The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

Next question.
Why are the typical fishing boats in the Baltic so large?

Here the typical North Sea trawler does not come anywhere near 5000 tons.

Or is that another one of these ‘examples’ by the professor?

Edit: according to Eurostat, the average size of an EU fishing vessel is 19 gross tons.
You’re saying the typical baltic fishing vessel is 250 times as large?

Edit 2:

According to Eurostat in 2010 there were more than 85000 fishing vessels in the EU.
Of these 85000, there were 90 which were larger than 2000 tons.
Most of these were from France, Spain, the UK and the Netherlands.
Sweden fot example had none (in 2010) of this size, let alone of 5000 tons.

And.... edit 3.
You can find the data for 1994. In the whole of the EU there were then 50 fishing vessels, larger than 2000 tons. None of them owned by Sweden.

So.
Where is your declaration of 'a fishing boat weighing typically 5,000 tonnes' based in reality?

5,000 tonnes travelling at 1.9 knots was Amdahl polar end of the range of possible weight x speed that could have caused a similar impact hole in a ship of the Estonia's specifications, 15.5K tonnes presumably travelling at 15 - 18 knots ranging down to 1,000 tonnes at 5 knots ( fixed factor ditto). He said a fishing vessel as the only likely extreme that could fit one end of the spectrum of possible vectors with the submarine the lower end, as there aren't many submarines below that weight, nor fishing vessels as heavy.

[aside: The Baltic is rich in fish, my uncles often caught fish there, both by throwing hook fishing tackles into the sea as far out as possible, preferably from an island or boat, together with setting overnight nets via boat. One or other would often drop by our summer cottage to leave a freshly caught and smoked fish for our dinner. In fact the Ahvenanmaa - the Finnish term for the Åland Islands means 'perch-land' as it is rich in ...perch and numerous other species of fish. The Baltic Sea is the country of the perch tribe.]

But of course, that doesn't mean Amdahl was claiming there was a 5,000 tonne fishing vessel there, it was as an illustration of the upper end of the range of possibilities. You don't know, poachers could in theory turn up to fish in illegal waters. You've seen the French, the Brits, the Dutch and the Norwegians constantly battling over this in the North Sea.

 

[erwinl]

Just because that one became public knowledge, it doesn't follow they all do. For example:

GUARDIAN

Covered up for 43 years. So don't say it doesn't happen.

Well done. You found an example.
Of course things are sometimes kept secret.

But that is not the issue here.
What is the issue is that there is a statement about a collision between the Estonia and a submarine, without any explanation concerning the validity of it and any and all queries concerning this are handwaved away because a professor said something and the absense of any evidence or even logic (like, how does a submarine with a round bow cause a sharp hole above the waterline?) is used as proof that it must have happened that way.

And then we get to the nonsense of typical size of fishing vessels apparently being 5000 tons.

Whenever the details of these statements are looked into, they invariably become implausible, ludicrous or even impossible.
Yet you do insist on repeating them.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

5,000 tonnes travelling at 1.9 knots was Amdahl polar end of the range of possible weight x speed that could have caused a similar impact hole in a ship of the Estonia's specifications, 15.5K tonnes presumably travelling at 15 - 18 knots ranging down to 1,000 tonnes at 5 knots ( fixed factor ditto). He said a fishing vessel as the only likely extreme that could fit one end of the spectrum of possible vectors with the submarine the lower end, as there aren't many submarines below that weight, nor fishing vessels as heavy.



[aside: The Baltic is rich in fish, my uncles often caught fish there, both by throwing hook fishing tackles into the sea as far out as possible, preferably from an island or boat, together with setting overnight nets via boat. One or other would often drop by our summer cottage to leave a freshly caught and smoked fish for our dinner. In fact the Ahvenanmaa - the Finnish term for the Åland Islands means 'perch-land' as it is rich in ...perch and numerous other species of fish. The Baltic Sea is the country of the perch tribe.]



But of course, that doesn't mean Amdahl was claiming there was a 5,000 tonne fishing vessel there, it was as an illustration of the upper end of the range of possibilities. You don't know, poachers could in theory turn up to fish in illegal waters. You've seen the French, the Brits, the Dutch and the Norwegians constantly battling over this in the North Sea.

Ah, the fine scent of prevarication with a dash of pointless anecdote.

 

[Architect]

GUARDIAN

Covered up for 43 years. So don't say it doesn't happen.

I'm afraid that the news that Soviet submarines sat at the mouth of the Holy Loch, which is an offshot of the Firth of Clyde and hence inshore waters, was well known to those of us in the West of Scotland and likewise that there have been collisions with - for example - fishing vessels which were not public for some considerable time. When the subs go out from Faslane, there is a combined aerial/sonar and surface vessel sweep of the upper and mid Clyde in an effort to confound such things and I have seen it many a time. Once was on a yacht racing through the edge of it (does that make me a maritime expert?).


So in actual fact, your example isn't of much assistance here.

 

[erwinl]

5,000 tonnes travelling at 1.9 knots was Amdahl polar end of the range of possible weight x speed that could have caused a similar impact hole in a ship of the Estonia's specifications, 15.5K tonnes presumably travelling at 15 - 18 knots ranging down to 1,000 tonnes at 5 knots ( fixed factor ditto). He said a fishing vessel as the only likely extreme that could fit one end of the spectrum of possible vectors with the submarine the lower end, as there aren't many submarines below that weight, nor fishing vessels as heavy.

[aside: The Baltic is rich in fish, my uncles often caught fish there, both by throwing hook fishing tackles into the sea as far out as possible, preferably from an island or boat, together with setting overnight nets via boat. One or other would often drop by our summer cottage to leave a freshly caught and smoked fish for our dinner. In fact the Ahvenanmaa - the Finnish term for the Åland Islands means 'perch-land' as it is rich in ...perch and numerous other species of fish. The Baltic Sea is the country of the perch tribe.]

But of course, that doesn't mean Amdahl was claiming there was a 5,000 tonne fishing vessel there, it was as an illustration of the upper end of the range of possibilities. You don't know, poachers could in theory turn up to fish in illegal waters. You've seen the French, the Brits, the Dutch and the Norwegians constantly battling over this in the North Sea.

Or.
Just bear with me. The Professor uttered nonsense in the possible kinds of vessels which fitted in his range?

If there are so many, easily discovered inaccuracies in his story, what else is wrong with his story?
Just because he is a professor, doesn't mean his story shouldn't be grounded in facts and reality, you know.

 

[Vixen]

Or.
Just bear with me. The Professor uttered nonsense in the possible kinds of vessels which fitted in his range?

If there are so many, easily discovered inaccuracies in his story, what else is wrong with his story?
Just because he is a professor, doesn't mean his story shouldn't be grounded in facts and reality, you know.

That is a very weak argument, erwinl.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Totally irrelevant to this issue.

Yor witness says he saw the bows rise up.
You say he couldn't have if they fell off.
Only the visor fell off, the bows were still there from the waterline to the keel

 

[Andy_Ross]

Try the fishing boat.

What fishing boat?

Can you show me a fishing boat of 5000 tons that operates in the Baltic?

Even the big 60 meter deep water boats are only around 1800 tons.
A 5000 ton trawler would be a monster.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What fishing boat?

The Sooper Seekrit fishing boat the government doesn't want you knowing anything about!

Either that or it's the usual grasping at straws to explain away facts in defiance of one's own overall premise that usually accompanies conspiratorial lunacy.

 

[SteveAitch]

The Sooper Seekrit fishing boat the government doesn't want you knowing anything about!

Either that or it's the usual grasping at straws to explain away facts in defiance of one's own overall premise that usually accompanies conspiratorial lunacy.

It's probably a disguised UFO, in Area 53*, being repaired even as we speak...

* "a government facility so secret, it's two numbers higher than Area 51!"

 

[erwinl]

What fishing boat?

Can you show me a fishing boat of 5000 tons that operates in the Baltic?

Even the big 60 meter deep water boats are only around 1800 tons.
A 5000 ton trawler would be a monster.

Indeed. We're talking Whaling Factory ship category here.

 

[erwinl]

That is a very weak argument, erwinl.

What?

Finding out the names and kinds of all the Swedish submarines en looking for the numbers and sizes of all the fishing vessels in the EU in 1994 in order to counter the specific statements of the Prof, finding them too light and thus dismissing these, is a weak argument?

What should I have done? Look no further than the title of the professor and assume everything he say is gospel? Since when is that logical? Especially when it is trivially easy to fact check these?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here are the ten worst passenger shipping accidents, together with tonnage, cause of the accident and time taken to sink. It is in the order of 'time taken to sink'.

1. Empress of Ireland (UK 1914) 14,191, COLLISION, 14 minutes
   
2. Admiral Nakhimov (USSR 1986) - 17,053, COLLISION - 15 minutes
   
3. Don Juan (Philippines 1980) - 2,311 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
   
4. Lusitania (UK, 1915) - 31,550 - TORPEDO - 15 minutes
   
5. Royal Pacific (Greece 1992) - 3,176 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
   
6. Salem Express (Egypt 1991) - 4,771 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
   
7. European Gateway (UK 1982) - 4,263 - COLLISION - 30 minutes
   
8. M/S Estonia (Estonia 1994) - 15,598 - "Er, the bow fell off" - 35 minutes
   
9. Jupiter (Greece 1988) - 6,306 - COLLISION - 40 minutes
   
10. Express Samina (Greece 2000) - 4,455 - COLLISION - 45 minutes
    
11. Wilhelm Gustloff (Germany 1945) - 19,350 - TORPEDOES - 50 minutes
    
12. Brittanic (UK 1916) - 48,158 - EXPLOSION - 55 minutes

Notandum: M/S Estonia is the only vessel that was supposedly 'intact' that sank in less than one hour.

For example, the Wilhelm Gustloff was sunk by a 'pitchfork' firing of three torpedoes at a time, each to a different section of the ship. Yet even three torpedoes to its side took the vessel 50 minutes to sink. What's more, it was even heavier than the Estonia.

In addition, it takes a long time for a passenger ferry cruise liner to sink because of its structure of up to ten decks of passenger cabins, dancefloors, bars, shops and facilities such as swimming pools and saunas. In other words, the water doesn't enter evenly and all at the same time. Even if the car deck was filled with water, the buoyancy of the hull would ensure that it would first capsize and then float upside down. The Estonia didn't do any of these things, it went down virtually immediately, listed to one side, the stern sank, the superstructure turned over, to fall bow last, like a domino. It was 155m long, the depth of the sea between 70 - 80 metres deep, so the top heaviness of the bow end, whilst the stern was on the seabed, caused it to topple forward, without 'turtleing' (i.e., floating belly up), sinking in record speed, even faster than the triple-torpedoed Wilhelm Gustloff.


Posters on ISF: 'That's fine. So what?'

Which one of us is the true sceptic? (Rhetorical question.)

why are you listing all those ancient third world rust tubs in there?
They don't count is what yo told me.
Why are you listing ships from seventy years ago? they don't count yo told me.

How are you deciding on 'worst' is it just on casualties?

I bet I can find at least a doze more ships that sank as quickly or quicker than the Estonia in just a few minutes.

I bet I can find half a dozen just from the last year.

Passenger ships don't take any longer to sink than any other ship.

Passenger spaces are not watertight, for flooding purposes they are treated as one space, they are not structural divisions, they have no watertight integrity, at most they will act as baffles and reduce free surface effect.
Bars, shops, spas, dancefloors tend to be in the superstructure.
Passenger spaces are connected with large stairways that can't be closed and made watertight.
I thought you had experience with passenger ships?



It did capsize. Why do you think it should have turned completely turtle?
Why do you think the hull was free of water? What magic would keep water from the car deck from getting below?
What magic would stop water coming in through machinery space air intakes, ventilators, hatches, escape routes, stairways, exhausts and windows?

What is your evidence that it went down stern first and hit the seabed to fall 'like a domino'?
You are making that up.

 

[erwinl]

why are you listing all those ancient third world rust tubs in there?
They don't count is what yo told me.
Why are you listing ships from seventy years ago? they don't count yo told me.

How are you deciding on 'worst' is it just on casualties?

I bet I can find at least a doze more ships that sank as quickly or quicker than the Estonia in just a few minutes.

I bet I can find half a dozen just from the last year.

Passenger ships don't take any longer to sink than any other ship.

Passenger spaces are not watertight, for flooding purposes they are treated as one space, they are not structural divisions, they have no watertight integrity, at most they will act as baffles and reduce free surface effect.
Bars, shops, spas, dancefloors tend to be in the superstructure.
Passenger spaces are connected with large stairways that can't be closed and made watertight.
I thought you had experience with passenger ships?



It did capsize. Why do you think it should have turned completely turtle?
Why do you think the hull was free of water? What magic would keep water from the car deck from getting below?
What magic would stop water coming in through machinery space air intakes, ventilators, hatches, escape routes, stairways, exhausts and windows?

What is your evidence that it went down stern first and hit the seabed to fall 'like a domino'?
You are making that up.

And if we want to stay on topic concerning these kinds of mishaps and keeping the style of Vixens list, we kan add one ship, with the rest all moving one place up in the list..

1. Herald of Free Enterprise (UK, 1987) 7,951, "Er, the bow door is open" - 90 seconds

But, let's agree this whole list is just stupid as an argument, concerning the Estonia.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And if we want to stay on topic concerning these kinds of mishaps and keeping the style of Vixens list, we kan add one ship, with the rest all moving one place up in the list..

1. Herald of Free Enterprise (UK, 1987) 7,951, "Er, the bow door is open" - 90 seconds

That didn't count for some when I raised it earlier. In fact none of the examples of ships sinking in similar circumstances counted as they were either worn out rust buckets, third world death traps or somehow different.

That they all sank quickly in a similar manner wasn't important then.

 

[erwinl]

That didn't count for some when I raised it earlier. In fact none of the examples of ships sinking in similar circumstances counted as they were either worn out rust buckets, third world death traps or somehow different.

That they all sank quickly in a similar manner wasn't important then.

I know it didn't count then. Because of the bow issue, I think it is the only one directly equivalent to the Estonia, in this whole list.

A list, by the way, which by the way is very strange. One would expect other ships to be present on it as well. Like the Taiping in 1949 for instance. Or other ships, like the Eastland, which just capsized because the passengers all went to the same side. A cause which mimics the effect of water in the car deck of the Estonia.

But that requires consistency in arguments, I'm afraid.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Another thing that occurs to me about this whole conspiracy angle: why would Finnish and Estonian authorities play along? And why have they continued to do so all these years?

 

[Steve]

Another thing that occurs to me about this whole conspiracy angle: why would Finnish and Estonian authorities play along? And why have they continued to do so all these years?

I think the idea is that governments, regardless of politics, are naturally evil. And if you become a member of a government you are obligated to continue any conspiracy initiated by previous regimes. Ostensibly under the guise of national security. This applies doubly to democratically elected governments.

CTists have a natural ability, that is not inherent in the majority of the population, to think like governments and see through their nefarious plans.

Oh, and governments are never smart enough to carry out their conspiracies competently. They always make stupid mistakes that give the conspiracies away to those wise enough to see.

 

[Vixen]

Yor witness says he saw the bows rise up.
You say he couldn't have if they fell off.
Only the visor fell off, the bows were still there from the waterline to the keel

Paul Barney says he is utterly certain the Estonia had the pointy bit at the end pointing upwards before it went face down.

He is not talking about the bulbous bow way down below.

 

[Vixen]

What fishing boat?

Can you show me a fishing boat of 5000 tons that operates in the Baltic?

Even the big 60 meter deep water boats are only around 1800 tons.
A 5000 ton trawler would be a monster.

Do pay attention; Professor Amdahl did not say it was a fishing boat what dunnit, he was giving an example of the type of force needed to make that type of a hole in the Estonia side. He was trying to help the viewer visualise what type of collision could have caused it. The old chestnut, 'it must have been the bow visor what fell orf what dunnit' was put to rest by Amdahl as it weighed 'just 55 tonnes' (heavier than some fishing boats) and could not have caused that particular hole.


So, now do you understand Prof. Amdahl (expert in naval collisions) point that the impact to cause that must have been huge.

Likewise, Rene Arikas, more recently, also said the impact must have been enormous to have caused that type of damage.

Thank you for acknowledging that a force of 5,000 tonnes even at 1.9 knots is HUGE.