• 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:
The JAIC ruled out ventilation flooding of any great degree.
Click to expand...
Oh did they? And what about flooding from stairwells and access panels? You can cite this statement, right?

Vixen said:
Yes the bow visor was lost. We know that. The question is, why?
Click to expand...
Well, they answered that. Ignoring the answer is a choice, but we know why the visor came off.

Vixen said:
OK we can see in pics the accentuator arms look terribly thin when the bow visor is up.
Click to expand...
Almost as if they were designed for river and near-shore transit. Not open ocean transit.

Vixen said:
And in any case, the visor is hardly going to be banging once it came loose.
Click to expand...
Yet we know IT DID. The passengers all heard it banging. The bow still shows rippling from the impact from the banging which implies for great enough to overwhelm the mounting system of the visor causing them to fail.

Again, the bridge had no idea what was going on. The lights on the indicator panel for the visor were not designed to tell anybody about a catastrophic failure. Had they known the lock failed they would slowed down, and turned around, and called for help. Damage control would have been initiated, and there's a good chance Estonia makes it into a port.
 
Vixen said:
OK, fair enough. SwRi from initially showing enthusiasm in their tender letter seem to have taken a more circumspect position based on as you say irredeemable signs of corrosion that negates meaningful analysis. Plus, it seems to be more of a narrative report, with a list of bibliography at the end. I had assumed there were unseen appendices of raw data but it doesn't mention any method or table of results. However, the other two reports, do (excluding the raw data used to analyse results). One would presume the data re HV would be based on scientifically established baselines as to what would be considered abnormal HV in a metallic material. Both conclude signs of an explosion consistent with what Michael Fellows, who started his career as an underwater clearance diver tasked with post-WWII surface and underwater mine and bomb clearance, qualifying in 1959, states the Neumann waves/twinning observed satisfies the legal standard in a court of law as satisfying the burden of proof that the damage to the metal was caused by a bomb. Likewise, Brian Braidwood was a Royal Navy explosives expert. Thus, one finds the treatment of these two fine gentlemen as scoundrels and blackguards peddling conspiracy theories utterly distasteful. AFIAIAC they are persons acting with integrity and professionalism and know what bomb damage and incendiary devices and their components look like. As you know, the preliminary report from a few years ago, on completion of the latest survey, stated some of the hull damage was compatible with the vessel hitting a rocky outcrop or moving against same, being some ten metres away from where it initially landed. Be that as it may. It is to be expected. However, the Arikas team said the next step would be to forensically examine the bow visor itself and this is what it seems to have been doing in the intervening three or four years. When the final report is presented, I am fully confident it will uphold Braidwood's, Fellows' and Westermann's objective and scientific findings that there are, indeed, signs of an explosion having taken place. In Braidwood's estimate, up to three of them, and at vulnerable locations along the side of the locking mechanisms and accentuating arms. with only one accentuating arm being ripped off as a result; the other likely giving way due to the sheer weight of the other successful damage.
Click to expand...
...And what are they saying now that we have both the visor and the ramp in possession for hands-on inspection? And why didn't Braidwood, or anyone else, find any evidence of explosives on the visor?
 
Vixen said:
When the final report is presented, I am fully confident it will uphold Braidwood's, Fellows' and Westermann's objective and scientific findings that there are, indeed, signs of an explosion having taken place. In Braidwood's estimate, up to three of them, and at vulnerable locations along the side of the locking mechanisms and accentuating arms. with only one accentuating arm being ripped off as a result; the other likely giving way due to the sheer weight of the other successful damage.
Click to expand...
Are you finally deciding which of the many conspiracy theories you just happen to have mentioned you actually think occurred? No submarines, no pushing lorries off the ramp?
 
Vixen said:
Both conclude signs of an explosion consistent with what Michael Fellows, who started his career as an underwater clearance diver tasked with post-WWII surface and underwater mine and bomb clearance, qualifying in 1959, states the Neumann waves/twinning observed satisfies the legal standard in a court of law as satisfying the burden of proof that the damage to the metal was caused by a bomb.
Click to expand...
That is some kind of an attempt at an English language sentence?

edit: There's really no need for me to be snarky like this, but Jesus wept, that is in desperate need of editing.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
Oh did they? And what about flooding from stairwells and access panels? You can cite this statement, right?


Well, they answered that. Ignoring the answer is a choice, but we know why the visor came off.


Almost as if they were designed for river and near-shore transit. Not open ocean transit.


Yet we know IT DID. The passengers all heard it banging. The bow still shows rippling from the impact from the banging which implies for great enough to overwhelm the mounting system of the visor causing them to fail.

Again, the bridge had no idea what was going on. The lights on the indicator panel for the visor were not designed to tell anybody about a catastrophic failure. Had they known the lock failed they would slowed down, and turned around, and called for help. Damage control would have been initiated, and there's a good chance Estonia makes it into a port.
Click to expand...
The bridge always had the opportunity to 'call for help'. So why were the communications down for the duration - about an hour - with Stockholm only getting the MAYDAY notification thirty-four minutes after Tammes managed to bravely get a call through by sheer chance to Europa, with even Europa and Mariela needing to communicate with Turku MRCC via inferior handsets to their landline phone?
 
zooterkin said:
Are you finally deciding which of the many conspiracy theories you just happen to have mentioned you actually think occurred? No submarines, no pushing lorries off the ramp?
Click to expand...
If you paid attention you would know the submarine is Margus Kurm and Carl Reitham's theory. The former was a member of the JAIC. Jutta Rabe also claims this, based, she says on insider information. The two situations are not mutually exclusive.
 
zooterkin said:
Are you finally deciding which of the many conspiracy theories you just happen to have mentioned you actually think occurred? No submarines, no pushing lorries off the ramp?
Click to expand...
Previously when Vixen was pushing the demolition charges idea, when pointed out that the hypotheses of the Estonia being sunk because of demolition charges, and it being sunk by being hit with submarine, she floated the idea that both were plausible because the people responsible might have attacked it simultaneously via different methods. This is the kind of nonsense we're dealing with, somehow who is expecting others to take the idea seriously that not only might have the scoundrels responsible planted demolition charges to sink the ship, they might have rammed a submarine into it at the same time just to be sure the ship sank.
 
Vixen said:
If you paid attention you would know the submarine is Margus Kurm and Carl Reitham's theory. The former was a member of the JAIC. Jutta Rabe also claims this, based, she says on insider information. The two situations are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter who originally came up with the nonsense you're peddling, the fact is that you've been floating a whole bunch of silly and mutually exclusive ideas, and when this is pointed out, you are too cowardly to stand behind any of them, retreating to the intellectually dishonest defense that someone else came up with the idea, you're just "reporting on a current events story".
 
BTW Vixen, are you going to admit your fundamental error in thinking that the gross tonnage of the Estonia was the mass of the ship? As in, actually admit that you made a mistake. As in, say something like "Yes. I made a mistake"
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
It would be distasteful if anyone treated them as, or called them, "scoundrels and blackguards".
Click to expand...
Indeed, no one has done that.

Phrasing one's questions to outside experts as, "Could this have been caused by explosives?" subtly shifts the burden of proof. Unless the lab draws a conclusion that explosives are impossible, the claimant has a glimmer of hope to cling to. "The lab couldn't rule out explosives," sets the bar very, very low for anyone who wants to wants to believe in explosives, and tries hard to set the bar very high for any who dispute it. And when the brief asks to frame an investigation around that question alone, you won't necessarily get a differential diagnosis. A lab will not necessarily investigate other potential causes that leave the same or similar signs unless they're called out in the brief. It would be doing more work and incurring more cost than was asked for. As I said, it matters greatly what questions were asked.
 
I know nothing about metallurgy, but would giving samples to a lab and asking for what might have caused the damage without any implication as to what might have actually caused the damage, be a plausible or realistic thing to do? Or is that too open and vague remit for a lab to work from?
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
I know nothing about metallurgy, but would giving samples to a lab and asking for what might have caused the damage without any implication as to what might have actually caused the damage, be a plausible or realistic thing to do? Or is that too open and vague remit for a lab to work from?
Click to expand...
That's too big a question for a specialized laboratory like a materials science lab. You can ask them to do a differential diagnoses for a small set of hypotheses that are proximal to the specimens you've given them. But if you ask it as a purely open-ended question, the lab is likely to decline the request. Conversely you can ask for a basic metallurgical examination, survey style, and then draw your own conclusions from the results.
 
Vixen said:
The bridge always had the opportunity to 'call for help'. So why were the communications down for the duration - about an hour - with Stockholm only getting the MAYDAY notification thirty-four minutes after Tammes managed to bravely get a call through by sheer chance to Europa, with even Europa and Mariela needing to communicate with Turku MRCC via inferior handsets to their landline phone?
Click to expand...
If the commanding officers had realized the severity of the situation early on, they might have taken action, including "calling for help".

And the "communications" wasn't down - the lone Finn manning Helsinki Radio was on the loo, or busy with something else. Therefore there was a delay before the mayday was acknowledged, and even then it didn't follow the protocol for emergency traffic. That also delayed calling for additional resources.

And how do we know that? Well, it's described in detail in the JAIC report, including all the different recording available of the radio traffic.

You know this. You should know this - it has been explained to you many times.

Based on what do you describe NMT phones as "inferior"? Have you used one?

Also, there is nothing strange in using the phone for communicating with MRCC. That is a regular occurrence today also, for example to keep the VHF emergency channels free for local coordination, and be able to have a longer discussion with the Rescue Coordination Center.

In the Estonia case, they needed to use the phone to wake up Helsinki Radio, but later in the recorded emergency traffic, Turku MRCC can be heard. Swedish MRCC or Stockholm Radio isn't heard, for the simple reason that VHF traffic cannot reach that distance.
 
Vixen said:
The two situations are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
They don't have to be in order to be collectively improbable compared to the conventional narrative. Claiming that the bow visor was detached via explosives is overall less probable than failure due to fatigue and poor handling. Claiming that the ship was holed above the waterline by a secret submarine for which there is no evidence is vastly less probable than the conventional narrative. But when you combine the two alternative narratives into one, their probabilities combine to make the combination colossally less probable than the conventional narrative. That's the kind of stuff you should be ruling out at prima facie. It's the equivalent of an ancient Sumerian ceremonial dagger autographed by Napoleon Bonaparte.
 
Several pages from the Brandenburg report have been relegated to AAH apparently for reasons I may have to take up with the moderators. It might make discussion of that report quite problematic. However, I represent that this paragraph comes from the report as reproduced on page 195 of Sven Anér's book.

The in volume panel-shaped iron carbide parts of the perlite are unable to resist the strong micro processes. The destruction of this perlite, marked on the micro section as lamellar structure, becomes particularly clear on pictures 29, 31, and 33. A destruction of the lamellae has occurred which cannot occur by any comparable mechanical technological influence. The processes of explosive treatments of metallic materials as for example explosive hardening and explosive cladding have to be excluded. These processes show in surface-near areas comparable effects.
Click to expand...

@Vixen, please rephrase this paragraph in your own words and tell me what it means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom