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

[Vixen]

Yes, but only the part below the actual waterline -- not the blue paint and not the Plimsoll line -- that has any bearing on the flood rate such a hole could sustain if the injury occurred on the surface. You're the one trying to tell us this is the hole that gave us the flood rate that caused the ship to sink so quickly. Show me the numbers.



Except that we can see in the photos and reconstructed images where the hole is. We can see for ourselves how it relates to the water line no matter how many towels an expedition says they saw.

If the water came into the vessel via the hole in the starboard, then that would be a provable source of the ingress of water. It has never been proven the car ramp was ever open.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Just to add on the pitching

Hull form at the bow is also a factor. A flared bow will tend to ride a wave better but increase the actual pitching. A bow with no flare will cut in to the wave which reduces pitching but makes the ship 'wet'.
A passenger ship is only moderately flared to reduce pitching for passenger comfort but it does tend to bury in to the wave more.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Soz, the car decks are decks no. 2 and 3. In effect, the JAIC is claiming that when the vessel capsized onto its starboard side, decks 4 and 5 immediately filled with water, the windows having smashed, battened down the cabin doors (cabins themselves divided into literally hundreds). This defies belief as a ship cannot float on its superstructure. Once it capsized to the side, it would have turtled within minutes ceteris paribus.

What is your evidence for this?

 

[Vixen]

The bow visor was above the waterline, right?

So, how would explosions designed to cause bow visor failure be below the waterline?

If the natural failure of the bow visor couldn't explain the sinking, then neither could the intentional destruction of the bow visor -- unless it produced other substantial damage which would be current today.

Do have some consistency, Vixen. If you deny that the former explains a sinking, you must deny that the latter does too. Pretty simple logic.

I think what the advocates might be claiming is that the Swedish navy used explosives to remove the bow visor, for whatever reason.

If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.

 

[JayUtah]

If the water came into the vessel via the hole in the starboard, then that would be a provable source of the ingress of water. It has never been proven the car ramp was ever open.

It has never been proven that the hole in starboard side was made while the ship was on the surface. And you're certainly incapable of telling us whether a hole in that part of the ship could take on water fast enough to sink the ship in 30 minutes.

Are you implying the car deck did not ship water?

 

[JayUtah]

Once it capsized to the side, it would have turtled within minutes ceteris paribus.

Show us the evidence for this claim, please. And no, we do not accept Anders Björkman as an authority.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think what the advocates might be claiming is that the Swedish navy used explosives to remove the bow visor, for whatever reason.

If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.

How many ships have the 'Spetznaz' sunk?

 

[Vixen]

You just sank her battleship.

Pretty much how I pictured it in my head. With the ramp open? Jesus, they never had a chance.

If the ramp was open.

 

[JayUtah]

I think what the advocates might be claiming is that the Swedish navy used explosives to remove the bow visor, for whatever reason.

Do you believe what these "advocates" are claiming?

If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.

So you're saying these brilliant ex-Soviet agents knew that blowing off the bow visor would sink the ship? You just got done telling us such a thing wouldn't work because no water would get past the ramp. Your wild flip-flops are happening in a shorter and shorter space of time.

 

[JayUtah]

If the ramp was open.

Was water observed in the car deck, yes or no?

 

[phiwum]

If the water came into the vessel via the hole in the starboard, then that would be a provable source of the ingress of water. It has never been proven the car ramp was ever open.

If this reasoning works, we can eliminate explosives at the bow visor as the cause. Do you agree?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

I think what the advocates might be claiming is that the Swedish navy used explosives to remove the bow visor, for whatever reason.



If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.

Would such strikes be above the waterline?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

If the water came into the vessel via the hole in the starboard, then that would be a provable source of the ingress of water. It has never been proven the car ramp was ever open.

That drawing by a survivor that you use to argue the ramp was still up shows water gushing around the sides of the ramp. Doesn't that matter?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Vixen]

What is your evidence for this?

The negative buoyancy and negative shift in the centre of gravity. Imagine you are walking along. Your body's centre of gravity keeps you perfectly balanced. Then imagine an unseen hole in the ground introduces an element of instability in that it causes your right foot to miss its stride. Your centre of gravity is no longer balanced, pitching you to one side, causing you to either stumble, to use your arms, shoulders and other side of the body to regain balance, or you fall over completely. You do not remain in a state of inertia. Something has to give.

London John's fond belief The Herald of Free Enterprise was forever fated to lie on its side, unhindered by the bank it lay on, shows continues to cause amusement.

 

[LondonJohn]

It certainly would have entirely sank eventually as the air in the superstructure was replaced by water seeping in. As with the MS Jan Heweliusz it surely would have floated turtle after capsizing for quite a while in open sea. The issue with the Estonia is how suddenly it sank completely. As a comparator, the Wilhelm Gustloff took circa 45 minutes and the Titanic over two hours.

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

And FYI - once again - your "displacement of air" gambit is both ignorant and incorrect. The cause - the only cause - of ships sinking is if the total mass of the vessel at the moment of sinking exceeds the buoyancy limit of the vessel at the moment of sinking.

As I've already pointed out to you twice now, by way of an example: the placement of a relatively small volume of an extremely heavy substance would cause a ship to sink like a stone - irrespective of the fact that there would have been almost the same volume of "air in the superstructure" before and after the weights were added. If the addition of the weights meant that the total mass of the ship now exceeded its buoyancy limit, it would sink. With a hull full of air.

 

[GlennB]

It certainly would have entirely sank eventually as the air in the superstructure was replaced by water seeping in. As with the MS Jan Heweliusz it surely would have floated turtle after capsizing for quite a while in open sea. The issue with the Estonia is how suddenly it sank completely. As a comparator, the Wilhelm Gustloff took circa 45 minutes and the Titanic over two hours.

You've been asked to explain why many times, but have never even attempted to give an answer.

 

[Vixen]

It has never been proven that the hole in starboard side was made while the ship was on the surface. And you're certainly incapable of telling us whether a hole in that part of the ship could take on water fast enough to sink the ship in 30 minutes.

Are you implying the car deck did not ship water?

There was water on the car deck but by all accounts that was quite normal in rainy weather. One of the crew on the Estonia, said he saw water up to the car tyres. Even the JAIC said that even if the car decks were filled with a maximum volume of water, that would not of itself be enough to capsize the boat .

 

[Vixen]

Show us the evidence for this claim, please. And no, we do not accept Anders Björkman as an authority.

We are referencing Archimedes here.

 

[Vixen]

Do you believe what these "advocates" are claiming?



So you're saying these brilliant ex-Soviet agents knew that blowing off the bow visor would sink the ship? You just got done telling us such a thing wouldn't work because no water would get past the ramp. Your wild flip-flops are happening in a shorter and shorter space of time.

A multi-pronged attack was the Soviet leitmotiv.

Even the British Royal Navy used to employ more than one form of attack: double-headed hammers and cannonballs to sink a ship in days of yore.

 

[phiwum]

Soz, the car decks are decks no. 2 and 3. In effect, the JAIC is claiming that when the vessel capsized onto its starboard side, decks 4 and 5 immediately filled with water, the windows having smashed, battened down the cabin doors (cabins themselves divided into literally hundreds). This defies belief as a ship cannot float on its superstructure. Once it capsized to the side, it would have turtled within minutes ceteris paribus.

Could you please show me where JAIC claimed that the windows on decks 4 and 5 were smashed? It's a long report and a cursory glance wasn't fruitful.

Thanks.