• 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:
It doesn't follow that this rocky outcrop caused the breach in the hull
Click to expand...
Sure as hell does. You didn't read the study, did you. They even included color photos for the slower people.

Vixen said:
The USS Park Victory that was wrecked in a similar region in 1947 happened because the captain didn't anchor properly and the vessel was thrown into the icy rocks (he was named and prosecuted BTW, in the same way drivers involved in car crashes are: they are supposed to be in control of their machine).
Click to expand...
The Park Victory was a WWII Victory ship, that accident has no relation to the Estonia. But I'm happy to point out that Victory Ships, like Ro-Ro Ferries, had a serious design flaw - they tended to break in half in rough seas early on. Modifications were made, but as they were sold to private shipping companies after the war, this ship-type continued to have accidents where the ship would break in two.

And the captain survived so he could be prosecuted. The Estonia's captain is still on the ship.

Vixen said:
Likewise, the TITANIC crashed into an iceberg. Many shipwrecks off Devon and Cornwall in ye olden days was due to their crashing INTO rocks, not hitting them at the bottom.
Click to expand...
No, the Titanic grazed the iceberg. The irony these days is some engineers suggest the Titanic might have made it to New York had it crashed head on, allowing its water-tight compartments to work. Anyhoo, the Titanic was no a Ro-Ro ferry.

The larger point here is you've painted yourself into yet another corner of misinterpreted facts that have nothing to do with the sinking of the Estonia, nor the current investigation.
 
Vixen said:
I did not say it was not a credible answer; what I said was the fact it landed near rocks doesn't ipso facto follow it was the rocks wot caused the breach in the hull. Sure, it might cause one - or even two, due to natural erosion - but that doesn't rule out a breach BEFORE sinking.
Click to expand...
But the rocks on the bottom directly correlate to the (inward) fractures of the hull, and there is even debris on the rocks from the ship left after the impact...which is in the report you can't be bothered to read.

And there WAS A HULL BREACH ON THE SURFACE. The bow visor was knocked off ripping the ramp open. Literally the worst kind of hull breach in the worst place under the worst conditions. Duh.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Bloody Nora. When I said I don't remember where I got it from I WAS REFERRING TO THE SITE. Kimo sabe? I do know it was drawn by Edinburgh Uni.
Click to expand...
Mojo said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Because that was whom the diagram was credited to.
Click to expand...
I'm going to ask another simple question Vixen, and you're going to dodge and weave and not supply a simple direct answer, or can you admit that you made an error?

Where is the diagram credited to Edinburgh University, such that you "know it was drawn by Edinburgh Uni."?
 
Mojo said:
I've searched the thread for the word "technical" in one of your posts. The only "JAIC technical report" you have referred to is "its part-report, 1995, which was a technical report". The only report I've found corresponding to this is the April 1995 JAIC "PART-REPORT covering the technical issues on the capsizing...", but this doesn't say anything about the ship floating on a 90° list, it says, at section 1.3, that the ship listed to over 90° and sank. You say that Bjorkman cites sections "1.12.5, 2.16 and 5.5", but the part-report doesn't include these section numbers. Are you referring to a different "part-report, 1995, which was a technical report"? If so, please provide a proper citation, and preferably a link, to the report you mean.

The JAIC final report, by the way, also says nothing about the ship "floating on a 90° list". It reports the ship listing to somewhere over 90° and then sinking. See section 13.2.6 and figure 13.3.

The mere fact that the ship didn't sink within 35" of reaching a 90° list doesn't mean that it "floated on a 90° list".
Click to expand...
Can I politely urge you to listen. I already pointed out a video reconstruction based on the JAIC report which clearly shows the vessel at 90deg list at 6:37 on the youtube video. This is its position up to 01:48. What is difficult?

1763504658368.png
 
JayUtah said:
Come on, Vixen. Rev up that triple-niner brain and give us the benefit of your knowledge.

Let's say a car hits a concrete barrier at 10 meters per second because the driver was distracted by something in the cabin. And an identical car hits an identical concrete barrier at 10 meters per second because the car's brakes failed. Tell me how the circumstances leading to the collision in these cases would create a different physics outcome in the collision per se.
Click to expand...
You have omitted to factor in the resistance of a body of water. So if a car crashes into an immoveable solid unwielding object such as a concrete barrier - or even a tree it will be quite nasty - a friend's neighbour's son was killed by that circumstance (huge tree in Tennessee) the impact is likely to result in a complete write-off. Now a car sinking in 70m of water is not likely to suffer the same amout of damage travelling at the same speed. Some yobs here in Finland a couple of weeks ago swerved onto a bridge over a river at very high speed without slowing down and ended in the river. Luckily, the occupants were able to get themselves out. The car was in bad shape but not so bad had it hit a tree or a concrete barrier. You can see a picture of the car here being hoisted out: https://yle.fi/a/74-20179791
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You have omitted to factor in the resistance of a body of water. So if a car crashes into an immoveable solid unwielding object such as a concrete barrier - or even a tree it will be quite nasty - a friend's neighbour's son was killed by that circumstance (huge tree in Tennessee) the impact is likely to result in a complete write-off. Now a car sinking in 70m of water is not likely to suffer the same amout of damage travelling at the same speed. Some yobs here in Finland a couple of weeks ago swerved onto a bridge over a river at very high speed without slowing down and ended in the river. Luckily, the occupants were able to get themselves out. The car was in bad shape but not so bad had it hit a tree or a concrete barrier. You can see a picture of the car here being hoisted out: https://yle.fi/a/74-20179791
Click to expand...
Would you care to estimate the difference in mass between a car and a car ferry?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
That YouTube video does not contain the image (diagram) that @Vixen says it contains. In particular, it takes a considerable degree of imagination to say that image resembles what that YouTube video shows at 7:16.

@Vixen's image is bit-level identical to the image at Björkman's web site. That image was created at 2008:12:16 17:13:30 using Microsoft Windows Photo Gallery 6.0.6001.18000. Björkman attributes that image to "The Swedish scientists at SSPA/Chalmers" in 2008. Most of Björkman's links to SSPA have gone 404.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that
  1. @Vixen took that image from Björkman's web site,
  2. Björkman either created the image himself or took it from an SSPA/Chalmers document or web site
  3. that is no longer online (so @Vixen could not have obtained it from any source other than Björkman).
  4. @Vixen was probably either mistaken or lying when she attributed the image to Edinburgh University.
  5. @Vixen might have been telling the truth when she said she "Can't remember now" the source.
  6. @Vixen was blowing smoke when she said "If I said it was a certain source, then it was."
  7. @Vixen was blowing smoke when she said "Because that was whom the diagram was credited to."
  8. @Vixen was blowing smoke when she said "It appears to originate from this youtube reconstruction by Safety at Sea".
Click to expand...
Oh dear. You haven't grasped that Bjorkman was using graphics recreated by some university research bods (Edinburgh IIRC) based on what the JAIC said in its report. So if Bjorkman shows a pic of the MV Estonia it becomes his property, according to your logic.
 
Vixen said:
A vessel is deliberately designed to be buoyant. A car is not. So you are not comparing like for like. Try sinking a plastic duck in the bath.
Click to expand...
We'll get to ships in a minute. My question has to do with two cars of identical mass that collide with the same object at the same velocity, 10 meters per second. Make them airplanes, if you want. The circumstances that led to the collisions were different in each case. But the physical parameters are identical. You seem to be arguing that the circumstances change the physics. Explain.
 
catsmate said:
Evidence for this? MB has nothing to do with intelligence and Mensa certainly doesn't support that nonsense..
Click to expand...
I expect that is how research works. Some friends back in the UK report British Mensa recently consented to another psychologist sending members a questionnaire based on her theory that high IQ is linked to autism. It's pathetic but that's how research works. I suppose it's better than being considered insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom