• 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.
LondonJohn said:
Maybe the mythical saboteurs were stopped from detonating their "follow-up" explosives by their leader shouting at them <fx cockney voice>

"You're only supposed to blow the bloody bow door off!"
Click to expand...

Torpedoes and IRA mortars were mentioned as examples of "It's the military way. You don't just attack once you follow it up."

This ignores the difference between an explosive fixed to an object and one launched towards it.

If there were two charges on one of the visor pivots or locks the first one exploding would disrupt or destroy the second one.
This has to be obvious even to someone who has no knowledge of the subject.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I think she is seriously underestimating the scale of the engineering involved in the bow visor, it's pivots and locking mechanism.
Click to expand...


I also think she has little or no concept of the density of steel, and consequently has little or no concept of how heavy even fairly small steel components can be.
 
Vixen said:
Are we going back into the realms of double-headed hammers and cannonballs again?

On 7 February 1991. The IRA launched three homemade mortar shells at 10 Downing Street, London.

In 1945 the Soviets attacked the Wilhelm Gustloff with a triple torpedo.

If the devices are situated at the bow visor side locks and/or the Atlantic lock, then it will have the effect of loosening them and then - come on waves! do your thing!

Likewise, similar explosives in the car deck along the starboard side, or in the swimming pool area, as some believe.
Click to expand...



LMAOOOOOO "As some believe"*

Don't shoot the messenger, amirite?


* Out of the same play book as "Some people are saying that....", "Word has gone around that..." "It's thought that.....". In other words, an intellectually-dishonest way of introducing a claim with zero attribution and zero supporting evidence.
 
Hey Vixen: what's the mass (in kg - or in grams if you prefer :D) of a steel bolt with diameter 20cm and length 60cm?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Torpedoes and IRA mortars were mentioned as examples of "It's the military way. You don't just attack once you follow it up."

This ignores the difference between an explosive fixed to an object and one launched towards it.
Click to expand...


I know. It's a pitiful attempt at self-justification.



If there were two charges on one of the visor pivots or locks the first one exploding would disrupt or destroy the second one.
This has to be obvious even to someone who has no knowledge of the subject.
Click to expand...


Yes.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that it was entirely apparent to the investigators that the hull-side lugs on the bottom lock of the bow visor had failed due to the combination of deformation-based fatigue and load stress. They did not fail due to explosive detonation. But hey: this little inconvenient truth is neither here nor there, when you've got a CT to invest in.......
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I think she is seriously underestimating the scale of the engineering involved in the bow visor, it's pivots and locking mechanism.
Click to expand...

Remember: we are talking about the 78mm - 79mm in diameter bolt, not the entire lock.

The Part report (16) page 19 states that the bolt was salvaged and inspected and that the diameter was 79,8 mm throughout except at the contact point with the visor lug where it was 79,4 mm. These are very accurate figures. Strangely enough no photographs were taken of the bolt. The Final report (5) page 125 on the other hand states that the bolt diameter was about 78 mm (sic) with little wear at the lug.
Click to expand...
Heiwa
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why do you use a 'series of explosives?

If you use a charge to blow the bow off, what are you 'following up'?

How big do you think the charges needed to blow the bows off a ship are going to be?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
On 7 February 1991. The IRA launched three homemade mortar shells at 10 Downing Street, London.
Click to expand...
How does the IRA's mortar attack on Downing Street explain why a "series of explosives" would be used on the Estonia? Why not blow everything at once, especially given that you think there might have been timed devices involved? :confused:

Seriously, I'm scoobied as to what the IRA mortar attack on Downing Street is meant to prove here.
 
Vixen said:
Remember: we are talking about the 78mm - 79mm in diameter bolt, not the entire lock.

Heiwa
Click to expand...


Then why did you talk about the investigators "throwing the Atlantic lock back" onto the seabed?

Your contributions to this thread are a joke. A bad joke.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Torpedoes and IRA mortars were mentioned as examples of "It's the military way. You don't just attack once you follow it up."

This ignores the difference between an explosive fixed to an object and one launched towards it.

If there were two charges on one of the visor pivots or locks the first one exploding would disrupt or destroy the second one.
This has to be obvious even to someone who has no knowledge of the subject.
Click to expand...

The bow visor had three sides to its locking mechanism: the port and starboard side and the atlantic lock at the base.


Why wouldn't a saboteur place semtex type material against the key locks?

ISTM that whoever was responsible - if it was sabotage - was making it an absolute certainty that the vessel would halt there by hook or by crook. This wouldn't be a couple of amateur jihadists with a small boat packed with 700kg of explosives, as with USS Cole, these are people who carefully planned it down to a 'T'. The time, the place, the radio interference, the no hope of rescue.
 
Vixen said:
Remember: we are talking about the 78mm - 79mm in diameter bolt, not the entire lock.

Heiwa
Click to expand...

No. Inspection of similar locks found that some were as much as 78mm worn down, not 78mm in original diameter. Heiwa is a nutcase and has either misunderstood the report or has deliberately misrepresented it.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
How does the IRA's mortar attack on Downing Street explain why a "series of explosives" would be used on the Estonia? Why not blow everything at once, especially given that you think there might have been timed devices involved? :confused:

Seriously, I'm scoobied as to what the IRA mortar attack on Downing Street is meant to prove here.
Click to expand...


It's intended to be an attempt at justification. The fact that its author doesn't even realise the large quantum of difference which negates the attempted comparison.... just adds to the bemusement and dismissal on the part of any literate observer.
 
JesseCuster said:
How does the IRA's mortar attack on Downing Street explain why a "series of explosives" would be used on the Estonia? Why not blow everything at once, especially given that you think there might have been timed devices involved? :confused:

Seriously, I'm scoobied as to what the IRA mortar attack on Downing Street is meant to prove here.
Click to expand...

The point being made is that professionals know that to make an effect attack you need to back it up in case the first attempt doesn't quite come off.
 
LondonJohn said:
LMAOOOOOO "As some believe"
Click to expand...
That's what Wikipedia refers to as "weasel words".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

"Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis"
 
Vixen said:
The bow visor had three sides to its locking mechanism: the port and starboard side and the atlantic lock at the base.


Why wouldn't a saboteur place semtex type material against the key locks?

ISTM that whoever was responsible - if it was sabotage - was making it an absolute certainty that the vessel would halt there by hook or by crook. This wouldn't be a couple of amateur jihadists with a small boat packed with 700kg of explosives, as with USS Cole, these are people who carefully planned it down to a 'T'. The time, the place, the radio interference, the no hope of rescue.
Click to expand...

How much 'semtex type material' would be needed?
How would placing it 'against' the 'key locks' work?

Placing one charge at each point is not the same as a 'series of explosives' like mortar or torpedo attacks.

But it didn't stop there 'by hook or by crook' From the first sign of trouble to the final sinking the ship moved a considerable distance.

As for no hope of rescue, ships were on the scene within an hour of receiving a distress signal and people were rescued. This also shows that the radio worked.

They made a bit of a hash of it if they were supposed to be professionals.
 
Vixen said:
The atlantic lock bolt had a diameter of 78mm - 79mm, not centimetres, so you can divide your result by ten.
Click to expand...


No, you can divide the result by 6.6.

Where did you get "10" from? Do you know how to do that calculation?


And........

Do you actually know how the bottom lock failed, Vixen? And therefore which parts would have been relevant from a salvage perspective?

(Hint: it had nothing to do with the bolt itself)
 
At this point I'll admit to the very real possibility that I was wildly wrong about the diameter of the bolt. The JAIC report does agree with Heiwa/Vixen, although the 78mm degree of wear found in similar bolts then makes no sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom