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

[Andy_Ross]

1) Where was the breach in the hull of the Oceanos? (I don't think you know what "breach in the hull" actually means)

2) Why is a) a sinking caused by water ingress through a pipe any materially different from b) a sinking caused by water ingress through the bow opening? I'll wait........

3) Where in your (idiotic) insistence that "ships which capsize always turn over completely almost immediately" did you stipulate the precise manner of their capsizing?


Oh, and LOL at you stating "Oceanos did not sink because of flooding", then quoting a document which states that...... Oceanos sank because of flooding. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


This is pitiful. Your posts are a sick joke.

Oceanos sank because a sea pipe on the waste disposal system burst and she started to flood in the machinery spaces. There was no explosion in a 'ventilator pipe' that blew a hole in the hull.
After power was lost there was no way to control the flooding.
it is known that the waste system was in disrepair and was supposed to have had repairs completed before it sailed.
Epirotiki Lines were not known for the quality of their ships, management or officers. They had lost two other ships in the three years before the Oceanos sank. One of them, the company's flagship Pegasus only two months before. and MV Jupiter, three years before.

Pegasus caught fire and sank in shallow water off Venice and was declared a total loss (the second time as under the name Sundancer it hit a rock entering harbour and was able to get alongside before sinking against the dock ). Jupiter sank 15 minutes after leaving port, it was struck by an Italian freighter entering port. The collision tore a 4.5 metres (15 ft) by 12 metres (39 ft) hole in Jupiter's port side. Within 40 minutes the ship had sunk vertically and stern first in 82 metres (269 ft) of water.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oceanos sank because a sea pipe on the waste disposal system burst and she started to flood in the machinery spaces. There was no explosion that blew a hole in the hull.
After power was lost there was no way to control the flooding.

Exactly.

Both the Oceanos and the Estonia sank because their hulls became flooded with seawater. Their modes of sinking are extremely similar. And in both instances, the free surface effect of the flooded water caused fundamental and irrecoverable stability failure, leading to capsize. In both instances, the ship sank from that 90-degree capsized position. Neither ship "quickly turned over altogether", and neither ship "floated upside down for a long time".

 

[Andy_Ross]

If I was going to sink a ship I would break a few sea pipes. I would choose the ones on the return side of the engine or generator heat exchangers, that way I would have many thousands of gallons an hour being pumped in to the machinery spaces.

 

[LondonJohn]

If I was going to sink a ship I would break a few sea pipes. I would choose the ones on the return side of the engine or generator heat exchangers, that way I would have many thousands of gallons an hour being pumped in to the machinery spaces.

Next you'll be telling us you just happened to have been on board the Estonia that niggghhhhh...... hang on a moment!

 

[Steve]

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

This one needs to be laminated as a modern ISF classic!!

What now? Nukes don't have personalities?

 

[phiwum]

Why wouldn't you bring back the bolt, a key piece of evidence as to why 852 sank to their deaths in the most horrifying manner of mass panic and hysteria?

According to the JAIC the accident was caused by the Atlantic lock and the two side locks all failing sequentially as a result of a single strong wave. As all the Atlantic bolt does is to ease some of the tension in the side locks but in reality by hardy any amount at all, the side locks together with their hydraulic arms should have then loosened by a second strong wave, not all of the locks all together from one.

Surely, if the bolt is in good shape, it's not a key piece of evidence regarding what went wrong. At best, it's evidence that it wasn't the failure of the bolt.

 

[Matthew Best]

You haven't had to deal with him interactively; we have. His worldview is dominated by the notion that he (and often only he) is right. Maintaining that worldview requires him to misrepresent facts that are otherwise easily discoverable, but in any case known to other practitioners. His approach is exactly the opposite of curiosity. He believes he already knows all that there is to know on the subjects he promotes.

Wait - we are still talking about Björkman, right?

 

[Matthew Best]

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

When he agrees with Vixen, of course!

 

[JayUtah]

Wait - we are still talking about Björkman, right?

The same traits can be found in many conspiracy theorists.

 

[Matthew Best]

The same traits can be found in many conspiracy theorists.

No kidding.

 

[phiwum]

If your car was in an accident, the police would certainly want to know if it was roadworthy. In the accident report it will state whether or not your vehicle was roadworthy (passed its MOT), thus Person B can't come along and claim it was not in a fit state for the road.

Of course they could claim it wasn't roadworthy!

A typical inspection occurs, what, once a year? I just had one done today. They didn't inspect the steering assembly, for instance. It's conceivable there's a bit of wear in there that could be serious, though nothing that they'd notice while performing the inspection.

Moreover, even if they really did inspect the vehicle to see that it was roadworthy on Dec. 3, it doesn't follow that it's roadworthy on Dec. 4. At best, it's likely to be so.[1] By Dec. 2 of next year, that likelihood has dropped rather a lot.

[1] I could hit a pothole tonight and put a bubble on my tires which increases the odds of a blowout, for instance. The tires were fine today, but they might not be tomorrow.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Of course they could claim it wasn't roadworthy!

A typical inspection occurs, what, once a year? I just had one done today. They didn't inspect the steering assembly, for instance. It's conceivable there's a bit of wear in there that could be serious, though nothing that they'd notice while performing the inspection.

Moreover, even if they really did inspect the vehicle to see that it was roadworthy on Dec. 3, it doesn't follow that it's roadworthy on Dec. 4. At best, it's likely to be so.[1] By Dec. 2 of next year, that likelihood has dropped rather a lot.

[1] I could hit a pothole tonight and put a bubble on my tires which increases the odds of a blowout, for instance. The tires were fine today, but they might not be tomorrow.

Yup, cars with valid MOTs break down all the time. If they didn't have a valid MOT they wouldn't be on the road anyway!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Obviously not but your desperate attempt to paint Bjorkman as being like some idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about re Estonia doesn't work, as from what I see, his analysis and explanations are perfectly sound, conservative and not at all controversial.

OTOH I am sure he is a pesky obstreperous git who rubbed people up the wrong way. Doesn't cancel out his knowledge.

You haven't vetted his knowledge. You don't know how. To be fair, I don't either, but then I don't present his claims and demand others take them as expert testimony.

I *have* vetted his integrity, even within his own field. He has lied about his own career. He has lied about what international maritime organizations have said about his own designs. He has lied, specifically, about having personally taken a ferry of the same design as Estonia out to sea and shown that it cannot have sunk the way the JAIC report claimed. He made this claim on a Flat Earth forum -yes, he posts to those, too-. I linked you to that thread earlier. No, I am not going to do so again.

ETA: And this leaves aside the fact that you *have* relied on him for things other than ship safety engineering. You're still quoting his whole "eight (or nine)" bit uncritically.

 

[junkshop]

Yup, cars with valid MOTs break down all the time. If they didn't have a valid MOT they wouldn't shouldn't be on the road anyway!

Edited to recognise that some consider the law, especially this one, to be optional.

 

[phiwum]

Like early stone age man who thought the shadows on the cave wall were the outside world.

I learn more about (pre-)history in this thread!

 

[Vixen]

How long did Oceanos take to sink?

How big was the hole in the Estonia?

What would be the flood rate through a hole that size?

You do know the hole on the Estonia was above the waterline?

It reaches down to the swimming pool and sauna, which are on deck 0.

 

[Vixen]

3.2.10 Maintenance, modifications and damage
3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation
3.6 Certificates and inspections
3.7 Operational characteristics of the vessel

Do you need any more?

It does not begin to mention the maintenance of the bow visor. The independent University of Hamburg (H Hoffmeister) appointed by Meyer-Werft found the various components to have been worn, stress-fractured and corroded long before the accident.

It's conclusion is that its Finite Element (FEM) calculations of the side locks and bottom lock shows that the failure was in the sequence of first the starboard lock, then the port side and the bottom (Atlantic) lock last of all.

This is in direct contradiction tot he JAIC that has the Atlantic Lock failing first, thereby increasing the stress tension on the other two locks.

It is a shame the Atlantic lock bolt was thrown back onto the seabed and the bolt of Diana II used instead as the facsimile for the JAIC.

 

[Mojo]

It does not begin to mention the maintenance of the bow visor. The independent University of Hamburg (H Hoffmeister) appointed by Meyer-Werft found the various components to have been worn, stress-fractured and corroded long before the accident.

It's conclusion is that its Finite Element (FEM) calculations of the side locks and bottom lock shows that the failure was in the sequence of first the starboard lock, then the port side and the bottom (Atlantic) lock last of all.

This is in direct contradiction tot he JAIC that has the Atlantic Lock failing first, thereby increasing the stress tension on the other two locks.

It is a shame the Atlantic lock bolt was thrown back onto the seabed and the bolt of Diana II used instead as the facsimile for the JAIC.

I don’t see any evidence of sabotage there.

 

[Vixen]

How could passengers see the lock being hammered in when it is behind the bow ramp at the bottom of the visor?
How could anyone hammer in the bolt when it was behind the ramp?

Once again you are merely improvising.

Master Mariner, Arvo Myyryläinen, and Master Mariner, Laur - who was also one of the key members of JAIC concurred with him, in his police witness statement, that the bolt was indeed hammered home as a matter of course.

Stop contradicting established facts/on-field experts with your own guesswork interpretation.

Where is this mentioned in the JAIC Report?

 

[zooterkin]

How long did Oceanos take to sink?

How big was the hole in the Estonia?

What would be the flood rate through a hole that size?

You do know the hole on the Estonia was above the waterline?

It reaches down to the swimming pool and sauna, which are on deck 0.

Which question is that supposed to answer, and what about the other questions?