• 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.
Vixen said:
It is your prerogative to believe that the car deck door/ramp swung open and shut like a barn door on a windy day whilst it sank. Perhaps ask yourself this question. How come people who accidently drive into a river or get swept away by sudden floods - as happens in US hurricanes or Japanese tsunamis - don't just simply open their car door and escape?

I'll leave it to you to find your own answer.
Click to expand...

Has any one claimed that the door/ramp swung open and shut WHILE the Estonia sank. You're compressing the timeline.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Weird beliefs of the general public
Click to expand...

This grab-bag of "weird beliefs" is just your fringe reset Gish gallop in disguise. They have all been discussed at great length. They have all been supported by facts and evidence, including in many cases by expert knowledge you don't have. Your objection in many cases remains, "I just say differently." You don't know what you're talking about. You aren't any sort of expert or even any sort of ordinarily knowledgeable person as regards many of these items.

If I may cherry-pick...

When a vessel capsizes, it floats around on its side.
Click to expand...

It certainly can, depending on several factors. You contend—from a position of clear ignorance—that a ship that floods and rolls on its side must necessarily turn all the way over, "turn turtle." That's simply wrong.

A strong wave can cause a reinforced steel bow visor to just simply fall off.
Click to expand...

We have discussed the relevant materials science and structural engineering at length. The new findings emphasize that this ship was not adequately built for oceangoing voyages and the accompanying heavy seas. Your desire to believe otherwise is simply ignorant.

The bow visor falling off meant that the cast iron door of the car deck also opened.
Click to expand...

Wrought steel, not "cast iron." The articulation between the visor and the ramp is clear in the drawings.

This opening was enough to cause instant flooding of the car deck and the ship to sink within thirty-five minutes.
Click to expand...

We have discussed flooding models at length. You're still stuck conflating stability and buoyancy.

Capsize being certain by laws of buoyancy...
Click to expand...

No.

Transverse stability and buoyancy are completely separate topics governed by completely separate kinds of laws of physics. This has been explained to you at length. You are either not intellectually capable of understanding the explanation or you are unwilling to be taught.

The Captain of the Commander Ship in Charge HM Silja doesn’t know what he is talking about when he said he was expecting to see the ship floating upside down’.
Click to expand...

Correct. Most ship captains are not ship engineers or physicists.

A passenger cruise ferry has little to no natural buoyancy, so of course, a little splash of water on an upper deck will cause it to immediately sink.
Click to expand...

Straw man. Further, you are not competent to determine the buoyancy factors for seagoing vessels.

A passenger ship with water entering the car deck above water level will suffer exactly the same fate as a ship struck by three torpedoes from a submarine and sink as quickly, just like MV Wilhelm Gustloff in WWII!
Click to expand...

There are many factors that contribute to the rate at which a ship will flood and sink. Your lay attempts to compare apples to oranges is not convincing.

• You are not allowed to use primes to indicate time because ‘I just looked up Grammarly so there’.

• ‘Merriam-Webster says US rules of notation override British ones.’
Click to expand...

This is not what happened.

You used the notation incorrectly, then tried to "correct" others—whom you wrongly asserted to be ignorant rather than just confused by your error—by means of an increasingly comical and dishonest string of lies. The dictionary has no relevance here. You were corrected by people with expert knowledge of notation, and by people with personal knowledge of the colloquial conventions of your country. You were invited to present evidence or other examples of your usage, but you declined.

You were simply wrong.

The exercise demonstrates that you are almost entirely incapable of admitting even trivial errors. You don't know what you're doing. You don't know what you're talking about. Yet somehow you seem to arrogantly maintain that only you can know the truth of all the various topics you've posted on in this forum. You seem to delight in the belief that you're holding powerful interests accountable. But you're simply a self-proclaimed armchair detective trying to pretend your little knowledge and a whole lot of bluster makes you relevant. If you're going to engage in this performance art in a skeptics forum, mockery is the expected outcome.

KANNAD406 Epirbs auto-activated ‘have to be switched on by the crew when the ship starts sinking’.
Click to expand...

Correct. You were shown documentary evidence that this was the case. You were told this also by people with operational understanding of and experience with the devices. Your stubborn belief to the contrary is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Vixen why are you continuing to lie about previous discussions when people can just go back and check that you're not telling the truth? Are you doing it intentionally in the hopes of gaslighting everyone or are you genuinely unable to see the differences in what happened versus what you're claiming happened?
 
Vixen said:
Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...

Yes.

cruise arabia com
Click to expand...

What a brilliant technical analysis of all the engineering factors that apply to the stability and safety of oceangoing vessels of various designs. The next time I need to provide a stability analysis for a customer, I'll just send them this link to a travel blog and charge them $100,000.

Vixen, does it ever enter your thinking that people who aren't you actually know things and don't just frantically google for a quick answer? Do you accept that the world might be ever so slightly more complicated than your knee-jerk lay understanding of it?
 
JayUtah said:
Yes.



What a brilliant technical analysis of all the engineering factors that apply to the stability and safety of oceangoing vessels of various designs. The next time I need to provide a stability analysis for a customer, I'll just send them this link to a travel blog and charge them $100,000.

Vixen, does it ever enter your thinking that people who aren't you actually know things and don't just frantically google for a quick answer? Do you accept that the world might be ever so slightly more complicated than your knee-jerk lay understanding of it?
Click to expand...

Plus, and yet again, we have a link provided by Vixen that says the opposite of her assertions:

For context, the picture above shows Costa Concordia after she partially sank in January 2012. In this picture, she is lying at a 65-degree angle. It’s worth noting that Concordia didn’t actually capsize, despite the massive gash in her hull, she sank onto her starboard side.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Vixen why are you continuing to lie about previous discussions when people can just go back and check that you're not telling the truth? Are you doing it intentionally in the hopes of gaslighting everyone or are you genuinely unable to see the differences in what happened versus what you're claiming happened?
Click to expand...

In Vixen's world there are no previous discussions. Everything Vixen posts is posted for the very first time. (And is correct beyond any refute).
 
lobosrul5 said:
Plus, and yet again, we have a link provided by Vixen that says the opposite of her assertions:

For context, the picture above shows Costa Concordia after she partially sank in January 2012. In this picture, she is lying at a 65-degree angle. It’s worth noting that Concordia didn’t actually capsize, despite the massive gash in her hull, she sank onto her starboard side.
Click to expand...

To be clear, the article does attempt to discuss the technical factors. But it doesn't present a complete enough picture to dictate what will or won't happen to any given vessel under any given set of circumstances.

It's important to remember that the bulk of stability concerns are from a combination of environmental factors and operating practices. All this presumes an intact hull. When the article says that the wave-height design requirement is 15 meters, and gives comparable figures for wind loading, those are the same induced roll moments that we talked about for sailing vessels. They use the G-Z formulation for metacentric height and resulting transverse stability, and they presume an intact hull. The ship's design has to provide the proper righting moment for roll induced by wind and wave, and this will prevail up to a certain critical angle. Other roll moments are caused by turning the ship under normal handling conditions. Beyond the critical angle, the ship will continue its roll. Whether it turns turtle or remains on its side depends on geometric factors for the hull.

In the case of grounding where the hull is breached below the waterline, such as in the case of Costa Concordia, you throw out that model. Grounding and flooding are atypical (and hopefully rare) concerns. Center of gravity is now governed by the flooding model. The center of buoyancy is also affected, but by virtue of how it's calculated in all cases from the geometry of the submerged portion of the hull. If something like flooding causes that portion to be different than designed, the center of buoyancy cannot be presumed to follow the shipbuilder's projections that follow from various loading and handling scenarios. In the flooded case, the ship can remain stable in literally any roll orientation until such time, if any, as it founders.

Finally, the critical roll angle in the G-Z model is mostly theoretical. Yes, it gives you the critical roll angle and metacentric height for an intact hull. But in practice ships can roll well within their transverse stability limits, yet present hull openings for flooding at shallower angles. The degree to which you can roll before water starts pouring through a hull opening is your practical limit.
 
Vixen said:
You would be factually wrong. The issue is not closed as the Swedish government is investing in salvaging the car ramp door.
Click to expand...

You are hilarious, and true to form.

The final report is forthcoming, but the results have already been discussed. Salvaging the bow ramp is more about the Swedish government shutting up conspiracy theorists than anything else.


Compare and contrast with the 'facts' surrounding the Titanic. Most people believed it was an established fact that the Titanic hit an iceberg. The thinking person knew all along that this theory was just someone's 'best guess'. This is the difference between true sceptics and those who accept unproven theories at face value. Which camp do you fall into?
Click to expand...

Well, lemme see if I got this...

The RMS Titanic is sailing at flank speed, ignoring warnings of icebergs from other ships in their area, when the ship strikes, grazes, and or otherwise comes into contact with an iceberg. A just under tree hours later the ship is on the bottom of the Atlantic.

Now that there has been an extremely detailed three-dimensional imaging of the wreck hitherto not technically possible, we can now say it is an established fact it hit an iceberg, although this is not 100% definitive.
Click to expand...

First off, few things are 100% definitive.

Second, we knew it was the iceberg because, UNLIKE THE CREW OF THE ESTONIA, Titanic sent engineers down to survey the damage in the flooding compartments. Those crew members reported back up the chain of command. Their reports are on record in both inquests. That's how we know exactly what happened to the Titanic.


Is the issue of the Estonia closed as you claim?
Click to expand...

Yes, and for decades it has been closed.

Since you threw in Titanic again, for some reason, you should know that Titanic's survivors divided on the question of the ship splitting in half. Unlike MS Estonia, who have few survivors, and they were confronted with raging seas under nightmare storm, the Titanic's survivors sat in lifeboats on a flat-calm sea. Now the Titanic sank on a moonless night, and the lights of the ship went out just before the spine snapped. What the various survivors saw depended on where their boats were in relation to the wreck, and how good their eyesight was. I imagine the breakup would have been loud, but maybe not louder than the hundreds of people screaming on deck, and in the water. And the breakup might not have been as dramatic on the surface as depicted in the movie.

Either way, the breakup is a tangential issue, and the central issue was always known - Titanic struck an iceberg and sank. And to bring this back to the topic, both ships, MS Estonia and RMS Titanic were sailing too fast for the conditions on the nights of their respective sinkings. Both were commanded by experienced men who should have known better, but assumed their ships were better built than they actually were, and took unnecessary risks.
 
Vixen said:
Do you not think it 'odd' that for someone who professes to be somewhat of a boffin that you should have raced to back up a poster who claimed that the cast iron ramp would have swung open and shut whilst sinking or sunk*? I would have thought objectivity should be sovereign for someone claiming to be a boff.

*The most likely reason the ramp door is now fully off is because early exploration underwater by various different groups over time wrenched the thing open, rather than banging open and shut of its own accord.
Click to expand...


No. What IS odd is your obsession with your Straw Man. I defended nothing, and was in no particular hurry when I did make my post. I read the comment regarding your latest (at least to that point) confusion regarding physics (gravitational force to be precise), as well as your proclivity for having such misunderstandings, I AGREED with THAT. Nothing else. I did so at my leisure. That is being objective, as you have provided ample evidence throughout this forum for such an evaluation, and little to none to counter it. In fact, as seen here, you prefer to lie (factually, if not intentionally), deflect, harangue, and pretty much do anything except acknowledge your error(s). Your claim that gravity works differently in water is plainly and 100% false. Show some integrity and deal with it, instead of dreaming up some scenario that never occurred.
 
Last edited:
By the way, has a more recent tv docu-drama series been made about this incident? That's to say, different from the original silly CT one? I saw one come up on my Sky (satellite) EPG recently and wasn't sure.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
The RMS Titanic is sailing at flank speed, ignoring warnings of icebergs from other ships in their area, when the ship strikes, grazes, and or otherwise comes into contact with an iceberg. A just under tree hours later the ship is on the bottom of the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

So you're ruling out the possibility that it was holed above the waterline by a flying submarine with tank tracks, while simultaneously being bombed and melted with radioactive isotopes by KGB agents just like that? Sheeple! Open your mind!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom