• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Andy_Ross said:
water collects at the lowest point.
There's this thing called gravity
Click to expand...
Ovberg was a jurisprudence student and non-practising lawyer, and accordingly as befits a lawyer,, his witness statement is incredibly precise in chronology and detail. He was in lower deck 1, Deck 0 being the lowest. He states:

- out of these goosenecks water was streaming under great pressure, he also saw water penetrating the door forward of these goosenecks in the 3rd compartment which belonged to a cleaning room;
- he saw the water running over the floors;
Click to expand...
You can read his full testimony here: https://web.archive.org/web/2004031...ia final report/enclosures HTM/12.4.2.151.htm and he has illustrated the gooseneck water streams in enclosure no. 6. The blue arrows indicate the direction in which he was running.


1762343360813.png
 
Vixen said:
Ovberg ...
Click to expand...

... Saw water, under pressure, flooding into his deck, low down in the ship. That only tells us the area he was in was already below the water level of whatever the source of that seawater was. He did not see where it was coming into the hull.

It doesn't tell you anything to support any notions you may have about there being any breach other than the bow door.
 
Vixen said:
When it is a simple definition, word spelling or meaning, yes, in my long professional career I can confirm that, yes, I can discern when it is accurate and when it needs more searching.

The waves would have to be pretty high to reach up to deck 5 and smash the windows. The windows in a passenger cruise ferry are designed to withstand high gale force winds so don't just smash like normal windows.
Click to expand...
the ship was rolling and already listing because of flooding in a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ storm.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You don't know it has a simple, clear definition. Jay already described ambiguity in the term.
Click to expand...
He was playing on words saying Deck 4 became the hull when water ingressed into it but the JAIC at no point said the hull had any ingression at all. This is why it came up with a theory derived from calculations that the additional amount of water needed to capsize and sunk the boat must have been due to Deck 4 windows being smashed by the waves as it listed. But it was never ascertained the windows were smashed or that they physically could be ceteris paribus under those conditions. It was like having an equation x + y = z. Knowing what x and z equalled they could then calculate y. Next problem how does y fit. Where did this extra volume of water come from? So it therefore came up with the bright idea of Deck 4 windows smashing. All brilliant deduction but rather post hoc ergo proptor hoc or what scientists might call the halo effect fallacy, when you make your results fit your hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
No. The waves did not have to be high. Deck 5 had to be low. When the ship listed far enough over, it was.

Which part of that has confused you for all these years?
Click to expand...
The vessel once it reached a 50° list had no other fate than to capsize. Once the side of the ship is submerged in water there are no waves to smash the windows.
 
Vixen said:
The vessel once it reached a 50° list had no other fate than to capsize. Once the side of the ship is submerged in water there are no waves to smash the windows.
Click to expand...
Desperate stuff indeed. Conflating rolling over with sinking.

When the windows were above the waves, the waves couldn't hit them. When the windows were below the waves, the waves couldn't hit them. Thanks you for your invaluable insight. No, really.
 
Vixen said:
The vessel once it reached a 50° list had no other fate than to capsize. Once the side of the ship is submerged in water there are no waves to smash the windows.
Click to expand...
There are windows and doors on all parts of the superstructure, not just on the sides...

See for example 12.6.1 in the JAIC report.
0_bit.gif
According to the hydrostatic calculations, a continuously increasing amount of water on the car deck would make the aft windows of deck 4 the first possible flooding point to other areas (Figure 12.14). Soon thereafter the windows and the aft entrance doors of deck 5 would also be submerged. A little less than 2,000 t of water on the car deck would be sufficient to bring the first flooding points down to the mean water surface. In this condition the list would be about 35°.
Click to expand...
 
Myriad said:
Also known as a gale, full gale, or fresh gale. Associated with wave heights in the 5.5 to 7.5 meter range.

Gale force winds of 65-75 kph and two-story-high waves at sea, yes, the phrase "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ storm" accurately applies.
Click to expand...
I can't see anything in the Beaufort Scale about a sweary potty-mouthed storm. Are these sweary sexually aggressive storms stronger than usual storms?
 
Vixen said:
The vessel once it reached a 50° list had no other fate than to capsize. Once the side of the ship is submerged in water there are no waves to smash the windows.
Click to expand...
It never capsized, the windows were already broken by the time it was submerged.
Even if they weren't the pressure of water would have smashed them if there was still air in the compartment.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Desperate stuff indeed. Conflating rolling over with sinking.

When the windows were above the waves, the waves couldn't hit them. When the windows were below the waves, the waves couldn't hit them. Thanks you for your invaluable insight. No, really.
Click to expand...
Surely the windows in a passenger cruise ferry are designed to withstand high gale-force winds? Once meeting resistance from the waves - ok so the waves can backlash viciously - the waves aren't at the same m/s and force as the wind - are you claiming the windows did indeed smash without needing a simulation based on actual specs (cf MS Jan Hewliusz which not only took 1'02" (ONE HOUR TWO MINUTES [we are not utilising seconds here]) but it remained floating on the surface of the sea upside down for over five hours..? Bear in mind that vessel was in a much MUCH sorrier state than the MS Estonia.
 
Vixen said:
I can't see anything in the Beaufort Scale about a sweary potty-mouthed storm. Are these sweary sexually aggressive storms stronger than usual storms?
Click to expand...
Address the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ points.

You know it was a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ storm, you know the ship was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pitching and rolling before the visor failed .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom