• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
No. There were points of connectivity between the bow visor and the bow ramp. When the visor eventually tore itself free from the ship, it damaged the structural integrity of the ramp as it did so. There's zero mystery as to why the visor came off the ship while the ramp - though damaged and fatally compromised - stayed attached to the ship.






The sides of the bow ramp - which by now were not watertight, after the ramp's structural integrity was damaged when the bow visor tore off the ship - were (obviously) closer to the waterline than the top of the ramp. It's therefore zero mystery as to why the majority of the water forcing its way around the ramp and into the vehicle deck came in via the sides of the ramp rather than the top.






And?






Once again: no dice. Your (ignorant and ill-founded) attempt at an argument on this point can immediately be refuted by reference to the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. That ferry also had a vehicle deck above the waterline. That ferry was sailing in relatively flat-calm seas at the time. And that ferry sank because its open bow doors allowed enough water into the ship to fatally compromise its buoyancy. By contrast, the Estonia - pitching up and down in the high swell and still sailing at speed - would have taken in water via its broken bow opening even more easily than HOFE did.
Click to expand...

The Herald of Free Enterprise ended up like this. Stop making fabrications about it having sunk to the bottom of the sea like the Estonia.
 

Attachments

  • herald-of-free-enterprise.jpg
    herald-of-free-enterprise.jpg
    47.6 KB · Views: 3
Vixen said:
The discussion wasn't 'how hot can welding systems burn'. We were discussing why Clausthal-Zellerfeld said assuming Braidwood's sample had not been heated to 700°C then XYZ follows. The significance of the 700°C is to do with at what temperature causes a change in the inherent structure of the steel.
Click to expand...

You claimed 700+°C was impossible outside a lab. Stop obfuscating.
 
Vixen said:
The discussion wasn't 'how hot can welding systems burn'. We were discussing why Clausthal-Zellerfeld said assuming Braidwood's sample had not been heated to 700°C then XYZ follows. The significance of the 700°C is to do with at what temperature causes a change in the inherent structure of the steel.
Click to expand...

The discussion was your claim that such temperatures could only be achieved in a laboratory. Therefore showing you the many ways to raise steel to that temperature outside a laboratory is pertinent.
 
Vixen said:
The discussion wasn't 'how hot can welding systems burn'. We were discussing why Clausthal-Zellerfeld said assuming Braidwood's sample had not been heated to 700°C then XYZ follows. The significance of the 700°C is to do with at what temperature causes a change in the inherent structure of the steel.
Click to expand...

Their point being that if the sample hadn't been heat treated in the lab then signs of heat treatment must have been present before it got to the lab. You then seized upon this, assuming they meant such heating could only normally be achieved in a lab, and went galloping off in all directions with it. Your basic misunderstanding led to goodness knows how many posts about welding. None of it matters. You just didn't understand what they meant.
 
LondonJohn said:
She wouldn't really have a point even then. The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster took place in benign sea conditions: the combination of 1) a bow wave and 2) the inevitable bow-stern oscillations of a ship propelling itself forward from the stern.... allowed more than enough water to get into the vehicle deck (which, as on the Estonia, was above the waterline) to sink the ship in under two minutes.
Click to expand...

It did not sink. It lay on its side. Had it been in open seas it would have floated belly up until eventually the air pressure of the superstructure was sucked out by water entering every cavity.
 
Vixen said:
It did not sink. It lay on its side. Had it been in open seas it would have floated belly up until eventually the air pressure of the superstructure was sucked out by water entering every cavity.
Click to expand...

Or so you say. But since it wasn't in open seas to demonstrate what you claim would have happened had it been, it's not evidence of what you claim would have happened.
 
Vixen said:
It did not sink. It lay on its side. Had it been in open seas it would have floated belly up until eventually the air pressure of the superstructure was sucked out by water entering every cavity.
Click to expand...

Not for the first time, let me point out that the official report says you are wrong about that. Why should we believe your amateur wot-I-reckon over the investigators?
 
JayUtah said:
You're avoiding the issue.

You tell us we have to accept Linde's testimony on this point. But when we cite Linde's testimony for other things that don't agree with your conspiracy theory, you tell us how untrustworthy he is and dismiss him categorically. I previously asked you what criteria you use to tell when Linde is lying and when he's telling the truth. And you avoided the issue back then too; you just gave us an unsolicited opinion of how you think chronic liars think.

How can you tell, from moment to moment, whether Linde is lying or not?
Click to expand...

Usual way, whether it corroborates with what others say, whether it changes from day to day, whether a drug smuggler is a reliable witness, etc.
 
JayUtah said:
Nonsense: a simple yes or no doesn't suffice, because my whole point is that such simplistic scenario-mongering as you insist upon doesn't provide useful knowledge. A boat sinks for exactly and only one reason: it has lost buoyancy. The reasons why it might lose buoyancy are many and varied. In the case of Viking ships, yes, they will sink if they ship too much water, which can happen if they roll too far, if they ship water over the bows, or if water enters via the notoriously leaky seams, or any other of a dozen other scenarios I can imagine. The Vikings knew this, which is why bailing the ships is such a prominently-mentioned aspect of their narratives.

The real point remains how you are being confronted with the knowledge and experience of people who have designed, built, and operated large oceangoing vessels as part of their professions, as well as studied professionally the failures in those endeavors that occasionally befall us. Yet you -- who have done none of these things -- rely almost exclusively on your own ill-informed say-so to attempt to make your point. Explain why a reasonable person should not dismiss your arguments as arrogant crackpottery.
Click to expand...

So the short answer is no, only if it has leaky seams.
 
Vixen said:
The Herald of Free Enterprise ended up like this. Stop making fabrications about it having sunk to the bottom of the sea like the Estonia.
Click to expand...


You seem unaware of the fact that a ship can sink even when the depth of the seabed at that point doesn't allow the ship to submerge completely.

HOFE sank. Had the seabed been at a depth of 200m at that point, HOFE would have sunk to that 200m depth. You don't know what you're talking about. (Feeling increasingly like I ought to get that previous sentence laminated for frequent use....)
 
Vixen said:
Usual way, whether it corroborates with what others say...
Click to expand...

But you said we have to believe Linde's statement, although he's the only one that provided the evidence on this latest point.

...whether it changes from day to day
Click to expand...

I've given you examples of other people's testimonies that changed, but which supported your conspiracy theory, and you seemed to think that was all right.

...whether a drug smuggler is a reliable witness, etc.
Click to expand...

That's a categorical argument. If Linde is a drug smuggler and drug smugglers are unreliable witnesses, then Linde is categorically an unreliable witness. This last bit you just seem to wield only when it suits you.
 
LondonJohn said:
There's only one person in this thread who's not only unfamiliar with what happens when a boat/ship capsizes and sinks..... but who actually promotes a nonsensical and incorrect "theory" of how certain boats/ships must necessarily behave when they sink.


Vixen: take a look at the picture below. It's a photograph of what remains of a Roman shipwreck. The wood of the ship has long since rotted away, and all that remains is its cargo of terracotta amphorae (jugs/containers).

Do you know, Vixen, why the amphorae in the picture are lying on the seabed in tight formation with each other and in the shape of a ship? It's because they were being transported in an open-decked ship, and the ship sank straight down in its same horizontal keel-down attitude. If the ship had capsized, the amphorae would simply have spilled out and fallen to the seabed in a haphazard pile.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_40237616843b44564a.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So it sunk because...?
 
Vixen said:
It did not sink. It lay on its side. Had it been in open seas it would have floated belly up until eventually the air pressure of the superstructure was sucked out by water entering every cavity.
Click to expand...


No. No. And no.

(And "...until eventually the air pressure of the superstructure was sucked out by water entering every cavity" is a very special kind of wrong. Kudos!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom