• 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 Re-opened Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is a newspaper report not a 'scientific' report.

How can someone's subjective opinion that a manipulated video image of vague orange box shape might be plastic explosives be considered scientific?

What is the evidence that the original video had been 'manipulated'?

Does this mean you are back to explosives blowing the bow door off?

Was this done before or after it sank?

If the explosives are still there, how did they blow the bow door off?

If they were placed before the ship sank, why didn't any of the crew notice them?

Why does he think a charge designed to break the locks would just be a block of explosive?
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
But it got in through a ruptured sea pipe not a 'hole'.
Engine Rooms and machinery spaces are the largest open spaces inside a hull.
If they flood it is double serious as they are not just large reserves of buoyancy, but also the place where the pumps and power are situated.
After power was lost and it listed water started to get in through other openings such as ventilators, air ducts, hatches and windows.
Estonia didn't turn turtle because it too was 'bottom heavy' with water that got in to the engine room and machinery spaces through the missing bow, ventilators, air ducts, hatches and windows.

On both ships they were doomed as soon as power was lost.
Click to expand...

Yet Oceanos took 18 hours to sink and all of the passengers had time to evacuate and be rescued.

You don't find it at all eye-brow rising that the JAIC never investigated the reason Estonia could possibly have sank so fast.

All is well. All is well.
 
zooterkin said:
Is there no detail you're not prepared to be wrong about?
Click to expand...


It would appear not, Zeppelin. After all, not in vain did the Estrella Damm turn turtle in the calm tepid waters of the Balti in 1894, with the loss of those 7,300 survivors.
 
LondonJohn said:
And that's different from the Estonia....how exactly?

You don't know what you're talking about.

Oh and it's amusing that you're now deigning to put conditions on your "all ships that capsize quickly turn over altogether" bollocks. Be careful you don't take those goalposts all the way off the pitch, out of the stadium, and off down the high street....
Click to expand...

Oh, and Oceanos didn't float on its superstructure, either, it just listed heavily to port on its hull. Finally, once all the air - or some 85% of it - in the superstructure was replaced by water, then it sank quite rapidly as per the last fifteen minutes as captured by ABC news.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
One that kept it out of the worst of the weather for as long as was needed for the weather to ease. Weather Routing might just involve moving to a relatively sheltered area and heaving-to until it is safer to continue. It will also certainly mean slowing the ship.
Click to expand...

No, you said keep nearer to the coastline. Which coastline would that be?

I suggest you look at an atlas before answering, 'Same as the Helsinki ships'.
 
JayUtah said:
I think he's done an acceptable job of summarizing your argument. "As far as you are able to determine" the cause was sabotage. But you aren't really sufficiently equipped to go very far in making those kinds of determinations. Instead you're pretending that others have essentially drawn the same conclusion (or at least failed to preclude it), and it just takes a little bit of connecting dots on your side to arrive at the "obvious" conclusion.
Click to expand...

I spelt out the conclusions Hoffmeister of Hamburg University came to. You can read it in his own words and as signed off by him.
 

Attachments

  • hamburg conclusions 1.jpg
    hamburg conclusions 1.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 3
  • hamburg conclusions 2 hinge failures followed by atlantic lock.jpg
    hamburg conclusions 2 hinge failures followed by atlantic lock.jpg
    33.2 KB · Views: 3
Vixen said:
Yet Oceanos took 18 hours to sink and all of the passengers had time to evacuate and be rescued.

You don't find it at all eye-brow rising that the JAIC never investigated the reason Estonia could possibly have sank so fast.

All is well. All is well.
Click to expand...


The JAIC did investigate how/why the Estonia sank so fast, Vixen.

Their investigation revealed that the Estonia sank so fast because its bow opening was catastrophically compromised, causing a huge ingress of water onto the open vehicle deck in a short period of time (some of which poured down to lower decks), which caused the ship to lose sufficient buoyancy and stability as to capsize to starboard; and from that point, water pressure on the starboard windows caused them to break, meaning that water could now flood uncontrolled in through those window openings (as well as continuing to flood into the now-capsized vehicle deck through the bow). As a result, the ship very soon lost all buoyancy and sank.

The evidence, testimony and subsequent modelling all fully supported this conclusion, and did not indicate any alternative conclusion.

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Bahahaha NO! That's not how it works at all.

Why do you feel you can pontificate on things you have zero knowledge of Vixen?

Good grief, the President is head of the CIA...Tell another one!
Click to expand...

MarkCorrigan said:
No, it isn't his opinion. Why do you keep pretending that peoples ideas about reality constitute opinions, but only when it is inconvenient to you?

His calculations have previously been shown to fail by people who do understand them.

His grasp of mathematics however is so shaky that even without knowing buoyancy calculations I can be confident they are wrong however. Again, this is the person who thinks that Mass equals weight. His physics skills are less than mine.
I did. I found nothing. I did find lots of information about how Bildt sent Clinton the worlds first email between heads of state, but nothing about your claim.

However that was me doing your homework for you. You made the claim, you back it up. Something you have been unable to do once in this thread.

Stop the condescension. You've clearly shown yourself to be the LEAST capable person in this thread to grasp anything that's being discussed here. Pretending you're better than the rest of us isn't just offensive it's obviously wrong.
Click to expand...

Please answer me Vixen.
 
Vixen said:
They present their findings in a scientific report. See here for an article in Der Spiegel:
Click to expand...

Der Spiegel is not a scientific journal. Again the problem is that Braidwood is able to identify the anomalous object as an explosive from nothing more than grainy video, and he's unable to tell us what specific explosive it is. I know explosives experts who can say things like, "Yeah, that's part of an American anti-tank round," and they can show me the piece in question and put it next to a specific HEAT round and point out the similarities. Braidwood skipped that step. For all he's able to tell us, it's just a generic package that could contain anything.

More succinctly, I can certainly hide an explosive in a portable stereo. And in fact that's how at least one airliner was sabotaged. The point is that by looking at the stereo, you wouldn't know that it contained a bomb. And similarly, you can't point to any portable stereo anywhere else and say, "That's a bomb." Yes, it could be a bomb, as also could be a jar of peanut butter, a shoe heel, or a particularly bouffant hair-do. That explosives are routinely packaged in any number of otherwise common and unremarkable enclosures does not mean that something resembling such an exclosure must contain explosives.

Positive identification as an explosive must draw a parallel to prior explosives packed in as distinctive a packaging as was observed, and in such a way that is characteristic and dispositive. Braidwood, for all his expertise, doesn't do that. And that's why I imagine everyone who invokes his opinion in this case makes such a big point about him being a highly-experienced expert with many accolades to his credit. It's the same song and dance we get when expert opinion isn't as soundly based on expertise as some want it to be.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
That is a newspaper report not a 'scientific' report.

How can someone's subjective opinion that a manipulated video image of vague orange box shape might be plastic explosives be considered scientific?

What is the evidence that the original video had been 'manipulated'?

Does this mean you are back to explosives blowing the bow door off?

Was this done before or after it sank?

If the explosives are still there, how did they blow the bow door off?

If they were placed before the ship sank, why didn't any of the crew notice them?
Click to expand...

You can read Brian Braidwood's technical report here. Fellows' report is appended to it.
 
Vixen said:
I spelt out the conclusions Hoffmeister of Hamburg University came to. You can read it in his own words and as signed off by him.
Click to expand...

Yep, and there is no mention of findings of sabotage, or of discovering evidence consistent with sabotage. You cannot base a conclusion of sabotage on the findings of Hamburg university. Yet "in your view" it was. Your view is unsupported.
 
LondonJohn said:
The JAIC did investigate how/why the Estonia sank so fast, Vixen.

Their investigation revealed that the Estonia sank so fast because its bow opening was catastrophically compromised, causing a huge ingress of water onto the open vehicle deck in a short period of time (some of which poured down to lower decks), which caused the ship to lose sufficient buoyancy and stability as to capsize to starboard; and from that point, water pressure on the starboard windows caused them to break, meaning that water could now flood uncontrolled in through those window openings (as well as continuing to flood into the now-capsized vehicle deck through the bow). As a result, the ship very soon lost all buoyancy and sank.

The evidence, testimony and subsequent modelling all fully supported this conclusion, and did not indicate any alternative conclusion.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

That is not an analysis that is a descriptive narrative.
 
Vixen said:
You can read Brian Braidwood's technical report here. Fellows' report is appended to it.
Click to expand...

A privately-commissioned and privately-prepared report is not a scientific publication either. When you claim that Braidwood's conclusions were published as science, this implies that it has passed some standard of review and comment. That didn't happen in Braidwood's case, so you're misrepresenting the rigor we should expect.
 
JayUtah said:
Yep, and there is no mention of findings of sabotage, or of discovering evidence consistent with sabotage. You cannot base a conclusion of sabotage on the findings of Hamburg university. Yet "in your view" it was. Your view is unsupported.
Click to expand...

Citation please of where it is claimed Hoffmeister was investigating sabotage.


I think the only reference is in Mojo's head.
 
Vixen said:
I spelt out the conclusions Hoffmeister of Hamburg University came to. You can read it in his own words and as signed off by him.
Click to expand...


Notwithstanding anything else....

....you haven't noticed (have you?) that the proposed initial failure points mentioned here are not "the side locks" - and in any case, as I've pointed out to you twice now already, there was no such thing as "side locks" on the bow visor: the side attachments were the two hydraulic pistons/cylinders which raised and lowered the visor.

No, Vixen: the proposed points of initial failure mentioned here are the top hinges (is it ambitious of me to assume you know a) what the form and function of a hinge is, and b) where the hinges on the Estonia's bow visor were actually situated?).

See: it's when you post attachments like those, after saying this university study concluded that it all started with the "side locks", that your commitment to accuracy, understanding and overall aptitude is.... called considerably into question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom