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

[Jack by the hedge]

We don't know that it was thrown back in to the sea. Vixen's own source says it was left on the ship.

Indeed, we don't know for sure what became of the bolt. My point was only to correct Vixen's false "have you stopped beating your wife yet" accusation that I denied it was thrown back into the sea.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Having one earpiece for one set of instructions and the other for another - enabling two people to issue orders or comments, from their remote positions.

No, that is not 'standard protocol'

Why would you think it was a good idea or even safe for a diver to be getting two sets of orders and comments?

A diver speaks to one person on the surface, his own assistant, that is to avoid confusion. Any third party would relay through the assistant.
If it is a surface supply dive then the assistant is also the person operating the panel.
Some systems are two wire, they use a 'push to talk' button and work like a radio link. Some systems are four wire and work on a simultaneous 'open' two way link but communication is always through the assistant.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, that is not 'standard protocol'

Why would you think it was a good idea or even safe for a diver to be getting two sets of orders and comments?

A diver speaks to one person on the surface, his own assistant, that is to avoid confusion. Any third party would relay through the assistant.
If it is a surface supply dive then the assistant is also the person operating the panel.
Some systems are two wire, they use a 'push to talk' button and work like a radio link. Some systems are four wire and work on a simultaneous 'open' two way link but communication is always through the assistant.

Oh gosh I misread Vixen's post!

I didn't realise she was going so far as to claim that the divers were getting two different voices in their ears!!!

That's utterly preposterous - and, as you say, entirely NOT "standard protocol".....

 

[zooterkin]

Having one earpiece for one set of instructions and the other for another - enabling two people to issue orders or comments, from their remote positions.

How many microphones does the diver have, and how do they control which ones are active?

 

[carlitos]

Oh gosh I misread Vixen's post!

I didn't realise she was going so far as to claim that the divers were getting two different voices in their ears!!!

That's utterly preposterous - and, as you say, entirely NOT "standard protocol".....

The dive support team was supervised by Beatles producer George Martin.

Some of the older divers longed for the days of mono.

 

[Vixen]

But what if Ian Wright, in his analysis on MOTD started talking about how teams had 13 players, or that the goalkeeper could carry the ball from his penalty area to the opposition one? Or that a goal counted as 5 points and hitting the bar counted as one? Would we still count him as a reliable source on football?

A more apposite analogy would be Mark Corrigan sitting in front of his television shouting, 'Offside! Ref! Where's your glasses, ref?!' and Ian Wright would then explain to the viewers why exactly it was not offside, by use of slow motion replay from all sides, using precision measurements that show scientifically and objectively that even though that player is a renowned 'Hand of God' cheat, diver and not 'one of us', that the referee was right, which is why he is an expert 'pundit', the referee is retained by the FA as one of their best who can be relied upon to make the right call 99/100 and why you can enjoy the game from the comfort of your sofa without having to know zippo.

Likewise, Bjorkman is actually right about the Estonia buoyancy calculations, even if you don't like what he has to say about 9/11 or whatever.

Calculations of the two studies don't match

Meanwhile, Jaan Metsaveer, a shipbuilding engineer and emeritus professor at Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech), who also sat on the JAIC, said that official calculations show that the MS Estonia had a reserve buoyancy (the volume of a ship above the waterline, which can be made watertight, thus increasing the vessel's buoyancy – ed.) of 4,500 tonnes.

This covers two meters above the waterline, which can carry an additional weight of 4,500 tonnes. Thus, 4,500 tonnes of water flowing under the car deck was enough to sink the whole ship in any location.

However, it is also possible for a part of the ship to lose reserve buoyancy, for example, the stern sections. The result is that the stern sinks significantly deeper and the bow rises higher, so that 4,500 tonnes is above the water-line.

Margus Kurm says he does not agree with this estimation. "Swedish marine scientists have concluded with their calculations, simulations and model tests (done by Swedish state agency Vinnova) that the ship would not have sunk until its entire superstructure, and 83 percent of the hull, is filled with water. This means that 11,000 tonnes of water had to flow under the car deck, not the 4,500 tonnes referenced. "

Vinnova conducted the tests in 2008, by which time software used in simulations was better than that available in 1995.

"Don't these kinds of disagreements between scientists prove the need to gather as much evidence as possible, including investigating the wreck on the seabed?" Kurm asks.

Professor Mihkel Kõrgesaar agrees that the calculations made in 2008 are more likely to be accurate. At the same time, he said that in the same way, later calculations say that the ship ought to have stayed afloat, but as it didn't no one really knows how it actually came to sink.

ERR


Even the JAIC in its report had to concur that flooding of the car deck alone could not cause the Estonia to sink.

 

[JayUtah]

That is the standard protocol.

How do you know that?

 

[Vixen]

We don't know that it was thrown back in to the sea. Vixen's own source says it was left on the ship.

And is this ship still floating? Perhaps it finally reached Fantasy Island.

Actually:

The JAIC orally stated that the reason for throwing the bolt back into the Baltic was 'because the helicopter was full and the bolt was too heavy': its weight was 'about 25 kilograms'. However, the JAIC brought up eleven other parts of the ship, none of which were thrown back in the sea. This included the bell, which was 70kg.


So the bell was extremely important and VERY essential for the investigation._NOT!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

A more apposite analogy would be Mark Corrigan sitting in front of his television shouting, 'Offside! Ref! Where's your glasses, ref?!' and Ian Wright would then explain to the viewers why exactly it was not offside, by use of slow motion replay from all sides, using precision measurements that show scientifically and objectively that even though that player is a renowned 'Hand of God' cheat, diver and not 'one of us', that the referee was right, which is why he is an expert 'pundit', the referee is retained by the FA as one of their best who can be relied upon to make the right call 99/100 and why you can enjoy the game from the comfort of your sofa without having to know zippo.

Likewise, Bjorkman is actually right about the Estonia buoyancy calculations, even if you don't like what he has to say about 9/11 or whatever.
.

Simply not true. Anders Bjorkman is no longer a credible source for his previous field of expertise. You do realise that it isn't his opinions on 9/11 that are wrong but his deliberate twisting of physics, violating things he has to know right?

Again, the comparison is appropriate. If Ian Wright started talking about the 12th and 13th players on a football team would you use him as a credible source on football even if he correctly stated that the game lasts 90 minutes?

Sure, you could say that he knows how long a game lasts, but his expertise could easily be called into question given the other flagrant errors.

ETA: That is to say that even if his calculations on buoyancy were correct, which I am in no way stipulating to, that does not mean he is a credible expert.

If Ian Wright talked about how the 12th player played through the whole 90 minutes of the game, does his correct description of the length of time rehabilitate his expertise given the obvious nonsense he was talking?

 

[JayUtah]

If he is giving straightforward factual information and as based on his naval architecture qualification it's fine.

So then you do know and you do expect him to be taken as an authority. Why is it so hard to elicit these admissions from you? Is it because you know you're flip-flopping wildly? Is it because you know Björkman is a discredited source?

And now you're trying to walk an impossibly fine line between lay testimony and expert testimony. If the information he's providing is "straightforward factual" information, then it needs no one to attest to it. You can simply point us to the inexorable printed facts or widely-accepted scientific principles. But you can't, because Björkman is your only source for them, and you're desperately clinging to his interpretation of the science even while protesting that you aren't.

If the information is "based on his naval architecture qualifications," then it is worthless. Björkman's former qualifications haven't mattered for quite a number of years. They never mattered in his treatment of MS Estonia. He's been drummed out of the profession precisely for his misstatement and misrepresentation of the principles of naval architecture and other branches of engineering, and no one in the industry has taken him seriously for more than a decade.

Fling as many weasel words as you want into the discussion; it will not rehabilitate Anders Björkman as an expert in how ships sink.

 

[JayUtah]

Likewise, Bjorkman is actually right about the Estonia buoyancy calculations, even if you don't like what he has to say about 9/11 or whatever.

Your source shows that there is disagreement among scientists. It does not say Björkman was correct. Further, since there is quite a lot of variation possible in ship flooding models, and those must be filled in with educated assumptions, it is quite acceptable that there should be considerable variation in the results.

Remember the part where I tried to get you to discuss flooding models and you didn't have the slightest idea what I was talking about? Yeah, we're there again.

 

[Vixen]

Just noticed the 'luxury' bit.

Cabins at the top of the superstructure are mostly crew accommodation, with officers cabins being nearest to the bridge.

This can be seen from deck plans of the Estonia.

Do have a look at the luxury suites on this type of cruise ferry. They are situated at the front and consist of four beds and a view of the sea ahead.

Silja Symphony

Voronin and his family were in such a cabin, as were senior crew, a former captain and his wife (pensioners discount perhaps?), as well as senior police officers attending the Tallinn conference. I expect these were quite separate from working crew quarters. (Piht, second captain, was shadowing for his charting exams in the morning in Stockholm).

Decks 5 and 6 had passenger cabins covering the forward third and the remaining parts were used for tax free shop, information desk, restaurants, bars and entertainment areas. Both decks had two double-door public exits to the open-air aft decks. The accommodation spaces on decks 4, 5 and 6 extended from side to side without any open-air passage or other open-air spaces except the aft decks.

Deck 7 contained the main part of the crew accommodation. This deck did not extend to the sides of the vessel, giving room for an open deck area on both sides. On the open deck there were the rescue stations and the embarkation area for lifeboats. The deck was accessible to passengers via two main staircases and between the aft open-air decks. The passageways contained cradles for liferafts and bins for lifejackets for passengers and crew

Forward on deck 8 was accommodation for the senior officers and, aft, additional crew accommodation spaces. The intermediate space was taken up by ventilation equipment and other service functions. The lifeboat davits and additional liferaft bins were located at the sides of this deck. Deck 8 was accessible to passengers only via external stairs from deck 7.

EFD

AIUI V

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So then you do know and you do expect him to be taken as an authority. Why is it so hard to elicit these admissions from you? Is it because you know you're flip-flopping wildly? Is it because you know Björkman is a discredited source?

And now you're trying to walk an impossibly fine line between lay testimony and expert testimony. If the information he's providing is "straightforward factual" information, then it needs no one to attest to it. You can simply point us to the inexorable printed facts or widely-accepted scientific principles. But you can't, because Björkman is your only source for them, and you're desperately clinging to his interpretation of the science even while protesting that you aren't.

If the information is "based on his naval architecture qualifications," then it is worthless. Björkman's former qualifications haven't mattered for quite a number of years. They never mattered in his treatment of MS Estonia. He's been drummed out of the profession precisely for his misstatement and misrepresentation of the principles of naval architecture and other branches of engineering, and no one in the industry has taken him seriously for more than a decade.

Fling as many weasel words as you want into the discussion; it will not rehabilitate Anders Björkman as an expert in how ships sink.

Exactly. Vixen you can't use Bjorkman as an expert in a field he has been totally discredited in even if he used to be an expert. As Jay says, his multitude of errors of fact in his work have resulted in him being drummed out of the very field you are attempting to claim him as an expert in!

As I have stated in my previous post, if Ian Wright talked about the 90 minutes of play time of the 12th member of a football team his getting the length of the game correct does not make him a credible expert no matter his previous qualifications.

 

[Vixen]

Simply not true. Anders Bjorkman is no longer a credible source for his previous field of expertise. You do realise that it isn't his opinions on 9/11 that are wrong but his deliberate twisting of physics, violating things he has to know right?

Again, the comparison is appropriate. If Ian Wright started talking about the 12th and 13th players on a football team would you use him as a credible source on football even if he correctly stated that the game lasts 90 minutes?

Sure, you could say that he knows how long a game lasts, but his expertise could easily be called into question given the other flagrant errors.

ETA: That is to say that even if his calculations on buoyancy were correct, which I am in no way stipulating to, that does not mean he is a credible expert.

If Ian Wright talked about how the 12th player played through the whole 90 minutes of the game, does his correct description of the length of time rehabilitate his expertise given the obvious nonsense he was talking?

Look, I get that pundits and experts can be utter swine, rakes, deviants, lunatics or whatever in their personal life or character but that doesn't cancel out what professional skills they have, even if that talented footballer is actually a drunk who takes KFC's and a fishing rod to a murderous criminal surrounded by police patiently waiting for him to give up his gun.

 

[JayUtah]

...but that doesn't cancel out what professional skills they have...

If he was discredited from his profession by malpractice of that profession, then he is no longer a credible practitioner. Anders Björkman was not dismissed from the engineering profession because he was a bounder and a cad for other reasons. He was dismissed because he was dishonest about engineering.

 

[Vixen]

How many microphones does the diver have, and how do they control which ones are active?

There is one microphone. Here follows a report on how the Rockwater divers operated:

The diving operation was performed by four teams of three divers who worked around the clock from two diving bells hanging next to the wreck. The first diver of the team remained in the bell, the other two proceeded to the designated area where one did the work according to instructions from the supervisor in the operation room while the other secured him by checking his umbilical, etc.

The divers worked in diving suits with helmets, which were connected by the said umbilical containing all the necessary supply and communication lines to the diving bell respectively to the diving platform. On top of the helmets one searchlight and one, probably two, video cameras were mounted.

The diver received his instructions through two earphones - one in each ear - and spoke into one microphone. On the video tapes available to the public only the voice of the supervisor into one of the earphones and the voice of the diver are audible. Only on some occasions does it become evident that the diver gets additional respectively other instructions when he reacts differently or replies differently, this being particularly obvious when he quickly turns his head away from areas which the public should not see as will be explained on the following pages.

It is common practice - according to the diving expert Brian Braidwood - that divers carry two different earphones during an operation like the one under consideration here.

EFD

As is apparent, what the public hear on the video, is controlled by the video editors, without having to mute it, by simply not including the more confidential one.

 

[JayUtah]

There is one microphone. Here follows a report on how the Rockwater divers operated:

Once again your only source is Braidwood as quoted on a conspiracy site.

 

[Vixen]

So then you do know and you do expect him to be taken as an authority. Why is it so hard to elicit these admissions from you? Is it because you know you're flip-flopping wildly? Is it because you know Björkman is a discredited source?

And now you're trying to walk an impossibly fine line between lay testimony and expert testimony. If the information he's providing is "straightforward factual" information, then it needs no one to attest to it. You can simply point us to the inexorable printed facts or widely-accepted scientific principles. But you can't, because Björkman is your only source for them, and you're desperately clinging to his interpretation of the science even while protesting that you aren't.

If the information is "based on his naval architecture qualifications," then it is worthless. Björkman's former qualifications haven't mattered for quite a number of years. They never mattered in his treatment of MS Estonia. He's been drummed out of the profession precisely for his misstatement and misrepresentation of the principles of naval architecture and other branches of engineering, and no one in the industry has taken him seriously for more than a decade.

Fling as many weasel words as you want into the discussion; it will not rehabilitate Anders Björkman as an expert in how ships sink.

But I am not relying on Bjorkman (what is it with your obsession with him?).

The Swedish Maritime expert scientists themselves ran a computer modelled, or a facsimile-modelled, simulation and it is they who get the 11,000-tonne-equivalent surplus buoyancy.

""Swedish marine scientists have concluded with their calculations, simulations and model tests (done by Swedish state agency Vinnova) that the ship would not have sunk until its entire superstructure, and 83 percent of the hull, is filled with water. This means that 11,000 tonnes of water had to flow under the car deck, not the 4,500 tonnes referenced. "

Vinnova conducted the tests in 2008, by which time software used in simulations was better than that available in 1995." ibid

 

[JayUtah]

But I am not relying on Bjorkman...

You literally cited him as a source.

(what is it with your obsession with him?).

I didn't mention him until you once again cited him as a source and tried to rehabilitate him as an expert witness. The proper question is what is your obsession with him?

The Swedish Maritime expert scientists themselves...

Asked and answered.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly. Vixen you can't use Bjorkman as an expert in a field he has been totally discredited in even if he used to be an expert. As Jay says, his multitude of errors of fact in his work have resulted in him being drummed out of the very field you are attempting to claim him as an expert in!

As I have stated in my previous post, if Ian Wright talked about the 90 minutes of play time of the 12th member of a football team his getting the length of the game correct does not make him a credible expert no matter his previous qualifications.

But I haven't used Bjorkman as an expert in his field except for factual narrative.

You can bring on the twelfth player as a substitute, so maybe it is the viewer who is actually ignorant and not the ref and overpaid tv 'pundit'.