Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Hellbound]

Oh, and I’ll add a thank you here. It’s been a while since I’ve done demo calculations ( having lost my first copy of fm 5-34 years back). So kudos for being wrong enough to motivate me to replace it. I enjoy the math of it.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

 

[Mojo]

I imagine that a poll on the "Best of the Estonia CT elements" would be against the m/a? You've compiled a pretty long list but there are probably more and it would take a community effort to compile the full list, at a guess.

There was the whole “port at 45 degrees and starboard at 135 degrees” thing…

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So some guy with no direct knowledge of the facts, says the CIA grabbed the crew.

The CIA.

This is stupid, to believe it is true is a sign of brain damage.

In 1994, the CIA had no such capability on any level to "snatch" anyone. They would have to work with USSOCOM to do it, and even then they would have had problems. We tried to grab Manuel Noriega in 1989, in Panama, a country where we had free reign to pull all kinds of black-ops (and did), he escaped SEAL Team Six. To abduct ONE person took months of planning in 1994, complete with psychological profiles, names and photos of known associates, floor-plans of known habitations, Sat photos, and weeks of on-the-ground surveillance...and Noriega just slipped out a side door nobody knew about.

On the night of the sinking the CIA and this fantasy strike-team had no such preparation. In fact, IF there was smuggling taking place, the assumption would have been that the MS Estonia would have reached port. There would not have been a contingency for sinking. The next problem is integrating the strike-team into the rescue mission either in the air, or on the ground. The problem is not knowing who would survive or where they would be transported.

The whole idea is pathetically dumb on every real-world level.

The CIA continued to be hit and miss later in the 1990s in Somalia, and the Balkans, and would not become proficient until after 2005, thanks to the evolution in tactics of our Tier-1 units who had a lot of practice in Iraq.

Just when I think this thread can't get any more embarrassing, you post something from some delusional Swede.

And even in 2002 it isn't as if the CIA "snatch" team just swooped down from the blue. The Egyptians were arrested and handed over by Swedish law enforcement.

 

[Axxman300]

And even in 2002 it isn't as if the CIA "snatch" team just swooped down from the blue. The Egyptians were arrested and handed over by Swedish law enforcement.

Exactly, and Sweden could have told the CIA to get lost, but they didn't, which suggests they weren't comfortable with their presence, and found an excuse to get rid of them.

Sweden, and just about every other country in western Europe tells the US "no" all the time.

 

[JesseCuster]

And all that fun stuff is reported and believed by one single person here. One who insists that she is not a conspiracy theorist and is merely reporting properly referenced and cited facts.

And hypotheses put forward by respected professionals in their fields.

 

[GlennB]

There was the whole “port at 45 degrees and starboard at 135 degrees” thing…

Yep, and "floating on its superstructure", whatever that was supposed to mean. I don't think we ever did find out.

 

[abaddon]

Yep, and "floating on its superstructure", whatever that was supposed to mean. I don't think we ever did find out.

Well, given a claimant who does not seem to be aware what "port" "starboard" "superstructure" "list" "capsize" "bow" "visor" "radioactive waste" and any amount of other terms actually mean, what were you expecting?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yep, and "floating on its superstructure", whatever that was supposed to mean. I don't think we ever did find out.

The overused and underexplained slogan "a ship cannot float on its superstructure" was an odd one.

On the one hand, as a sort of rule-of-thumb, it's not that far away from something Captain Swoop has said several times; that a ship's superstructure is not designed to be watertight. But on the other hand it was wielded like a sort of magic spell, without any seeming comprehension beyond that if a ship's superstructure dips into the sea then something something immediate disaster. It's mystical power was used repeatedly to imply that the mere suggestion that the ship might have remained afloat more or less on its side for tens of minutes was automatically absurd and ridiculous.

I assume Vixen lifted the slogan from some favoured site and simply deployed it as a beat-down for any suggestion she wanted to pour scorn on, without having a grasp of what it actually meant in any detail.

 

[JayUtah]

The overused and underexplained slogan "a ship cannot float on its superstructure" was an odd one.

One of the hardest parts of answering conspiracy theories is ferreting out just exactly what wrong-headed idea the theorist has about something like this. Having taught college for a while, I have become accustomed to the common misconceptions students usually stumble over while trying to learn something new. But the problem is that, at the time, they don't know it's a misconception. They think they've learned it correctly. So you have to watch for the telltale mistakes that indicate specific, common misconceptions. Then correct them.

Here it seems she's absorbed something about the metacentric height and GZ formulations of transverse stability, but I can't work out where she's getting the wrong idea. And since she can't explain the model coherently at all, it's no use. There is no telltale error, just a howling hurricane of them.

On the one hand, as a sort of rule-of-thumb, it's not that far away from something Captain Swoop has said several times; that a ship's superstructure is not designed to be watertight.

Correct, and that alters the model. Which is to say, it's an "intact hull" model, meaning that it doesn't account for shipping water. It doesn't matter why the vessel ships water. It only matters that once it does, you have to alter the model to make it predictive again. The GZ model works on externally imposed roll moments, such as winds, waves, or turning too sharply.

Vixen seems to have turned the syllogism around. She's saying that since we observe that the model didn't predict the ship's behavior -- i.e., it didn't "turn turtle and float for hours," then it must not have had an intact hull. That's not what that means. It means that in selecting a model to predict a ship's transverse stability, you should use the GZ model only when flooding is not a factor. You have to use a different model if the vessel is flooding. It's based on the same physics, but certain things that are fixed in the GZ model turn into variables.

But on the other hand it was wielded like a sort of magic spell, without any seeming comprehension beyond that if a ship's superstructure dips into the sea then something something immediate disaster.

Yeah, it's really baffling how people cling to these magical-incantation arguments. She's trying to work through it using a plank as a real-world model. But don't use a plank. Look at the cross-sections of these modern ferries and cargo carriers. They're not wide-and-flat structures like a plank. They're squarish. Some of them are even taller than they are wide. The reason this matters is that a new stable node is created when the hull departs from the "schooner" or "frigate" types and becomes mostly rectangular. Those older, classic hulls generally don't have an intact-hull stability node on their sides. But square and rectangular ships do.

The computation of the center of buoyancy is rather complicated, but it looks at the whole shape of the part of the vessel that's submerged (in whatever orientation). If a tall, skinny ship rolls on its side to become a fat, wide ship, it can certainly float there stably. But of course it won't float for long, because openings in the top of the hull have now plunged under the surface and are admitting water.

Consider the degenerative example of a hull with a completely circular cross-section, like some imaginary submarine. The shape of the hull -- and therefore the location of its center of buoyancy -- doesn't change as the ship rolls. Therefore the GZ-moment doesn't help in that case. Submarines have to ride low in the water when surfaced because of this reason.

These are the questions I was trying to get Vixen to think about, the same way I would test the comprehension of a student just learning these concepts. The ability to take what you've learned and generalize it to something besides the didactic example is what we're looking for here. It just didn't happen. Vixen has no working understanding of transverse stability.

 

[Mojo]

The overused and underexplained slogan "a ship cannot float on its superstructure" was an odd one.

On the one hand, as a sort of rule-of-thumb, it's not that far away from something Captain Swoop has said several times; that a ship's superstructure is not designed to be watertight. But on the other hand it was wielded like a sort of magic spell, without any seeming comprehension beyond that if a ship's superstructure dips into the sea then something something immediate disaster. It's mystical power was used repeatedly to imply that the mere suggestion that the ship might have remained afloat more or less on its side for tens of minutes was automatically absurd and ridiculous.

While simultaneously a claim was being made that once the superstructure was in the water, the ship would inevitably “turn turtle” and remain floating.

 

[JayUtah]

While simultaneously a claim was being made that once the superstructure was in the water, the ship would inevitably “turn turtle” and remain floating.

That's what I think of when I hear "float on its superstructure." I gather she's making some sort of magical distinction between hull and superstructure, where hull is the only part of a ship that will inure to buoyancy, and under no circumstances can a superstructure perform that role. Which, of course, doesn't resolve the contradiction. I'm just baffled that Vixen seems to still consider this some kind of self-evident or self-defining phrase when no other person in this forum has the slightest idea what she's talking about.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's what I think of when I hear "float on its superstructure." I gather she's making some sort of magical distinction between hull and superstructure, where hull is the only part of a ship that will inure to buoyancy, and under no circumstances can a superstructure perform that role. Which, of course, doesn't resolve the contradiction. I'm just baffled that Vixen seems to still consider this some kind of self-evident or self-defining phrase when no other person in this forum has the slightest idea what she's talking about.

Why do I suspect that this baffling turn of phrase might have been cribbed from a CT book or website....?

 

[Vixen]

You know, there is a recording of Estonia's mayday call on YouTube, so the telecommunications worked.

The EPIRBS required manual activation. Due the storm and fast sinking, it would have been a miracle if they had been activated. After Estonia, SOLAS requirement was changed to require automatic activation.

It is an open secret in Finland that Finnish Navy has extensive hydrophone networks in Finnish coastal waters. Propably Sweden has them too. Any explosions would have been heard and investigated.

I have personally witnessed this system working. Many moons ago I attended a larper gathering which had a duel of wizards. It was a semi-illegal fireworks display by couple of university students stydying pyrotechnics. The epic finale was a series of small underwater explosions which raised a wall of water about 100 m long and 10 m high. Coast guard helo arrived within 30 mins to investigate. Luckily the show was over by then.

When submarine Kursk sank, the two torpedo explosions were registered on seismometers which helped the accident investigation.

The idea that underwater explosions would go unnoticed is propesterous.

That storm was a bad one. I live in Helsinki which is on southern coast of Finland. The previous evening I almost died when the storm blew a roofing tile from the roof of a nearby apartment building and almost hit me. It was the only storm I have seen tearing away any roofing tiles. Of course Helsinki =/= Utö but still it is the worst storm I have witnessed.

Originally the Estonia was designed and built for coastal use and was required to stay near a coast. That paperwork was missed during one of many changes of ownership.

Underspecced and badly maintained locking mechanism couldn't handle the strain of long open water leg in a bad storm and failed. The falling bow visor damaged the car ramp. This allowed water entry on car deck and the free surface effect and flooding capsized Estonia.

The Herald of Free Enterprise is a terrifying example of the power of free surface effect.

The Titanic and Costa Concordia had several compartments open to sea and their sinkings took almost 4 and 2 hours. A collision with a submarine would hole only one compartment and wouldn't be enough to sink a car ferry.

In World War II it was a common tactic for destroyers to sink surfaced submarines by ramming them. The hull of a submarine is built to withstand large water pressure on their whole hull. It doesn't handle localized damage nearly as well.

If the Estonia hit a submarine, where is that sunk submarine? Nobody noticed it during the search for Estonia's wreck? Finnish radar coverage missed stealthy recovery ships?

Jukkelus, thanks for your contribution and welcome.

Actually there were an enormous number of problems in communication on the night of the disaster. Channel 16 wasn't working and it was only by sheer fluke that the weak message from Tammes came through at 01:21:55. From the transcript you can hear he didn't follow standard procedure (saying Mayday three times , giving name of ship and location) which indicates he had likely been trying to communicate for some time. When he was heard, by the Captain of Viking Mariella, who responded, he did not hear the response as he again repeated. This time, Silja Europa heard and Tammes also responded to Silja Europa. Europa and Mariella both had to use 2152 as the international distress Channel 16 was not working or poor (Finnish Rear Admiral Heimo Iivonen told the JAIC that the Finnish coastguards had been experiencing what they assessed to be a blocking transmitter from a nearby Russian base on a former Finnish island). The Captain of Mariella had to use his own NMT mobile to ring the MRCC Turku landline. The guys at Turku needed a location, which Tammes could not provide to Mariella/Europa as he said they had 'blackout'. However, Ainsalu called back two minutes later, with the IVth Officer calling out the coordinates (which must have been showing on the navigational systems). MRCC Turku ordered Helsinki Radio to convey the Mayday to MRCC Stockholm, which it could not do until it received the location and had trouble getting through. It did nto get through until 01:48, which is when Estonia was gone completely. So, it is incorrect to say there were no communication problems.

The JAIC confirms the EPIRBs were:

3.4.4 Emergency beacons

The ESTONIA carried two emergency beacons (EPIRBs) of type Kannad 406F.

The last check of the radio beacons was reported to have been made about one week prior to the accident by the radio operator. The check confirmed that the EPIRBs were in full working order.

JAIC REPORT

From their brochure, Kannad confirms the 'F' suffix denotes 'free-floating' and it is confirmed by Rockwater and JAIC appointed navigational communications system expert, Asser Koivisto, that it was installed in a case with a hyrdostatic release unit.

From Kannad itself:

The float free type (automatic activation):
• KANNAD 406 F/P: Container made of polyester with an internal membrane (CAL87).
• KANNAD 406 FH/PH: Container fitted with a HAMMAR release system (CAL 89).

And this HRU was retrieved by the Rockwater divers when they went to the bridge and you can see them putting it in the net. The HRU is triggered when it is submerged in water between one to four metres deep.

MRCC Commander Montonen was so surprised there was no signal emitted he ordered the COSPAS-SARSAT base in Norway to search through their records for the missing signal.

So you see, it cannot have been a manually activated model or it would be obvious why it didn't emit (no-one activated it). If you have a citation showing otherwise, please present it.

As for the claim it was as a result of the Estonia accident that automatically activated EPIRBs became mandatory, that is incorrect as SOLAS had advised a mandatory use of them by 1 Aug 1993.

"not
later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite
EPIRB on every ship as part of the global maritime distress and safety system".

As for seismology, the coast guard may well have come to investigate your pyrotechnic display. However, it would not show on a seismograph, which is designed to detect tremors and movements in the earth. Kursk was picked up at many seismology centres throughout Europe - who immediately rushed to offer help - because the extremely powerful explosion, equivalent to 2- 3 tonnes of TNT. A seismograph is not designed to pick up explosions above the earth or sea level, otherwise it would be peaking wildly all day day long, with the noise of ship-building yards and unloading of cargo. In any case, the amount of explosives estimated to have been contained in the package noted by Royal Navy military explosives experts Braidwood and Fellow was only about 1kg of 'composite B', enough to dislodge a lock, rather than blow a ship out of the water.

At 11:29:34 (07:29:50 GMT), seismic detectors at the Norwegian seismic array (NORSAR) and in other locations around the world recorded a seismic event of magnitude 1.5 on the Richter scale.[13] The location was fixed at coordinates 69°38′N 37°19′E, north-east of Murmansk, approximately 250 km (160 mi) from Norway, and 80 kilometres (50 mi) from the Kola Peninsula.[14]

Secondary event

At 11:31:48,[13] 2 minutes and 14 seconds after the first, a second event, measuring 4.2 on the Richter scale, or 250 times larger than the first,[12] was registered on seismographs across northern Europe[15] and was detected as far away as Alaska.[7] The second explosion was equivalent to 2–3 tons of TNT.

Kursk disaster Wiki


As you would know, living in Helsinki, dynamite is a very common factor in building work and excavating wells, due to the ice-age-formed granite that is so characteristic of the Finnish landscape. When a neighbour built nearby our summer cottage, they had to come and ask permission and warn us that the builders would be applying dynamite (luckily it didn't dislodge anything of ours). You can even buy the stuff at hardware stores. So you see, it would not be practical for a seismograph to pick up minor explosions such as Vappu or New Years Day fireworks, but concentrate on the earth's surface.

When the Earth trembles, earthquakes spread energy in the form of seismic waves. A seismograph is the primary earthquake measuring instrument. The seismograph produces a digital graphic recording of the ground motion caused by the seismic waves. The digital recording is called a seismogram.

A network of worldwide seismographs detects and measures the strength and duration of the earthquake’s waves. The seismograph produces a digital graphic plotting of the ground motion of the event.

Earthquake Authority com

Thus, it becomes readily apparent that semtex-style explosives applied to a car ramp or bow visor some 2 to 15 metres above sea level is unlikely to register on a seismograph as other than normal background noise.

The Estonia survivors, certainly - including Sillaste, Treu and Linde - did report hearing a bang or a series of bangs before the violent list to starboard.

 

[Vixen]

The overused and underexplained slogan "a ship cannot float on its superstructure" was an odd one.

On the one hand, as a sort of rule-of-thumb, it's not that far away from something Captain Swoop has said several times; that a ship's superstructure is not designed to be watertight. But on the other hand it was wielded like a sort of magic spell, without any seeming comprehension beyond that if a ship's superstructure dips into the sea then something something immediate disaster. It's mystical power was used repeatedly to imply that the mere suggestion that the ship might have remained afloat more or less on its side for tens of minutes was automatically absurd and ridiculous.

I assume Vixen lifted the slogan from some favoured site and simply deployed it as a beat-down for any suggestion she wanted to pour scorn on, without having a grasp of what it actually meant in any detail.

It is not a slogan, it is how ships are designed. Even the ancient Polynesians knew instinctively and by hard experience that for a boat to float it needed to have a hull of such a shape that the (imaginary) righting arm would correct any excess listing to the left or right, as a natural product of the centre of gravity and buoyancy and its concommitant metacentric height. They may not have had the mathematical or literary tools to formulate these principles but they understood that the main aim was to stay afloat. If you design a ship to float on its side, you are ipso facto getting rid of the crucial righting mechanism. Plain sight should tell you that a vessel the size of the Estonia will not float on its side (whilst it waits for seawater to permeate the windows presumed by the JAIC to be gradually smashed by waves, as it admits water on the car deck alone would not have sunk it or capsized it). Yet for the JAIC theory to work, it has the Estonia floating on its superstructure (its side) for over twenty minutes, whilst the pesky waves did their job.

No seaworthy vessel will float on its side as that is not what it is designed to do. Wrong dynamics all together.

Try it out on a toy boat and test the principles for yourself.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Jukkelus, thanks for your contribution and welcome.

Actually there were an enormous number of problems in communication on the night of the disaster. Channel 16 wasn't working and it was only by sheer fluke that the weak message from Tammes came through at 01:21:55. From the transcript you can hear he didn't follow standard procedure (saying Mayday three times , giving name of ship and location) which indicates he had likely been trying to communicate for some time. When he was heard, by the Captain of Viking Mariella, who responded, he did not hear the response as he again repeated. This time, Silja Europa heard and Tammes also responded to Silja Europa. Europa and Mariella both had to use 2152 as the international distress Channel 16 was not working or poor (Finnish Rear Admiral Heimo Iivonen told the JAIC that the Finnish coastguards had been experiencing what they assessed to be a blocking transmitter from a nearby Russian base on a former Finnish island). The Captain of Mariella had to use his own NMT mobile to ring the MRCC Turku landline. The guys at Turku needed a location, which Tammes could not provide to Mariella/Europa as he said they had 'blackout'. However, Ainsalu called back two minutes later, with the IVth Officer calling out the coordinates (which must have been showing on the navigational systems). MRCC Turku ordered Helsinki Radio to convey the Mayday to MRCC Stockholm, which it could not do until it received the location and had trouble getting through. It did nto get through until 01:48, which is when Estonia was gone completely. So, it is incorrect to say there were no communication problems.

The JAIC confirms the EPIRBs were:

JAIC REPORT

From their brochure, Kannad confirms the 'F' suffix denotes 'free-floating' and it is confirmed by Rockwater and JAIC appointed navigational communications system expert, Asser Koivisto, that it was installed in a case with a hyrdostatic release unit.



And this HRU was retrieved by the Rockwater divers when they went to the bridge and you can see them putting it in the net. The HRU is triggered when it is submerged in water between one to four metres deep.

MRCC Commander Montonen was so surprised there was no signal emitted he ordered the COSPAS-SARSAT base in Norway to search through their records for the missing signal.

So you see, it cannot have been a manually activated model or it would be obvious why it didn't emit (no-one activated it). If you have a citation showing otherwise, please present it.

As for the claim it was as a result of the Estonia accident that automatically activated EPIRBs became mandatory, that is incorrect as SOLAS had advised a mandatory use of them by 1 Aug 1993.



As for seismology, the coast guard may well have come to investigate your pyrotechnic display. However, it would not show on a seismograph, which is designed to detect tremors and movements in the earth. Kursk was picked up at many seismology centres throughout Europe - who immediately rushed to offer help - because the extremely powerful explosion, equivalent to 2- 3 tonnes of TNT. A seismograph is not designed to pick up explosions above the earth or sea level, otherwise it would be peaking wildly all day day long, with the noise of ship-building yards and unloading of cargo. In any case, the amount of explosives estimated to have been contained in the package noted by Royal Navy military explosives experts Braidwood and Fellow was only about 1kg of 'composite B', enough to dislodge a lock, rather than blow a ship out of the water.

Kursk disaster Wiki


As you would know, living in Helsinki, dynamite is a very common factor in building work and excavating wells, due to the ice-age-formed granite that is so characteristic of the Finnish landscape. When a neighbour built nearby our summer cottage, they had to come and ask permission and warn us that the builders would be applying dynamite (luckily it didn't dislodge anything of ours). You can even buy the stuff at hardware stores. So you see, it would not be practical for a seismograph to pick up minor explosions such as Vappu or New Years Day fireworks, but concentrate on the earth's surface.

Earthquake Authority com

Thus, it becomes readily apparent that semtex-style explosives applied to a car ramp or bow visor some 2 to 15 metres above sea level is unlikely to register on a seismograph as other than normal background noise.

The Estonia survivors, certainly - including Sillaste, Treu and Linde - did report hearing a bang or a series of bangs before the violent list to starboard.

Channel 16 was not blocked. The Mayday calls were received by 14 ship- and shore-based radio stations.
The signal was weak because it was sent from a battery powered, hand held transmitter, the ship had lost power for the main radio systems.
The beacons were found to be in working order, they had full batteries and when they were activated they broadcast their distress signal for over 4 hours.

They didn't activate because the crew did not activate them. They were manual activation units.

Are we going to go through all that again?

Where is your evidence that dynamite can be bought in hardware stores?

Where is your evidence that explosions aboard the ship would not be detected?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is not a slogan, it is how ships are designed. Even the ancient Polynesians knew instinctively and by hard experience that for a boat to float it needed to have a hull of such a shape that the (imaginary) righting arm would correct any excess listing to the left or right, as a natural product of the centre of gravity and buoyancy and its concommitant metacentric height. They may not have had the mathematical or literary tools to formulate these principles but they understood that the main aim was to stay afloat. If you design a ship to float on its side, you are ipso facto getting rid of the crucial righting mechanism. Plain sight should tell you that a vessel the size of the Estonia will not float on its side (whilst it waits for seawater to permeate the windows presumed by the JAIC to be gradually smashed by waves, as it admits water on the car deck alone would not have sunk it or capsized it). Yet for the JAIC theory to work, it has the Estonia floating on its superstructure (its side) for over twenty minutes, whilst the pesky waves did their job.

No seaworthy vessel will float on its side as that is not what it is designed to do. Wrong dynamics all together.

Try it out on a toy boat and test the principles for yourself.

Estonia did not 'float on it's side' it sank.

 

[junkshop]

...(same old same old, snipped for brevity)...

Oh, goody. A reset.

 

[Jukkelus]

Jukkelus, thanks for your contribution and welcome.

Actually there were an enormous number of problems in communication on the night of the disaster. Channel 16 wasn't working <snip>

Thanks for the welcome.

This youtube .com/watch?v=V5tbah19qo8 (sorry the mangled link, I don't have link posting priviliges yet) recording proves otherwise. They mention someone having their carrier wave on but they can still communicate.

As you would know, living in Helsinki, dynamite is a very common factor in building work and excavating wells, due to the ice-age-formed granite that is so characteristic of the Finnish landscape. When a neighbour built nearby our summer cottage, they had to come and ask permission and warn us that the builders would be applying dynamite (luckily it didn't dislodge anything of ours). You can even buy the stuff at hardware stores. So you see, it would not be practical for a seismograph to pick up minor explosions such as Vappu or New Years Day fireworks, but concentrate on the earth's surface. <snip>

Yes, explosives are commonly used to excavate rocky Finnish ground. No, they are definately not readily available. Explosives, firearms, bullets and gunpowder are strictly controlled in Finland. The only dynamite you can buy without being licensed exploder is "snail dynamite" what is an expanding mortar used to crack rocks concrete.

The only occasion when unlicensed fireworks are allowed is New Year's Eve from 18-02. Of course with a license you can have fireworks display whenever you want if "forest fire warning" is not in effect. I haven't heard of fireworks being a May Day tradition anywhere in Finland.

I can't comprehend how you can compare fireworks with the supposed demolition explosives on Estonia. Fireworks contain what, tens to low hundreds grams of black powder (low explosive) going off on ground or tens of meters in air. In my understanding, having high explosives going off in enclosed space of the car deck would cause the underwater part of the hull to reverbate and radiate sound into the sea.

The Estonia survivors, certainly - including Sillaste, Treu and Linde - did report hearing a bang or a series of bangs before the violent list to starboard.

Yes, they heard a series of metallic bangs. That was the now-unlocked bow visor slamming against the hull before shearing completely off.

 

[Steve]

Thanks for the welcome.

This youtube .com/watch?v=V5tbah19qo8 (sorry the mangled link, I don't have link posting priviliges yet) recording proves otherwise. They mention someone having their carrier wave on but they can still communicate.



Yes, explosives are commonly used to excavate rocky Finnish ground. No, they are definately not readily available. Explosives, firearms, bullets and gunpowder are strictly controlled in Finland. The only dynamite you can buy without being licensed exploder is "snail dynamite" what is an expanding mortar used to crack rocks concrete.

The only occasion when unlicensed fireworks are allowed is New Year's Eve from 18-02. Of course with a license you can have fireworks display whenever you want if "forest fire warning" is not in effect. I haven't heard of fireworks being a May Day tradition anywhere in Finland.

I can't comprehend how you can compare fireworks with the supposed demolition explosives on Estonia. Fireworks contain what, tens to low hundreds grams of black powder (low explosive) going off on ground or tens of meters in air. In my understanding, having high explosives going off in enclosed space of the car deck would cause the underwater part of the hull to reverbate and radiate sound into the sea.




Yes, they heard a series of metallic bangs. That was the now-unlocked bow visor slamming against the hull before shearing completely off.

Please don't presume to educate Vixen on anything to do with Finland! Vixen, as a British ex-pat, knows Finland like no one else knows Finland.

 

[abaddon]

Are we going to go through all that again?

Yup. That is how fringe resets work.