So says some guy who claims to be the only cockney in the village,
Because that was whom the diagram was credited to. It appears to originate from this youtube reconstruction by Safety at Sea, which may or may not be the original. (Skip to 7:16):
So what did the Estonia hit?
Only as soon as I proved I was correct all along.
I am totally transparent with my sources Unlike yourself, I don't feel threatened by people who have a different opinion from myself.
So what did the Estonia crash into?
No.
Nobody here is "threatened." You're not any sort of intellectual powerhouse. You're not exploring alternate opinions; you're just wrong.
Unlike you, I don't claim to know.
You have never, ever "proved" yourself correct about anything you have ever posted on ISF. Because you have never posted anything correct.
If the gash wasn't caused by the ship settling on to and moving across the rocky seabed it must have been caused by the ship hitting something else.
"'I can't remember". A mere 49 minutes ago.
You claim to know enough to say that hitting a rock on the bottom is not a credible answer. Imagining that there was some other collision but being unable to show what it may have been with doesn't make you smarter. Quite the opposite.
In one , the crash into the rocks is due to the velocity of the wind and the captain simply not seeing the rocks ahead (hence lighthouses). The southwesterly winds in the Baltic are indeed vicious and various ships have sunk there, but usually by hitting the rocks thanks to wind or poor mooring (as in Park Victory) or because of bog standard warfare.
Hilarious but no. Muzzle velocity is not projectile velocity. You were wrong and threw a tantrum about it.
Why does that create a difference between hitting a rock while moving horizontally versus hitting a rock while moving vertically? How do the circumstances you've mentioned here affect the physics of the collision?
Accidental damage to HMS falmouth as a result of a beam to beam collision with the stores ship RFA Tideflow.
I did not say it was not a credible answer; what I said was the fact it landed near rocks doesn't ipso facto follow it was the rocks wot caused the breach in the hull. Sure, it might cause one - or even two, due to natural erosion - but that doesn't rule out a breach BEFORE sinking.
Start a thread.
Do you have an answer that's more credible?
As an objective person, I shall wait to see the final report.
So no, you don't have any better idea. Yet for some reason we're 800 or so pages along in a whole bunch of alternate explanations that you've put in front of us and invited us to evaluate. Evertsson has some ideas about what might have caused it. Is he right? Is he being objective and waiting for more information?