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

[Steve]

Now you are being facetious.

Come out of the playground.

How about answering the questions? You know, support your CT with evidence instead of fantasy. Because you cannot?

 

[Steve]

Are you claiming that the Estonia was sabotaged by means of “corrosion fatigue [initiated] a considerable time ahead of the accident”, and carefully timed so that the eventual catastrophic failure took place precisely at midnight Swedish time?

And in a storm specially created for the exact purpose.

 

[Mojo]

Does it support your claim of sabotage?

Come out of the playground.

I think we can take that as a “no”.

If, as you claim, “all of the evidence points to sabotage”, why do you keep posting stuff that doesn’t?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Welcome back Vixen. Please deal with my points regarding Bjorkman, or admit that you should not be using him as an expert.

 

[Vixen]

Are you claiming that the Estonia was sabotaged by means of “corrosion fatigue [initiated] a considerable time ahead of the accident”, and carefully timed so that the eventual catastrophic failure took place precisely at midnight Swedish time?

No. What is being focussed on by Hamburg University (Hoffmeister) is the design of the nuts and bolts of the bow visor. Do keep up.

It did not support the JAIC view there was a design defect.

This indicates the JAIC conclusion is potentially flawed. Thus, it failed to discover the true cause of the accident. This is underlined by their failing to mention the Atlantic bolt was thrown back into the sea, and once again we see glaring omissions with no explanation, which would have been simple to include.

It was not in Hamburg University's remit to discover sabotage.

But then you knew that, didn't you?

 

[Mojo]

No. What is being focussed on by Hamburg University (Hoffmeister) is the design of the nuts and bolts of the bow visor. Do keep up.

It did not support the JAIC view there was a design defect.

This indicates the JAIC conclusion is potentially flawed. Thus, it failed to discover the true cause of the accident. This is underlined by their failing to mention the Atlantic bolt was thrown back into the sea, and once again we see glaring omissions with no explanation, which would have been simple to include.

It was not in Hamburg University's remit to discover sabotage.

If that is the case it is, at best for you, irrelevant to your claim.

 

[Vixen]

I think we can take that as a “no”.

If, as you claim, “all of the evidence points to sabotage”, why do you keep posting stuff that doesn’t?

What people have been complaining about is a 'cover up' and it does seem to point in that direction as there are yawning gaps in the JAIC Report.

Why else would then-USA-puppets Sweden* immediately come out with a cock and bull story within hours of the accident?

*As evidenced by then PM Carl Bildt (for an independent sovereign state) sending Bill Clinton (a foreign power) his desired coalition government for approval.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It was not a design flaw.

That was its conclusion, which from an objective distance looks defective.

We don't know the bolt was intact as there is no photograph of it.

Attached: Atlantic lock design.

Hamburg University, Hoffmeister, states that had the this lock failed then it would measurably increase the stress tension in the side locks. However, his conclusion is that it would have been the starboard side lock that failed first and then the port side, with the bottom lock last of all.

Well, he's wrong then. Why would it have been the starboard side lock that failed?

It was obviously a design flaw as th4e designs for locks changed after the Estonia.
At the time there were no standards or certification for bow visors or locks

The Bureau Veritas rules valid at the time had no details regarding procedures for calculating sea loads on the bow visor installation. It was stated in general wording that doors should be firmly secured and that structural reinforcements should be made to attachment points of cleats, hinges and jacks.

The vertical and longitudinal sea loads to which the bow visor could be exposed were calculated separately by the yard and by the von Tell company. The Bureau Veritas rules gave no detailed guidance for such calculations. The yard therefore used for this purpose nominal “pressure heights” given by Bureau Veritas in a note (Note Documentaire BM2, 5.4.1976), originally issued as general guidance for determining the loads on the bows of large ships.

After the ESTONIA accident administrations and classification societies performed extensive surveys of the condition of locking devices and hinges on all ro-ro ferries within their territory. The results showed a rather high frequency of defects of varying degrees of severity, needing corrective work. One of the classification societies reported that some kind of defect, e.g. cracks or deformation of locking devices, was found in about 30 per cent of the ferries inspected

 

[Andy_Ross]

Bow Visor damage Diana II (sister ship to Estonia)

11.3 The DIANA II incident

During the morning of 16 January, whilst the vessel was enroute to Trelleborg, the chief officer to be relieved and the one starting his tour of duty made a joint inspection round throughout the vessel, whereupon they noticed damage to the visor locking arrangements.
Since the visor design of DIANA II was the same as that of ESTONIA, the Commission has further investigated this damage and the repair work (Supplement).
Bureau Veritas was called upon when the vessel arrived in Trelleborg. The survey report in the Supplement shows that the starboard locking device lug was lost, the bottom lock was bent and its welds cracked and the port side locking device lug was bent and its weld cracked. The damage was repaired by normal procedures, to what was estimated to be equivalent to the original standard.

The survey report, when read at the Bureau Veritas regional office in Gothenburg, was not considered to indicate a serious incident. No initiative was therefore taken to investigate the matter further, nor was any general action taken.
The repaired side locking lug mounting site was surveyed after the ESTONIA accident. The survey showed repair by multiple welding of the cracked lug weld sites, and local backing plates had been added. Some old cracks were also detected.
The visor mating lug to the bottom lock of DIANA II was also recovered with the bottom locking bolt. The locking bolt had extensive wear on its upper forward sector in a location mating with the eye of the lug that had also worn. The visor mating lug also showed marks from overloading in tension, as its eye had been extended by stretching at the aft tip of the lug. Strengthening plates had been added to the mating lug both to strengthen its tip and to add vertical rigidity to its attachment to the visor structure. It is not known when these reinforcements were installed. The bolt of the bottom lock was made of high-strength steel grade approximately 700 MPa ultimate strength, and the visor mating lug was of mild steel.

Notice any similarities?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Now you are being facetious.

Why do you think this?

Where in that report you quoted does it indicate any saboatage?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Evertsson's documentary appears to show a breach in the swimming pool area.

No, it shows a breach in to the car deck. You can see vehicles.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Inspected every year in Turku refers to when it was owned by Viking Line and known as Viking Sally.

You missed this bit.

You can read the full report section too.

Survey of the bow visor and ramp for class was part of the continuous hull survey scheme. The bow door area was last inspected under this five-year rolling scheme in October 1993. No remarks related to the bow visor and the ramp have been recorded from any of these surveys.

 

[Mojo]

Evertsson's documentary appears to show a breach in the swimming pool area.

There are photos of the Estonia on the seabed with the hole clearly in areas that were above the waterline. If there are other photos showing it extending below the waterline then this extension must have happened after it sank.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is claiming there was no design fault, as concluded by JAIC to have been the cause of the entire accident.

How would they know when there were no standards laid down for the construction or strength of bow locking systems?

Why do you think the people that designed and built the bow locking system would claim there wasn't a design fault?

 

[Vixen]

If that is the case it is, at best for you, irrelevant to your claim.

The thread was opened in Current Affairs about the newly announced expeditions to the wreck in July 2021 and Sept 2021, one official and the other on behalf of private individuals (relatives and supporters of same of the deceased).

When did you get to refine the topic to what you consider relevant or irrelevant?

The Hamburg University report, together with the reports by Brian Braidwood and Michael Fellows of the Royal Naval Academy - highly respectable experts - are entirely relevant to the disaster as are the claims on which the JAIC report is predicated.


You haven't explained by they should not be considered relevant.

Maybe you just want to be flippant for the sake of it.

 

[Mojo]

No, it shows a breach in to the car deck. You can see vehicles.

Perhaps there were rock stars on board the ferry, and they drove some vehicles into the swimming pool.

 

[Mojo]

The thread was opened in Current Affairs about the newly announced expeditions to the wreck in July 2021 and Sept 2021, one official and the other on behalf of private individuals (relatives and supporters of same of the deceased).

When did you get to refine the topic to what you consider relevant or irrelevant?

The Hamburg University report, together with the reports by Brian Braidwood and Michael Fellows of the Royal Naval Academy - highly respectable experts - are entirely relevant to the disaster as are the claims on which the JAIC report is predicated.


You haven't explained by they should not be considered relevant.

Maybe you just want to be flippant for the sake of it.

You are claiming that the Estonia was sabotaged. Any report that was forbidden to investigate the possibility of sabotage is by its very nature incapable of supporting your claim.

 

[zooterkin]

No, seconds. It sank faster than free-fall.

In its own footprint?

 

[Mojo]

In its own footprint?

No, the footprints were left by the submarines.

 

[Here_to_learn]

What people have been complaining about is a 'cover up' and it does seem to point in that direction as there are yawning gaps in the JAIC Report.

Why else would then-USA-puppets Sweden* immediately come out with a cock and bull story within hours of the accident?

*As evidenced by then PM Carl Bildt (for an independent sovereign state) sending Bill Clinton (a foreign power) his desired coalition government for approval.

There is some kind of fascination with Carl Bildt. He was replaced as PM oct 7th 1994. JAIC delivered it's report in december-1997.

Please explain what you mean about Clinton approving a government.