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

[Andy_Ross]

Are you claiming radios work under water?

I was wondering this. It doesn't seem to be getting through that it is a wire connecting the diver to the surface.

Wireless comms are available for divers, they are using ultrasonic sound, not radio. I have used the Ocean Reef GSM Mercury system with one of their full face masks. It is like all the others a 'push to talk' system and uses radio protocols.

 

[Vixen]

But neither did Estonia, according to your wild claims. Are you now claiming that Estonia DID sink due to flooding?

Besides, ALL ships that sink are flooded.

The key to Estonia's super-rapid sinking would be a breach of its hull. That makes sense. Hence, the hole in the starboard is an observation of interest as that would explain a lot.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Water getting into the ventilation pipes is a well-known cause of ship explosions. Oceanos got flooded because of an explosion.

How well known is water in the ventilation pipes causing explosions?

So it did flood? you claimed just a few posts ago that it didn't flood.

 

[Vixen]

How do you know? His analysis and explanations for everything else are ******* crazy! How can you tell when he is 'perfectly sound'?

By using one's critical faculties.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Exactly but JAIC seem to think it is enough to state it was seaworthy. End of subject.

No not 'end of subject'

Where do they state this?

The report spends a large part of chapter 3 and all of chapter 18 in explaining the ships construction, condition and compliance with regulation and certification and why it wasn't in compliance and why this wasn't known.

How is that saying it was 'seaworthy end of subject'?

 

[JayUtah]

Exactly but JAIC seem to think it is enough to state it was seaworthy. End of subject.

No, not the end of the subject. What the JAIC meant by that is of paramount importance. You very much want it to mean that they had certified the vessel to be free from defect. That is not what they meant, and that is not what a certificate of seaworthiness attests to.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I was just trying to point out that the Atlantic lock is an accessory, which was introduced to ease tension on the side locks. In reality, removing the Atlantic Lock doesn't really increase the tension by that much.

The JAIC seem to think the Atlantic lock caused the side locks to come loose the same time as it did, by one wave force.

What is your evidence that it is an 'accessory'?

An entire section of chapter 3 is given over to the design, construction and properties of the visor and it's locks.
Where does it say it was an 'accessory'?

Where does the report state that "the Atlantic lock caused the side locks to come loose the same time as it did, by one wave force"?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Just for fun I decided to find some of Anders Bjorkman's egregious errors of fact and utter cluelessness when it comes to physics. Again Vixen, this is the guy you are claiming is a valid expert.

Weight and Mass are equal:

Weight (kg) or load (kg) = mass (kg). Yes, I am an engineer. What are you?

If a 30000 ton block of ice was dropped onto a building, even one as large as one of the towers of the WTC, the block of ice would shatter and the building would be virtually undamaged:

It is the structure of the mass representing PE that matters. Examples:

1. Pour 30 000 tons of water (plenty of PE) on WTC1 and WTC1 deflects the water and the PE ends up in the gutters of NYC. Agree? Water is not very rigid!

2. Drop an ice block of 30 000 tons (same amount of PE) on WTC1 and the steel columns of WTC1 will break the ice and the PE ends up as small ice blocks in the streets of NYC. Agree? Ice is slightly more solid than water but not rigid! Don't you break ice and put it in your G&T at 5 pm?

3. Drop the top part of 30 000 tons of WTC1 on the WTC1 structure below and the top part breaks up and pieces of it falls down on the plaza below while some remain up top - actually bounces on the structure below. Reason? Top part was not rigid. No collapse will ensue due to PE>SE.

4. Drop anything A on anything B and see Newton's third law at work. A cannot free fall through B (even if NIST suggest that that is the case with WTC7).

Physics is not difficult. But structure of material matters. It seems you are stuck in la-la land wherever it is.

Bjorkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed:

Wrong, when you remove the floors you also remove the loads transmitted to the columns and the stresses in the columns will become very small ... and they will stand up like flag poles.

Top down crushing of buildings tht have weakened or destroyed supports is not possible because steel is apparently indestructible:

The first failures would be arrested at once, which I clearly describe. No crush-down is possible. And that applies to all steel structures! You cannot destroy a steel structure by dropping a piece of it from above on itself!

The little piece you drop will be destroyed prior to major failures of the structure below. Happens every time. Or the small piece will just bounce!

Things Anders Bjorkman has, with a straight face, stated that the WTC could be accurately modelled with or was analogous to:

1. Cheese.

WTC1:s structure was very much like a cheese. Something slammed into it and made a hole in the cheese, fire erupted and the cheese started to melt around the hole. Above the hole was a big, upper block of 33 000 tons of cheese. Below the hole was a much bigger block of cheese! 250 000 tons.
Now we are told the upper block started to move down, releasing potential energy, as the cheese below was melting around the hole. The upper cheese block, 33 000 tons, hits the lower cheese block, 250 000 tons, and compresses it. The hole disappears and molten cheese is squeezed out. What happens then?

Cheese structure has built in strength that can absorb potential energy. The strength can be likened to the amount of strain energy the hard cheese can absorb before being crushed. The amount of strain energy is almost constant per ton of cheese. Same in the upper and lower cheese parts.

Simple math shows that 33 000 tons of cheese above cannot compress 250 000 tons of cheese below when both parts absorb the same amount of strain energy at the compression. No global collapse.

Unless you fit some extra stuff in the lower cheese. But then cheese rubble and debris are ejected in all directions and reveals the bluff.

Pizza Boxes:

I thought Bazant meant by rigid is indestructible or at least stronger than the lower structure that apparently was not rigid. Some people think rigid means deficient in or devoid of flexibility and an object with such characteristics is indestructible. If it cannot flex, it cannot be changed. Indestructible. I agree.

Dry pasta is very flexible - it cracks immediately when a force is applied to it. Just drop it on the floor.

Rigid objects do not exist in the real world.

But doing structural analysis you always apply a rigid support to the structure you study. Reason is to ensure that it doesn't fly away, when loads are applied. If all loads balance, there is no problem - the structure doesn't fly away - balance. If loads, by mistake, do not balance, you will see that a balance force develops at the rigid support to take accout of the imbalance. If you really look at the rigid support - which has 0 m² contact surface, you will see that the stress there is infinite; force divided by 0 m² becomes infinite stress!. A rigid support evidenty can withstand infinite stress - no flexibility - but using clear thinking you know that your analysis is incorrect.

I have done plenty of structural analysises and rule 1 is to ensure that there is balance of forces. I have even been a teacher of structural analysis and rule 1b is to check that the pupils models are in balance. Very often they are not.

The beauty with structural analysis is that in every problem all forces balance ... all the time.

Bazant is cheating in his analysis. He assumes that the upper block suddenly becomes rigid , i.e. will not flex due to forces applied to it (by the lower structure) at contact. It means that infinite stresses are applied to the upper block at contact ... but that the upper block remains intact. Only the lower structure is affected - shock waves, crush fronts, etc. and such nonsense.

In the real world such nonsense does not happen. Actually the first object to get affected is the moving upper block. It may bounce, get damaged, etc. It always ends in arrest!

Look again at the videos. You do not see any impact upper block/lower structure. Before impact the upper block implodes, horizontal forces are applied to it inwards and sucks down the roof + mast. Very strange.

Later you see a lot of structural parts being ejected horizontally outwards from the lower structure all the time (through the smoke screen) + air jets. Gravity is a vertical force. The horizontal ejections are caused by some other energy - applied in another direction. Don't invent that compressed air ejected parts 200 meters sideways.

And the amount of dust!! To produce dust particles, you must produce a lot of fractures in the structures involved ... and it consumes plenty of energy. Every fracture is molecules ripped away from one another in the structure and at the tip of the fracture temperature is very high ... to permit the molecules to separate. Requires plenty of energy to produce dust.

We know the max energy applied if the upper block dropped. 1.2 GJ or 41 litres of diesel oil. To produce the dust you see on the videos I estimate you need 1000X + that energy. And I wonder where it came from;

Of course, I also wonder why Bazant becomes a con man to fool you. A retired professor. Why on earth should he put his nose into this? Maybe he has financial problems or expensive habits. Con men usually have those.

Anyway - Bazant knows little about structural (damage) analysis. That's clear.

Thanks again for starting the thread. A good opportunity to improve your arguments to debunk Bazant ... and NIST. So just carry on.

PS - Many posters are on my ignore list due to stupid posts in the past so there is no answer from me. Send PM (+ excuse) and I will remove you from the ignore list. Maybe you get an answer then.

Match Boxes:

It seems that there is confusion between drop and contact.

An object drops due to gravity. But it doesn't contact another object due to gravity! It contacts the other object as it happens to be in the way.

It seems also my previous experiments (Pizza Boxes, Bathroom Scale) are too difficult to execute for JREF posters and that, regardless, many persons do not understand the objective of the experiments and the results, i.e. that a smaller object dropping on a bigger object (both objects have same structure, unit weights, etc) will not destroy the bigger object.

All you need is 11 match boxes of exactly the same type (structure, unit weight, etc). Pls don't play with the matches. Keep them inside the boxes.

Start of experiment

You put 10 match boxes and put them on top of one another on a table. That is the bigger object/lower structure - quite similar to WTC1, actually.

Execution of experiment

Now, drop the 11th match box on this bigger object. The 11th match box is the upper part of WTC1 allegedly dropping down. You can chose the height of drop; the height of a match box, or whatever. Gravity will take care of the drop. The bigger object will take care of the contact as it is in the way!

Result

What is the result? Does the 11th match box destroy, one after the other, the 10 match boxes constituting the bigger object/lower structure in a 'global collapse'?

Evidently not! I hope everybody agrees!

Analysis

So why doesn't the 11th match box destroy the 10 boxes below.

Aha, lack of energy! Lack of speed?

And that's what should have happened to WTC1 on 9/11 IF the upper part actually dropped, which it didn't as no drop is seen on any video.

Conclusion

A smaller object cannot destroy a bigger object when dropping on it, when both objects have same structure and unit weight.

Exercise for advanced scientists

Explain why the 11th match box cannot destroy the 10 boxes below using simple language and correct assumptions and proper physics.

PS

Do not assume that the 11th match box is rigid and has the mass of a bowling ball. The 11th match box is not rigid and has the mass 1/10th of the lower object.

Good luck!

Anybody that can prove that the 11th match box can destroy the 10 other boxes only with assistance of gravity in a global collapse will get a prize!

A rubber ball:

If a solid rubber ball bounces on solid ground (not preposterous), why would not a solid, rigid upper block/section do the same when contacting/impacting a solid, rigid lower structure? Don't the same laws of physics that you describe apply in both cases?

Thanks for not calling me a lier.

BTW - what about NIST forgetting to analyze all possible developments after an alleged impact! Professional? Incompetent?

Sponges:

NIST should do it, i.e. test their (conspiracy) theory using sponges and pizza boxes.

The man is a joke.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

By using one's critical faculties.

Yours tell you that you can't reach temperatures of 700 degrees outside a lab and therefore welding is impossible so forgive us if we don't think you are capable of assessing his nonsense correctly, "scientist".

ETA: Also this is utterly circular.

"How do you know X? You're not an expert in that field, you said so yourself"

"Well, respected person A says it."

"Person A isn't respected and is totally nuts. Most of what he says is wrong!"

"Well there isn't any reason to think he's wrong here"

"How do you know?"

"Well, you use your critical judgement"

"But you aren't an expert, so how can you assess it with any ability?"

"Well respected person A says it..."

 

[JayUtah]

By using one's critical faculties.

As we have demonstrated, your "critical faculties" do not include the areas in which you are attempting to invoke Björkman as an expert. Your lack of credible expertise on the subject is, in fact, why you are attempting to cite outside expertise. You are not qualified to determine whether Björkman is the expert you're trying to make him out to be.

As for critical faculties outside the realm of specialized understanding, the ludicrous claims he has made, such as the impossibility of manned space flight and the impossibility of nuclear weapons, should be enough of a red flag. Those of us who are competent to assess the scientific and engineering claims he has made can draw conclusions you are not competent to draw. You may decide to disbelieve those conclusions, but you will make no headway in convincing us that your ignorant faith is better. Those who merely note that Björkman makes claims that are facially absurd can draw appropriate conclusions as well.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The key to Estonia's super-rapid sinking would be a breach of its hull. That makes sense. Hence, the hole in the starboard is an observation of interest as that would explain a lot.

A hole that is above the waterline and looks to be a result of the sinking.
there was a massive hole in the bow though when it fell off.

 

[Vixen]

Everything you've written here is a lie.

Once the water on the car deck is knee-deep, it is enough - IN THOSE CONDITIONS - cause the ship to roll, which almost all ferries seem to do. The Estonia's engineer said as much in his testimony that when he saw on the cameras the water sloshing from side-to-side on the car deck, he knew he had to get off the ship immediately because, "It would sink like a rock."

And while you're hung up on the windows, you ignore the massive staircases and air vents of the interior which sea water used to floor the superstructure.

The sinking time begins when the bow visor began to fail, and take on water, not when the ship rolled. Estonia didn't sink fast at all.

Sorry, but Sillaste got the heck out of there because he had been in the engine room with Treu and Kadak and the three had been working the bilge pumps up to their knees in water. Sillaste claims he left the engine room at 1:30 by escaping up the funnel. (Was he really down there to fix the passenger toilets?)


Strangely, a witness claimed to have seen a tall man and a short man emerge from the funnel, seemingly in an altercation, with one threatening to punch the other.


Here's a pic of Sillaste and Treu. Just sayin'.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

As we have demonstrated, your "critical faculties" do not include the areas in which you are attempting to invoke Björkman as an expert. Your lack of credible expertise on the subject is, in fact, why you are attempting to cite outside expertise. You are not qualified to determine whether Björkman is the expert you're trying to make him out to be.

As for critical faculties outside the realm of specialized understanding, the ludicrous claims he has made, such as the impossibility of manned space flight and the impossibility of nuclear weapons, should be enough of a red flag. Those of us who are competent to assess the scientific and engineering claims he has made can draw conclusions you are not competent to draw. You may decide to disbelieve those conclusions, but you will make no headway in convincing us that your ignorant faith is better. Those who merely note that Björkman makes claims that are facially absurd can draw appropriate conclusions as well.

It's worse than that though, because the sheer scale of errors Bjorkman makes means that even an interested layman such as myself can point out why he is wrong in many of his statements.

 

[zooterkin]

Sure, the JAIC looks at the bow visor and car ramp in great voluminous detail. I'll grant you that.

If you had a punctured tyre, and found a nail sticking out of it, would you keep looking for the cause of the puncture?

 

[Vixen]

Again, you are relying on the physics ability of a man who thinks nuclear weapons don't exist. The sheer level of ignorance of basic fundemental physics that belief must entail renders him utterly incapable of being an expert.

You're relying on the engineering ability of a man who thinks that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers can be accurately modelled by dropping a bowling ball onto a stack of pizza boxes. The level of ignorance of basic engineering principles (as in, I understand why this is insane and I know virtually nothing about engineering) involved to sustain this belief is so vast that he cannot be relied upon as an expert in engineering.

You are doing EXACTLY the equivalent of saying that we should listen to the drug knowledge of a doctor who thinks that germs are not real. The situations are not only close enough to be directly analogous they map perfectly.

He doesn't think there was an 'atom' bomb. Who cares? I am not interested in personalities.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sorry, but Sillaste got the heck out of there because he had been in the engine room with Treu and Kadak and the three had been working the bilge pumps up to their knees in water. Sillaste claims he left the engine room at 1:30 by escaping up the funnel. (Was he really down there to fix the passenger toilets?)


Strangely, a witness claimed to have seen a tall man and a short man emerge from the funnel, seemingly in an altercation, with one threatening to punch the other.


Here's a pic of Sillaste and Treu. Just sayin'.

Your point?

 

[Andy_Ross]

He doesn't think there was an 'atom' bomb. Who cares? I am not interested in personalities.

What does that have to do with 'personalities'?

 

[JayUtah]

He doesn't think there was an 'atom' bomb. Who cares? I am not interested in personalities.

That's not a personality flaw. That's a denial of objective reality. You specifically said you relied upon Björkman only for factual statements. He is demonstrably out of touch with fact.

 

[Vixen]

How well known is water in the ventilation pipes causing explosions?

So it did flood? you claimed just a few posts ago that it didn't flood.

I was laughing at London John trying to claim Oceanos was flooded the same way as The Herald of Free Enterprise and by extension the Estonia.


If you have a ruddy great hole in the starboard of course you are likely to sink quite quickly.

 

[Vixen]

No not 'end of subject'

Where do they state this?

The report spends a large part of chapter 3 and all of chapter 18 in explaining the ships construction, condition and compliance with regulation and certification and why it wasn't in compliance and why this wasn't known.

How is that saying it was 'seaworthy end of subject'?

Pure descriptive narrative. No drill down into care and maintenance.