• 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.
Get back on topic and unless any of you have a particular affinity for yellow cards, stay on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It doesn't follow. It just gallops off in an orthogonal direction. But it gets an exasperated reply which keeps the thread simmering along with further posts about irrelevant digressions so maybe someone counts that as a little victory.
Click to expand...


I think it's abundantly clear - and has been for a very long time now - that if any revisions to the official conclusions do take place, they'll be strictly on the fringes. Nothing will change the fundamental finding: that this ship sank because its poorly-designed and poorly-maintained bow visor failed at its bottom lock, setting off a series of further failures which culminated in seawater flooding the vehicle deck and the loss of the vessel.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
And as you can see, the water simply washes away over the deck.
Click to expand...


Of course it does. It's an exposed foredeck. And all the hatches are battened down. The foredeck of that ship was specifically designed and constructed to withstand huge and powerful masses of water without compromising the ship in any way.

In this respect, it's entirely incomparable to water rushing into an enclosed deck - e.g. the vehicle deck of the Estonia. The designers of the Estonia would never have designed the vehicle deck to withstand ingress of a huge mass/volume of seawater. Furthermore, once significant amounts of water had entered the vehicle deck, it was a grim inevitability that plenty of that water would have found its way down inside the hull, through open hatches, open access ports, open doorways, ventilation shafts, stairways, etc.
 
Vixen said:
And as you can see, the water simply washes away over the deck.
Click to expand...

Because it is a solid bow designed to take big waves when the ship is forcing it's way in to a head sea at high speed. See how it is raised and the distance to the turret and front of the superstructure?
It does not have a faulty, over stressed, separate bow held on by bolts that have to be hammered in to place.
If the how fell off a couple of meters above the waterline do you think the compartments behind would not be filled with water very quickly?
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Where is the 'sophistry' or 'gilding'?

It was on the bottom, it wasn't afloat. unless you are using some new, previously unknown definition of the word sink.
Click to expand...


I think you've got it; Vixen is under the impression that if a ship isn't completely covered with water it did not sink.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Well she's certainly ridiculing the idea, but I can't for the life of me see what it's got to do with any of this.
Click to expand...

Samples from the bow visor show they were exposed to temperature s in excess of 700 degrees.

Vixen claims that only a 'detonation' or a lab could produce a temperature of 700 degrees and that all the parts were welded together is not a factor in this.

Somehow any metalworking involving any kind of heating can't be done at home therefore welding on the ship can't be included in any explanation of the event.
 
Last edited:
ferd burfle said:
I think you've got it; Vixen is under the impression that if a ship isn't completely covered with water it did not sink.
Click to expand...

Take a simple rowing boat, wood frame, operated by oars. There are no leaks.
Any imbalance or inflow of water, the boat simply capsizes toppling its contents into the water. It doesn't sink, it floats upside down ceteris paribus.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Samples from the bow visor show they were exposed to temperature s in excess of 700 degrees.

Vixen claims that only a 'detonation' or a lab could produce a temperature of 700 degrees and that all the parts were welded together is not a factor in this.

Somehow any metalworking involving any kind of heating can't be done at home therefore welding on the ship can't be included in any explanation of the event.
Click to expand...

I misremembered what Braidwood's report said. I located the report and rectified what the wording actually was. For some reason, Braidwood's report is ignored whilst people prefer to focus on whether it is possible to heat metal to 700° outside of a laboratory.
 
I...have you ever been sailing at all Vixen?

How do you explain the video I posted earlier in the thread from the US series Survivor, which involved people in simple boats having said oats sink straight down without capsizing due to the boats filling with water?

Why are you always, always wrong? It's genuinely disturbing how literally every post you make is wrong. It's like you're trying to be wrong.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Because it is a solid bow designed to take big waves when the ship is forcing it's way in to a head sea at high speed. See how it is raised and the distance to the turret and front of the superstructure?
It does not have a faulty, over stressed, separate bow held on by bolts that have to be hammered in to place.
If the how fell off a couple of meters above the waterline do you think the compartments behind would not be filled with water very quickly?
Click to expand...

Exactly at Swedish midnight, the captain nowhere in sight; I think you would have to be a naive investigator to focus solely on the bow visor and failing investigate anything else, especially when 34 of the survivors reported a series of three bangs (including Sillaste, although Linde says one) and/or a collision.

Fact is, it is not the first time there have been issues with a bow visor. On all other occasions the vessel simply got repaired on returning to port.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I...have you ever been sailing at all Vixen?

How do you explain the video I posted earlier in the thread from the US series Survivor, which involved people in simple boats having said oats sink straight down without capsizing due to the boats filling with water?

Why are you always, always wrong? It's genuinely disturbing how literally every post you make is wrong. It's like you're trying to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Did you not note the words ceteris paribus?
 
I did. You're still wrong.

Again, if a boat takes on water to the point where it loses buoyancy it will sink straight down give or take. To capsize a boat takes specific conditions such as the water coming across the boat side on, or the crew taking precautions to deliberately capsize the boat to avoid sinking. I ask again, do you sail?

Please explain how in the video I mentioned, the boats being flooded sank them straight down and neither boat capsized.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I did. You're still wrong.

Again, if a boat takes on water to the point where it loses buoyancy it will sink straight down give or take. To capsize a boat takes specific conditions such as the water coming across the boat side on, or the crew taking precautions to deliberately capsize the boat to avoid sinking. I ask again, do you sail?

Please explain how in the video I mentioned, the boats being flooded sank them straight down and neither boat capsized.
Click to expand...

One can contrive anything.
 
Vixen said:
Take a simple rowing boat, wood frame, operated by oars. There are no leaks.
Any imbalance or inflow of water, the boat simply capsizes toppling its contents into the water. It doesn't sink, it floats upside down ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...


No.

Maybe go back and re-read my post which includes the photo of that Roman shipwreck. A photo which shows that the ship must have sunk in exactly the orientation it had at the surface - ie a horizontal bow-stern attitude, keel down.

That was a wooden boat (though the wood has long since completely rotted away). It didn't capsize. It didn't topple its contents into the water. It didn't float upside down. It did sink. ceteris paribus (LMAO)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom