• 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.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andy_Ross

Penultimate Amazing
Andy_Ross
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
64,848
Vixen said:
The Herald of Free Enterprise was turned to a shallow bank as soon as the crew realised what was happening the second it left port. The boatswain had not shut the car deck ferry doors, and thus lay on its side, after capsizing, on a shallow bank. Had it been out at sea it would have floated upside down for as long as five days, as with the MS Jan Heweliusz.

Do you see why the Herald of Free Enterprise didn't reach the stage of what happened next after it capsized?

Let me know if you still don't get it.
Click to expand...

It sank in just a few minutes because of flooding through the open bow. to do that enough water must have been taken aboard to destabilise then sink the ship otherwise it would still have been afloat.

Have you actually ever read the report in to the sinking, or even any description of the events?


Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain_Swoop said:
Do I need to post a video of a ship heading in to a heavy sea again?
It was motoring at high speed in to 6m waves.

That one set of doors is closed does not mean the deck was 'sealed off' There are multiple doorways, hatches, vents and intakes in the car deck.
Click to expand...

If one set of doors is firmly shut and intact, there is a strong likelihood others are, too. Hence the need for further investigation.
 
Vixen said:
Hang on. I thought you said the car deck was filled with seawater?
Click to expand...


If the seawater caused it to overbalance and capsize, what does this imply about the level of seawater on what became the upper side?

Put another way: if the ship was listing, which side of the car deck would the water be on?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
...Had it been out at sea it would have floated upside down for as long as five days, as with the MS Jan Heweliusz.

...

Let me know if you still don't get it.
Click to expand...

Who to believe, the official report or Vixen's wot-I-reckon? Tricky.

No, not tricky. You're just wrong.
 
Vixen said:
Hang on. I thought you said the car deck was filled with seawater?
Click to expand...

Alas, I had misconstrued the construction of the car deck and thought its doors were to either side of the car deck like others I have used, instead of being in a central island. So those doors would indeed have been in the water by the time the ship was only half-sunk.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Alas, I had misconstrued the construction of the car deck and thought its doors were to either side of the car deck like others I have used, instead of being in a central island. So those doors would indeed have been in the water by the time the ship was only half-sunk.
Click to expand...

They would have been in the water as soon as the car deck started to flood
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They would have been in the water as soon as the car deck started to flood
Click to expand...

Yes they would, but their windows wouldn't have been deeply immersed at first.

I'm a little surprised to have read that those doors had windows at all and I'm trying to remember if other such ferry doors I've encountered had them. Maybe so but I don't recall. As car deck doors I suppose their purpose would be to be fireproof as much as watertight and I guess a small fire-resistant window would make sense as you would be able to see what was happening on the car deck before opening them. I wonder how much pressure those windows could withstand. Probably more than the larger windows up on deck 4.
 
Passenger doors off the car deck are for access to the upper passenger decks. They are not watertight, their main purpose is to keep passengers off the car deck and to stop exhaust fumes entering the ship and act as fire doors.
Watertight doors aren't needed unless they are giving access to the hull.

A watertight door is not the same as a waterproof door, the latter do not seal compartments against flooding.
 
Mojo said:
If the seawater caused it to overbalance and capsize, what does this imply about the level of seawater on what became the upper side?

Put another way: if the ship was listing, which side of the car deck would the water be on?
Click to expand...

It listed to starboard so that would be on the right.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Passenger doors off the car deck are for access to the upper passenger decks. They are not watertight, their main purpose is to keep passengers off the car deck and to stop exhaust fumes entering the ship and act as fire doors.
Watertight doors aren't needed unless they are giving access to the hull.

A watertight door is not the same as a waterproof door, the latter do not seal compartments against flooding.
Click to expand...

The JAIC had to assume the windows broke for the water to have subsumed the rest of the ship.
 
Vixen said:
capsize
/kapˈsʌɪz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
(of a boat) be overturned in the water.
"the craft capsized in heavy seas"
Click to expand...

So you think it's an either/or situation. Either a ship capsizes or it sinks.

Is that what you are saying?
 
Capsize does not mean that a boat or ship has to turn through 180 degrees
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13630758#post13630758

You're still conflating buoyancy with stability. What makes a ship capsize is not the same thing as what makes it sink. My whole point was to illustrate to you the difference, which you still cannot grasp because you're still just parroting Anders Björkmann and thinking this makes your point unassailable. You were given the opportunity to direct a practical experiment in stability versus buoyancy. You refused to participate, citing the "principles" as the substance of your claim. Now it's clear you don't understand the principles either.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC had to assume the windows broke for the water to have subsumed the rest of the ship.
Click to expand...
What is your reference for this claim please?

Also can you confirm you are talking about the windows in the car deck doors (the subject of the post you replied to) and not other windows on other decks?
 
Last edited:
I love how suddenly there was no way the Estonia should have sunk due to a mythical buoyancy which has never existed in any seagoing vessel unless there were other holes in the ship other than the OPEN CAR DECK RAMP.

Once the ship was on its side the exterior upper decks were accessible to the high seas meaning ventilation ducts, unsecured doors, broken windows, and eventually the smoke stack would have allowed for flooding.

I don't know why this needs to be explained.

It must be pointed out that this is also inconsistent with a conspiracy where explosives were used to sing the ship since the obvious weak point would have been the visor. This is what happens when CTists talk in circles.
 
Axxman300 said:
I love how suddenly there was no way the Estonia should have sunk due to a mythical buoyancy which has never existed in any seagoing vessel unless there were other holes in the ship other than the OPEN CAR DECK RAMP.

Once the ship was on its side the exterior upper decks were accessible to the high seas meaning ventilation ducts, unsecured doors, broken windows, and eventually the smoke stack would have allowed for flooding.

I don't know why this needs to be explained.

It must be pointed out that this is also inconsistent with a conspiracy where explosives were used to sing the ship since the obvious weak point would have been the visor. This is what happens when CTists talk in circles.
Click to expand...
Explosive charges were used to either blow off the visor, blow a hole in the hull or in the form of torpedoes or stray WW2 mines.

Or a combination of all of the above including being rammed by a submarine.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Explosive charges were used to either blow off the visor, blow a hole in the hull or in the form of torpedoes or stray WW2 mines.

Or a combination of all of the above including being rammed by a submarine.
Click to expand...

You forgot the radioactive waste eating its way through the visor.
 
Vixen said:
A boat is designed to float. Why would anyone deliberately try to make it sink. It doesn't disprove anything, does it? You can make it sink by simply drilling a hole in the hull. Why waste time filling it with water?
Click to expand...


To test your claim, of course. This one:

Vixen said:
Take a simple rowing boat, wood frame, operated by oars. There are no leaks.
Any imbalance or inflow of water, the boat simply capsizes toppling its contents into the water. It doesn't sink, it floats upside down ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...


If I drilled a hole in it, there would no longer be "no leaks." Since you haven't put any constraints on any imbalance or inflow of water, it would appear I can wield my bucket however I see fit. But I don't want you to be able to say I've somehow gotten the inflow of water wrong violating some condition hidden in "ceteris paribus", so I await your instructions for how to sink my rowboat with a flow of water that will cause it to float upside down.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
To test your claim, of course. This one:

If I drilled a hole in it, there would no longer be "no leaks." Since you haven't put any constraints on any imbalance or inflow of water, it would appear I can wield my bucket however I see fit. But I don't want you to be able to say I've somehow gotten the inflow of water wrong violating some condition hidden in "ceteris paribus", so I await your instructions for how to sink my rowboat with a flow of water that will cause it to float upside down.
Click to expand...

There is no rational response to your points, so they need to be subsumed into a sea of obfuscation, waffle and Gishing. Or totally ignored. We shall see.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
What is your reference for this claim please?

Also can you confirm you are talking about the windows in the car deck doors (the subject of the post you replied to) and not other windows on other decks?
Click to expand...

There are no side windows in the car deck so the JAIC must be referring to inner windows.
 

Attachments

  • d35nx49wuxp51.jpg
    d35nx49wuxp51.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 5
Axxman300 said:
I love how suddenly there was no way the Estonia should have sunk due to a mythical buoyancy which has never existed in any seagoing vessel unless there were other holes in the ship other than the OPEN CAR DECK RAMP.

Once the ship was on its side the exterior upper decks were accessible to the high seas meaning ventilation ducts, unsecured doors, broken windows, and eventually the smoke stack would have allowed for flooding.

I don't know why this needs to be explained.

It must be pointed out that this is also inconsistent with a conspiracy where explosives were used to sing the ship since the obvious weak point would have been the visor. This is what happens when CTists talk in circles.
Click to expand...

That might be so but it wouldn't sink in record time.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Explosive charges were used to either blow off the visor, blow a hole in the hull or in the form of torpedoes or stray WW2 mines.

Or a combination of all of the above including being rammed by a submarine.
Click to expand...

Many a true word spoken in jest, except torpedoes can be small and likewise limpet mines, not necessarily WWII ones.
 
Myriad said:
To test your claim, of course. This one:




If I drilled a hole in it, there would no longer be "no leaks." Since you haven't put any constraints on any imbalance or inflow of water, it would appear I can wield my bucket however I see fit. But I don't want you to be able to say I've somehow gotten the inflow of water wrong violating some condition hidden in "ceteris paribus", so I await your instructions for how to sink my rowboat with a flow of water that will cause it to float upside down.
Click to expand...

Myriad, I don't want you to sink your rowboat.

 
Vixen said:
Many a true word spoken in jest, except torpedoes can be small and likewise limpet mines, not necessarily WWII ones.
Click to expand...

That would be those Swedish Jumping Torpedoes, that leap out of the water and explode above the waterline, no doubt.
 
Kid Eager said:
That would be those Swedish Jumping Torpedoes, that leap out of the water and explode above the waterline, no doubt.
Click to expand...

It is no more outrageous than the idea of the bow visor falling off because of the slap of a wave at Swedish midnight.
 
Here is the effect of a limpet mine. Doesn't need to blow the whole ship out of the water, as Captain_Swoop claims.


 
Vixen said:
Here is the effect of a limpet mine. Doesn't need to blow the whole ship out of the water, as Captain_Swoop claims.


Click to expand...

I don't recall Captain_Swoop making this claim. Would you care to link to the post where this happened, please?

Maybe you have confused him with another poster, or maybe you misread a post, or misunderstood one.

Maybe you're just lying.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
You forgot the radioactive waste eating its way through the visor.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
There's that, too, according to Harri Ruotsalainen, JAIC engineer investigator.
Click to expand...

I thought his 'theory' was the one about opening the cardeck en route, and pushing vehicle/s out?

Was he just throwing every ******* crazy idea at the wall to see what would stick? That's a weird way to proceed, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom