• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JesseCuster

Master Poster
J
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
2,149
Thread continued from here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=356236
Edited by sarge: 
fixed link to wrong previous thread
Posted By: sarge
Jack by the hedge said:
Happy to see you back, captain. Sorry you missed last month's futile fringe reset.

Maybe when the wreck's ramp is recovered and examined Vixen will return from self-imposed exile to tell us what the report on it means.
Click to expand...
A British submarine escorting the submarine crashed into it causing it to sink, while simultaneously a minisubmarine with wheels squirreled away the officers to be flown to a CIA black site to be tried in secret for their involvement in the sinking of the ship, while at the same time Spetsnaz forces took over the bridge and shot the captain before planting explosives to sink the ship, while also at the same time some of the crew tried to push a truck containing radioactive nuclear material out through the bow door (during a storm) which caused the locks on the bow doors to dissolve.

Helicopter crews involved in the rescue also squirreled away officers to be taken away to CIA black sites for secret trials.

I'm probably missing some pieces of the puzzle, but that's the picture I'm getting. Seems reasonable to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reformed Offlian said:
The official report will only credit Svensson with recovering one ramp, when early news reports (which are always definitively reliable and accurate) say that he recovered seven. Something something therefore coverup.
Click to expand...
I've got three ramps, myself.

I wont't say how I got the first two, but bought the third one off of Craigslist when I thought I had misplaced them.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
A British submarine escorting the submarine crashed into it causing it to sink, while simultaneously a minisubmarine with wheels squirreled away the officers to be flown to a CIA black site to be tried in secret for their involvement in the sinking of the ship, while at the same time Spetsnaz forces took over the bridge and shot the captain before planting explosives to sink the ship, while also at the same time some of the crew tried to push a truck containing radioactive nuclear material out through the bow door (during a storm) which caused the locks on the bow doors to dissolve.

Helicopter crews involved in the rescue also squirreled away officers to be taken away to CIA black sites for secret trials.

I'm probably missing some pieces of the puzzle, but that's the picture I'm getting. Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

The Estonia didn't "turn turtle"... which proves it was deliberately sunk by explosives, because everyone knows that ships sunk that way don't fully capsize, while ships sunk by flooding for reasons other than explosives do. Just trust me on this, do not Google it, google has been infiltrated by Spetsnaz... who still keeps this secret... and for some reason has become an intelligence agency.

Oh and maybe it wasn't sunk by explosives. In which case the lack of fully capsizing prooves... oh look Squirrel!
 
Andy_Ross said:
I go away for nearly a year and the thread is going over and over the same ground that has already been gone over in excruciating detail.

Amazing
Click to expand...
You remember the 911 sub-forum don't you? Or the Shroud of Turin thread......
:D
 
To be fair, this thread was fallow for most of the past year. But when it restarted, it restarted predictably as if none of the foregoing conversation had occurred.
 
JayUtah said:
To be fair, this thread was fallow for most of the past year. But when it restarted, it restarted predictably as if none of the foregoing conversation had occurred.
Click to expand...

It's the Mandela Effect, a certain person remembers things differently than everything they posted having been thoroughly demolished. Or maybe they're from a different dimension where they hadn't been posting rubbish for grud only knows how long. Do de do do, Do de do do....
 
Standard tactic, the point isn't to be persuaded or have any kind of meaningful discussion. Keeping the thread going is seen as a win.
 
Today the investigation that started 2020 will continue on-site. They plan to retrieve the car ramp that is no longer attached to the wreck, and do some camera work inside the car deck.

They will use ROVs to take the photos, and to attach line/chains to the ramp to lift it. The ramp will be transported to Estonia for investigations.

(Ref: https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/nya-dykningar-till-estonias-vrak-sahar-ska-de-ga-till in Swedish)
 
The on-site part of the investigation has been completed now.

They have
  • Drilled a core from the bedrock that the wreck landed on, to be able to check what kind of rock it is. "But is is a hard rock"
  • Taken samples from the "black" areas next to the whole in the hull. It has been claimed to be leftovers from an explosion, but the investiagators say it's probably some kind of bacteria
  • Send ROVs into the car deck to take photos. They have images from the hull damage from the inside, were it's possible to see that the white paint is still left, ruling out an explosion on the inside.
  • They have removed window panes and seals to be abe to meassure the pressure needed to break them.
  • The bow ramp has been lifted, and is beeing transported to Estonia for investigation

The comments from the investigation all say that what they have found so far supports the earlier conclusions that the hull damage is from landing on hard bedrock, and that the cause of the accident is the bow visor/bow ramp failing.

Several articles (some probably behind paywalls):
https://www.svd.se/a/xgpWRQ/nya-filmer-pa-estonia-visar-intakt-farg
https://www.dn.se/sok/?q=estonia&page=1&sort=newest&date=&fields=
https://news.err.ee/1609042985/photos-ms-estonia-bow-ramp-raised-being-taken-to-paldiski
https://www.svd.se/a/VP2rj3/estonia-robot-tog-sig-80-meter-in-pa-bildack
 
Here_to_learn said:
The on-site part of the investigation has been completed now.

They have
  • Drilled a core from the bedrock that the wreck landed on, to be able to check what kind of rock it is. "But is is a hard rock"
Click to expand...

Wait, they got a cafe down there?


Here_to_learn said:
  • Taken samples from the "black" areas next to the whole in the hull. It has been claimed to be leftovers from an explosion, but the investiagators say it's probably some kind of bacteria
Click to expand...

Of course, explosive bacteria, the same kind that gives me 'the wind'.

Here_to_learn said:
  • Send ROVs into the car deck to take photos. They have images from the hull damage from the inside, were it's possible to see that the white paint is still left, ruling out an explosion on the inside.
Click to expand...

Wait didn't the Myth Busters test that, painting with explosives. So a white paint explosive bacteria.

Here_to_learn said:
  • They have removed window panes and seals to be abe to meassure the pressure needed to break them.
  • The bow ramp has been lifted, and is beeing transported to Estonia for investigation

The comments from the investigation all say that what they have found so far supports the earlier conclusions that the hull damage is from landing on hard bedrock, and that the cause of the accident is the bow visor/bow ramp failing.

Several articles (some probably behind paywalls):
https://www.svd.se/a/xgpWRQ/nya-filmer-pa-estonia-visar-intakt-farg
https://www.dn.se/sok/?q=estonia&page=1&sort=newest&date=&fields=
https://news.err.ee/1609042985/photos-ms-estonia-bow-ramp-raised-being-taken-to-paldiski
https://www.svd.se/a/VP2rj3/estonia-robot-tog-sig-80-meter-in-pa-bildack
Click to expand...

OK I give up that last one was getting too ridiculous even for me. Thanks for the update, Here_to_learn.
 
The Man said:
OK I give up that last one was getting too ridiculous even for me. Thanks for the update, Here_to_learn.
Click to expand...
I think there still were potential with seals and so on...


Today the Swedish Public Radio news program had an interview with the investigators (in Swedish):

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/haverikommissionen-darfor-kan-estonia-ha-sjunkit-sa-snabbt

Basically he confirmed that what they have found and seen so far largely supports the original JAIC report, and that the damage on the hull side is from hitting/resting on a rocky bottom.

He also said that they think the thin metal used in ventilation shafts onboard Estonia may have allowed water get from cardeck and to the decks below, contributing to the rapid sinking. Apparently today thicker sheet metal is mandated.

He also pointed out that where they differ from the JAIC is that they make it clearer that the ship was not suitable for the route - not seaworthy.

The analysis is expected to be done during the autumn, with a full report later this year from what I understand.


My reflection on this is that the investigators have communicated quite a lot during this week, and have been clear in their message that what they have found supports the original report when it comes to the reason for the sinking. It has not been the "we have collected information, now we will analyse" type message, but rather "everything we have seen supports previous conclusions" and "I'm sure we have everything we need to fully conclude on the reason for the sinking". (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting here).
 
It was already known the ship wasn't seaworthy, it was on a special certificate that was supposed to limit it to coastal waters.
 
Andy_Ross said:
It was already known the ship wasn't seaworthy, it was on a special certificate that was supposed to limit it to coastal waters.
Click to expand...

Which is why it still rings hollow that the JAIC supposedly declared the ship "seaworthy" and therefore casts doubt on mechanical failure as the cause of the accident. Noting that the ship bears a certificate of seaworthiness and that the relevant regulatory bodies hold no outstanding variances or citations for the ship is a cursory notice that the ship is considered seaworthy only in the legal sense. That it was being operated in violation of its certification and that it was operating with serious actual engineering deficiencies is a completely separate question.

As I note frequently, we find perfectly valid certificates of airworthiness in the wreckage of airplanes that crash for mechanical reasons.
 
Here_to_learn said:
I think there still were potential with seals and so on...
Click to expand...

Yeah, the pressure measuring seals must have been very hard to train.

Here_to_learn said:
Today the Swedish Public Radio news program had an interview with the investigators (in Swedish):

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/haverikommissionen-darfor-kan-estonia-ha-sjunkit-sa-snabbt

Basically he confirmed that what they have found and seen so far largely supports the original JAIC report, and that the damage on the hull side is from hitting/resting on a rocky bottom.

He also said that they think the thin metal used in ventilation shafts onboard Estonia may have allowed water get from cardeck and to the decks below, contributing to the rapid sinking. Apparently today thicker sheet metal is mandated.

He also pointed out that where they differ from the JAIC is that they make it clearer that the ship was not suitable for the route - not seaworthy.

The analysis is expected to be done during the autumn, with a full report later this year from what I understand.


My reflection on this is that the investigators have communicated quite a lot during this week, and have been clear in their message that what they have found supports the original report when it comes to the reason for the sinking. It has not been the "we have collected information, now we will analyse" type message, but rather "everything we have seen supports previous conclusions" and "I'm sure we have everything we need to fully conclude on the reason for the sinking". (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting here).
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the updates.
 
I read another interview with the head of the Estonian Safety Investigation Bureau (OJK) Märt Ots, that clarified what will happen now:

https://news.err.ee/1609044017/esto...on-nothing-found-to-refute-official-narrative (In english)

When will your final report be ready and, presumably, confirm the official theory on the sinking?

We want to carry out the final report thoroughly and rather take a little more time than by rushing it. We plan to carry out a digital modeling of the vessel next year, to calculate accurately and digitally how the ship sank. I think this should give provide some highly accurate answers, using today's computing tech.

But not before next year then?

I hope we will have this digital model ready within the next year. And the final report, I would venture to pledge, will not be ready before the end of next year, ie. not before 2025
Click to expand...
 
JesseCuster said:
[snip]

A British submarine escorting the submarine crashed into it causing it to sink, while simultaneously a minisubmarine with wheels squirreled away the officers to be flown to a CIA black site to be tried in secret for their involvement in the sinking of the ship, while at the same time Spetsnaz forces took over the bridge and shot the captain before planting explosives to sink the ship, while also at the same time some of the crew tried to push a truck containing radioactive nuclear material out through the bow door (during a storm) which caused the locks on the bow doors to dissolve.
Click to expand...


I really hate it when that happens.

Helicopter crews involved in the rescue also squirreled away officers to be taken away to CIA black sites for secret trials.
Click to expand...


Of course. That's SOP any time there are radioactive lock dissolving incidents on bow doors.

I'm probably missing some pieces of the puzzle, but that's the picture I'm getting. Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...


I see no flaws.
 
Friday the Swedish Public Radio reported that the drilled core from the rock below the wreck has been analysed at Stockholm University and found to be most probably GranodioriteWP but potentially GraniteWP. The core would apparently be sent for further analysis in Canada to settle on the exact type.

They mentioned that the rock was 1.9 billion year old, maybe to make a point that it was there before the wreck... It was also mentioned that the side of the ship rests on the rock, while bow and stern are resting on mud.
 
Here_to_learn said:
Friday the Swedish Public Radio reported that the drilled core from the rock below the wreck has been analysed at Stockholm University and found to be most probably GranodioriteWP but potentially GraniteWP. The core would apparently be sent for further analysis in Canada to settle on the exact type.

They mentioned that the rock was 1.9 billion year old, maybe to make a point that it was there before the wreck... It was also mentioned that the side of the ship rests on the rock, while bow and stern are resting on mud.
Click to expand...


So the rocks weren't rapidly deployed by Russian Special Forces as the ship sank from wheeled submarines to disguise the evidence of flying submarine collision? How disappointing (for one poster).
 
Here_to_learn said:
Friday the Swedish Public Radio reported that the drilled core from the rock below the wreck has been analysed at Stockholm University and found to be most probably GranodioriteWP but potentially GraniteWP. The core would apparently be sent for further analysis in Canada to settle on the exact type.

They mentioned that the rock was 1.9 billion year old, maybe to make a point that it was there before the wreck... It was also mentioned that the side of the ship rests on the rock, while bow and stern are resting on mud.
Click to expand...

To recap, here's the information gleaned by Stockholm Uni prior to the drilling.

53159965804_b8513ceae8.jpg


53159171762_e43bb6a439.jpg


53159171772_c45a9787a1.jpg


53159759681_639466e940.jpg


53160248983_09ef4f8ffc.jpg


This last one shows where the 'hole' at the side of the vessel was discovered in relation to the relief of the seabed. The exercise is to work out how likely it was caused by coming into impact with the nearby granite bedrock, if it did - as you can see, it is on a slope - and the probability of whether that is causal in itself.
 
Vixen said:
The exercise is to work out how likely it was caused by coming into impact with the nearby granite bedrock...
Click to expand...

As regards our discussion here, the exercise is to work out whether impact with protruding bedrock is more or less likely to have caused the hole in the ship's side than any of the cockamamie schemes you and your various conspiracy sources have postulated. This is not an exercise where the real science is pooh-poohed as not being rigorous or conclusive enough, and then some conspiracy theory is supposed to hold by default.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm struggling to understand the speculated correlation between the geological age of the rock and its presence near the wreck.
Click to expand...

Underscores the dangers of having to explain the obvious. The age would only matter to geologists, and they'd already have a good idea of the rock's age, any way.

Ship sank+landed on rocky outcrop = tear/hole in the hull. I think the geologist just got excited because someone from the press was interested in what he had to say, which never happens.:D
 
Axxman300 said:
Underscores the dangers of having to explain the obvious. The age would only matter to geologists, and they'd already have a good idea of the rock's age, any way.
Click to expand...

Probably. The age of the rock is irrelevant to forensic engineering. The hardness of the rock isn't, but hardness has nothing to do with the speculation I was hoping to learn more about. Most likely the Mohs index (not "MOHS"—it's not an acronym), the age, and a number of other parameters were included in a standard geochemical, radiological, and physical analysis report and the journalists just picked up on parts they thought were interesting.
 
Axxman300 said:
Underscores the dangers of having to explain the obvious. The age would only matter to geologists, and they'd already have a good idea of the rock's age, any way.

Ship sank+landed on rocky outcrop = tear/hole in the hull. I think the geologist just got excited because someone from the press was interested in what he had to say, which never happens.:D
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
 
Vixen said:
Logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Click to expand...

That's only a fallacy if it's asserted as an syllogistic consequent. Determining by means of evidence which of several possible propter hæc best explains the post hoc is the essence of investivation. At this point, stating that the ship got a hole in it because it hit a rock on the bottom is an accurate summary of the results of investigation. Ships have been hitting rocks for centuries and getting holes poked in them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom