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

[Andy_Ross]

12.6.1 of the JAIC Report:

Only you seems to think that only the water on the car deck was responsible for the sinking.
We know that the machinery spaces flooded, they are a large portion of the buoyancy of the ship.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That is offensive.

That Voronin was a Zionist is a factual statement. There is actually no moral judgement involved there.

His eye and hair colours are factual statements too. You didn't mention them though, just his being, you know, a Jew.

 

[LondonJohn]

12.6.1 of the JAIC Report:

Ummm nope Vixen.

Show us the part of the JAIC Report which specifically talks about "the displacement/replacement of air in the hull" as the determinant factor wrt whether or the Estonia - or any ship, for that matter - sinks/sank.

 

[Andy_Ross]

His eye and hair colours are factual statements too. You didn't mention them though, just his being, you know, a Jew.

Don't forget the Russian arms dealer bit.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

12.6.1 of the JAIC Report:

Not what you claimed. Stop doing this.

You make a bold claim ("The report says the moon isn't made of rocks, it's made of cheese!") and when called on to support it, you put up something that doesn't remotely say what you claimed ("See, the report says here that there's a lot of metals in the moon surface").

It's ridiculous.

Now, are you going to answer the rest of my many, many questions, or are you going to keep wringing your hands in faux outrage at my "offensiveness"?

 

[Andy_Ross]

As I stated:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13672299#post13672299

I make no mention of Helsinki that I can see.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That is:

1. Only one of my points. I asked you to deal with several.

2. Not what you claimed anyway. You didn't claim Bildt told Clinton stuff, you claimed he sought Clinton's approval for the makeup of the government. So were you lying when you made that claim?

Come on. Back up your actual claim, or retract it, and answer my other points.

Why did you claim the US president was in charge of the CIA? Why do you endlessly make claims about things you know nothing about? Why are you continuing to defend Bjorkman? Why are you lying about what Bjorkman said in the quote I provided? Why do you think that a total incomprehension of basic physics is a personality quirk, and not something that invalidates someone's claims of expertise on engineering?

Stop deflecting, stop trying to motte-and-bailey your way around people asking you to support your claims and stop being a coward. Answer questions.

Here's the post I'm referring to, by the way.

 

[LondonJohn]

His eye and hair colours are factual statements too. You didn't mention them though, just his being, you know, a Jew.

And I also note with very keen interest that Vixen hasn't felt the need to specifically mention the religion and religious-political views of people such as the masters of the Estonia and Silja Europa (or, for that matter, any other person connected with this disaster....).

As I say: interesting, huh?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Given all the mistakes that Vixen makes, I'm not sure why folks are disputing this. The Director of Central Intelligence is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President. The Director is a political appointee who comes and goes. Obama had 6. Trump had 3. The history of the CIA is the replete with political interference in the CIA.

Because that isn't what she said. She didn't say that the President appoints the head of the CIA, she said he IS the head of the CIA, and attempted to use this insanity to crowbar in some attempt at making Clinton look "suspicious".

 

[Vixen]

Where?

12.6.1.

To bring in a hypothesis of flooding to the rest of the vessel, JAIC has the Estonia floating on its superstructure until sufficient windows and dividers were smashed by the waves.

A vessel simply does not do this without turning over.

Calculations of the two studies don't match

Meanwhile, Jaan Metsaveer, a shipbuilding engineer and emeritus professor at Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech), who also sat on the JAIC, said that official calculations show that the MS Estonia had a reserve buoyancy (the volume of a ship above the waterline, which can be made watertight, thus increasing the vessel's buoyancy – ed.) of 4,500 tonnes.

This covers two meters above the waterline, which can carry an additional weight of 4,500 tonnes. Thus, 4,500 tonnes of water flowing under the car deck was enough to sink the whole ship in any location.

However, it is also possible for a part of the ship to lose reserve buoyancy, for example, the stern sections. The result is that the stern sinks significantly deeper and the bow rises higher, so that 4,500 tonnes is above the water-line.

Margus Kurm says he does not agree with this estimation. "Swedish marine scientists have concluded with their calculations, simulations and model tests (done by Swedish state agency Vinnova) that the ship would not have sunk until its entire superstructure, and 83 percent of the hull, is filled with water. This means that 11,000 tonnes of water had to flow under the car deck, not the 4,500 tonnes referenced. "

Vinnova conducted the tests in 2008, by which time software used in simulations was better than that available in 1995.

"Don't these kinds of disagreements between scientists prove the need to gather as much evidence as possible, including investigating the wreck on the seabed?" Kurm asks.

Professor Mihkel Kõrgesaar agrees that the calculations made in 2008 are more likely to be accurate. At the same time, he said that in the same way, later calculations say that the ship ought to have stayed afloat, but as it didn't no one really knows how it actually came to sink.

ERR


If the JAIC are going to postulate that this is what happened, they need to describe how it went against Archimedes Principles, in detail.

 

[Vixen]

That is more than 35 minutes.

The JAIC time it as the bow visor falling off 0115. Estonia officially disappeared from the radar at 0148, so actually, 0h33'.


Wilhelm Gustloff with a triple torpedo to the hull took 0h 45'.

Oceanos took 18h.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Please explain how their conclusion violates Archemides principles?

 

[Vixen]

So why did you introduce the Hamburg report in to the thread when it confirms the JAIC report, that fatigue and corrosion resulted in the visor separating?

Why are you claiming sabotage when both the JAIC and the university say it wasn't?

We were discussing the role of the Atlantic lock, that is how Hamburg University's report came into the picture.

 

[Vixen]

They concluded that fatigue and corrosion caused the separation of the visor.
that is the same conclusion as the JAIC report.

No, it is not.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The point being made is that Hamburg University did not agree with the JAIC conclusion. A scientific conclusion is supposed to be replicable by others taking the same steps.

The detail of the disagreement does not leave a big enough gap for you to shoehorn any sabotage CTs in.

 

[Vixen]

Well firstly, where exactly does the JAIC Report claim this?

(Because when I read this post of yours, I went back to the report and did multiple searches for the relevant key words. Answer came there none.)


And once you can direct me to the right passage in the report (or in any other official JAIC material), we can then have a discussion about generalities vs specifics and so on.

12.6.1 Even though the list developed rapidly; the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles. The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.

 

[Andy_Ross]

12.6.1.

To bring in a hypothesis of flooding to the rest of the vessel, JAIC has the Estonia floating on its superstructure until sufficient windows and dividers were smashed by the waves.

A vessel simply does not do this without turning over.

ERR


If the JAIC are going to postulate that this is what happened, they need to describe how it went against Archimedes Principles, in detail.

Again you are making things up.

The Estonia flooded through the bow and water got in to the machinery spaces through ventilators, air intakes and ducts.

What the **** does Archimedes have to do with it? Did he plant the charges?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They did not sink.

Eventually one of them did. Some of the others were in real danger of sinking, averted by the actions they took. The Estonia ploughed on at full speed into heavy seas which was reckless to begin with and fatal after the visor was damaged.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, it found no evidence for sabotage, it came do definite conclusions.

Are you saying that if there had been sabotage and they had seen the evidence they would have ignored it and made conclusions anyway?
that would be dishonest.

Where does Hamburg University state 'there is no evidence for sabotage'.

You lied. It was not in its remit, for a start.

 

[zooterkin]

12.6.1.

To bring in a hypothesis of flooding to the rest of the vessel, JAIC has the Estonia floating on its superstructure until sufficient windows and dividers were smashed by the waves.

Please cite exactly where this is said.