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

[Roger Ramjets]

Let it sink

From Mars.

That's not fair.

Let's review of the original claims.

The official inquiry concluded that the cause of the accident was that the bow doors to the parking area for cars and lorries had come unhinged, allowing sea water to seep in, when it eventually fell off. Survivors report hearing a bang. A treaty between several countries was signed that it was unlawful for anyone to approach the spot where the stricken vessel lies, and it is regularly patrolled by coastguards. One country which did not sign the treaty was Germany.

One day, a couple of investigative German journalists engaged a boat to approach the MS Estonia, they dived below the waves and took pictures. They discovered something staggering: there was a large hole at the side of the ship. This has led to speculation that the disaster was caused by a submarine crashing into it, or one of the lorries, which included Russian military equipment, said to be sneaking secret weapons out of Russia, was the cause, i.e., some kind of explosive. The Germans involved are likely to be arrested and charged if they ever set foot in Sweden.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the official narrative when there are far more interesting theories to speculate about. But time-traveling KGB agents from Mars is going too far. Has anybody seriously suggested such a scenario? No.

Is there any evidence of a submarine crashing into the vessel, or a 'secret weapon' exploding? No. Is there plenty of evidence that the ship simply wasn't designed to handle the conditions? Yes. So now we must conclude that the 'official narrative' was indeed the correct one, and we can dismiss any other wacky theories dreamed up out of thin air.

This discussion has run its course. It weathered the storm for 473 pages, but now the doors have opened and water is pouring in. We should let it capsize and sink.

 

[MBDK]

That's not fair.

But time-traveling KGB agents from Mars is going too far. Has anybody seriously suggested such a scenario? No.

It was never meant to be fair. It was meant to be silly, and a metaphor of the silliness this entire discussion has morphed into. I think you get that. I also understand your desire to let it silently, and deservedly, slip beneath the waves. I have no problem with that. I may feel compelled to reply to other posts that potentially pop up, though.

 

[JesseCuster]

This discussion has run its course. It weathered the storm for 473 pages, but now the doors have opened and water is pouring in. We should let it capsize and sink.

I'm afraid the discussion has turned turtle, is sitting upside down on the water, refusing to sink beneath the waves.

 

[Myriad]

If the thread is really sinking into the sunset, maybe one final reminder of what actually happened:

"Here's a ferry. Its design is considered by international experts to only be safe in coastal waters."

"Actually, we're going to sail it across the Baltic Sea."

"Okay, but only when the weather conditions are calm, right?"

"Actually, we're going to make the crossing in stormy weather."

"Okay, but you'll at least make sure the ship is in the best possible condition and in the ideal configuration to react to unforeseen problems during the crossing, right?"

"Actually, we're going to set off with leaky seals and an unbalanced trim condition that makes further trim adjustments impossible."

"Hmm, you might get away with that if you're lucky, but you'll at least slow down or change your route to minimize the risk from wave impacts, right?"

"Actually, we have a schedule to keep so we're going to steam in a direct line at full speed."

"That's really asking for trouble. I think I'll stay on shore and wait for another ferry. But just for my peace of mind, at least tell me your officers and crew are going to be extra vigilant for any sign of equipment failure or danger to the passengers."

"Actually, we're all going to slack off and disregard every warning sign until it's too late."

 

[Axxman300]

This discussion has run its course. It weathered the storm for 473 pages, but now the doors have opened and water is pouring in. We should let it capsize and sink.

Cool, but grab a life vest, and make for an inflatable raft. Whatever you do, don't climb down the bow ramp. It seems to be both open and closed.

This is why Erwin Schrödinger-designed bow ramps were banned from the shipping industry.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm afraid the discussion has turned turtle, is sitting upside down on the water, refusing to sink beneath the waves.

So it's floating on its superstructure?

 

[Vixen]

Plus, and yet again, we have a link provided by Vixen that says the opposite of her assertions:

For context, the picture above shows Costa Concordia after she partially sank in January 2012. In this picture, she is lying at a 65-degree angle. It’s worth noting that Concordia didn’t actually capsize, despite the massive gash in her hull, she sank onto her starboard side.

That is because she only partially sank and landed sideways on a bank.

 

[Vixen]

You are hilarious, and true to form.

The final report is forthcoming, but the results have already been discussed. Salvaging the bow ramp is more about the Swedish government shutting up conspiracy theorists than anything else.




Well, lemme see if I got this...

The RMS Titanic is sailing at flank speed, ignoring warnings of icebergs from other ships in their area, when the ship strikes, grazes, and or otherwise comes into contact with an iceberg. A just under tree hours later the ship is on the bottom of the Atlantic.



First off, few things are 100% definitive.

Second, we knew it was the iceberg because, UNLIKE THE CREW OF THE ESTONIA, Titanic sent engineers down to survey the damage in the flooding compartments. Those crew members reported back up the chain of command. Their reports are on record in both inquests. That's how we know exactly what happened to the Titanic.




Yes, and for decades it has been closed.

Since you threw in Titanic again, for some reason, you should know that Titanic's survivors divided on the question of the ship splitting in half. Unlike MS Estonia, who have few survivors, and they were confronted with raging seas under nightmare storm, the Titanic's survivors sat in lifeboats on a flat-calm sea. Now the Titanic sank on a moonless night, and the lights of the ship went out just before the spine snapped. What the various survivors saw depended on where their boats were in relation to the wreck, and how good their eyesight was. I imagine the breakup would have been loud, but maybe not louder than the hundreds of people screaming on deck, and in the water. And the breakup might not have been as dramatic on the surface as depicted in the movie.

Either way, the breakup is a tangential issue, and the central issue was always known - Titanic struck an iceberg and sank. And to bring this back to the topic, both ships, MS Estonia and RMS Titanic were sailing too fast for the conditions on the nights of their respective sinkings. Both were commanded by experienced men who should have known better, but assumed their ships were better built than they actually were, and took unnecessary risks.

According to BBC News 17 May re the intricate scans, what exactly happened to the Titanic has not been finalised.

"There are still questions, basic questions, that need to be answered about the ship," Parks Stephenson, a Titanic analyst, told BBC News.

He said the model was "one of the first major steps to driving the Titanic story towards evidence-based research - and not speculation."

It is all very well your reprimanding a dead man for going too fast but that falls into the area of speculation. Why was he going too fast? What was the hurry?

There were 137 survivors of the Estonia, a large number of them crew. Almost one half of the survivors said they heard a bang, a couple of bangs, judders or both BEFORE the violent list to starboard, after which the vessel righted itself momentarily, allowing a frantic ten-minute interval during which people raced to the safety of the upper decks. These are independent witness testimonies as taken down by the police immediately after their rescue. A couple of witnesses in the lower deck in the hull, beneath the car deck saw water rising from below, not trickling down from above. A coupke of independent witnesses saw military vehicles loading at the last minute, delaying departure by ten to fifteen minutes.

So it is not correct that there were no witnesses to the Estonia disaster.

 

[Vixen]

That's not fair.

Let's review of the original claims.



I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the official narrative when there are far more interesting theories to speculate about. But time-traveling KGB agents from Mars is going too far. Has anybody seriously suggested such a scenario? No.

Is there any evidence of a submarine crashing into the vessel, or a 'secret weapon' exploding? No. Is there plenty of evidence that the ship simply wasn't designed to handle the conditions? Yes. So now we must conclude that the 'official narrative' was indeed the correct one, and we can dismiss any other wacky theories dreamed up out of thin air.

This discussion has run its course. It weathered the storm for 473 pages, but now the doors have opened and water is pouring in. We should let it capsize and sink.

Thanks for your input. It is actually a simple current affairs news report. What happened was that a Swedish filmmaker, Henrik Evertsson, was making a documentary about the 1997 disaster and was surprised to note a massive breach in the hull. There is no mention of this in the original JAIC report that came out circa 2000. As some 500 of the Estonia victims were Swedish nationals, unsurprisingly representatives of the victims' families wanted an explanation for what seemed a massive oversight, not least because it would explain why the vessel sank like a stone within thirty-five minutes, as with the hull intact the air in the hull should have kept it buoyant even if capsized, at least for longer than half an hour (a similar accident to a Polish passenger ferry floated upside down for nearly five days, and another vessel similarly took eighteen hours to sink, with almost all crew and passengers rescued). The governments of Sweden, Finland and Estonia agree to reinvestigate and this took place last summer and the data is still being analysed. Simple current affairs news.

Statement in support

• the accident happened during the fall of the USSR and the Berlin Wall comming down
• the USSR was being demilitarised in Estonia
• there was a large amount of smuggling on the black market of ex-USSR materiel
• a nuclear plant was decommissioned. There was a lot of a radioactive material on the black market.
• The Swedish Prime Minister at the time, Carl Bildt, was 'procuring' USSR military materiel, such as space technology via the passenger ferry from Estonia to Sweden.
• This smuggling by Sweden was top secret but was verified in the Riksdag circa 2005 and is minuted.
• According to wikileaks, Bildt was a CIA operative.
• It follows that IF the accident was connected with this smuggling, then:
• the accident could have been caused by Russian sabotage in revenge
• the accident could be a Swedish own-goal as it were, and as such classified information.
• The accident could be due to Estonian criminal gangs. Estonian engineer, Silva Linde was jailed for 14 years for drug smuggling a couple of years later.
• With new evidence that the JAIC didn't mention, it is natural the survivors and familes of the victims want an explanation.
• A breach in the hull would explain why it sank so rapidly.
• The victims included children, newboarn babies, pregnant women, ordinary men and women plus a group of 70 Stockholm civil police staff.

Statement Against

From the reaction of people here claiming to be sceptics, anyone would think Henrik Evertsson had personally asked to roger their daughters backwards.

 

[JayUtah]

That is because she only partially sank and landed sideways on a bank.

Can you explain why—in the 40 minutes between the first and second grounding events—the ship maintained a nearly constant list with only a very small heeling moment? According to your model of stability, the Costa Concordia should have righted herself as the G-Z righting moment applied itself.

In fact, it was the second grounding event that provided a fulcrum. That changes the system dynamics altogether; center of buoyancy becomes entirely irrelevant. The heeling moment skyrocketed to 3,500 m⋅t because it ran aground again, not in spite of it.

 

[Vixen]

If the thread is really sinking into the sunset, maybe one final reminder of what actually happened:

That's right. The families of the Hillsborough victims should just accept the original report into the disaster and what the national Murdoch newspaper said about Liverpudlians being a bunch of thugs and hooligans who caused the disaster themselves, and what's more, picked the pockets of the crushed dead.

How dare people ask questions or expect a proper investigation into how an accident happened in a public place, such as a football ground or on a public passenger ferry? Bloody bastards should just shut up.

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks for your input. It is actually a simple current affairs news report.

Asked and answered. You're using a current-affairs news report as an excuse to push ignorant conspiracy theories in an attempt to look smart. You don't know what you're talking about.

...it would explain why the vessel sank like a stone within thirty-five minutes, as with the hull intact the air in the hull should have kept it buoyant even if capsized, at least for longer than half an hour...

Your source for this expectation is a known crackpot. He does not know what he's talking about, and you do not have the appropriate knowledge to know whether or not he does.

[Here follows your standard Gish gallop of a mishmash of incompatible conspiracy theories that you don't understand, and which you've ignorantly repeated time and again for 400 pages. You are no better prepared now to defend them than when you started this thread.]

From the reaction of people here claiming to be sceptics, anyone would think Henrik Evertsson had personally asked to roger their daughters backwards.

Mean-spirited straw man. Evertsson admitted later he misrepresented the damage he observed because he had a specific story he wanted to tell. Subsequent, serious investigation has properly confirmed what others thought about this damage: it occurred when the ship struck bottom and was concealed from the initial dives by the ship's original position on the sea floor.

 

[Vixen]

Can you explain why—in the 40 minutes between the first and second grounding events—the ship maintained a nearly constant list with only a very small heeling moment? According to your model of stability, the Costa Concordia should have righted herself as the G-Z righting moment applied itself.

In fact, it was the second grounding event that provided a fulcrum. That changes the system dynamics altogether; center of buoyancy becomes entirely irrelevant. The heeling moment skyrocketed to 3,500 m⋅t because it ran aground again, not in spite of it.

AIUI the Concordia wasn't out at open sea and the captain abandoned ship. From what I recall, had it been out at open sea, it would have been a massive disaster.

 

[JayUtah]

How dare people ask questions...

You're asking pointed questions from a position of ignorance. You're not simply curious. You don't have any actual interest in where evidence leads.

...or expect a proper investigation into how an accident happened in a public place, such as a football ground or on a public passenger ferry? Bloody bastards should just shut up.

You are not qualified to conduct such an investigation, nor qualified to determine whether any prior or current investigation has been done properly.

You fancy yourself to be some kind of armchair detective, highly skilled at holding powerful interests accountable. But you do not have the proper skills or understanding. You're just blowing smoke. You're co-opting conspiracy theories to compensate for your ignorance and pretending no one notices.

 

[JayUtah]

AIUI the Concordia wasn't out at open sea and the captain abandoned ship. From what I recall, had it been out at open sea, it would have been a massive disaster.

This doesn't even come close to answering my question. You present a model of stability that introduced a righting moment. If your model is what governed the orientation of the Costa Concordia during the 40 minutes when it was floating free in the water, please explain why the righting moment did not manifest itself. You claim to be competent in the physics of ship stability. Put up or shut up.

 

[Vixen]

Asked and answered. You're using a current-affairs news report as an excuse to push ignorant conspiracy theories in an attempt to look smart. You don't know what you're talking about.



Your source for this expectation is a known crackpot. He does not know what he's talking about, and you do not have the appropriate knowledge to know whether or not he does.

[Here follows your standard Gish gallop of a mishmash of incompatible conspiracy theories that you don't understand, and which you've ignorantly repeated time and again for 400 pages. You are no better prepared now to defend them than when you started this thread.]



Mean-spirited straw man. Evertsson admitted later he misrepresented the damage he observed because he had a specific story he wanted to tell. Subsequent, serious investigation has properly confirmed what others thought about this damage: it occurred when the ship struck bottom and was concealed from the initial dives by the ship's original position on the sea floor.

Your claim that Captain Esa Mäkelä, of the Ship in Command HM Silja, on scene at the Estonia accident was a no-nothing was mean spirited and betrayed an unwarranted contempt towards someone who was a master of his craft. In Finland, to be a captain, you DO need to know about ship architecture and in fact every aspect of the ship.

Mäkelä mieli, who graduated in 1966, immediately decided to study shipbuilding at the Technical University

wiki

This article here, explains what is required of students who want to study for maritime qualifications. Even a Watchman can expect to begin with an basic degree before qualifying with a Watchman degree.

As a technical field, shipping involves a lot of calculations, so mathematics is needed in studies. In addition, we study normal subjects, such as Swedish, Finnish and English, as well as general subjects.

TS

Writing people off as stupid just because they have a different opinion from yourself speaks volumes about you, not them.

Bjorkman has a masters in ship architecture. You might hate his guts but he does understand the workings of a passenger ferry and how it is constructed.

Being objective means understanding what personal antipathy doesn't make someone a moron.

The term 'gish gallop' might sound good but I wonder if you even understand what it means. Factual statements are not gish gallop just because you prefer there wasn't a reinvestigation of the Estonia accident.

 

[Vixen]

You're asking pointed questions from a position of ignorance. You're not simply curious. You don't have any actual interest in where evidence leads.



You are not qualified to conduct such an investigation, nor qualified to determine whether any prior or current investigation has been done properly.

You fancy yourself to be some kind of armchair detective, highly skilled at holding powerful interests accountable. But you do not have the proper skills or understanding. You're just blowing smoke. You're co-opting conspiracy theories to compensate for your ignorance and pretending no one notices.

I have quoted Helsingin Sanomat and other highly respected newspapers, together with the JAIC and the German Shipbuilder's side. Every one of my assertions has been backed up with a reputable source.

 

[JayUtah]

Your claim that Captain Esa Mäkelä...

He is not your source.

Writing people off as stupid just because they have a different opinion from yourself speaks volumes about you, not them.

I call people crackpots who exhibit clearly crackpot behavior.

Bjorkman has a masters in ship architecture. You might hate his guts but he does understand the workings of a passenger ferry and how it is constructed.

Björkman is an obvious crackpot. He was fired from his job for claiming qualifications he does not have.

You claim you're qualified enough to know that Björkman's claims regarding MS Estonia are valid engineering. Yet you can't answer even the simplest questions regarding the pertinent science.

The term 'gish gallop' might sound good but I wonder if you even understand what it means.

A Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

A new poster has arrived in this thread, and you launched into all your previously discussed and debunked topics as if the previous 400 pages had not taken place.

Factual statements are not gish gallop just because you prefer there wasn't a reinvestigation of the Estonia accident.

Straw man. I do not oppose further or ongoing investigations into any engineering accident. In fact, I enjoy participating in as many as are offered to me. However, your premise for bringing this up is your belief that the original investigation should be disregarded because it was part of a conspiracy to cover up the "real" cause of the Estonia accident. You have demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about when attempting to defend those claims of conspiracy.

 

[JayUtah]

I have quoted Helsingin Sanomat and other highly respected newspapers, together with the JAIC and the German Shipbuilder's side. Every one of my assertions has been backed up with a reputable source.

Your claims have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked over the previous several hundred pages of this thread. It has changed neither your claims nor the methods you use to attempt to support them. You lack the skill and understanding to support your claims, and the willingness to learn about them.

 

[MBDK]

So it is not correct that there were no witnesses to the Estonia disaster.

Perhaps I missed the post where such a declaration was made. Without such reference this is just another Straw Man.

How dare people ask questions or expect a proper investigation into how an accident happened in a public place, such as a football ground or on a public passenger ferry?

Yes, the conspiracy promotors' crutch for their own lack of pertinent evidence. It is still a Straw Man, as no competent expert complains about being asked a serious question. The noted Straw Man is used as an attempt to deflect from the FACT that those legitimate questions ARE answered. So, when those who pose them either don't like or understand the valid answers, and have no justifiable response, they resort to that logical fallacy.

You claim to be competent in the physics of ship stability. Put up or shut up.

Agreed. Anyone can make a claim about anything. As previously discussed, providing genuine evidence to corroborate that claim, and others regarding a matter of physics, is the crucial ingredient missing in Vixen's boasts.