Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Almost makes you feel like maybe the captain deserved two to the back of the head.

Maybe Vixen should be scouring the papers for reports of an amnesiac killer, rampaging around Europe, trying to remember why the captain of the Estonia rests full fathom five, dead by his hand.
 
I just learned a wonderful word while watching YouTube.

Ultracrepidarian.

It perfectly describes one of this thread's interlocutors.
 
Apologies for again waking this thread up...


Swedish Public Radio today quotes a senior accident investigator from the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority:

Det finns inga belägg för att Estonias haveri orsakades av ett sabotage av bogrampen, enligt Haverikommissionen som nu låtit att analysera rampen.

Tekniker har undersökt alla delar av bogrampen som under åren gett upphov till en mängd olika spekulationer om orsaken till fartygets förlisning.

”Vi har inte hittat någonting som tyder på en sprängning eller något annat som har fått rampen att öppna”, säger Jörgen Zachau, utredningsledare vid Haverikommissionen.

– Undersökningen visar alltså att de skador som finns på rampen stämmer väl överens med den skadebeskrivning eller den händelsebeskrivning som har redogjorts för, säger Jörgen Zachau.
Click to expand...

inofficial translation said:
There is no evidence that Estonia's accident was caused by sabotage of the bow ramp, according to the Accident Investigation Authority, which has now had the ramp analyzed.

Technicians have examined all parts of the bow ramp, which over the years has given rise to a variety of speculations about the cause of the ship's sinking.

"We have not found anything that indicates an explosion or anything else that has caused the ramp to open," says Jörgen Zachau, investigation leader at the Accident Investigation Authority.

- The investigation thus shows that the damage found on the ramp matches well with the damage description or the incident description that has been reported [JAIC], says Jörgen Zachau.
Click to expand...

The article goes on to talk about how the ramp hit parts of the ship, how the rails where torn off and that the ramp closed again when the ship rested on the bottom.
 
Here_to_learn said:
Apologies for again waking this thread up...


Swedish Public Radio today quotes a senior accident investigator from the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority:

unofficial translation said:
There is no evidence that Estonia's accident was caused by sabotage of the bow ramp, according to the Accident Investigation Authority, which has now had the ramp analyzed.

Technicians have examined all parts of the bow ramp, which over the years has given rise to a variety of speculations about the cause of the ship's sinking.

"We have not found anything that indicates an explosion or anything else that has caused the ramp to open," says Jörgen Zachau, investigation leader at the Accident Investigation Authority.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


<fx Vixen: "see, it must have been rammed by a wheeled submarine.">
 
Here_to_learn said:
Apologies for again waking this thread up...


Swedish Public Radio today quotes a senior accident investigator from the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority:





The article goes on to talk about how the ramp hit parts of the ship, how the rails where torn off and that the ramp closed again when the ship rested on the bottom.
Click to expand...

I don't recall any expert claiming there was a bomb on the car ramp door itself. The issue with the car ramp door was how come two Estonnian athletes were able to climb down the car ramp door if it was supposedly wide open? The other question is, how did it become detached from the ship later on.

To recap, British naval experts found key metallic deformations on the forward bulkhead hull (not the car ramp door), Prof. Ida Westermann on the bow visor itself and Prof Amdahl on the hull.

Film maker Henrik Evertsson and Linus Andersson captured the image of a massive rip along the side.

In the Accident Report, the JAIC report, which came out in 1997 , it is said that the bow grab was torn away when the bow visor came loose and allowed water to flow onto the car tires. The new analysis of the damage to the bow ramp fully supports that description. That's what survey leader Jörgen Zachau says.

- Yes, the ramp has then been torn open with great force, opened completely and passed its extreme position. And hit with hard force in the front spike tire and in the bolt. The signs of the ramp after such a description of events are clear.
Click to expand...
ibid
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I don't recall any expert claiming there was a bomb on the car ramp door itself.
Click to expand...

Your recollection is accurate, for once. Only conspiracy loons made such a suggestion, as well as other similar flights of fancy.
 
Vixen said:
I don't recall any expert claiming there was a bomb on the car ramp door itself.
Click to expand...
Give that dead horse another whack: I think it twitched. The ramp door was definitely not opened by explosives. So it doesn't matter where you fantasize bombs being placed. They weren't.

The issue with the car ramp door was how come two Estonnian athletes were able to climb down the car ramp door if it was supposedly wide open?
Click to expand...
Whack the corpse again, just to make extra sure. They couldn't have climbed down it at all unless it was open. The only handholds are on the inside.

Snip the rest because it's so flogged to death it's just a waste of everyone's time rehashing it. None of these things is even slightly anomalous. You're just stubbornly impervious to reason.
 
What about the supposed unexploded bombs seen by your ex royal navy expert?
 
Vixen said:
- Yes, the ramp has then been torn open with great force, opened completely and passed its extreme position. And hit with hard force in the front spike tire and in the bolt. The signs of the ramp after such a description of events are clear.
Click to expand...

The text in Swedish does not talk about tires but about decks. What you have posted is google translate not picking the right meaning of the word "däck".

What they are saying is that the force applied on the ramp (by the water) made the ramp hit the hull, and also applied force on the bolt.

The key point is - nothing has been found that changes the conclusion from the JAIC report.
 
Vixen said:
To recap, British naval experts found key metallic deformations on the forward bulkhead hull (not the car ramp door)
Click to expand...

To recap the actual facts, Braidwood's analysis draws wild conclusions from inconclusive data. You purport that there is a more complete set of data that supports his conclusions, but you are unwilling to produce it.

Prof. Ida Westermann on the bow visor itself
Click to expand...

Prof. Westerman specifically disclaimed the use of explosives. You consistently misrepresent her.

...and Prof Amdahl on the hull.
Click to expand...

Prof. Amdahl was given only a portion of the relevant data and was led to the conclusion that it had been a collision, not an explosion. I commented at length on his analysis. Your attempt to grapple with those facts is how we found out how badly you lie about what you say you know.

Film maker Henrik Evertsson and Linus Andersson captured the image of a massive rip along the side.
Click to expand...

They lied about what they found, to make it seem like a singular cataclysmic event.

All this was all told to you hundreds of pages ago and several times since. You simply prefer conspiracy theories over fact. Multiple modes of proper investigation have now ruled out explosives of any kind, anywhere on the wreck.
 
Last edited:
@BlueMoutain: re your comments elsewhere:

  1. It was confirmed by a naval official at the official investigation that the EPIRBS were automatic EPIRBS.
  2. It was confirmed by a Norwegian professor of Metallurgy that the type of deformation seen in the bow were compatible with an explosives reaction and she did say this type of deformation in reinforced steel is only reproducible in a laboratory and at temperatures >800°C. If you want to mock an expert, that reflects on you, not me.
  3. Underwater images did indeed show submersible track marks on the Baltic Sea bed.
 
Vixen said:
@BlueMoutain: re your comments elsewhere:

  1. It was confirmed by a naval official at the official investigation that the EPIRBS were automatic EPIRBS.
  2. It was confirmed by a Norwegian professor of Metallurgy that the type of deformation seen in the bow were compatible with an explosives reaction and she did say this type of deformation in reinforced steel is only reproducible in a laboratory and at temperatures >800°C. If you want to mock an expert, that reflects on you, not me.
  3. Underwater images did indeed show submersible track marks on the Baltic Sea bed.
Click to expand...
:sdl:
 
Vixen said:
@BlueMoutain: re your comments elsewhere:

  1. It was confirmed by a naval official at the official investigation that the EPIRBS were automatic EPIRBS.
  2. It was confirmed by a Norwegian professor of Metallurgy that the type of deformation seen in the bow were compatible with an explosives reaction and she did say this type of deformation in reinforced steel is only reproducible in a laboratory and at temperatures >800°C. If you want to mock an expert, that reflects on you, not me.
  3. Underwater images did indeed show submersible track marks on the Baltic Sea bed.
Click to expand...
The bollocks is spreading....
 
Vixen said:
@BlueMoutain: re your comments elsewhere:

  1. It was confirmed by a naval official at the official investigation that the EPIRBS were automatic EPIRBS.
  2. It was confirmed by a Norwegian professor of Metallurgy that the type of deformation seen in the bow were compatible with an explosives reaction and she did say this type of deformation in reinforced steel is only reproducible in a laboratory and at temperatures >800°C. If you want to mock an expert, that reflects on you, not me.
  3. Underwater images did indeed show submersible track marks on the Baltic Sea bed.
Click to expand...
Same old lies?

I thought this had been sunk and left to rot.
 
Vixen said:
@BlueMoutain: re your comments elsewhere:

  1. It was confirmed by a naval official at the official investigation that the EPIRBS were automatic EPIRBS.
  2. It was confirmed by a Norwegian professor of Metallurgy that the type of deformation seen in the bow were compatible with an explosives reaction and she did say this type of deformation in reinforced steel is only reproducible in a laboratory and at temperatures >800°C. If you want to mock an expert, that reflects on you, not me.
  3. Underwater images did indeed show submersible track marks on the Baltic Sea bed.
Click to expand...
Has the long awaited "official report" been released that confirms any of your fantasies? Remember, the one you were so patiently waiting to read? If not your repetitive and worthless opinions are repetitive and worthless and should not be cluttering up this fine forum.
 
Steve said:
Has the long awaited "official report" been released
Click to expand...
Expected end of 2025:
The passenger ship M/V ESTONIA sank in 1994. A Joint Accident Investigation Commission (JAIC) investigated the accident and published their final report in 1997. When new information emerged in 2020 the Estonian Safety Investigation Bureau initiated a preliminary assessment of the new information. The Safety Investigation Authority, Finland, and the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority assist the Estonian authority. A final report is expected to be published at the end of 2025. The work on the preliminary assessment is led by Estonia.
Click to expand...

The Swedish site seem to link to additional information from the ROV/Sonar investigations.
 
Steve said:
Has the long awaited "official report" been released that confirms any of your fantasies? Remember, the one you were so patiently waiting to read? If not your repetitive and worthless opinions are repetitive and worthless and should not be cluttering up this fine forum.
Click to expand...

It is certainly most unfortunate you are forced to read a topic you are not interested in, presumably because your finger keeps clicking on it?

I wonder if there is a solution.
 
Vixen said:
@BlueMoutain: re your comments elsewhere:
  1. It was confirmed by a naval official at the official investigation that the EPIRBS were automatic EPIRBS.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered many times. False.

Vixen said:
  1. It was confirmed by a Norwegian professor of Metallurgy that the type of deformation seen in the bow were compatible with an explosives reaction and she did say this type of deformation in reinforced steel is only reproducible in a laboratory and at temperatures >800°C. If you want to mock an expert, that reflects on you, not me.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. You are not competent to evaluate those findings. I am. They're wrong.

Vixen said:
  1. Underwater images did indeed show submersible track marks on the Baltic Sea bed.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. You don't know what "submarine" means here.

Armchair detective are worse than useless.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
He isn't saying the subject is uninteresting, just your disjointed, ignorant ramblings on it are.

WWII is a fascinating subject. That doesn't mean that I'd be interested in reading the nonsense spewed by David Irving.
Click to expand...

Citation, please Otherwise I'll assume it is a worthless jibe.
 
Vixen said:
Your justification for comparing me to David Irving.
Click to expand...
What, exactly, do you think my point was in the comparison?

Afterall, if you're asking me to provide a citation that you're a holocaust denier I'd point out that I never accused you of being one.

So what comparison do you think I'm making so I can either provide the citation or point out why you're...misunderstanding my point let's say.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
What, exactly, do you think my point was in the comparison?

Afterall, if you're asking me to provide a citation that you're a holocaust denier I'd point out that I never accused you of being one.

So what comparison do you think I'm making so I can either provide the citation or point out why you're...misunderstanding my point let's say.
Click to expand...


It seems unfathomable to you (no pun intended) that anyone could be genuinely interested in this topic. This was a NEWS item about a REAL investigation. So please stop making out there is no cause for anyone to be interested in it except for nutters.
 
Vixen said:
It seems unfathomable to you (no pun intended) that anyone could be genuinely interested in this topic. This was a NEWS item about a REAL investigation. So please stop making out there is no cause for anyone to be interested in it except for nutters.
Click to expand...
Not something I claimed.

Again, I'm not saying that you need to be nutter butters to be interested in the sinking of the Estonia.

If you believe I am saying that quote me saying it.

Also, that doesn't answer my question. You're making up my side of the argument again. Naughty naughty. So come on, what do you think my comparison meant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom