• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here_to_learn said:
I don't understand how your answer related to my question.

This was my question, on two possible scenarios:

1. The preliminary reports all talk about terrorism. The final report conclude that it was a technical fault.
2. The preliminary reports all talk about technical fault. The final report conclude that it was a technical fault.

Out of the two scenarios, which one one upset you the most?
Click to expand...

I don't answer hypothetical questions. As the JAIC never investigated the possibility of sabotage, then it is a moot point.
 
Vixen said:
The only survivor who had been interviewed as of 28.9.1994, the day Bildt made his announcement was Henrik Sillaste...
Click to expand...

Oh, not this **** again. We have been over and over this. Your objection is based on the asinine assumption that Sillaste's first formal interview is the only information that was available to Bildt. You cannot show that the survivors did not tell everyone who would listen about what they had experienced and you certainly cannot show that nobody briefed the Swedish PM before his press conference.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You just quoted a newspaper report on the preliminary findings. Where's this "fine detail" about the scope of the enquiry?
Click to expand...

The Commission is of the opinion that the vessel lost its stability and was overturned by the water accumulated on the car deck. The water got to the car deck at the bow ramp. Video descriptions of the Estonia wreck show that at some point the ship had lost its visor. The images show that the visper locking brackets on the hull of the vessel have been broken.

Kari Lehtola, a member of the International Commission of Inquiry and chairman of the Finnish Major Accident Investigation Planning Board, says that it is not yet known whether the fracture of the visor attachment mechanism was caused by metal fatigue or local overload. So far, the side mortgages of the visor have not been studied.

The Commission therefore decided that more frontal parts of the wreck will be filmed with robotic cameras in the coming weeks. The Commission will then next meet in Tallinn.

In addition, before dispersing, the Commission decided that the Estonian and Finnish delegations would launch the search for estonia vis-10. "It is absolutely essential to find and lift the visor to determine the reason for its detachment," Lehtola says. So far, it is not known how much the visor came off before estonia sank. According to the Commission of Inquiry, it appears that since estonia lost its visor, the waves have gradually caused the bow ramp fasteners to give way and the ramp has opened somewhat outwards. It has not yet been possible to determine whether the ramp's fastenings were broken or opened. It is also not yet known whether the detachment of the visor already caused a leak in estonia.

According to the Commission's report, it has so far not been possible to point out any faults in the ramp fastening system that would explain why the ramp opened in the sea. Nor has it been yet been able to investigate the betrayal of the ship's distress signal lines.
Click to expand...
ibid

You do know this was a press conference called by the JAIC itself?

The JAIC never 'investigated' [haha, when it threw the main culprit, the Atlantic lock onto the seabed instead of actually examining it properly in the laboratories] anything other than what it outlined in its preliminary report, just seven days after the disaster and Carl Bildt's announcement, 'Move along, nothing to see here!'
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Oh, not this **** again. We have been over and over this. Your objection is based on the asinine assumption that Sillaste's first formal interview is the only information that was available to Bildt. You cannot show that the survivors did not tell everyone who would listen about what they had experienced and you certainly cannot show that nobody briefed the Swedish PM before his press conference.
Click to expand...

The survivors were treated as potential suspects and were not allowed to mix with others or speak to anyone on the phone without giving police the recipient's ID and in the presence of police.

One survivor complained of being roughly made to board a bus on dry land against his will.
 
Vixen said:
Once 'switched on' a signal is emitted to the relevant receiving satellite.


The tests indicate that the buoys did not automatically activate as they should have.
Click to expand...


I have to conclude at this point that you're entirely devoid of comprehension (and entirely devoid of a proper appreciation of the underlying science) on this matter.

Because...... the EPIRBs on the Estonia that night were not capable of automatic activation. They could only be activated through being manually switched on by a crew member. That is a 100% certainty, backed up by that thing you seem utterly unfamiliar with: reliable evidence.
 
Vixen said:
ibid

You do know this was a press conference called by the JAIC itself?

The JAIC never 'investigated' [haha, when it threw the main culprit, the Atlantic lock onto the seabed instead of actually examining it properly in the laboratories] anything other than what it outlined in its preliminary report, just seven days after the disaster and Carl Bildt's announcement, 'Move along, nothing to see here!'
Click to expand...

Another invented quote and more manufactured outrage. You have a newspaper report on preliminary findings and the proposed further investigations of the bows. You then assume that's all the evidence they considered. So for example you believe they found the transcripts for the radio communications that night by having divers examine the bows. Is that right? They established there was no fault in the EPIRBs by having divers examine the bows. etc. etc.
 
Vixen said:
I don't answer hypothetical questions.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. You like to post hypothetical, but don't dare show your own thinking.

Vixen said:
As the JAIC never investigated the possibility of sabotage, then it is a moot point.
Click to expand...

From the final report:

https://www.multi.fi/estonia/estorap.html said:
PREFACE

The Joint Accident Investigation Commission has concluded its investigation of the foundering of the MV ESTONIA, a disaster that has taken the greatest toll of human life in the Baltic Sea in times of peace.

The Commission has thoroughly considered all available information directly related to the accident and the rescue operation. The information includes documents and statements regarding the ship and its operation, witness statements, analysis of the prevailing weather and sea conditions, results from diving investigations and analysis of the recovered bow visor. In addition, to reach a full understanding of the sequence of events, the Commission has initiated theoretical and experimental studies to analyse in more detail the vessel's wave-induced motion and loads, structural strength, manoeuvring characteristics and stability when flooded. The Commission has furthermore found it necessary to investigate the design procedures and operating history of the vessel as well as to collect information on other bow visor failure incidents and to consider legal and administrative issues.

This final report covers all factors and circumstances considered to have contributed to the development and outcome of the accident. In the report the Commission presents the facts found, the analysis and evaluation, conclusions drawn on the basis of the work and the recommendations made to help prevent the occurrence of similar accidents in the future. The fundamental purpose of investigating the accident was to determine its circumstances and causes, with the aim of improving the safety of life at sea and avoiding further accidents. It is not the Commission's task to apportion liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve the fundamental purpose, to apportion blame.
Click to expand...
How do you know that JAIC never investigated the possibility of sabotage? They say that the final report only include what actually had contributed to the accident.

Do you have any documents or reports from JAIC members where they are specifically forbidden to investigate that aspect? Any whistlelblowers?
 
Vixen said:
Herewith.
Click to expand...


Yet again, you post evidence related to the free-float mechanism for the buoy. And yet again, you appear -hilariously and astonishingly, all at the same time - to be unable to grasp that automatic free-float deployment is an entirely independent matter from automatic electronics/radio-transmitter activation.

Science really isn't your strong point is it, Vixen?


ETA: And "herewith" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
Vixen said:
Whether they expedited the rescue effort or not is not the issue. The JAIC was supposed to investigate the accident. Their entire scope was the bow visor and nothing else. It writes off the communications problems as a wee glitch by MRCC Turku and Helsinki Radio, together with the EPIRB's not reacting as they should, as, 'it matters not, as it would not have speeded up rescue'.

Imagine if they were tasked with investigating, say, a car crash. For some inexplicable reason the airbags didn't automatically work as they should. The JAIC would say, 'Ah well, they would have died anyway, so who cares about the non-activating airbags?'


Shocking.
Click to expand...

They were investigated, they were in working order and when tested operated as they were supposed to.
 
Vixen said:
Er, the Joint Accident Investigation Committee (JAIC) in its preliminary report, just SEVEN DAYS after the disaster.

HS

Impressive!!!

So that is settled then.
Click to expand...

Your own post says it was not just a wave that did it.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The survivors were treated as potential suspects and were not allowed to mix with others or speak to anyone on the phone without giving police the recipient's ID and in the presence of police.

One survivor complained of being roughly made to board a bus on dry land against his will.
Click to expand...

So they were prevented from talking to outsiders, except when they told the police who they were talking to and the police could listen in they were allowed. And you think somehow that means nobody could learn anything they were saying and pass it on to higher authorities. I wonder if it's possible the police took note of anything they were saying. What do you think?
 
Vixen said:
The accident happened on a Wednesday and the wreck not discovered until Friday, 30.9.1994.
Click to expand...


Exactly as he said. Two days later. And not "two weeks later" as you'd originally claimed.

You're still pathologically unable to admit to being wrong, I note.....



HS 30.9.1994

Strangely, initial sonar imaging taken at the time reported the bow visor was with the wreck.
Click to expand...


Yeah.....no. You clearly know nothing whatsoever about Sonar imaging either. In fact, is there anything relevant to this disaster about which you are qualified to offer a properly-sourced, properly-researched, properly-understood and properly-reasoned opinion?



HS

Question: how on earth did Lehtola decide the 'bow visor had not been found after all' the very next day, when divers had yet to go down?
Click to expand...


Because...... the bow visor was not actually anywhere near the ship when divers put physical eyes on the wreckage (as opposed to an imprecise and ambiguous Sonar image).



Obviously, Lehtola had special psychic ability. Firstly, to know that the sonar image of the bow visor was not the bow visor and secondly the clairvoyant ability to know that the divers who had not yet dived would discover...the bow visor would not be there.
Click to expand...


You're being stupid again. As I said: you clearly know nothing whatsoever about Sonar imaging (and specifically, its limitations and its inherent imprecision).
 
Vixen said:
For the umpteenth time, the fact the automatic buoys failed to automatically activate (which they still would have done had they been automatically switched on by a quick thinking member of crew, so that rules a manual switch on out).
Click to expand...


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *breathes* AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!


Tell us all a bit more about how the buoys could have been "automatically switched on by a quick-thinking member of the crew", Vixen.

We're in clown-school territory at this point, ladies and gentlemen.


(Oh and I hate to break it to you Vixen, but the EPIRBs on the Estonia did not feature an automatic activation feature. I know that may come as a big shock to you, and I offer you my condolences at this difficult time.)
 
GlennB said:
Wut?

That would mean each victim would need around 2 thousand Swedes who could reasonably be described as a 'relative, friend or colleague'.
Click to expand...


People tend to give themselves away embarrassingly when they pull "facts" like this straight out of their waste pipes. Although in this particular case of course, the "giving themselves away embarrassingly" part was already conclusively reached a long, long time ago.......
 
Vixen said:
Whether they expedited the rescue effort or not is not the issue. The JAIC was supposed to investigate the accident. Their entire scope was the bow visor and nothing else. It writes off the communications problems as a wee glitch by MRCC Turku and Helsinki Radio, together with the EPIRB's not reacting as they should, as, 'it matters not, as it would not have speeded up rescue'.

Imagine if they were tasked with investigating, say, a car crash. For some inexplicable reason the airbags didn't automatically work as they should. The JAIC would say, 'Ah well, they would have died anyway, so who cares about the non-activating airbags?'


Shocking.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you're talking about.

Read the JAIC Report again. Properly, this time. With your (metaphorical) fingers taken out of your ears.
 
Vixen said:
Occam's razor tells you Bildt and Lehtola were sure of the bow visor having come off - although no-one, not even Sillaste reported this at the time - because they were already informed of this by the Swedish intelligence services.
Click to expand...


No. That's the rule known as "Vixen's Bogus Razor".

Occam's Razor, on the other hand, tells us that Bildt almost certainly got the information about the bow visor via survivors - either directly, or via hospital/rescue staff, or via police or other first-line investigators.


"Swedish intelligence" LOLOLOL. Did it involve the captain of the mythical Swedish submarine which rammed the Estonia?

Seriously, Vixen: do you really not realise quite how crackpot your position is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom