• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

JayUtah said:
Irrelevant.

You either have a source for your claims regarding Voronin or you do not. It appears you do not.
Click to expand...

Apparently it was some sort of received wisdom that Voronin weighted 245lb.

(BTW your state is hogging the news these past few days..... :cry:)
 
Vixen said:
The Estonians were sent a fax listing the officers and show entertainers as survivors.
Click to expand...

By whom and based on what source of information?

Is it your contention that Sweden "disappeared" everyone rumoured to have survived, or claimed to have been named on a rumoured list of those believed to have survived? If it isn't then what the hell is the point of your endlessly recycling these various contradictory and unsupported claims?
 
Vixen said:
I am not at all confused.
Click to expand...
Indeed you are, because you keep asking the same question over and over even though it has been answered each time.

Vixen said:
What you are doing is simply providing 'alternative explanations'. Anyone can do that.
Click to expand...
What I'm doing is answering your question from the position of someone who understands what happened.

When those who examined the wreck prior to the JAIC did so, the wreck was in a position to conceal the hole. When others later examined the wreck, it had shifted to reveal the hole. That is why some people saw it (and tried to explain it) while others did not see it (and therefore did not try to explain it).

Not only do you not understand how ships work, you apparently don't understand how time works. You've only got one nine left. Spend it wisely.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Apparently it was some sort of received wisdom that Voronin weighted 245lb.
Click to expand...
...and that he was some kind of obese and that he was otherwise too infirm to be a credible survivor barring a conspiracy to save him over others. Someone who is merely curious or interested in the topic should have no problem conceding the point as unsupported. Many narratives of notable occurrences are filled with things that people "just know" for various reasons, many of which turn out not to be true when vigorously researched. However, someone intent on pushing a particular narrative will play exactly the kinds of games we're seeing here.

LondonJohn said:
(BTW your state is hogging the news these past few days..... :cry:)
Click to expand...
And for no good reasons. I'm sorry.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Anyone who does that can find their crackpot musings posted here by you, over and over and over. Christ alone knows why.
Click to expand...
The wreck shifted between the two periods of exploration. That's an easily-verified fact. The wreck shifted in a way that exposed a part of the ship that previously faced more downward, toward the seabed. On that part of the ship was then visible a hole—several holes, actually, but one of them receives the focus. That's the simple answer to why the evidence available to JAIC did not include evidence of a hole in the side of the ship, and therefore why no explanation for such a hole appears in their investigation.

Conspiracy theorists want to ignore this and propose instead that the JAIC's failure to identify and explain the hole was some sort of dereliction or coverup on their part. But there is a much simpler, much more obvious explanation. It's so simple and obvious that the only challenge to it seems to rise rhetorically no higher than repeatedly pounding the table and demanding, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The question of why JAIC didn't address the hole can be separated from the question of what caused it. Conspiracy theorists want to put the two together and say that because JAIC couldn't explain the hole they just ignored it and went with the allegedly predetermined conclusion that the ship sank because the bow visor fell off. But a more logically-grounded investigation can properly separate the two questions. JAIC is not at fault for failing to identify the hole. And because it was not in evidence before them, there was no reason to expect them to explain it.

But now that the presence of the hole is indisputable fact, we are obliged to try to explain it. Evertsson presented an inaccurate picture of the damage to the newly-uncovered part of the wreck. He desired to portray the damage as one singular hole, when in fact the hole in question is simply the most severe in a pattern of damage to the former underside of the wreck that is consistent with seabed impact. By distorting the evidence, he made it seem like one singular event should be sought to explain it. Then he colored the rest of his investigation with confirmation bias.

Similarly Braidwood distorted the evidence by depicting the hole as having outwardly-deformed petals in the shell plating. That would be consistent with some kinds of explosives acting from the inside of the hull. Unfortunately for him, it's wholly inconsistent with the photographic evidence of the hole. And as with all the other conspiracy theorists, that scenario presumes one single allegedly suspicious hole, not a pattern of damage.

All of these scenarios presume the hole was made while Estonia was still on the surface, but there is no differential evidence to support this. The hypothesis that the hole in the side is what caused the ship to sink so quickly are rendered less credible by the hole being above the waterline. And again, there is a pattern of damage to the wreck. Cherry-picking and explaining only part of that damage is poor method.

A more serious attempt to explain the damage to the previous underside of the wreck considers factors along the entire timeline. Did the damage most probably occur on the surface, during the plunge (however shallow), or upon impact with the seabed. Here the position of the damage and the ready proximity of suitable rock formations on the seabed provides a conclusive answer. The damage seen on the newly-revealed underside of the wreck (the side of the) ship is fully consistent with seabed impact damage. And the worst damage correlates to the position of features on the seabed fully capable of causing such damage. Lesser damage in evidence is easily explained by impacts with other regions of the seabed that are relatively devoid of such prominences. There are practically no assumptions left to make. This is not an "alternative" explanation. It is the explanation so readily supported by evidence as to effectively preclude all others.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I am not at all confused. What you are doing is simply providing 'alternative explanations'. Anyone can do that.
Click to expand...
No, I am explaining the observed damage, the damaged area was on the lower side of the wreck against the rocks, the hull tears are along the weld seams and the plating is pushed in.
The ship has rolled aoff the rocks that caused the damage revealing the hole. We can see it.

ALl that is needed is the weight of thew ship and the rocks, we don't have to add in mysterious limpet mines, submarines or torpedoes.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
By whom and based on what source of information?

Is it your contention that Sweden "disappeared" everyone rumoured to have survived, or claimed to have been named on a rumoured list of those believed to have survived? If it isn't then what the hell is the point of your endlessly recycling these various contradictory and unsupported claims?
Click to expand...
Well the band was terrible, I'm not surprised they disappeared them.
Their rendition of Copacabana song was criminal.
 
Andy_Ross said:
ALl that is needed is the weight of thew ship and the rocks, we don't have to add in mysterious limpet mines, submarines or torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Inexperienced people tend to overestimate the strength of ship shell plating. Further, mild steel is preferred in order to preserve ductility, which is more important in shell plating than overall hardness or higher fracture points.
 
JayUtah said:
Inexperienced people tend to overestimate the strength of ship shell plating. Further, mild steel is preferred in order to preserve ductility, which is more important in shell plating than overall hardness or higher fracture points.
Click to expand...
Something like a ferry would have around 15mm thickness of plating, maybe up to 20mm in high stress areas.

The Frigates I served on had around 10mm plating up to 15mm on stress areas, less than a merchant ship but the ribs and stringers were closer spaced than on a merchant ship
 
JayUtah said:
Inexperienced people tend to overestimate the strength of ship shell plating. Further, mild steel is preferred in order to preserve ductility, which is more important in shell plating than overall hardness or higher fracture points.
Click to expand...
I grew up in a seaside fishing town that had a lot of trawlers in northern NSW, and I was surprised just how much damage a steel hulled trawler could take in a storm- a mates dad had one that was caught out at sea in a bad storm (but nowhere near cyclone strength mind you) and when the trawler came back in, you could distinctly see the frame under the steel hull on the bow

That was pretty thick steel too- at least 6-8mm thick, yet it had literally 'formed' around the ribs beneath the skin just from the action of the waves slamming into the hull...

And yes, mild steel is wanted, in fact they go to some pretty long lengths to ensure that the steel isn't 'work hardened' during cutting, shaping and welding into the hull (and if repairs are needed...)- hardened steel is (despite what 'some' people 'think') really a bad idea in many cases- as the harder you make it, yes it becomes harder, but also far more brittle- meaning an impact shock can literally shatter some steels like glass if struck!!!!
(you can often see this in drills, hammers and other tools, where they can 'shatter' if mistreated even mildly!!!)

Indeed this happened on a minesite I have worked on in the past, and shows that steel can indeed 'shatter like glass'
www.aihs.org.au

Safety alert issued following puncture injury from hardened steel hammer

WorkSafe Victoria recently issued a safety alert about the risks of using hardened steel tools on hardened steel following an incident in which a worker was injured when a hardened steel hammer shattered.
www.aihs.org.au www.aihs.org.au
 
Mojo said:
I'm now wandering what secret information the bar manager and entertainers had that meant they had to be disappeared.
Click to expand...

Who knows what dodgy business conversations they were CIA-trained to eavesdrop on in the ferry bar?

Vixen was right. Anyone can make this ◊◊◊◊ up.
 
Vixen, what can you confidently state about Voronin, his height and weight, having suffered from multiple strokes, having an excruciating back injury, hopping on one leg, etc. And where you’re actually getting those facts.

You keep bizarrely comparing it to Chamberlain’s peace in our time speech and where you might have heard it. This isnt’ something that everyone else can Google, we’re trying to drill down to the actual facts, and you’re extremely evasive about it all, and your story is changing all the time., Alexksanr Voronin is an obscure person that no-one had heard of until you brought him up. You’re made declarations about his business activities, age and family, that don’t seem to be true or at least there’s conflicting accounts. You’ve described him as “grossly overweight”, suffering from an “excruciating back injury”, having had past strokes and health problems, not you’ve got him hopping on one leg, etc.

Where did you get those claims from? If it was Nelsons book, then you seem extremely very evasive and unsure about that Nelson actually says and where got the information from. You daresaid that Nelson spoke to Voronin, but then you learned from others here (when you should have known yourself) that the book was published 8 year after his death. Then you made the cryptic comment about “Vashya” saying “I will never abandon you”, and that is Nelson “source of direct information”. I still don’t know what that means at all.

The only descriptions from the book you’ve provided are describing Voronin as a “Russian bear of a man” and “broad shouldered”, etc.descriptions which you provided from Nelson’s book when asked for what the book says about Voronin’s being grossly overweight, with an excruciating injury, hopping on one leg, etc. And when explained to you that those don’t mean “grossly overweight” our any of the things you claimed, now the book’s description is wrong because it was actually Voronin’s adoring son who described him as a ‘Russian bear of a man”.

Vixen, who’s Vashya and how does Nelson quoting Vashya saying they they’ll never leave someone evidence of Vashya being a “direct source of information” about Voronin’s weight and health, which you still haven’t provided any evidence for.

You’ve described Voronin as grossly overweight, clinically obese or similar descriptions on multiple occasions. You’ve said you don’t remember saying that. You probably think you have an excellent memory, you don’t. It’s clearly dysfunctional in many ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom