The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

The documentary that led to the re-examination of the sinking

I have found an English language version of the Swedish documentary that led to the amendment of the Estonia treaty to allow for the possible reinvestigation, albeit per English subtitles.

For your information.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The car deck on the Estonia was not part of the hull it is considered to be part of the superstructure.

Here's what I think, following on from the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, in 1987, still fresh in everybody's minds, and a ro-ro ferry, seven decks high, the JAIC seized on the theory of = 'it's the same accident as the one that happened on the Herald of Free Enterprise' from day 1, because it was plausible and they have kept to this hard line ever since. But why? When, being a public transport accident killing 852 or more, a public inquiry should be open and transparent, yet it never looked at anything else. To explain how the water could have got into the car deck, it had to make out that the bow visor fell off when hit by a wave (the highest wave recorded on the Baltic is only 7.7 metres high) and the storm only a Beaufort Scale 7, which the crew will have known about from the shipping forecast and been appropriately prepared. So after three years of shoe-horning the facts to fit the 'theory' that 'it was just like the Herald of Free Enterprise, it became official. And they know the public are happy with anything deemed 'official'.

The Finns led by lawyer Kari Lehtola - a smug character if ever there was one - are neutral, they know all about finlandisation - they are careful not to upset east-west relations. It was for the Germans and Americans to actually look at it and say, hang on, it doesn't add up.

Indeed, Meyer-Werft, one of the world's largest shipbuilders, of huge repute, claim there is no way it happened as the JAIC said it did. It offered to salvage the wreck for free, which was declined. Meyer-Werft claim the panelling it reclaimed definitely had traces of explosive material and in their view, there was some kind of device that must have caused a hole in the hull...and sure enough, when the German/USA team went down...they found the hole. As this hole was not mentioned at all in the JAIC report, this has led to the revisit of the ship. (Incidentally Germany, almost alone of the Baltic states, did not sign the Estonia Treaty).

Whilst the bow visor was later found separated from the ship - as predicted from day 1 - that doesn't mean it was the cause of the sinking. For the theory, 'it was just like the Herald of Free Enterprise' to work, of course, the bow visor and car ramp would need to be found removed.

Everything you posted here is speculation and conspiracy mongering.

Is it now your contention that the bow and the ramp were removed later to support the official report?

What explosive traces?

Are you surprised that the shipbuilder would say there is nothing wrong with the ship?
I have no doubt it was built to the specification asked for but it was over 15 years old when it sank..

The bow fell off, the car deck flooded and the ship turned over exactly as ferries have done before and since.

 

[Vixen]

Everything you posted here is speculation and conspiracy mongering.

Is it now your contention that the bow and the ramp were removed later to support the official report?

What explosive traces?

Are you surprised that the shipbuilder would say there is nothing wrong with the ship?
I have no doubt it was built to the specification asked for but it was over 15 years old when it sank..

The bow fell off, the car deck flooded and the ship turned over exactly as ferries have done before and since.

No, it is not conspiracy mongering, it is a fact that Meyer-Werft strongly dispute there was a design fault with the bow visor. It is not liable anyway, so why would it take the trouble to oppose the findings. Sure, they need to do damage limitation to their reputation but surely making false claims would be utterly disastrous to their brand. Most brands facing negative press simply do a PR campaign via a 'crisis management' board claiming 'We take customer safety very seriously'. However, Meyer-Werft have done more than this, it has actually vigorously opposed the findings of the Swedish-Estonian-Finnish JAIC. This indicates a strong sense of principle, rather than trying to cover their backs. Their report is put together with Germany's top naval and maritime engineers, metallurgists and physicists of their day. As there were only eight German passengers on board, it can't even be claimed it was to do with sentimentality or nationalism.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because something is not a faulty design does not mean it won't fail.

Plus of course the designers would say it wasn't a faulty design after the failure of the component just resulted in the loss of a ship.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Secret submarines, explosive 'traces', secret weapons shipments, suggestions of foul play, MI6.

Of course it's 'conspiracy mongering'

 

[Steve]

Because something is not a faulty design does not mean it won't fail.

Plus of course the designers would say it wasn't a faulty design after the failure of the component just resulted in the loss of a ship.

Also a competent design can be compromised by faulty materials, or errors in construction, or errors in operation.

 

[Steve]

Secret submarines, explosive 'traces', secret weapons shipments, suggestions of foul play, MI6.

Of course it's 'conspiracy mongering'

At a minimum speculation based on ignorance.

 

[lobosrul5]

The car deck on the Estonia was not part of the hull it is considered to be part of the superstructure.
Here's what I think, following on from the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, in 1987, still fresh in everybody's minds, and a ro-ro ferry, seven decks high, the JAIC seized on the theory of = 'it's the same accident as the one that happened on the Herald of Free Enterprise' from day 1, because it was plausible and they have kept to this hard line ever since. But why? When, being a public transport accident killing 852 or more, a public inquiry should be open and transparent, yet it never looked at anything else. To explain how the water could have got into the car deck, it had to make out that the bow visor fell off when hit by a wave (the highest wave recorded on the Baltic is only 7.7 metres high) and the storm only a Beaufort Scale 7, which the crew will have known about from the shipping forecast and been appropriately prepared. So after three years of shoe-horning the facts to fit the 'theory' that 'it was just like the Herald of Free Enterprise, it became official. And they know the public are happy with anything deemed 'official'.

The Finns led by lawyer Kari Lehtola - a smug character if ever there was one - are neutral, they know all about finlandisation - they are careful not to upset east-west relations. It was for the Germans and Americans to actually look at it and say, hang on, it doesn't add up.

Indeed, Meyer-Werft, one of the world's largest shipbuilders, of huge repute, claim there is no way it happened as the JAIC said it did. It offered to salvage the wreck for free, which was declined. Meyer-Werft claim the panelling it reclaimed definitely had traces of explosive material and in their view, there was some kind of device that must have caused a hole in the hull...and sure enough, when the German/USA team went down...they found the hole. As this hole was not mentioned at all in the JAIC report, this has led to the revisit of the ship. (Incidentally Germany, almost alone of the Baltic states, did not sign the Estonia Treaty).

Whilst the bow visor was later found separated from the ship - as predicted from day 1 - that doesn't mean it was the cause of the sinking. For the theory, 'it was just like the Herald of Free Enterprise' to work, of course, the bow visor and car ramp would need to be found removed.

Source for the highlighted parts please (both). The bow is always part of the hull of a ship, and the cars drive into the raised bow and unto the car deck. You are also not taking into consideration that the ship was in motion when the bow visor came off. Lookup some videos on how ships behave in gale force conditions (or as you say force 7 which is 'near gale'). Water will come up and be forced all the way over the bow even when the waves are relatively smaller. Furthermore the ship traveling at speed will force water into any opening in the bow.

Again the pictured tear in the hull would've taken far longer to flood the ship and cause it to sink. Are you suggesting the crew, many of whom died, were "in on it", ie they didn't fight the flooding and left water tight doors open??

 

[erwinl]

From wiki:




So not really like-for-like. In fact, a Norwegian diving company Stolt Comex who happened to be in Turku at the time (11 Oct 1994) offered to salvage all bodies on an expenses only not-for-profit basis of Swedish Kroner 250,000, which looks a lot but is only about GBP25,000 or €30K, US$40K. The Swedish government said, no.

So it is no wonder some people think that the bodies being left there was an excuse not to salvage the ship for examination.

They actually wanted to cover it up with concrete! How is that in any way a dignified way to treat the dead?

You've not answered the question about when the last victims were retrieved.

One would think, listening to you arguments, it would take but a few days.
I mean there were not a whole lot of them and it was close to the shore.
Perfect circumstances for finding those bodies!

How long did this proces last?

 

[erwinl]

That's correct, the car deck was 2 metres above the water line and part of the superstructure.

The hull consisted of fourteen water-tight compartments, including the engine room.

So when the car deck flooded ceteris paribus one would have expected the vessel to immediately capsize and turn belly up, floating.

Oh?
Is the buoyancy of the hull such that it can remain above water, even if turned turtle, when the rest of the ship is filled with water?

That’s quite the statement of yours.
Please show your calculations concerning the weight of the superstructure, as in your definition of it ie everything above ‘green colored, hull, including the weight of the cargo and whatever is in the ship. And then please contrast this against the Remaining ability of the hull to support this.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Also for the 2 meters above waterline. Waves were 6 to 8 meters. On top of this is the plunging of bows in to troughs putting the level of the car deck at the bow below the waterline.


Here is a Cross Channel Ferry in a Force 7

That is
wind speed of 28–33 knots and wave height of 13–19 ft (3 to 4 Meters)
Sea heaps up and white foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks along the direction of the wind; spindrift begins to be seen

Around 7:30 onwards some bigger 'lumps' hit the ship, seems to be getting up towards force 8.



See why the car deck being 2 meters above the waterline would be inconsequential if the bows were gone?

It's also a good example of why windows in the front end of the superstructure and the bridge are thick 'armoured' glass or why they have steel deadlights that can be closed over them.

Also think what more than 15 years of being subject to forces like this would do to the components of the bow visor.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Another good example of why losing a bow and having a deck that runs the full length and bean of a ship open to the sea is not a good idea.

Songa Jade is the same GRT, beam and length as the ferry. This is around force 6 to 7 wave state.

Watch from around 1:50, see how the bow is completely submerged?

How much water would be driven in to the car deck of a ferry with no bow?

 

[Vixen]

Source for the highlighted parts please (both). The bow is always part of the hull of a ship, and the cars drive into the raised bow and unto the car deck. You are also not taking into consideration that the ship was in motion when the bow visor came off. Lookup some videos on how ships behave in gale force conditions (or as you say force 7 which is 'near gale'). Water will come up and be forced all the way over the bow even when the waves are relatively smaller. Furthermore the ship traveling at speed will force water into any opening in the bow.

Again the pictured tear in the hull would've taken far longer to flood the ship and cause it to sink. Are you suggesting the crew, many of whom died, were "in on it", ie they didn't fight the flooding and left water tight doors open??

No, I am not saying that at all, although where the captain, Avo Piht was and is, is quite mysterious. There is actually an Interpol warrant out for his arrest, even though he is supposed to have sunk with his ship.

Have a look at this youtube video:

estonia the find that change everything- episode 5


(Although it has an age warning, I couldn't see anything that would be disturbing to people not already aware of the topic.)

It explains how the case came to be reopened. The journalist, Henrik Evertsson, who led the German/US/Swedish film crew to the site to film the hull - who should receive a prize for investigative journalism - was recently cleared of disturbing the grave. He was shocked to discover the hole in the side 'where the passengers' cabins would have been located'.

He took his findings to various experts - as portrayed inthe video, above - including an army explosives expert in marine bomb/torpedo damage (he referenced USS Cole). He said looking at the detail of the hole, he didn't think it had much similarity to explosive damage he had seen, as the metal should have curled over inwards more (it was indeed folded over flat at one spot). Evertsson, then took it to a mathematician who modelled a near life-sized three-D version of the damage Evertsson had filmed. It spanned from floor to ceiling and was as wide as a window frame. Next, he took the modelling to Professor Jørgen Amdahl, some kind of physicist, who offered to calculate the force needed to cause such a dent and rupture. He had originally said the damage could have been caused by some solid structure floating in the sea...such as the bow visor. After he had done some intricate calculations involving velocity and force, he concluded that the damage could only have been caused by an object weighing 1,000 tonnes, travelling at about 4 knots (Estonia was travelling at about 14 knots), such as a small fishing boat...or an object weighing 5,000 tonnes travelling at 1.9 knots...such as a submarine. He explained that submarines come in all sizes from 1,000 tonnes to tens of thousands of tonnes. He was pretty shaken by his findings, as he discovered the bow visor weighed just 55 tonnes. The professor opined it would need something like twenty times the weight of the bow visor to have caused that type of damage.

Do watch it for yourself as it will answer a lot of your questions.

 

[Vixen]

You've not answered the question about when the last victims were retrieved.

One would think, listening to you arguments, it would take but a few days.
I mean there were not a whole lot of them and it was close to the shore.
Perfect circumstances for finding those bodies!

How long did this proces last?

The Costa Concordia - another very interesting wreck - happened in January 2012.

At the time, she was carrying 3,206 passengers and 1,023 crew members.[25][26] The accident resulted in 32 fatalities.[27][28] The body of the last missing person, Indian crew member Russel Rebello, was recovered on 3 November 2014.[29] It appears that Mr Rebello died while saving other passengers.[30]

wiki

So it took almost three years. However, you note, they thought it worth recovering the body of the brave Mr. Rebello. Who knows what numerous acts of heroism would have been uncovered on the Estonia? I agree it is too late now, and would be incredibly harrowing. However, just think, like the Vasa or the Mary Rose or the Franklin expedition boats in the Northwest Passage, it will likely be dredged up in a couple of hundred years by inquisitive historians and archeologists. That's the irony.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, I am not saying that at all, although where the captain, Avo Piht was and is, is quite mysterious. There is actually an Interpol warrant out for his arrest, even though he is supposed to have sunk with his ship.

Have a look at this youtube video:

estonia the find that change everything- episode 5


(Although it has an age warning, I couldn't see anything that would be disturbing to people not already aware of the topic.)

It explains how the case came to be reopened. The journalist, Henrik Evertsson, who led the German/US/Swedish film crew to the site to film the hull - who should receive a prize for investigative journalism - was recently cleared of disturbing the grave. He was shocked to discover the hole in the side 'where the passengers' cabins would have been located'.

He took his findings to various experts - as portrayed inthe video, above - including an army explosives expert in marine bomb/torpedo damage (he referenced USS Cole). He said looking at the detail of the hole, he didn't think it had much similarity to explosive damage he had seen, as the metal should have curled over inwards more (it was indeed folded over flat at one spot). Evertsson, then took it to a mathematician who modelled a near life-sized three-D version of the damage Evertsson had filmed. It spanned from floor to ceiling and was as wide as a window frame. Next, he took the modelling to Professor Jørgen Amdahl, some kind of physicist, who offered to calculate the force needed to cause such a dent and rupture. He had originally said the damage could have been caused by some solid structure floating in the sea...such as the bow visor. After he had done some intricate calculations involving velocity and force, he concluded that the damage could only have been caused by an object weighing 1,000 tonnes, travelling at about 4 knots (Estonia was travelling at about 14 knots), such as a small fishing boat...or an object weighing 5,000 tonnes travelling at 1.9 knots...such as a submarine. He explained that submarines come in all sizes from 1,000 tonnes to tens of thousands of tonnes. He was pretty shaken by his findings, as he discovered the bow visor weighed just 55 tonnes. The professor opined it would need something like twenty times the weight of the bow visor to have caused that type of damage.

Do watch it for yourself as it will answer a lot of your questions.

Perfect example of conspiracy theory.


All the crap above rests on the idea that something rammed in to the ship before it sank and the hole caused the sinking.
We have no evidence for any kind of collision or bomb either inside or outside the hull.
We know that the ship didn't flood through the missing bow.
We know it wasn't subject to huge stresses it was not designed for.
We know it has been on the bottom of the sea for over twenty years.

It is laughable.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Costa Concordia - another very interesting wreck - happened in January 2012.

wiki

So it took almost three years. However, you note, they thought it worth recovering the body of the brave Mr. Rebello. Who knows what numerous acts of heroism would have been uncovered on the Estonia? I agree it is too late now, and would be incredibly harrowing. However, just think, like the Vasa or the Mary Rose or the Franklin expedition boats in the Northwest Passage, it will likely be dredged up in a couple of hundred years by inquisitive historians and archeologists. That's the irony.

Costa Concordia was inshore and aground on the surface.

 

[Vixen]

Oh?
Is the buoyancy of the hull such that it can remain above water, even if turned turtle, when the rest of the ship is filled with water?

That’s quite the statement of yours.
Please show your calculations concerning the weight of the superstructure, as in your definition of it ie everything above ‘green colored, hull, including the weight of the cargo and whatever is in the ship. And then please contrast this against the Remaining ability of the hull to support this.

Naval architect, Anders Bjorkman says:

In the new explanation of the accident, based on alleged reports (not filed anywhere) of the Halliburton divers, the visor had pulled the inner ramp of the superstructure fully open, so that large amounts of water had entered the superstructure and caused a sudden listing and the start of the sinking at 01.15 hrs - and the final sinking more than 35 minutes later after 01.50 hrs. It was now clearly stated that the ramp had been locked before the accident - confirmed by divers (!) - and that all ramp locks had been ripped apart by the visor - also confirmed by the divers (no written records exist and it is a lie). 1 000's of tons of water had entered the superstructure in a very short time.
The 'Estonia' was allegedly doing 15 knots in head seas of Beaufort 7 with 4,2 meters waves (not proven), when the ramp of the superstructure two and a half meters above the waterline was suddenly ripped fully open at 01.15 hrs. Anybody who has been to sea on a ferry knows that in such conditions the waves do not even impact against the visor because it is heard and you have to slow down. But let's assume that the ramp was fully open. The opening was 5,4 meters wide and 6 meters high at the fore end of the ship superstructure but more than two meters above the waterline. When however the ship pitched down, the opening was at least two meters below water. You would then have expected that the first wave entering the superstructure at 15 knots speed during less than two seconds contained 180 tons of water. It would have smashed everything inside the superstructure and trimmed the ship on the bow - and would probably have stopped the ship. It is unlikely that the ship would have pitched up above the waves later after this first wave entry. However, if it did and it is alleged that speed was maintained for two minutes, the ferry would have pitched down again below water after another six seconds and scooped up another 180 tons of water. You should know that this water was only extra cargo weight loaded inside the superstructure of a ship with an undamaged hull, on which the ship floated, and that the ship could only have sunk due to water inside the hull. But in the Estonia case water only entered the superstructure: Then the ship would definitely never have pitched up again but would have gone down like a submarine while capsizing - like the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' 1987 or the 'Jan Heweliusz' 1993. The superstructure would quickly fill up with >2 000 tons of water in less than 60 seconds, the ship would capsize and ... float upside down on the watertight hull below the superstructure. But this true, correct and realistic scenario, easily proven by model tests was never presented to the public or the media. The Commission instead started to present stupid lies about water in the superstructure slowly sinking the ship.

These lies are still the official Truth and explanations why the ship sank.

<snip>

Very big waves - 10 meters high - and loads on the visor had allegedly destroyed the visor locks during the night of the accident - it took 10 minutes - the public was told, and the visor locks were incorrect. The visor had pulled the ramp fully open - 30 m² - so that waves could move into the ship's superstructure and heel the ferry. Then, strangely enough, the big waves disappeared, because the ship stopped heeling - and up righted according to survivors that managed to get out during about 10 minutes. Water flowed into the superstructure very slowly during 15 minutes according to the Commission. No water flowed out, which was strange. As soon as the ship stopped, all water should actually have flown out! Survivors said that the ship was slowly sinking for more than 20 minutes between the time they noticed the heeling and they got out and when they jumped overboard later.

<snip>

If water (2 000 tons) had entered the superstructure through an opening in the superstructure, the 'Estonia' would simply have capsized and floated upside down. But it never happened. And the Commission never explained why the 'Estonia' sank or how the watertight hull was filled up with water. Eight years after the accident these questions are still without explanation. Why? Because the visor didn't cause the accident!


The Commission stated in October 1994 that the wave loads had ripped off the visor, when the 'Estonia' was upright. The visor was kept in place by, i.a. two hinges on the deck with a break strength >350 tons each. The Commission suggested that the hinges were torn apart by a sudden overload in the forward direction after the visor locks had been ripped open. How this overload developed is not clear. Wave loads directed upwards and aft cannot pull apart a hinge in the forward direction.

Hiewaco

As I said, I believe the JAIC simply decided to use the Herald of Free Enterprise model as its blueprint. It is quite shocking that it wilfully ignored the proven hole in the hull, as filme by Henrik Evertsson and crew.

 

[Vixen]

Also for the 2 meters above waterline. Waves were 6 to 8 meters. On top of this is the plunging of bows in to troughs putting the level of the car deck at the bow below the waterline.


Here is a Cross Channel Ferry in a Force 7

That is
wind speed of 28–33 knots and wave height of 13–19 ft (3 to 4 Meters)
Sea heaps up and white foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks along the direction of the wind; spindrift begins to be seen

Around 7:30 onwards some bigger 'lumps' hit the ship, seems to be getting up towards force 8.



See why the car deck being 2 meters above the waterline would be inconsequential if the bows were gone?

It's also a good example of why windows in the front end of the superstructure and the bridge are thick 'armoured' glass or why they have steel deadlights that can be closed over them.

Also think what more than 15 years of being subject to forces like this would do to the components of the bow visor.

True, but anyone used to being at sea knows that sea spray is a fact of life at the slightest hint of high waves. Remember, the Baltic ferries are used to rough weather yet it doesn't stop them running their regular scheduled runs even in the height of winter. Although covid has put a halt to them recently.

 

[Vixen]

Another good example of why losing a bow and having a deck that runs the full length and bean of a ship open to the sea is not a good idea.

Songa Jade is the same GRT, beam and length as the ferry. This is around force 6 to 7 wave state.

Watch from around 1:50, see how the bow is completely submerged?

How much water would be driven in to the car deck of a ferry with no bow?

Well it wasn't just the bow visor that supposedly 'fell off', it was also the car ramp 'dragged down', despite having a different locking system.

BTW how do you explain the car ramp railings cut off by later naval crews and dumped on the sea bed?

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nncXBlfMqi4

 

[Vixen]

Perfect example of conspiracy theory.


All the crap above rests on the idea that something rammed in to the ship before it sank and the hole caused the sinking.
We have no evidence for any kind of collision or bomb either inside or outside the hull.
We know that the ship didn't flood through the missing bow.
We know it wasn't subject to huge stresses it was not designed for.
We know it has been on the bottom of the sea for over twenty years.

It is laughable.

Are you accusing the Swedish-Estonian-Finnish accident investigators of being conspiracy theorists for taking Henrik Evertsson's findings seriously? The Swedish government itself in the Riksdag (their seat of parliament) announced in 2010 that it had indeed shipped armaments on the Estonia passenger ferry between Tallinn and Stockholm (admitting 14th and 20th Sept 1994 specifically) and that Customs were ordered to give them clearance, uninspected. So not such a tall story. Such an order can only have come from the KSI intelligence services, who worked together with MI6 to rebuild the Estonian intelligence agencies after the fall of the Soviet Union. So it is recorded now in the annals of Swedish history. It doesn't matter that Captain_Swoop thinks it 'laughable'.