Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Andy_Ross]

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.




and



and




and





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.

No, the heel happened after all the survivors said they heard the loud noises.

What do you think the loud noises were?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

Because the waves are not 'sneaking in under the bow'
They are hitting the ship broadside on and the windows are close to the surface.
After power was lost the ship would be broadside on to the waves, not bows on to the waves.
Ships without any forward way on them will always turn broadside on to wind and waves.

 

[Vixen]

No, the heel happened after all the survivors said they heard the loud noises.

What do you think the loud noises were?

So: loud noise or series of loud noises, described as bangs.

Then a heavy list towards starboard.

This was at circa 0100.


Fifteen minutes later, the bow visor detached.

What caused the list at 0100, Captain Swoop, if the bow visor didn't tear off the car ramp until 0115?


You cannot answer this question.

 

[GlennB]

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?

???
They don't have to. As has been explained to you a hundred times before, a ship lacking engine power will turn broadside to the wind. The waves and the weight of the water will break windows with the degree of heel we're discussing. The bow is no obstacle.

Why are you so relentlessly presenting crappy, dismissible-in-an-instant responses here? It's weird, and has been for a long time.

 

[Vixen]

Because the waves are not 'sneaking in under the bow'
They are hitting the ship broadside on and the windows are close to the surface.
After power was lost the ship would be broadside on to the waves, not bows on to the waves.
Ships without any forward way on them will always turn broadside on to wind and waves.

Sorry, typo.

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 starboard hull and smash the windows and inner dividers of the 720 or so cabins at that angle?

Why does the JAIC say the crew turned the ship towards port?

 

[LondonJohn]

So, it lost the bow visor at 0115. But the initial list 40° - 50° happened at least fifteen minutes earlier.

No, Vixen. No it did not.


(Unless you've got.......uhmmm......reliable and verifiable evidence to support that claim, of course)

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

"sneak under the bow"

LMAO

No idea whatsoever....


ETA: Ah, I see you've been reaching for your trusty deception of calling a factual mistake "a typo". Lovely stuff, Vixen!

 

[LondonJohn]

So: loud noise or series of loud noises, described as bangs.

Then a heavy list towards starboard.

This was at circa 0100.


Fifteen minutes later, the bow visor detached.

What caused the list at 0100, Captain Swoop, if the bow visor didn't tear off the car ramp until 0115?


You cannot answer this question.

The answer is that a few of the survivors were mistaken in their timings. There's more than enough evidence from crewmembers, and from the Mayday calls, to know the proper sequence and timing of events.

 

[junkshop]

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?

Because the waves are not 'sneaking in under the bow'
They are hitting the ship broadside on and the windows are close to the surface.
After power was lost the ship would be broadside on to the waves, not bows on to the waves.
Ships without any forward way on them will always turn broadside on to wind and waves.

Sorry, typo...

Vixen,

Which part of your post was a 'typo'?

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, typo.

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 starboard hull and smash the windows and inner dividers of the 720 or so cabins at that angle?

Why does the JAIC say the crew turned the ship towards port?

You appear to be assuming that the ship went from vertical to "a near right angle to the sea" almost instantaneously. Epic fail.

By the time the engine room flooded and the ship lost all power, it would already have been sitting low in the water. So, immediately, the lower public-area windows were already significantly more susceptible to wave damage than they ever would have been in normal operation.

And when the ship ended up starboard-beam-on, even a 20-degree list would have created a serious problem for these lower windows: the ship's hull was now forming a wedge with the ocean surface, which would further have focused the energy of oncoming waves onto the side of the ship. Including those lower windows.

It's probable that the windows were broken when the ship was anything between a 20-degree and 60-degree list to starboard. Not when the ship was almost lying flat on the water (as per your stupid assumption).


Oh and the answer to your last question (purely from memory, so I might be wrong) is that the crew did steer hard to port, but the ship ended up turning well beyond 90 degrees such that it ended up presenting its starboard beam to the oncoming swell from the south-west (approx).

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen,

Which part of your post was a 'typo'?

Vixen has an unfortunate penchant for pretending that factual errors are "typos".

 

[GlennB]

Sorry, typo.

My arse.

 

[Myriad]

Welcome to my world. We all agree the vessel was in an unsatisfactory state.

However, the JAIC says on the day of departure it was seaworthy and there were no issues.

However, it doesn't follow that because the bow visor had metal fatigue and corrosion, that ipso facto that must be the reason for the accident. There was zero time to even begin to evacuate the passengers, which tells you it was not a gradual scenario of one bit falling off after another, as with an old banger, but something cataclysmic and sudden.

- vessel that was designed only for coastal operations not open sea
- metal fatigue and corrosion
- poor state of loading and trim
- stormy conditions
- decision to steam at full speed on direct route despite previous items
- no special crew vigilance despite the risks inherent in the previous item

Only the first two factors had anything to do with the inherent seaworthiness of the vessel, but all six of them contributed to the disaster.

Gradual scenarios of gradually accumulating adverse factors are exactly what leads to sudden cataclysmic failure, more often than not. The straw that breaks the camel's back doesn't break the camel's back slowly, it happens all of the sudden. You can try argue that the straw couldn't have broken the camel's back because the straw was added slowly and the back broke suddenly, but that's not how reality works. The "cataclysmic and sudden" deterioration of conditions on Estonia followed, and resulted from, years of compromises and hours of negligently bad decisions.

 

[junkshop]

Sorry, typo.

My arse.

Concise, elegant, and true^* (IMV, obvs).


^*To clarify I don't mean that literally. I'm not saying GlennB's arse is a typo, I'm agreeing with their lack of belief in the verisimilitude of Vixen's quoted post.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So: loud noise or series of loud noises, described as bangs.

Then a heavy list towards starboard.

This was at circa 0100.


Fifteen minutes later, the bow visor detached.

What caused the list at 0100, Captain Swoop, if the bow visor didn't tear off the car ramp until 0115?


You cannot answer this question.

Some survivors confused their timings. It was a chaotic, frightening and terrifying experience.
We have enough different, independent timings to construct a reliable timeline.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sorry, typo.

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 starboard hull and smash the windows and inner dividers of the 720 or so cabins at that angle?

Why does the JAIC say the crew turned the ship towards port?

It says the ship was turned to port. After the bow was lost and the ship started listing to starboard it would try to turn away from the waves itself due to the force on the flat bow. A list to starboard would unbalance the rudder and the change in underwater form would both tend to push the head to port.
It would have been difficult to keep the head in to the waves or try to turn the ship to starboard.
If a ship is listing it is best to turn in to the list to try and right the ship. A ship hull heels to the outside of the tur. Deliberately going to port would have increased the list.
I don’t think the crew had any choice in the matter.

In this video see how the ship leans to starboard as it turns to port.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You appear to be assuming that the ship went from vertical to "a near right angle to the sea" almost instantaneously. Epic fail.

By the time the engine room flooded and the ship lost all power, it would already have been sitting low in the water. So, immediately, the lower public-area windows were already significantly more susceptible to wave damage than they ever would have been in normal operation.

And when the ship ended up starboard-beam-on, even a 20-degree list would have created a serious problem for these lower windows: the ship's hull was now forming a wedge with the ocean surface, which would further have focused the energy of oncoming waves onto the side of the ship. Including those lower windows.

It's probable that the windows were broken when the ship was anything between a 20-degree and 60-degree list to starboard. Not when the ship was almost lying flat on the water (as per your stupid assumption).


Oh and the answer to your last question (purely from memory, so I might be wrong) is that the crew did steer hard to port, but the ship ended up turning well beyond 90 degrees such that it ended up presenting its starboard beam to the oncoming swell from the south-west (approx).

Wind and wave action will rock and pitch the ship in a ‘zig-zag’ between the bow and stern being more or less toward in to the wind or sea as it drifts sideways. It ‘corkscrews’.

 

[abaddon]

It says the ship was turned to port. After the bow was lost and the ship started listing to starboard it would try to turn away from the waves itself due to the force on the flat bow. A list to starboard would unbalance the rudder and the change in underwater form would both tend to push the head to port.
It would have been difficult to keep the head in to the waves or try to turn the ship to starboard.
If a ship is listing it is best to turn in to the list to try and right the ship. A ship hull heels to the outside of the tur. Deliberately going to port would have increased the list.
I don’t think the crew had any choice in the matter.

In this video see how the ship leans to starboard as it turns to port.

you must be joking. Our proponent has been provided with countless videos of ships in heavy seas and has not watched a single one of them. It is easy to find videos of ships at sea where the waves are taller than the ship itself.

Have another, for what it's worth


Our proponent will not even take a look. Because it would bork the CT narrative.

ETA: I should have mentioned, 10 minutes of ships in heavy seas. Also, some in the baltic.

 

[Vixen]

No, Vixen. No it did not.


(Unless you've got.......uhmmm......reliable and verifiable evidence to support that claim, of course)

See the survivors' witness statements.

 

[Vixen]

The answer is that a few of the survivors were mistaken in their timings. There's more than enough evidence from crewmembers, and from the Mayday calls, to know the proper sequence and timing of events.

No. Several survivors noted it was midnight/0100. One person even had his travel alarm clock stop at that time as the battery fell out during the list, when it crashed to the floor. Demonstrably before the claimed JAIC time of 0115, when it claims the bow visor failed 'all at once'.