• 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

Vixen said:
If the windows on deck 4 and five were smashed, how come the Rockwater divers had to work really hard with hammers to even gain access to the interior?
Click to expand...
The simple reason is that the smashed windows are of course on the lower side, on which the wreck is lying. The divers entered on the other side of the wreck which is uppermost and where the windows were not smashed by facing into the waves.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The simple reason is that the smashed windows are of course on the lower side, on which the wreck is lying. The divers entered on the other side of the wreck which is uppermost and where the windows were not smashed by facing into the waves.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't it have been easier, and less destructive, to just tunnel under the wreck to where the windows were already broken?
 
Vixen said:
Winds were southwesterly so the waves would have been hammering the port side, initially, until the boat steered away to turn.

View attachment 65541
Click to expand...
Look at the diagram you've posted here. The ship is initially heading North-West. It loses the visor, water is now able to get onto the car deck, and it starts to list to starboard. Gravity causes the water to flow towards the now lower starboard side of the car deck, with the weight of the water increasing the list as the ship turns to head South-East between 0116 and 0120. The ship is now listing severely to starboard, with the wind and waves coming in on its starboard side. The port windows are elevated and the starboard windows lowered toward or even into the water. Which side do you think the windows are more likely to break on?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
In theory they are. Our barns have huge bolts across the doors (admittedly constructed early last century), together with a padlock when we are not around. Bolts have always been effective in securing barn doors. The problem with property is potential intruders. But the Atlantic bolt on the Estonia was simply there as an extra feature, so yes, I would be surprised if you can provide a citation that the Atlantic lock was not effective at all.
Click to expand...
Do you think the bow visor on a ship is the same as a barn door?

Do you think a bolt on a varn door is the same as, and performing the same function as a security bolt on a barn door?
 
Vixen said:
Calm down, I am not queering your pitch. If the windows on deck 4 and five were smashed, how come the Rockwater divers had to work really hard with hammers to even gain access to the interior?

View attachment 65537


Rockwater Report.
Click to expand...
because the side of the ship they were entering was the leeward side that didn't get hit by the waves.
 
Again, the sinking has been recreated using both physical models and computer models. The science is solid. The bow visor was knocked off, and it yanked open the car ramp allowing sea water to flood the car deck, and lower decks. The fact that Estonia continued to sail at top speed aided in the intake of water. Broken windows due to the increasing list are a secondary factor in the sinking. No less important, but not the driving element. Getting caught up in minutia is a conspiracy theorist game I used to play when I bought into that line of thinking.

We just had a UPS MD-11 crash in Kentucky. There is poor quality video of the whole thing. One of the engines is still on the runway. When Jay Utah says, "Stay in your lane", he means you have to defer to the experts on the investigation who work with the evidence. In the case of the crash, as layman I point out that the engine falling off is bad, but the coming investigation will lay out the sequence of events leading to the engine falling off, and what else was happening with the plane before it hit the ground. Therefore I have no qualified standing to discuss the particulars of this crash, and I need to limit my comments to reflecting on how awful this is for the families, and people on the ground, and UPS as we head into the Holiday Season. If I start running my mouth about what potential cargo was on the plane that some shadowy organization needed to be stopped that would make me an a**hole. I know the basics of flight, but I'm not a pilot. I build airplane models, but I'm in no way an aeronautical engineer.

With the MS Estonia, I'm not a sailor, I'm not an engineer. I've lived near the Pacific Ocean all my life. I have friends who own commercial salmon boat in Alaska, and I took a college class on maritime procedures for fun. My college education included oceanography and marine biology along with my geology classes. I'm in no position to question the JAIC even if I wanted to.

I have seen the ocean destroy things; roads, wharfs, large boats, and granite landscapes. Decades ago I had a friend killed on a sunny day by a rogue wave that came from nowhere, and raced 100 yards up the beach to drag her out to sea. There was no warning. The captain of the Estonia made a conscious choice to sail at an unsafe speed in weather where the captains of other vessels chose to take it slow. The Estonia was not designed for open ocean transit on a sunny day, and had only sailed in rough seas one other time. The captain should have known better, the shipping company should have known better.

All the splitting of hairs will not change the basic facts.
 
As I said the last time we had a fringe reset.

I shouldn't have let myself get drawn back in to going over the same ◊◊◊◊ again.

I'm not posting any more unless some new lie is introduced.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Yes we both covered this a short while ago you with Trawlers and me with the hulls of Frigates that have spent a lot of time at sea in storms.

Complete with photos
Click to expand...
I thought it sounded familiar- vixen repeats everything so much its hard to remember exactly what has already been debunked multiple times before.....

The 'rinse and repeat queen' lol
 
JayUtah said:
The starboard side windows were the ones closest to the water as the result of the ship's starboard list. They are the ones most likely to have been broken.


But with the ship listing, the port windows would likely have been above any wave action. Why are you assuming the waves could only have impacted the port side simply because that's the way the wind was blowing and that's the way the ship was pointing at some part of the disaster timeline?
Click to expand...
ISTM that when the vessel was sufficiently listing for high waves to slap the Deck 4 & 5 windows, the angle was such, 50° to 60° or more, in which case any water smashing in immediately pours straight back out, owing to the angle. Sea at level 18O° with waves splashing on the ship now looming over the waves, suggests gravity means any water ingress pours straight back out, because as the ship is no longer upright, there is no means for it to seep downwards to join the lower deck water.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Do you think the bow visor on a ship is the same as a barn door?

Do you think a bolt on a varn door is the same as, and performing the same function as a security bolt on a barn door?
Click to expand...
The Atlantic Lock is pretty much an old fashioned bolt design. I did include diagrams of it but you screamed potty mouthed stuff about having seen it before. But now it appears you have no idea what the Atlantic Lock is or how it functions.
 
Axxman300 said:
Again, the sinking has been recreated using both physical models and computer models. The science is solid. The bow visor was knocked off, and it yanked open the car ramp allowing sea water to flood the car deck, and lower decks. The fact that Estonia continued to sail at top speed aided in the intake of water. Broken windows due to the increasing list are a secondary factor in the sinking. No less important, but not the driving element. Getting caught up in minutia is a conspiracy theorist game I used to play when I bought into that line of thinking.

We just had a UPS MD-11 crash in Kentucky. There is poor quality video of the whole thing. One of the engines is still on the runway. When Jay Utah says, "Stay in your lane", he means you have to defer to the experts on the investigation who work with the evidence. In the case of the crash, as layman I point out that the engine falling off is bad, but the coming investigation will lay out the sequence of events leading to the engine falling off, and what else was happening with the plane before it hit the ground. Therefore I have no qualified standing to discuss the particulars of this crash, and I need to limit my comments to reflecting on how awful this is for the families, and people on the ground, and UPS as we head into the Holiday Season. If I start running my mouth about what potential cargo was on the plane that some shadowy organization needed to be stopped that would make me an a**hole. I know the basics of flight, but I'm not a pilot. I build airplane models, but I'm in no way an aeronautical engineer.

With the MS Estonia, I'm not a sailor, I'm not an engineer. I've lived near the Pacific Ocean all my life. I have friends who own commercial salmon boat in Alaska, and I took a college class on maritime procedures for fun. My college education included oceanography and marine biology along with my geology classes. I'm in no position to question the JAIC even if I wanted to.

I have seen the ocean destroy things; roads, wharfs, large boats, and granite landscapes. Decades ago I had a friend killed on a sunny day by a rogue wave that came from nowhere, and raced 100 yards up the beach to drag her out to sea. There was no warning. The captain of the Estonia made a conscious choice to sail at an unsafe speed in weather where the captains of other vessels chose to take it slow. The Estonia was not designed for open ocean transit on a sunny day, and had only sailed in rough seas one other time. The captain should have known better, the shipping company should have known better.

All the splitting of hairs will not change the basic facts.
Click to expand...
But the strange thing is, the JAIC report tells us nothing about what the captain was doing or how he was identified. The captain is key in shipping accident investigations but here we are no wiser as to why it was the third and fourth mates (Tammes and Kaunisaar) doing the MAYDAY stuff. JAIC omits this vital information.
 
Vixen said:
ISTM that when the vessel was sufficiently listing for high waves to slap the Deck 4 & 5 windows, the angle was such, 50° to 60° or more, in which case any water smashing in immediately pours straight back out, owing to the angle. Sea at level 18O° with waves splashing on the ship now looming over the waves, suggests gravity means any water ingress pours straight back out, because as the ship is no longer upright, there is no means for it to seep downwards to join the lower deck water.
Click to expand...
You really have no idea, do you?
 
Vixen said:
ISTM that when the vessel was sufficiently listing for high waves to slap the Deck 4 & 5 windows, the angle was such, 50° to 60° or more, in which case any water smashing in immediately pours straight back out, owing to the angle. Sea at level 18O° with waves splashing on the ship now looming over the waves, suggests gravity means any water ingress pours straight back out, because as the ship is no longer upright, there is no means for it to seep downwards to join the lower deck water.
Click to expand...
Why are you assuming that the destruction of the windows and the ingress of water through the new openings must have occurred at the same time and by the same mechanism? What "seems to you" is presumptive twaddle. For Neptune's sake, stay in your lane. This is not a science that you know.
 
Vixen said:
But the strange thing is, the JAIC report tells us nothing about what the captain was doing or how he was identified. The captain is key in shipping accident investigations but here we are no wiser as to why it was the third and fourth mates (Tammes and Kaunisaar) doing the MAYDAY stuff. JAIC omits this vital information.
Click to expand...
What difference would that make to the water pouring into the ship?
 
Vixen said:
The Atlantic Lock is pretty much an old fashioned bolt design. I did include diagrams of it but you screamed potty mouthed stuff about having seen it before. But now it appears you have no idea what the Atlantic Lock is or how it functions.
Click to expand...
He's not asking you because he doesn't know how gates work or how the Atlantic lock worked. He's asking you how you can reason about the function and failure of one by thinking about the other. Your answer is merely, "Because I say so."
 
Vixen said:
But the strange thing is, the JAIC report tells us nothing about what the captain was doing or how he was identified. The captain is key in shipping accident investigations but here we are no wiser as to why it was the third and fourth mates (Tammes and Kaunisaar) doing the MAYDAY stuff. JAIC omits this vital information.
Click to expand...
"JAIC is wrong because I say so."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom