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

[whoanellie]

The President can appoint DCIA, but still needs Senate approval. The President, along with the NSC give direction to CIA as they relate to whatever Foreign Policy, or National Security strategies they wish to pursue. But the day-to-day operations of the Agency don't change. Intelligence is still gathered and analyzed, and fed up the chain.

The same could be said about any cabinet department or agency of the executive branch. There is nothing special about the CIA. The president is still the chief executive. As you said, the president, either directly or through the DNI, gives direction.

 

[Mojo]

What does 'float on it's superstructure' even mean?

Exactly.

He throws the ball to Exactly?

 

[Mojo]

There is no reason at all to suspect they fiddled the result. That is tantamount to calling Hoffmeister of Hamburg University 'bent'.

Which is pretty much what you are doing when you imply that the report concluded that the failure was due to fatigue and corrosion because the actual cause, sabotage, was outside its scope.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How? What does his being a "jewish zionist" have to do with anything?

I assume it's intended to support the tale of Sweden smuggling pilfered ex-Soviet material to Israel, and a group of US marines guarding a couple of army trucks loaded onto the ferry at the last moment.

I notice that the story keeps "improving" too, as the previously mentioned soldiers have now donned US marine uniforms. There are still some gaps now, like the claims of smuggling actually relating to previous sailings rather than the final voyage. But as with Voronin's attache case, imagination will bridge any gap.

 

[Mojo]

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

Perhaps it was his towel that Vixen spotted in the hole.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think that the glass used in these settings in ships being designed/constructed these days will come a great deal closer to closing that gap between utility/desirability and safety. There have been big advances in tempering and plastic-leaf-laminating of glass over the past 25 years or so*, to the extent that single-glazed (but laminated) windows can have comparatively** amazing strength and structural rigidity.

A good example is the Nordhavn range of long range yachts.
They have always had a reputation for their ability to deal with adverse conditions offshore (they aren't 'Riviera Hotels')
They are putting large viewing windows in to their forecastle main cabin where just a few years ago they were small ports. Their new 'windows' retain the full strength of the older ports.

 

[Steve]

How? What does his being a "jewish zionist" have to do with anything?

Jewish Zionists have been in on every conspiracy in the last hundred years. Their involvement in this one adds credence to the truth of the whole matter, of course. The wheeled submarine that left tracks on the sea bed was likely an invention from the cunning minds of Jewish Zionists.

 

[abaddon]

I see nothing racist in it.

You are in fact correct. Jews are not a race. Your vitriol towards jews is simple bigotry in plain sight. Nobody brought Jews and Jewishness into this mad equation until you revealed your bigotry to all, on your lonesome. Nobody brought that card into play but you. Even for you it is a low ebb, but it is not the first time you have played that card. You have done it in other threads quite often. We know you are an anti-semite already. Personally speaking, any Jew I have ever met has been quite personable and highly educated. I have had the the opportunity to exchange bodily fluids with one. Great fun was had by all. Fun times.

Her being a jewish Israeli emerged over breakfast the next morning. I had no choice but to lead her back up to the hotel bedroom to demonstrate why she was wrong. That was a bucket of fun.

But I am still trying to work out what the hell any of this mad sex hangup has Vixen has is anything to do with the topic.

 

[Vixen]

Notice that the officers that abandoned the Oceanos were prosecuted.

But the crew did help the passengers. we have testimony from the passengers and evidence from the wreck.
Not all the crew are assigned to life rafts or lifeboats.
Engineering staff will have their own assignments.
Once it is obvious that the ship is on it's side and sunk, what were they supposed to do? sing Rule Britannia as they went down with it while saluting?

It is also possible that they were assigned as members of crew to man life rafts, there is supposed to be at least one crew member for each raft.

That they had immersion suits and documents is not surprising. they were trained and experienced seamen. They would have known what to do and if they were sensible had 'grab bags' with their valuables ready to go.

I know when I have been offshore skippering a yacht all my documents were in a waterproof bag ready to go as were those of anyone else with any sense. This is even more important in a storm.
Also for the immersion suit, it would surprise you how fast I can put one on.

As a skipper my grab bag had passport, wallet, credit card, mobile phone, handheld VHF, batteries, sachets of water, flares, handheld GPS, energy bars, chocolate, compass, knife, hand power torch, fishing line and hooks, watermaker, inflatable radar reflector, foil blankets, a pack of waterproof cards and a floating knife.

Not all needed for coastal sailing though.

Nobody is saying that 'they should sing Rule Britannia as they went down with it while saluting'.

Whilst the captains of Oceanos and Concordia deserted their ships pronto, I don't see anything excusable in this behaviour, even if it is understandable. IIRC you said that more people could have been saved on the Titanic had they not bothered with the ethos, 'Women and children first'.

It is ironic that on the Wilhelm Gustloff those fit young males who tried to push aside women and children from the life boats and get on first were summarily shot. Interesting that this despicable regime (fleeing Third Reich Germans) should have more gallant principles than cowardly commercial captains of today.

 

[Vixen]

First indications were at 01.00

What does the Wilhelm Gustloff or the Oceanos have to do with it?

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.


Your examples of ships of different type sunk in different ways have no bearing.

Why should we consider them when you dismiss a sister ship of the Estonia suffering identical damage and almost sinking?

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.

 

[Mojo]

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?

Certainly (assuming you mean the trains run on the UK’s public railway system rather than by BR, which ceased to exist last century). But whether you actually got the information would depend on what you were asking for and who you were asking. If you asked MI6 what intelligence they had relating to the accident they would almost certainly claim an exemption on the grounds of national security.

If you were asking the DfT, of course, it would be different. They would most likely claim an exemption because the information was commercially sensitive.

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

The Freedom of Information Act only applies to UK public bodies.

 

[Vixen]

Can you even conceive of the difference between 1) the flow rate of seawater into a vessel via a broken engine ventilation pipe which vented aft, and 2) the flow rate of seawater into a vessel via a badly-compromise and opened bow door/visor mechanism, while the ship is sailing at high speed and repeatedly digging into ocean swells?

Perhaps you'd benefit from thinking through what I've just written here. If you think through it properly and logically, you'll realise that the rate of seawater ingress was vastly greater in the case of the Estonia than it was in the case of the Oceanos.

Hence the sizeable difference in the time before which the two ships sank.

But (again, if you're able to think this thing through logically) other than the differences in the place and rate of water ingress, the capsize/sinking process was effectively very similar for both ships: they both took on so much seawater that they became fatally unstable while also sitting much lower on the water. As a result, both ships capsized. And once the ships had capsized - meaning that water was now able to enter via deck-level openings and pressure-broken windows - both of them sank soon thereafter. Neither ship "turned completely upside down". And nor did Archimedes' Principle require either ship to "turn completely upside down".

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.)

 

[Mojo]

The wheeled submarine that left tracks on the sea bed…

It wasn’t wheeled, it was wearing pumps.

 

[Vixen]

Again with the 'floating on the superstructure' thing.

That is something you made up.

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?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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...

We have a witness who says the ramp was shut but leaking at the time he saw it.

 

[Vixen]

The question remains: if they had seen evidence of explosives, would it have been honest of them to base their conclusions of failure mode and sequence on fatigue cracks?

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?

 

[Vixen]

That's what we are asking.

What is your evidence that it was happening?

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

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

Obviously the ship heeled over until the higher decks were submerged on one side which in this design meant large, weak windows were in the water. We all know this. What does it have to do with your mantra "a ship cannot float on its superstructure"?

 

[Vixen]

Italian cruise ship Louis Majesty, restaurant windows window breaking in a storm.

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.)

 

[JayUtah]

Hamburg carried out a very detailed analysis of the various hardware of the bow visor.

Exactly. Evidence of explosives, had there been any, would have been staring them unmistakably in the face.

That was their sole aim, and as stated in their abstract.

They advanced a theory for the failure mode and sequence for the lock structures. Their theory was predicated on the damage they observed, which was fatigue cracking and corrosion. Why would they note those causes, yet fail to note what would have been obvious effects of explosion and formulated a failure-mode theory that included that evidence?

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

Straw man. I would berate a dentist for diagnosing my halitosis as ordinary caries when a casual inspection of my mouth noted a giant staph cyst on the inside of my cheek.

I would also berate an accountant for pretending to be a forensic engineer. You have no clue what you're talking about.