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

[JesseCuster]

I don’t remember you managing to post anything showing that these experts had concluded that there was an explosion. Can you link to any of the posts where you did? Or alternatively just post the links to their conclusions.

Earlier in this thread Vixen said that someone who examined the damage said the metal was subject to very high heat.

Vixen then made the frankly bizarre claim that very high heat is also known as a detonation and thus concluded that there was a detonation involved.

Don't be surprised if Vixen is confusing her own bizarre idea about what constitutes a detonation with what a detonation actually is.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah, yes, that was when the thread digressed onto the topic of welding and Vixen learned it involved temperatures over 700 celsius.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It obviously came off. The big question is why. Especially in view of the deformations found in the inner metallic structure consistent with a detonation, as confirmed by two experts, one in explosives (Braidwood) and the other in Material Science. Bearing in mind, survivors reported hard bangs/a collision.

One of your 'experts' claimed from images taken by divers that he saw explosive charges on the ship.
Why do you think that is likely? Why didn't the dives this summer see any explosive charges?

Where does your other expert say there was a 'detonation'?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The two guys concerned, Estonian athletes, have complained the JAIC ignored their statement that the car ramp was shut.

If the y climbed down it the visor was missing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From HS 5.10.1994, just ONE WEEK after the tragedy, the JAIC announces:



As for the estimated speed:

HS

If the big question mark for the JAIC was why the visor locks were broken, how come the Swedish engineer Stenmark threw the Atlantic lock back onto the seabed? It was claimed to be 'too heavy' for the helicopter but it only weighed about 15kg, a fraction of the weight of a human.


As for the ship hurtling along recklessly, this calls into question who was in control? Where was Captain Andresson?

Then they recovered the visor and sent divers down to examine the ship. They spent three years looking at at it and found the reasons.

Why do you think they would know the details of what happened just one week after the event?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The police obviously considered it a crime scene. The retrieval of the attaché case in Voronin/Piht's cabin was a police operation. Likewise, I do not think it at all far fetched that key members of the Estonian crew were rescued (early Y64/Y74 - that is why they are reported as having left early in the papers and then having returned later in the evening via Huddinge Hospital 'bringing a doctor and a nurse' because they had already delivered people there). It is quite possible IMV that the chief engineer, chief medical officer and Captain Piht, were arrested and secreted away for in camera trials elsewhere. Of given witness protection, with new identities.

HS reported Piht alive and well but Captain Andresson drowned.

Back to fantasy land?

 

[Vixen]

Again I'm not doing your homework. You claim that the JAIC was not allowed to investigate sabotage. You have not been able to provide a single source that collaborates this. I have quoted the actual JAIC report where they specifically state that thee were tasked with looking at all causes.

Either retract your statement or provide evidence.

I didn't say they were not allowed to. They studiously avoided making any reference to the possibility. The idea on Day One that 'no-one is to blame' is obviously ludicrous to any rational person because how can they know it was a wave and not a saboteur, especially as a series of bangs were heard at Swedish midnight, which should raise the suspicion of a timed device, just as the vessel was half way through its journey, in international waters and the watch on the bridge was just changing.

So ten years later the Swedish government confirmed it was using the Estonia passenger ferry to smuggle out Soviet military materiel.

I think in a public inquiry, the public had a right to know this fact. Such activity undermines passenger safety, given the necessary criminal elements required to carry out this under the radar activity, bypassing Swedish Customs laws.

 

[GlennB]

If the big question mark for the JAIC was why the visor locks were broken, how come the Swedish engineer Stenmark threw the Atlantic lock back onto the seabed? It was claimed to be 'too heavy' for the helicopter but it only weighed about 15kg, a fraction of the weight of a human.

From a report into inspections of similar locks:

"Cracks and fatigue fractures in the lugs of the locking devices and wear and tear failures in the bolts. Some of the bolts were 78 mm undersize (max. acceptable 3 mm) due to extensive wear. Also corrosion damages were found.
The inspectors found damage to almost every ship's bow visor's locking devices.
Maritime Inspector Tom Sommerdal surveyed about 10 vessels in Helsinki. Also he found wear and tear damages in the lugs and bolts of the locking devices of the bow visors. Also leakages in the hydraulic systems were noted.
The vessels under Estonian flag were in worse condition than those under Finnish flag."

78mm undersize ? What was their original diameter? 200mm, minimum? Assuming the bolts were 600mm long then an online calculator at

https://www.steelexpress.co.uk/steel-weight-calculator.html

says such a cylindrical bolt of 200mmx600mm would weigh 148kg, not the 15kg you claim.

Where did you get your figure? I can find no reference to it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Do read the latest Arikas update (July 2021 expedition) or Kurm (Sept 2021). Both express a desire to find the Atlantic lock. Arikas will do this by magnetic means in Spring 2022, it has reported. Likewise, Kurm planned to find it, report yet to be received.

Do google Stenmark and the Atlantic Lock if you want to check whether it is true he threw it back onto the seabed. It is in the public domain, easily accessible information.

Your claims, you should show us.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You can use the 'search' function on top right of the thread to review previous discussion around these issues.

No point in my repeating them in light of your declared stonewall resistance to any question marks.

a link would be nice. Why should we do your work?

 

[LondonJohn]

Do read the latest Arikas update (July 2021 expedition) or Kurm (Sept 2021). Both express a desire to find the Atlantic lock. Arikas will do this by magnetic means in Spring 2022, it has reported. Likewise, Kurm planned to find it, report yet to be received.

Do google Stenmark and the Atlantic Lock if you want to check whether it is true he threw it back onto the seabed. It is in the public domain, easily accessible information.

1. Please stop using the patronising "Do read" this or "do google" that. OK?

2. I'm asking you for evidence to support your claim for the reason the bottom lock wasn't recovered (and I note in passing your hyperbole in saying "he threw it back" - very illuminating of your honesty in this debate).

 

[LondonJohn]

You can use the 'search' function on top right of the thread to review previous discussion around these issues.

No point in my repeating them in light of your declared stonewall resistance to any question marks.

You seem not to understand the rules of honest debate, Vixen.

Anyone who makes a claim should be able to present evidence supporting that claim if/when asked to do so.

 

[Vixen]

One of your 'experts' claimed from images taken by divers that he saw explosive charges on the ship.
Why do you think that is likely? Why didn't the dives this summer see any explosive charges?

Where does your other expert say there was a 'detonation'?

When watching the Rockwater tapes, Braidwood spotted the 'device'-looking package. Mysteriously, this image was removed from a later tape.

 

[LondonJohn]

Earlier in this thread Vixen said that someone who examined the damage said the metal was subject to very high heat.

Vixen then made the frankly bizarre claim that very high heat is also known as a detonation and thus concluded that there was a detonation involved.

Don't be surprised if Vixen is confusing her own bizarre idea about what constitutes a detonation with what a detonation actually is.

Unfortunately, Vixen's understanding of thermodynamics is as poor as her understanding of all of physics, and all of science. She doesn't know what she's talking about wrt this matter.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah, yes, that was when the thread digressed onto the topic of welding and Vixen learned it involved temperatures over 700 celsius.

Ahhhhhh happy days! "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm going to make declarative claims anyhow and try to bluff it out"

 

[Andy_Ross]

When watching the Rockwater tapes, Braidwood spotted the 'device'-looking package. Mysteriously, this image was removed from a later tape.

'device-looking package'?

One looks like an old, taped up cardboard box, the other is something square.

What kind of 'device' do they look like?

If they are explosives why are they there?
If they exploded they wouldn't be there.
If they didn't explode how did the bow come off?

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't say they were not allowed to. They studiously avoided making any reference to the possibility. The idea on Day One that 'no-one is to blame' is obviously ludicrous to any rational person because how can they know it was a wave and not a saboteur, especially as a series of bangs were heard at Swedish midnight, which should raise the suspicion of a timed device, just as the vessel was half way through its journey, in international waters and the watch on the bridge was just changing.

So ten years later the Swedish government confirmed it was using the Estonia passenger ferry to smuggle out Soviet military materiel.

I think in a public inquiry, the public had a right to know this fact. Such activity undermines passenger safety, given the necessary criminal elements required to carry out this under the radar activity, bypassing Swedish Customs laws.

Yes, I find it outrageous that the JAIC Report never mentioned the possibility of Russian MiG air strikes on the ship either. And because they never mentioned it in the report, I can safely conclude that they never even considered it. Yes, that's really solid reasoning on my part.




(In truth, there is a whole sleuth of other possibilities that the JAIC also never mentioned in its report. But it's bone-headed idiocy to conclude that if 1) they never mentioned it in the report, therefore 2) they never even examined it (and ruled it out))

 

[Vixen]

...

 

[LondonJohn]

'device-looking package'?

Yeah! You know! A, er, package.... that looks like......uhmmm..... a device

One looks like an old, taped up cardboard box, the other is something square.

What kind of 'device' do they look like?

If they are explosives why are they there?
If they exploded they wouldn't be there.
If they didn't explode how did the bow come off?

Stop dealing in logic and reason! Don't you know that they're kryptonite to conspiracy theories?!

 

[Here_to_learn]

The preliminary report is the final report. The scope of the investigation was the bow area. Full stop. Period.
.

As the JAIC never investigated the possibility of sabotage, then it is a moot point.

That is your statements. I've shown that your initial statement is wrong, by quoting directly from the JAIC report:

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.

We can all see that their scope was not limited they way you claim it was.

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?

A whole sleuth of them.

You haven't been able to link to a single statement from a member of JAIC that show that they were forbidden/stopped from investigating inline with the full scope.

Then you claim this:

I didn't say they were not allowed to. They studiously avoided making any reference to the possibility.

So exactly what have you changed your statement to now? You agree that your statement about the scope was wrong, and that potential sabotage was within the scope? You agree that nobody in the JAIC was stopped from investigating potential sabotage? You just are not happy with that the final report doesn't mention it?

What else should they have mentioned that they excluded? Hitting an iceberg? Colliding with another ferry? Running aground? Having a controlled demolition remotely initiated from a grassy knoll, after having been signaled by a flag that should't have moved due to lack of wind?