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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Word from Margus Kurm, the person who led an independent expedition the same time as Arikas. He does not believe the latest theory and is quoted as follows:

For many years, Margus Kurm has held various positions related to the investigation of the wreck of Estonia. An experienced lawyer dismisses the latest TalTech study because its source data is incomplete. "A ship cannot start sinking at 133 degrees. This ship first turned around [capsized?]and only then began to sink. There is an important difference whether to so-called model a situation where the ship sinks in front of the seabed or sinks in front of the seabed chimneys [outcrops?]. Accordingly, since the assumptions do not correspond to reality, the study does not provide much knowledge," said Kurm.

According to Kurmi, all planned work has already been done. In the years 2005-2008 two different scientific consortia worked on the modeling of the crash. The conclusions reached were different. Estonians now chose one of them as a basis, the conclusions of the second study were not taken into account. "TalTech, or the safety investigation center that commissioned this study, chose one study as a starting point and left the other study completely aside. Whereas this second study, which claims that the ship turned over before going to the bottom in any case, was significantly more comprehensive - computer simulations were performed there, tests were also carried out with the four-meter Estonia model in a special pool, and because these studies were more comprehensive, I dare to think that that their results or conclusions are also more adequate," said Kurm.
Click to expand...
https://www.tv3.ee/3-portaal/paevak...b-taltechi-teadlaste-viimast-uuringut-ei-usu/

30.9.2023
Click to expand...

Could you explain the square-bracketed additions in the quoted text? I only ask because they don't appear in the linked source.

PS: I have highlighted them, so that it is clear what I am referring to.

Also, "A ship cannot start sinking at 133 degrees"? Not even when the front has fallen off it? I'm no expert, but I'm not sure I trust this lawyer as an authority on how boats work.
 
Hi Vixen, please can you quote the eyewitness reports of the collision, and say who these eyewitness were?
 
Not that I am accusing anyone of cherrypicking (heaven forbid!), but for context, here are the paragraphs preceeding the ones Vixen quoted:

tv3.ee said:
The last journey of the ferry Estonia 29 years ago and its sinking on the same trip have left conspiracy theorists puzzled to this day. Above all, the circumstances of the tragedy are confusing. The need to start a new investigation was caused by a documentary project of the Discovery channel that came to the public in 2020, where the biggest discovery was a tear in the hull of the ship about four meters long, which had not been identified by previous research.

"The analysis of the Tallinn University of Technology showed that it is very likely that the holes and tears occurred when the ship hit the bottom. There is known to be a granite rock in the north. We have also made a cutout at the hole. Its final analysis has not yet come today, but the interim report states that no reason has been found that would indicate an explosive substance, an explosion or a collision with another ship," said Märt Ots, head of the safety investigation center.

In addition, this place has now been very correctly filmed and documented during the latest sea surveys. So why wasn't it noticed before, but only now 26 years later? "The tear is probably not later, this was also shown by the analysis of the Tallinn University of Technology, this tear could still have occurred when the ship hit the bottom. The reason why it has not been seen before is, as the technical university also showed, that the shipwreck has simply shifted on the seabed. He has moved accordingly, that if you used to go to the north to film, it means that this tear was simply not seen," added Märt Ots.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Word from Margus Kurm, the person who led an independent expedition the same time as Arikas. He does not believe the latest theory and is quoted as follows:
For many years, Margus Kurm has held various positions related to the investigation of the wreck of Estonia. An experienced lawyer, he dismisses the latest TalTech study because its source data is incomplete. "A ship cannot start sinking at 133 degrees.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well, 133 degrees is only two degrees away from starboard, isn't it? That close to 135 degrees it would be moving to the right, not sinking, right Vixen?
 
junkshop said:
Also, "A ship cannot start sinking at 133 degrees"? Not even when the front has fallen off it? I'm no expert, but I'm not sure I trust this lawyer as an authority on how boats work.
Click to expand...

I am an expert, and this lawyer doesn't know how boats work. A ship can sink in any orientation.
 
Vixen said:
The idea that the 'collision'-type sensations of several of the witnesses were caused by the bow visor dropping off is nonsense as the bow visor having dropped off will immediately sink. It really didn't hang around to bully the hull.
Click to expand...

But the hull, rather than being a nice pointed shape for cutting through the waves will suddenly be a flat shape with a big hole pushing into the waves.

What do you think that would do?
 
JayUtah said:
I am an expert, and this lawyer doesn't know how boats work. A ship can sink in any orientation.
Click to expand...

A shocking development! This changes everything!

Why would this so-called "lawyer" be so eager to spread disinformation about how boats work?

Remember:
Vixen said:
Kurm was involved from Day One. He knows a lot more about it than you or I...
Click to expand...

The thick plottens...
 
junkshop said:
Why would this so-called "lawyer" be so eager to spread disinformation about how boats work?
Click to expand...

Kurm is not just "a lawyer." He's a public figure whose continued success depends on staying in the pubic view and mind. You don't attract attention by telling the same story as everyone else.

All that aside, Kurm demonstrably doesn't know about the mechanics of foundering, ship stability, or any of the other engineering topics he's ignorantly propounding.
 
Well guys, she got us. We are bamboozled. Clearly the ship didn't sink at 133 degrees*. Some guy said its impossible. And that can only mean the ship didn't sink. It's a hologram sitting on the Baltic seafloor.

Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin , cardinal direction, bearing, or list. 133 is just impossible.
 
Vixen said:
Kurm was involved from Day One. He knows a lot more about it than you or I.
Click to expand...

Clearly not.

He's a lawyer with an agenda. His claim that a ship cannot sink at a certain angle is obviously crap. He run his own simulation after all the others show Estonia sinking - as described.

He's just another conspiracy theorist who, after banging the drum for a new investigation, is now unhappy that the new investigation tells us the same thing. But now we know what kind of damage was caused when the ship impacted the sea floor, and they've surveyed the car deck in full.

We've seen this with every other CT were a second investigation supports the original.

Andy Meister, who was the Estonian Member of the JAIC and who quit, alleges he saw the pilot logbooks that listed the Estonian crew as survivors.
Click to expand...

He's wrong.

Meister claims that the Estonians were completely blocked out by the Swedes, despite the ship being part owned by the Estonia state, under its flag and crew, and with 300 Estonian victims. Given the small population of Estonia, proportionately, it lost the equivalent of 3,000 citizens as compared to Sweden's, pro rata per head of population. Comparisons are odious but the point being made is why was Sweden the dominant member of the JAIC, doing the subcontracting and keeping certain dives top secret from them. I don't know, but it is a reasonable question for Kurm to ask.
Click to expand...

In 1994, Sweden had far more technical and financial assets at their disposal than the Estonians did. Why wouldn't they take the lead in the investigation? They have been engineers, a better navy, and a quality research apparatus that Estonians likely still do not have today. And since Estonia signed off on MS Estonia for open- ocean transit, why would Sweden trust them to take the lead in the first place?
 
Vixen said:
Whilst it has a satirical tone, it is based on real theories going around at the time. Given the cargo was not investigated by the JAIC and Harri Ruotsalainen, a member of Estonia government's working party believes the car ramp was indeed opened by crew to dump a couple of trucks, it is not at all a joke.

https://hikipedia.info/wiki/M/S_Estonia
Click to expand...


Citing a joke site to say you're not joking is very much a joke.
It's the kind of joke you'd expect to hear on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, but those guys actually knew they were joking.


Wikipedia said:
Hikipedia (from Finnish hiki "sweat" and encyclopedia, a parody of the name "Wikipedia") is a Finnish-language nonsense wiki founded in April 2005. Hikipedia was originally intended as an independent nonsense wiki and was added to the Uncyclopedia project only later.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom