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

[LondonJohn]

The car deck was not part of the hull, it was a weather deck.

Good lord. You throw out the term "weather deck", when you manifestly don't know what it means.

And to compound your error, no ship's decks are "part of the hull". That's a fundamental ignorance of ship design terminology.

This is getting uber-embarrassing.

 

[Vixen]

1. Don't you think it would have been intellectually honest to include the Herald of Free Enterprise in your list? After all, it too capsized (and would have entirely sunk if it had been in deeper water) because there was a gaping hole in its bow. Do you know how long - measured from the time of the first ingress of water through the bow - the HOFE took to capsize, Vixen? Shall I tell you? It was 90 seconds.

2. You still seem unable or unwilling to comprehend that a ship with a) a gaping hole in its bow, and b) vast open vehicle decks directly connected to that gaping hole in the bow, take on water extremely quickly and destabilise extremely quickly. See: a torpedo might create a breach in the hull of 2-3 square metres, and that breach would almost always be on the side of the ship. By contrast, a gaping open bow would present a breach of over a dozen square metres, and that breach would be in the very worst place for water ingress (for obvious reasons). And the internal compartmentalisation of "regular" ships - by which I mean ships without vehicle decks - would create numerous baffles which would slow down the passage of water through the ship and therefore provide a form of defence against rapid destabilisation; by contrast, huge volumes of water pouring into an open vehicle deck (which is more-or-less the entire dimensions of the ship) causes rapid destabilisation, since the water can slide across the ship virtually unencumbered - and once the ship starts listing, even if only by several degrees, the water will rush to that low side of the ship and accelerate the list.


In short: you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your mantra is ridiculously childish as well as boorish.

The Herald of Free Enterprise sank within four minutes because the bosun was asleep in his cabin and didn't put up the gate.

The ship left her berth in Zeebrugge inner harbour at 18:05 (GMT) with a crew of 80 and carrying 459 passengers, 81 cars, three buses and 47 trucks. She passed the outer mole at 18:24 (GMT) and capsized about four minutes later.[17] When the ferry reached 18.9 knots (35.0 km/h; 21.7 mph) 90 seconds after leaving the harbour, water began to enter the car deck in large quantities. The resulting free surface effect destroyed her stability.[18] In a matter of seconds, the ship began to list 30 degrees to port.[19] The ship briefly righted herself before listing to port once more, this time capsizing.[19] The entire event took place within 90 seconds.[20] The water quickly reached the ship's electrical systems, destroying both main and emergency power and leaving the ship in darkness.[18] The ship ended up on her side half-submerged in shallow water 1 kilometre (0.5 nmi; 0.6 mi) from the shore. Only a fortuitous turn to starboard in her last moments, and then capsizing on a sandbar, prevented the ship from sinking entirely in much deeper water

wiki

Had it not ended on its side it would have floated upside down, because that is how vessels are designed.

 

[Vixen]

Good lord. You throw out the term "weather deck", when you manifestly don't know what it means.

And to compound your error, no ship's decks are "part of the hull". That's a fundamental ignorance of ship design terminology.

This is getting uber-embarrassing.

OK, it is not a weather deck insofar as it is covered from all sides. However it is on Deck 1 and Deck 2 and is well above sea level.

 

[LondonJohn]

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/fo...kan-ha-anvants-till-fler-militara-transporter

Nope.

1) This is not a copy of the agreement. It's a media report about the agreement. You were asked if you had a copy of the agreement. Why did you think that a media report would fulfil the request? Jeez.

2) There's nothing whatsoever in that media report which would lead to the reasonable conclusion that "we can presume (the military equipment) is Soviet for it to have been classified". That's purely a fantastical invention on your part.

 

[LondonJohn]

OK, it is not a weather deck insofar as it is covered from all sides. However it is on Deck 1 and Deck 2 and is well above sea level.

Again, you appear entirely ignorant of the fact that the Estonia was pitching in rough seas, meaning that the bow dug deeply into each oncoming wave. Water would have (and did) easily enter into the vehicle decks in huge volumes.

(And I'd also remind you that the HOFE disaster took place in virtually flat-calm water, with water cascading into the vehicle decks that were also above the waterline. Why? Because of the bow wave, and because of the rather obvious fact that as the ship took on tons and tons of seawater, it sat increasingly lower in the water, making it progressively easier for more water to enter the vehicle deck.)

 

[JayUtah]

Had it not ended on its side it would have floated upside down, because that is how vessels are designed.

No, this is not correct. You have no expertise in ship design. You are incompetent at physics. You are not qualified to state this proposition as evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your mantra is ridiculously childish as well as boorish.

If you're referring to my last sentence, I assure you I wouldn't be writing it if you knew what you were talking about.

The Herald of Free Enterprise sank within four minutes because the bosun was asleep in his cabin and didn't put up the gate.

What's that got to do with the price of fish? The HOFE sank because it had a gaping hole in its bow (the cause of which is inconsequential in this context). The Estonia sank because it had a gaping hole in its bow. QED.

Oh and as I said, the HOFE capsized in 90 seconds, not 4 minutes. But even 4 minutes compares...... rather unfavourably to 35 minutes (actually 45-50 minutes, but anyhow). Wouldn't you say?

Had it not ended on its side it would have floated upside down, because that is how vessels are designed.

Where on earth do you come up with this sort of bollocks? Show me reliable literature to demonstrate that ships are designed to float upside down if they've taken in huge amounts of water through a breach in the hull.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, this is not correct. You have no expertise in ship design. You are incompetent at physics. You are not qualified to state this proposition as evidence.

Perhaps Vixen has it in her head that ship designers were enraptured by the movie "The Poseidon Adventure" and thus decided it would be a great idea to trap passengers and crew in an inverted hull.

 

[gabeygoat]

I would say the sudden death by drowning of 852 people was an annihilation when they had virtually zero chance of escape. This included many little children and babies. Can you begin to even think of the sheer distress and terror they will have felt.

ugh. I'm sure you realize that people who disagree with your ever expanding theories of this tragedy are still able to feel bad about what happened to the victims. this "argument" is weak.

 

[erwinl]

Well. We have the first hard core fringe reset of the year.
That’s something at least.

 

[Axxman300]

OK, it is not a weather deck insofar as it is covered from all sides. However it is on Deck 1 and Deck 2 and is well above sea level.

The problem with your claim is that on that night, "sea level" was relative to the forward pitch of the ship. One moment the car deck could 40 feet above sea level, and the next it could be 35 to 50 feet below sea level.

In effect, the open car deck acted as a giant scoop foe sea water under the conditions of the storm. I'm not going to speculate why you can't figure this one out.

 

[junkshop]

I would say the sudden death by drowning of 852 people was an annihilation when they had virtually zero chance of escape. This included many little children and babies. Can you begin to even think of the sheer distress and terror they will have felt.

You can say that if you really want to, but you'd be using the word wrong.

I think it's rather cold and heartless of you to care so little about the poor dead babies that you can't be bothered to use words properly. You might as well have thrown them into the sea yourself, and then spat in their innocent little faces.

By the way, how was this "complete annihilation" military in style?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The car deck was not part of the hull, it was a weather deck.

Hmm. So why did the Herald of Free Enterprise get into trouble at all, in your view?

Do you think each ton of water inside the car deck makes a ferry more buoyant or less buoyant? More stable or less stable?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Your mantra is ridiculously childish as well as boorish.



The Herald of Free Enterprise sank within four minutes because the bosun was asleep in his cabin and didn't put up the gate.



wiki



Had it not ended on its side it would have floated upside down, because that is how vessels are designed.

You (and everyone else) already know the official report says you are wrong and the ferry would have sunk entirely.

Stubbornly wrong is still wrong. It doesn't become right by force of will.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

OK, it is not a weather deck insofar as it is covered from all sides. However it is on Deck 1 and Deck 2 and is well above sea level.

The sea level was far from level and likewise the ship which was pitching heavily. The ship was plunging into heavy seas at full speed with its bow gaping open. There is no mystery to solve there.

 

[Vixen]

If you're referring to my last sentence, I assure you I wouldn't be writing it if you knew what you were talking about.





What's that got to do with the price of fish? The HOFE sank because it had a gaping hole in its bow (the cause of which is inconsequential in this context). The Estonia sank because it had a gaping hole in its bow. QED.

Oh and as I said, the HOFE capsized in 90 seconds, not 4 minutes. But even 4 minutes compares...... rather unfavourably to 35 minutes (actually 45-50 minutes, but anyhow). Wouldn't you say?





Where on earth do you come up with this sort of bollocks? Show me reliable literature to demonstrate that ships are designed to float upside down if they've taken in huge amounts of water through a breach in the hull.

You keep claiming the Herald of Free Enterprise sank within 90 seconds but that is not true is it? One side of it remained open to the air as it lay on a sand bank so it never sank fully. The speed of sinking refers to a ship disappearing under the waves from view.

Had the sand bank not been there, it would have floated for quite a bit before vanishing completely beneath the surface (see Lusitania et al).

 

[Vixen]

You (and everyone else) already know the official report says you are wrong and the ferry would have sunk entirely.

Stubbornly wrong is still wrong. It doesn't become right by force of will.

Perhaps explain why the Swedish and Estonian government decided to reopen the case last year if 'everyone' knows 'the official report says you are wrong'.

Bear in mind this was an actual news report and I was reporting a news story under current affairs. I am not sure why posters are desperate to deny this matter of fact.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Perhaps explain why the Swedish and Estonian government decided to reopen the case last year if 'everyone' knows 'the official report says you are wrong'.



Bear in mind this was an actual news report and I was reporting a news story under current affairs. I am not sure why posters are desperate to deny this matter of fact.

The Swedish and Estonian governments have not reopened an investigation into the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise. We have previously discussed your claim that ship would not have sunk entirely if it had been in deep enough water and how that speculation is contradicted by the official report.

 

[JayUtah]

Had the sand bank not been there, it would have floated for quite a bit before vanishing completely beneath the surface (see Lusitania et al).

This is not correct. You are not competent to make such expert judgments with the expectation that they should be considered evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Perhaps explain why the Swedish and Estonian government decided to reopen the case last year if 'everyone' knows 'the official report says you are wrong'.

The report in question is about the loss of MS Herald of Free Enterprise. The governments you mention are conducting further investigation of the loss of MS Estonia. You have provided no evidence that these governments have done so according to your claim that the JAIC report was intentionally incorrect.

Bear in mind this was an actual news report and I was reporting a news story under current affairs. I am not sure why posters are desperate to deny this matter of fact.

You are not treating the story as merely a current affair of interest. Instead you're using it as an excuse to promote any and all conspiracy theories regarding the loss of MS Estonia as if these may have had anything to do with the decisions taken by some to conduct additional investigation.