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

[Jack by the hedge]

Citation please of where JAIC say 'the starboard aft is where the large windows on decks 4 and 5 the JAIC believe were broken in by the sea'.

It said nothing of the kind. You just made it up.

I quoted what they said.

They described large windows aft on 4 and 5. And I could clearly reasonably infer starboard from their description of the list being to the starboard side and the heavy seas beating against the starboard side and, yes, I also inferred the flooding coming in on the starboard side because that side was in the water and the port side was not. The stuff they said about what was happening to the starboard side was a kind of a clue for the not-utterly-determined-to-deliberately-misunderstand.

By contrast, you just leap on any mention of unbroken widows anywhere on the ship and try to claim those as a gotcha by insisting the JAIC said they'd be broken. Which you can't substantiate with this floundering and frantic handwaving. It's a load of crap and you know it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That doesn't apply to the Estonia, built three years before The Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy.

What doesn't apply?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Do study the diagram again.

Yes. it shows that Aft is everything behind the midpoint of the hull. and the Stern is the very back of the ship.

What is your point?

 

[Vixen]

It's 'sucks'. You look stupid when you get colloquialisms wrong.

Wrong. It was not a colloquialism it was actually the chorus of a popular song on the folk circuit and we all had to sing along. (Not sure if it was Jeremy Taylor, famous for 'Jobsworth'.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Of course the JAIC lied. Do you really believe Sillaste and Treu escaped the Engine Room (in the port aft hull) at between 1:24 and 1:30 when the list was 80°?

Look at this diagram and let me know if it is possible to climb ladders or stairs at that angle.

Yes it is as the ladders or stairs will be horizontal. you don't have to climb them

Truth is, Treu, Sillaste, Linde and Kadak all likely amongst the first to leave the vessel. Nearer 1:05 than 1:30. All had survival suits on. According to survivor Rolf Sorman, Treu even had his passport with him (amazing - he had time to return to his cabin all the way from deck 0 when the floors were walls and the doors were just 40cm high as they were now on their sides.

All the rafts and boats are at the top of the superstructure. Everyone musters on the boat deck.
Crew accommodation is on the deck just below the boat deck.
Crew are trained in evacuating a ship and putting on suits. It's the first thing you do.
Every boat and raft will have at least one and usually two crew members assigned to it to assists passengers in evacuation or getting in to the boat or raft if they are in the sea.

What point are you making?

And what about this for a spooky coincidence, given the ship was 155metres long and there was a tumultuous storm raging, when Sillaste threw himself of the vessel after coming out of the funnel...guess who should be riding by?...Yes...Linde, Kadak and Treu...all in the same life raft together.


<fx Brummie accent: "Yes mate!">

Again, what point are you making?

 

[Vixen]

I quoted what they said.

They described large windows aft on 4 and 5. And I could clearly reasonably infer starboard from their description of the list being to the starboard side and the heavy seas beating against the starboard side and, yes, I also inferred the flooding coming in on the starboard side because that side was in the water and the port side was not. The stuff they said about what was happening to the starboard side was a kind of a clue for the not-utterly-determined-to-deliberately-misunderstand.

By contrast, you just leap on any mention of unbroken widows anywhere on the ship and try to claim those as a gotcha by insisting the JAIC said they'd be broken. Which you can't substantiate with this floundering and frantic handwaving. It's a load of crap and you know it.

Infer. This was an official investigation report. Why would they infer something when they had the resources and responsibility to confrim what happened.

JAIC knew that it was a nonsense hence the vague wording.

 

[Vixen]

What doesn't apply?

MOJO claimed 'all ro-ro car ferries' were the same. M/S Estonia was not the same as The Herald of Free Enterprise in several respects.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Infer. This was an official investigation report. Why would they infer something when they had the resources and responsibility to confrim what happened.

JAIC knew that it was a nonsense hence the vague wording.

Because they say the ship was listing to starboard and the ship was broadside on to the waves with the starboard side in to the waves.
Windows on the starboard side were the ones that were being hammered by the sea or were submerged while those on the port side were clear of the waves and water.

 

[erwinl]

MOJO claimed 'all ro-ro car ferries' were the same. M/S Estonia was not the same as The Herald of Free Enterprise in several respects.

Maybe you should read the post again. And afterwards yet again, until you understand what it says.

It certainly does not say 'all ro-ro car ferries' were the same.

 

[whoanellie]

Citation please of where JAIC say 'the starboard aft is where the large windows on decks 4 and 5 the JAIC believe were broken in by the sea'.

It said nothing of the kind. You just made it up.

Jack provided it to you and so did I. You are having a problem with reading comprehension.

 

[Andy_Ross]

MOJO claimed 'all ro-ro car ferries' were the same. M/S Estonia was not the same as The Herald of Free Enterprise in several respects.

In what important aspects was it not the same?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Infer. This was an official investigation report. Why would they infer something when they had the resources and responsibility to confrim what happened.

JAIC knew that it was a nonsense hence the vague wording.

I didn't say they inferred anything. I used inference as a normal part of reading comprehension. Perhaps you were reaching for the word 'imply'.

Nor was their wording vague. It was entirely clear. Their failure to predict that you would turn up decades later and try to build a mountain out of the molehill that they worded things in a manner which you could unreasonably twist and misconstrue is not a failing for which I can blame them.

Let us try not to lose sight of the fact that what they said is the sea broke in through the big windows on deck 4 and you're trying to convince us that some other windows elsewhere on the ship being intact means that's wrong. It's crap.

 

[Mojo]

That doesn't apply to the Estonia, built three years before The Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy.

Of course it doesn’t, I was quoting Wikipedia’s description of the car deck on the HOFE. I suppose I need to remind you of what I posted, and its context:

Then you need to correct wikipedia because it is wiki that says it did not.

For the record, before you do:

The eight-deck car and passenger ferry was owned by Townsend Thoresen, designed for rapid loading and unloading on the competitive cross-channel route, and there were no watertight compartments.

wiki

That’s in the lead of the page, which is supposed to summarise the article, and so doesn’t need to cite a source. The sourced passage of the article that it seems to be summarising actually says, “Unlike other ships, which are subdivided into watertight compartments, the vehicle decks of RORO vessels are normally contiguous: any flooding on these decks would allow the water to flow the length of the ship” (my emphasis).

You were caught using an unreliable source, and as usual are trying to change the subject.

 

[Axxman300]

This guy here - using the recent official Estonian film - claims the bulbous bow shows no signs of having been hit by the bow visor. He also shows some cables which he asserts are 'detonating cords'.

Yes, I saw it. He is full of crap.

That is not detcord, and there is a big dent in the protruding bow section below the ramp where the visor clipped it.

The video clear shows the visor was wrenched off, not blow off with explosives, and that the ramp was yanked open with enough force to bend the lower frame. And this is why it has fallen off in the decades since the sinking.

 

[Mojo]

MOJO claimed 'all ro-ro car ferries' were the same.

No I didn’t.

 

[Axxman300]

You didn't spot the JAIC's use of the word 'possibly'? IOW it is pure conjecture.

Of course, one understands that it would not necessarily be all windows and doors broken but we would expect that to be a significant outcome and available to evidence. The Rockwater divers did not report any broken windows or dividers when they broke in at the aft, the same location referred to by the JAIC.

Pictured: the JP Morgan Chase Tower in Houston, Texas, USA, after the 2008 hurricane. Not ALL of its windows are smashed but it is safe to describe the building having 'its windows smashed by the hurricane.'

What is wrong with you?

We are not talking about skyscrapers in hurricanes, we're talking about a Ro-Ro Ferry in a decent Baltic storm. The two are in no way comparable.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wrong. It was not a colloquialism it was actually the chorus of a popular song on the folk circuit and we all had to sing along. (Not sure if it was Jeremy Taylor, famous for 'Jobsworth'.)

Well, that may be where you came across it but 'Yar, boo, sucks' (sic) is a schoolboy colloquialism familiar since at least the '50s, popularised by Geoffrey Willans' books about 'Molesworth'.

As any fule kno.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edit...n&gbpv=1&dq=yar+boo+sucks&printsec=frontcover

 

[GlennB]

Do study the diagram again.

You're embarrassing yourself. 'Aft' is marked on that diagram.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do study the diagram again.

Nope.

1) "Aft" doesn't mean "stern" for exactly the same reason as "forward" doesn't mean "bow". Maybe in your world, if someone says "the forward windows" they mean "the bow windows". But not in the world of seamanship.

2) Had the investigators meant the windows/doors facing rear-ward, they'd have said "the stern windows/doors".

3) In any case, this is entirely moot - have you actually looked yet at a photo/diagram of the stern of the Estonia. I suggest you should.


Finally: do study your diagram again. For comprehension this time.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yah boo shucks to you, too. I can repeat myself as well.

The difference is: my words a) mean something, and b) are valid criticism of your posts.

If you don't want me to keep telling you that you don't know what you're talking about...... maybe start to learn what you're talking about. Just a suggestion.