IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st October 2021, 10:05 AM   #321
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,205
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Soz, the car decks are decks no. 2 and 3. In effect, the JAIC is claiming that when the vessel capsized onto its starboard side, decks 4 and 5 immediately filled with water, the windows having smashed, battened down the cabin doors (cabins themselves divided into literally hundreds). This defies belief as a ship cannot float on its superstructure. Once it capsized to the side, it would have turtled within minutes ceteris paribus.
Gobbledegook. The JAIC said that car deck flooding caused instability, which caused the list, which continued until the large windows on the starboard side of decks 4 and 5 were exposed to a pounding they were not intended to have to cope with. Those large windows are not cabin windows, by the way, "battened down" or otherwise. When they failed that allowed flooding to proceed more rapidly.

Your mantra that a ship cannot float on its superstructure appears to be as irrelevant as it is confusing and your obsessive insistance that capsizing ships usually turn right over continues to be wrong, expecto patronum.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 21st October 2021 at 10:07 AM.
Jack by the hedge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:08 AM   #322
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
...your obsessive insistance that capsizing ships usually turn right over continues to be wrong, expecto patronum.
Quod erat errandum.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:29 AM   #323
Spektator
Watching . . . always watching.
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southeastern USA
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by junkshop View Post
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present your champion of champions!


Let's give him a big hand, folks. Didn't he do well?
I shan't let it go to my isotope Peru.
Spektator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:35 AM   #324
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The negative buoyancy and negative shift in the centre of gravity. Imagine you are walking along. Your body's centre of gravity keeps you perfectly balanced. Then imagine an unseen hole in the ground introduces an element of instability in that it causes your right foot to miss its stride. Your centre of gravity is no longer balanced, pitching you to one side, causing you to either stumble, to use your arms, shoulders and other side of the body to regain balance, or you fall over completely. You do not remain in a state of inertia. Something has to give.

London John's fond belief The Herald of Free Enterprise was forever fated to lie on its side, unhindered by the bank it lay on, shows continues to cause amusement.
What does any of that have to do with a ship sinking?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:36 AM   #325
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh good lord. It just gets better and better*.

Your musings on the interaction between a centre of gravity, balance and buoyancy, and the way you translate your musings on to what you believe must have happened to the Estonian, are scientifically-illiterate. Please don't insult us with these horrible attempts at justification/rationalisation of your moribund PoV.






Ehm..... what now? Are you claiming that the HOFE would have done something other than lie on its side in perpetuity, had it not been dismantled for scrap? Or are you claiming that had the sandbank not "intervened", the HOFE would necessarily have turned upside-down in the water, rather than sinking in a 90-degree-capsized attitude?

Because either way, you're wrong. I'm glad, however, that you find your own scientific ignorance amusing.




* More and more embarrassing.




The ignorance is staggering. The Herald of Free Enterprise landed where she did and in the position she lay because the crew steered it deliberately onto a sandbank. It is in that position because that is the lie of the land where she was grounded. Doh_!


Given the water in which The Herald of Free Enterprise lay is extremely shallow, it is preposterous for you to confidently assert that that is exactly how it would have lay on the seabed had it been deeper water and it had sunk fully submerged.

Quote:
The ship ended up on her side half-submerged in shallow water 1 kilometre (0.5 nmi; 0.6 mi) from the shore. Only a fortuitous turn to starboard in her last moments, and then capsizing on a sandbar, prevented the ship from sinking entirely in much deeper water.
wiki

The Estonia for example, went from being on its starboard side to sinking face down, with a seabed gradient of 30° halting its descent and thus, causing it to finish up at 214°. Had the seabed been level it would have been nearer 180°, except the bridge and funnel would have caused an angle,
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2017-03-06-1.jpg (26.5 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg _94925655_gettyimages-603713986.jpg (58.7 KB, 6 views)
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

Last edited by Vixen; 21st October 2021 at 10:37 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:38 AM   #326
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There was water on the car deck but by all accounts that was quite normal in rainy weather. One of the crew on the Estonia, said he saw water up to the car tyres.
Half a mater of water on the car deck would be around 2000 tons.

Quote:
Even the JAIC said that even if the car decks were filled with a maximum volume of water, that would not of itself be enough to capsize the boat .
Where do they say this?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:39 AM   #327
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A multi-pronged attack was the Soviet leitmotiv.

Even the British Royal Navy used to employ more than one form of attack: double-headed hammers and cannonballs to sink a ship in days of yore.
What are you burbling about?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:40 AM   #328
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, because a professor in Materials Science (Westermann) and three other metallurgy labs (Braidwood) have found evidence of damage in the metal structure consistent with explosives deformation.
Didn't we go though that in great detail over many pages just last week?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:42 AM   #329
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Using the Wilhelm Gustloff as an example: certainly. Perhaps more by accident than design.
Where was the Wilhelm Gustloff struck above the waterline? It was hit by torpedoes, they are by their nature below the water.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:42 AM   #330
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Okay, so undeniably, water came in gushing from the sides of the ramp at some point of time. Now, "gushing in" isn't the sort of problem that the mattresses would be there to prevent. They may have slowed a leaking visor, but not one in which water gushed around the ramp.

Hence, whether the ramp was up the entire time or not, an unusually large amount of water was coming in from the bow. Agreed?
This is based on what one person saw on a monitor after the ship heeled. As the car ramp leaked anyway, as per the accounts of numerous witnesses, we can't assume this was the cause, without further substantiation IMV.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg car ramp as drawn by Sillaste.jpg (38.7 KB, 5 views)
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:43 AM   #331
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
None of this is actual physics. Nothing's center of gravity "keeps it perfectly balanced." An object may be angularly stationary if, for example, the reactive force to gravity acts through the center of gravity (a zero-length moment arm), and there are no other moments to accommodate. The location of the center of gravity is one parameter to an angular stability problem, but it is not something that, by itself, guarantees or generates angular stability or instability.

Bipedal locomotion is a metastable state of constantly moving the center of gravity forward from the locus of the reactive force and generating a forward pitch moment. Then it changes the locus of the reactive force (i.e., which foot is bearing the weight) to convert the pitch moment into forward motion. If you lose your footing, then the state stops being metastable and becomes unstable; there is an uncorrected pitch moment and you might fall.

Please stop trying to teach people physics. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. You're just throwing words around that you may have vaguely remembered from your "five years of physics" as a child. But you aren't fooling anyone into thinking you actually have something to teach others.
I was trying to keep it very very simple.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:46 AM   #332
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
But as has been explained (to Vixen) several times already in these threads - and as the official investigation understood properly* - ships such as these simply aren't designed to have hulls that are internally watertight. In fact, it would be a pretty severe hindrance to a passenger- and vehicle-carrying ship if it had to partition and seal off every internal area of the hull.

And that's precisely why, once the water had started flooding onto the vehicle deck via the now-compromised bow opening, it immediately began to find its way down through the internal structure of the ship - via stairwells, ventilation shafts and other openings.

In the end, the combined mass of seawater on the vehicle deck plus seawater that had pooled lower down in the hull was sufficient to pull the ship so far down in the water that sinking became the inevitable outcome. At the same time, the un-baffled water on the vehicle deck severely destabilised the ship (which had set off with imperfect trim in any event), precipitating the capsize which greatly sped up the loss of the vessel.


* It goes without saying that the official investigation understood this properly, since they knew 1) that the ship sank, and 2) that the cause of its sinking was the broken bow opening mechanism.
Once again you are incorrect. The Estonia had fourteen watertight compartments in her hull. The Herald of Free Enterprise had none and I believe it became regulatory to increase buoyancy in the hull after that.

The JAIC made it clear that the heeling of water in the car deck alone was not sufficient to cause capsizing so stop claiming it was.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:46 AM   #333
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Half a mater of water on the car deck would be around 2000 tons.



Where do they say this?
She quoted it above. Section 12.6 from the report.

It is not clear to me whether JAIC is saying that other decks must have had water flow in from outside or water flow down from the car deck. Perhaps it will be obvious to those of us used to reading this sort of report.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:46 AM   #334
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The Estonia had a total buoyancy equivalent to 18,000 tonnes in its hull.

Even the JAIC admit a car deck full off water would not be enough to cause it to capsize.
Cargo capacity is not what is being discussed.

2000 tons of water (half a meter depth) on the car deck rushing to the leeward side when the ship rolled is what capsized it.

As a number of posters have pointed out, stability and buoyancy are different things.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:52 AM   #335
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Once again you are incorrect. The Estonia had fourteen watertight compartments in her hull. The Herald of Free Enterprise had none and I believe it became regulatory to increase buoyancy in the hull after that.

The JAIC made it clear that the heeling of water in the car deck alone was not sufficient to cause capsizing so stop claiming it was.
What is your evidence that the HOFE had no watertight compartments in the hull?

How do you think it's construction differed from that of the Estonia?

What was the status of the openings in the hull at the time it sank?

Why would a hole in to one of these compartments cause the Estonia to sink if all the other compartments was watertight?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:53 AM   #336
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Gobbledegook. The JAIC said that car deck flooding caused instability, which caused the list, which continued until the large windows on the starboard side of decks 4 and 5 were exposed to a pounding they were not intended to have to cope with. Those large windows are not cabin windows, by the way, "battened down" or otherwise. When they failed that allowed flooding to proceed more rapidly.

Your mantra that a ship cannot float on its superstructure appears to be as irrelevant as it is confusing and your obsessive insistance that capsizing ships usually turn right over continues to be wrong, expecto patronum.
From Rockwater Supplement 503, it clearly states divers had to use special 'spike' cutting equipment on decks 4 and 5 to get in, and oxy-acetyline cutters.

If the windows were smashed by 'pounding' waves, they would not have needed to cut the glass out of the window frames.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2021-10-21 (2).jpg (37.7 KB, 10 views)
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:54 AM   #337
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Once again you are incorrect. The Estonia had fourteen watertight compartments in her hull. The Herald of Free Enterprise had none and I believe it became regulatory to increase buoyancy in the hull after that.

The JAIC made it clear that the heeling of water in the car deck alone was not sufficient to cause capsizing so stop claiming it was.
Water found it's way in to the hull. the machinery spaces were flooding, that is why the engineering crew abandoned them and power was lost.

How would a hole towards the bow on the starboard side flood the machinery space?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:56 AM   #338
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
She quoted it above. Section 12.6 from the report.

It is not clear to me whether JAIC is saying that other decks must have had water flow in from outside or water flow down from the car deck. Perhaps it will be obvious to those of us used to reading this sort of report.
It says that the water on the car deck alone would not be enough, we know that water was finding it's way in to the hull.
This flooding was over a wide area as the machinery spaces were flooding. A small hole above the waterline towards the bow would not have flooded the machinery spaces.
Water was finding it's way below through ventilators, air intakes, access hatches etc.

Machinery spaces are not watertight from above, if they were then the engines would not work.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:57 AM   #339
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Half a mater of water on the car deck would be around 2000 tons.



Where do they say this?
In section 12.6.1 of the Final Report:
Even though the list developed rapidly, the water on the car deck would not alone be
sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability. As long as the hull was intact
and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck
would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles
(figure 12.12). Capsize could
only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.”
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:57 AM   #340
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
From Rockwater Supplement 503, it clearly states divers had to use special 'spike' cutting equipment on decks 4 and 5 to get in, and oxy-acetyline cutters.

If the windows were smashed by 'pounding' waves, they would not have needed to cut the glass out of the window frames.
Do you know how many windows there are? look at the pictures of the ship.

Windows will not hold against any kind of water pressure, that is why any portholes near the waterline have steel 'deadlights' on the inside that can be secured over them.
Windows in the superstructure sides are proof against occasional wave and spray. those in the front of a superstructure or the bridge are thicker and tougher as they can take heavy hits from waves in rough weather.

It wasn't the 'pounding' waves that were the problem, it is the pressure difference between the air inside the superstructure and the water that would break them.
However. when power was lost and the ship turned beam on to the sea wave action could have smashed some of the windows in the superstructure.

A diver would not enter through a smashed window that still had glass in it. they would need to remove glass from any unbroken windows they wanted to access and the Bridge would not have had broken windows, it is not a watertight space.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 21st October 2021 at 11:16 AM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 10:58 AM   #341
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,177
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Didn't we go though that in great detail over many pages just last week?
Yes, huge detail, and Vixen should have been blushing with embarrassment. Caveat emptor.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:01 AM   #342
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 5,732
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.
When - Was - The- Last - Time - Spetsnaz - Sank - A - Ship - In - A - Real - World- Mission ?

I will accept an answer dating back to 1950.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:09 AM   #343
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Where was the Wilhelm Gustloff struck above the waterline? It was hit by torpedoes, they are by their nature below the water.
I mistakenly thought the nurses auxiliary area was quite high up but apparently not.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg images (1).jpg (32.7 KB, 61 views)
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:10 AM   #344
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was trying to keep it very very simple.
No, you're just wrong. There's a difference.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:12 AM   #345
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What is your evidence that the HOFE had no watertight compartments in the hull?

How do you think it's construction differed from that of the Estonia?

What was the status of the openings in the hull at the time it sank?

Why would a hole in to one of these compartments cause the Estonia to sink if all the other compartments was watertight?
Wikipedia: " there were no watertight compartments."
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:16 AM   #346
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Water found it's way in to the hull. the machinery spaces were flooding, that is why the engineering crew abandoned them and power was lost.

How would a hole towards the bow on the starboard side flood the machinery space?
The engine room, the swimming pool, sauna and public toilets were the only areas in use in Deck 0 and these were all sealed with watertight doors.

Passengers on Deck 1 - who incidentally, were often the first to have escaped - consistently reported water in the passage way and it was not coming down the stairs.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:18 AM   #347
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In section 12.6.1 of the Final Report:
Even though the list developed rapidly, the water on the car deck would not alone be
sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability. As long as the hull was intact
and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck
would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles
(figure 12.12). Capsize could
only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.”
We know that water was entering the vessel as the machinery spaces were flooding and the ship lost power.
Where do you think the water came from if not down from the car deck and superstructure through ventilators, air intakes and access hatches?

How would a hole near the bows on the starboard side flood the machinery spaces?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:19 AM   #348
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I mistakenly thought the nurses auxiliary area was quite high up but apparently not.
Why would you even think it was?
How would a torpedo hit above the waterline?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:20 AM   #349
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was trying to keep it very very simple.

This one needs laminating and preserving for posterity.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:27 AM   #350
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post



The ignorance is staggering. The Herald of Free Enterprise landed where she did and in the position she lay because the crew steered it deliberately onto a sandbank. It is in that position because that is the lie of the land where she was grounded. Doh_!


Given the water in which The Herald of Free Enterprise lay is extremely shallow, it is preposterous for you to confidently assert that that is exactly how it would have lay on the seabed had it been deeper water and it had sunk fully submerged.

wiki

The Estonia for example, went from being on its starboard side to sinking face down, with a seabed gradient of 30° halting its descent and thus, causing it to finish up at 214°. Had the seabed been level it would have been nearer 180°, except the bridge and funnel would have caused an angle,

*shakes head slowly and backs away*

You don't know what you're talking about.

(I fully accept that you might think you know what you're talking about. But you really don't know what you're talking about - I can assure you of that. You're welcome.)


ETA: As another point of order - I note that you've misrepresented me yet again in this post of yours. I'm not "confidently assert(ing) that this (90-degree capsize) is exactly how it would have lay (sic) on the seabed had it been deeper water...."

What I am stating is: 1) it is likely that the ship would indeed have sunk to the seabed in this attitude, and 2) you're 100% wrong in your assertion that it would necessarily have turned completely upside-down and floated upside-down for some time.

But hey, your misrepresentations are nothing new. I guess it's the "cost of doing business" with your batcrap ideas.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 21st October 2021 at 11:33 AM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:29 AM   #351
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Wikipedia: " there were no watertight compartments."

Yet the General Arrangement plans show the lower hull is divided in to watertight compartments and the official report says that

Quote:
The ship was of all welded steel construction, with a raked stem and transom stern. A double bottom extended from frame 25 to frame 149. Above the level of the tank tops there were 8 decks, the uppermost being A deck and the lowest H deck, which was below the main or (bulkhead) deck. H deck was sub-divided by 13 watertight bulkheads and had 9 watertight doors for access between compartments. There were 4 watertight flats devoted to passenger accommodation and store spaces. Compartments between the watertight bulkheads were devoted to steering gears (bow and stern) main and auxiliary machinery, fuel and fresh water storage, sewage plant, ballast tanks and voids.
What to trust Wikipedia or the official report and plans of the ship?

General Arrangement drawing
http://www.hhvferry.com/sofeorigga.html

Formal Investigation report
https://assets.publishing.service.go...se-MSA1894.pdf

(Edit to add a 'Flat' as mentioned in the report is a sub deck in a larger compartment)

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 21st October 2021 at 12:55 PM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:36 AM   #352
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The engine room, the swimming pool, sauna and public toilets were the only areas in use in Deck 0 and these were all sealed with watertight doors.

Passengers on Deck 1 - who incidentally, were often the first to have escaped - consistently reported water in the passage way and it was not coming down the stairs.
Machinery Spaces are not sealed. They need large amounts of air. There are large intakes and fans that force it down in to them. Air needs to be circulated to keep the temperature down to a level that can be worked in, induction air is needed for the engines and generators, air is also needed for the air conditioning plant.
There are lots of openings to allow exhaust air to escape.
Also Hatchways and doorways in to the machinery spaces are open whenever the engine room is manned for safety reasons.
As well as the vents, intakes, exhausts and access from above, there are horizontal openings between the machinery spaces to allow crew access. In normal sailing these are open. I would be surprised if some of them had been closed at all for years before the sinking.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 11:57 AM   #353
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,205
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
... If the windows were smashed by 'pounding' waves, they would not have needed to cut the glass out of the window frames.
Are you talking about divers gaining access through windows on the port side, which are now on the upper side of the wreck, or on the starboard side which were the ones thought to have been smashed?
Jack by the hedge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 01:52 PM   #354
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was trying to keep it very very simple.
You shouldn't lie
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 01:56 PM   #355
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,177
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post


Given the water in which The Herald of Free Enterprise lay is extremely shallow, it is preposterous for you to confidently assert that that is exactly how it would have lay on the seabed had it been deeper water and it had sunk fully submerged.
And how many times have you claimed that it would have turned turtle but for the shallow water in which it sank? More ... that turning turtle is pretty much inevitable when any boat capsizes in deep water?

No, what's preposterous is that you have the sheer nerve to use a 'laughing dog' in any of your replies. Your contributions here have been worthy of derision from the beginning.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 02:34 PM   #356
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 50,377
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post


The ignorance is staggering.
Quite possibly the only correct statement you've made in this thread.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 02:35 PM   #357
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
And how many times have you claimed that it would have turned turtle but for the shallow water in which it sank? More ... that turning turtle is pretty much inevitable when any boat capsizes in deep water?
Nobody tell her about MS Express Samina. Hit a rock, rolled to 90ish degrees, stopped rolling, and sank on its side. It's resting on its side on the bottom. Deep enough to sink, deep enough to "turn turtle," but the ship refused to obey Vixen-physics. So why didn't it continue rolling to 180 degrees? Also, those investigators seemed to think the vast, uncompartmentalized car deck was a problem for stability.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 02:42 PM   #358
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Given the water in which The Herald of Free Enterprise lay is extremely shallow, it is preposterous for you to confidently assert that that is exactly how it would have lay on the seabed had it been deeper water and it had sunk fully submerged.
Why is it preposterous for your critics to opine what the ship would have done if the water had been deeper, but not preposterous for you to do exactly the same thing? In your case, your prediction comes from a known, discredited crackpot -- even if you think that not citing your source, or making vague irrelevant references to Archimedes, somehow makes it okay. In our case, the prediction comes from the experts who investigated the accident. What's preposterous is an accountant with demonstrably little if any expertise in ship stability (or physics in general) pretending she can just keep spewing "Because I say so" arguments and hiding behind laughing dogs when challenged.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st October 2021 at 03:32 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 02:50 PM   #359
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Yet the General Arrangement plans show the lower hull is divided in to watertight compartments and the official report says that



What to trust Wikipedia or the official report and plans of the ship?

General Arrangement drawing
http://www.hhvferry.com/sofeorigga.html

Formal Investigation report
https://assets.publishing.service.go...se-MSA1894.pdf

(Edit to add a 'Flat' as mentioned in the report is a sub deck in a larger compartment)
The point of this is that the bulkheads can be as watertight as you like but if the flooding is coming from above they count for nothing.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 02:54 PM   #360
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What to trust Wikipedia or the official report and plans of the ship?
Also from the official report:

Originally Posted by Formal Investigation, p. 7
It is not possible to say whether the ship reached more than while still floating or whether this was only when she reached the sea bed. There is some reason for thinking that the ship floated more or less on her beam ends for about a minute before finally resting on the sea bed.
So the official investigators consider favorably the proposition that the Herald of Free Enterprise stopped its roll at roughly 90° not because it had struck bottom, but because this is where the roll equilibrium was obtained while still afloat.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.