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

[JayUtah]

JayUtah, dahlink

Don't call me names.

...you know as well as I do a ship does not float on its superstructure.

Don't try to tell me what I know and don't know.

You sound like you are obsessed with this 'crackpot' fellah. He must have really rattled your cage.

You're the one obsessed with parroting his nonsense as if it's a magic incantation that somehow overcomes all objections. Are you trying to rehabilitate Anders Björkman as a witness?

 

[JayUtah]

The MS Express Samina hit the reefs.

Correct.

Hull smashed.

Breached, yes, but hardly smashed. Just one hole below the waterline, at least to start. There were two hull breaches, one above the waterline and one below. But as the ship rolled, the higher breach was drawn under water and accelerated the ship's flood rate. Hm, what if such a hole had been a design feature such as an opening into engineering spaces?

End of.

End of what? Why? Tell us why it didn't turn all the way over, as Björkman tells you it must. Tell us why Herald arguably remained stable on her side on the surface before settling to the seabed. Use physics, not name-calling or magic reasoning.

Because the hull was breached? This affects buoyancy?

As would shipping water over the side, or through openings in the weather deck. We're not talking about buoyancy. We're talking about stability in the roll axis, something that you just can't seem to grasp as different from buoyancy. Tell us why having the hull breached somehow makes the ship behave differently in the roll axis. Use your big-girl physics and explain the forces involved.

No, it has zilch to do with Archimedes' Law. No, you can't just allude to what Björkman told you. You have to tell us using your own "five years of physics" knowledge. Can you do it? Will you do it?

 

[JayUtah]

From the starboard breach in the hull.

You mean the one above the waterline? You mean the one you can't prove was there while the ship was on the surface? You mean the one whose flood rate you've been asked to compute but, as usual, declined to do because you have no idea how?

 

[JayUtah]

Look, let's make this really simple.

No, let's stop trying to oversimplify. Let's examine the problem as it actually occurs, in all the relevant detail.

A swimmer.

A swimmer is not a ship whose mass distribution can vary.

He or she knows that it is easier to float on your back than your stomach.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Likewise, a boat can float either upright or upside down.

No, not all vessels can do this.

In fact, buoyancy is invariably better when it is upside down.

No, rolling a hull such that it ships water has a markedly detrimental effect on buoyancy, and a separate effect on later stability. Buoyancy and stability are still separate concepts governed by completely different laws of physics. You're still conflating them.

So, upside down or upright, we have neutral stability.

No, you're trying to borrow terms from buoyancy to describe stability. That doesn't make them the same thing.

Question: what happens when the swimmer turns on to his or her side?

Since swimmers can't ship water by altering their orientation with respect to the water's surface, suggesting that a ship would do the same thing as a swimmer is wrong.

Think about it and let me know how long this person will float in that position and why.

Think about why a swimmer is not like a ship. And then stop trying to argue by irrelevant analogy and just explain how the physics of a ship work when describing stability in the roll axis. What defines the center of gravity in a ship? What defines the center of buoyancy in a ship? What causes a roll moment when those points are in certain positions relative to each other? Where do those points shift as the roll occurs? Do they stay in the same place they were? Or do they move about as air and water redistribute themselves? How would that affect the duration of the roll moment? What other moments act in a freely rotating body? Did the video you posted cover that, or did it oversimplify the problem as you're trying to do now?

When you understand the answers to these questions, then perhaps you can see why your condescending attitude does you little good in the way of credibility.

 

[phiwum]

In the case in question the snorkel is not an aid to buoyancy, merely an aid to conducting a casual experiment. However, phiwum has just posted another refutation of your claim that requires no breathing aid.

Well, that and the whole argument is silly. An upside down human body allegedly floats better and hence so does a boat.

But one might as well say a dead fish floats sideways and hence do does a boat.

Refutations about human bodies are beside the point. It's a crap argument that reminds me of some of Aristotle's worst bits.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Stamuel]

A swimmer is not a ship.

How is the buoyancy of a boat 'better' if it is upside down?

I think this is a misstatement of part of Anders Björkman's argument about how much buoyancy the MS Estonia would have if it was upside down. He points out that even if the superstructure is submerged and completely full of water, the walls and floors, etc. still displace water and thus contribute to buoyancy. On the other hand, when the ship is upright and not sinking, these structures do not directly contribute to the buoyant force.

While this is correct, as far as I can tell, it is obviously very different from the claim that the ship is more buoyant when it is upside down.

 

[LondonJohn]

Look, let's make this really simple. A swimmer. He or she knows that it is easier to float on your back than your stomach. Likewise, a boat can float either upright or upside down. In fact, buoyancy is invariably better when it is upside down. So, upside down or upright, we have neutral stability. Question: what happens when the swimmer turns on to his or her side?

Think about it and let me know how long this person will float in that position and why.

What happens as this person sinks? Does he or she stay rigidly sideways?

So, if you're right, why don't all ships - as soon as they're untied at the dockside and set off - turn upside-down? If, as you claim, the buoyancy of a ship is "invariably better when it is upside down"?

Once more with (lack of) feeling: you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Fokus group is reorting a news item I missed from last week, citing, the Aftonbladet.se newspaper 13.10.2021.

The Estonian Foreign Minister, Urmas Reinsalu, has sent a formal letter to the Swedish counterpart, Ann Linde (S) and the Finnish Foreign Minister, Pekka Haavisto (Green), setting out the following demands:

• To identify how the wreck lies on the seabed and investigate how and if the ferry has turned over the years.
• To investigate the surface of the seabed below and around Estonia.
• To identify any holes in the wreck and in that case carefully document where on the wreck the hole is located, how big it is and what kind of damage it may be.
• To find out when in time the injury occurred and how the injury affected the course of the disaster.

The Swedish minister overseeing the M/S Estonia issue, Minister of the Interior Mikael Damberg (S), wrote back in reply: "There is a need to jointly discuss possible alternative measures and analyze the conditions for these in a way that takes into account the international agreement on grave peace to protect Estonia from all forms of disruptive activities".

In other words, playing the 'grave peace' card, when there was nothing to stop them from recovering the bodies at the outset and salvaging the wreck.

"Demands" ahahahaha!

I think you mean "requests".

 

[LondonJohn]

I am sure it is but the fact remains it is easier to float on your back than on your stomach. This is to do with centre of buoyancy and little to do with whether you have a snorkel or not. The snorkel simply enables you to examine what is going on underwater and hence you need to be facing down.

Oh, brother. Where to start with all this crap?

You're wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[LondonJohn]

From the starboard breach in the hull. If you recall, there were a series of bangs/or a bang, as witnessed by some survivors, and/or sensations of a collision/massive jolt just before the vessel listed violently towards starboard.

That breach 1) was caused when the ship hit the seabed on the night it sank, and 2) was above the waterline in any case.

Are you really this blinded by the requirement to find a conspiracy theory (where none actually exists)?

 

[Matthew Best]

Can you do it? Will you do it?

Look, let's make this really simple. The answers to these questions are:

"No", and "no".

 

[Vixen]

So, if you're right, why don't all ships - as soon as they're untied at the dockside and set off - turn upside-down? If, as you claim, the buoyancy of a ship is "invariably better when it is upside down"?

Once more with (lack of) feeling: you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh dear.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The JAIC clearly states it was the windows on the 'aft deck' that were likely broken by the waves, ditto the Rockwater report of where they had to cut the windows with a marlin spike and breakdown dividers (doors) with oxy-acetyline cutters.

Just to remind folk, this evasive answer relates to Vixen's insinuation that the report might be wrong to claim windows on decks 4 and 5 broke under pressure, hastening flooding, since divers later found windows on those decks still intact.

Since Vixen either can't say or won't admit that the windows which the report suggests broke were on the side to which the ship was listing, i.e. the starboard side, while the still-intact windows the divers smashed for access were on the upper side of the wreck i.e. the port side, here's what the report actually said:

"After the main engines stopped, the ESTONIA drifted with a list of about 40 degrees and the starboard side towards the waves. Water continued to enter the car deck through the bow but at a significantly lower rate. Waves were pounding against the windows on deck 4. Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start."
https://web.archive.org/web/2004081...nettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt13_1.html#2

So the windows they claim broke were on the starboard side.

Here are pictures from the report of the route the divers took when investigating inside the wreck, their routes in green;
https://web.archive.org/web/2005101...tkinta.fi/estonia/kuvat/suuren/kuva8_271s.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/2005101...tkinta.fi/estonia/kuvat/suuren/kuva8_272s.gif

As you will see, none of the entry points the divers used was on the starboard side.

I'm sorry to belabour this point, but I hope it forestalls Vixen's continuing to insinuate that windows found to be intact were those the report said would have broken. Or at least to make it plain she hasn't a leg to stand on when she does.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh dear.

It looks rather silly to use empty condescension when you plainly know much less about the subject than the person you're "oh dearing" at.

Oh and by the way, condescension means talking down to people.

 

[Vixen]

Just to remind folk, this evasive answer relates to Vixen's insinuation that the report might be wrong to claim windows on decks 4 and 5 broke under pressure, hastening flooding, since divers later found windows on those decks still intact.

Since Vixen either can't say or won't admit that the windows which the report suggests broke were on the side to which the ship was listing, i.e. the starboard side, while the still-intact windows the divers smashed for access were on the upper side of the wreck i.e. the port side, here's what the report actually said:

"After the main engines stopped, the ESTONIA drifted with a list of about 40 degrees and the starboard side towards the waves. Water continued to enter the car deck through the bow but at a significantly lower rate. Waves were pounding against the windows on deck 4. Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start."
https://web.archive.org/web/2004081...nettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt13_1.html#2

So the windows they claim broke were on the starboard side.

Here are pictures from the report of the route the divers took when investigating inside the wreck, their routes in green;
https://web.archive.org/web/2005101...tkinta.fi/estonia/kuvat/suuren/kuva8_271s.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/2005101...tkinta.fi/estonia/kuvat/suuren/kuva8_272s.gif

As you will see, none of the entry points the divers used was on the starboard side.

I'm sorry to belabour this point, but I hope it forestalls Vixen's continuing to insinuate that windows found to be intact were those the report said would have broken. Or at least to make it plain she hasn't a leg to stand on when she does.

The report as quoted by yourself, clearly states: " Window panels and aft doors broke".

The Rockwater divers make no mention of investigating the starboard side specifically but why not? Is it at all likely or even probable they did not survey the side of the ship which had the violent list?

In fact, the Estonians sent a report to the JAIC suggesting a breach in the starboard side in 1997 yet this was ignored and the report published without considering it, after a long unexplained delay anyway.

In the latest expedition in September, Kurm confirms that a set of doors inside the car deck are intact, closed and undamaged, which is contrary to the JAIC's assertion they must have broken due to the force of seawater versus air pressure.

 

[Vixen]

It looks rather silly to use empty condescension when you plainly know much less about the subject than the person you're "oh dearing" at.

Oh and by the way, condescension means talking down to people.

It is certainly better than a ridiculous childish repetition of a mantra of the 'yah boo shucks to you' variety.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The report as quoted by yourself, clearly states: " Window panels and aft doors broke".

You evaded the context. They stated that, right after describing the severe starboard list and the sea pounding on the starboard side. Which part still has you confused?

The Rockwater divers make no mention of investigating the starboard side specifically but why not?

Do you mean the starboard side that's lying on the sea bed? That starboard side? Do you mean the starboard side that has all the interior debris collected on top of it? That starboard side?

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't examine it.

In the latest expedition in September, Kurm confirms that a set of doors inside the car deck are intact, closed and undamaged, which is contrary to the JAIC's assertion they must have broken due to the force of seawater versus air pressure.

And we've gone full circle. When you made this claim before I asked you to substantiate it. And you backed off and said you meant decks 4 & 5. Now your stuff about 4 and 5 is laid to rest you've leapt back to claiming stuff about the car deck.

Well, the question still stands: Can you substantiate your claim that the JAIC asserts the car deck doors must have broken or can you not?

 

[Axxman300]

The Rockwater divers make no mention of investigating the starboard side specifically but why not? Is it at all likely or even probable they did not survey the side of the ship which had the violent list?

Lemme see...I'm a scuba diver, I'm working a wreck that has just sank. I'm an experienced salvage diver, the wreck is laying on it's side, but at a slight angle where I could possibly swim under for a short distance.

But...

The wreck is new, and wrecks have a tendency to settle in the first days, weeks, and months they are on the sea floor. So...Only an idiot would risk swimming under the starboard side so soon after the sinking. And where the known breach is located it would not have been visible at the time.

Why would I risk my dive team when the cause of the accident is the missing bow visor?

In fact, the Estonians sent a report to the JAIC suggesting a breach in the starboard side in 1997 yet this was ignored and the report published without considering it, after a long unexplained delay anyway.

Without confirmation an official accident report will not include rumors.

In the latest expedition in September, Kurm confirms that a set of doors inside the car deck are intact, closed and undamaged, which is contrary to the JAIC's assertion they must have broken due to the force of seawater versus air pressure.

And?

There are other ways, AS ALREADY MENTIONED, for sea water to advance throughout the ship.

You are not very good at this.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is certainly better than a ridiculous childish repetition of a mantra of the 'yah boo shucks to you' variety.

Oh dear.


(Written for effect, in case you were incapable of discerning that for yourself)

 

[LondonJohn]

Lemme see...I'm a scuba diver, I'm working a wreck that has just sank. I'm an experienced salvage diver, the wreck is laying on it's side, but at a slight angle where I could possibly swim under for a short distance.

But...

The wreck is new, and wrecks have a tendency to settle in the first days, weeks, and months they are on the sea floor. So...Only an idiot would risk swimming under the starboard side so soon after the sinking. And where the known breach is located it would not have been visible at the time.

Why would I risk my dive team when the cause of the accident is the missing bow visor?



Without confirmation an official accident report will not include rumors.



And?

There are other ways, AS ALREADY MENTIONED, for sea water to advance throughout the ship.

You are not very good at this.

The phrase "No ****, Sherlock" would seem appropriate at this point.


As you allude to in your post here, the official investigators had more than enough evidence and knowledge to know what caused this ship to sink (and, as importantly, what didn't cause this ship to sink). I suspect the primary - if not the only - reason for them to have attempted to gain entry into the ship through the (port) windows was to better assess the realistic possibility of recovering victims' bodies. It more-than-likely wouldn't have been anything to do with determining the cause of the disaster.

Vixen (and organisations such as this Fokus Group) seem to be of the (mis)understanding that it's incumbent on official investigators to keep on looking for causes of an accident long after it's become abundantly clear to them (the investigators) what the actual cause of the accident really was. At the risk of doing something which is probably close to Godwinning: Warren et al were right all along about the cause of the JFK assassination.....