The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[junkshop]

... two of the doors leading to the lower decks are intact and closed...

Two out of how many?

This is not, by the way, an attempt at a 'gotcha', I genuinely have no idea how many doors there are, and therefore can't judge the weight to ascribe this information.

As regards this:

... whether the flooding the lower cabin passengers experienced was due to water rising up from Deck 0 (the hull) or trickling down from the car deck...

The fact that the hull comprises of far more than just 'Deck 0' has been covered at length previously, and noone has at any point suggested that water from the car deck would merely 'trickle' down. If they have, and I've missed it, please link to it.

 

[junkshop]

The Arikas one in July is the officially approved one. Kurm's current expedition is one approved by survivors groups and a media group (for the funding).

Thank you for the clarification.

I guess your "Polish Newspaper" source (dziennik.pl) plays a little fast and loose with facts, then?

Maybe not too reliable?

By the way, would you care to address this, Vixen, before you gallop off on your next tangent?

 

[lobosrul5]

What hole exactly am I attempting to dig myself out of?

Are you claiming that the muzzle velocity of a cannon is the same as the velocity of the cannonball in flight, yes or no?

It would be... if fired in a perfect vacuum.

 

[Vixen]

When it looks into the gap we can plainly see a vehicle axle and wheels inside the ship. So it does at least help put to bed one persistent squabble: the hole leads through into the car deck, which was of course above the waterline.

Don't forget, the ship is upside down so the vehicle axel is by looking downwards, thus, below the waterline.

 

[Vixen]

"the black outline may indicate a pyrotechnic explosion*, alternatively they are a trace of an anaerobic environment on the seabed**"

*Something the ship may have been exposed to.

**Something the the ship was definitley exposed to.

Obviously, it hasn't been analysed by material science yet.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't forget, the ship is upside down so the vehicle axel is by looking downwards, thus, below the waterline.

If the hole coincides with the car deck, then the hole is above the waterline because that's where the car deck was, regardless of the ship's present orientation. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this.

 

[lobosrul5]

Don't forget, the ship is upside down so the vehicle axel is by looking downwards, thus, below the waterline.

The ship is on its side.

 

[junkshop]

Don't forget, the ship is upside down so the vehicle axel is by looking downwards, thus, below the waterline.

The car deck is above the waterline.

A car (or possibly truck, lorry, whatever - something that would be on the car deck) can be seen through the hole.

Therefore the hole opens onto the car deck.

Therefore the hole is above the waterline.

It matters not a jot which way up the wreck currently lies.

ETA: ninja'd

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But if the ship was able to sail upside-down then it would be below the waterline! Checkmate skeptics.

 

[junkshop]

"the black outline may indicate a pyrotechnic explosion*, alternatively they are a trace of an anaerobic environment on the seabed**"

*Something the ship may have been exposed to.

**Something the the ship was definitley exposed to.

Obviously, it hasn't been analysed by material science yet.

Yeah, I was hinting toward an Occam's razor approach, in case you missed that.

 

[junkshop]

But if the ship was able to sail upside-down then it would be below the waterline! Checkmate skeptics.

Damn it, defeated by logic, my argument has been holed below the waterline, it's all over.....

Ooh, hang on...

 

[GlennB]

Don't forget, the ship is upside down so the vehicle axel is by looking downwards, thus, below the waterline.

A new record for absurdity. It was only a matter of time.

 

[Vixen]

And yet in your other post linking to the new footage they said this:



All I see with my untrained eye is a stress fracture in the hull of a large ship right along the the seem of the hull plating (that is where two sections of steel plates are joined together for you slower people). What I'd love to know is how far is this hole from one of the expansion joints? I ask because I suspect it would explain why some of the steel is pointing outward.

What I don't see is an explosion.

What I also see is the same hole from the documentary and no other "holes".

Compare and contrast it to the US vessel SS Park Victory which sank near Utö, Finland, on Christmas Eve 1947, after failing to anchor properly. It drifted out to about six times before it hit a rock and sank.

The first time divers - or at least an official entourage, together with some contemporaneous Finnish sailors who were there 1947 to help the rescue - went down to view the wreck and film it was circa 1997. More recently, 2012,it was carefully filmed again. You can see from the pictures the type of deformation damage cause it by the rocks and then compare them to what we see in the Estonia.

SS Park Victory sank near Utö in the outer Archipelago Sea on Christmas night, about 02.15 AM local time (UTC+2), December 25, 1947 after running aground on rocks when the anchor failed in a storm. The rock opened a hole in the engine room and a boiler explosion followed. The ship sank just off of the Utö Lighthouse, at about 59.780947°N 21.368122°E Wiki

and

The accident of the American steamship Park Victory on Christmas night in 1947 was a sign of the ruthless power of the sea, but also of the sacrifice and courage of the inhabitants of the island of Utö. A radio program broadcast in 1960 went back to the tragic events of thirteen years ago, in which ten American sailors died.
However, in the face of a furious storm, the ship's anchor chains could not withstand, causing the ship to drift ashore. The crew was able to detach Park Victory with their own planes, but the ship soon ran aground again. After many groundings, the ship no longer survived. Eventually, Park Victory’s hull broke and it sank to the seabed. YLE

 

[Vixen]

By the way, would you care to address this, Vixen, before you gallop off on your next tangent?

Probably to do with poor google translate or maybe the Polish sub-editors were careless.

 

[Vixen]

If the hole coincides with the car deck, then the hole is above the waterline because that's where the car deck was, regardless of the ship's present orientation. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this.

The OP is referring to the video taken in July by the Arikas team, not the one released by Kurm today, which is the car deck only.

 

[Vixen]

The ship is on its side.

It's at 120° so nearer horizontal upside down.

 

[Vixen]

The car deck is above the waterline.

A car (or possibly truck, lorry, whatever - something that would be on the car deck) can be seen through the hole.

Therefore the hole opens onto the car deck.

Therefore the hole is above the waterline.

It matters not a jot which way up the wreck currently lies.

ETA: ninja'd

The viewpoint (of the ROV) is from below the waterline of the vessel looking downwards to the car deck floor.

 

[junkshop]

Compare and contrast it to the US vessel SS Park Victory which sank near Utö, Finland, on Christmas Eve 1947, after failing to anchor properly.

Why? How is it comparable?

 

[junkshop]

Probably to do with poor google translate or maybe the Polish sub-editors were careless.

Does this mean you agree that it is not a reliable source?

 

[lobosrul5]

It's at 120° so nearer horizontal upside down.

No. 90° would be exactly on its side. 180° would be exactly upside down. Please ask yourself, is 120° closer to 90 or 180?