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

[LondonJohn]

Ha. I'd forgotten that. Also, the source of that "theory" was a parody website, which she desperately tried to defend her use of..

Oh gosh, I'd forgotten about that zinger too! And as you say, how very revealing that even then, Vixen simply couldn't admit any error or gullibility LOL.

It's astonishing how often Vixen throws out these weird scenarios, makes an attempt to defend them as plausible and how various journalists, eyewitnesses, experts, etc. confirm the scenario, only for it to be forgotten as some new mutually exclusive fantasy scenario takes its place.

What happened to the large object moving at 2-4 knots and which weighed 1,000 to 5,000Kg colliding with the Estonia?

Remember when Vixen said that the most likely cause of the sinking of the Estonia was an accidental collision with an escorting British or Swedish submarine? I wonder what the half-life of these hypotheses are.

Ah, but remember: she was "just the messenger" for claims that others had put forward. Until, that is, the curtain dropped and she confirmed (as we all knew already anyhow) that she was fully signed-up to all these batty conspiracy theories herself

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, why are you quoting Anders Bjorkman as an authority? The man is a loon.

 

[Mojo]

Remember when Vixen said that the most likely cause of the sinking of the Estonia was an accidental collision with an escorting British or Swedish submarine? I wonder what the half-life of these hypotheses are.

I’m still disappointed that she’s not taking the ekranoplan scenario seriously, after all it perfectly explains the hole being above the water line. I know there haven’t been any reports of ekranoplans in the Baltic, but that just shows how efficiently and comprehensively the operation was covered up.

And let’s face it, the official report “studiously avoided making any reference to the possibility” of an ekranoplan.

 

[Axxman300]

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

The ramp was likely pushed closed by the sea when the ship rolled onto it's side. The key point is both men TOLD AUTHORITIES THE BOW VISOR WAS GONE.

 

[Vixen]

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.

And do you agree you were wildly wrong about the weight of the bolt being '148kg'?

 

[Vixen]

From a JAIC memo:

Recovered objects: The divers have dismounted respectively burnt off the well known parts including the bolt of the Atlantic lock. When they were preparing the helicopter flight back some parts had to be left behind due to weight restrictions. As the bolt did not show any changes except for some notchings, it was left behind on the diving support vessel. He assumes that the bolt has been thrown overboard in the meantime (weight ca. 25 kg). The other parts will be shown to us tomorrow. We will receive name and contact of the owners of the diving support vessel and shall find out where the bolt actually is.
Atlantic lock: As it had been assumed already they had not spent much thought on it. The lugs are obviously broken an that is sufficient for them, they thought. They have not yet realised that:
- the sensors were obviously dismounted before the casualty;
- the actuator as well as the bolt were turned about 90° towards aft;
- the port hydraulic hose was torn off.
They have no explanation for the oil spill on the lowest stringer of the visor nor for the many footprints (also the technicians from N&T do not). On the other hand, it is not in doubt that the heavy weather securings were not engaged.

Q.E.D. ::


23st, indeed. LOL. Sometimes you have to stop and yourself, is 23st even a sensible answer for the weight of the Atlantic lock bolt?

 

[GlennB]

And do you agree you were wildly wrong about the weight of the bolt being '148kg'?

That's a natural consequence.

 

[JesseCuster]

From a JAIC memo:



Q.E.D. ::


23st, indeed. LOL. Sometimes you have to stop and yourself, is 23st even a sensible answer for the weight of the Atlantic lock bolt?

You said that 15kg was the weight of the Atlantic lock, not the weight of the bolt.

Do try and keep up.

 

[BazBear]

I’m still disappointed that she’s not taking the ekranoplan scenario seriously, after all it perfectly explains the hole being above the water line. I know there haven’t been any reports of ekranoplans in the Baltic, but that just shows how efficiently and comprehensively the operation was covered up.

And let’s face it, the official report “studiously avoided making any reference to the possibility” of an ekranoplan.

I like it. It's more fun than the explosive planting commo jamming track laying submersible hypothesis, and possibly even slightly more credible!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I see that quote also explains that the bolt was not one of the parts helicoptered back from the diving support vessel since it had no damage apart from some notching and the writer thinks it may have been discarded overboard or may have been kept.

I note that it didn't show any damage caused by cutting charges which rather rules those out as the cause of the damage to the eyes that the bolt was ripped out of.

Also I keep noticing that these quotes are a little quirky in their use of English which suggests they are translations. It might be helpful to note whose translation they are. For example the quote saying the bolt was 78mm undersized is what began this whole thing about a massively heavy bolt, which might have been avoided if it had stated that the bolt was undersized at 78mm instead of implying it was undersized by 78mm.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Professionals would know if a first charge didn't do the job then a second charge, placed close enough to do the same job, would be destroyed by the first detonation.

Professionals would know if there was any doubt that the first charge was big enough to do the job then you needed to set a bigger charge to make sure, not two the same size because again the first would destroy or disrupt the second.

Professionals would know if you set too small a charge then there's a risk it won't break the lock and the ship will survive. If it gets back to port it will be abundantly clear it was attempted sabotage and not an accident.

Professionals would know setting a big enough charge to be absolutely certain of success would also leave damage that would be obvious to divers who later inspected the wreck so in the end there was no point at all in trying to make the sinking look like an accident.

Professionals would know, as Captain Swoop described long ago, that there are easier and more certain ways to sabotage a ship with strategically placed explosives, and so they would do that instead.

Professionals would know that making the device bigger than necessary pointlessly increases the chance of detection.

 

[LondonJohn]

From a JAIC memo:



Q.E.D. ::


23st, indeed. LOL. Sometimes you have to stop and yourself, is 23st even a sensible answer for the weight of the Atlantic lock bolt?

Doesn't detract from the always-amusing spectacle of your personal unscientific incredulity that a steel bolt with a 20cm diameter and a 60cm length could have a mass of 150kg (which it in fact does) LOLOL. So your mockery of the "23st" number is hilarious and instructive.

And I'll also say again: the matter of the mass of the bolt of the bottom lock is entirely moot. The part of the bottom lock which failed was the section with two lugs that were attached to the ship's forepeak deck. The bolt itself was intact and was not a cause of the lock's failure.

So the only bit of salvage that would have been of any use/interest wrt the failed bottom lock would have been the section of the forepeak deck including the two broken lugs. Divers would have had to cut out the relevant section of the forepeak deck and send that bit of the deck plus the lugs up to the surface. B]This [/B][/I]was the mass that was deemed too difficult to salvage.

And in any case, the investigators didn't need that hunk of steel to be brought to then surface, because they already knew - solely from close visual inspection on the seabed - that the bottom lock on the bow visor had been a catastrophic point of failure, and they also decisively both how and why it had failed.

 

[LondonJohn]

You said that 15kg was the weight of the Atlantic lock, not the weight of the bolt.

Do try and keep up.

Yes. And I've pointed that out explicitly to Vixen as well.

But the CT Express just keeps rolling down the rails.....

 

[Mojo]

I like it. It's more fun than the explosive planting commo jamming track laying submersible hypothesis, and possibly even slightly more credible!

I alway had doubts about submarines leaving tracks on the sea floor, since if this had been the case the official report would surely have included a recommendation that in future submarines should take their boots off before entering the Baltic.

 

[Vixen]

I see that quote also explains that the bolt was not one of the parts helicoptered back from the diving support vessel since it had no damage apart from some notching and the writer thinks it may have been discarded overboard or may have been kept.

I note that it didn't show any damage caused by cutting charges which rather rules those out as the cause of the damage to the eyes that the bolt was ripped out of.

Also I keep noticing that these quotes are a little quirky in their use of English which suggests they are translations. It might be helpful to note whose translation they are. For example the quote saying the bolt was 78mm undersized is what began this whole thing about a massively heavy bolt, which might have been avoided if it had stated that the bolt was undersized at 78mm instead of implying it was undersized by 78mm.

The language used by the JAIC is Swedish.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see that quote also explains that the bolt was not one of the parts helicoptered back from the diving support vessel since it had no damage apart from some notching and the writer thinks it may have been discarded overboard or may have been kept.

Exactly. The bolt didn't fail, and it didn't in itself contribute to the failure (and consequent total detachment) of the bow visor. So from an investigative standpoint, it was effectively of no value.

I note that it didn't show any damage caused by cutting charges which rather rules those out as the cause of the damage to the eyes that the bolt was ripped out of.

That's a very good point - and one which no CT merchant proposing the "explosives" nonsense would be able to counter.

After all, the bottom lock of the bow visor was engaged and locked prior to the point of failure. Which means that the bolt was in the correct position and passing through the holes in the two ship-side lugs.

As you correctly point out: had the bottom lock been somehow "blown open" by an explosive detonation of any sort - and an explosive detonation which by definition would have had to be powerful enough to cause the thick, heavy steel lugs to fail - it's essentially inconceivable that the bolt which passed through those two lugs could have been in no way affected from that detonation.

Another nail in the coffin for the ridiculous - and entirely unsupported by affirmative reliable evidence - CT theory about the bow visor lock being blown open by explosive charges......

Also I keep noticing that these quotes are a little quirky in their use of English which suggests they are translations. It might be helpful to note whose translation they are. For example the quote saying the bolt was 78mm undersized is what began this whole thing about a massively heavy bolt, which might have been avoided if it had stated that the bolt was undersized at 78mm instead of implying it was undersized by 78mm.

I believe the holes in the lugs were something like 85mm in diameter. But of course in any event, the bolt (and its size and mass) is a red herring. What's actually important in this context is the broken pair of lugs that were attached to the ship, whose failure - owing to accumulated fatigue and stressed caused by the rough seas on that night - was the true cause of the lock breaking open. And which, by extension, was solely responsible for setting off the chain of events that culminated in the ship's capsize and sinking.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The language used by the JAIC is Swedish.

The Swedish JAIC report specifically say that it is a translation from English, and that if the Swedish text is different from the English text, the English text is the official one.

 

[abaddon]

The Swedish JAIC report specifically say that it is a translation from English, and that if the Swedish text is different from the English text, the English text is the official one.

Dunno. So far we have a claim to expertise in, accountancy, physics, electronics, forensics, medicine, law, psychiatry, language, engineering, submarine operations, covert operations,
intel operations, metallurgy, radio and telegraphy and more.

Is anyone buying that?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Also I keep noticing that these quotes are a little quirky in their use of English which suggests they are translations. It might be helpful to note whose translation they are. For example the quote saying the bolt was 78mm undersized is what began this whole thing about a massively heavy bolt, which might have been avoided if it had stated that the bolt was undersized at 78mm instead of implying it was undersized by 78mm.

Where is the quote that mentions "undersized"? I can't find it?

Anyway - I found the "part-report" - it's actually in my view a bad name. It's a sub-report/partial-report/progress-report and not about "parts" as in "components". At least that name confused me.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES000202_00011#?c=&m=&s=&cv=10&xywh=-1012,-240,6656,3869
Section 2.3, page 19.

The locking bolt was removed from the actuator piston rod by divers on 4 December 1994 and brought to the surface. It was checked for wear and deformation. The bolt was straight. Only a slight difference in diameter was measured at the contact area between the bolt and the lug of the visor. The general diameter of the bolt was 9.8 millimetres whereas the minimum measurement across the contact areas was 79.4 millimetres. No other damage to the bolt was noted.

When the bolt was recovered from the wreck it was attached to the piston rod of the hydraulic actuator which remained in place on the forepeak deck as shown in Figure 12. The hydraulic hoses were connected. The actuator was in fully extended, i.e. locked, position and the piston rod was bent upwards, away from the forepeak deck. The connecting pin could be withdrawn without difficulty and the bolt was brought to the surface.

In the final report, this is the text:

When the locking bolt was removed from the actuator piston rod, the actuator was in fully extended, i.e. locked, position. The piston rod was bent upwards, away from the forepeak deck. The hydraulic hoses were connected. The bolt was checked for wear and deformation. The bolt was straight. The general diameter of the bolt was about 78 mm. Only a slight variation in diameter was measured at the contact area between the bolt and the visor lug. No other damage to the bolt was noted.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Where is the quote that mentions "undersized"? I can't find it?

Ok - found it:

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.

This quote is not from the JAIC report, but rather from the report of the "German group of experts" at https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia/index.html

And actually, it's not their text either, they say it's a report from the Finnish Board of Navigation (F.B.N.). The quote is on this page: https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/chapter33.htm

The 78mm mentioned here has nothing to do with the size of the bolt on board Estonia. Instead the "undersize" part comes from a Finnish investigation into the bow-locks on other ferries, an investigation that was done as a follow up to the Estonia disaster.