• 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.
Vixen said:
Place that dark bit on the diameter of a circle so that it is resting on the 180° line. This represents an imaginary flat horizon. So the left side, port, is circa 45 ° and the right, starboard circa 135°. Imagine the letter U then the top of the far corners represents the boat shape at 45° and 135°.

That's all.
Click to expand...
So if the port side is listing at 45 degrees, the starboard side must therefore be at right angles to the port side?

Is that your claim?
 
Vixen said:
It supports my claim that Carl Bildt anounced on day one that it was the fault of the bow visor and car ramp without any evidence at all as of that point and that was the only aspect the JAIC 'investigated' and it rigidly stuck to this conclusion, despite challenges from the shipbuilder, Meyer Werft.

The effect, as no doubt Bildt intended, was to 'manage people's expectations' because from that moment there was a massive deluge of The Herald of Free Enterprise comparisions, with the BBC even producing a Panorama programme making recommendations, of the same sort as Justice Sheen in The Herald of Free Enterprise, 1987, aftermath, little realising that the German, Swedish and Finnish built car ro-ro's already had all of those recommendations and in addition, the senior officers and ship owners of The Herald of Free Enterprise were prosecuted for gross negligence and gross manslaughter.

So fait à compli for the culprits. In the meantime the people are fobbed off with a plastic The Herald of Free Enterprise but with a booby prize, no relatives recovered and brought home, no means of redress.
Click to expand...

How does it do this? He is not mentioned in that quote.

German, Swedish and Finnish built ferries did not have all the features recommended after the HOFE report.
 
Vixen said:
The horizon, in my illustration to help you visualise.

Obviously it hasn't been very successful.
Click to expand...

A line drawn vertical through the centre line of a ship perpendicular to the horizon is taken to be zero degrees and the horizon either side of a perpendicular drawn through the centreline of the ship is taken to be 90 degrees port and 90 degrees starboard.

That is why the Clinometers are marked the way they are.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Bluebottle: "How do you know it is 8 o'clock Eccles?"
Eccles: "I got it written down on a piece of paper."
Click to expand...

There is a serious point here, which is that Vixen has an exciting story of people reporting that particular officers had been rescued who could not later be found, but the thing worth noting is that the reports are secondhand. It's all "I heard that so-and-so was with the group at such-and-such hospital" and not "I saw him" or "He was on the same helicopter as me" or "we spoke on the rescue ship".

The story Vixen is trying to weave brings in her claim (which now appears even more tenuous) that Bildt knew before anyone else what had caused the sinking, but greatly expands it to imply that he (or whichever baddies you like) knew straight away what had happened, knew how it had happened, knew that it had not happened by accident and knew which people were to blame for it. So fast indeed that any suspects who survived could be identified, separated and spirited away before anyone could say for certain that they had been among the rescued.

It's classic CT paranoia where the baddies are almost magically hypercompetent. It's that stupid.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A line drawn vertical through the centre line of a ship perpendicular to the horizon is taken to be zero degrees and the horizon either side of a perpendicular drawn through the centreline of the ship is taken to be 90 degrees port and 90 degrees starboard.

That is why the Clinometers are marked the way they are.
Click to expand...

Vixen, why is this so hard for you to understand?
 
Maybe these will help.

Angles of Heel to port from 0 degrees to 40 degrees

iq6q5YEm.png


Angles of heel this time to starboard from 0 degrees all the way to 180 degrees

1qsiOFvm.jpg
 
SpitfireIX said:
How is my argument different?
Click to expand...

You claimed that Björkman was a Hiroshima/Nagasaki casualities denier and therefore he is cancelled as a source on Estonia.

The alternative claim was that Björkman was sceptical there was an Atom Bomb on the grounds of technological and logistical issues, which is different from inhumane denial of human suffering.
 
Vixen said:
You claimed that Björkman was a Hiroshima/Nagasaki casualities denier and therefore he is cancelled as a source on Estonia.

The alternative claim was that Björkman was sceptical there was an Atom Bomb on the grounds of technological and logistical issues, which is different from inhumane denial of human suffering.
Click to expand...

No, he thinks that it's to do with the basic physics. Same with 9/11. How can you trust what he claims about the Estonia when he denies the reality of basic physics?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Obviously.

I think it's fair to say probably everyone else regards zero degrees as straight up and 180° as straight down. You have them horizontal.

It doesn't help explain what the concepts of port and starboard mean to you when you have them at 45° and 135° to the horizontal.
Click to expand...

What I was trying to explain was that stability is based on centre of gravity/buoyancy, together with the metacentric height, and not on 'mast upright.

Let me quote Taggart from Sheen again:

"I would think to achieve 20° in most vessels there are so many problems in passenger vessels with accesses within the ship to below decks that effectively your curve is terminated because of progressive flooding problems well before 20°of heel. That is not 20° angle of heel from upright; that is 20° from the equilibrium position . . . So that you are talking about possibly 27° or more.
Click to expand...

In other words, centre of gravity can be at an actual 7° angle to begin with as per the boat, so a list measured at an angle in actual terms is M + 7° in the above example.
 
Vixen, are you honestly claiming that this:

Vixen said:
Place that dark bit on the diameter of a circle so that it is resting on the 180° line. This represents an imaginary flat horizon. So the left side, port, is circa 45 ° and the right, starboard circa 135°. Imagine the letter U then the top of the far corners represents the boat shape at 45° and 135°.

That's all.
Click to expand...

Was an attempt to explain this:

Vixen said:
...centre of gravity can be at an actual 7° angle to begin with as per the boat, so a list measured at an angle in actual terms is M + 7° in the above example.
Click to expand...
?

I'm not buying it.
 
Mojo said:
But it’s necessary for Sheen J’s finding that “the HERALD capsized to port rather more slowly until eventually she was at more than 90°.It is not possible to say whether the ship reached more than while still floating or whether this was only when she reached the sea bed. There is some reason for thinking that the ship floated more or less on her beam ends for about a minute before finally resting on the sea bed” to support Vixen’s claim about “turning turtle”.

It’s also necessary for Vixen to not admit knowing the meaning of “on her beam ends”.
Click to expand...

Well, no. If you imagine the sea surface is some way above the diameter, representing the horizon, on our imaginary circle, then it is apparent that the sea encompasses part of the hull submerged in the water. Thus, it can be readily seen that even a small list of 40° - 45° will have the side touching the sea surface and if it capsize at this point by 90 ° it would already be well on the way of having turtled already.

Justice Sheen says The Herald of Free Enterprise had already turned "more than 90 °" and had come to rest on a sand bar that was at 136°. The ship had already turtled past the point of negative stability but had been slightly rotated back to come to rest at 136° on its port side beam ends and the starboard side sticking out of the shallow water.
 
Vixen said:
You have been told I was referring to the 'what-if' variety, of the type, 'If my uncle had tits would he be my aunt?'

Clear now?
Click to expand...

And you've been told that that's a meaningless quibble. And I'm sure I could find examples of you answering such questions if I cared to, anyway. Clear now?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
There is a serious point here, which is that Vixen has an exciting story of people reporting that particular officers had been rescued who could not later be found, but the thing worth noting is that the reports are secondhand. It's all "I heard that so-and-so was with the group at such-and-such hospital" and not "I saw him" or "He was on the same helicopter as me" or "we spoke on the rescue ship".

The story Vixen is trying to weave brings in her claim (which now appears even more tenuous) that Bildt knew before anyone else what had caused the sinking, but greatly expands it to imply that he (or whichever baddies you like) knew straight away what had happened, knew how it had happened, knew that it had not happened by accident and knew which people were to blame for it. So fast indeed that any suspects who survived could be identified, separated and spirited away before anyone could say for certain that they had been among the rescued.

It's classic CT paranoia where the baddies are almost magically hypercompetent. It's that stupid.
Click to expand...

Think about it. There were 70 Stockholm Police on board. Stockholm being the capital I am guessing the elite. Some possibly SäPo, similar to the UK's MI5.

Do you really think they would be happy with a 'bow visor fell off' story from Day One?

Get real! In reality no stone would be left unturned to bring the culprits to justice, if any. You can be sure of that.

So OBVIOUSLY labelled 'Classified' for whatever reason, and the public handed a The Herald of Free Enterprise Mk II soporific.
 
Vixen said:
What I was trying to explain was that stability is based on centre of gravity/buoyancy, together with the metacentric height, and not on 'mast upright...
Click to expand...

You were obfuscating with mangled terminology hoping to bamboozle people so much they gave up asking simple questions about whether you grasp where port and starboard are. The 45° and 135° thing seems to be beyond your powers to explain or wave away.
 
Vixen said:
You claimed that Björkman was a Hiroshima/Nagasaki casualities denier and therefore he is cancelled as a source on Estonia.
Click to expand...

That's just one of many areas where Bjorkman denies known fundamentals of science. You've been given a substantial list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom