The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[Jack by the hedge]

You mean that the story about the bolt being 'thrown back' is a lie?

No, I mean any inference that the lock was not examined and photographed is wrong and, on a previous revolution of this merry-go-round, Vixen appeared unable to tell us which parts exactly were supposedly thrown back rather than brought ashore.

Presumably because her source only tells her enough to proclaim this a sinister and suspicious act but doesn't supply her with any more details.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

there is no sharp rock outcrop that could have made such a hole

Claim and counterclaim. Who has evidence? Is there a rock outcrop or not? Or is Vixen conceding there's rock but it's not "sharp"?

 

[Steve]

Because the ship has moved since it sank.
We have been through this several times already .

If a topic has not been discussed within the past 48 hours it has never been raised before and can be presented as brand new information.

Rule of "Dory".

 

[LondonJohn]

False premise: the bottom lock, the Atlantic lock, was never 'officially surveyed, [and] there was visible damage'. It was picked up by Bjore Stenstrom who was head of the Swedish investigative engineers and immediately thrown back onto the seabed .

As the rest of your case is predicated on this logical fallacy, we'll move swiftly on.

No. Firstly, I said "the part of the bottom lock that was attached to the hull". See: the purpose of the lock was (rather obviously) to lock the bow visor to the hull. And in order for that to happen, part of the lock mechanism had to be attached to the hull (just as, for example, part of a door lock mechanism has to be attached to the frame of the door, as opposed to the door itself).

Secondly, they examined the broken body of the bottom lock itself in any case.

Lastly, your (erroneous and misplaced) argument didn't involve any "logical fallacy". Why do you keep bringing up this term? Far more often than not - as here - you employ it totally incorrectly. Do you think it lends weight and intellect to your posts?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, yes, transverse waves pounding on an already loose bow visor hanging precariously (whether because of 'poor maintenance' or because of an explosion or explosions) would be far more powerful than any wave load from the front. And indeed, we know on that night the waves were coming on to the port side bow strongly.

None of which actually addresses what I wrote.

 

[LondonJohn]

Appeal Court judge, Jonathan Hirschfeldt has now turned volte face and concurred there may well have been illicit military equipment on board the Estonia that night.

From Espressen 3.10.2021



Things are really moving apace now.

And if there'd been military transport vehicles aboard the Estonia that night, this caused the ship to sink..... how exactly?

(PS: this man's name is Johan. More sloppiness.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. Firstly, there is no sharp rock outcrop that could have made such a hole and secondly, the twisted metal clearly seen on video bends outwards, not inwards.

1) Why did the outcrop need to have been "sharp"? (It didn't - you clearly know little or nothing about stress failure in metals and metal-to-metal joints).

2) When currents pulled the ship away from its original resting place on the seabed, it wouldn't be at all strange that the now-revealed damaged section of the hull demonstrated some in-to-out deformation.

3) You consistently fail to address the fundamental problems with your thesis: that a) the opening on the starboard hull was above the waterline on the side of the ship, and as such was extremely unlikely to have caused the ship to sink, even if it had occurred prior to the sinking; and b) there's simply no credible mechanism whereby that opening could have been caused while the ship was still at the surface.

Oh dear, as you rightly say.

 

[LondonJohn]

When investigating an accident in which a thousand civilians died, it is imperative to identify who was rhe captain/pilot/driver, no? Especially as divers cut off the window to the bridge to enter. It should have been relatively easy to identify who's who?


The search for the attaché case (or suitcase, as translated from Estonian) is clearly recorded on the diver's log of the video sequences. He is heard spelling out the name of Voronin, a Russian-Estonian who ran an arms trading business. Voronin had been in cabin no, WXYZ, and some believe this was an erroneous juxtaposition of numbers and that they mistook this cabin for that of Captain Arvo Piht, who was in cabin no, WXZY. As Sillaste, or was it Linde, only identified three men on the bridge to the interrogators, and no-one knew anyone with the said tattoo on the hand seen of the person trapped under a cabin, together with a Finnish diver claiming to have seen Andresson with a bullet wound to the head, that surely should have been treated as a crime scene, no?

No.

Next.

 

[junkshop]

It was a translation from the Swedish. You really need to calm down.

Nothing you have linked to mentions a 'breach of the keel', no matter the language.
You really need to stop mis-representing and mis-quoting the content of your sources.

 

[LondonJohn]

From Margus Kurm's report, bearing in mind he was an ex-Head of the JAIC and also Estonia Chief Prosecutor who interviewed everyone plus 50 further persons, except the divers whom he claims he was denied access to:

Kurm Report 2006.

It's strange (and revealing) that you don't realise what you've quoted there.

Because the passage you've quoted from Kurm's report states clearly that there was obvious evidence that the bottom lock had failed at the lugs which are attached to the hull (just as I said). In other words, the investigators could accurately tell - merely by looking at the broken lugs on the hull of the wreck (coupled with the fact that the bow visor was detached from the hull and was nowhere near the wreck) - that 1) the bow visor had failed and had completely detached from the ship at the surface, and 2) the bow visor had failed because its bottom lock had failed.

And you also failed to notice that the part which was returned to the seabed was purely the bolt of the lock - something that was of little or no evidential value to investigators since it clear that it was not the bolt that had failed. Furthermore, Kurm's report made it clear that the bolt was brought up to the surface and inspected, in any case.

 

[Vixen]

When investigating an accident in which a thousand people died and when diving on a wreck deep underwater it is really important that everyone knows exactly what they are tasked with and how they're going to do it and they don't just potter off to look at stuff that might be interesting.

So, what's this attaché case stuff? That's all a bit ambiguous. Do you mean they entered a cabin believing it was the captain's but found an attaché case with someone else's name on it? Or do you mean they scoured the ship attempting to locate the captain's attaché case, or Voronin's case, or what? Please try to be specific if you know for sure. Please try not to be specific if you're guessing.

The diver was instructed by a mute voice on mute (in the video) to retrieve an attache/suitcase from cabin no, 6320 (iirc) this turned out to be Voronin's cabin. It is speculated the intended target was cabin. 6230, (I am guessing the exact cabin numbers here, but the figures were juxtaposed in one place) which was that of Capt. Arvo Piht. Now, these cabins are along long corridors, some at a dead end, thus the diver went to great trouble and high risk to even locate the cabin. His voice is heard saying he had the said case - (bear in mind, most of the victims' cabins will have had luggage therein) and he is heard reading out the name 'V-O-R-O-N-I-N' letter by letter and in addition, the case was brought up!

It has been speculated the muted voice on the platform was that of Herman Simm, Head of Estonia Defence, who was a couple of years later jailed for high treason selling EU confidential material to the Russians. Voronin was with his family of two, and all three managed to escape (unlike hundreds of other passengers) despite Voronin being massively overweight and unfit (he died of a stroke a couple of years later).

 

[Vixen]

Because the ship has moved since it sank.
We have been through this several times already .

Wrong. If you look at the SS Park Victory wreck of 1947, it was visited circa 1997 and the hole in it hull was exactly where one would expect, where it hit rocks in Utö and the boiler in the engine room exploded, due to sub-zero temperature.

So a hole should be where you predict it to be.

The JAIC never looked beyond the bow, having declared it the root cause.

 

[Vixen]

You highlighted the bit you already told us over and over about how the parts got thrown back and woe is me now we'll never know. How about highlighting the "section 8.6.1" bit instead?

https://web.archive.org/web/2004062...nettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_3.html#1

Sadly this link only has the text and the original pictures are broken links (if anyone has those I'd be grateful) but the descriptions remain:

That is Stenstrom's visual examination before he threw it back into the sea. Not very scientific, is it? So why did the JAIC in its report fabricate that it had been closely investigated? Meyer-Werft had t do a mock up of the lock because of this irregular behaviour.

 

[Vixen]

You mean that the story about the bolt being 'thrown back' is a lie?

As Kurm former Chief Prosecutor and JAIC Head confirms in his formal report to the governments of Sweden, Finland and Estonia, and the JAIC:

30. The largest and strongest of the visor locks was the bottom lock, also called the
"Atlantic lock". It functioned as a big locking device so that the locking bolt was
moved by a hydraulic actuator through the hull and the mating lugs attached to the
visor. According to section 8.6.1 of the Final Report, three lugs attached to the hull
had failed; the lug on the visor and the locking bolt were not broken. The locking bolt
was unwelded and brought up during the diving operation for close investigation.
Regrettably Börje Stenström, the only member of the Joint Commission who
participated in the diving operation, decided to throw the bolt back to the sea and thus
destroy the evidence of such importance. The fact, that it was so, was confirmed to the
Chairman of the Committee by Ann-Louise Eksborg, the latest leader of the Joint
Commission on the part of Sweden. Even if the locking bolt was not broken, it is
regrettable that an experienced investigator just threw away an important evidence.

Kurm Report 2006

Do take note.

 

[JayUtah]

When investigating an accident in which a thousand civilians died, it is imperative...

...to have the appropriate training and experience.

 

[Vixen]

No, I mean any inference that the lock was not examined and photographed is wrong and, on a previous revolution of this merry-go-round, Vixen appeared unable to tell us which parts exactly were supposedly thrown back rather than brought ashore.

Presumably because her source only tells her enough to proclaim this a sinister and suspicious act but doesn't supply her with any more details.

Look up Kurm's official report for yourself.

Ask why Meyer Werft had to do a mock-up of the Atlantic lock.

 

[JayUtah]

That is Stenstrom's visual examination before he threw it back into the sea. Not very scientific, is it?

Depends on the circumstances. Visual inspection is sufficient for many purposes in forensic investigation.

 

[Vixen]

No. Firstly, I said "the part of the bottom lock that was attached to the hull". See: the purpose of the lock was (rather obviously) to lock the bow visor to the hull. And in order for that to happen, part of the lock mechanism had to be attached to the hull (just as, for example, part of a door lock mechanism has to be attached to the frame of the door, as opposed to the door itself).

Secondly, they examined the broken body of the bottom lock itself in any case.

Lastly, your (erroneous and misplaced) argument didn't involve any "logical fallacy". Why do you keep bringing up this term? Far more often than not - as here - you employ it totally incorrectly. Do you think it lends weight and intellect to your posts?

A false premise gives rise to one of the most common forms of logical fallacies.

Your false premise was that the atlantic lock had been thoroughly examined and that 'there was visible damage to it'. In fact I am being polite, as most people would just call it a whopper of a lie.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is Stenstrom's visual examination before he threw it back into the sea. Not very scientific, is it? So why did the JAIC in its report fabricate that it had been closely investigated? Meyer-Werft had t do a mock up of the lock because of this irregular behaviour.

Because..... it wasn't the bolt that failed. The bolt was still in one piece. It was the lugs (attached to the hull) through which the bolt passed (in order to lock down the bow visor) which had failed.

Perhaps this will help you to understand: Make an "o" shape with the thumb and index finger of your left hand. This represents a lug. Now point the index finger of your right hand. This represents a bolt.

Now pass your pointing right index finger through the hole you've created with your left hand. This represents the bolt passing through the lug, locking the bow visor down.

Now, while your right index finger is still poking through the "o" you've made with your left hand, separate your left thumb and index finger to break the "o" shape. This represents a lug breaking.

And congratulations: you've just modelled the failure mode on the Estonia's bottom lock. You'll also realise why there's effectively nothing to analyse wrt your right index finger: the linkage failed because the "o" of your left hand broke.

 

[Vixen]

1) Why did the outcrop need to have been "sharp"? (It didn't - you clearly know little or nothing about stress failure in metals and metal-to-metal joints).

2) When currents pulled the ship away from its original resting place on the seabed, it wouldn't be at all strange that the now-revealed damaged section of the hull demonstrated some in-to-out deformation.

3) You consistently fail to address the fundamental problems with your thesis: that a) the opening on the starboard hull was above the waterline on the side of the ship, and as such was extremely unlikely to have caused the ship to sink, even if it had occurred prior to the sinking; and b) there's simply no credible mechanism whereby that opening could have been caused while the ship was still at the surface.

Oh dear, as you rightly say.

You had better let Sweden know it erred when it amended the law to enable the starboard hull hole to be investigated.

After all, you from your keyboard could have told them it was caused by rocks, with your unique and special insight that trumps any of their legal experts.