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

[abaddon]

The bow didn't go from OK to off in an instant. It broke free and was being pounded up and down by the ship pitching in to the waves. Water was entering the ship before it completely detached.

OP claims it did. And even if it did, it would not make any difference. So it doesn't matter.

10 minute youtube of ten ships in heavy seas


Sometimes the waves are taller than the ships. And come from different directions. Worth a watch, IMV, because it illustrates just how ill informed she is.

Of course, Vixen will not watch it, since it borks her narrative.

 

[Vixen]

The diagram indicates the point at which the visor is believed to have detached. Have you considered, by comparison, at what point in that diagram the engines are believed to have stopped?

Hint: while the ship continues on course, that is because its engines were still driving it on.

But if you look at Der Spiegel's timing, which is likely more accurate, as it is based on what survivors say (whereas the JAIC has arbitrarily decided to take Treu's statement at face value, even though he changed his timings and Linde had to change his timings to fit in with Treu) you will note that Speigel has the bow visor falling off shortly after 0100, which would fit in with events more accurately in terms of timing. Yes, whilst the engines would have cut out when the vessel listed 45°, the weird thing is, it appears to have still been going at about 5kn (it travelled back a mile).

 

[Vixen]

What on earth do you imagine 'typo' means?

And since when did you imagine there were any windows to break in the bow?

 

[Vixen]

1) Prey tell us how the ship self-righted itself from this "initial violent list" (Hint: in the context of this disaster, that is not possible - so this must be a case of misremembered testimony straight off the bat).

2) There are plenty of datum points from which a timescale of events can be reconstructed. People overestimate and underestimate all the time; and in any highly-charged situation of great jeopardy, people often swear (after the event) that certain things happened at certain times - when sometimes those things didn't happen at all, or sometimes those things did happen but at different times. A contextual analysis of the totality of witness statements, plus the radio calls, plus the physical evidence found subsequently, point to the most likely (by far) sequence of events. It is not your CT sequence of events.

3) As I said, the ship turned hard to port, which is ultimately what exposed its starboard beam to the oncoming swell from the south-west. Had the ship not turned to port, it would have been the port beam which ended up facing the oncoming seas. Better still would have been a quarter turn to starboard, which would have had an element of correction on the list, plus it would of course have brought the ship closer to the Finnish coast.

1. the righting arm.

2. if a large number of survivors randomly and independently of each other all described a severe list, serious enough to cause actual injury, slammed againt a wall, thrown onto the floor out of bed, then we should listen to them

3. yes, but once turned, any water on the car deck, assuming the car ramp was wide open, would have just washed out, and as through the scuppers. Anyway, it would appear the crew lost control of the ship.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you think the JAIC went out of their way to say the ship was seaworthy when they were trying to concoct a narrative that involved mechanical failure of important parts of the ship?

How does the JAIC lying about the seaworthiness of the ship fit into your narrative?

It concentrated on the Day One announcement 'design fault in the bow visor' and nothing else.

It was all sewn up the moment the true cause was deemed 'classified'.

 

[Steve]

1. the righting arm.

2. if a large number of survivors randomly and independently of each other all described a sever list, serious enough to cause actual injury, slammed againt a wall, thrown onto the floor out of bed, then we should listen to them

3. yes, but once turned, any water on the car deck, assuming the car ramp was wide open, would have just washed out, as as through the scuppers. Anyway, it would appear the crew lost control of the ship.

Of all the stupid comments posted in these interminable and ridiculous threads this one stands head and shoulders above the rest. Maybe try to save face (a hopeless cause) by claiming it is another typo?

 

[junkshop]

And since when did you imagine there were any windows to break in the bow?

What the **** are you blathering on about? Your (frankly bizarre) question is entirely unrelated to Zooterkin's post.

 

[Vixen]

Of all the stupid comments posted in these interminable and ridiculous threads this one stands head and shoulders above the rest. Maybe try to save face (a hopeless cause) by claiming it is another typo?

Water washes off a deck. The car deck was two metres above the water line (its floor).

If you are trying to say the entire hull was below the surface of the sea, then it must have gone past its point of stability and should have capsized there and then. However, the JAIV say you need to wait twenty minutes for a few windows to break (and no-one knows whether these windows and inner dividers actually did break because the JAIC claim it was not possible to examine the starboard side).

 

[junkshop]

1. the righting arm...

Please tell us more about this, without reference to this, as as you have stated, you don't rely on that site as a source.

 

[Vixen]

What the **** are you blathering on about? Your (frankly bizarre) question is entirely unrelated to Zooterkin's post.

So I accidentally wrote 'bow' when I meant to write 'starboard'.

Grow up.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That's still not a typo.

It's a simple error, sure, but it isn't a typo.

 

[junkshop]

Water washes off a deck. The car deck was two metres above the water line (its floor)...

When that water 'washes off' the car deck where does it go, Vixen?

 

[JayUtah]

1. the righting arm.

No. The model you keep referring to is for intact hulls, and the righting moment resists externally-imposed roll moments. You are as wrong as you can possibly be on this point.

 

[Vixen]

When that water 'washes off' the car deck where does it go, Vixen?

Back into the sea where it came from!

 

[Vixen]

No. The model you keep referring to is for intact hulls, and the righting moment resists externally-imposed roll moments. You are as wrong as you can possibly be on this point.

The JAIC affirm that the hull was intact.

That is why they had to introduce a possible scenario of how 4,500 water could have got in to sink it.

 

[junkshop]

So I accidentally wrote 'bow' when I meant to write 'starboard'.

Grow up.

Grow up? You have not earned the right to to condescend to anyone on this thread, not even me, and I know **** all about ships, bouyancy, or how waves work^*.

The A difference between you and me is that I don't try to lecture those with more knowledge than me me on their specialisms.

ETA: you claim that this:

...'How do the blustery gales and ferocious waves manage to sneak under the bow'..

is where your 'typo' happened, and that you "accidentally wrote 'bow' when [you] meant to write 'starboard'".

So what you meant to type was:

"How do the blustery gales and ferocious waves manage to sneak under the starboard"

That makes even less sense than what you originaly posted. I am unconvinced. Do you stand by this claim?




^*Although, thanks to various posters calling you out on your bollocks, I know a damn sight more than I used to.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But if you look at Der Spiegel's timing, which is likely more accurate, as it is based on what survivors say (whereas the JAIC has arbitrarily decided to take Treu's statement at face value, even though he changed his timings and Linde had to change his timings to fit in with Treu) you will note that Speigel has the bow visor falling off shortly after 0100, which would fit in with events more accurately in terms of timing. Yes, whilst the engines would have cut out when the vessel listed 45°, the weird thing is, it appears to have still been going at about 5kn (it travelled back a mile).

There was a gale and huge waves. Why do you think it was moving at 5 knots?

 

[Andy_Ross]

1. the righting arm.

Would the righting arm still work if it lost power?

2. if a large number of survivors randomly and independently of each other all described a severe list, serious enough to cause actual injury, slammed againt a wall, thrown onto the floor out of bed, then we should listen to them

It was a roll, not a list.

3. yes, but once turned, any water on the car deck, assuming the car ramp was wide open, would have just washed out, and as through the scuppers. Anyway, it would appear the crew lost control of the ship.

Washed out? is that for real?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Water washes off a deck. The car deck was two metres above the water line (its floor).

If you are trying to say the entire hull was below the surface of the sea, then it must have gone past its point of stability and should have capsized there and then. However, the JAIV say you need to wait twenty minutes for a few windows to break (and no-one knows whether these windows and inner dividers actually did break because the JAIC claim it was not possible to examine the starboard side).

The ship was pitching, the waves were many meters high, the ship was sinking, water was getting in to the hull.
What do you think the 'point of stability' was?

There was no wait for windows to break, the hull was filling up with water, that's what took the time.

You haven't got a ******* clue!

 

[Andy_Ross]

As for a big roll and recovery!