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

[MarkCorrigan]

Hamburg carried out a very detailed analysis of the various hardware of the bow visor. That was their sole aim, and as stated in their abstract.

Would you berate a dentist for failing to note a bunion?

I would if the bunion was in the mouth of their patient.

Now you're back how about answering my long list of questions you seem to be studiously ignoring by trying to Gish gallop about the thread?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Why would the USA be smuggling FSU stuff via Sweden using Estonia at all?

That's what we are asking.

What is your evidence that it was happening?

It's recorded in the Rikstag. (cf. Hirschfeldt 2005)

Nope. First of all, in Sweden it's Riksdag.

And the Hirchfeldt report can be read in full at https://riksarkivet.se/Media/pdf-filer/NAD/Fo_2004_06.pdf
(In Swedish)

The conclusions are:

The Swedish Defense did transport Military material onboard M/S Estonia twice, on the 14th and the 20th of September 1994. It was electronics, not connected to a specific weapon system, and no explosives.

The equipment transported was destined for the Swedish Defense.

Nothing has been found that indicates that military equipment was transported on the night of the accident.

To summarize - the Hirchfeldt report does not support your statement.

 

[BazBear]

Hamburg carried out a very detailed analysis of the various hardware of the bow visor. That was their sole aim, and as stated in their abstract.

Would you berate a dentist for failing to note a bunion?

I would, if the bunion was in the mouth he or she was examining! Bunions being a foot ailment and all, this analogy is irrelevant anyway.

ETA Damn, multi-nijaed!

 

[Andy_Ross]

So HMS Royal OAK sank in just 13 minutes after it was hit by a torpedoes in Scapa Flow, a 30,000 ton battleship designed to withstand torpedo hits.

Thanks for the confirmation that something grievous needs to have happened for a ship to sink so dramatically.

But it doesn't.

MV Derbyshire was 169,044 tons and 965 ft. It sank so quickly that all hands were lost and no mayday was sent.
A damaged ventilator cover on the forecastle was the cause, taking in water over the course of a couple of days in a storm. Water ingress was gradual and the bow riding lower wasn't noticed from the bridge at the stern until a wave came right over and smashed the hatch to number one hold.

[IMGw=640]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1371&pictureid=12984[/IMGw]

 

[zooterkin]

If that was the case it should have capsized in literally minutes, as the Herald of Free Enerprise or MS Jan Heweliusz did.

Are you saying it didn’t sink in minutes? If so, how long?

From 0115 to 0148.

So it did sink in minutes?

Whooosh! The point being made has gone over your head.

...Or did it?

You're the one who appears to be confused.

You said it should have sunk in literally minutes, then provided timings which, if correct, show it did exactly that. 0115 to 0148 is 33 minutes (33', if you will).

 

[Andy_Ross]

The waves are moving from left to right rather like a stone aimed at a window.

A ship that is at 70° list does not have the same force of the wave trajectory if only for reason of gravity and direction of the wind, which does not blow from bottom to up, but across. (Think of an equivalent stone and how much more force is needed to lob it through a window from below to immediately overhead.)

A ship without power will always turn broadside on to the waves.

As for the rest of the post I have no idea as to what it means.

 

[Vixen]

You're the one who appears to be confused.

You said it should have sunk in literally minutes, then provided timings which, if correct, show it did exactly that. 0115 to 0148 is 33 minutes (33', if you will).

Here is a video showing a boat turning onto its side. How long does it float on its superstructure?

 

[zooterkin]

Here is a video showing a boat turning onto its side. How long does it float on its superstructure?

Do all boats take exactly the same time to sink, regardless of circumstances? What relevance does the test of a pilot boat have to the sinking of a car ferry?

Is thirty three minutes literally minutes?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Only IF the car ramp was completely open and we have an eye witness who confirms the car ramp was SHUT (Sillaste), albeit with water ingressing its sides, which on this vessel seems to have been habitual in rainy weather and as evidenced by the bedding material found near by, used by the crew to plug the leaks. (Which, once again, was deemed of no consequence by Lehtola.)

Yes, at the time he observed it the ramp was closed, it wasn't forced open until the visor completely failed and fell off.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How else did the waves reach up to deck 4 and 5, over ten metres (>33 feet) above the water line, in order to smash them, together with the many internal dividers?

Because the ship was heeling on to it's side.

 

[LondonJohn]

Can anyone (Vixen?) tell me the difference between a) "floating on its superstructure" and b) "floating" (or "not sinking")?

Thread split for performance reasons.

Topic continues here.

Posted By: zooterkin