• 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.
Mojo said:
Vixen said:
Sure, in theory, the monarchy can be got rid of by an Act of Parliament but it is hardly going to happen, with the 'men in grey' éminence grise in place.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the post you were replying to there?
Click to expand...
Almost certainly didn't read the post she made herself or else wouldn't have let "'men in grey' éminence grise" stand. :eye-poppi
 
Vixen said:
If wind speed conditions of 25 m/s had the effect of waves smashing the passenger ferry windows, it would be happening all the time. As the Captain of Silja Europa and On-Scene-Commander says:

wiki


If the vessel was on its side, it doesn't prove that the reason for sinking was a smashing of windows, in order to fulfil the requirement of 4,500 tonnes of water.

Another similar vessel had a fault with the bow visor and it managed to sail for two and a half hours into port without capsizing despite the thing being open.
Click to expand...

Windows on the upper part of a superstructure are not the same as windows on the fore part of the superstructure or close to the waterline.

Windows un the upper decks were never designed to be impacted by waves.

There have been at least two videos in this thread of ship windows standing up to the wind but breaking when impacted by solid waves.

You haven't the slightest clue.

Where has anyone claimed that the windows had to break for the ship to sink?

That 'other similar vessel' didn't completely lose the bow and the ship took immediate action to save the ship.

We know windows on the ship broke because the broken windows can be seen in photographs, videos and diver reports.
 
Vixen said:
IIRC the JAIC determined that the ship had been steered by a navigating officer to the west in order to try to correct the trim.

It wasn't just by accident, it was by design, apparently.
Click to expand...

It turned to port and slowed down to take the bow away from the waves. By then it was too late , the ship was already listing and sinking.

If they had turned to Starboard the lower part of the superstructure and the hull would have been towards the waves and not the upper windows on the starboard side.

Once power was lost it made no difference, the ship could only drift side on to the sea.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So, it lost the bow visor at 0115. But the initial list 40° - 50° happened at least fifteen minutes earlier.
Click to expand...

No

At 0100 hrs the watch on the bridge was taken over by the second officer A and the fourth officer. After being relieved the second officer B and third officer left the bridge.
Further observations of unusual noise, starting at about 0105 hrs, were made during the following 10 minutes by many passengers and some crew members who were off duty in their cabins.
When the seaman of the watch returned from his round, soon after the change of watches, he caught up the master and entered the bridge just behind him. Shortly afterwards he was sent down to the car deck to find out the cause of the sounds reported by telephone to the bridge. He did not, however, manage to reach the car deck.
At about 0115 hrs the visor separated from the bow and tilted over the stem. The ramp was pulled fully open, allowing large amounts of water to enter the car deck. Very rapidly the ship took on a heavy starboard list.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
If wind speed conditions of 25 m/s had the effect of waves smashing the passenger ferry windows, it would be happening all the time.
Click to expand...
Ferries are typically not listing heavily where the upper windows (which are not as strong as the lower windows) are capable of being hit by storm waves.

It matters not what wind or other conditions gave rise to the waves, there were actual 4-6 metre waves in the Baltic that night and the heavy listing of the Estonia caused those waves to hit windows that were incapable of withstanding the force of those waves.

Are you really incapable of understanding what happened?
 
JesseCuster said:
Ferries are typically not listing heavily where the upper windows (which are not as strong as the lower windows) are capable of being hit by storm waves.

It matters not what wind or other conditions gave rise to the waves, there were actual 4-6 metre waves in the Baltic that night and the heavy listing of the Estonia caused those waves to hit windows that were incapable of withstanding the force of those waves.

Are you really incapable of understanding what happened?
Click to expand...

The copious amount of evidence in these threads provides an indisputable answer to this question.
 
Vixen said:
I was claiming nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

You claimed exactly that right here.

Vixen said:
It is my understanding that these passenger ferries used glass designed to withstand a wind speed factor of 41 m/s, which obviously takes into account the likely power of a wave emanating from such a wind speed.
Click to expand...

Shipbuilding specs are extremely complex and I wouldn't presume to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

The question is not whether shipbuilding is complex. The question is whether you understand it enough to be able to lecture people on the subject. You clearly don't.

Actually...
Click to expand...

Distractionary pontification ignored.
 
Vixen said:
If wind speed conditions of 25 m/s had the effect of waves smashing the passenger ferry windows, it would be happening all the time.
Click to expand...


Nobody has claimed that wind speed conditions of 25 m/s have the effect of waves smashing passenger ferry windows.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The claim Estonia sank because the windows and inner dividers on Deck 4 and 5 broke as she was floating on her beams for twenty minutes is begging the question. A purely hypothetical scenario to stick rigidly to the 'fault in the bow visor' Day One announcement.
Click to expand...
It would be a real treat if you eventually bothered to read the report and began to discuss what it actually says.
 
Vixen said:
A poster wanted to understand how glass on a passenger ferry can be made to specifications designed to withstand high winds speeds and crashing waves. I was pointing out that the strength of a window is measurable and safety features, such as durability under great pressure can have international standards applied to them.
Click to expand...
That's not what happened. You kept bringing up the windows' rated resistance to wind and multiple posters took issue with the irrelevance of that rating to whether waves would have smashed the windows.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Windows on the upper part of a superstructure are not the same as windows on the fore part of the superstructure or close to the waterline.

Windows un the upper decks were never designed to be impacted by waves.

There have been at least two videos in this thread of ship windows standing up to the wind but breaking when impacted by solid waves.

You haven't the slightest clue.

Where has anyone claimed that the windows had to break for the ship to sink?

That 'other similar vessel' didn't completely lose the bow and the ship took immediate action to save the ship.

We know windows on the ship broke because the broken windows can be seen in photographs, videos and diver reports.
Click to expand...

Did they break before or after the ship sank?
 
zooterkin said:
Please show your working.
Click to expand...

Refer back to the survivor witnesses who said it was 0100 when the first major incident happened or thereabouts because they verified the time as being Swedish midnight.

- went to bed ca. 23.30 hours (Swedish time) and changed beds shortly afterwards with Daniel Svensson;
- both heard strange noises "as if the sea was striking against the vessel's bow";
- they discussed the situation when Daniel's alarm clock rang at midnight;
- she dozed for some minutes - she believes ca. 5 - when there was a "hard bang" from the car deck;
- at the same time the vessel heeled over to starboard and Daniel Svensson rushed out of the cabin while she dressed and followed
Click to expand...


and

Marianne Ehn - cabin 6222 - 59 years old

was asleep in her cabin with her husband - woke up from lots of noises in the vessel - it was so terrible - she asked her husband for the time and he looked at his watch - it was 01.00 hours;
shortly afterwards the vessel was diving into a deep wave trough, there was a heavy bang - the vessel heeled severely and the engines stopped
Click to expand...

and

Sten Jolind - cabin 5135 - first outside cabin, port side, forward

was on deck 7 several times and looked over the foreship; heard heavy bangs and thought that the vessel was going much too fast;
at 00.00 hours to bed;
before 01.00 hours 2-3 really heavy bangs from forward; got up and dressed;
when he had just opened the door the vessel heeled abruptly and widely to starboard and everything slid against the door
Click to expand...


and

28. Pierre Thiger - Admiral's Pub on deck 5 - together with Altti Hakanpää

ca. 23.45 hours (Swedish time) = 00.45 hours ship's time he heard a dull bang and ca. 1/2 minute later a similar bang, these were really sharp and short sounds which he clearly heard in spite of the music. The vessel was shaking somewhat. The noises were not created by waves striking against the bow;
ca. 3 minutes after he had heard the mentioned noises he felt that the vessel was swinging/rocking athwartships not just from side to side. He was very surprised about the behaviour of the vessel.
these swinging movements repeated themselves 3-4 times, simultaneously the vessel was shaking somewhat.

Pierre Thiger has spent some time at sea and has experience with the behaviour of large vessels, therefore he observed rather closely the behaviour of ESTONIA.
ca. 10 minutes after he had heard the before mentioned noises the vessel began to roll from side to side, and thereafter remained with a starboard list of 10°-15°;
the vessel did not return to normal;
he is of the opinion that it was some minutes before 24.00 hours (Swedish time) when the vessel took the first heavy starboard list
Click to expand...



Need I go on? You note JAIC claims to have interviewed Thiger yet he doesn't describe the sound as 'metallic thuds', see above.


To sum up, according to witnesses, the heavy list happened fifteen minutes before the JAIC claim the bow visor detached.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It turned to port and slowed down to take the bow away from the waves. By then it was too late , the ship was already listing and sinking.

If they had turned to Starboard the lower part of the superstructure and the hull would have been towards the waves and not the upper windows on the starboard side.

Once power was lost it made no difference, the ship could only drift side on to the sea.
Click to expand...

I am sure you can recall a situation when you were out and about and it began to rain or bluster heavily. You took shelter under a shop front. Suddenly the rain and the wind was far less severe simply because it could not 'bend' under the shelter, although some spray might still have got you.

Now consider a ship leaning at a near right angle to the sea. How do the blustery gales and ferocious waves manage to sneak under the bow and smash the windows and inner dividers of the 720 or so cabins at that angle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom