• 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 VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
He wanted a link to where any eyewitness mentioned hearing an explosion-type noises (using Mojo's term).
Click to expand...


And now I want a link to a post in which I used the term "explosion-type noises".

ETA: Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
Having heard many kinds of explosions, of various kinds and sizes, at all kinds of distances, I can say it's easy to mistake loud, sudden noises for explosions, even if you are familiar with them.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I take it that when you claim everything I write is a lot of nonsense, this constitutes a personal attack?
Click to expand...

As, it seems, always, you take it wrongly. Pointing out that what you are posting in this thread is nonsense is not a personal attack.

You keep posting things which have already been addressed many times in this thread, and previous instalments of it. The things themselves are pretty ludicrous, even more so when they have been examined and properly explained. They have been dismissed, and there would seem to be no point in explaining exactly why for the nth time when you are ignoring all the previous responses, so describing what you are posting as nonsense, and as conspiracy theories, saves time that would otherwise be wasted. That you choose to keep coming back and posting the same nonsense again and again does suggest various possibilities about you and your motivation, and if I were to speculate about that here, then that would indeed be a breach of rule 12.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Having heard many times of explosions, of various kinds and sizes, at all kinds of distances, I can say it's easy to mistake loud, sudden noises for explosions, even if you are familiar with them.
Click to expand...


But how easy would it be to mistake yourself for me?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Be sensible. When a ferry sinks is your first thought "Forget the rescue mission; top priority is to find the ships officers and abduct them"?
Click to expand...

That is what usually happens when a passenger ship wrecks. The first thing the Coastguard/Police look for is the Captain (cf Concordia, Park Victory).

You do not find it at all astonishing that nobody has ever been charged, even with negligence?

That's fine. The sudden death of 1,000 innocent passengers is just one of those things.
 
Vixen said:
That is what usually happens when a passenger ship wrecks. The first thing the Coastguard/Police look for is the Captain (cf Concordia, Park Victory).

You do not find it at all astonishing that nobody has ever been charged, even with negligence?

That's fine. The sudden death of 1,000 innocent passengers is just one of those things.
Click to expand...

Have another go, and this time reply to the post you're quoting.
 
Mojo said:
You're telling porkies again. Here is the first post in this particular thread in which I mentioned explosions:



Here is the post which includes the first use in the thread of the word "explosions" and which led to the discussion of the evidence for explosions:



Have a look at the time stamps, and see if you can figure out who "suddenly started posting about explosions".
Click to expand...

I very clearly wrote:

Half the survivors testified independently of each other in their signed statements to the police of having heard what sounded like an explosion or a series of explosions, together with a shudder and a violent list, the massive hole in the hull, the eye witnesses seeing a military truck being loaded at the last minute, delaying departure by fifteen minutes, the communications blackout...how does that qualify as 'no evidence'?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Citation required.
Click to expand...

An automatic EPIRB needs a hydrostatic release unit for it to be auto.

WHAT DOES AN HRU DO?
If the vessel sinks, the increasing water pressure activates the Hammar H20. It automatically releases the liferafts, EPIRBs (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons), or other life-saving appliances it is connected to.
Click to expand...
https://www.cmhammar.com/h20-release-units/


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epirb_hydrostatic_release_mechanism.jpg

In relation to the Estonia:

Perhaps the most bizarre observation is that the cages of the EPIRB lighthouses were empty and the lighthouses were found at sea off the coast of Estonia near Dirham, along with life jackets and life rafts. The EPIRB beacon is thus a radiotelephone-like device designed to send a signal of the location of a sunken ship to rescuers. So why on earth have these vital rescue equipment been thrown (?) Out of the ship? The Rockwater men found the cages of the lighthouses empty, but the report does not say what condition the cages were in - I think quite relevant information. These discovered lighthouses were even first tested by the Finns in December 1994, and later they operated for another 4 hours in one bell at the Estonian icebreaker Tarmo, when the Russians noticed a continuous signal.

What are these EPIRB cages? An EPIRB buoy is an emergency transmitter that is attached to a vessel by a water pressure trigger designed to remove the EPIRB from the vessel at the time of sinking (the emergency transmitter does not go to the bottom). The EPIRB and pressure trigger are on a wall bracket (may have a plastic case today), on passenger boats usually with a stattubryka (cab roof) on the mast wall or railing. In Estonian times, it has been a cylinder-like, orange stump about 50 cm long. Another similar one may have been inside the bridge for inclusion, or on the other side of the ship in the rack. In the optimal situation, that buoy is taken into the liferaft or boat and launched manually, but often it detaches as the ship sinks and automatically begins to send a signal when in the water.

In the past, EPIRBs could be in a "cage" that was a frame with a pressure trigger. Many times still sprung so that when the pressure release was released, the frame was "shot" off the buoy. Many current plastic cases work in the same way.

EPIRBs in Estonia did not have a test switch as in the current ones. That Frogs was placed in a horizontal position and it fired after being upright long enough.

The Estonian spark had inspected the buoys' activities about a week before the accident and by then those had been operating normally. Those Kannadithan were tested as follows: the buoy's "cage" was carefully opened and the buoy was raised. When the indicator light started flashing, the cap was opened and the switch was turned to the OFF position. In that case, the alarm had not yet left, but the buoy "

Both EPIRBs in Estonia were turned off when found, would the buoys be left untuned after the test?
Click to expand...
source: technical expert's opinion

Helsingin Sanomat confirmed it was automatic and the hydrostatic release units should have activated but for some reason remained switched off. The mystery is why was it found untuned, did someone turn it off and why.

Estonian emergency buoys were a forgotten tuning The two emergency buoys of the car ferry Estonia did not send a signal to the rescuers because they had not been tuned on board. Emergency buoys burst to the surface properly as the ship sank. Turma's International Commission of Inquiry has investigated the activities of the emergency buoys that drifted off the Estonian coast. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they could not send anything untuned, says Commissioner Kari Lehtola. The committee closed the two-day meeting on Friday in Helsinki. The so-called EPIRB emergency buoys had been recently serviced and had been placed in place in accordance with the rules. However, during the installation phase, the activation of the buoys was forgotten: the protective cover must be opened and turned on the coupling head. In Estonia, the activation of the emergency buoy was one of the tasks of the radio electricians, of which there were two on board.

The investigation is still ongoing, but the Commission has consulted the radio electrician on the matter, said Asser Koivisto, the Commission's expert. The purpose of the emergency buoy is to send the location of the sunken ship and to tell the searchers the name of the ship. According to Koivisto's assessment
Click to expand...
HS

The manual type which Andy_Ross is claiming they were - on his unfounded assumption that because they didn't go off, they must have been manual! - is one where when you find yourself sinking, you have to manually switch it on and chuck it in the water yourself.


The EPIRB's on Estonia were fitted as per convention in a cage on each side of the bridge. However, there needs to be an engineer to ensure they are tuned by a method of inspection which is routine protocol on a ship.
 
Last edited:
There are no assumptions. The model that was aboard was a manual one
When they were found they were switched off.
When they were switched on they started to transmit as they are designed to do.
They were in working order with fully charged batteries, but had never been turned on.

They don't need to be turned on by an engineer. They have one switch that activates them and a battery test button. Apart from that they are sealed units that only the supplier can get in to.
There is no 'routine protocol ' involving an engineer you made that up, it's a lie.


You can post as much other **** as you want. It just makes you look dishonest
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Have another go, and this time reply to the post you're quoting.
Click to expand...

For heavens sake no Chief of Police or Coast Guard Commander says, 'Go and abduct the Captain!'. It would obviously be a command to find whoever is in charge of a shipping accident that kills almost a thousand people to bring them in for questioning. Nothing absurd about it at all. It is possible to send a rescue team and also to seek out the captain. The Captain of Concordia was arrested, as in the other incident off South Africa, when the captain and his crew took a boat to shore leaving the passengers behind on a sinking ship for another 18 hours.
 
zooterkin said:
As, it seems, always, you take it wrongly. Pointing out that what you are posting in this thread is nonsense is not a personal attack.

You keep posting things which have already been addressed many times in this thread, and previous instalments of it. The things themselves are pretty ludicrous, even more so when they have been examined and properly explained. They have been dismissed, and there would seem to be no point in explaining exactly why for the nth time when you are ignoring all the previous responses, so describing what you are posting as nonsense, and as conspiracy theories, saves time that would otherwise be wasted. That you choose to keep coming back and posting the same nonsense again and again does suggest various possibilities about you and your motivation, and if I were to speculate about that here, then that would indeed be a breach of rule 12.
Click to expand...

I don't have to justify to you what interests me. If you find the topic ludicrous there are many other threads to choose from that might suit you better.
 
Andy_Ross said:
There are no assumptions. The model that was aboard was a manual one
When they were found they were switched off.
When they were switched on they started to transmit as they are designed to do.
They were in working order with fully charged batteries, but had never been turned on.

They don't need to be turned on by an engineer. They have one switch that activates them and a battery test button. Apart from that they are sealed units that only the supplier can get in to.
There is no 'routine protocol ' involving an engineer you made that up, it's a lie.


You can post as much other **** as you want. It just makes you look dishonest
Click to expand...

Do you have a citation for this other than your own personal opinion? You versus the experts looking at the case first hand at the time and as reported by quality paper Helsingin Sanomat.
 
Vixen said:
I don't have to justify to you what interests me. If you find the topic ludicrous there are many other threads to choose from that might suit you better.
Click to expand...
Once again, you appear to have trouble understanding plain English. What is ludicrous is not the topic, but your persistence in pushing nonsensical ideas when they have been shown, many times, to be so, and ignoring information given by other members of the forum which is backed up by factual references.
 
Vixen said:
Do you have a citation for this other than your own personal opinion? You versus the experts looking at the case first hand at the time and as reported by quality paper Helsingin Sanomat.
Click to expand...

So you're totally ignoring the user manual for the device in question?

Could you quote where the experts say the EPIRB was automatically activated?
 
Who cares what a newspaper reported?
They obviously didn't research it or are spreading lies and misinformation.

It's in the ******* report.
It has its own section.

I'm not going over it all again. We spent weeks going in to it in minute detail.
I spent days tracking down old manufacturers manuals, spec sheets, service and repair documents for obsolete and out of production hardware that hasn't been used for decades.

I'm not doing it again, it's all in the thread

I'm not going through it all again because you seem to have a complete loss of memory or are just hoping everyone else has forgotten so you can tell us the same lies as last year.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
An automatic EPIRB needs a hydrostatic release unit for it to be auto.
Click to expand...

But, as is typical with you, that's the wrong way around.

Ever heard the phrase "All medicines are drugs but not all drugs are medicines"? All automatic activation units have auto release, but not all units with auto release are automatic.

We found the manual for the exact type of beacon on the Estonia Vixen. We found it and showed it to you and you still refused to accept that they were not automatic beacons.

As I've said before at this point it has to be deliberate, or you're simply not able to understand basic things.

Vixen said:
I very clearly wrote:

Half the survivors testified independently of each other in their signed statements to the police of having heard what sounded like an explosion or a series of explosions, together with a shudder and a violent list, the massive hole in the hull, the eye witnesses seeing a military truck being loaded at the last minute, delaying departure by fifteen minutes, the communications blackout...how does that qualify as 'no evidence'?
Click to expand...

Except I posted the comment thread, remember?

Sure, you did indeed say what you're stating above, but you also unequivocally stated that there were passengers who heard explosions. I quoted it.

Stop lying Vixen, if you can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom