Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[LondonJohn]

No, it shows a breach in to the car deck. You can see vehicles.

Yes. Not to mention the......rather obvious......fact that the opening in the hull, as viewed from the exterior, is shown (on the video taken of the wreck on the sea bed) with reference to the paint scheme on the ship. And that proves beyond any doubt that the opening is/was above the fully-laden waterline of the ship.

There's no debate whatsoever on this subject. It's all there in black blue and white.

 

[Steve]

Ships use alternative routes in storms , it is called 'storm routing' or 'weather routing'

Are you aware that on the Estonia the bow ramp acted as the collision bulkhead supposed to stop flooding if the bow visor failed?
Are you aware that the position and extent of the bow ramp of Estonia did not satisfy the SOLAS requirements for an upper extension of the collision bulkhead and that no exemption was issued?
If it had been given an exemption it would have been on condition that the vessel in the course of its voyages did not proceed more than 20 nautical miles from the nearest land?

It shouldn't have been sailing without certification and if it had been certified it would have been restricted to coastal waters.

Can you think of a reason that the owners of the ship would be keen to avoid having it restricted to coastal waters?
If it had been restricted it would not have been subjected to the full force of the storm.

Well now.......

 

[Vixen]

Where does Hamburg university say this?

Where is the evidence for explosives?

Were explosives used to break the locks on the Diana II?

See Braidwood and Fellows for the explosives claims.

Diana II is a complete red herring. Why didn't Stenstrom just bring back the Estonia Atlantic bolt?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That is his opinion and nothing to do with the accuracy of calculations of buoyancy or stress tension in the bow visor hinges..

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.

The issue about Bildt seeking US approval in his government is common knowledge, just do a google. It was a scandal at the time it came out.

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.

If it is too much to take in then just mollify yourself with the innocuous wave story.

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.

 

[Vixen]

If you are using it as evidence for your idea that there was sabotaged then yes, it should show evidence for sabotage.

I have no control over someone else's assumptions. Ask Mojo.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Captain Swoop backing up London John claimed Estonia should have stayed close to the coastline, as did the other ships. The other ships were coming from Helsinki and they all stop at Mariehamn in the Ålands, first, before Stockholm, thus, they only face about six - eight hours of open sea, unlike the Estonia which was going directly to Stockholm and in open sea for at least twelve hours, bypassing the Ålands.

How does it 'stay close to the coastline'?

It takes a longer 'weather route'
That's what a responsible captain would have done rather than plough at full speed in to the sea.

 

[abaddon]

It is quite factual.

So Estonia was smuggling Russian military equipment to Israel? Seriously? Ever look at a map?

Ohtuleht

Or perhaps just whistle a happy tune.

Paywall. No soup for you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That is his opinion and nothing to do with the accuracy of calculations of buoyancy or stress tension in the bow visor hinges.

The issue about Bildt seeking US approval in his government is common knowledge, just do a google. It was a scandal at the time it came out.

Your claim, you need to support it.

 

[LondonJohn]

IMV it probably was sabotage, from what I know of the case so far.
Why did you expect Hamburg University to look into sabotage when their remit was to analyse the nuts and bolts of the bow visor?

So what you're saying is:

"IMV it probably was sabotage, from my near-total ignorance of the salient facts so far, my fundamental inability to understand or apply the relevant scientific principles so far, my blind adherence to crackpot conspiracy theories so far, and my total commitment to insisting I am right and just so far"

 

[LondonJohn]

It is well-documented.

Maybe you should then supply some of this voluminous documentation?

(You know that's the way it works - in an intellectually-honest debate - if/when a person makes a particular claim. Don't you?)

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is quite factual.


Ohtuleht

Or perhaps just whistle a happy tune.

Where in the transcripts of the dives or the reports is this recorded?

they did not spend several hours looking for one suitcase, they spent several hours investigating as much of the ship as it was safe to.

 

[Mojo]

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!

This one was, although now I come to think of it, not at the same time…

 

[Andy_Ross]

See Braidwood and Fellows for the explosives claims.

Diana II is a complete red herring. Why didn't Stenstrom just bring back the Estonia Atlantic bolt?

Where do 'Braidwood and Fellows' say that explosives were used or that there was sabotage?

 

[LondonJohn]

This was a normally bad autumn storm in the Baltic, not Shakespeare's Tempest, with sorcerers and magicians able to conjure up a supernatural wave cast by the diabolical hand of the wicked one.

Yeah....ummmmm..... how many times do you need to be told that the waves which finally opened up the lugs on the bow visor's bottom lock that night.... were not the sole cause of the lugs' failure.

Repeat the words "Straw that broke the camel's back" several times to yourself. This may assist with your (hitherto terrifically poor) comprehension on this issue.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have no control over someone else's assumptions. Ask Mojo.

But you are the one assuming sabotage and you used that report as an example of evidence for sabotage.

It does not contain any mention of sabotage.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm getting This Is Spinal Tap flashbacks.

***grabs mandolin and Leprechaun's hat, and does funny little dance***


(Ironically, I find the mythical Gaelic tales of Leprechauns to be considerably more plausible than every single one of Vixen's positions in this thread...)

 

[JayUtah]

Instead of starting from sweeping generalisations, let's begin with the specific errors you keep mentioning.

What factual error has this character got wrong in respect of the Estonia and why or how in your opinion is it incorrect?

No, that's not how voir dire works. You're the one trying to set up Anders Björkman as such an expert in marine engineering as to be a sole-source witness to the strength of certain claims. You've demonstrated (and at times admitted) that you lack the wherewithal yourself to determine whether the specialized claims he has made are valid. Instead you rely on your "critical faculties" and cite his general stature in the field as evidence that the specific claims he makes in this one case must be respected. Except that he has no general stature. As others have pointed out, he overstated his qualifications in marine design. He lied about steps he had taken to test the flooding model. And this is not an anomaly; he has lied repeatedly, confidently, and purposely about other engineering feats that various pundits have tried to call into doubt on flimsy pretexts. This is why he "works" in the field only as a single-person business run out of his house. No firm will hire him. You laid your foundation for Björkman's claims on the very things that your critics have amply cross-examined and found to be unworthy. Trying to shift foundations and reverse the burden of proof simply isn't going to work. You bear the burden to show he is the expert you need him to be.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, after the mass public hysteria - BBC even ran a programme on The Herald of Free Enterprise-type accidents, suggesting an extra 'gate' (bow visor) and car ramp indicator lights be brought in, unaware the Finns/Swedes/Germans already did all of this - all car ferries were being frantically checked and flaws and defects found. It does not prove that it was the bolts, locks, hinges and lugs that were the primary cause of the Estonia accident, and even if they were, it would not sink like that. Even the JAIC had to grudgingly admit that.
It used the Diana II Atlantic lock to support its theory that this was the lock that failed first, simultaneously loosening the other locks.

No, Vixen. That is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the JAIC's position on this matter.


(I should probably get those above words of mine laminated, to save me the trouble of typing them out each and every time in this thread)

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you'll find that London John hilariously introduced the Oceanos.

I think you'll find that Vixen embarrassingly & dishonestly misrepresented LondonJohn on this issue.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. Ignorance. And it's "Oceanos". Can't you get anything right?






It sank in 35 seconds? Wow! That's quick!!! (If you're going to pretentiously use time-unit symbols in this way, you should have written 35'....)






Ah but you see, Vixen: if you'd actually taken the time and trouble (and basic decency and intellectual honesty) to go back and read LondonJohn's post on this particular matter.... you'd have seen that he posted the video of the Oceanos explicitly - and solely - to counter your (fatuous, and entirely scientifically-illiterate) claim that ships, when they capsize, always quickly carry on rotating and turn upside down. Which, rather visually, the Oceanos did not do.

That's the thing about attempted slap-downs, Vixen: if one is going to attempt a slap-down, it's rather important to get one's facts straight. Otherwise one ends up looking even more foolish and hapless than previously (if that's even possible).

Crumbs.

The Oceanos flooded because seawater got into its watertight compartments in the engine room, which is in the hull.

Earlier repairs to the waste disposal system had not been completed, which meant that a vital ventilation pipe which ran through the watertight aft bulkhead and the non-return valves were not replaced. It is believed[by whom?] that after a series of freak waves slammed against the ship, the pipe's shell plating burst open and began filling the compartment with seawater. At about 9:30 p.m., a muffled explosion was heard and Oceanos lost power. The ship started taking on water, rapidly flooding the engine room. By the next morning rescuers found Oceanos adrift just off Coffee Bay, listing badly to its starboard* side.[4]

wiki


It didn't turn turtle as it was bottom heavy with water.

*Looks like it was listing on its port side, not starboard side.