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

[Steve]

What makes you think our protagonist cares?

You know that. I know that. Some do not know that.

I had to search, but one can see these in actual operation on yooboob. Except the protagonist, who some can see none of it for reasons not defined.

Selective blindness? No idea.

At the end, I come at it as the absurdity on the radio side and you come at the absurdity from a marine perspective.

But whichever, we agree it really is absurd.

Please don't make me the various wild degrees that our proponent has claimed. Doesn't matter. None of them were maritime anyway.

I have encountered Heiwa before. No moon landings ever happened. ISS is not real. Satelites are not real. The world is flat. There are no rovers on mars. Or probes. Or orbiters. Or Jupiter, Europa, Enceladus or anywhere. Because the world is flat. Some twonk merely painted them on a backdrop. The Firmament, I suppose. And he clearly imagines.

But he must be credible on his primary degree, right? Oooo yes. He must be. Ignore the elephant in the corner, he must be right. Doesn't matter that he is bonkers and gets banned from bonkers sites. Even flatties end up banning him. Simon Shack banned him. He really is that bonkers.

But somehow, he must be accepted as vaguely credible for some inexplicable reason. He was banned from here, but one must wonder. Why do crank sites also ban him.

He is comprehensively bonkers. I have no clue what happened to him do that.

He seems to have a few like-minded loons who agree with him though.

 

[Vixen]

His "sheer weight of expertise" is still light on what else might cause the metallurgical evidence he discovered. We discussed this at some length, whereupon you too admitted you were not an expert in metallurgy and could not evaluate the claims independently.

You claim he is an expert in explosives and that upon the strength of that expertise he identified an object in a photograph -- which mysteriously later disappeared -- as a bomb. Experts in bombs can identify bombs because they know what bombs look like. They know what bombs look like because they've seen a lot of prior bombs. What demonstrates expertise is not so much, "I think this is a bomb," as it is, "This is a bomb because it looks like this other thing that I know from experience to be a bomb -- here let me show you." Funny how Braidwood can't seem to make that claim.



No, your invocation of Braidwood is subject to ridicule, for the reasons given.



No, your critics are not wallowing in the throes of melodramatic terror at the prospect that you might be right. They're wallowing in amusement at your antics when you're shown to be wrong.

Elite Royal Navy military explosives expert and diver Braidwood's perception of what those mysterious items in the Rockwater video were, are likely far sharper than the smooth soft-handed lawyer Lehtola, who identified them as 'bits of pallet' and 'tarpaulin' and dismissed them with a wave of his unblemished pen-pushing hand.

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps Braidwood "famously defused" the bombs attached to the Estonia's bow visor as well.....

***switches to Microphone #2, to talk with Controller #2***

Dammit, they're on to us! Give me some more of your secret instructions ASAP!

Truth is actually stranger than fiction, as it is likely that the covert commander at the other end was Einseln or Simm.

 

[Vixen]

Let's get this straight, you suspect that the divers didn't use any sort of common tools like a vernier calipers to measure the size of the bolt, but that whoever examined the bolt merely looked at it and guessed what size it was, and the reason you suspect that is because the bolt wasn't taken to a lab for measurement?

What kind of sense is that supposed to make? This is laughable, even for you.

Why wouldn't you bring back the bolt, a key piece of evidence as to why 852 sank to their deaths in the most horrifying manner of mass panic and hysteria?

According to the JAIC the accident was caused by the Atlantic lock and the two side locks all failing sequentially as a result of a single strong wave. As all the Atlantic bolt does is to ease some of the tension in the side locks but in reality by hardy any amount at all, the side locks together with their hydraulic arms should have then loosened by a second strong wave, not all of the locks all together from one.

 

[LondonJohn]

Elite Royal Navy military explosives expert and diver Braidwood's perception of what those mysterious items in the Rockwater video were, are likely far sharper than the smooth soft-handed lawyer Lehtola, who identified them as 'bits of pallet' and 'tarpaulin' and dismissed them with a wave of his unblemished pen-pushing hand.

Yes, "elite Royal Navy military explosives expert and diver" Braidwood is bound to be correct here. After all, not only was he hired by the shipyard that's potentially on the hook for a lot of money wrt it's shockingly poor design and construction of the bow visor (and is thus actively interested in "finding" alternative causes of the sinking)....

....but he's also the hero who "famously defused" the Greenpeace bomb.


Remind me: did Braidwood get a medal for that "famous" defusing episode? I imagine he must have done - it was so famous and so heroic, after all. Plus I'm sure he must have been lavishly decorated for being such an "elite expert" and all. Right?

 

[LondonJohn]

Truth is actually stranger than fiction, as it is likely that the covert commander at the other end was Einseln or Simm.

LMAO!

Hey, what would have happened if the "overt commander" and the "covert commander" both tried to talk to a diver at the same time? Would the diver hear them both simultaneously, one in each ear? Golly, I can see how that might become confusing!

 

[LondonJohn]

Why wouldn't you bring back the bolt, a key piece of evidence as to why 852 sank to their deaths in the most horrifying manner of mass panic and hysteria?

No, Vixen. The bolt itself had no evidential value. It wasn't the part of the bottom lock which failed. The parts of the bottom lock which failed were the ship-side lugs.

And cut out the appeals to emotion. They have no place in this sort of discussion. You've been told about this many, many times now.

According to the JAIC the accident was caused by the Atlantic lock and the two side locks all failing sequentially as a result of a single strong wave.

No. Educate yourself by reading my post #3181. And/or do some proper research into this matter.

As all the Atlantic bolt does is to ease some of the tension in the side locks but in reality by hardy any amount at all, the side locks together with their hydraulic arms should have then loosened by a second strong wave, not all of the locks all together from one.

What?? You don't know what you're talking about. The bottom lock was by far the most important fastening point of that bow visor. It was the direct counter to the top hinges. Once the bottom lock failed in rough seas, the entire visor was doomed to fail. Neither the side locks nor the top hinges were designed to take the stresses to which they were subjected that night once the bottom lock had failed. The bottom lock should have been designed to take those stresses, but (owing to bad design, bad construction, and bad maintenance & operation) it ended up failing in that duty.
3181

 

[Andy_Ross]

Truth is actually stranger than fiction, as it is likely that the covert commander at the other end was Einseln or Simm.

Apart from you have no evidence for this 'covert commander' other than wishful thinking.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why wouldn't you bring back the bolt, a key piece of evidence as to why 852 sank to their deaths in the most horrifying manner of mass panic and hysteria?

According to the JAIC the accident was caused by the Atlantic lock and the two side locks all failing sequentially as a result of a single strong wave. As all the Atlantic bolt does is to ease some of the tension in the side locks but in reality by hardy any amount at all, the side locks together with their hydraulic arms should have then loosened by a second strong wave, not all of the locks all together from one.

What do you mean 'ease the tension'?
If it is doing so little why is it important?
Once again only you are claiming a 'single wave'
Once again the bolt was inspected and found to be in good condition. Those parts that failed were brought back for further study and inspection.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Elite Royal Navy military explosives expert and diver Braidwood's perception of what those mysterious items in the Rockwater video were, are likely far sharper than the smooth soft-handed lawyer Lehtola, who identified them as 'bits of pallet' and 'tarpaulin' and dismissed them with a wave of his unblemished pen-pushing hand.

Does this mean you think the bow visor was blown off by explosive charges?
You are giving up on the crew opening the bows?

When were the charges planted?
After the bow closed the ramp would stop anyone getting to the locks, does this mean they were planted while the bow was open and the ship was in port loading?
Why didn't the crew notice either the charges or the ninjas planting them?

 

[Vixen]

On the microphones and speakers,

I can guarantee that if they were on surface supply they were using Kirby Morgan helmets.

Here is a link to the manual for the Kirby Morgan helmet modular communications system

https://www.kirbymorgan.com/sites/d...cludes-17b-17c-mk-21-and-kmb-bandmasks-hi.pdf

and here is the manual for the KMDSI Communicator panel used on the surface.

https://www.kirbymorgan.com/sites/default/files/100-401_mk3_kmdsi_communicator_user_guide_hi.pdf

Bearing in mind the umbilical has one cable for communications, can Vixen show me how two circuits could be installed, one to each ear?

ISTM that the system can be set up for left- or right- ear communication.

It is obvious that the military tactics will sometime require commands communicated from more than one person, possibly from different locations.

 

[Vixen]

And they found no evidence of explosives, or an explosion.

I'm sure he cashed his check, though.




Nobody is terrified.

Just a little confused as to how you cannot grasp the basic power of the sea under the right conditions.

This video is a good illustration of how waves similar in height to the ones that took out Estonia's bow visor effect, and impact a ship moving at high speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvzld04Q5XI

The bow on that ship is almost three-stories high. It's not about wave-height as much about the height of the stern when the next wave hits. I'm not expert but the pitching of the ship plays a huge factor on the force of the waves slamming into the bow, as the ship is heavy (mass), and it is moving fast combined gravity doing its thing (acceleration). Combine that with the counter-force of the wave impacts (yes, multiple), and you not only have a believable, you have the likely explanation for how the bow-visor was knocked off.

This video shows the same thing, wave-height is relative. It's all about the pitch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kfjLPkm-U

The sea is the 500-pound gorilla in this story, and nobody can just brush it off as a non-factor.

Even if the ship was pitching against headlong waves and the bow visor came off, it still requires more than the estimated (as all JAIC calculations are) 4,500tonnes-equivalent of water to sink it. If there is an ingress of water, it either capsizes immediately (cf The Herald of Free Enterprise) or not at all. It doesn't float on its superstructure for half an hour as JAIC claim.

As the VINNOVA simulation points out, it needs a minimum of 11,000tonnes-equivalent plus 83% of the superstructure to be filled with water (that has displaced the air keeping it afloat).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Truth is actually stranger than fiction, as it is likely that the covert commander at the other end was Einseln or Simm.

No. It is by far the more likely that the "covert commander" was fiction.

 

[Vixen]

I have posted both of those and more previously.
They will be ignored.

That one of the Destroyer is a good example of what happens when you push in to a head sea too fast
A warship like the one in the video is built to take it. They are expected to have to do it.
A car ferry with a bow held by just a few connections shouldn't be pushed in to a head sea.
Just think of the cumulative effect of a hammering like that for over a decade.

It was held by hydraulic arms on both sides, together with the side locks. Can't get much stronger than that.

 

[Vixen]

Yes.

And on top of this, there's the factor which Vixen still apparently cannot - or will not - understand: the waves that caused the bottom lock to fail on that particular night were the straw that broke the camel's back. The badly-designed, badly-manufactured and badly-maintained lugs on that bottom lock will have been fatiguing cumulatively over many, many months (probably over many years). By the time the Estonia set sail that night, the bottom lock lugs were metaphorically - and almost literally - hanging on by a thread. And the waves which pounded the bow that night in open seas (at an irresponsibly-high sailing speed) were the thing that finally finished off the lugs and set in place the chain of events which culminated in the ship sinking.

For Vixen to carry on with this fatuous drivel about "yeah, so we're supposed to believe that a wave or two caused the lock to break" is as ridiculous, illogical and ill-informed as someone saying "yeah, so we're supposed to believe that a single piece of straw caused this camel's back to break"

This is where you fall flat on your face as the JAIC state clearly that the vessel was in seaworthy condition, and as certified by Bureau Veritas, the compliance regulators.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly.

A machine can only be pushed so far. Even that US destroyer has limits to the type of sea conditions in which it can operate in.

The Estonia's captain pushed his luck, and it ran out.

The vessel was certified seaworthy.

 

[Vixen]

For anyone interested in the 'standard protocol' for commercial diving.

Here is a link to "International Consensus Standards for Commercial Diving and Underwater Operations"

Be aware, it runs to over 300 pages. There are separate documents for most of the main headings.

https://www.adc-int.org/files/C12181_International Concensus Standards.pdf

Not sure what a commercial diving handbook has to do with this case. It has just one short paragraph about underwater voice communications, so why are we expected to plough through 300-pages?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why wouldn't you bring back the bolt, a key piece of evidence ... <histrionic appeal to emotion snipped>

The bolt was examined and measured and found not to have bent or broken. The parts which actually broke were key pieces of evidence. What further examination of the bolt is "key" to explaining what happened? Try to be specific. I suspect the answer is you have no clue but your CT source tells you it's a big deal for no adequately explained reason.

According to the JAIC the accident was caused by the Atlantic lock and the two side locks all failing sequentially as a result of a single strong wave. As all the Atlantic bolt does is to ease some of the tension in the side locks but in reality by hardy any amount at all, the side locks together with their hydraulic arms should have then loosened by a second strong wave, not all of the locks all together from one.

Fail. Show us where the JAIC declares the progressive failure of all the locks was caused by a single wave impact. Show us your calculations that show the Atlantic lock only took a small portion of the load supported by the side locks. We know you can't support that claim.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Welcome back Vixen. Answer my questions please.

 

[Vixen]

But of course the Estonia's master undoubtedly hastened the demise of the bottom lock, the bow visor, and the entire ship - by sailing too fast and too far away from the shelter of the coastline on the night of the disaster.

What utter nonsense. To get from Tallinn to Stockholm, I am afraid it is open sea for several hours. The reason we know it didn't hit a rock (re the feeling of a top start collision reported by some survivors) is because it had not yet reached the archipelago.


As for it being the shipbuilder's fault in your view, it was designed to commute between Naantali /Turku / Helsinki and Stockholm/Umeå, just two hours of open sea (after Mariehamn, towards Sweden [which is why, geographically, the Ålands are deemed par of Finland]. The main hazard there, was getting grounded (as the Amorella did, recently) on shallow banks, with depth varying widely and wildly between 30m and 300m. From Tallinn to Stockholm, that is twelve hours of open sea. It was just 34km away from Utö, which has a Coastguard.

How is it the shipbuilder's fault in the design? Where in its journey did you expect it to 'follow the coastline'?