• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
zooterkin said:
What you quoted says nothing about “floating on its superstructure “.


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

From 0115 to 0148.

Compare and contrast to The Herald of Free Enterprise in four minutes it capsized and had it not been for the sandbank, it almost certainly would have then immediately turtled, like the MS Jan Heweliusz, a similar car ferry.
 
Vixen said:
From 0115 to 0148.

Compare and contrast to The Herald of Free Enterprise in four minutes it capsized and had it not been for the sandbank, it almost certainly would have then immediately turtled, like the MS Jan Heweliusz, a similar car ferry.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this claim?
It is very rare for a ship to turn right over when it sinks.
 
JayUtah said:
...which is where you claim the sabotage occurred using the explosives Braidwood purports to have seen. Changing horses now to talk about the starboard-side hole is dishonest.

We asked for evidence of sabotage. You pointed us at the Hamburg University report. There is nothing in that report that supports a claim of sabotage. What is your evidence for sabotage?
Click to expand...

Braidwood and Fellows are a completely different subject. They examined the area for explosives.

Hamburg University were looking at the strength and functioning of the bolts of the bow visor bolts. Both worthy studies in their own right.

They are masters of their trade, not jack-of-all-trades.
 
Vixen said:
Braidwood and Fellows are a completely different subject. They examined the area for explosives.

Hamburg University were looking at the strength and functioning of the bolts of the bow visor bolts. Both worthy studies in their own right.

They are masters of their trade, not jack-of-all-trades.
Click to expand...

Their conclusion was the locks failed because of fatigue and corrosion.

Are you saying that they wouldn't have noticed if the failure had been doe to something else?

I thought they were 'masters of their trade'?

How can we trust them if they can't tell the difference between fatigue, corrosion and explosives?
 
LondonJohn said:
LOLOLOL

I'm going to fire off Freedom of Information requests to MI6 and GCHQ tomorrow, asking them to supply me with information about exactly what surveillance they're currently carrying out (and against whom), and what clandestine activities they're currently undertaking. Wish me luck!!
Click to expand...

If your British Rail train crashed and rolled over, do you not think you have the right to ask for further information under the Freedom of Information Act?

Likewise, the Estonia passengers have every right to understand the full facts of the accident, even it it is embarrassing for their government.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
And they described how they thought the visor locks would have failed as it was forced open. Not how bombs would have smashed it. Not how radioactive waste would have.. whatever you imagine. Not how torpedoes would have blasted it off. Just how the pounding of diving into heavy seas would have overwhelmed the strength of its fixings.
Click to expand...

You do not know how to read a scientific report.

It has a specific remit that it sticks to.
 
Vixen said:
You do not know how to read a scientific report.

It has a specific remit that it sticks to.
Click to expand...

But they are 'masters' of their trade. They would know the difference between fatigue and explosives.
 
Vixen said:
How else do you think the windows got smashed by the waves, according to JAIC?
Click to expand...


Your personal incredulity about this is neither here nor there. The windows which broke were designed to take virtually no inward loading - they were along the sides of the ship and well above the waterline, and in this position they would never have been expected to be subjected to incoming wave forces (as opposed to anything lying near the waterline or around the ship's bow).

In addition, certain inevitable compromises would have been made at the design stage where it came to windows: ferry ship passengers expect the interior spaces on public decks to have large enough windows to a) enable good outside visibility and b) enable plenty of natural light to enter these enclosed spaces. The optimal shape and size for windows from a safety perspective would be the traditional round porthole shape/size. But customer expectations meant that portholes would have been totally unacceptable on the communal deck spaces.

So the situation on the Estonia was that the ship turned beam-on once it lost all power, and that in turn immediately began to subject the large windows on that side of the ship to wave forces that they'd never been designed to take.

QED.
 
Vixen said:
Interesting that the greatly obese Voronin and his family were saved yet the master mariners in adjacent luxury cabins who were initially also listed as survivors suddenly became the unsaved after all.
Click to expand...


Adipose tissue (body fat) has lower density (better flotation) than bone or muscle, and subcutaneous fat also insulates against the effects of cold water. If you're picking favorites to survive a sinking in frigid waters (which you apparently are), always bet on the greatly obese folks. Svelte and healthy? Straight to the bottom like Leonardo DiCaprio.
 
Vixen said:
If your British Rail train crashed and rolled over, do you not think you have the right to ask for further information under the Freedom of Information Act?

Likewise, the Estonia passengers have every right to understand the full facts of the accident, even it it is embarrassing for their government.
Click to expand...


They do understand the full facts of the accident. That's partly what the JAIC investigation and report was set up to do. The JAIC reached the right conclusions - based on a proper understanding of all the available evidence, plus the accumulated expertise and experience of the investigators - for the right reasons.

The only reason why this current re-investigation activity is taking place at all is so that the official report can incorporate the recently-discovered (owing to the shift in position and orientation of the wreck) damage to the starboard hull. But I'm telling you now, categorically, that this damage played no part whatsoever in causing the ship to sink. It's an effect of that sinking, not a cause. It's right and proper, however, that the JAIC will want to account for it appropriately in its appended report.
 
Myriad said:
Adipose tissue (body fat) has lower density (better flotation) than bone or muscle, and subcutaneous fat also insulates against the effects of cold water. If you're picking favorites to survive a sinking in frigid waters (which you apparently are), always bet on the greatly obese folks. Svelte and healthy? Straight to the bottom like Leonardo DiCaprio.
Click to expand...

But you try climbing upstairs when the floor is now the wall or get through a door when it is now 40cm (on its side) instead of six-feet high.
 
Vixen said:
From 0115 to 0148.



Compare and contrast to The Herald of Free Enterprise in four minutes it capsized and had it not been for the sandbank, it almost certainly would have then immediately turtled, like the MS Jan Heweliusz, a similar car ferry.
Click to expand...
And how did you know what would have occurred? Do you have any sort of special training or experience in ship stability?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom