JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You're not competent to determine whether they are "window dressing" or an actual engineering rationale for the conclusions offered.
Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V
- Thread starter Jack by the hedge
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ms estonia
- Status
You're not competent to determine whether they are "window dressing" or an actual engineering rationale for the conclusions offered.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
And I know a bloke from the pub who has a mate who says the Twin Towers couldn't have collapsed in the way they did from simple aircraft strikes. He says that The 9/11 Commission invented engineering models as a window-dressing exercise, to distract the public from the truth: that the towers were clearly brought down by carefully-placed demolition charges.
I, for one, reckon that all checks out pretty well. My drinking buddy's mate seemed really knowledgeable when he was explaining it all to me. And no, I'm not a "conspiracy theorist" - I just use my eyes and ears and brain, and I don't take official reports for granted: it's well-known that they're usually cover-ups.
[/satire]
Yes, we know that you don't understand them so you think they are irrelevant.
When it had Piht? They didn't. Piht drowned in the accident. That's the reason why they didn't interrogate him.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Yes and yes.
It's funny how CTers can readily dismiss structural engineering models and applied maths/physics without ever having the chops to understand what they mean and how they work.
And of course the flip side is that they can never produce their own modelling that stands up to any rational scrutiny.
(Incidentally, wrt that second point, it's an interesting irony that *had* the Estonia been holed below the waterline by a torpedo or a mine or any sort of placed charge...... that very probably wouldn't have sunk the ship (or it would have taken so damn long to sink that there would have been more than enough time to rescue all aboard). Like all modern ships, the Estonia had watertight compartments with sealable bulkheads up to the waterline, so the hole from a torpedo/mine/charge would only have flooded one (or at the very most two) of the compartments. The ship would very probably have survived and limped back to port.
The terrible consequence of letting water into the vehicle deck by way of an open bow is twofold: not only does the free surface effect of hundreds of tons of water on the open vehicle deck seriously destabilise the ship, but also water can flood down from the vehicle deck across the whole horizontal cross-section of the ship - since this is the area occupied by the vehicle deck. Therefore, water can flood down and make its way into many more than one of the watertight compartments. As the HOFE disaster illustrated all too clearly, the quickest way for a RORO ferry to sink is to let significant amounts of water in through the bow opening to the vehicle deck.)
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Well that should not have stopped them from interrogating him, if they wanted a complete investigation.
Axxman300
Philosopher
As far as technical, computer modeling for these kinds of things goes, when I wander around YouTube I don't find many computer models which run against the models made in the official investigations. I have to assume the reason for this is the engineering software these days is reliably produced, and the only way to make the model show a different outcome is to change the parameters so far from the facts that the model becomes science fiction.
We've seen it with 9-11 where key components of the structures, and key events are ignored to craft a model which shows their version of events. It seems to be a lot of time wasted, and those who are skilled in using the software don't want to be associated with crazy-town antics since it can cost them future work.
We've seen it with 9-11 where key components of the structures, and key events are ignored to craft a model which shows their version of events. It seems to be a lot of time wasted, and those who are skilled in using the software don't want to be associated with crazy-town antics since it can cost them future work.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
An entirely correct appraisal.
As you say, all of these engineering models use inputs (many of which are factually known/knowable), and varying degrees of computations which - obviously - obey & reflect the standard laws of nature.
As you also say: in the Twin Tower collapse simulations, there was a lot of reliable input data: the speed of each aircraft, its mass, its fuel load, the amount of flammable material inside the floors of the WTC, the type of steel used in the WTC joists, the steel structure of the WTC, the condition of the fire-cladding on the steel and the likelihood (very high) of it having been ripped clean off by the impact of the aircraft, the plasticity curve of the steel in the WTC, the mass of the floors above the impact zones, the amount of impact damage to the impact zones....... etc...... etc.
And lo and behold: if you know how to run these models properly, and you make sure your inputs accurately reflect known evidence and other quantities, you end up producing a simulation which uncannily predicts that the steel joists would begin to lose structural strength after around one hour for the South Tower (different impact profile, lower in the tower) and around 1hr30 in the North Tower. And as soon as the steel started to become plastic and sag, it was a very quick progression to a total loss of structural stability, owing to the way the towers were constructed. And this caused the floors above the impact zones to collapse down onto the compromised floors. Which created sufficient KE to pancake the whole building down to the ground.
As you say, the only way you can "model" the CT scenarios using proper software handled by a professional.... is to make the inputs so ridiculously off-base that they're effectively impossible.
I believe this has resonances with the case we are currently discussing in this thread.......
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,573
I think a hole in the engine machinery space would have been enough to sink it. I don't think it would have capsized on to it's beam though. That it did is an indication that there wasn't a hole below the waterline.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,573
Waves breaking a window on a ferry.
Video in link.
https://twitter.com/ZachCoveyTV/status/1494357522051964931
Video in link.
https://twitter.com/ZachCoveyTV/status/1494357522051964931
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
It was your idea.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Height is relative. I don't know if Sillaste is 1.60m. He could be 1.80m. Standing next to Treu makes him look disproportionately short, or Treu exceptionally tall. I look very short standing next to my son. My last husband was 6'5" and his dad was even taller. Does mentioning it make it 'racist' against people from Sutton Coldfield (or Birmingham in the case of the F-I-L)?
I sympathise deeply with anybody on that vessel that night and Sillaste comes across as sincere in his observations. However, when coming to conclusions about what caused the accident, I am afraid one has to be objective. The fact is, Sillaste on Deck 0 seeing water coming in at the sides of the bow ramp after the bangs doesn't clarify whether the accident was caused by the bow visor falling off or the bow visor falling off because of the severe list and the angle of the ensuing waves perpendicular to the fractured implement therefore wrenching the final lock/bolt/hinge free.
The chronology is that the survivors report a sudden severe list to starboard - causing people to fly out of bed or bang into a wall - and then righting itself (as one would expect) allowing circa ten minutes of steadiness to enable the survivors to race up to the upper decks, before the next steep lilt of 30° - 40°, which could not correct due to the port side ballast being already full to its limit, then it becomes readily apparent that the violent initial list happened before the bow visor came off. Therefore, it cannot be the bow visor falling off that caused the list. Incidentally, although the survivors mention the initial violent list, timing it circa 0100-ish, the JAIC does not.
The JAIC gets its time of the bow visor coming completely loose all in one go after the Atlantic lock broke - of 0115 - from IIIrd engineer Margus Treu, and Kadak got his version which he withdrew, saying he only said he saw water on the deck because that is what Treu said
EFD
In his initial interview motorman Kadak said:
EFD
Yet Sillaste did not see what Treu claims he saw - he saw the car ramp was shut and water was at the sides - and it seems Kadak was told what to say by Treu, and indeed int he television interview, we see Treu standing over Sillaste staring at him with his arms crossed looking quite menacing.
Treu has now disappeared from view.
So Treu comes across as a somewhat intimidating character whose sincerity could be called into doubt as nobody else claimed to see what he claims he saw.
So yes, I did see the pair as a comedy caricature in trying to convince the public, albeit unwittingly, that the cause of the accident was solely the bow visor coming off and free surface water on the car deck the cause of the ship capsizing.
Yet, the body of survivors witnessed the violent lilt before the supposed detachment of the visor at 0115, with Michal Oun saying his travel alarm clock was knocked to the floor by the list, the battery fell out and it stopped at circa 0100. Another survivor said she knew it was 0100 because her cabinmate had set the alarm for 0100 to signify the new time zone of Swedish Midnight and she heard the alarm go off just as the list happened.
Attachments
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
All the shipbuilder and naval architects can do is ensure their product is to the highest safety standards. It cannot mitigate against poor care and maintenance years down the line. If you buy a car and treat it badly, would you blame the manufacturers for a poor design fault when they made a not unreasonable assumption you would use the vehicle as it was mandated to: oil changes, tyre pressure, equilibrium, brake pads, servicing, etc.
If you let it get rusty by parking it in a pool of water that covers its underside, is it the the car manufacturer's fault you develop engine trouble?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Treu said he came out on the upper deck and then began to help people, except that he was suddenly washed off the deck by a wave and he managed to grab a couple of life vests. See the latest Estonia Catastrophe video here that looks at Treu's testimony in detail (don't worry, this guy is a firm believer in the JAIC report). English subtitles.
Sillaste claims he came out for the funnel, which is surely higher than the upper decks.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Sillaste was wheeled out because it gave Bildt something to hang on to with his Herald of Free Enterprise management of expectations of the public.
Soon the whole world was buzzing about how dangerous such car ferries were.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Because it is all hypothetical. The JAIC never proved that the bow visor falling off was the cause of the accident and nor did it establish that the reason it fell off was because of a strong wave. (And it does say this in so many words.)
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
The interwebs have delivered upon us a glorious age of epistemological egalitarian utopia. Come hear me speak authoritatively on any subject!
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Different witness statements claim that AB watchman Linde was told by a bridge officer to notify the lady at reception on Deck 5 to issue an alarm. Linde claims he merely went there to ask her to open the car deck doors.
You decide which version is probably the true one.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
And the ship's weight too. Irrelevant and judgemental.
The ship was 155 metres long. How can some guy somewhere on the ship, not even on the bridge with no view of the navigation panels and controls, possibly know the cause of the disaster?
For example, just before a plane crash, a survivor might have perceived the plane went through an area of turbulence. Whilst understandably that witness might believe the turbulence led to the plane crash, it really does not establish that turbulence caused the accident.
The point is, the Engine Control Room was aft and port of the vessel. How can one person from that viewpoint know what was happening at the bow, when the only view was a Visual Device Unit which changed perspective every few minutes, did not scan the car deck floors and all he could see was the shut bow ramp door?
Water leaked in all the time., especially in rainy weather.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
If AB Seaman Linde felt a thrust that almost made him fall to the car deck floor, as a heavy pitch hit the bow, and he then made his way to the bridge, he reckons circa 1245-ish, why would he be told to request a Mr Skylight alarm before the bow visor supposedly fell off at 0115, before any mass ingress of water could have happened?
- Status