The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
No, it was not. It was a cruise luxury liner Ro-Ro. They have have been running everyday of the week from at least three different shipping companies (Viking, Silja and Tallink) for literally decades, so obviously would not sink in half an hour because of water on the car deck, which is actually not uncommon.
Click to expand...

Why would they not sink in half an hour if the bows were missing in 6 meter waves?
How is water getting on to the car deck?
How common is water on the car deck?
How much water is common on the car deck?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You have no evidence that the hole was caused by a 'significant impact'

This is a hole caused by a 'significant impact' by another ship hitting 'bows on'

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1371&pictureid=12871[/qimg]


This is a hole caused by a significant impact

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1371&pictureid=12872[/qimg]

This is a hole caused by a significant impact

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1371&pictureid=12870[/qimg]

They look nothing like the split in the Estonia.


(Last picture is HMS Diomede one of my old ships from a collision with an Icelandic gun boat in the Cod War. Many years before I was aboard though)
Click to expand...

Very interesting and illuminating images. Thanks!

HighlightedI would say that as well. ;)
 
Vixen said:
They could not have been in any fit state to give any rational testimony whilst in a hospital bed with hypothermia and the severe stress and shock of looking death in the eye and being unable to save their passengers. .
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this?
 
Vixen said:
No, it is pretty much grounded. Only four shifts, which will cause some wear and tear but can't possibly explain the massive impact damage in the hull.
Click to expand...

Why can't the hull shifting explainthe tears?

It is being subject to stress it was not designed for.
How strong do you think a sip's hull is when it is sagging or hogging?
Ship hulls fracture and tear quite often. It results in the loss of ships all the time.
Being draped over a rock with the bow and stern moving on mud will certainly cause tearing and fracture.
Go and look at the Estonia in another ten years it will be in pieces.

Not collision damage

picture.php


picture.php


picture.php
 
Vixen said:
Seawater. Passengers often complained to find their cars in several centimetres of it.

One reason it is best to leave your car at home and just hire one the other end.
Click to expand...

Do you not see a difference between a few centimeters and thousands of tons?

How did the water get there? did it come around the bow visors?

What do you think is the significance of water on other ferries car decks?
 
erwinl said:
Very interesting and illuminating images. Thanks!

HighlightedI would say that as well. ;)
Click to expand...

First image was a head on collision the other two were 'glancing collisions' at shallow angles.

Gun boat meets Frigate

picture.php
 
Vixen said:
Timeline: 28 Sept 1994, Accident started 1:15 (according to JAIC) when bow visor fell off.

May day x 2 at 1:22 and 1: 25 Third captain Tammes reported a list of 30º - 40º.

1:30 (JAIC) list near 90 º

1:30 - 1:50 ship turned towards east whilst listed on starboard side

ship went down stern first, turned to face the bow, bow went down face forward.

Survivors managed to get to an inflatable life raft.

2: 30 Carl Bildt was at an official meeting somewhere when he had a call from presumably the intelligence agencies and this is when he was informed of the tragedy

3:30 Helicoptors and nearby ships come to the rescue throughout the night.

7:10 (apx) last survivors are picked up, including Paul Barney, some rescued via the cruise liners. All have hypothermia and/or broken bones. All are transported to hospitals in Sweden, Åland and Finland.


17:00 -ish(same day): Carl Bildt issues his statement to the Swedish press that the accident was caused by the bow visor.

30 Sept 1994: The CEO of Nordstrom-Thulin (co-owners of the ferry) issued a statement to the same effect.

2 Oct 1994 - Swedish navy finds the wreck

4 Oct 1994 the newly formed JIAC announces the accident was caused by the bow visor and its weak design with regard to its bolts.
Click to expand...

So, basically authorities the entire working day to talk to survivors and ask what they saw. And the seaman who reported seeing the bow visor missing had been interviewed by authorities that same day. Nothing preventing Bildt from knowing about what he saw. Nor anything suspicious about the fact that he did.
 
Vixen said:
No, the seamen could npt have seen the bow visor from their view point of the car deck for they have categorically testified that the car ramp was up (i.e., locked) and not down.
Click to expand...

I think we've both been assuming that they saw the visor off before the ship sank. Upon reading the report, they didn't; they noticed the bow visor missing after the ship was already sinking and they had abandoned it.
 
Vixen said:
The list wasn't anything to do with the death toll, it was to do with speed of sinking in passenger ships, although, granted, it would have been high, being passenger ships in the middle of the ocean or the sea.

Er, the USS Indianapolis was, um, torpedoed? Kimo sabi?

wiki

Ah, no wonder it sank so quickly!!! _DOH!



...as did the Estonia.
Click to expand...

:confused: My mistake, I thought that list was the 10 deadliest, when I saw it said "10 worst". Where did you find it?

Anyways, my point:
Some torpedoed ships have sunk faster than the Estonia, some slower, others not at all.
Some ships involved in a collision have sunk faster than Estonia, some slower, others not at all.

I'm puzzled what that is supposed to prove or show.
 
Vixen said:
No. The buoyancy of a ship's hull means it turns turtle if it capsizes. Try it. Inflate a rubber mattress or pillow, then try to push it down below the water surface. It is astonishingly hard to do this because the air gives it buoyancy and all ships would immediately sink without it.
Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the final moments of the Andrea Doria. An absolute impossibility as she sank on her side. Illumianti confirmed?



Start about 1:20 if your impatient.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I wouldn't rule out a submarine collision at all. IMV that is the most probable cause of the rapid sinking.
Click to expand...

That is squarely contrary to the physical evidence. You've ignored every single post explaining this to you. At this point it's clear you're just shilling your own pet theory -- in ignorance -- while hypocritically accusing the professionals of doing the same. Yesterday you were trying to take your opponents to task about the submarine theory, saying these were only Professor Amdahl's examples of vessels that would fit the scenario. You told your critics they were too concretely focused if they were looking for actual vessels that matched Amdahl's examples. Now today you're back with, "It could still have been a submarine." So the rebuttal remains the same: What submarine? And don't try to weasel out of it later by claiming you weren't making that argument.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Well, it's academic as the Eastland was in a river that was only 20 feet deep.
Click to expand...

It's not quite so academic as you say. You claimed it would have sunk markedly faster because of the extra weight. The physical facts don't support your claim. You were wrong, and you were wrong because you don't know how ships work, yet somehow you think you're competent to question the findings of professionals when talking about a particular ship. You played up the incident when you thought you were right, then back away from it when you're proven wrong. What happened to the ship is immaterial; that part is academic. But if your goal is to present yourself as if you know what you're talking about, then it's not academic and you were simply wrong.

Just once we'd like to hear the words come out of your mouth, "Sorry, I guess I was wrong about that." Instead you're always trying to save face.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
We are talking about a hole that was cause by a significant impact.
Click to expand...

You don't know that to be the cause, and you're incapable of answering the evidence that argues against it being the result of a collision. Further, you've utterly ignored the physical evidence and physics analysis that shows it cannot have been a submarine.

As you hypocritically accuse others of doing, you've simply latched onto your desired cause and you're filtering the evidence according to whether it fits your desired belief.
 
Vixen said:
With the force of the sea against it, it can't have fallen open.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it fell open, did I?

So in other words, it is locked quite independently of the bow visor.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. The top of the ramp extended into the housing, allowing the ramp locks and actuators to be damaged should the visor fall away. The visor cannot go by the board without making contact in one way or another with the ramp. It doesn't have to tear the ramp completely off in order to spring its hinges or deform it in a way that lets in sea water. Your wave-dive pressure theory assumes the ramp was free to rotate, even if the locks fail. That's not a good thing to assume. If the ramp was deformed or dragged partially open, it can still be held in that position by hydraulic locking. It won't rotate simply because something pushes it from the front.

It is nonsense to claim the 'bow visor dragged the car ramp down', as it is a completely independent mechanism to it. If it fell off, it would not take the ramp with it.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming it took the ramp with it. But the visor cannot fall off without hitting the top of the stowed ramp and applying some or all of its 56,000 kg to it. That has nothing to do with mechanisms.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, it is pretty much grounded. Only four shifts, which will cause some wear and tear but can't possibly explain the massive impact damage in the hull.
Click to expand...

For someone who claims no expertise of maritime matters and no training or expertise in forensic engineering, you rely an awful lot on your "expert" opinion of things like this. Your arrogance in the face of your admitted ignorance is truly astounding.

I've personally seen greater damage to ships just from ordinary hogging. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
 
Regarding the Estonia sinking "so fast" from the "massive impact damage," the damage is actually not that massive. What's massive is the amount of force it would have taken to cause that damage had it been the result of a collision. The Estonian experts computed that the flood rate through such a hole would not be enough to sink Estonia as fast as it did. Although I have not confirmed with my own computations, my gut feeling is that the Estonian experts are right. Especially with the hole being above the waterline, it would ship water only in a roll or a wave dive, not constantly as would be the case if the hole was below the waterline.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom