The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

• 44 minutes ago
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #6,137

Mojo writes:

As I said to another poster I got the 15kg mixed up with the Atlantic bolt.

For the record, I have never mistaken the bow visor for the Atlantic Lock...

Er, the bow visor is a huge 55 - 64 tonne chunk of solid steel, the Atlantic lock, is tiny in the grand scheme of things. We were OBVIOUSLY talking about the WEIGHT of the thing given the CONTEXT of a survivor passenger witness (Paul Barney) saying he felt a shudder that made him fall off the bench he was sleeping on. An Atlantic lock knocking against the hull is barely going to awake a seagull. The Atlantic lock is way down near the bulbous bow so is hardly going to make anyone feel like something has collided if it falls off. So, having had the weight of the Atlantic lock at the recent forefront of my mind at the time, I carelessly wrote its weight erroneously as the weight of the entire shebang that was causing collision/explosion type reports amongst some of the passenger survivors. In addition, this was acknowledged. So much for the ridiculous claim I was too 'embarrassed to admit to a mistake'.

 

[Vixen]

Are you able to provide this photo?

Bob's your uncle:

32.2 findings

 

[JayUtah]

Braidwood provides a photo of the small hole.

He also provides an inaccurate drawing.

I could upload a copy of one of the independent metallurgy lab reports but I am not sure anyone will appreciate it.

Please upload the full reports at once. I've asked you several times to do so.

You claimed you were in a better position to evaluate the explosives claims because you had access to the full reports, even though you admit you don't know anything about metallurgy. Let's test your claimed ability to evaluate them.

 

[LondonJohn]

You were trying to attribute some kind of low-life sleazy attributes to me so of course I knew this was a preposterous claim.

"Low-life sleazy attributes"?? ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hell.

Mojo simply and clearly pointed out your prior ignorance regarding the mass of the bow visor. You, as always, continue to insist that black is white, even in the face of crystal clear evidence of your ignorance. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pathetic.

 

[JayUtah]

Bob's your uncle:

32.2 findings

That shows tear-out, not a "hole."

 

[Vixen]

I know it was something you read. I know that you said you'd provide a citation. I know you never did provide a citation.

I've no idea why it's called an Atlantic lock, and it's irrelevant. I'll ask you why it's called an Atlantic lock, but I've no doubt that whatever answer you provide will not be accompanied with an actual valid citation, and may not actually be an answer to the question at all.

So tell us Vixen, with an actual valid citation (remember that you explicitly said that all your posts that are not qualified with "IMV" has are factual, are properly sourced and properly referenced), why is it called the Atlantic lock?

And while you're at it. why is the reason for the name "Atlantic lock" relevant to whatever argument you think you're making.

Please answer the question, with a valid citation that shows where you learned the origin/meaning of the name "Atlantic lock".

As you know, I went to some effort to find the citation, but as often happens with 'browsing history' that is not in the immediate near past, it becomes nigh on impossible to locate a page again, although I did try.

 

[JayUtah]

So much for the ridiculous claim I was too 'embarrassed to admit to a mistake'.

Why do you keep reporting the weight of the entire ship as "15,000 tonnes?"

 

[Vixen]

"Low-life sleazy attributes"?? ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hell.

Mojo simply and clearly pointed out your prior ignorance regarding the mass of the bow visor. You, as always, continue to insist that black is white, even in the face of crystal clear evidence of your ignorance. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pathetic.

Er, seriously? I thought the entire bow visor, together with its casing weighed a mere 15kg, or eight bags of sugar? That is really desperate stuff when it is obviously an error and as I acknowledged.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why do you keep reporting the weight of the entire ship as "15,000 tonnes?"

Ooh I know this one!! Is it because Vixen's "arguments" are invariably littered with gross scientific illiteracy and sheer ineptitude?!

 

[LondonJohn]

Er, seriously? I thought the entire bow visor, together with its casing weighed a mere 15kg, or eight bags of sugar? That is really desperate stuff when it is obviously an error and as I acknowledged.

No. You made a mistake. THEN you doubled down on it with this "casing" nonsense. You fail. Horribly.

 

[Vixen]

He also provides an inaccurate drawing.


Please upload the full reports at once. I've asked you several times to do so.

You claimed you were in a better position to evaluate the explosives claims because you had access to the full reports, even though you admit you don't know anything about metallurgy. Let's test your claimed ability to evaluate them.

I'll see what I can do. In the interim, here is the covering letter of one such agency (source forgotten):

 

[Vixen]

No. You made a mistake. THEN you doubled down on it with this "casing" nonsense. You fail. Horribly.

No. The issue was a survivor reporting a massive thud. OBVIOUSLY that thud would not have been from a poxy iron bolt.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll see what I can do.

No, please upload the full reports right away. We discussed the cover letter and its claims previously.

 

[LondonJohn]

No. The issue was a survivor reporting a massive thud. OBVIOUSLY that thud would not have been from a poxy iron bolt.

No. That was NOT the issue. And you know it.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you keep reporting the weight of the entire ship as "15,000 tonnes?"

I got the basic specs from wikipedia:

Car-Passenger Ferry

15,598 GT[2] 3,006 DWT[2]

155.43 m (509 ft 11 in) (as built) 157.02 m (515.16 ft) (1984 onwards)

24.21 m (79 ft 5 in)

5.60 m (18 ft 4 in)

9

1 A

4 × MAN 8L40/45 17,625 kW (23,636 hp) (combined)

21.1 knots (39.1 km/h; 24.3 mph)

2,000 passengers 1,190 passenger berths 460 cars

[th]

General characteristics​

[/th]​

[td]Type[/td] [td]Tonnage[/td] [td]Length[/td] [td]Beam[/td] [td]Draught[/td] [td]Decks[/td] [td]Ice class[/td] [td]Installed power[/td] [td]Speed[/td] [td]Capacity[/td]

 

[LondonJohn]

I got the basic specs from wikipedia:

Car-Passenger Ferry

15,598 GT[2] 3,006 DWT[2]

155.43 m (509 ft 11 in) (as built) 157.02 m (515.16 ft) (1984 onwards)

24.21 m (79 ft 5 in)

5.60 m (18 ft 4 in)

9

1 A

4 × MAN 8L40/45 17,625 kW (23,636 hp) (combined)

21.1 knots (39.1 km/h; 24.3 mph)

2,000 passengers 1,190 passenger berths 460 cars

[th]
General characteristics

[/th]​

[td]Type[/td] [td]Tonnage[/td] [td]Length[/td] [td]Beam[/td] [td]Draught[/td] [td]Decks[/td] [td]Ice class[/td] [td]Installed power[/td] [td]Speed[/td] [td]Capacity[/td]

LOL gross tonnage

 

[JayUtah]

I got the basic specs from wikipedia:

Which of those figures do you believe represents the weight of the ship?

 

[Vixen]

No, please upload the full reports right away. We discussed the cover letter and its claims previously.

Unfortunately, they run to about 200 pages, together with appendices of the various slides so I am not sure it is feasible or even permissible.

 

[Vixen]

Which of those figures do you believe represents the weight of the ship?

15K - good starting point.

 

[JayUtah]

Unfortunately, they run to about 200 pages, together with appendices of the various slides so I am not sure it is feasible or even permissible.

I think you're lying. I think all you ever had was the cover page and you're trying to make as much hay out of it as possible. Earlier you told us you wouldn't post them for lack of interest. Now you've changed your story to say they're too extensive. Post the page from the report that has a "Findings" section heading.