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

[Andy_Ross]

You do not know your physics. The Atlantic lock is a mere afterthought. The tension is borne almost entirely by the side locks. And the JAIC does blame the one wave for causing the whole shebang to fail. I am glad that even you can see that is simply not credible.

Where do they blame one wave and not the lifetime fatigue of the whole assembly?
Yes we know that it was a single wave that finally broke the lugs but it wasn't in isolation.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Citation please of the photograph of it and who, when and how it was 'found to be in good condition'.

There is an entire section in chapter 8 dedicated to it

8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices

From that section

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.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I do believe all of the evidence points to sabotage. I agree with what Captains of the Mariella and Europa said.

Where do those captains say it was sabotage?

Are you now saying it was explosives blowing the bows off or are submarines and mines still on the table?

How would the explosives be planted on the visor when it is closed and the ramp is in front of it?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

No, Vixen. It's not "obvious" in the slightest. Tethered divers only ever need one line of communication.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's embarrassing.

(Oh and of course it's possible to have comms coming into either the left ear or right ear: different people have different preferences when it comes to which ear they prefer - just as some people hold a phone to their left ear and some to their right ear. You don't know what you're talking about.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

I see, so US Navy SEAL's or Royal Navy divers are unable to set up communications with more than one platform.


Okaaay. We'll just ignore veteran elite expert Brian Braidwood.

When they are under water and on surface supply they only have one cable attachment point on a helmet.

Why do you think military special forces divers will be using commercial surface supply diving helmets?

Why don't you find out how divers communicate when they don't have a cable to connect to them.

 

[LondonJohn]

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).

You don't know what you're talking about. Your "displacement of air" crap is particularly risible - as I've pointed out to you plenty of times now, something like 50 cubic metres of uranium inside the Estonia would have sunk it - without displacing more than a tiny proportion of the air inside the ship.

You don't understand buoyancy principles. You don't understand maritime engineering. You're not fit to be participating in this debate in an intellectually-honest fashion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC very clearly states the thing was seaworthy.

Based on the certification available at the time.

We now know the ship was not in compliance with SOLAS requirements with regard to it's Collision Bulkhead compliance. In that respect it was not seaworthy.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's been explained to you several times now how a ship gets certificated as seaworthy - and what the inspectors look for & don't look for. You've either been ignoring all those posts, or you think you know better. You don't know better. You're ignorant.

 

[Andy_Ross]

When they are under water and on surface supply they only have one cable attachment point on a helmet.

Why do you think military special forces divers will be using commercial surface supply diving helmets?

Why don't you find out how divers communicate when they don't have a cable to connect to them.

Are you implying that the divers were actually US Navy Seals or RN Special Boat Squadron divers?

 

[Andy_Ross]

None of them sank. It's a red herring.

Why is it a red herring?
Some of them were very lucky they didn't sink, they had captains and crew that reacted quickly to the damage and saved their ships. Others were not so badly damaged but it shows a pattern.

At the time Estonia was built there were no standards or regulations for the construction of bow visors.

 

[Disbelief]

Think about it logically. Those Kirby Morgan earphones are set up to connect to one platform and operate rather like a conference call, wherein all callers can hear each other simultaneously.

Now think about it. You can set up your phone for a conference call on one ear. There is absolutely nothing to stop you from having a second phone to your other ear at the same time.

Except you'd be missing a connection for the other ear. Once again, something you know nothing about but try and act like you have some expertise (like welding, radios, GPS).

 

[LondonJohn]

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'?

Maybe ask the masters of the Europa and Mariella why they were sailing closer to the Finnish coastline than the Estonia, and at lower speeds. I know the answer to that. You currently appear not to.

And I have no idea how/why you're linking the poor design and construction of the bow visor and its bottom lock to.... the route the ship was originally intended to serve. All that's relevant is that the ship was designed and built to sail on open seas. Which was as true on the day the shipyard accepted the commission as it was on the day the ship sank.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because when a boat capsizes it turns upside down very rapidly. It doesn't float about on its side for any length of time. In the JAIC scenario, because the [maximum] 4,500tonnes presumed [never proven] water on the car deck was not enough to cause the boat to capsize [even the JAIC had to admit this in their report instead of in their customary manner, ignoring it], so it had the vessel floating on its side for half an hour as the windows of the superstructure needed to be smashed by the beastly waves, and saturation to happen that way.

What is your evidence that a boast will 'turn upside down very rapidly'?

 

[LondonJohn]

No. What is obvious is that you don't understand the material you are posting.

Look at the "supporting" diagram you posted with this mad claim. It shows a mono headphone feed. Look at each diver's earphones in the schematic. Do you see that a single pair of wires is fed to each diver's earphones, and the pair splits and goes to both their left and right ear? The same pair of wires that feeds the left ear also feeds the right ear. The left ear and the right ear get the same signal. There is no means of feeding a signal to one ear and not the other. There is no means of feeding two signals to a diver.

Ahhhhh but there's a super-secret operating manual with the two separate feeds - one to each ear.....

 

[Andy_Ross]

If your car was in an accident, the police would certainly want to know if it was roadworthy. In the accident report it will state whether or not your vehicle was roadworthy (passed its MOT), thus Person B can't come along and claim it was not in a fit state for the road.

If they suspected the car was unroadworthy they would get a VOSA inspector to look at it. MOT only says the car was of a minimum standard on the day of the test.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Think about it logically. Those Kirby Morgan earphones are set up to connect to one platform and operate rather like a conference call, wherein all callers can hear each other simultaneously.

Now think about it. You can set up your phone for a conference call on one ear. There is absolutely nothing to stop you from having a second phone to your other ear at the same time.

there is if you are at the bottom of the sea and only have one cable and attachment point on your helmet and the guy at the top has a panel with only one microphone.

 

[Mojo]

I do believe all of the evidence points to sabotage.

What specific evidence, how does it point to sabotage, and sabotage by who?

 

[Steve]

I do believe all of the evidence points to sabotage. I agree with what Captains of the Mariella and Europa said.

And yet for all of your many thousands of words in these threads you have presented no such evidence. Speculation, fantasy and beliefs are not evidence, and appear to have convinced exactly no one.

 

[abaddon]

I do believe all of the evidence points to sabotage. I agree with what Captains of the Mariella and Europa said.

Thus you are promoting a CT and are a CTist, despite your earlier protestations that this was not true. What have you got so far about Estonia?

Well...

A sub collided with it.
That sub planted limpet mines on it.
That sub delivered a team of Russian SpecOps who planted explosives and suicided
That sub delivered nuclear material that dissolved the visor's connection points.
That sub didn't need to as the nuclear materials were already on board.
Nuclear waste dissolves metal.
Three governments covered it all up. Because.
And on and on and on.

Yet you claim this concoction of fabulism is somehow NOT a conspiracy theory?

 

[abaddon]

I see, so US Navy SEAL's or Royal Navy divers are unable to set up communications with more than one platform.


Okaaay. We'll just ignore veteran elite expert Brian Braidwood.

Yeah. We will. There are sound operational reasons why that is so. Just because you are unaware of them does not make them somehow cease to exist.