The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Steve]

Indeed.

Just spit-balling here - Maybe this ship was sunk by a PR supertanker?

A ship so big that it just bounced off without even realizing that it had struck the ferry? Likely no ferry survivors would have seen it due to the storm. So an idea definitely worth exploring.

 

[Vixen]

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

So now you are beginning to understand the massive impact caused the Estonia?

 

[JayUtah]

Amdahl gave the example of a 5,000 tonne fishing vessel, which obviously would not be bobbing about in the Baltic in a stormy night, so that leaves the 1,000 tonne submarine.

So were you mistaken when you previously reported Prof. Amdahl's examples?

Professor Amdahl did various calculations. Having initially said the hole could have been caused by the bow visor falling off, said his findings based on physics equations seemed to indicate a force of either for example a 1,000tonne fishing vessel collision at 5 knots or a 5,000 tonne submarine at 1.9 knots...

Yes, a variety of vessel displacements and velocity components would satisfy the estimate of impact damage, but only if they result in roughly the same kinetic energy. Can you explain why the kinetic energies implied by the professor's examples differ by such a large amount? Can you explain why a submarine of any size would even be considered, given the location of the hole in the starboard side and the geometry of submarine bows?

 

[JayUtah]

So now you are beginning to understand the massive impact caused the Estonia?

Are you beginning to understand that the ship impact theory doesn't really hold up because, among other things, the ship needed to cause such damage was not credibly in the area?

 

[Vixen]

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?

Professor Amdahl was patiently giving examples of the type of object that could have collided with the Estonia to cause that type of damage.

Now, being a university lecturer used to explaining complex concepts to fresh-faced first year students, he gave us simple examples to help us visualise how this force at X knots might have looked like within the context of a maritime collision hence he used the example of various different types of vessel at various speeds that could cause that type of damage.


So, were he teaching car crash collisions, he might use an army tank as an illustration of one extreme and juxtapose it against a Cooper Mini, so that students can visualise what type of force caused a certain type of damage, on say, a a bus. To sum up, he is not saying it was an army tank or a mini car, he is helping the student to understand how different vehicles going at different speeds can cause the same damage on a particular vehicle of a particular type going at a known speed.

Likewise, he is using an example of a fishing vessel at 5,000 tonnes at 1.9 knots as opposed to a 1,000 tonne submarine at 5 knots. There is no point in talking about cars or sea vehicles that cannot possibly fit his calculations.

Clearly, he hasn't been very good at explaining the concept for everybody but I understood straight away the point he was making.

 

[theprestige]

So now you are beginning to understand the massive impact caused the Estonia?

Begging the question of a massive impact.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So were you mistaken when you previously reported Prof. Amdahl's examples?

​

Yes, a variety of vessel displacements and velocity components would satisfy the estimate of impact damage, but only if they result in roughly the same kinetic energy. Can you explain why the kinetic energies implied by the professor's examples differ by such a large amount? Can you explain why a submarine of any size would even be considered, given the location of the hole in the starboard side and the geometry of submarine bows?

Piggybacking:

Also, only a few vessels would be of the sort for which a massive government coverup would make even bad-Hollywood sense. Why cover up an accident with another commercial vessel?

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Which still requires the examples the professor cited to actually exist, if his hypothesis is correct.

He was trying to help the viewer visualise what type of collision could have caused it.

Which assumes the damage was caused by a collision on the surface. If the damage arose in some other way, then the professor's estimates are irrelevant.

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.

Except I showed you the math that disputes that claim. Further, the visor shows impact damage including paint transfer from the blue portion of the ship's shell plating. There is physical evidence that the visor impacted the hull at some point. although we obviously cannot be sure where and with what force.

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

Do you understand that this works against the theory? If the only impact that could have caused the hole in Estonia's starboard side was "huge," and there is no other evidence elsewhere in Baltic maritime operation of such a collision, then it's less likely that was the cause.

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

You're letting the tail wag the dog. You've concluded that it "must" have been a surface collision that caused the damage lately observed, and you're filtering all subsequent information according to that belief. But when we cast about for vessels that could have inflicted such "huge" damage and thereafter escaped detection, we come up short. Throwing math around is well and good, but in the end there has to be corroboration in physical evidence.

You lambast JAIC for allegedly starting with the desired conclusion and then shoehorning the evidence into it. How is that not what you're doing?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Go on, then, let's see your list. The list is in order of the time taken to sink.

You'll find that the lobby and lounge area is usually afthwartship and not the entire area, as the car deck is. A-ten-floor cruiser with passenger cabins is not an empty space, as you claim. Of course it will sink eventually but not straight away, unless it collides with something or is torpedoed.

PS I know life has been tough in the UK since Brexit, however, not nice to call it a 'third world country' just yet.

 

[JayUtah]

Professor Amdahl was patiently giving examples of the type of object that could have collided with the Estonia to cause that type of damage.

And the problems with his examples are (1) they result in wildly differing kinetic energies, and (2) no such vessels exist.

Now, being a university lecturer used to explaining complex concepts to fresh-faced first year students...

Having also been a university lecturer and having also taught complex engineering concepts to first-year students, I find his examples inapt and misleading.

So, were he teaching car crash collisions, he might use an army tank as an illustration of one extreme and juxtapose it against a Cooper Mini, so that students can visualise what type of force caused a certain type of damage...

Yes, a massive vehicle moving slowly can manifest the same kinetic energy as a light vehicle moving very fast. But unless the kinetic energy is the same, you can't argue that the hypothetical collisions are equivalent. The professor's examples give us inconsistent results.

There is no point in talking about cars or sea vehicles that cannot possibly fit his calculations.

For his theory to be correct, a vessel must exist that satisfies the kinetic energy requirement we infer from his statements. If no such vessel of any type exists and displayed the damage to itself that must have occurred, then the professor's calculations actually dismiss the surface-collision theory.

Clearly, he hasn't been very good at explaining the concept for everybody but I understood straight away the point he was making.

I understand the concept of kinetic energy. That still doesn't mean his presentation answers important questions.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The description of the sinking on Wikipedia describes a series of loud metallic bangs reported from about 01:00 to 01:15, after the last of which the ship immediately began to list, a Mayday call at about 01:22 and the Estonia disappearing from other ships radar around 01:50.

If a collision caused that, why were there a protracted series of loud bangs instead of just one before the ship suddenly listed, and why did nobody see the other vessel, either directly or on radar?

 

[Vixen]

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.

The Herald of Free Enterprise did not sink. It lay on its side on a shallow bank. Had it ventured open seas and say someone opened the car ferry doors to let in the water, it would have capsized and floated upside down, ceteris paribus .

As it happened, it was barely four minutes into its journey when it capsized but thankfully the shallow bank stopped it turning belly up and many passengers and crew could be saved, as they were.

 

[JayUtah]

[deleted, question answered in subsequent posts]

 

[lobosrul5]

The Herald of Free Enterprise did not sink. It lay on its side on a shallow bank. Had it ventured open seas and say someone opened the car ferry doors to let in the water, it would have capsized and floated upside down, ceteris paribus .

As it happened, it was barely four minutes into its journey when it capsized but thankfully the shallow bank stopped it turning belly up and many passengers and crew could be saved, as they were.

And I assert that, nuh uh it wouln't have. My assertation being just as valid as yours, unless you can show me proof that you have a degree in fluid dynamics or marine engineering. Some latin phrase here.

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/3orieNeXZsJMRRUxFu/giphy.gif[/qimg]

I've never wished that this forum had an upvote system until this post!

 

[Vixen]

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.

The Taiping was a steamer carrying 1,000 refugees fleeing China, grossly overpacked. It collided with a smaller cargo ship. We do not know how long it took to sink but we can fairly confidently say it was very quickly, having had a collision, as with other ships involved in a collision.

The Eastland was a ship that sank in a river, so not maritime. It lay on its side and never sank completely due to the shallow waters. Therefore, like the Herald of Free Enterprise or even the Costa Concordia we cannot state it took X time to sink to the bottom of the sea or ocean, as it was only partially submerged.

Had the Eastland been in deep sea, it would certainly have sunk to the bottom quite quickly thanks to the owners extensively using concrete to repair it. That certainly is different from the bow visor falling off, I'll grant you that.

 

[lobosrul5]

The Taiping was a steamer carrying 1,000 refugees fleeing China, grossly overpacked. It collided with a smaller cargo ship. We do not know how long it took to sink but we can fairly confidently say it was very quickly, having had a collision, as with other ships involved in a collision.

Another assumption/assertation without any backup. The famous Andrea Doria, collided with another ship. Took 11 hours to sink. Plenty of ships have had a collision and made it back to port.

 

[JayUtah]

We do not know how long it took to sink but we can fairly confidently say it was very quickly, having had a collision, as with other ships involved in a collision.

The Stockholm collided with the Andrea Doria, ultimately causing the latter to sink -- but only after remaining afloat for 11 hours. The Stockholm did not sink at all, but managed to reach port. You have disclaimed any expertise in "maritime matters." Why do you keep foisting your uninformed opinions as if they were evidence?

 

[Vixen]

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?

The Finns never played along. The wreck is in a conservation area with lots of bird sanctuaries. The Finnish Environmental Agency (SYKE) strongly objected to the wreck being left there to pollute sea with oil and fuel. It made two depositions to the Swedish government to demand that the wreck be salvaged. In the end in the face of refusal of Carl Bildt's hand-picked head investigator (Johannes Johansson, iirc) it suggested that they could syphon off the fuel using divers before the Swedes carried on with their plan to cover it in concrete. The Swedes were terrified of SYKE's divers going down and seeing anything (only the Swedes had had access and the Estonians were furious as they were only allowed to see heavily edited clips of the divers' videos) so it suggested all kinds of ways to try to get around it. IN the end it abandoned the concrete idea as the Finns were laughing, as the seabed clay is like custard and it would have immediately sunk.

A Finnish team examined the bow visor for traces of explosives and found none. It carried out many of the autopsies. It wasn't involved in the politics.

 

[erwinl]

The Herald of Free Enterprise did not sink. It lay on its side on a shallow bank. Had it ventured open seas and say someone opened the car ferry doors to let in the water, it would have capsized and floated upside down, ceteris paribus .

As it happened, it was barely four minutes into its journey when it capsized but thankfully the shallow bank stopped it turning belly up and many passengers and crew could be saved, as they were.

highlighted
100 percent positive about this?

For the rest. What JayUtah says.

 

[JayUtah]

Had the Eastland been in deep sea, it would certainly have sunk to the bottom quite quickly thanks to the owners extensively using concrete to repair it.

You seem to think that's an unwise or unacceptable practice. Care to explain why?