• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
You must have missed this post from me just the other day, so I'll share it again.

Here_to_learn said:
So let's see, we have in the JAIC report at least the following (I probably missed a section or two...) :

3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation
8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices
11.3 The DIANA II incident
12.1 Determination of sea loads on the visor by model tests
12.2 Numerical simulation of vertical wave loads on the bow visor
12.3 Estimate of maximum wave loads on the visor for the conditions at the accident
12.4 Predictions of wave-induced motion
12.7 Investigation of visor attachment
13.2.5 Separation of the visor
13.5 Failure sequence of bow visor and ramp
15 STRENGTH EVALUATION OF THE VISOR AND THE RAMP ATTACHMENTS
Then we have supplement 1 & 2 to the report
And of course the technical part report from 1995.

You make a clear statement above that "it is not properly explained how it came apart at three points." Explain to the thread, with references to the relevant chapters in the JAIC documentation, what is missing.
Click to expand...

Please read carefully, check all the links I provided to you, and enlighten us on what JAIC skips on calculations, investigations and simulations on how the visor broke off.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why does it matter what the captain was doing?
What could he have done to stop it sinking after the bow visor came off?
And still with the ◊◊◊◊ about a couple of waves despite page after page of evidence in the thread showing it wasn't just a 'couple of waves '?
 
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...
Noone is saying Carl Bildt is a bad guy. However, he was the PM of Sweden at the time, and as a political leader you do have to make tough decisions that can make you unpopular or are not strictly ethical within the common meaning of the word. For example, lying to the public to protect national security; that is one of the key reasons for classifying information. Bildt's US connections, from where he spent time and is said to have developed CIA connections, had a strong interest in seeing off the former Soviet influences in the Baltic states and the Eastern bloc. It would have been a major public scandal and an undermining of public confidence were it to ever come out (as it did several years later) that a passenger ferry was being used to convey sensitive cargo from Estonia to the west, waved through on the orders of the top Swedish military secret police (and as confirmed by Hirschfeld in the Riksdag {_sp?] some years later under privileged information protection). In other words, whether Carl Bildt is a nice guy or not is neither here nor there. He would have been under instruction from his intelligence sources, just like the UK PM is under theirs.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do stop with the lying, it's not a good look.
 
Andy_Ross said:
So why are ships no longer made with rising bow visor anywhere at all?

Also, is this the theory you are settling on now?
We can discard all the others?
Click to expand...
Because It was ordered within a day or two of the accident that all such vessels be inspected immediately and eventually phased out all together. This was before the bow visor was even located and retrieved from the sea bed.
 
Axxman300 said:
...And why did the company weld the bow visor of that ship shut after the Estonia sank? Again, you site a vessel whose total history undermines your claims.
Click to expand...
After every public marine accident changes are made. For example, Zeebruge and The Herald of Free Enterprise. It could be seen that if the visor locks are weak then of course it is a safety issue.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is either a blatant lie or pig ignorance.
 
Andy_Ross said:
What is your evidence for this?
Click to expand...
Date of accident 28 Sept 1994.

Helsingin sanomat [google translate]


"Investigators on the Estonian crash of the passenger ship consider it highly likely that water from the bow gate reached the ship's car deck. Henrik Sillaste, an Estonian machineman who worked in the control room of the ship's engine room, saw on his TV monitor how water sprayed in from the seams of the gate. On Wednesday evening, the investigators of the accident planned to start working with the ship's drawings to investigate the matter. Kari Lehtola, chairman of the Major Accident Investigation Planning Board, who is leading the investigation with interim powers, did not want to comment on Sillaste's report. On the Estonian side, however, the machineman's report is considered a probable key to investigating the cause.

It's a complete mystery why the water got through the gate. Inspectors from the Swedish Maritime Board had visited the port of Tallinn on Tuesday and found that not all the seals in the bow hatch were in perfect condition.



Superintendent Åke Sjöblom and marine engineer Gunnar Zahlée saw the deficiency as just a small detail - it could not have affected the result of the accident .



It has also been suspected that estonia's bow gate was not properly closed. The Finnish cruise ship Silja Festival was in Tallinn on Tuesday, and the attention of a Finnish cruise guest was drawn to estonia moving up the visor covering the bow gate. On the other hand, the passenger had not seen whether the actual bow gate behind the visor was also open. Estonia's bow first has a visor hinged from its corners like the old-time knights to protect their eyes. The car ramp is not waterproof, but behind it is a real bow gate that is lowered and driven into the harbour. In Finland, too, it was sometimes customary to ventilate the car deck by driving with the hatches open. Now it is strictly forbidden - the ship must be in seaworthy condition when it comes off the quay. On the other hand, it seems unlikely, and at least completely irresponsible, if the ship has gone out with the gate open when there was quite a weather. TV cameras and warning lights would also have told us that the gate had remained open.



Another option is that a truck that broke off in the sea would have broken the gate. A Dutch truck driver rescued from the crash has said that he asked to pull his car with chains to estonia's car clamps, but the request was not taken very seriously. Maritime experts, authorities and Estonia's former Finnish shipping company Silja Line agree that simply unloading is not enough to bring down a ship the size of estonia. There was now little cargo, and at best the share of cargo remains at 10% of the weight of the vessel. The weather at sea was bad, but not exceptionally harsh.



"There were others" is a common statement. One option is also to examine whether estonia's machines had shut down, causing the ship to completely lose its manoeuvrability and be slammed by the winds.



Kari Lehtolan, on the other hand, had reached the news that the ship had first tilted and the machines would not have shut down until they had possibly ingressed water. MARKKU ULANDER / MAGAZINE PHOTO Swedes inspected the ship on Tuesday.[/quote] HS 29.9.1994


1 Oct 1994

"]Backman Nils-Eric 1.10.1994 2:00 TURKU - Estonia The vessel is apparently lying on its left side in the forward direction. The cause of the accident is the flooding of water from a broken bow gate.



<snip>



Bengt Erik Stenmark, the safety manager of the Swedish Maritime Administration, said at a press conference in Stockholm on Friday that he had come to the conclusion that the Estonian front gate was open and water flooded the car deck through it. The gate and visor were damaged, he said. Stenmark also referred to information from two eyewitnesses that there was no bow gate at all at the time of the sinking." HS


5 Oct 1994

Preliminary report

Preliminary report by the Commission of Inquiry completed Estonia sinking began with the detachment of the visper SUBSCRIBERS Backman Nils-Eric 5.10.1994 2:00 The cause of the sinking of TURKU-Estonia has been confirmed by a devastating sequence of events. First the ship's visor was cut off, then the water leaked through the bow ramp to the car deck in the storm. When the car deck filled with water, the ship lost its severity and capsized. Many of the events that led to the accident, on the other hand, are unclear. It is not known what time it all happened and what information was available on the bridge prior to the accident. It remains unclear what action the ship's officers and crew had taken at different stages of the accident. On Tuesday, the International Commission of Inquiry into the Estonia disaster published its preliminary report in Turku. The Commission is of the opinion that the vessel lost its seriousness and was overturned by the water accumulated on the car deck. The water got to the car deck at the bow ramp. https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003372029.html
Click to expand...

Please see earlier discussion of this in 2021, here:

Vixen

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

Here_to_learn said:
That's your statement that started the discussion this time. You have of course made this specific claim many times earlier in the thread, but I can't be bothered to find all instances of it.

I answered you with this:
Here I have a report from the press conference. We can see that Carl Bildt was speaking at that conference, and that he specifically did not claim that the bow visor was the cause.

We now come to your post as of today:


I'm glad to see that you now have moved away from claiming that Bildt did say that the bow visor was to blame during the press conference. That your...
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
See: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...a-case-re-opened-part-iv.355767/post-13685366
Click to expand...


Vixen said:
See: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...a-case-re-opened-part-iv.355767/post-13685366
Click to expand...

It feels like I corrected you on this just the other day. And it turns out to be Wednesday, so actually two days ago.

But lets do it again.
In this post you can read and follow along what happened on the morning of the accident, and from where the information came:

Cont: - The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

The Third Reich nazis deliberately and wickedly targetted the Lusitania. This is almost funny. I predict an edit of the original, with the word corr in the edit reason.
internationalskeptics.com internationalskeptics.com
 
Vixen said:
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'.

View attachment 66249
Click to expand...
The JAIC didn't say that the Estonia floated on a 90° list; they say that it had taken on a list of 90° or more by 0135 hrs, and sank, disappearing from radar screens around 13 minutes later. Do you really think this means they were saying that it floated for 13 minutes, happily "functioning on a 90° list", and then suddenly sank, possibly in 35"? Seriously?
 
Vixen said:
Because It was ordered within a day or two of the accident that all such vessels be inspected immediately and eventually phased out all together. This was before the bow visor was even located and retrieved from the sea bed.
Click to expand...

Andy_Ross said:
What is your evidence for this?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Date of accident 28 Sept 1994.

Helsingin sanomat [google translate]

<snip newspaper reports>
Click to expand...
I can't find anything in those newspaper reports about "all such vessels being inspected immediately and eventually phased out all together"

Are you capable of actually quoting or citing something relevant when asked for evidence? Can you not read properly?
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
I do. You appear not to.
Click to expand...
Then as an expert in London you should know that cockney slang consists of more than just the rhyming type; extensive backslang, for example. As an aside, as for Stanley Unwin getting his Unwinese from his Bethnal Green-born mother, given she came out with 'falloloping' and hurting her 'kneeclabbers', and the fact her parents are listed as 'unknown' but née 'Brand' (unlike his father who is generations English), that indicates to me she was second generation cockney, and as with so many who arrived in the East End, was possibly a newcomer, using the half-remembered words of her parents or grandparents, which given the sheer number of syllables - 'falloloping'; 'kneeclabbers' - indicates a germanic language origin, which together with the name, 'Brand' indicates to me a Swedish or Danish origin. Entirely within keeping of cockney slang if others pick it up and start using it, too.
 
Here_to_learn said:
You must have missed this post from me just the other day, so I'll share it again.



Please read carefully, check all the links I provided to you, and enlighten us on what JAIC skips on calculations, investigations and simulations on how the visor broke off.
Click to expand...
The Diana II incident is a 'useful example' only. It hardly proves anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom