• 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.
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