• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
Fun fact: the recent Hurricane Melissa hit 88 m/s when it hit land. The windspeed when MV Estonia dropped its visor into the sea was 18 m/s, according to JAIC.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything?

Wind speed doesn't always correlate to wave height

Big waves no raging gale

Raging gale, not so big waves
 
Last edited:


I've just moved 25 posts to AAH.

The thread is supposed to be *about* a shipwreck, not resembling one.


Please stop bickering

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob
 
To add to the discussion on why certain countries would be a potential party to the agreement on protecting the site.

I downloaded a dataset that claims to show the nationalities of everybody onboard.

Given that both Norway and GB had people onboard, there is a connection, regardless of that the countries are not bordering the Baltic Sea.

Germany also had citizens onboard, but as I linked to before - there might have been complex legal issues for them to sign the agreement.


Nationality Number onboard
Sweden 550
Estonia 344
Latvia 28
Finland 16
Russia 14
Norway 9
Germany 8
Denmark 6
Lithuania 4
Netherlands 2
Morocco 2
Great Britain 2
France 1
Belarus 1
Nigeria 1
Canada 1
Total 989



ETA: I failed table formatting...
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
What does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Andy_Ross said:
Wind speed doesn't always correlate to wave height
Click to expand...
Agreed. But we don't know that this was the argument Vixen was trying to make. Just like we don't know what argument she was trying to make about who signed or didn't sign what treaty and why. Apparently if we can't guess what's going on in her head that just means we have inferior intelligence or something. It's all just games, not a serious discussion.
 
Vixen said:
So were England, Northern Ireland and Scotland decreed part of the Union Treaty and Wales was not but did include Malawi, you don't consider there is any reason for anyone to query the reasons why. Perhaps the deficit in comprehension is not with the person asking after all.
Click to expand...
No, the deficit is with the person who is not making any sense. Why are you babbling about Malawi and the Union Treaty?
 
JayUtah said:
Agreed. But we don't know that this was the argument Vixen was trying to make. Just like we don't know what argument she was trying to make about who signed or didn't sign what treaty and why. Apparently if we can't guess what's going on in her head that just means we have inferior intelligence or something. It's all just games, not a serious discussion.
Click to expand...
We don't know that Vixen knows what argument she was trying to make. Just like we don't know that Vixen knows what argument she was trying to make with regard to the treaty.

We do know that knowing what argument you're making is not a prerequisite for suggesting others are deficient for being unable to guess what argument you're making. That may have something to do with why this teapot about a tempest became a shipwreck about a shipwreck.
 
Vixen said:
Fun fact: the recent Hurricane Melissa hit 88 m/s when it hit land. The windspeed when MV Estonia dropped its visor into the sea was 18 m/s, according to JAIC.
Click to expand...
Cool, how many large ships decided to sail directly into the storm at flank speed?

And what was the maximum level of punishment the Estonia was designed to take, being a near-shore vessel? The fact the ship now rests on the ea floor suggests the storm was more than enough to sink it given the circumstances.
 
Axxman300 said:
Cool, how many large ships decided to sail directly into the storm at flank speed?

And what was the maximum level of punishment the Estonia was designed to take, being a near-shore vessel? The fact the ship now rests on the ea floor suggests the storm was more than enough to sink it given the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Of course, car ferries were known to easily capsize. But take the MS Jan Heweliusz. It was a fraction of the tonnage of the MS Estonia. It was hit by January hurricane-force winds of 140kph ( = 44.4 m/s). It listed 30° before capsizing. It took one hour and two minutes, which was considered super-fast (compare and contrast to MS Estonia's 35 MINUTES sinking in windspeed 18 - 24 m/s). Despite capsizing, it [the Jan H.]managed to float on its upside down hull for at least another five hours. Its windows were almost certainly far more fragile than the MS Estonia's. Yet the JAIC states that the reason the vessel [Estonia] sank so fast - which it had to explain, having rejected a theory of the central ventilation being flooded - was because that somehow, the windows on the upper decks must have smashed leaning into high waves, for there to have been such a sudden huge ingress of water (with windspeeds 18 - 24 m/s). But it never tested the strength of the windows in real time by setting up a physical simulation, it just took it as given. Sure, it could well have been 'a strong wave' that knocked off the visor and its attachments.

But the JAIC, as well as never testing the 'smashed windows' theory in a real-time reconstruction, also disregarded Brian Braidwood's, Bemis and Rabe's metallurgical findings from sending samples of the bow to independent laboratories, which concluded that some of the metal deformities was consistent with that of explosives. Now, Braidwood and Bemis had no motive to lie. It could perhaps be said Rabe as a journalist was looking for a scoop and thus suffered confirmation bias in her enthusiasm for a 'story'. The JAIC or what authority remained of it simply handwaved away these findings claiming the deformities could have come from shot-peening. But there was no record of the vessel ever undergoing shot-peening and nor was this process carried out in any of it shipyards in any case..

The problem as I see it is that the JAIC had already come to its conclusions before ti even undertook its 'investigation'. The Atlantic Lock which was blamed as being of weak design and acknowledged as key evidence, was simply thrown back into the water by the Swedish contingent. Why would any investigator simply get rid of what was to be your key exhibit and alleged culprit?

In addition, the structure of the JAIC was in a state of conflict, squabbling and breakdown, running very late, so in the end they just 'got the report out' but didn't really leave anyone any the wiser.
 
Last edited:
Why are you repeating the same bollocks you have posted numerous times before and that has been debunked and explained in great detail to you a number of times?

It sank fast because the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ front of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ship fell off.
It's not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ difficult to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ understand.

and now you smear some new made up crap about JAIC over things.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Why are you repeating the same bollocks you have posted numerous times before and that has been debunked and explained in great detail to you a number of times?

It sank fast because the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ front of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ship fell off.
It's not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ difficult to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ understand.

and now you smear some new made up crap about JAIC over things.
Click to expand...
Given your satisfaction with the JAIC report, what makes you think your lack of any further curiosity is king?
 
Vixen said:
Sure, it could well have been 'a strong wave' that knocked off the visor and its attachments.
Click to expand...
Have you ever considered actually reading the relevant parts of the JAIC report? For example to look for that 'a strong wave" part that you like to pretend is some kind of quote. Chapters 12, 13.5 and 15 would be relevant parts to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom