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

[Vixen]

There is an entire section in chapter 8 dedicated to it

8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices

From that section

The JAIC omit to state the bolt was claimed to be thus unseen by anyone but Stenström, who threw it back onto the seabed.

 

[JayUtah]

Björkman could well be a conspiracy theorist by trade but IMV it's more likely he just has an insatiable curiosity about the world he lives in.

No. You haven't had to deal with him interactively; we have. His worldview is dominated by the notion that he (and often only he) is right. Maintaining that worldview requires him to misrepresent facts that are otherwise easily discoverable, but in any case known to other practitioners. His approach is exactly the opposite of curiosity. He believes he already knows all that there is to know on the subjects he promotes.

Just because YOU cannot understand why someone would be interested in establishing whether the above events happened and how, it doesn't necessarily mean they do not understand science or engineering or that their calculations are wrong.

No, it is not the case that Björkman's critics do not understand what he is trying to do. Björkman is criticized for his apparent lack of understanding of science and engineering because those who do understand those things have identified his errors and attempted to correct him. You seem unwilling to grasp the fact that his error and unreliability are things that can be objectively determined.

To turn your argument back where it belongs, just because you can't understand how glaring Björkman's errors and misconceptions are doesn't mean you can demand that others accept him as an authority.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

JAIC state the vessel was seaworthy.

I invite you to quote them saying that or retract your claim.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Both Jan-Tore and Esa (plus some experienced Swedish guy who was at the rescue of MS Jan Heweliusz) said they expected to come across Estonia floating upside down, or only semi-submerged, and were shocked to see nothing but bits of debris.

I have no idea if the explosives were those left behind by the navy guys who were there earlier but there is a petal shaped hole in the bulkhead bow, unmentioned by JAIC. Prof Ida Westermann found telling deformations in the metal of the bow visor. No mention by JAIC.

As Carl Bildt was in a hurry with his early conclusion, one has to suspect a guilty conscience. Like denying a fart in a lift. He who denied it, supplied it.

If it was a criminal gang, don't you think they would be going after them and not anxiously stating 'We do not wish to blame anybody'?

 

[Andy_Ross]

One wave, and it is all pure guess work.

Imagine you put a tape on your car boot to make it extra secure. A gust of wind comes along and blows the tape away. Question: does the entire boot then swing open at the same time as the tape flying off?

No, because it was only ever an accessory and the car boot needs more than the tape falling off for its hinges to swing open, and yet another gust of wind to blow the 'fatigued' lugs off. Would it take just one gust of wind? No, of course not!

Suppose the lock to you boot breaks, would the piece of tape stop it flying open?

Consider the bonnet of a car? the locks on them break and bonnets fly open, that's why there is a secondary catch. even with these secondary catches bonnets fly open.

it happens for the same reason the bow fell off the Estonia. Fatigue on the parts.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The JAIC omit to state the bolt was claimed to be thus unseen by anyone but Stenström, who threw it back onto the seabed.

The JAIC specifically state that it was brought to the surface, which you still can't bear to admit happened. (Section 8.4, fact fans.)

You did at least slip yesterday and admit when you said "Stenström" you meant the entire dive team.

 

[Vixen]

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.

'We now know this'. JAIC do not say this.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC omit to state the bolt was claimed to be thus unseen by anyone but Stenström, who threw it back onto the seabed.

you are the only one claiming this.

How do you know it was only seen by one man and thrown back?

Did he deliberately lie about the condition of the bolt?

Where were the rest of the crew?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Er, because they were both travelling from Helsinki.

 

[JesseCuster]

it doesn't necessarily mean they do not understand science or engineering or that their calculations are wrong.

Bjorkman thinks that space travel is impossible and that therefore all of NASA's space missions have been faked. How can he understand science if his understanding is so comically wrong about so many aspects of it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Both Jan-Tore and Esa (plus some experienced Swedish guy who was at the rescue of MS Jan Heweliusz) said they expected to come across Estonia floating upside down, or only semi-submerged, and were shocked to see nothing but bits of debris.

I have no idea if the explosives were those left behind by the navy guys who were there earlier but there is a petal shaped hole in the bulkhead bow, unmentioned by JAIC. Prof Ida Westermann found telling deformations in the metal of the bow visor. No mention by JAIC.

As Carl Bildt was in a hurry with his early conclusion, one has to suspect a guilty conscience. Like denying a fart in a lift. He who denied it, supplied it.

If it was a criminal gang, don't you think they would be going after them and not anxiously stating 'We do not wish to blame anybody'?

So the captains haven't claimed they suspected sabotage?

Which 'navy divers' that were there earlier?

Why would they plant explosives on the wreck?

Why would they leave them there?

 

[Vixen]

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

The sheer speed of sinking, the time and place, communications interference/blackout and eye-witness reports.

Cui bono?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As Carl Bildt was in a hurry with his early conclusion, one has to suspect a guilty conscience. Like denying a fart in a lift. He who denied it, supplied it.

He was in a press conference, not a hurry. He did not reach a conclusion, he stated what he had presumably been told survivors were saying. Nobody has to conclude a guilty conscience. That's just confirmation bias from someone dedicated to some sort of conspiracy story, even if you can't make up your mind which one. The only thing stinking up this thread is the manure you keep spreading.

 

[Axxman300]

The vessel was certified seaworthy.

As were the majority of all the ships and boats that now rest on the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Axxman300]

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

No.

There is a line of communications. In a situation where coms are being monitored by a chain of command, communications are relayed to avoid confusion, and jamming up the lines.

 

[Vixen]

For example, watch as this large passenger ship capsizes and then "turns upside down very rapidly", then remains afloat upside down for quite some time before eventually sinking:




Not.


Vixen's posts in this thread - individually and collectively - are a bad, ill-informed, scientifically-illiterate joke.

Oceanos did not sink because of flooding.

It is believed[by whom?] that after a series of freak waves slammed against the ship, the pipe's shell plating burst open and began filling the compartment with seawater. At about 9:30 p.m., a muffled explosion was heard and Oceanos lost power. The ship started taking on water, rapidly flooding the engine room.

Wiki

There was an explosion via the ventilator pipes, which led to flooding in the engine room, which is a breach of its hull.

According to JAIC there was no hull breach of the Estonia. This is what the current affairs expeditions are investigating, i.e., the hole in the starboard.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

'We now know this'. JAIC do not say this.

They say it was not compliant. They explain in what way it was not compliant. They explain that this defect was not noted when the ship was surveyed and they explain why.

 

[Andy_Ross]

'We now know this'. JAIC do not say this.

JAIC report contains all the information on the certification.
All of Chapter 3 section 3.6 Certificates and inspections is given over to it.

The position of the bow ramp of ESTONIA did not satisfy the SOLAS requirements for an upper extension of the collision bulkhead. No exemption was issued. Such an exemption could be given on condition that the vessel in the course of its voyages did not proceed more than 20 nautical miles from the nearest land.

An upper extension of the collision bulkhead, complying with the SOLAS 1974 rules, should have been located minimum 4.27 m and maximum 7.27 m aft of the position of the lower end of the ramp . Complying with the 1981 Amendments to SOLAS 1974 the upper extension of the collision bulkhead could have been about 2 m further forward.

The surveys under the SOLAS convention were, during the period under Finnish flag, carried out by the Finnish Board of Navigation. Bureau Veritas had no authorisation to survey the vessel for compliance with the SOLAS Convention. When Bureau Veritas surveyed the vessel for change of flag this was done in accordance with the requirements to the extent of a periodic survey, which did not include examination of construction drawings. The location of the extension of the collision bulkhead was thus not considered during this survey.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

SEALs don't talk under water, part of the whole "sneaking around undetected" thing.

My friend's son is a US Navy diver, their hardhat rigs talk directly to the ship. Period. If someone up the chain of command has a question, it is relayed to the ship, and then down to the visor.

If you listen to the Estonia diver videos, you can actually here this happen many times.

 

[junkshop]

...According to JAIC there was no hull breach of the Estonia...

Apart from the sodding great hole in the bow, of course.