The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[SteveAitch]

I did finally make it all the way through Drew Wilson's The Hole. And yes, it's spy pulp. That's apparently what Vixen is relying on for the political angle. There's little if any technical expertise evident in the book. Plenty of attempts, to be sure, but no substance.

Let's just hope no-one sends her a copy of Nadine Dorries' The Plot - just think of the thread she generate from that...

 

[Axxman300]

Luck...? Whilst it is useful to understand the general reasons for accidents, reading the above, anyone would think the sudden drowning of up to a thousand people within half an hour was an everyday occurence.

Nope. And that's not what he said, nor implied. Quit putting words into people's mouths.

We do not need to look at generalisations for a specific case. The JAIC have already looked at the retrospective generalisations as to why the accident happened and it guessed, ' a strong wave', a particularly bad storm and a particularly fast speed. So that is why the bow visor suddenly fell off. It must have been bad workmanship or bad maintenance. Ah, well shrug. None of this was proven.

But was proven. And the new report doubles down on this fact along with slack safety inspections.

The Captain of nearby Silja Europa said the weather was normal for that time of year

Clearly bad enough. Plus, the MS Estonia was not designed to sail in those conditions.

The Captains of Viking Mariella (Thoresson) and Silja Europa (Makela) confirmed the three vessels were travelling more or less side by side to Stokholm as per normal

At a much slower speed. I wonder why that was?

Captains Thoresson and Makela confirm they could see each other.

And?

Neither of these Captains mention a 'strong wave' or any such 'super wave'

Okay, so you don't anything about rogue waves, nor have you bothered to do even the most casual research on the topic. I'll use small words. A rogue wave is caused by winds, and storm effects on the ocean, and other factors like the convergence of currents, and gyres at specific locations. There is a spot at the southern tip of Africa that is legendary for giant rogue waves sinking huge ships. Rogue waves are not like Tsunamis, which can stretch for miles in both directions from the plate action. There is no miles-long wall of water, or "super wave" (that's just dumb, BTW). Rogue waves are localized, which is one of the reasons it took Marine Science so long to recognize their existence, even in the face of hundreds of years of stories from sailors of their ships being damaged or sunk by suck freak waves.

Fact is we know it was a rogue wave based on the survivor testimonies, and the fact that MS Estonia now lies on the bottom of the Baltic.

And this is from last December:

https://www.cruisehive.com/cruise-ship-damaged-by-rogue-wave-loses-power/119075

MS Maud, finishing a 14-night “Northern Lights” expedition cruise roundtrip from Tilbury, UK, was struck by a rogue wave at approximately 4 p.m. on Thursday, December 21, 2023. The wave broke out several windows on the ship’s bridge, which caused a temporary loss of power and navigational ability, setting the ship briefly adrift.

Authorities were quickly alerted to the emergency, and multiple nearby vessels and rescue personnel responded to the situation.

Unlike Estonia, this ship was designed for open ocean transit, and it still got beat up

And thanks to the many changes after the Estonia disaster, the crew did what the Estonia's crew did not:

“In line with our robust operational protocols, the crew immediately carried out thorough safety checks and technical assessments, in addition to making sure that everyone on board is as well as the conditions allow,” a statement from the cruise line read. “Further assessments are now being made for onward sailing.”

No serious injuries have been reported and the ship is considered in stable condition, though unable to navigate independently. The vessel is being steered manually from the engine room. Tow assistance is being arranged as soon as it is safe to do so.

And here's the most important part of the story, and the difference between sinking, and surviving:

Satellite tracking data shows the 16,151-gross-ton cruise ship moving at just 2-3 knots (2-4 miles per hour / 4-6 kilometers per hour). At the ship’s current location, wind is reported at approximately 35 knots (40 mph / 65 kph).

On approaching the stricken vessel, Capt Makela said he was shocked to not see any sign of it at all, as would be normal in a sinking ship.

Estonia was sailing at flank speed to make up for lost time. That speed combined with the open bow ramp acted to scoop sea water into the car deck.

Golly, almost as if once the bow visor fell off and the bow ramp was open the car deck filled with water, causing the Estonia to roll over and sink. The reason the good captain was surprised was the bridge crew of Estonia never reported just how bad their situation was in any of their radio calls.

Seriously, no duh.

So ascribing sweeping generalisations into a specific case, where we know many of the details, just doesn't succeed in hand waving it away.

You're the only one hand waving away the facts in order to fill the void with conspiracy claptrap.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Its not humble bragging, nor is it bragging. I simply stated that i have some sailing experience and i think you're lying about yours. You're lying again. Quote me saying I have sailed extensively. Go on, quote it.

I, one the other hand have sailed extensively and I do brag about it.
I'm not a humble man.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No. I've explained that I based my flippant comment on the fact you're a self aggrandising liar.

I, on the other hand do base it on that.
Is it bragging to say that I have never been lost at sea?

 

[Vixen]

No. From my well-experienced perspective, it is a very accurate presentation of the sorts of conditions that persist and from which accidents such as MS Estonia invariably arise. These are documented facts, regardless of your desire to ignore them and the suggestion that you're smart to do so. You've presented nothing to contradict the conclusion that the loss of MS Estonia was a "normal accident," in Charles Perrow's terminology.



Oh, knock it off.

You fasten on each conspiracy theory du jour without respect to any sort of viable alternate theory or even consistency on a daily basis. You're not trying to solve a problem. It's been solved, and by better people than you. You're trying to prolong the illusion of a problem because it validates your "armchair detective" role and makes you feel important. It's all about you.



From the "simple current affairs" perspective there really is nothing to see here. It was an accident. It was investigated thoroughly and the root causes found. The root causes include chronic problems in engineering and transportation that we practitioners are quite familiar with. We can talk about them accurately and knowledgeably without "dismissing" anything. Being able to see patterns in failure is a strength, not a dodge.

On the other hand, you seem to desperately want there to be something more and nefarious to it, apparently so you can pat yourself on back for being so clever in discovering it. It's literally all about what you are choosing to believe, often in contravention of self-evident fact, and usually in contravention of what you said you believed yesterday.

Utter nonsense. I started a couple of threads in current affairs, which were current affairs (this one and the Luton Airport Fire) - hardly controversial. There are no hidden meanings or hidden depths. Straightforward news stories. Factual. Problem solving. I don't do naval-gazing (no pun intended). I look outwards. I see reality for what it is because I look at it objectively.

I am guessing if someone was interested say, 'Dinosaurs and their extinction' someone is sure to want to shut it down and troll the OP just because they themself cannot see what is interesting about it. Nothing to feel threatened about by it someone wants to go beyond the daily newspapers and find out more.

 

[Vixen]

That doesn't change the fact that you merely assumed she had done her homework. You told us that's what you did, then you tried to tell us you didn't.

We've addressed the other contributions you mention at length. I want to hear from you why you think you can tell us you're fair-minded about Rabe and at the same time just give her the benefit of the doubt for sensationalist claims such as the captain being shot in the head.

You make the same common mistake as a lot of people. You think that reading a certain book or newspaper or article means you endorse that publication or person or agree with their views or what they are trying to put across. It is quite possible to read an eclectic range of material quite objectively without prejudgment. I do that all time. How else do you build up a BS detector if you never acquaint yourself with how to read critically.

 

[JayUtah]

I see reality for what it is because I look at it objectively.

No. You habitually start conspiracy threads in non-conspiracy sections and then throw tantrums when they are appropriately moved where they belong.

You aren't objective. As we pointed out, you bend over backwards to let conspiracy authors take liberties with the facts.

You aren't simply interested. All the other participants in this thread are bringing personal experience and professional qualifications to the table, while you remain absolutely impervious to all of it. You pretend to be an expert and refuse to admit even the slightest error.

You aren't simply going beyond the daily newspapers. In fact, you insist we take initial media coverage as accurate, despite facts developed later. You insist we take inexpert media coverage as dispositive, rather than the statements of actual experts. In claiming to reach beyond mainstream coverage, you accept any and all nonsense so long as it casts doubt on the conventional narrative. You can't even keep them consistent or recognize when they are obvious satire.

 

[JayUtah]

You make the same common mistake as a lot of people. You think that reading a certain book or newspaper or article means you endorse that publication or person or agree with their views or what they are trying to put across.

You are specifically endorsing Rabe as a competent journalist. When faced with examples of her incompetence, you spin assumptions that you think rehabilitate her. And then you try to backpedal when those assumptions contradict your assertive claims to intellectual virtue.

 

[Vixen]

Braidwood's analysis of the diving footage is available and has been evaluated by other diving experts. The flaws with it have been presented here, but you ignored them. I addressed Braidwood's summary of the metallurgical data and have shown several times how it does not support the conclusions Braidwood wishes to draw from it. You have been unable to address any of that,

What you say you have—that no one else has—are the actual reports of the forensic laboratories upon which Braidwood based his findings. They were apparently appendices to Braidwood's original report, but were omitted when it was digitized. These you say contain the information showing that Braidwood's questionable conclusions are nevertheless defensible, and therefore only you can know that for sure.

You're making a lot of hay out of what you think those reports contain and prove. But let's face it: you're not competent to evaluate them, or to determine whether Braidwood correctly evaluated them. And you seem reluctant to get the information into our hands so that we can address your claims or draw our own conclusions from positions of expertise. Yes, I saw into ordering the book for myself, but it's only available from a single overseas publisher with whom I can't seem to find a way to arrange payment.

I'll try and get hold of a copy for you and send it on.

I am not 'making hay'; I took the trouble to read it. Likewise Prof Ida Westerman and Professor Amdahl (_sp?) they might be right, they might be wrong but they all strike me as acting in good faith and not trying to 'con' anyone.

 

[Vixen]

Well, maybe if accountants were running everything.

What a logical world that would be!

 

[Mojo]

What a logical world that would be!

Every bean counted.

 

[Vixen]

Let's just hope no-one sends her a copy of Nadine Dorries' The Plot - just think of the thread she generate from that...

I did look it up on Kindle but it was too expensive. I am not afraid of reading people I do not agree with.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll try and get hold of a copy for you and send it on.

I'm asking only for certain dispositive reproductions of a book you say you have on hand. I don't want "a copy." I want proof that (a) you have and have read the book you say, and (b) it contains the material you claim it does. Don't change the assignment.

I am not 'making hay'; I took the trouble to read it.

And you are making great hay out of the notion that no one else has, and that because you are privy to information you think no one else has, you are the only one competent to determine whether that information supports the conspiracy theory.

When I and others with appropriate background take issue with the material we can see, you ignore it entirely.

Likewise Prof Ida Westerman and Professor Amdahl (_sp?) they might be right, they might be wrong but they all strike me as acting in good faith and not trying to 'con' anyone.

You misrepresented Westerman and continue to do so. You are not competent to evaluate Amdahl's work, as you demonstrated.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. And that's not what he said, nor implied. Quit putting words into people's mouths.




But was proven. And the new report doubles down on this fact along with slack safety inspections.




Clearly bad enough. Plus, the MS Estonia was not designed to sail in those conditions.



At a much slower speed. I wonder why that was?



And?



Okay, so you don't anything about rogue waves, nor have you bothered to do even the most casual research on the topic. I'll use small words. A rogue wave is caused by winds, and storm effects on the ocean, and other factors like the convergence of currents, and gyres at specific locations. There is a spot at the southern tip of Africa that is legendary for giant rogue waves sinking huge ships. Rogue waves are not like Tsunamis, which can stretch for miles in both directions from the plate action. There is no miles-long wall of water, or "super wave" (that's just dumb, BTW). Rogue waves are localized, which is one of the reasons it took Marine Science so long to recognize their existence, even in the face of hundreds of years of stories from sailors of their ships being damaged or sunk by suck freak waves.

Fact is we know it was a rogue wave based on the survivor testimonies, and the fact that MS Estonia now lies on the bottom of the Baltic.

And this is from last December:

https://www.cruisehive.com/cruise-ship-damaged-by-rogue-wave-loses-power/119075



Unlike Estonia, this ship was designed for open ocean transit, and it still got beat up

And thanks to the many changes after the Estonia disaster, the crew did what the Estonia's crew did not:



And here's the most important part of the story, and the difference between sinking, and surviving:




Estonia was sailing at flank speed to make up for lost time. That speed combined with the open bow ramp acted to scoop sea water into the car deck.

Golly, almost as if once the bow visor fell off and the bow ramp was open the car deck filled with water, causing the Estonia to roll over and sink. The reason the good captain was surprised was the bridge crew of Estonia never reported just how bad their situation was in any of their radio calls.

Seriously, no duh.



You're the only one hand waving away the facts in order to fill the void with conspiracy claptrap.

Maybe maybe not. IMV the JAIC is all guess work. They wondered what could have caused the accident and worked backwards. Must have been a storm. Must have been a strong wave that knocked off the bow visor. Windows on deck four must have smashed because otherwise the water on the car deck would not have been enough to capsize it, etc.,etc. It's the would-could-should-might syndrome all over again. Must have been a fault in the design. That might be reasonable except the shipbuilders strongly deny it. As you might claim of course they did but Meyer Werft have enough insurance cover and massive reserves on the Balance Sheet to just settle out of court and have done with it. But they did not. So let's see both sides of the argument.

 

[JayUtah]

IMV the JAIC is all guess work.

You are not competent to offer that evaluation.

They wondered what could have caused the accident and worked backwards.

You are not competent to determine that this is what they did, or that their approach was incorrect or unacceptable in the field.

So let's see both sides of the argument.

A second investigation has been conducted that substantially confirms the findings of the first. Your insistence that the questions somehow remain forever open seems to have more to do with you having something to talk about than in solving problems or finding the truth.

 

[Vixen]

I, one the other hand have sailed extensively and I do brag about it.
I'm not a humble man.

Put it this way. My family has owned an island for as long as I can remember. It does not have a helicopter pad. It does not have an aeroplane runway, It does not have a ferry connection. It is too far out to swim to. Pause for a minute and ask yourself how we access it and how we spend long summer days in and around it. So some young pup born in the 1990's reckons he's done more sailing than me. Gimme a break.

 

[Mojo]

Maybe maybe not. IMV the JAIC is all guess work.

 

[Vixen]

I, on the other hand do base it on that.
Is it bragging to say that I have never been lost at sea?

Well, I was lost at sea as a baby. Then another time on a speedboat. Top that, if we are going to do oneupmanship.

 

[Vixen]

You are specifically endorsing Rabe as a competent journalist. When faced with examples of her incompetence, you spin assumptions that you think rehabilitate her. And then you try to backpedal when those assumptions contradict your assertive claims to intellectual virtue.

I am neither for nor against Rabe. I am sure she has some traits that are unlikeable but it is not to do with personality. I respect her going out and doing some shoe work. Like many good investigative journalists, such as John Pilger, she was driven by the urge to find out more, I didn't always read Pilger but the stuff I read I respected, and regarded his perspicacity with awe, because we need people who do have the determination to look beyond newspeak, which the rest of us may not even find particularly interesting and to report back on what they experienced..

 

[junkshop]

... So some young pup born in the 1990's reckons he's done more sailing than me. Gimme a break.

Just to clarify, who is the "young pup" that you are claiming was "born in the 1990's", and on what basis are you making that claim?

Is it Andy_Ross, or is it MarkCorrigan?