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

[Vixen]

Irrelevant. They could hardly have failed to see it, if any had been there. You seem to think this sentence, ignorantly and often repeated, renders the investigators selectively blind.



In the course of doing that they also noted the general character of the affected parts including corrosion and fatigue cracking. Corrosion is generally visible to the naked eye. Fatigue cracks generally are not; the surface must be prepared and often dyed, and must be examined with a microscope. It is not a casual inspection. In preparing the surface to look for those elusive cracks, the researchers would have had to scrape away the unmistakably telltale evidence of pitting and contact welding left by nearby explosives, yet decided not to note it.

But then you knew that. Oh, wait -- you don't. That's because this is a specialized field that we already know you don't know anything about. You're arrogantly trying to tell people who do this for living how some group must have acted.



Why do you think metallurgy is not taught to mechanical engineers? Why do you think evidence of explosives can only be uncovered by specialized metallurgical techniques? What do you think identifying fatigue cracking entails?

What part of "I've done this for a living for nearly 30 years" was in any way unclear to you?



Identifying corrosion and fatigue cracking isn't part of a strictly-mandated process of modeling failure using finite-element methods, but the team did it anyway because it was pertinent to their findings. Yet somehow the glaring evidence of explosively compromised metal wasn't something they felt they had to mention.

Completely different method. If you ask your baker for a cake, do you expect a pie?

 

[JayUtah]

For the umpty-ninth time, he was not asked to examine the widgets for explosives.

And for the umpty-ninth time, he could not possibly have missed that evidence, had it been there. He wasn't asked to identify corrosion. He wasn't asked to look for fatigue cracks. But he did all those things and wrote a report that included them as part of his theory for failure.

 

[Vixen]

Oh good grief.

You've trawled the internet for something which "proves your point".

But what you've actually found here is entirely irrelevant wrt the sinking of the Estonia - or the sinking of any reasonably-large ship.

What you've found there is a video showing a capsize test for a pilot boat. The boat itself has full buoyancy as designed. There's no compromise in the hull. There's no sea water in the hull. There's no free surface effect in play.

The buoyancy test you've somehow decided is relevant.... is a standard test carried out on these sorts of smaller specialised vessels. These sorts of boats are designed to be self-righting if they ever get totally capsized for any reason (any reason, that is, which doesn't involve the boat being damaged or non-watertight).

The point of this buoyancy test - the only point of the test - is to confirm that if the vessel capsizes totally for any reason (and with a pilot boat, this might happen for example if it gets rolled over by a large container ship), it will right itself automatically.

The boat in that test was entirely sealed - it had a totally intact hull and sealed superstructure. The test therefore had absolutely nothing to do with what might happen to the boat if (eg) it got holed beneath the waterline by a rock or a large ship. For the purposes of this capsize test, the assumption was that the boat itself was watertight and in a proper state of repair/operation.

However..... it's rather clear that you didn't/don't understand what that video was actually showing - and what it was not showing. And ironically, the boat in that video didn't float upside down for more than a few seconds - the mass of its keel effectively made sure the boat self-righted as designed.

You don't know what you're talking about, Vixen.

...But how long did it float on its superstructure...?

 

[JayUtah]

Completely different method. If you ask your baker for a cake, do you expect a pie?

And I repeat: what part of, "I've done this for a living for 30 years," was unclear to you? You are not the authority on what methods are used in forensic engineering examinations.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Completely different method. If you ask your baker for a cake, do you expect a pie?

Do you think you know more about this subject than Jay?

 

[Andy_Ross]

For the umpty-ninth time, he was not asked to examine the widgets for explosives.

But the effect of explosives would have been obvious on the parts he inspected if they had been strong enough to blow the locks apart.

 

[Andy_Ross]

...But how long did it float on its superstructure...?

What does that mean?

 

[Axxman300]

Just to update:

The conversation has now drifted into bolts, non-existent explosive charges, and bad maritime engineering assumptions about how water-tight the Estonia's superstructure based on zero knowledge of ship-design.

And I pointed out that on the night of the disaster, Boris Yeltin was in Washington DC at summit with Bill Clinton, further undermining the whole Spetsnaz-strike-team nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

What does that mean?

As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.

In the last moments before impact, Stockholm turned hard to starboard (right) and was in the process of reversing her propellers, attempting to stop. Andrea Doria, remaining at her cruising speed of almost 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) engaged in a hard turn to port (left), her captain hoping to outrun the collision. Around 11:10 p.m., the two ships collided, Stockholm striking the side of Andrea Doria.

Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.

The sinking began at 9:45am and by 10:00 that morning the Andrea Doria's starboard side dipped into the ocean.

<snip>

It was recorded that Andrea Doria finally sank bow first 10 hours after the collision, at 10:09 am on 26 July 1956. The ship had drifted 1.58 nautical miles (2.93 km) from the point of the collision in those 10 hours

wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.

 

[Vixen]

Just to update:

The conversation has now drifted into bolts, non-existent explosive charges, and bad maritime engineering assumptions about how water-tight the Estonia's superstructure based on zero knowledge of ship-design.

And I pointed out that on the night of the disaster, Boris Yeltin was in Washington DC at summit with Bill Clinton, further undermining the whole Spetsnaz-strike-team nonsense.

Boris Yeltsin had no idea what his intelligence agents did as they did their own thing,

 

[Vixen]

But the effect of explosives would have been obvious on the parts he inspected if they had been strong enough to blow the locks apart.

BTW did you hear back from your friend Ben, yet?

 

[Stamuel]

As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.



Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.

Let's think this through. From the Channel 16 transcript, we learn that at about 01:25 (01:24.50 according to the reconstruction at the link I gave), someone on the Estonia said the following:

Estonia> Joo, meillä on nytte tässä ongelma. On paha kallistuma oikealle puolelle. Uskon, että yli 20–30°. Voisitko sä tulla apuun ja pyytää myös Viking Linen apuun?

Yes, we have a problem here. We're listing badly to the right side, probably over 20 or 30°. Could you come to assistance and also ask Viking Line for help?

So at 1:25, the list was 20 to 30 degrees. I am guessing this does not count as "floating on its superstructure" yet, or even close to it. According to the transcript, the last message from the Estonia came at about 1:30 (01:29.39). Since that message didn't message didn't mention further listing or capsizing, it is reasonable to conclude that the Estonia was not listing at close to 90 degrees at that time, either.

Assuming the Estonia sank at 1:48 as you claim, we can then reasonably conclude that if there is such a thing as a ship floating on its superstructure, the Estonia did it for considerably less than 18 minutes (from some time after 1:30 until 1:48).

The example you gave of what you consider to be normal ship behavior is 9 minutes "floating on its superstructure."

Putting it all together, your claim is that 9 minutes is normal, but an unspecified time less than 18 minutes is impossible. This is the kind of evidence you use to support your conclusions, whatever they are.

My personal assessment of this line of reasoning: Weak.

 

[abaddon]

Completely different method. If you ask your baker for a cake, do you expect a pie?

Why not? It seems you go to your plumber for a new tap, but somehow expect a spacecraft.

 

[Axxman300]

As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.



Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.

Different hull design. Different actions taken by the captain and crew. She would have sunk much faster had the captain done nothing, and continued to sail at flank speed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Boris Yeltsin had no idea what his intelligence agents did as they did their own thing,

Clinton vs Yeltsin. One president is assumed to have direct control of what his nation's secret agents are doing while the other is assumed to be completely ignorant. The double standard raises its head again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

For the umpty-ninth time, he was not asked to examine the widgets for explosives.

So when your doctor gives you an examination and says you have a couple of moles to keep an eye on as they might be of concern and then says "by the way, did you know you've been shot?" you'd be surprised and annoyed that he checked stuff outwith the remit of what you asked for.

 

[abaddon]

As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.



Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.

Did Andrea turn turtle and go belly up as you claim is necessary? Yes or no?

And WTF does floating on it's superstructure even mean? Nobody is familiar with that term but you. And you refuse to say what it is.

 

[abaddon]

So when your doctor gives you an examination and says you have a couple of moles to keep an eye on as they might be of concern and then says "by the way, did you know you've been shot?" you'd be surprised and annoyed that he checked stuff outwith the remit of what you asked for.

Here's a question. If I went to my doctor and he said take this vaccine for polio and this one for smallpox and my crystal ball reveals that Aunt Doris is partying in the afterlife, what would my escape velocity actually be?

 

[Mojo]

...But how long did it float on its superstructure...?

Can you define precisely what you mean by “float on its superstructure”? You seem to have introduced the term here, but without defining it, or quoting the JAIC using the green so the context can be seen.

While you’re at it, can you explain exactly what you mean by “superstructure”? From your previous posts it looks almost as if you think it means “everything above the waterline”.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.



Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.

It did not 'float on it's superstructure' It was still flooding in the hull.
After it capsized it took just 9 minutes to sink. How is that 'floating' on anything.