• 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

Axxman300 said:
That's what he was told by his experts at the time, and he was correct. You do know Sweden has a navy, right? Sweden also builds ships.

Also, Carl was just out here in LA at a Rand Corporation meeting. He works tirelessly toward world peace, not sure what your problem with the man is.


Your view is based on delusional paranoia.


Why would Sweden worry about a CIA operation on an Estonia-flagged ship? It's not their problem. How do you know the other ferries that night weren't also carrying CIA smugglers? Most important is the fact that the cargo didn't knock the bow visor off the ship.


Really? The same guy who lacked ANY intelligence background, dodged the Vietnam draft, and would ignore the CIA (the same CIA) assessment that Iraq likely didn't have WMDs in order to initiate an invasion somehow masterminded a covert operation...on the fly...before he was head of a company that owned another company that owned the diving company?

Do you know how often Sweden tells the US to F-off?

More importantly is the fact that even if there had been a CIA smuggling operation using the Estonia on that night it would have been impossible to prove at the time. Even today the claims are not supported by documentation.


You are insane.

In 1994 the CIA had zero capacity to conduct kinetic operations such as kidnapping. That branch had been shut down after Vietnam. And of all the things to risk prison over, the sinking of a ferry is not on the list.

And why the CIA? Honest to God, nobody at Langley gave a crap about the MS Estonia. Why no love for SAPO? Why couldn't MI-6 put a guy in a waterproof tuxedo on the car deck with a Lotus Esprit that turns into a submarine? Why pass on the EFIS? Why not the BND? Why not drag the French DGSE into the game (I always suspect the French, until I don't)? Maybe the Fins sent Supo on a mission. What about the Dutch MIVD?

Why the CIA? I ask because EVERYONE was smuggling gear out of Russia at the time.

If you think our actions on rendition stem from the accidental sinking of an Estonian ferry you are truly a moron.
Click to expand...
(y):)
 
Vixen said:
At last you are engaging with the topic instead of goofing around.
Click to expand...
Remember this part, because I'm not finished asking you about your alleged success at physics.

Vixen said:
Now do you remember what the issue was? Reminder: the JAIC present no calculations as to where it got this 90° figure from. (GoM, GZ)
Click to expand...
What part of, "There's no such thing as 'GoM'," do you have trouble understanding? What part of, "Caculations in the intact-hull model are invalid and meaningless when the ship has flooded significantly," failed to connect with a neuron while flying in one of your ears and out the other?

Anders Björkman is provably wrong on this and many other matters of science. Anders Björkman is not a good source for knowledge of sinking ships. JAIC did not shirk their duty by failing to do what Björkman says.
 
JayUtah said:
Anders Björkman is provably wrong on this and many other matters of science. Anders Björkman is not a good source for knowledge of sinking ships. JAIC did not shirk their duty by failing to do what Björkman says.
Click to expand...
And just for fun (???) we can see how Vixen described a page on Anders Björkmans site back in 2021.

Vixen

Cont: Post in thread 'The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV'

Here_to_learn said:
Right, let's see what your source really say:

Page 28 is about "the Governments work during the afternoon and evening of sep 28th"

It starts off with the information that right efter 12 noon, Carl Bildt takes a flight to Turku. On the flight Bildt gets briefed on experiences from the Jan Heweliusz accident, specifically with regards to expected reactions from family members.

It is also mentioned that during the flight TT (A Swedish news agency) had a flash that "a crew from M/S Estonia claims having seen the bow port open"

On Page 29 we learn that that media is waiting at the Turku...
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
The second link, I believe is just a disinformation agent. These are people who deliberately weave 'conspiracy theories' to throw people of the scent and have anyone who questions the 'official version' brushed off as a CT anti-vaxxer, anti- this that and the other.
Click to expand...
 
JayUtah said:
Remember this part, because I'm not finished asking you about your alleged success at physics.


What part of, "There's no such thing as 'GoM'," do you have trouble understanding? What part of, "Caculations in the intact-hull model are invalid and meaningless when the ship has flooded significantly," failed to connect with a neuron while flying in one of your ears and out the other?

Anders Björkman is provably wrong on this and many other matters of science. Anders Björkman is not a good source for knowledge of sinking ships. JAIC did not shirk their duty by failing to do what Björkman says.
Click to expand...
Also the report is supported by a whole archive of materials that it references including models and calculations.
We even discussed this archive and referred Vixen to it previously.
 
Vixen said:
...given it was a standard formula.
Click to expand...
As I proved a few pages back, it's not against forum rules to post standard physics formulas and solve them. You tell us you solved the problem of MS Estonia sinking hydrodynamically through water, via an "online calculator" that used a "standard formula" and prompted you for values for its various parameters. I'm not sure why you think the answer you presented for hydrostatic pressure was relevant, but for now we'll just assume that's explained by too much kimosabe on your sushi. You get another shot.

I'll represent that this is the standard formula in physics for the drag force on an object that results from that object moving through a fluid.

svg.image


You take it from here. "Plug in" the same values as you did before for the sinking MS Estonia and recreate your answer.

Oh, whoops, I forgot something :—

Vixen said:
As I recall, I think it prompted the gravity bit and included it.
Click to expand...

I'm looking in vain for any sort of "gravity bit" in the standard formula. Standardly, fluid drag is independent of gravity. But you tell us a "gravity bit" was required, so put it in there where you think it should go.

Alternatively, if you think this is the wrong formula, supply the right one and solve it using your prior parameters.

Alternatively, if you think more is required than this one "standard formula," tell us what and provide the associated rigor.

If you're seeing this, it means that posting and solving physics problems is A-okay according to the forum rules. So rev up that triple-niner, "five years of physics" brain and dazzle us with your mastery of the hydrodynamics of a sinking ship. As you say:
Vixen said:
No fear.
Click to expand...
 
Here_to_learn said:
And just for fun (???) we can see how Vixen described a page on Anders Björkmans site back in 2021.
Click to expand...
Indeed. "Waaah! My crackpot sources are making me look bad!" is worthy of a Donald Trump legal brief.

Andy_Ross said:
Also the report is supported by a whole archive of materials that it references including models and calculations.
We even discussed this archive and referred Vixen to it previously.
Click to expand...
Yes, in any forensic engineering investigation the final report is not a comprehensive report. It's a conclusory summary of findings based on a whole lot of work documented in the investigation's subsidiary reports. Most of my work in forensic engineering ends up in those supplementary materials. This is why it's important to have a grounding in the relevant occupational disciplines before one shoots off one's mouth about whether others are doing their jobs right or not.

Axxman300 said:
Also, Carl was just out here in LA at a Rand Corporation meeting. He works tirelessly toward world peace, not sure what your problem with the man is.
Click to expand...
Armchair detectives can't be bothered. Dragging people unjustly through the mud to satisfy their overheated egos is part of the job.
 
Since we have talked about wave-heights and ships pitching in this iteration of the discussion.

If someone hasn't seen them, on this page is a three-part video from the morning of the accident. In part 2 it's possible to see Silja Europe (4:25), and in Part 3 Viking Mariella (3:35).

There are also some still images from the video, for example this one: https://riksarkivet.se/estonia/video/bildspel/Finnhansa_del2/photos/photo_13.html

The damage to the Bow of Silja Europe from that night is documented in Supplement 526, that is part of the Supplement 2 document.
 
JayUtah said:
Remember this part, because I'm not finished asking you about your alleged success at physics.


What part of, "There's no such thing as 'GoM'," do you have trouble understanding? What part of, "Caculations in the intact-hull model are invalid and meaningless when the ship has flooded significantly," failed to connect with a neuron while flying in one of your ears and out the other?

Anders Björkman is provably wrong on this and many other matters of science. Anders Björkman is not a good source for knowledge of sinking ships. JAIC did not shirk their duty by failing to do what Björkman says.
Click to expand...
I did ask google if it is possible for a vessel to float on a 90° list and AI overview (which can be crap) says, 'no'.

1763725934069.png
 
Andy_Ross said:
Also the report is supported by a whole archive of materials that it references including models and calculations.
We even discussed this archive and referred Vixen to it previously.
Click to expand...
Yes, the JAIC Report deals with what happened as the ship sank with all kinds of graphs showing wave action and models of water ingress, but it doesn't deal with the cause. It takes for granted a couple of waves knocked the visor off and makes no effort to enlighten us as to what the heck the captain was doing before during and after the MAYDAY.
 
JayUtah said:
As I proved a few pages back, it's not against forum rules to post standard physics formulas and solve them. You tell us you solved the problem of MS Estonia sinking hydrodynamically through water, via an "online calculator" that used a "standard formula" and prompted you for values for its various parameters. I'm not sure why you think the answer you presented for hydrostatic pressure was relevant, but for now we'll just assume that's explained by too much kimosabe on your sushi. You get another shot.

I'll represent that this is the standard formula in physics for the drag force on an object that results from that object moving through a fluid.

svg.image


You take it from here. "Plug in" the same values as you did before for the sinking MS Estonia and recreate your answer.

Oh, whoops, I forgot something :—



I'm looking in vain for any sort of "gravity bit" in the standard formula. Standardly, fluid drag is independent of gravity. But you tell us a "gravity bit" was required, so put it in there where you think it should go.

Alternatively, if you think this is the wrong formula, supply the right one and solve it using your prior parameters.

Alternatively, if you think more is required than this one "standard formula," tell us what and provide the associated rigor.

If you're seeing this, it means that posting and solving physics problems is A-okay according to the forum rules. So rev up that triple-niner, "five years of physics" brain and dazzle us with your mastery of the hydrodynamics of a sinking ship. As you say:
Click to expand...
I didn't claim to solve it, I simply demonstrated that of course it's possible to calculate likely impact on seabed, given the specified dimensions. I am a bean counter, not an engineer, so I wouldn't claim to be able to calculate it myself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom