The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Axxman300]

The problem is, the JAIC in their final findings certified the vessel to have been seaworthy. So there's a defective conclusion to begin with.

If your truck was over heating, then your maintenance guys didn't do their job properly when you last took it in for servicing.

The Estonia was seaworthy right up until it wasn't. Just like the Titanic.

Maybe my maintenance guys found out I'd been smuggling secret Russian military hardware and sabotaged my truck with faulty German parts.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, and while some people are wildly speculating and throwing out silly theories the investigation is on going. From July, 20, 2021:

https://www.baltictimes.com/prelimi...ck_crushed_to_large_extent_on_starboard_side/

Key updates:



And...



So the ramp is now open and they can get inside the car deck if they wish.

But wait, there's more...



And yes, they surveyed the mystery hole...



As I predicted:



And now a new mystery:



My current theory:

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEjI789af0AVurF60/giphy.gif[/qimg]

You are quoting an article I already quoted as current affairs. You omit to include this:

Surveys of the stern revealed that the stern ramps were closed. A deformation of 22 meters in length and four meters in height was registered in the middle part of the vessel on the starboard side. The plating of the ship has outward deformations as well as in some inward ones and the side fender has been forced inside the vessel.

"Thus, the force that caused this damage had to be enormous," Arikas said, adding that the exact extent of the damage is not known as it could also reach below the hull.

Note also that Arikas is being careful to given a neutral noncommital descriptive account at this initial stage. Of course there will be deformations as a s result of being underwater for 26 years and because of shifts in the soft muddy clay on the port side (these soft clays are many tens of metres deep and have the constituency of yoghurt, which is why they had to abandon putting the whole thing in concrete*). However, the hull of the ship did not, apart from the stern, hit the sea bed as the vessel sank with the bow up face down, like a domino, and thus never hit the sea bed. The vessel has been anchored in place by a rocky ridge keeping the upside down bridge from moving forward into the soft clay, whilst the starboard side is on a rigid moraine** clay and of course will show damage that corresponds with that geology, as Arikas says. That does not cancel out any damage caused before the ship sank.

If you paid attention to Arikas' press conference report, you would have understood that they have not yet investigated their findings or analysed them.

When Rockwater presented its report and videos of the scene, it claimed it could not get into the car ramp as it was locked shut from the bottom lock and could only see in through a gap. The JAIC claimed that in any case, it was only looking at the bow visor area.

It seems clear to me that in the interim a naval team - as it has never been publicised that anyone else has been caught diving in those waters (note, how Bemis and Rabes' boat, the Something Reuters and Evertsson's One Eagle expedition were both reported on tv news broadcasts and criminal charges issued). Unless, of course, an unseen [by sonar] and completely undetected submarine crew - with a mini-sub platform that would allow divers to work close by - somehow broke in, in an effort to inspect the cars, lorries and trucks in the car ramp itself, or even an attempt to inventorise a potential list of valuables (unlikely IMV). However, were there military secrets on board, then it makes sense for a sneaky Russian crew to pop by.

*Note the other vessel encased in concrete is the Russian nuclear submarine resting in the Norwegian Sea: Komsomelets. Ask yourself, 'why is it encase in concrete and why did the Swedish government decree the Estonia must be encase in concrete [which it would have been if not for the seabed swamp making it unfeasible]?'

** Moraine clay is formed of hard granite type debris as a result of the iceage when it melted away and corroded the hard rock into a more or less level hard ground. NB there are no rocky protusions in the area that could stick up and cause an impact of the type seen on Evertsson's documentary.

 

[Vixen]

The Estonia was seaworthy right up until it wasn't. Just like the Titanic.

Maybe my maintenance guys found out I'd been smuggling secret Russian military hardware and sabotaged my truck with faulty German parts.

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/3orieXUO6gEH5zoTra/giphy.gif[/qimg]

The consensus is that the Titanic was never seaworthy.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Are you able to describe the mechanism by which the thing see-saws back and forth?

Am I able to explain the report to you? Possibly. Am I able to explain basic physics to you? Maybe. Will I when you obviously can't be bothered to follow? No.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We were not talking about storms we were talking about waves. It is a fact that shallow seas are more easily whipped into very high waves than a deep ocean. For example, the Pacific is so named for a reason.

I am sure the Atlantic has terrible storms but the same storm transported to the Baltic would have higher waves, is the theory, ceteris paribus.

If you think the Baltic has higher waves than the Atlantic you are very much mistaken. 19 meter waves have been recorded between Iceland and the Outer Hebrides.
Along the Atlantic coast of Spain and Portugal waves of 24 meters build up along the coast and beaches.

If you think the Pacific doesn't have big waves you are in need of education.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Even if it was as you call it a sad, freak accident, and even if a strong wave did knock off a bow visor bolted with three different locks, such an occurrence by the laws of physics would not cause a ship of that size to sink in 35 minutes.

It would if the car deck flooded and the ship capsized as we know it did.
We have been through this at great length.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The other way to look at it is the testimony of THE ONE GUY WHO WAS ON THE CAR DECK A FEW METERS AWAY WHEN THE WAVE STRUCK THE BOW CAUSING THE LOUD BANG AND WATER BEGIN TO FLOOD THE DECK over 29 people who were not on the car deck. With that logic I'm shocked they haven't interviewed me since I was ten thousand miles away.

Homeopathic witnesses. the further away the more reliable?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The consensus is that the Titanic was never seaworthy.

What 'consensus' is that?

Her sister ship sailed for many years with no problems.

What exactly made the Titanic unseaworthy?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You are quoting an article I already quoted as current affairs. You omit to include this:



Note also that Arikas is being careful to given a neutral noncommital descriptive account at this initial stage. Of course there will be deformations as a s result of being underwater for 26 years and because of shifts in the soft muddy clay on the port side (these soft clays are many tens of metres deep and have the constituency of yoghurt, which is why they had to abandon putting the whole thing in concrete*). However, the hull of the ship did not, apart from the stern, hit the sea bed as the vessel sank with the bow up face down, like a domino, and thus never hit the sea bed. The vessel has been anchored in place by a rocky ridge keeping the upside down bridge from moving forward into the soft clay, whilst the starboard side is on a rigid moraine** clay and of course will show damage that corresponds with that geology, as Arikas says. That does not cancel out any damage caused before the ship sank.

If you paid attention to Arikas' press conference report, you would have understood that they have not yet investigated their findings or analysed them.

When Rockwater presented its report and videos of the scene, it claimed it could not get into the car ramp as it was locked shut from the bottom lock and could only see in through a gap. The JAIC claimed that in any case, it was only looking at the bow visor area.

It seems clear to me that in the interim a naval team - as it has never been publicised that anyone else has been caught diving in those waters (note, how Bemis and Rabes' boat, the Something Reuters and Evertsson's One Eagle expedition were both reported on tv news broadcasts and criminal charges issued). Unless, of course, an unseen [by sonar] and completely undetected submarine crew - with a mini-sub platform that would allow divers to work close by - somehow broke in, in an effort to inspect the cars, lorries and trucks in the car ramp itself, or even an attempt to inventorise a potential list of valuables (unlikely IMV). However, were there military secrets on board, then it makes sense for a sneaky Russian crew to pop by.

*Note the other vessel encased in concrete is the Russian nuclear submarine resting in the Norwegian Sea: Komsomelets. Ask yourself, 'why is it encase in concrete and why did the Swedish government decree the Estonia must be encase in concrete [which it would have been if not for the seabed swamp making it unfeasible]?'

** Moraine clay is formed of hard granite type debris as a result of the iceage when it melted away and corroded the hard rock into a more or less level hard ground. NB there are no rocky protusions in the area that could stick up and cause an impact of the type seen on Evertsson's documentary.

A ship is not designed to have the hull supported in one area and the remainder able to sag. It will tear the plating.

I posted images of ships that broke in two because they had uneven loading on the hull and they were still afloat.

Why do you think a ship designed to have it's weight evenly supported along it's full hull length by water would have problems if it's weight was supported by one small area of contact from a solid surface?

 

[Vixen]

If you think the Baltic has higher waves than the Atlantic you are very much mistaken. 19 meter waves have been recorded between Iceland and the Outer Hebrides.
Along the Atlantic coast of Spain and Portugal waves of 24 meters build up along the coast and beaches.

If you think the Pacific doesn't have big waves you are in need of education.

Oh dear. You didn't understand Axxman300's concept of bathymetry.


Never mind.

Maybe this will help?

When waves travel into areas of shallow water, they begin to be affected by the ocean bottom. The free orbital motion of the water is disrupted, and water particles in orbital motion no longer return to their original position. As the water becomes shallower, the swell becomes higher and steeper, ultimately assuming the familiar sharp-crested wave shape. After the wave breaks, it becomes a wave of translation and erosion of the ocean bottom intensifies.

Cnoidal waves are exact periodic solutions to the Korteweg–de Vries equation in shallow water, that is, when the wavelength of the wave is much greater than the depth of the water.

wiki See the moving diagram as to how this works.

Hence, shallow seas have a greater propensity for high waves than deep oceans.

Clear now?

 

[LondonJohn]

Even if it was as you call it a sad, freak accident, and even if a strong wave did knock off a bow visor bolted with three different locks, such an occurrence by the laws of physics would not cause a ship of that size to sink in 35 minutes.

Seeing as a high proportion of your posts in this thread have demonstrated nigh-on illiteracy wrt even basic physics concepts (let alone the more advanced scientific and maritime understanding which is mandatory for any serious analysis of the incident in question...), this is quite a breathtaking statement for you to be making

*aims fire extinguisher at smouldering irony-o-meter*

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh dear. You didn't understand Axxman300's concept of bathymetry.


Never mind.

Maybe this will help?

wiki See the moving diagram as to how this works.

Hence, shallow seas have a greater propensity for high waves than deep oceans.

Clear now?

And yet the Atlantic has the highest recorded waves, they are between Iceland and Scotland averaging up to 19 meters significant wave height with individual waves being much higher. The Pacific coast of the USA and Mexico also regularly see 20 meter waves just like the Atlantic coast of Spain and Portugal.

Highest recorded waves in the Baltic are During the storm Rafael in 2004, the significant wave height reached 8.2 metres and the highest individual wave height was 14 metres. During the storm Toini in 2017 a similar significant wave height was recorded.
I think it is you that aren't understanding 'bathymetry'. When did you become an expert in the subject?

 

[malbui]

Seeing as a high proportion of your posts in this thread have demonstrated nigh-on illiteracy wrt even basic physics concepts (let alone the more advanced scientific and maritime understanding which is mandatory for any serious analysis of the incident in question...), this is quite a breathtaking statement for you to be making

*aims fire extinguisher at smouldering irony-o-meter*

I've never heard an actual physicist say, in a professional setting, "by the laws of physics". "According to this model", yes. "Assuming a perfect sphere", yes. "Ceteris paribus", all the time. But "by the laws of physics?" Nope.

 

[Vixen]

It would if the car deck flooded and the ship capsized as we know it did.
We have been through this at great length.

And you are still not comprehending the elementary laws of physics that surround such a supposed flooding.

Consider the case of the Polish ferry, M/S Jan Heweliusz, which sank in Jan 1994. Its car deck was flooded, it capsized and it floated upside down for several days before finally sinking.

You can see a speeded up video here:

https://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/v...sea-airv-jan-heweliusz-news-footage/804903826


The Estonia sank straight to the bottom stern first in a record 35 minutes.

See screenshot of MS_Jan_Heweliusz floating 'turtle'.

 

[Vixen]

Homeopathic witnesses. the further away the more reliable?

It is incredible isn't it that people cannot distinguish a genuine news story and believe it is somehow made up.

 

[Vixen]

What 'consensus' is that?

Her sister ship sailed for many years with no problems.

What exactly made the Titanic unseaworthy?

The rivets in the hull being far too weak. Some experts claim there was a fire in one of the stoking rooms that had been smouldering from the moment it left port.

 

[Vixen]

A ship is not designed to have the hull supported in one area and the remainder able to sag. It will tear the plating.

I posted images of ships that broke in two because they had uneven loading on the hull and they were still afloat.

Why do you think a ship designed to have it's weight evenly supported along it's full hull length by water would have problems if it's weight was supported by one small area of contact from a solid surface?

Of course there will be deformations caused by shifting and impact on seabed. They do not cancel out deformations made by the impact with a submarine before it sank, it it is indeed compatible with a submarine collision, and Professor Amdahl does not discount this and Rene Arikas head of the new investigators says the deformation seen here must have been caused by 'an enormous impact'.

Note, too, Carl Reitmaan, Estonian survivor in Episode 3 of Evertsson's documentary, 'The Find that Changes Everything' who in his eyewitness statement at the time said he raced out of his cabin after feeling an impact and seeing water in his cabin on Deck 1, was first onto the upper outside deck and was just in time to see something white slithering away from under the hull making motions on the waves as it went on its way. He says he's had no military training so has no idea what a submarine might look like and whether one would appear 'bright' in the water. Now, you might think, ah well, so the guy thinks he saw something. Probably mistaken. Probably has a false memory as espoused by Dr. Loftus, so beloved of JayUtah.

But wait! In episode 3, after the hole was discovered, he says he was visited by some Finnish police officers and was taken aback to be asked specifically by them, to describe what he saw from the deck.

So the police went all the way to Estonia to ask some landlubber to describe what he saw schlepping away that night after the perceived collision.

The Finnish police investigating the Estonia thought the idea of a submarine was most interesting and they went all the way to Estonia to interview this know-nothing passenger - which the JAIC certainly were not interested in - to ask him about it.

As one does.

So if the special police are interested in this strange sighting, then shouldn't we be?

 

[Vixen]

And yet the Atlantic has the highest recorded waves, they are between Iceland and Scotland averaging up to 19 meters significant wave height with individual waves being much higher. The Pacific coast of the USA and Mexico also regularly see 20 meter waves just like the Atlantic coast of Spain and Portugal.

Highest recorded waves in the Baltic are During the storm Rafael in 2004, the significant wave height reached 8.2 metres and the highest individual wave height was 14 metres. During the storm Toini in 2017 a similar significant wave height was recorded.
I think it is you that aren't understanding 'bathymetry'. When did you become an expert in the subject?

We are being told to blindly accept that the waves on the night of 27th - 28th September 1994 were extraordinarily high and exceptionally powerful. Part of the perceived high height of the waves is because of the Baltic being relatively shallow. It never will have the apparent calm of say, the Pacific.

IOW the waves that night were not anything out of the ordinary that the shipping lines cannot cope with. Carl Bildt threw out a red herring and you have swooped down like one of the many different types of seagull that take sanctuary in those waters to swallow it whole.

 

[LondonJohn]

We are being told to blindly accept that the waves on the night of 27th - 28th September 1994 were extraordinarily high and exceptionally powerful. Part of the perceived high height of the waves is because of the Baltic being relatively shallow. It never will have the apparent calm of say, the Pacific. IOW the waves that night were not anything out of the ordinary that the shipping lines cannot cope with. Carl Bildt threw out a red herring and you have swooped down like one of the many different types of seagull that take sanctuary in those waters to swallow it whole.

Jeez. It's already been pointed out to you that the Pacific is in fact anything but peaceful. Yet you still persist with this ignorant fallacy.

(If you were actually interested in the topic and bothered to do even the slightest research, you'd easily discover that the name was bestowed on this body of water by Magellan during his search for new westward routes to/from the Spice Islands in the 16th Century. The only reason why he gave it that moniker was because for the first week or so after he rounded the tip of South America, the ocean just happened to be relatively calm and he had a favourable North-Easterly wind. That's all.)

 

[GlennB]

We are being told to blindly accept that the waves on the night of 27th - 28th September 1994 were extraordinarily high and exceptionally powerful. Part of the perceived high height of the waves is because of the Baltic being relatively shallow. It never will have the apparent calm of say, the Pacific.

Staggering ignorance. You've just interpreted its name, haven't you?