• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Axxman300 said:
He got on the boat. He isn't among the survivors. He is listed as dead. Maybe he hit his head, maybe he choked on an ham sandwich. Point is: he never left the ship and is presumed drowned.

It is really that simple.
Click to expand...

He was initially listed as a survivor. No explanation has been given as to why his name was removed or why an International Warrant for his arrest was issued 7th Oct 1994.

Why did Stenmark confirm to Reuters that Piht had survived but Andresson had not? Or that Piht was waiting to be interviewed in Turku?


Where is the retraction?
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. Just like the hundreds of passengers and crew who never made it to shore and whose bodies were never recovered.

Some (probably most) of those unaccounted-for people drowned when they went down with the ship, and their bodies are still trapped within the wreck on the sea bed. The remainder entered the water free from the ship, then either drowned or died of hypothermia, and their bodies were carried away by the sea.

In each and every case of an unaccounted-for person, obviously the most that could ever be said of them is that they were all presumed dead within around 8 hours of the sinking. As far as I know, they became legally dead very soon after the disaster as well. This is just how things work in sad instances such as this one.
Click to expand...

The ones 'who never made it' were not listed as survivors.
 
Axxman300 said:
I'm an ordinary person. I understand the explanation.

I also understand that an official report is required to show their work in order to understand how they reach the conclusions outlined in the report.

My knowledge base is marine geology. Way back in the first thread I posted links to the bathymetry of the Baltic Sea, and noted that combined with the recorded weather on the night of the accident that large and powerful waves would have been a factor. You confuse size with power. The region allows for a long fetch, and the rolling sea floor makes for areas of sudden rise., MS Estonia sailed right into a prime area for rough waves, and was sailing at a specific heading directly into them. And was sailing at flank speed.

It is unrealistic to rule out the weather and the waves generated that night. Any conspiracy theory has to get past this issue, and it cannot.

The ship was not designed for open ocean sailing and had only sailed in rough seas once a few years before. The captain ignored almost every safety rule in regards to sailing in hazardous seas, and he sank his ship.

That's it. That's all she wrote. End of story.
Click to expand...

So, how do you explain the heavy listing - heavy enough to cause people to be thrown out of bed or against walls - BEFORE the bow visor fell off at 0115, the JAIC official time (based on Treu's statement, whose timings were actually declared wrong and had to be adjusted)?
 
Axxman300 said:
Yes, and I've looked at the wealth of photos of the ships interior. It was a show place. But when you take those pictures and turn them on their side it becomes clear that evacuating the Estonia in those conditions was largely impossible past a certain point. And later imagine those places under water with furniture and fixtures and bodies floating.

This was a disaster, but grasping why certain things happened, and why certain things were not done post sinking is painfully obvious. Unless someone is a ghoul.
Click to expand...

If Treu could get up to the funnel deck in two minutes from Deck 0 (so he claims) then how come there was virtually ZERO time to arrange an orderly evacuation of the passengers? The Oceanos managed to evacuate all right, as did the Costa Concorda and the more recent Greek ferry, yesterday, albeit sadly not all.

You seem to think it all perfectly normal for 900 to drown just like that.
 
Vixen said:
It is. I am not referring to humour; we all enjoy a good joke and a hearty laugh.

However, kneejerk sneering instead of debating is a well-known logical fallacy. This can appear as flippancy, sarcasm and general refusal to take the debate seriously.

Rather like a bunch of teenage boys jeering and catcalling from the back at the movies (even if the film is dire).
Click to expand...

No, it is not. What do you think a logical fallacy is Vixen?
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, rigorously so. It can be in an appendix or exhibit, but engineering is very much a show-your-work profession, forensic engineering especially so because there may be novel techniques required to address some bit of evidence. The notion that you just plug numbers into a computer program and it spits out a fully reliable answer is about as far away from the truth as you can get.
Click to expand...

In this age of modern technology it is more and more the case. I recall using log tables at school and know people who even used slide rules and can use them still today. Ask a teenager today to use a slide rule and they'll look at you funny. Now the days of quill pens, abacuses, and chunky calculators are over. There is software that'll do nigh on anything. Hence the more developed VINNOVA study of 2008 that is likely more accurate that the JAIC. The fact it had to keep modelling until it found a fit indicates they were working backwards to shoe horn the Herald of Free Enterprise story into the Estonia's.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You mean the witnesses that describe:

"blows against the hull, as if someone were hitting it with a large stone"

"scraping, howling, creaking and screeching sound from overhead"

"a clear metallic blow or crash. After another one or two minutes he heard the same sound again."

"a dull sound, but powerful and as if something was sliding from one side to another, hitting hard against the ship's hull."

"a sound like metal against metal vibrating through the entire ship. It seemed to him that the blows were coming from the bow."

"two metallic, clanging sounds each coming a moment after a wave hit the bow. When the next wave struck he heard the same sound again three times"

"After a further, powerful, blow he heard two or three loud scraping sounds a few seconds apart"

"a metallic blow... after a further 40 - 50 seconds a very heavy metallic bang"

"a sound as of large sheets of metal beating together"

"a very heavy blow against the bow"

Most importantly off duty crew members gave this testimony
Click to expand...

Note whilst at least 39 of the passenger survivors mention hearing 'bangs', the JAIC has rewritten it as 'metallic thuds' to avoid the idea of an explosion or explosions and instead to claim what the witness hears was the bow visor pounding on the forepeak deck. That is known as manipulation of facts.

For example, some random quotes:

Tanel Moosaar - motorman - cabin 7008

23.00 hours to cabin, hard bangs, vessel's doors were banging, thought vessel had run aground, 01.20 or 01.15 hours;

Quote:
Ervin Roden - safety officer - cabin 7013

to bed at 21.00 hours, had been on car deck before;
felt one bang and the vessel was shaking, after some time another bang, the vessel rocked;
heavy heel to starboard, which caused him to slide to the foot end of his bed;

Quote:
Raivo Sinimi - cabin 754

some minutes after 01.00 hours he felt a heavy shock (push/blow) in the vessel, ca. 01.03 hours heel;
Click to expand...

The 'metallic thuds' wording is the JAIC psychologist rewriting history.
 
Vixen said:
Note whilst at least 39 of the passenger survivors mention hearing 'bangs', the JAIC has rewritten it as 'metallic thuds' to avoid the idea of an explosion or explosions and instead to claim what the witness hears was the bow visor pounding on the forepeak deck. That is known as manipulation of facts.

For example, some random quotes:



The 'metallic thuds' wording is the JAIC psychologist rewriting history.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this?

Is it just the ones you disagree with that are rewritten?
 
Vixen said:
If Treu could get up to the funnel deck in two minutes from Deck 0 (so he claims) then how come there was virtually ZERO time to arrange an orderly evacuation of the passengers? The Oceanos managed to evacuate all right, as did the Costa Concorda and the more recent Greek ferry, yesterday, albeit sadly not all.

You seem to think it all perfectly normal for 900 to drown just like that.
Click to expand...

The evacuation was called too late, the crew were badly trained. People got trapped inside the ship

Have you read the report?
 
Vixen said:
So, how do you explain the heavy listing - heavy enough to cause people to be thrown out of bed or against walls - BEFORE the bow visor fell off at 0115, the JAIC official time (based on Treu's statement, whose timings were actually declared wrong and had to be adjusted)?
Click to expand...

Only you are claiming the heavy list was before the problems with the bow visor.
 
Myriad said:
More likely he managed to climb up an adjacent wall, which was now the floor.
Click to expand...

You should know that a funnel is at the ship's centre. There is no wall nearby which is now a floor, unless you want to dive in a few fathoms below sea level to get to the side of the ship, which by the way, is now 'floating on its superstructure'.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
See the problem isn't that "oh the details of the Estonia incident are too difficult for a layman", it's that analysing the data and calculations are too difficult for a layman. I certainly don't think I'm able to do so.

The general description of what happened wouldn't baffle anyone, but anyone who wants to dispute the science DOES need to be, if not an expert, at least competent in marine architecture.

Do you think that you, Vixen, are competent enough in the physics regarding buoyancy and marine architecture to be able to critically assess the science behind the general description?
Click to expand...

Well Vixen?
 
Vixen said:
Carl Bildt is certainly knowledgeable about East European intelligence. He knows aggression is run by the Generals. The elected democratic heads of state know they have limited power. Bildt knows this from how he handled Estonia in 1994.
Click to expand...
He must be a fast learner since he left the post as PM shortly after the accident.

I'm not sure if I dare ask what East European generals were involved with Estonia?
 
Mojo said:
Shouldn’t there be an “IMV” in there somewhere? Without you citing the source for it, how is anyone able to check your claim that witness statements “that did not fit the JAIC narrative were excluded” for accuracy?
Click to expand...

It is not an IMV it is factual. I'll try and find the reference. The JAIC was asked about this and that was its answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom