• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
He walked along the now-horizontal outer surface of the funnel, then used fixed railings and other fittings to climb up to the top of the ship (the port beam).

You seem to be implying that this was an impossible feat. It was not. Especially to a fit male.
Click to expand...


I suppose it might depend on how tall he is.
 
LondonJohn said:
So what precisely is the source (the reliable, credible source, that is...) for your claim that the survivors' witness statements to the authorities were altered before their inclusion in the report?

(Please note that a comparison between a) what survivors said to unofficial investigators many years after the event and b) those survivors' 1994 testimony as reported by the JAIC, is not pertinent or relevant. I want to see documentary evidence that the original statements themselves were changed.)
Click to expand...

The survivors groups. Paul Barney for example says he rang up the JAIC to offer his testimony as a survivor. He never heard back from anyone.

Are you claiming that the survivors complaining of being unheard and their accounts not included in the JAIC report (as promised by the JAIC) are all liars?


What would be their motive?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
In the movie in your head, sure. Outside of your personal version of the X Files, not so much.
Click to expand...

It is a documented fact, as per early day newspapers, that an order for all ferries in Sweden and Finland were to be inspected for design faults in the bow visor the same day as the accident.

You saw the YLE News clip (- this is the state tv, equivalent to the BBC) showing 'experts' pontificating about how dangerous free-surface water was on a car ferry.

Clip of Sillaste earnestly revealing how he saw water coming in at the sides of the car ramp...on his VDU.
 
Vixen said:
The Estonia had a draught of: Draught 5.60 m (18 ft 4 in).

A ship's draught is broadly

Wärtsilä

Basically, the height of the hull.

Now according to the JAIC:

wiki

So, it is readily apparent that the highest wave, would permeate (go over the deck) at 0.20m, or about 8 inches. By far the majority of water hitting a ships deck, simply washes off. The hypothetical 8 inches that may or may not have ingressed the top of the car ramp, presumed by the JAIC to be ajar at the top would only slow flood the car deck, which in turn had scuppers to release excess water, rather like a drain. In addition, as soon as the vessel turned to port away from the on coming southwesterly waves, if the car ramp was open, any water would simply wash away.
Click to expand...

Laughably ignorant bilge. Actually, I'm not even sure that you believe that nonsense.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
You have rarely if ever named any generals, and only occasionally referred to them in the abstract, in connection with your conspiracy theory. It's always Carl Bildt this and Carl Bildt that. Nary a mention of Ingvar Carlsson, on whose watch most of the "cover up" would have needed to occur.

In fact, pretty much the only time you seem to remember that Swedish generals exist is when somebody points out how short Bildt was when the disaster occurred.
Click to expand...

I did tell you about Einseln but mysteriously the post was removed.
 
Vixen said:
The survivors groups. Paul Barney for example says he rang up the JAIC to offer his testimony as a survivor. He never heard back from anyone.

Are you claiming that the survivors complaining of being unheard and their accounts not included in the JAIC report (as promised by the JAIC) are all liars?
Click to expand...
You're being asked for evidence that the JAIC took witness testimony and removed the word 'bang' with the phrase 'metallic thud'.

You haven't answered that question.

Please do. With specifics and examples of witness testimony that was altered to remove the word 'bang' and replace it with the phrase 'metallic thud'.

With your source and proper citations.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What does withstanding a wind speed have to do with being hit by waves?

Can you think of a difference between wind and wave?

41 m/s is around 90 mph. My house windows will withstand that wind speed but I don't think they would stand against being hit by a 6 meter wave.

A cubic meter of water weighs a ton.
Click to expand...

It still needs to be driven by wind to have any force.
 
Vixen said:
It is wind that drives the waves. Wind is extremely powerful.
Click to expand...
What on earth is the point behind that comment?

You mentioned wind speed in the context of how much wind speed the windows are meant to withstand, despite being told repeatedly that it wasn't wind that broke the windows.

What difference does it make that the waves were caused by wind, when it was the waves that were the cause of the windows breaking?
 
Vixen said:
The Estonia had a draught of: Draught 5.60 m (18 ft 4 in).

A ship's draught is broadly

Wärtsilä

Basically, the height of the hull.

Now according to the JAIC:

wiki

So, it is readily apparent that the highest wave, would permeate (go over the deck) at 0.20m, or about 8 inches. By far the majority of water hitting a ships deck, simply washes off. The hypothetical 8 inches that may or may not have ingressed the top of the car ramp, presumed by the JAIC to be ajar at the top would only slow flood the car deck, which in turn had scuppers to release excess water, rather like a drain. In addition, as soon as the vessel turned to port away from the on coming southwesterly waves, if the car ramp was open, any water would simply wash away.
Click to expand...

You've never actually seen a ship on the ocean in bad weather, have you?
 
JesseCuster said:
What on earth is the point behind that comment?

You mentioned wind speed in the context of how much wind speed the windows are meant to withstand, despite being told repeatedly that it wasn't wind that broke the windows.

What difference does it make that the waves were caused by wind, when it was the waves that were the cause of the windows breaking?
Click to expand...

There is a direct relationship between how high the wind is (m/s, mph) and the force of a wave. In addition, it also drives direction, thus a southwesterly wind drives a wave in a southwesterly direction.

The reason the wave smashed through the Hamburg ferry window with such force was because - hello?!!! - Storm Eunice* was currently in progress throughout northern Europe!!!!


The wave didn't come from nowhere!!!


*Probably called something else in those parts.
 
Vixen said:
The Estonia had a draught of: Draught5.60 m (18 ft 4 in).



A ship's draught is broadly



Wärtsilä



Basically, the height of the hull.



Now according to the JAIC:



wiki



So, it is readily apparent that the highest wave, would permeate (go over the deck) at 0.20m, or about 8 inches. By far the majority of water hitting a ships deck, simply washes off. The hypothetical 8 inches that may or may not have ingressed the top of the car ramp, presumed by the JAIC to be ajar at the top would only slow flood the car deck, which in turn had scuppers to release excess water, rather like a drain. In addition, as soon as the vessel turned to port away from the on coming southwesterly waves, if the car ramp was open, any water would simply wash away.
Click to expand...
You have done some sums based on the assumption that the ship was not pitching at all in those heavy seas but rather remained serenely level at all times. May I point out the worthlessness of these calculations?

I also note you still seem to think a ship's hull ends at the waterline.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is a documented fact, as per early day newspapers, that an order for all ferries in Sweden and Finland were to be inspected for design faults in the bow visor the same day as the accident.



You saw the YLE News clip (- this is the state tv, equivalent to the BBC) showing 'experts' pontificating about how dangerous free-surface water was on a car ferry.



Clip of Sillaste earnestly revealing how he saw water coming in at the sides of the car ramp...on his VDU.
Click to expand...
A survivor described how he saw water fountaining in aroung the sides of the bow ramp of the doomed ship and on the same day the authorities in two countries declared that the bows of similar ships were to be inspected.

Okay agent Mulder. How about you explain what part of that is mysterious to you?
 
Vixen said:
It is wind that drives the waves. Wind is extremely powerful.
Click to expand...
My house windows are impervious to solvent liquids like petrol or diesel but if a bus hits them the windows will smash. It is diesel which powers the bus and diesel is very powerful.

This is how ridiculous your argument is. You have gleaned one fact from somewhere about the windows' wind load capacity and wave it around like a magic talisman as if to imply the windows were indestructible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom