Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Vixen]

Priceless. You're asking me to believe that you can "easily" determine the validity of Anders Björkman's expert testimony on ship stability when you couldn't even describe the model in your own words without confusing such elementary concepts as points, lines, and vectors. I would ask what qualifies you to make such a determination, but you answer it:



Well now you're trying to backpedal and claim that Björkman is only telling you something you can determine for yourself. Except that you can't. And by that I mean you can't. You cannot demonstrate a correct working knowledge of ship stability, flood rates, or anything else that adheres to the question of how a ship might have sunk.

But getting back to the point you're trying to make, you specifically said that Anders Björkman is a fully-qualified marine engineer. That means, according to you, that he possesses knowledge that others don't -- specialized knowledge regarding how ships behave when damaged or otherwise compromised. And on that basis we must accept his judgment as the product of that superior, not-widely-shared knowledge.

So you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want us to accept Björkman as an expert in engineering and science (when he patently isn't), but at the same time tell us that anyone can tell for himself, intuitively, that what he's claiming is correct. He's either an expert withness or he's superfluous. Make up your mind.

You have been told I have zero interest in this person.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Citation, please?

Bearing in mind the JAIC found no flooding in ventilator pipes (or, rather, it didn't even go there) or breaches in the hull and certainly there is no mention of water on Deck 0, despite Sillaste having told a Swedish newspaper he, Treu and Kadak were 'up to our knees in water'.

I would be very interested to know which vessel you know of that had none of the aforesaid issues yet capsized, floated on its superstructure (= not the hull) for at least twenty minutes before sinking immediately to the bottom of the sea.

If you recall, the Oceanos floated on its extreme starboard side hull at a list for eighteen hours (due to a slow flood in the ventilation pipes. (The captain & senior crew were out of there in two shakes of a cat's tail). It didn't turn onto its superstructure (= past the point of stability) until then, at which point it sank in nine minutes. The passengers and crew all had ample time to evacuate and I believe most or all got out safely, despite the senior crew deserting ship.

On the Oceanos It flooded through a burst sea pipe. Earlier repairs to the waste disposal system had not been completed, the pipe's shell plating burst open and began filling the compartment with seawater. A ventilation pipe between compartments and various non return valves were not in place allowing uncontrolled flooding in to surrounding compartments. Power was lost when the machinery space flooded. At that point the ship was lost.
It took a long time to sink because until the ship settled and listed enough to get the weather deck under the water flooding was only happening through the burst sea pipe.

As for the JAIC finding no flooding in ventilators or deck 0, the ship was on the bottom of the sea, they were completely filled with water!

As for breaches in the hull, the only ones we know about are the bow visor and the one on the starboard side above the waterline.

Also again with the 'floating on the superstructure' Neither Estonia or Oceanos did this, they were flooding all the time and sank when they lost buoyancy. When they were listed over far enough to have superstructure in the water the flood rate would increase as a ships superstructure is not watertight.

 

[JayUtah]

You have been told I have zero interest in this person.

You've said that, but it's patently untrue. He was one of your first sources, remains one of your primary sources, and you're trying to rehabilitate him even now (for the umpteenth time) as an expert witness.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I quoted Michael Fellows, MBE, DSC, BEM, a bomb disposal and mine sweeper expert with 45 years continuous 'hands-on' experience, and who was awarded the MBE for his work on The Herald of Free Enterprise:



Are you going to smear him as a conspiracy theorist, too, who has no idea what he is on about?

He doesn't know that the 'packages' were explosives of any kind. He doesn't know what was supposedly in them and he doesn't say they were bombs.

In the context of the quote what do you think easily available means?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I quoted Michael Fellows, MBE, DSC, BEM, a bomb disposal and mine sweeper expert with 45 years continuous 'hands-on' experience, and who was awarded the MBE for his work on The Herald of Free Enterprise:



Are you going to smear him as a conspiracy theorist, too, who has no idea what he is on about?

He doesn't know that the 'packages' were explosives of any kind. He doesn't know what was supposedly in them and he doesn't say they were bombs.

In the context of the quote what do you think easily or readily available means?

Where is dynamite mentioned?

If they were supposed to have blown the visor off, why are they still there?

What identifies them as any kind of explosive device?

 

[Vixen]

He is. Repeatedly. You've stopped naming him as a source, but you have not stopped relying on him as one of your primary sources.



We have discussed your deceptive and overstated claims on this point at length. You can't demonstrate even the slightest competence in physics. Not even a little bit. No one believes you are competent to evaluate Anders Björkman's attempts to play engineer.



You're the one claiming that what you learned as a kid -- your "five years of physics" -- qualifies you to understand the physics portions of the arguments you've made. You've made no prior claims to continuing education in physics. But that is largely irrelevant inasmuch as you simply cannot demonstrate any competence in physics when asked.

Your intellectual snobbery is just a variation of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority; trying to claim you need to have the same special qualifications as yourself in order to participate in a chat forum (that doesn't have any entry requirements).

This is where the JAIC erred, in trying to force people to disbelieve their own common sense and experience of the world and 'just accept that a strong wave' was the cause of the accident.

Sure, the lowest common denominator might well define the crowd but on the other hand it is not that easy to pull wool over people's eyes (cf take a look at history and people's revolts that bring down kings and czars).

 

[Vixen]

To what?



...was not a ro-ro ferry and had a different construction.



No.

Why do you ignore all my questions attempting to test your knowledge of transverse stability?

A citation, please, of all these ships you claim to know of that suffered exactly the same fate as the Estonia (as described by the JAIC).

 

[JesseCuster]

Your intellectual snobbery is just a variation of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority; trying to claim you need to have the same special qualifications as yourself in order to participate in a chat forum (that doesn't have any entry requirements).

Stop fibbing.

No-one said you needed any special qualifications to participate in this discussion. They've just rightly pointed out that you lack the knowledge or understanding or qualifications to discuss things like ship engineering (you yourself said you know nothing about the subject) in any meaningful way.

The fact that you make stupid analogies to rubber ducks and pieces of paper pinned to walls demonstrates this fact neatly.

You're free to discuss it all you want, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[JesseCuster]

I quoted Michael Fellows, MBE, DSC, BEM, a bomb disposal and mine sweeper expert with 45 years continuous 'hands-on' experience, and who was awarded the MBE for his work on The Herald of Free Enterprise:



Are you going to smear him as a conspiracy theorist, too, who has no idea what he is on about?

Where does he say that dynamite can be bought in hardware stores?

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is where the JAIC erred, in trying to force people to disbelieve their own common sense and experience of the world and 'just accept that a strong wave' was the cause of the accident.
.

Where do they do this?

 

[JesseCuster]

Here you go:

https://www.bauhaus.fi/halkaisusementti-rakennuskemia-5-kg.html

Oh dear.

You were asked of evidence that dynamite could be bought in hardware stores, so you frantically googled for something and posted a link without reading or understanding it.

So much for your touted research skills. You suck at it.

 

[JayUtah]

Your intellectual snobbery...

Having the proper qualifications to have this particular discussion is not "intellectual snobbery."

...is just a variation of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority;

No, appeal to authority is a fallacy when the question at hand is a matter of straightforward logical deduction or inference. Where expert knowledge is required to address a question, using that knowledge -- or requiring it of others wanting to understand the question -- is not a fallacy.

trying to claim you need to have the same special qualifications as yourself in order to participate in a chat forum (that doesn't have any entry requirements).

Straw man. The claim is not that one needs to have knowledge of physics in order to participate in a general-interest chat forum. The claim is that one needs to have knowledge of physics when one's argument rests on getting a physics problem right. Or upon evaluating physics claims made by others. Your argument falls into that category, and you lack the knowledge to press it.

This is where the JAIC erred, in trying to force people to disbelieve their own common sense and experience of the world...

Experts often find themselves having to dispel incorrect belief derived from lay intuition.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. And being proud of that is not a convincing argument.

 

[Vixen]

On the Oceanos It flooded through a burst sea pipe. Earlier repairs to the waste disposal system had not been completed, the pipe's shell plating burst open and began filling the compartment with seawater. A ventilation pipe between compartments and various non return valves were not in place allowing uncontrolled flooding in to surrounding compartments. Power was lost when the machinery space flooded. At that point the ship was lost.
It took a long time to sink because until the ship settled and listed enough to get the weather deck under the water flooding was only happening through the burst sea pipe.

As for the JAIC finding no flooding in ventilators or deck 0, the ship was on the bottom of the sea, they were completely filled with water!

As for breaches in the hull, the only ones we know about are the bow visor and the one on the starboard side above the waterline.

Also again with the 'floating on the superstructure' Neither Estonia or Oceanos did this, they were flooding all the time and sank when they lost buoyancy. When they were listed over far enough to have superstructure in the water the flood rate would increase as a ships superstructure is not watertight.

The maximum list IIRC for the Estonia is roughly 40° before capsizing becomes almost inevitable save for some drastic action. As of 0130 it was at 70° or more, and thus was no longer resting on its beams with the hull keeping it afloat, it would be virtually at a near right angle to the sea. There is no way a vessel, especially of that great size and weight, that will carry on floating in that position for a further twenty minutes. If you recall, Oceanos once past the point of stability, sank within nine minutes.

 

[junkshop]

Why? What's its' relevance?...

A poster expressed scepticism that dynamite* was readily available and I have shown that, on the contrary, it is almost a constant need, even if only licensed builders have a permit to get the stuff.

*I use the term in its slang sense.

Strange, I remember the conversation a little differently...

...As you would know, living in Helsinki, dynamite is a very common factor in building work and excavating wells, due to the ice-age-formed granite that is so characteristic of the Finnish landscape... You can even buy the stuff at hardware stores...

...Yes, explosives are commonly used to excavate rocky Finnish ground. No, they are definately not readily available. Explosives, firearms, bullets and gunpowder are strictly controlled in Finland. The only dynamite you can buy without being licensed exploder is "snail dynamite" what is an expanding mortar used to crack rocks concrete...

It is commonly easily available, even in the UK ('FIXOR')...

Where can I buy 'FIXOR' in the UK?...

You can order it here...

That is in Canada.
Try ordering it in the UK and expect a visit from the police...

You said 'dynamite'. That's not dynamite...

Also, that is a link to a company in Canada.
Does Vixen think that it could be got mail order in the UK or Sweden?

Here you go:

https://www.bauhaus.fi/halkaisusementti-rakennuskemia-5-kg.html

Is this a joke?

Rock Splitting Mortar is not an explosive. it is cement, it expands as it cures.

...Is that what you think dynamite does?...

So try this...(from about 1:47 onwards).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZpdZJOWWOU

I don't see how that video is evidence either your original claim, your current claim, or any of the others you made inbetween.

 

[JayUtah]

A citation, please, of all these ships you claim to know of that suffered exactly the same fate as the Estonia (as described by the JAIC).

Straw man. I made no claim of ships suffering "exactly the same fate."

 

[Vixen]

You've said that, but it's patently untrue. He was one of your first sources, remains one of your primary sources, and you're trying to rehabilitate him even now (for the umpteenth time) as an expert witness.

Rubbish. He is just highly visible on Google search. I have been following the Estonia disaster from Day One and only came across Bjorkmann when finding citations here for posters who demand them.

You and Reformed Offlian want me to slag him off but I don't know anything about him to do any such thing.

 

[abaddon]

Easily.

AS Bob Dylan so nicely put it, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".

You want a conspiracy.

As The Rolling Stones aptly put it "You can't always get what you want!"

Argument by song lyrics has to be the most moronic tactic ever.

 

[JayUtah]

...past the point of stability...

Why have you ignored all my questions attempting to test your knowledge of transverse stability? The GZ model is for an intact hull. Did any of these ships exhibit intact-hull behavior?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The maximum list IIRC for the Estonia is roughly 40° before capsizing becomes almost inevitable save for some drastic action. As of 0130 it was at 70° or more, and thus was no longer resting on its beams with the hull keeping it afloat, it would be virtually at a near right angle to the sea. There is no way a vessel, especially of that great size and weight, that will carry on floating in that position for a further twenty minutes. If you recall, Oceanos once past the point of stability, sank within nine minutes.

It would depends on the remaining buoyancy and the flooding rate. It is nothing to do with your imagined 'point of stability'
Most ships do not capsize as they sink.

 

[abaddon]

1. Bjorkman is not my go-to.

He is. Just not typing his name is not fooling anyone

2. You don't know what level of physics I have.

We do. You told us. Basically school girl level.

Just because you are dependent on what you learnt as a kid, it doesn't mean others do not carry on learning throughout life.

So howcome you didn't?