Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[Vixen]

So it wasn't a Swedish sub accidentally colliding with the ferry? Great. We'll cross that off the list and never have to discuss it again.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The Norwegian professor who objectively analysed the breach concluded that it was compatible with a 5,000 ton object moving at 1 knot or any inversely proportional (speed : weight) maritime object, such as a fishing vessel. It doesn't follow that it was. But given there is a breach there then one would have to conjecture that an inert 'rocky outcrop' would need to prang a 15,000 tonne vessel landing sideways with such force, it doesn't remain impaled, it is then tossed 45° to land almost face down quite some few metres away. Given the great water pressure and resistance at that depth, one would also need to assume, as the JAIC has, that there was zero buoyancy at all in the bulkhead, thanks to all of the windows on Deck 4 smashing against those pesky waves, causing a zero amount of any buoyancy one would normally expect when a vessel capsizes.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The common consensus is that there were two.

As you know, see a few posts back, the SHK told Sara Hedrenius, survivor, that they were not interested in that aspect.

Given that the cargo likely holds the key to the entire 'accident' that is rather a glaring omission.

I thought it was caused by nuclear waste or the crew opening the bow visor to dump drugs overboard?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Norwegian professor who objectively analysed the breach concluded that it was compatible with a 1,000 tonne object moving at 5 knots or any inversely proportional (speed : weight) maritime object, such as a fishing vessel. It doesn't follow that it was. But given there is a breach there then one would have to conjecture that an inert 'rocky outcrop' would need to prang a 15,000 tonne vessel landing sideways with such force, it doesn't remain impaled, it is then tossed 45° to land almost face down quite some few metres away. Given the great water pressure and resistance at that depth, one would also need to assume, as the JAIC has, that there was zero buoyancy at all in the bulkhead, thanks to all of the windows on Deck 4 smashing against those pesky waves, causing a zero amount of any buoyancy one would normally expect when a vessel capsizes.

Park Life

 

[Vixen]

I thought it was caused by nuclear waste or the crew opening the bow visor to dump drugs overboard?

Truth can be stranger than fiction. The USA needed Osmium to build its advanced robotic defence SDI. Sweden in the Spring of 1994 was forced to buy 'unreasonably' large amounts of Russian Osmium, according to one source. <shrug> Who knows, but certainly there was an opportunity for smuggling stuff from Estonia which was certainly taken, as confirmed by the Rikstag.

 

[JayUtah]

Especially as 'the rocky outcrop' is likely to be the gravel.

Nope. You made that up.

 

[JayUtah]

The Norwegian professor who objectively analysed the breach...

...was wrong, for the reasons I gave. You're not smart enough to understand the reasons, so you cling to a fantasy and your own ignorant conjecture.

But given there is a breach there then one would have to conjecture that an inert 'rocky outcrop' would need to prang a 15,000 tonne vessel landing sideways with such force...

Remember when we proved you don't understand physics?

 

[JayUtah]

Truth can be stranger than fiction.

But fiction remains fiction. And you can't tell the difference. Remember when you quoted from a parody site on this point, thinking it was real?

 

[Vixen]

But fiction remains fiction. And you can't tell the difference. Remember when you quoted from a parody site on this point, thinking it was real?

More satire than parody but the fact remains, the stern-end ramp was also found to be ajar at the top. In Tammes'/Ainsalu's Mayday, the fire siren can be heard in the background, so it is quite possible there was smoke in the car deck or obnoxious fumes, causing the crew to open it slightly for fresh air. The JAIC hasn't explained why that car ramp was open.

 

[Vixen]

"Likely"? According to whom?

Why would anyone bury the vessel in concrete?

You didn't know about the concrete?

 

[JayUtah]

More satire than parody...

False either way. And they sure fooled you.

 

[whoanellie]

Especially as 'the rocky outcrop' is likely to be the gravel and macadam that was tossed onto the stricken vessel in order to bury it in concrete. If the 'rocky outcrop' came after the sinking then it cannot be the cause of it. In any case, if the ship missed it, it cannot be the cause of it either.

Concrete, gravel, or macadam?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mojo]

I'm struggling to understand the speculated correlation between the geological age of the rock and its presence near the wreck.

It's probably to stop people claiming that it "is likely to be the gravel and macadam that was tossed onto the stricken vessel in order to bury it in concrete".

 

[Vixen]

False either way. And they sure fooled you.

How so? The fact the SHK told Sara Hedrenius the military truck issue was nothing to do with the inquiry, tells you it is deemed classified information. What the new investigation needs to do is get rid of the 'classified' label that prevents families of the victims from knowing all of the events around the disaster and why they were not allowed to bring their loved ones home for burial. Remember, Kursk was about 108m deep and infinitely more 'hazardous'.

The Dutch company Mammoet was awarded a salvage contract in May 2001. Within a three-month period, the company and its subcontractors designed, fabricated, installed, and commissioned over 3,000 t (3,000 long tons; 3,300 short tons) of custom-made equipment. A barge was modified and loaded with the equipment, arriving in the Barents Sea in August.[3] On October 3, 2001, some 15 months after the accident, the hull was raised from the seabed floor and hauled to a dry dock.[4] The salvage team recovered all but the bow, including the remains of 115 sailors, who were later buried in Russia

wiki

In addition, we no longer need to pretend to be 'friendly' with enemy states.

 

[quadraginta]

Concrete, gravel, or macadam?

Why not all three?

 

[JayUtah]

How so?

Because you quoted it as if it were real.

What the new investigation needs to do is get rid of the 'classified' label...

Blah blah conspiracy blah blah.

 

[Mojo]

Concrete, gravel, or macadam?

Tarmac would make access for the wheeled submarines much easier.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Truth can be stranger than fiction. The USA needed Osmium to build its advanced robotic defence SDI. Sweden in the Spring of 1994 was forced to buy 'unreasonably' large amounts of Russian Osmium, according to one source. <shrug> Who knows, but certainly there was an opportunity for smuggling stuff from Estonia which was certainly taken, as confirmed by the Rikstag.

So now you think osmium melted it?

Are you seriously considering the radioactive waste angle again?

 

[JayUtah]

So now you think osmium melted it?

She doesn't know the difference between osmium and cesium.

 

[phiwum]

The Norwegian professor who objectively analysed the breach concluded that it was compatible with a 5,000 ton object moving at 1 knot or any inversely proportional (speed : weight) maritime object, such as a fishing vessel. It doesn't follow that it was. But given there is a breach there then one would have to conjecture that an inert 'rocky outcrop' would need to prang a 15,000 tonne vessel landing sideways with such force, it doesn't remain impaled, it is then tossed 45° to land almost face down quite some few metres away. Given the great water pressure and resistance at that depth, one would also need to assume, as the JAIC has, that there was zero buoyancy at all in the bulkhead, thanks to all of the windows on Deck 4 smashing against those pesky waves, causing a zero amount of any buoyancy one would normally expect when a vessel capsizes.

Right, but do you agree that if (as you claim) the EPIRBs were purposely "switched off" so that the ferry would sink before help arrived, then it CANNOT be the case that any collision which caused the hole and hence the sinking could have been accidental.

Thus, we definitely can lay to rest any talk of a Swedish escort sub unless it was really an assassin sub.

You can choose one or the other. Either it was a military precision event with saboteurs ensuring success or it was an accident. You can't have both.

Note as well that if it was saboteurs, then you have to stop claiming that Bildt knew about the accident due to the submarine escort. Without the presumption that the hole was caused by a submarine escort, you have literally no reason at all, not a shred of evidence no matter how weak, that there was such an escort.

Thus, we should be happy. We've eliminated one train of argument and can focus on what remains. There is no need to discuss a submarine escort again.

 

[Mojo]

Because you quoted it as if it were real.

And then defended it as explained by "elementary chemistry".