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

[Andy_Ross]

Yet Oceanos took 18 hours to sink and all of the passengers had time to evacuate and be rescued.

You don't find it at all eye-brow rising that the JAIC never investigated the reason Estonia could possibly have sank so fast.

All is well. All is well.

Estonia sank fast because it was in a storm with huge waves pushing water in to the ship through the missing bows.

Oceanos was flooding through a ruptured sea pipe until it had capsized far enough to flood through other openings.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh, and Oceanos didn't float on its superstructure, either, it just listed heavily to port on its hull. Finally, once all the air - or some 85% of it - in the superstructure was replaced by water, then it sank quite rapidly as per the last fifteen minutes as captured by ABC news.

What does 'float on it's superstructure' even mean?

 

[LondonJohn]

Citation please of where it is claimed Hoffmeister was investigating sabotage.


I think the only reference is in Mojo's head.

*sigh*

No, that's the point Vixen. The question is: on what basis are you able to (credibly) claim sabotage?

Because nothing you've produced so far either proves, demonstrates, suggests or necessitates sabotage.

So again: how the hell are you able to support your claim that this disaster was caused by sabotage?

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, you said keep nearer to the coastline. Which coastline would that be?

I suggest you look at an atlas before answering, 'Same as the Helsinki ships'.

Where have I mentioned Helsinki?

 

[Mojo]

Citation please of where it is claimed Hoffmeister was investigating sabotage.


I think the only reference is in Mojo's head.

Do you really not understand what I posted about this, or are you just lying? What I said was that it doesn’t support your conclusion of sabotage.

The report concluded that the visor failed because of long-term corrosion. Whatever their remit, this was their conclusion. If this was not what they thought had caused the failure they would not have put it as the conclusion of their report, no matter what their remit was.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I spelt out the conclusions Hoffmeister of Hamburg University came to. You can read it in his own words and as signed off by him.

It says fatigue and corrosion did it.
How does that support any kind of sabotage or explosives?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and Oceanos didn't float on its superstructure, either, it just listed heavily to port on its hull. Finally, once all the air - or some 85% of it - in the superstructure was replaced by water, then it sank quite rapidly as per the last fifteen minutes as captured by ABC news.

Why do you keep making this term up? What does it even mean??

Oh and good-o: we're back to this bollocks about "the air being replaced by water" as some necessary precondition of sinking LOLOL. You know, you really should try to learn about basic principles of buoyancy before attempting any more of this stuff. It would be in everyone's best interests if you did so.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yet Oceanos took 18 hours to sink and all of the passengers had time to evacuate and be rescued.

I thought it sank in 35 seconds, I mean 35 inches, I mean 35 feet.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Citation please of where it is claimed Hoffmeister was investigating sabotage.


I think the only reference is in Mojo's head.

Again, you attempted to use it to support your claim of sabotage.

If it didn't find any evidence for sabotage how can you use it to support your claim for sabotage?

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought it sank in 35 seconds, I mean 35 inches, I mean 35 feet.

But then again, what fraction of a degree is 35 seconds?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Notwithstanding anything else....

....you haven't noticed (have you?) that the proposed initial failure points mentioned here are not "the side locks" - and in any case, as I've pointed out to you twice now already, there was no such thing as "side locks" on the bow visor: the side attachments were the two hydraulic pistons/cylinders which raised and lowered the visor.

No, there were two hydraulically operated bolt locks on the sides of the visor.

Chapter 3 The Vessel
From section 3.3.2 Detailed technical description of the bow visor

The side locks consisted of two lugs, attached to the aft bulkhead of the visor and extending, when the visor was closed, into two recesses in the front bulkhead of the hull, one at each side of the ramp opening. The visor lugs overlapped a horizontal stringer. In the closed position, hydraulically-operated bolts engaged holes in the lugs. The arrangement is shown in Figure 3.9. The hydraulic bolt installations were similar to that of the bottom lock, i.e. a bolt moving in a housing and, when extended, engaging a support bushing. The visor lug inserted between the bolt housing and the support bushing. The bolt was moved by a hydraulic actuator. A spring-loaded mechanical plunger was installed. The position of the bolt, fully retracted and fully extended, was sensed by magnetic position sensors.

ETA the two hydraulic pistons/cylinders which raised and lowered the visor are attached near the top of the visor

 

[Mojo]

But then again, what fraction of a degree is 35 seconds?

About the same fraction of a degree as Vixen has in physics.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, there were two hydraulically operated bolt locks on the sides of the visor.

Chapter 3 The Vessel
From section 3.3.2 Detailed technical description of the bow visor

Oh damn, my misunderstanding. And my apologies to Vixen on this specific matter of the side locks.

But no apologies on the much more germane fact which is that the Hamburg Uni report suggests that the initial failure was in the hinges at the top edge of the bow visor.


(Incidentally, that Hamburg Uni report was produced back in 1996 - under instruction from the shipyard, of course..... But upon what primary data and/or physical evidence would/could this sort of unofficial report have been based?)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh damn, my misunderstanding. And my apologies to Vixen on this specific matter of the side locks.

But no apologies on the much more germane fact which is that the Hamburg Uni report suggests that the initial failure was in the hinges at the top edge of the bow visor.


(Incidentally, that Hamburg Uni report was produced back in 1996 - under instruction from the shipyard, of course..... But upon what primary data and/or physical evidence would/could this sort of unofficial report have been based?)

Two additional hydraulic cylinders were installed at each side to push forward on the visor side lock lugs when the visor was to open.
This installation was intended to assist in breaking the visor open in case it had become stuck in the closed position due to icing.
These did not raise the visor, they just pushed on the locking lug to provide extra force at the start of movement.

side lock showing additional hydraulic ram

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is a statement of fact.

EFD

Is the "fact" that he threw the bolt back into the sea traceable to any other source than EFD?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

We don't know the bolt was intact as there is no photograph of it.

Yet you do know it was thrown into the sea despite there being no photograph of that either. Nice double standard you have there.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is claiming there was no design fault, as concluded by JAIC to have been the cause of the entire accident.

Can you show us what the JAIC said the flaw in the design was and exactly how this report contradicts it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You can also see further down a towel lodged in the breach of what is presumed the swimming pool area.

Presumed by you. Because the only place you can find anything that resembled a towel is in a swimming pool, right?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This was a normally bad autumn storm in the Baltic, not Shakespeare's Tempest, with sorcerers and magicians able to conjure up a supernatural wave cast by the diabolical hand of the wicked one.

And a dozen previous ferries had suffered damage in previous years. The Baltic can be dangerous even in "normal" weather. Just because it's normal doesn't mean it's safe. Some of those other ferries only survived because they reacted to the danger they were in. They didn't continue at full speed into 6m seas.

 

[Stamuel]

I spelt out the conclusions Hoffmeister of Hamburg University came to. You can read it in his own words and as signed off by him.

If you are confused about why this your arguments are considered conspiracy theories, your treatment of this report is a good illustration.

One classic conspiracy theory inference chain goes like this:

1. Someone disagrees with the official report.
2. Therefore, the official report is wrong.
3. Therefore, the official report is a deliberate lie and a cover-up.
4. Therefore, the official report is part of a larger conspiracy.
5. Therefore, my specific conspiracy claims are true.

A conspiracy theorist generally won't spell out their reasoning, simply jumping from 1 to 5, but connecting 1 to 5 requires the whole chain. Notice that while 3 to 4 is not terrible, the inferences from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 4 to 5, are invalid, obviously fallacious.

For 1 to 2: If X disagrees with the official report, X might be wrong. Conspiracy theorists just fallaciously conclude it is always the official report that is wrong.

For 2 to 3: An official report, even if it is wrong, might have either made an honest mistake or had incomplete or misleading information. Conspiracy theorists treat this as impossible and conclude that all errors are deliberate cover-ups.

From 4 to 5: Even if there is a conspiracy and a cover-up, that doesn't mean everything a conspiracy theorist claims is true, especially since conspiracy theorists usually support several mutually contradictory theories at once.

Your treatment of the report fits this pattern perfectly. Hoffmeister concluded that the bow visor suffered from pre-existing damage to most of its connections due to fatigue over years and that because of this damage, those connections failed during the storm and the bow visor broke free. All of this agrees with the JAIC report. It all suggests a lack of sabotage, bombs, submarine collisions, melting by radioactive material, or opening mid-voyage.

The only disagreement with JAIC is the less significant conclusion about the most probable order in which the connections broke. From my understanding, modelling something like this accurately would be difficult in the first place, so you would expect different models to give slightly different results. This is so far from supporting any claim of misconduct or conspiracy it is hilarious.

And this conspiracy theorist reasoning shows up in several other arguments in the thread. You claim as proof of your conclusions:

• Each instance where the JAIC did not include every single word of a witness in their final report--even when the JAIC conclusions are consistent with what the witnesses said;
• Each random ship captain who says they are kinda suspicious--regardless of the basis of their suspicions;
• Each news report that reports details differently.

It is bad reasoning, but more specifically, it is conspiracy theorist reasoning.