issue with the loo at 1.00am in the morning anyway, eh?


ETA: Damn! Ninja'd again!! I'm going to have to get back on my game - I knew watching an Attenborough "origins of life" doc on Sky Nature was going to turn out to be a bad idea

 

[whoanellie]

I did not say 'aft' means stern. Aft simply refers to the posterior end of the ship as opposed to the fore. If the JAIC were referring specifically to the aft starboard windows they would have said so. Instead they just say aft, as do Rockwater. It also refers to the direction.


Just because YOU infer they mean starboard doesn't mean they said it.

But the JAIC did say starboard. Its really not hard to understand what they wrote. Are you lying or just not very good at reading comprehension?

 

[LondonJohn]

Which is why many universities, including the one I taught at, do not allow Wikipedia as a source. Just admit that you used a poor source and that much more reliable sources -- the ship's plans and the published legal findings of the relevant investigative board -- contradict your belief. Just admit you said something that wasn't correct. Is that too much?

Indeed.

I remember that - for quite some time IIRC - the Wikipedia entry for Gerry Rafferty (Stealers Wheel, & his own band) stated that the legendary sax riff/motif for the seminal track "Baker Street" was played on the record by British actor & TV quiz show presenter Bob Holness.

On that occasion, the reference was put into Wikipedia as a joke (on account of a weird urban myth that had done the rounds a few years earlier), but people put incorrect information into Wikipedia all the time. Sometimes it's politically- or agenda-motivated; sometimes it's as a joke; sometimes it's someone wanting to gild their own Wikipedia entry; sometimes it's an honest error. The Wikipedia entry for a certain notorious murder in Italy in 2007 was, for a while, hijacked by a small group of zealots seeking to re-write history so that it best fitted with their own (incorrect) agenda (Jimmy Wales himself ended up intervening on that one, and gave the zealots a well-deserved smackdown...).

So yes, not everything one reads on Wikipedia is the factual truth. In many cases, a person using incorrect info from Wikipedia as source material in the first instance should not be held at fault for doing so - though of course if the person is challenged, the intellectually-honest response should be to go back to primary sources, rather than to denounce the correction as incorrect in and of itself. But in other cases (as is the case for this thread, for example), the debate on a subject has already reached a level where participants ought to know intuitively whether or not certain information is accurate/true/correct. In these cases, it's far less forgivable for a person to blindly rely on secondary (or tertiary) sources.

I know, for example, that if had been participating a few years ago in an in-depth online debate about Gerry Rafferty's solo career, and in particular his album "City to City", then a) I'd have been instinctively sceptical if I'd read on Wikipedia about the Bob Holness sax story, and b) I'd without doubt have double checked via primary sources (or, at the very least, multiple secondary sources) before going into the debate with "Hey guys! You're going to be amazed when I tell you that........"

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Really?

Yes, really. What point in the timeline did you imagine we were talking about when the topic is the windows on deck 4 being broken in by the sea?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

In addition, the JAIC claims the ship is in a state of stability, even though the centre of gravity is higher than the centre of buoyancy.

What do you mean "even though"?! A ship's center of gravity is *supposed* to be above its center of bouyancy!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes, I saw it. He is full of crap.

That is not detcord, and there is a big dent in the protruding bow section below the ramp where the visor clipped it.

The video clear shows the visor was wrenched off, not blow off with explosives, and that the ramp was yanked open with enough force to bend the lower frame. And this is why it has fallen off in the decades since the sinking.

If it *were* detcord, then it obviously didn't go off. Expended detcord doesn't look like that.

 

[LondonJohn]

Isn't it more probable that Treu, Sillaste and Kaduk knew there was a problem with water ingressing the hull and, far from fixing toilets, they were operating bilge pumps all systems go...because they were up to their knees in water...in the hull

It is no coincidence these three, together with Linde were survivors, as they knew the ship was sinking from get-go. Treu even managed to take his passport with him.

I would imagine that any/every experienced member of that crew would have known full well - within literally seconds of learning that the bow visor had failed and detached, that the bow ramp had been fatally compromised in the process, and that water was now pouring in through the bow opening onto the vehicle deck - that the ship was in a gigantic (and probably terminal) amount of trouble.

Your point is...?

 

[LondonJohn]

And the difference between a hole 'above the water line' and an open car ramp is...?

This one's been explained to you several times already as well. I'm not surprised that you are either unwilling or unable to process the explanation though.

Perhaps the most eloquent way to try explaining it to you again would be to direct you back to that video of the ferry in the Irish Sea sailing in rough weather (though weather that was actually less severe that that which the Estonia encountered that night). If you view that video again, please take careful note of two things:

1) the way the bow repeatedly digs into the swell (meaning that if the bow opening had been compromised - even above the waterline - large volumes of water would have easily poured through the compromised opening every time the bow dug in like that);

2) the way the visible starboard beam of the ferry is not dipping in and out of water (and that in fact, the only water rising any appreciable way above the waterline here is occasional splashes - none of which would pose any problem whatsoever to the viability of the ferry, even if there had been an above-the-waterline opening here).

Hope that helps! Gotta say: I'm loving hating your work!

 

[LondonJohn]

We have no evidence that the hole was there before the ship sank.

But not only do we have no evidence that the hole was there before the ship sank..... we also have plenty of evidence* that the hole (and the other damaged around the hole) was in fact caused when the ship hit the seabed on the night it sank.


* That evidence comprising of a) the knowledge that the Estonia hit the seabed on its starboard side on the night it sank, in precisely this area of damage; b) the knowledge that the ship shifted at some time between around 1997 and 2015, exposing (for the first time) that area of damage to the starboard hull; and c) the fact that the area of the seabed that was freshly exposed, and that was situated directly adjacent to the now-exposed damage to the starboard hull.... contained a rock outcrop whose geometry matched the damage to the hull precisely.

The inescapable conclusion is that when the ship sank, and its starboard side hit the seabed (with considerable momentum and KE), the rock outcrop and its surroundings caused damage to the starboard hull (including the puncture in the hull). All of this was invisible to investigators until the ship shifted on the seabed, at which point not only was the damage to the hull revealed, but also revealed was the very area of the seabed which had caused that damage.

I suspect this would have been a no-pipe problem for Holmes......

 

[LondonJohn]

If it *were* detcord, then it obviously didn't go off. Expended detcord doesn't look like that.

In yet another point of similarity to the debate around a certain infamous murder in Italy in 2007, the conspiracy theorists wrt the Estonia disaster need there to be two separate Swedish Navies:

1) The super-sleuth, devastatingly devious, devastatingly efficient Swedish Navy, who not only engineered the sinking, but then took quite brilliant steps to cover up their involvement and make it look like the disaster was entirely caused by the catastrophic failure of the bow opening mechanism;

and

2) The hapless, incompetent, careless Swedish Navy, who left explosives and detcord lying around on the wreck, and who made it ridiculously easy for the crackpots truthseekers to figure out what they'd done and why they'd done it.

If only we could find a Captain Olanda in the Swedish Navy who was the point guy for all of this. We could then posit the nicely-symmetrical paradox of Captain Olanda vs Hapless Olanda.....

 

[Andy_Ross]

In yet another point of similarity to the debate around a certain infamous murder in Italy in 2007, the conspiracy theorists wrt the Estonia disaster need there to be two separate Swedish Navies:

1) The super-sleuth, devastatingly devious, devastatingly efficient Swedish Navy, who not only engineered the sinking, but then took quite brilliant steps to cover up their involvement and make it look like the disaster was entirely caused by the catastrophic failure of the bow opening mechanism;

and

2) The hapless, incompetent, careless Swedish Navy, who left explosives and detcord lying around on the wreck, and who made it ridiculously easy for the crackpots truthseekers to figure out what they'd done and why they'd done it.

If only we could find a Captain Olanda in the Swedish Navy who was the point guy for all of this. We could then posit the nicely-symmetrical paradox of Captain Olanda vs Hapless Olanda.....

It's the same with 9/11 and Apollo conspiracies.

 

[Steve]

In yet another point of similarity to the debate around a certain infamous murder in Italy in 2007, the conspiracy theorists wrt the Estonia disaster need there to be two separate Swedish Navies:

1) The super-sleuth, devastatingly devious, devastatingly efficient Swedish Navy, who not only engineered the sinking, but then took quite brilliant steps to cover up their involvement and make it look like the disaster was entirely caused by the catastrophic failure of the bow opening mechanism;

and

2) The hapless, incompetent, careless Swedish Navy, who left explosives and detcord lying around on the wreck, and who made it ridiculously easy for the crackpots truthseekers to figure out what they'd done and why they'd done it.

If only we could find a Captain Olanda in the Swedish Navy who was the point guy for all of this. We could then posit the nicely-symmetrical paradox of Captain Olanda vs Hapless Olanda.....

A properly planned conspiracy is required, as written in Bob's Rules of Conspiracies and Disaster Creation - Seventh Edition to leave certain clues that can be discovered only through the internet sleuthing of sufficiently credulous laypersons. The Swedish Navy followed this requirement to perfection and we are seeing the results in this very thread. Heads will roll at the appropriate future time now that all the clues have been unraveled.

 

[junkshop]

Wrong. It was not a colloquialism it was actually the chorus of a popular song on the folk circuit and we all had to sing along. (Not sure if it was Jeremy Taylor, famous for 'Jobsworth'.)

What you mean "we", kemo sabe?



ETA: I know I'm a little late to the game with this comment, but I had stuff to do and I'm playing catch-up. Sorry (also, I have learned a lot about ships and how they work from this thread, so thank you).

ETA2: Additionally, I apologise for the weak and somewhat forced nature of my joke, but (given the context) I couldn't resist. I hope, dear reader, you will understand and forgive me my self-indulgence.

ETA3: If such a short and inconsequential post requires so many ETAs a convincing argument could be offered that it shouldn't have been submitted. Alternatively it could be argued that typing out my internal monologue detracts from the point of the original post. I don't know, I may have had a 'refreshment' or two. I'll stop now (the typing, not the drinking).

 

[GlennB]

What do you mean "we", kemo sabe?

I suspect Vixen was in Cockney folk clubs and misheard their rhyming slang.

Somewhere in Peckham, at a guess.

 

[Axxman300]

Just listing some obvious facts:

1. The ship landed on the bottom on its starboard side.

2. The sea floor is inclined.

3. The Estonia has shifted further to the starboard in the two decades on the bottom.

4. There are many stress factors effecting the wreck in this time stretch, the two biggest are rust/metal fatigue, and the currents.

I'm surprised there isn't more damage to the hull.

 

[junkshop]

I suspect Vixen was in Cockney folk clubs and misheard their rhyming slang.

Somewhere in Peckham, at a guess.

I wouldn't know about that. I'm not an accountant.

 

[Kid Eager]

Just listing some obvious facts:

1. The ship landed on the bottom on its starboard side.

2. The sea floor is inclined.

3. The Estonia has shifted further to the starboard in the two decades on the bottom.

4. There are many stress factors effecting the wreck in this time stretch, the two biggest are rust/metal fatigue, and the currents.

I'm surprised there isn't more damage to the hull.

There was more damage, but it was covered up by MI6-contracted Cockney welders operating out of a Swedish mini sub.

 

[Axxman300]

There was more damage, but it was covered up by MI6-contracted Cockney welders operating out of a Swedish mini sub.

 

[Vixen]

I suspect Vixen was in Cockney folk clubs and misheard their rhyming slang.

Somewhere in Peckham, at a guess.

Heh. Anyone who frequented the London Soho folk circuit (Bunjies) might recognise the song. Similar vein to 'Goldwatch Blues' or 'Motor Cycle Song' (Guthrie).

 

[Vixen]

Just listing some obvious facts:

1. The ship landed on the bottom on its starboard side.

2. The sea floor is inclined.

3. The Estonia has shifted further to the starboard in the two decades on the bottom.

4. There are many stress factors effecting the wreck in this time stretch, the two biggest are rust/metal fatigue, and the currents.

I'm surprised there isn't more damage to the hull.

None of that cancels out the hole in the starboard before it sank.