• 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.
Captain_Swoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

The JAIC never looked at 'water in the pipes' or the ventilators. It did not investigate any of the above.

When will it dawn on you that the 'bow visor was hit by a strong wave' is a soporific put out to cover a horrible accident that had to remain classified.
 
Vixen said:
What do you think IMV means? It means "in my view".
Click to expand...

Yes. And any lawyer will tell you that adding "in my view" to an allegation of fact does not stop it from being an allegation of fact. Well, at least my lawyer does.

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?
Click to expand...

Nope. I've discussed his factual findings at length, and you seem entirely uninterested in them. But if you finally want to concede that Hoffmeister's factual findings have nothing to do with sabotage, and rule out sabotage by explosives, go right ahead. Then you're back to needing to supply evidence in favor of your "view" that sabotage was the most likely cause.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

Citation please of where the JAIC mention any of those, together with their calculations and analysis.
 
Vixen said:
It's the Swedish experts' theory come 2002, when they realised the 'sinking by smashing windows' was a crock.
Click to expand...

Windows breaking we’re not the primary cause of the sinking but they would increase the flood rate.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes. And any lawyer will tell you that adding "in my view" to an allegation of fact does not stop it from being an allegation of fact. Well, at least my lawyer does.



Nope. I've discussed his factual findings at length, and you seem entirely uninterested in them. But if you finally want to concede that Hoffmeister's factual findings have nothing to do with sabotage, and rule out sabotage by explosives, go right ahead. Then you're back to needing to supply evidence in favor of your "view" that sabotage was the most likely cause.
Click to expand...

Hoffmeister's results are to do with exactly what he says it is to do with. It was presented to the JAIC and it was for them to decide how to interpret them. In the event, they simply ignored any challenges and stuck to Bildt's stated edict on Day One.
 
Vixen said:
You seemed to think that problems in the engine room and 'pipes' was a magic recipe for 'most disasters'.
Click to expand...

Most ship sinking are caused by flooding in the machinery spaces.
There are lots of holes in the ship below the water line in the machinery spaces.
 
Vixen said:
Stop being less than frank. You assumed it was a junior school and applicable to all children in the UK.
Click to expand...

It was a junior school, in that it wasn't teaching physics at a college level, and its applicability to others in the U.K. was what other U.K. residents testified.

You are not competent in physics. The rest of the discussion is just you being butthurt about it.
 
Vixen said:
Hoffmeister's results are to do with exactly what he says it is to do with. It was presented to the JAIC and it was for them to decide how to interpret them. In the event, they simply ignored any challenges and stuck to Bildt's stated edict on Day One.
Click to expand...

None of that addresses the points I raised. Try again.
 
Vixen said:
Untrue.
Click to expand...

How many forensic engineering investigations have you participated in again?

The Report was released to the general public and the Swedish government set up a ministry of information to persuade people to accept it.
Click to expand...

All reports completed under the auspices of a public contract are released to the public. That is not a guarantee that the public will understand them. They are professional reports prepared within the auspices of the profession. They are not intended to be remedial or didactic. That the report doesn't teach you how ships are built is not their fault.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Windows breaking we’re not the primary cause of the sinking but they would increase the flood rate.
Click to expand...

There were over 700 cabins. So not only do the windows need to smash but the dividers to each cabin, too. You saw how the divers had to break into some cabins with a jemmy, so not so easily smashed down.


In addition, there is no evidence the car ramp was open.
 
Vixen said:
You seemed to think that problems in the engine room and 'pipes' was a magic recipe for 'most disasters'.
Click to expand...

Most ship sinking are caused by flooding in the machinery spaces.
There are lots of holes in the ship below the water line in the machinery spaces.
If a through-hull fitting or sea pipe fails and the flooding isn’t stopped or contained before the water level causes a power loss the ship is doomed.

For example on a ship the size of the Estonia, A broken outflow from the main cooling circuit would pump around 7 or 8 cubic meters of water a minute in to the engine room.
 
Vixen said:
I just quoted, and do read it:




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.
Click to expand...

As the JAIC obviously didn’t inspect the ship before it sank they can only report on the certification and inspection record of the ship.
They note where the reports were lacking, known defects and the lack of SOLUS certification on the collision bulkhead.

What else could they do after the ship was sunk?
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC never looked at 'water in the pipes' or the ventilators. It did not investigate any of the above.

When will it dawn on you that the 'bow visor was hit by a strong wave' is a soporific put out to cover a horrible accident that had to remain classified.
Click to expand...

Do you think that some magic would stop the water entering the machinery spaces and lower decks through the many openings above the water line?
A ship is not watertight from above, not even a submarine when it is surface running.
Ships have very large openings for the large volume of air required to keep them running and habitable and allow crew and passenger access.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please of where the JAIC mention any of those, together with their calculations and analysis.
Click to expand...

Why do they need mentioning?
We know that ships require large openings for the large volumes of air required for the machinery and habitation, for exhausts and access.
No ship is watertight from above.
 
Vixen said:
There were over 700 cabins. So not only do the windows need to smash but the dividers to each cabin, too. You saw how the divers had to break into some cabins with a jemmy, so not so easily smashed down.


In addition, there is no evidence the car ramp was open.
Click to expand...

Most of the cabins were internal without windows. Most large windows were to public spaces.
None of the stairs, walls, doors or dividers in the superstructure were watertight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom