• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
abaddon said:
Apparently, 5 years of physics.

Back in the day, from the age of twelve to seventeen, I studied physics. I would not claim that as any expertise in physics, but some, it seems, would. When I rocked into uni, it was apparent that I knew nothing. Shock to the system, I knew, But my point is that by the time I was 17 I had five years of physics education if one wishes to paint it in that way. But that would be a dishonest way for me or anyone to paint it because OMG when one gets into the reality one finds how much you don't know. Nevertheless, at age 17, I could honestly claim to have had five years of physics under my belt.

How odd. It's marketing. This is not the first time that a claim has been made to imaginary expertise. That's how religions happen.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. I never claimed I was an expert. JayUtah demanded to know whether I was taught it at school.
 
Vixen said:
Braidwood and Fellows supply their references. Easy to follow them and look up them.
Click to expand...

Which references specifically are the lab reports? List them, please.

I do that kind of contract analysis all the time. A report I prepare for a client is generally only delivered to that client, and is considered confidential and propriety either to him, or to me, or both. The notion that a document I prepare will be available to third parties as a reference is fairly comical.
 
Vixen said:
Stop lying. I never claimed I was an expert.
Click to expand...

And you aren't. But you claimed enough proficiency to be able to address the physics implied by the points you were making.

JayUtah demanded to know whether I was taught it at school.
Click to expand...

No, I asked what your qualifications in physics were after you protested my characterization of you having only a lay understanding. You said five years of education, which led many to believe it was five years in college, equivalent to an undergraduate degree in the subject. It was only after quite some cajoling that you finally admitted it was when you were a child.

You clearly attempted to overstate your actual expertise in physics.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
The windows were designed for a hip that was upright and sailing, not one heeling on to it's side in a storm. I posted a video of a windows breaking because of storm action.

Oceanos flooded through a ruptured sea pipe, not through ventilators.

there are no 'ventilation pipes' below water level, the pipes are for taking in sea water for cooling, domestic use and the fire main.

Ventilators are by their nature above the waterline and a lot larger than 'pipes'.

You don't have a clue.
Click to expand...

It's the Swedish experts' theory come 2002, when they realised the 'sinking by smashing windows' was a crock.
 
Vixen said:
I am at a loss as to why you still have a misapprehension Hoffmeister 'was testing for sabotage',...
Click to expand...

Because when I asked for people who shared your belief that it was sabotage, you pointed to Hoffmeister. Hoffmeister wasn't explicitly testing for sabotage, but the evidence for the kind of sabotage you were proposing -- explosives such as that speculated by Braidwood -- would have been immediately apparent to him. Thus we can rule out sabotage by explosives on the basis of Hoffmeister's findings.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
I made no such claim. You claim MS Estonia must have sunk stern first because there was a breach in the hull. I pointed out that there are other reasons for a ship to sink stern first besides a hull breach in that area. Your further claim that ships predominantly sink bow first had nothing to do with my rebuttal, so I ignored it.
Click to expand...

Stop twisting my words. I said nothing of the sort.
 
Vixen said:
12.6.1

JAIC


Enter the broken windows, never proven or demonstrated, never calculated, glass type never analysed.

IN the scenario above, we have the Estonia floating on it superstructure whilst the ingress of water slowly displaced the air via the windows of deck 4 and 5, presumed broken on reaching the water. However, this is only a hypothesis to overcome the problem of water on the car deck not being sufficient to capsize the boat.


We saw with the Oceanos that after some 18hours, it finally capsized and sank extremely rapidly after that point.


Yet JAIC has Estonia floating on its superstructure from list 40° at 0124 until finally sinking for good at 0148: A whole 25 minutes of the 35 minute super-rapid sinking with an intact hull.

As we know in that scenario,. once it capsized it should have toppled over turtle, as its hull was intact, according to the JAIC.
Click to expand...

Water entered the hull through ventilators, engine room air intakes and exhausts, stairways and hatches. Above the waterline ships are full of holes.

Only you think that the only water was on the car deck or in through the windows.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
JAIC did not declare the ship seaworthy or in good condition, they reported the certification and report findings that was in place when the ship sailed.

JAIC commissioned reports on the parts they had concerns over.
Their conclusions were the same, locks and hinges failed, they differ only in the detail of the order they failed in.

You haven't read the report at all have you?
Click to expand...

I just quoted, and do read it:

5.2 Status of the vessel on departure

On departure from Tallinn on 27 September the ESTONIA was seaworthy and properly manned. There were no outstanding items either from the authorities or from the classification society's surveys. The maintenance standard of the vessel was good as witnessed by various instances.
Click to expand...


What? "They differ only in the detail of the order they failed in".


Oh well, next time someone plays something out of tune or speaks poor French, it'll be because the notes or the words 'differ only in the detail of the order they were in'.

The JAIC were only required to get three things in the right order. Public inquiry and all that. Three years to work it out.
 
Vixen said:
12.6.1

JAIC


Enter the broken windows, never proven or demonstrated, never calculated, glass type never analysed.

IN the scenario above, we have the Estonia floating on it superstructure whilst the ingress of water slowly displaced the air via the windows of deck 4 and 5, presumed broken on reaching the water. However, this is only a hypothesis to overcome the problem of water on the car deck not being sufficient to capsize the boat.


We saw with the Oceanos that after some 18hours, it finally capsized and sank extremely rapidly after that point.


Yet JAIC has Estonia floating on its superstructure from list 40° at 0124 until finally sinking for good at 0148: A whole 25 minutes of the 35 minute super-rapid sinking with an intact hull.

As we know in that scenario,. once it capsized it should have toppled over turtle, as its hull was intact, according to the JAIC.
Click to expand...

Water entered the hull through ventilators, engine room air intakes and exhausts, stairways and hatches. Above the waterline ships are full of holes.

Only you think that the only water was on the car deck or in through the windows.

How long do you think it should take for the hull to flood? 35 minutes is not 'super rapid' Ships sink so fast that the crew don't have time to get off, they can go down in just a few minutes.

We do not know it would have 'turned turtle'. In fact we know it obviously didn't.
 
JayUtah said:
It's an allegation of fact, no matter how much you want to dress it up as an idle opinion. You can present no credible evidence for sabotage, so why should your allegation be taken seriously?



You suggested that others shared your view that sabotage was likely. When I asked for the details, you handed me Hoffmeister's report. That report says nothing about sabotage. It says that the relevant locks were in poor condition for various reasons that clearly took quite some time to develop.
Click to expand...

What do you think IMV means? It means "in my view".


The issue of Hoffmeister is not to do with my view it is to do with his factual findings vis-a-vis the JAIC's ones.


Clear now?
 
JayUtah said:
And you aren't. But you claimed enough proficiency to be able to address the physics implied by the points you were making.



No, I asked what your qualifications in physics were after you protested my characterization of you having only a lay understanding. You said five years of education, which led many to believe it was five years in college, equivalent to an undergraduate degree in the subject. It was only after quite some cajoling that you finally admitted it was when you were a child.

You clearly attempted to overstate your actual expertise in physics.
Click to expand...

Stop being less than frank. You assumed it was a junior school and applicable to all children in the UK.
 
JayUtah said:
Because when I asked for people who shared your belief that it was sabotage, you pointed to Hoffmeister. Hoffmeister wasn't explicitly testing for sabotage, but the evidence for the kind of sabotage you were proposing -- explosives such as that speculated by Braidwood -- would have been immediately apparent to him. Thus we can rule out sabotage by explosives on the basis of Hoffmeister's findings.
Click to expand...

Citation please. You are a stranger to the truth if you are claiming I said Hoffmeister shared my views, whatever you think they might be.
 
Vixen said:
The survivors did report hearing a series of explosions, one immediately after the other.
Click to expand...

No, they did not report hearing explosions.

If there were explosions how can the explosives still be there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom