The stupid is off the charts here.
1. The MS Estonia weighed 15,598GT. It was designed to
float, and the hull and superstructure were (like all surface vessels) designed to that end. The ship sank in rough seas, and landed on her side. While the hull is designed to take physical abuse to varying degrees, the superstructure is not. I don't care ho smooth the rocks are, they will punch through the much thinner metal siding (as they did).
2. The ship hit the bottom and
settled. Meaning it rolled and adjusted itself into those rocks creating a grinding effect.
3. The ship has continued to roll in the decades since the sinking due to a largely unstable mud shelf it sits on, and currents in that area enhanced by benthic topography. The result is the ship grinding more into those rocks.
4. I've never been to Europe but I assume 15,598GT is heavy there too.
5. Rocks don't have to be pointy to dent thin metal. The 15,598GT , gravity, and currents do all the work. In fact, speaking as a marine geology major, the rocks just lay there. The rocks in Yosemite are smooth too, yet people find ways to die on them every year. I think this analogy is why you gravitate toward Bjorkman, he has issues grasping basic facts too.
6. I posted the university study on the wreck which the final report will be based upon (hint: if you read the study you'll know what the report will say). On pages #70 through #77 they detail the hull damage in relation to the rocky outcrops. And yes, the breaches are from impact, not explosives.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/3lp10f...6aa3804/SU_-_Estonia_v2.2_view_compressed.pdf
