• 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:
BMTIG's inability to identify anything the ship might have hit remains a major hole (pun intended) in their findings. This is why the conspiracy theory has to expand to include the nefarious forces required to hide the alleged other ship.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, I got it! The Philadelphia experiment discovered a way to make ships invisible! That's the smocking gnu!

(The forgoing is writ ironical, as Petroleum V. Nasby used to say.)
 
Common to the reports from BMTIG is this text (this example from report #10):
The report does not take a position on the actual status of the visor or ramp
Click to expand...
and
By leaving the visor on the ship, we avoid giving a preconceived view of the course of events. The model
is thus neutral on the question of when and how the visor separated, but takes full account of the
amount of water on the car deck required to recreate the actual stability processes.
Click to expand...
What bizarre argumentation. It's like saying: "By assuming that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't there that day, we avoid giving a preconceived view of who shot Kennedy". Excluding a likely (and empirically supported) contingency from one's model by fiat does not yield a neutral model- just the opposite in fact. It puts a thumb on the scale in favor of "alternative theories".
 
Last edited:
Carl Bildt writes

[google translates]

"
Translated from Swedish
The horrific accident with MS Estonia in 1994 has given rise to a multitude of conspiracy theories about why it happened. Now all the information that has come to light has been reviewed again. And the original conclusions about the accident are confirmed."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2000993207836955063
 
So the incident wasn't actually 'reopened' it was just an exercise in 'being right', winning the argument and refuting the so-called 'conspiracy theorists'. I caught the tail-end of the debate when some woman was questioning whether the 'survivors accounts' would be made available. No, just a summary, they will remain 'confidential' [=classified]. Then some English guy was asking about the car ramp door and how come the engineers said it was shut. Then there was Lars Bognärs [_sp?] looking angry, will the board be willing to communicate with BMTIG? Zoom in to Roosipuu with a strange-looking toupee, not dissimilar to a cat resting on his head. Oh, we did all of the calculations and we are happy with them, to sum up his supercilious response. So they found some rocks which matched up to some dents and in fact, it was now found the vessel was completely unseaworthy after all - contrary to the original JAIC claim - which reminds us of the analogy of the car with bald tyres, no brakes, steering wheel hanging off, so no need to bother investigating further, is the [poor] reasoning. So the whole thing - as to what caused the accident - remains classified.
 
Vixen said:
So the incident wasn't actually 'reopened' it was just an exercise in 'being right', winning the argument and refuting the so-called 'conspiracy theorists'. I caught the tail-end of the debate when some woman was questioning whether the 'survivors accounts' would be made available. No, just a summary, they will remain 'confidential' [=classified]. Then some English guy was asking about the car ramp door and how come the engineers said it was shut. Then there was Lars Bognärs [_sp?] looking angry, will the board be willing to communicate with BMTIG? Zoom in to Roosipuu with a strange-looking toupee, not dissimilar to a cat resting on his head. Oh, we did all of the calculations and we are happy with them, to sum up his supercilious response. So they found some rocks which matched up to some dents and in fact, it was now found the vessel was completely unseaworthy after all - contrary to the original JAIC claim - which reminds us of the analogy of the car with bald tyres, no brakes, steering wheel hanging off, so no need to bother investigating further, is the [poor] reasoning. So the whole thing - as to what caused the accident - remains classified.
Click to expand...
Now that the "current event" of the reopened investigation has run its course, and you've had your say about what you think of the outcome, is there any reason to continue with this thread?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So the incident wasn't actually 'reopened' it was just an exercise in 'being right', winning the argument and refuting the so-called 'conspiracy theorists'. I caught the tail-end of the debate when some woman was questioning whether the 'survivors accounts' would be made available. No, just a summary, they will remain 'confidential' [=classified]. Then some English guy was asking about the car ramp door and how come the engineers said it was shut. Then there was Lars Bognärs [_sp?] looking angry, will the board be willing to communicate with BMTIG? Zoom in to Roosipuu with a strange-looking toupee, not dissimilar to a cat resting on his head. Oh, we did all of the calculations and we are happy with them, to sum up his supercilious response. So they found some rocks which matched up to some dents and in fact, it was now found the vessel was completely unseaworthy after all - contrary to the original JAIC claim - which reminds us of the analogy of the car with bald tyres, no brakes, steering wheel hanging off, so no need to bother investigating further, is the [poor] reasoning. So the whole thing - as to what caused the accident - remains classified.
Click to expand...

No, I think you're getting confused.

Both the JAIC and this new investigation explained clearly what happened: the bow visor's bottom lock (which was badly designed and had been very poorly maintained) failed while the ship was sailing fast and straight into a pretty severe storm. This in turn caused the bow visor to swing up and down on its (top) hinges, until those hinges inevitably failed too, thereby ripping off the whole bow visor (which was found around 1 NM behind the main wreck. As the bow visor ripped away, it pulled open the bow ramp (the two mechanisms were embedded), which allowed huge volumes of water to be scooped up by the now-open bow every time the ship plunged into an oncoming wave. From there, free surface effects caused the ship to list heavily and quickly, and additional water entered the ship once the upper deck windows on the listing side (starboard) gave in to the sheer mass of water pounding against them. From there, it was simply a matter of (not very much) time before the ship capsized and sank.

Have you not read the JAIC report or this latest report? Everything I've outlined above is explained in ample detail in the reports. There's absolutely nothing "classified" about it at all.
 
Vixen said:
Carl Bildt writes

[google translates]

"
Translated from Swedish
The horrific accident with MS Estonia in 1994 has given rise to a multitude of conspiracy theories about why it happened. Now all the information that has come to light has been reviewed again. And the original conclusions about the accident are confirmed."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2000993207836955063
Click to expand...

And Bildt is absolutely correct.
 
Vixen, I'm going to repeat my request (which I've now made multiple times and which you have completely ignored) for you to quote the part of section 3.3.2 of the JAIC report which says the Atlantic lock was an accessory added to make people feel safer. You've said that section 3.3.2 of the JAIC report is your source for this claim about the Atlantic lock.

I can't find that bit, so please quote it.

You have no excuse, it'll only take you a minute or so to copy and paste it here.
 
Mojo said:
The fact that it arrived at the same basic conclusion as the original enquiry doesn't mean that it "wasn't actually reopened'".
Click to expand...
It states very clearly the case will not be reopened. IOW they simply calculated whether it was possible the holes in the hull were caused by the rocks, they did nothing more except listen to what some of the survivors were saying, some twenty years later and reassess the damage. Roosipuu himself said he read Jutta Raab as a teenager and concluded she was a nutter, so to speak. In other words, he sees himself as an apparatchik hired to support the establishment, as it were, against critics There is no doubt he is a very clever fellow. However, we all know the type.
 
Vixen said:
It states very clearly the case will not be reopened. IOW they simply calculated whether it was possible the holes in the hull were caused by the rocks, they did nothing more except listen to what some of the survivors were saying, some twenty years later and reassess the damage.
Click to expand...
IOW they looked at the evidence.
Vixen said:
Roosipuu himself said he read Jutta Raab as a teenager and concluded she was a nutter, so to speak. In other words, he sees himself as an apparatchik hired to support the establishment, as it were, against critics There is no doubt he is a very clever fellow. However, we all know the type.
Click to expand...
Oh no, not a conspiracy theory at all.
 
Vixen said:
It states very clearly the case will not be reopened. IOW they simply calculated whether it was possible the holes in the hull were caused by the rocks, they did nothing more except listen to what some of the survivors were saying, some twenty years later and reassess the damage.
Click to expand...
So they thoroughly reconsidered all the available evidence and checked that it was all consistent and concluded that it is. They "simply" showed the conspiracy theorists were clearly wasting their and everyone else's time.
Vixen said:
Roosipuu himself said he read Jutta Raab as a teenager and concluded she was a nutter, so to speak. In other words, he sees himself as an apparatchik hired to support the establishment, as it were, against critics There is no doubt he is a very clever fellow. However, we all know the type.
Click to expand...
The character flaws of various conspiracy theorists did not contribute to the sinking so I find it difficult to persuade myself this matters one iota.
 
Vixen said:
It states very clearly the case will not be reopened.
Click to expand...
That's the expected finding of a preliminary report. It determines whether there is enough new evidence to reopen the entire investigation. Was this not clear from the start?

Vixen said:
IOW they simply calculated whether it was possible the holes in the hull were caused by the rocks...
Click to expand...
And found that not only was it possible, it was likely. Since the rather obvious reason for the midships damage has been thoroughly explained, there is no need to cover any more old ground.

Vixen said:
they did nothing more except listen to what some of the survivors were saying...
Click to expand...
If you'll read carefully, you'll find they did quite a lot more than that. They answered your questions regarding why the ship sank so fast. They answered your questions regarding stability. They considered the hypothesis of a surface collision and rejected it for lack of evidence.

You said you would wait for the final report and listen to what the experts said about it. I'm an expert telling you what the report means.

Vixen said:
Roosipuu himself said he read Jutta Raab as a teenager and concluded she was a nutter, so to speak. In other words, he sees himself as an apparatchik hired to support the establishment, as it were, against critics There is no doubt he is a very clever fellow. However, we all know the type.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean. You said you were focused on facts, not personalities.
 
Vixen said:
IOW they simply calculated whether it was possible the holes in the hull were caused by the rocks, they did nothing more except listen to what some of the survivors were saying, some twenty years later and reassess the damage.
Click to expand...
That's not what they did. It's part of what they did.

If you actually read the report (which you didn't) you can see they surveyed the entire benthic area, too sediment samples, rock samples, and mapped the currents at depth. They photographed the exterior of the ship in toto and stitched together a 3D rendering, which has become standard for wreck surveys. They went into the car deck. They removed and recovered the bow car ramp.

They collected all the possible physical evidence possible BEFORE they ran their simulations (as they should have), and every step is presented in this report. Marine Geology is my lone area of knowledge, and this report is first class. They used all available technologies to compile background data to provide a solid foundation for the engineering folks to run their programs. Not only is this report solid enough to explain the accident based on the physical evidence, the data collection of the benthic environment will have other scientific uses for marine science well into the future.

Vixen said:
Roosipuu himself said he read Jutta Raab as a teenager and concluded she was a nutter, so to speak. In other words, he sees himself as an apparatchik hired to support the establishment, as it were, against critics
Click to expand...
Leaving the obvious leftist politics out of this, let's look at the facts. There was no way to hide evidence collected in this new investigation. Period. Too many people across multiple countries, multiple scientific and political disciplines to get away with some convoluted plot. Raab's incompetence, and unethical behavior has been discussed multiple times before. She is an activist, not a journalist.

You can try to move the goal posts again, but you have nowhere to move them to. The Estonia sank because the bow visor was knocked off in heavy seas it was never designed to sail. Period. That's it. That's all she wrote. Conspiracy Theorists only victimize themselves because the truth doesn't play favorites.
 
Vixen said:
It states very clearly the case will not be reopened. IOW they simply calculated whether it was possible the holes in the hull were caused by the rocks, they did nothing more except listen to what some of the survivors were saying, some twenty years later and reassess the damage. Roosipuu himself said he read Jutta Raab as a teenager and concluded she was a nutter, so to speak. In other words, he sees himself as an apparatchik hired to support the establishment, as it were, against critics There is no doubt he is a very clever fellow. However, we all know the type.
Click to expand...
This is done. It is over. All the baseless conspiratorial bollocks you have pushed over the years has been shown to be conspiratorial bollocks, and baseless.

let it go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom