• 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 IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andy_Ross

Penultimate Amazing
Andy_Ross
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
64,903
Vixen said:
Hamburg carried out a very detailed analysis of the various hardware of the bow visor. That was their sole aim, and as stated in their abstract.

Would you berate a dentist for failing to note a bunion?
Click to expand...

A detailed analysis that found no sign of explosion damage otherwise they wouldn't have signed off the report as they did.

Thread continued from here.

You may quote or reply to any post from that or previous parts of this topic.
Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
Here is a video showing a boat turning onto its side. How long does it float on its superstructure?


Click to expand...

Where is the storm? where is the missing bow?

How do you think a deliberate capsize test of a small boat compares?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A detailed analysis that found no sign of explosion damage otherwise they wouldn't have signed off the report as they did.
Click to expand...

Looking for explosion damage was not its remit. Read the first few paragraphs to discover the scope. They were carrying out Finite Element Calculations to discover the levels of tension on the hinges, lugs and locks.

But then you knew that.



Dr.-Ing. Hans-Werner Hoffmeister Head of Department »Manufacturing Technology«

Institute for Machine Tools and Manufacturing Technology now at Braunsweig University

Books
Hoffmeister, Hans-Werner
High machining performance through grinding with CD (Continuous Dressing) - safe, material-adapted and economical process management
Technical University of Braunschweig, Vulkan-Verlag, Essen, 1995, ISBN 978-3-8027-8631-0
Publications
Dross, Marcel ; Albergt, Max ; David, Martin ; Reichler, Ann-Kathrin ; Hoffmeister, Hans-Werner ; Dröder, Klaus
Combined robot-based manufacturing and machining of multi-material components
In: The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , Springer Nature , 2021 , page 1-8 , DOI 10.1007 / s00170-021-07008-3
additional Information
Dröder, Klaus ; Hoffmeister, Hans-Werner ; Mahlfeld, Georg
In-situ measured variables and signal processing for determining residual stress when honing holes
In: Hoffmeister, Hans-Werner; Denkena, Berend , yearbook, grinding, honing, lapping and polishing , Vulkan-Verlag, Essen , 2020 , issue 69 , pages 246-254 , ISBN 978-3-8027-3133-4 etcetera, etcetera
Click to expand...
Braunschweig


Dr. Hoffmeister specialises in mechanical engineering and tools. Why are you demanding he cross over to Metallurgy? Or produces a mix-up report and introduce subjects not stated in his abstract?
 
Vixen said:
Looking for explosion damage was not its remit. Read the first few paragraphs to discover the scope. They were carrying out Finite Element Calculations to discover the levels of tension on the hinges, lugs and locks.

But then you knew that.



Braunschweig


Dr. Hoffmeister specialises in mechanical engineering and tools. Why are you demanding he cross over to Metallurgy? Or produces a mix-up report and introduce subjects not stated in his abstract?
Click to expand...

How could he produce the report without metallurgy being involved?

But if there he been explosion damage are you saying he wouldn't have recognised it or would have failed to report it in his findings?

Either he was incompetent or a liar under your interpretation.

How can you trust him?
 
Last edited:
Oh come off it, you really think that just because they weren't told to look for explosives they wouldn't have seen evidence of them? As Jay has pointed out repeatedly, explosive damage wouldn't just have been obvious, it would have been way more obvious than the damage they did find.

You're either clutching at straws, or you're inserting your own lack of knowledge of how these things work as if the actual experts would do so.

Also again, stop ignoring me and answer my questions please.
 
Vixen said:
Here To Learn gave you a link a page ago.
Click to expand...

But you didn't.
What is at the link does not support your claims.
No mention of weapons or US marines guarding trucks.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Do you believe a vessel floats on its superstructure? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...

I don't know what it is supposed to mean.
I have only seen the term in this thread, used by you.
It's not familiar to me from anywhere else.
 
Vixen said:
Looking for explosion damage was not its remit.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. They could hardly have failed to see it, if any had been there. You seem to think this sentence, ignorantly and often repeated, renders the investigators selectively blind.

They were carrying out Finite Element Calculations to discover the levels of tension on the hinges, lugs and locks.

But then you knew that.
Click to expand...

In the course of doing that they also noted the general character of the affected parts including corrosion and fatigue cracking. Corrosion is generally visible to the naked eye. Fatigue cracks generally are not; the surface must be prepared and often dyed, and must be examined with a microscope. It is not a casual inspection. In preparing the surface to look for those elusive cracks, the researchers would have had to scrape away the unmistakably telltale evidence of pitting and contact welding left by nearby explosives, yet decided not to note it.

But then you knew that. Oh, wait -- you don't. That's because this is a specialized field that we already know you don't know anything about. You're arrogantly trying to tell people who do this for living how some group must have acted.

Dr. Hoffmeister specialises in mechanical engineering and tools. Why are you demanding he cross over to Metallurgy?
Click to expand...

Why do you think metallurgy is not taught to mechanical engineers? Why do you think evidence of explosives can only be uncovered by specialized metallurgical techniques? What do you think identifying fatigue cracking entails?

What part of "I've done this for a living for nearly 30 years" was in any way unclear to you?

Or produces a mix-up report and introduce subjects not stated in his abstract?
Click to expand...

Identifying corrosion and fatigue cracking isn't part of a strictly-mandated process of modeling failure using finite-element methods, but the team did it anyway because it was pertinent to their findings. Yet somehow the glaring evidence of explosively compromised metal wasn't something they felt they had to mention.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Here is a video showing a boat turning onto its side. How long does it float on its superstructure?


Click to expand...


Oh good grief.

You've trawled the internet for something which "proves your point".

But what you've actually found here is entirely irrelevant wrt the sinking of the Estonia - or the sinking of any reasonably-large ship.

What you've found there is a video showing a capsize test for a pilot boat. The boat itself has full buoyancy as designed. There's no compromise in the hull. There's no sea water in the hull. There's no free surface effect in play.

The buoyancy test you've somehow decided is relevant.... is a standard test carried out on these sorts of smaller specialised vessels. These sorts of boats are designed to be self-righting if they ever get totally capsized for any reason (any reason, that is, which doesn't involve the boat being damaged or non-watertight).

The point of this buoyancy test - the only point of the test - is to confirm that if the vessel capsizes totally for any reason (and with a pilot boat, this might happen for example if it gets rolled over by a large container ship), it will right itself automatically.

The boat in that test was entirely sealed - it had a totally intact hull and sealed superstructure. The test therefore had absolutely nothing to do with what might happen to the boat if (eg) it got holed beneath the waterline by a rock or a large ship. For the purposes of this capsize test, the assumption was that the boat itself was watertight and in a proper state of repair/operation.

However..... it's rather clear that you didn't/don't understand what that video was actually showing - and what it was not showing. And ironically, the boat in that video didn't float upside down for more than a few seconds - the mass of its keel effectively made sure the boat self-righted as designed.

You don't know what you're talking about, Vixen.
 
Vixen said:
Do you believe a vessel floats on its superstructure? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...


We collectively repeat: what the holy heck does "....floats on its superstructure" actually mean??

Or to be more accurate: what does that phrase mean to you?

Because for the rest of us, it means nothing of any value or relevance.


(BTW, there is one thing I do know about vessels: empty vessels make the most noise.)
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I believe a vessel floats while it has reserve buoyancy and it doesn't matter what you call the bits that provide it.
Click to expand...


Exactly. And because of this, a vessel doesn't sink until/unless enough mass is added to surpass that reserve buoyancy.


(Vixen's ludicrous "the air in the hull must be almost totally displaced/replaced with water for any ship to sink" nonsense is blown apart if one considers a ship with very little reserve buoyancy (eg a ship carrying very heavy cargo with low freeboard). In that kind of scenario, the volume (and therefore mass) of water required to sink the ship would only represent a small fraction of the total volume of air in the hull.)
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I would if the bunion was in the mouth of their patient.

Now you're back how about answering my long list of questions you seem to be studiously ignoring by trying to Gish gallop about the thread?
Click to expand...
One of Visens odder proclamations. If my dentist found a bunion in my mouth, she would say WTAF is that and ship to ER pronto. I would expect no less from a professional.

Apparently, Vixen has very different expectations. Rather odd expectations. I am inclined to recommend that Vixen change GP but there is no chance she will listen to that. All of us are somehow part of the big mad jewish conspiracy. What convinces her of that? I have no clue and Vixen won't say. So there is not a whole heap anyone can do with that, is there?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How could he produce the report without metallurgy being involved?

But if there he been explosion damage are you saying he wouldn't have recognised it or would have failed to report it in his findings?

Either he was incompetent or a liar under your interpretation.

How can you trust him?
Click to expand...

For the umpty-ninth time, he was not asked to examine the widgets for explosives.
 
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. They could hardly have failed to see it, if any had been there. You seem to think this sentence, ignorantly and often repeated, renders the investigators selectively blind.



In the course of doing that they also noted the general character of the affected parts including corrosion and fatigue cracking. Corrosion is generally visible to the naked eye. Fatigue cracks generally are not; the surface must be prepared and often dyed, and must be examined with a microscope. It is not a casual inspection. In preparing the surface to look for those elusive cracks, the researchers would have had to scrape away the unmistakably telltale evidence of pitting and contact welding left by nearby explosives, yet decided not to note it.

But then you knew that. Oh, wait -- you don't. That's because this is a specialized field that we already know you don't know anything about. You're arrogantly trying to tell people who do this for living how some group must have acted.



Why do you think metallurgy is not taught to mechanical engineers? Why do you think evidence of explosives can only be uncovered by specialized metallurgical techniques? What do you think identifying fatigue cracking entails?

What part of "I've done this for a living for nearly 30 years" was in any way unclear to you?



Identifying corrosion and fatigue cracking isn't part of a strictly-mandated process of modeling failure using finite-element methods, but the team did it anyway because it was pertinent to their findings. Yet somehow the glaring evidence of explosively compromised metal wasn't something they felt they had to mention.
Click to expand...


Completely different method. If you ask your baker for a cake, do you expect a pie?
 
Vixen said:
For the umpty-ninth time, he was not asked to examine the widgets for explosives.
Click to expand...

And for the umpty-ninth time, he could not possibly have missed that evidence, had it been there. He wasn't asked to identify corrosion. He wasn't asked to look for fatigue cracks. But he did all those things and wrote a report that included them as part of his theory for failure.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh good grief.

You've trawled the internet for something which "proves your point".

But what you've actually found here is entirely irrelevant wrt the sinking of the Estonia - or the sinking of any reasonably-large ship.

What you've found there is a video showing a capsize test for a pilot boat. The boat itself has full buoyancy as designed. There's no compromise in the hull. There's no sea water in the hull. There's no free surface effect in play.

The buoyancy test you've somehow decided is relevant.... is a standard test carried out on these sorts of smaller specialised vessels. These sorts of boats are designed to be self-righting if they ever get totally capsized for any reason (any reason, that is, which doesn't involve the boat being damaged or non-watertight).

The point of this buoyancy test - the only point of the test - is to confirm that if the vessel capsizes totally for any reason (and with a pilot boat, this might happen for example if it gets rolled over by a large container ship), it will right itself automatically.

The boat in that test was entirely sealed - it had a totally intact hull and sealed superstructure. The test therefore had absolutely nothing to do with what might happen to the boat if (eg) it got holed beneath the waterline by a rock or a large ship. For the purposes of this capsize test, the assumption was that the boat itself was watertight and in a proper state of repair/operation.

However..... it's rather clear that you didn't/don't understand what that video was actually showing - and what it was not showing. And ironically, the boat in that video didn't float upside down for more than a few seconds - the mass of its keel effectively made sure the boat self-righted as designed.

You don't know what you're talking about, Vixen.
Click to expand...

...But how long did it float on its superstructure...?
 
Vixen said:
Completely different method. If you ask your baker for a cake, do you expect a pie?
Click to expand...

And I repeat: what part of, "I've done this for a living for 30 years," was unclear to you? You are not the authority on what methods are used in forensic engineering examinations.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.
 
Vixen said:
For the umpty-ninth time, he was not asked to examine the widgets for explosives.
Click to expand...

But the effect of explosives would have been obvious on the parts he inspected if they had been strong enough to blow the locks apart.
 
Just to update:

The conversation has now drifted into bolts, non-existent explosive charges, and bad maritime engineering assumptions about how water-tight the Estonia's superstructure based on zero knowledge of ship-design.

And I pointed out that on the night of the disaster, Boris Yeltin was in Washington DC at summit with Bill Clinton, further undermining the whole Spetsnaz-strike-team nonsense.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What does that mean?
Click to expand...

As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.

In the last moments before impact, Stockholm turned hard to starboard (right) and was in the process of reversing her propellers, attempting to stop. Andrea Doria, remaining at her cruising speed of almost 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) engaged in a hard turn to port (left), her captain hoping to outrun the collision. Around 11:10 p.m., the two ships collided, Stockholm striking the side of Andrea Doria.
Click to expand...

Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


The sinking began at 9:45am and by 10:00 that morning the Andrea Doria's starboard side dipped into the ocean.

<snip>

It was recorded that Andrea Doria finally sank bow first 10 hours after the collision, at 10:09 am on 26 July 1956. The ship had drifted 1.58 nautical miles (2.93 km) from the point of the collision in those 10 hours
Click to expand...
wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.
 
Axxman300 said:
Just to update:

The conversation has now drifted into bolts, non-existent explosive charges, and bad maritime engineering assumptions about how water-tight the Estonia's superstructure based on zero knowledge of ship-design.

And I pointed out that on the night of the disaster, Boris Yeltin was in Washington DC at summit with Bill Clinton, further undermining the whole Spetsnaz-strike-team nonsense.
Click to expand...

Boris Yeltsin had no idea what his intelligence agents did as they did their own thing,
 
Vixen said:
As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.



Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.
Click to expand...

Let's think this through. From the Channel 16 transcript, we learn that at about 01:25 (01:24.50 according to the reconstruction at the link I gave), someone on the Estonia said the following:
Estonia> Joo, meillä on nytte tässä ongelma. On paha kallistuma oikealle puolelle. Uskon, että yli 20–30°. Voisitko sä tulla apuun ja pyytää myös Viking Linen apuun?
Click to expand...
Translation said:
Yes, we have a problem here. We're listing badly to the right side, probably over 20 or 30°. Could you come to assistance and also ask Viking Line for help?
Click to expand...
So at 1:25, the list was 20 to 30 degrees. I am guessing this does not count as "floating on its superstructure" yet, or even close to it. According to the transcript, the last message from the Estonia came at about 1:30 (01:29.39). Since that message didn't message didn't mention further listing or capsizing, it is reasonable to conclude that the Estonia was not listing at close to 90 degrees at that time, either.

Assuming the Estonia sank at 1:48 as you claim, we can then reasonably conclude that if there is such a thing as a ship floating on its superstructure, the Estonia did it for considerably less than 18 minutes (from some time after 1:30 until 1:48).

The example you gave of what you consider to be normal ship behavior is 9 minutes "floating on its superstructure."

Putting it all together, your claim is that 9 minutes is normal, but an unspecified time less than 18 minutes is impossible. This is the kind of evidence you use to support your conclusions, whatever they are.

My personal assessment of this line of reasoning: Weak.
 
Vixen said:
As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.



Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.
Click to expand...

Different hull design. Different actions taken by the captain and crew. She would have sunk much faster had the captain done nothing, and continued to sail at flank speed.
 
Vixen said:
Boris Yeltsin had no idea what his intelligence agents did as they did their own thing,
Click to expand...
Clinton vs Yeltsin. One president is assumed to have direct control of what his nation's secret agents are doing while the other is assumed to be completely ignorant. The double standard raises its head again.
 
Vixen said:
For the umpty-ninth time, he was not asked to examine the widgets for explosives.
Click to expand...
So when your doctor gives you an examination and says you have a couple of moles to keep an eye on as they might be of concern and then says "by the way, did you know you've been shot?" you'd be surprised and annoyed that he checked stuff outwith the remit of what you asked for.
 
Vixen said:
As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.



Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.
Click to expand...
Did Andrea turn turtle and go belly up as you claim is necessary? Yes or no?

And WTF does floating on it's superstructure even mean? Nobody is familiar with that term but you. And you refuse to say what it is.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So when your doctor gives you an examination and says you have a couple of moles to keep an eye on as they might be of concern and then says "by the way, did you know you've been shot?" you'd be surprised and annoyed that he checked stuff outwith the remit of what you asked for.
Click to expand...

Here's a question. If I went to my doctor and he said take this vaccine for polio and this one for smallpox and my crystal ball reveals that Aunt Doris is partying in the afterlife, what would my escape velocity actually be?
 
Vixen said:
...But how long did it float on its superstructure...?
Click to expand...


Can you define precisely what you mean by “float on its superstructure”? You seem to have introduced the term here, but without defining it, or quoting the JAIC using the green so the context can be seen.

While you’re at it, can you explain exactly what you mean by “superstructure”? From your previous posts it looks almost as if you think it means “everything above the waterline”.
 
Vixen said:
As an example, take the Italian luxury cruise liner, the SS Andrea Doria. It collided with the SS Stockholm in the middle of the night at 11:10, causing a huge amount of damage to mainly the Andrea Doria, whose hull was breached, with water filling up the airtight bulkheads.



Most passengers were rescued. 1,660 were rescued, while 46 lost their lives. The Andrea Doria finally capsized ten hours later and sank within nine minutes of capsizing.


wiki

The Andrea Doria 'floated' on her superstructure for nine minutes at most after capsizing.



See how quick it is from about 0.40.
Click to expand...

It did not 'float on it's superstructure' It was still flooding in the hull.
After it capsized it took just 9 minutes to sink. How is that 'floating' on anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom