• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
What is your evidence for this? Water on the car deck would have gone straight down in to the hull through open hatchways and stairways.
It would have filled the machinery spaces, they are the largest open areas and span multiple decks, it's the reason ships usually sink by the stern.



Why would it have been any louder than the noise of the water flooding through a hole caused by a submarine or down the stairwells or in through the broken windows?
Didn't the bombs blow the bow visor off and let the water in?

Make your mind up.



They reported loud noises and movements consistent with a ship losing it's bow visor in a storm and the ship heeling over as it foundered
Click to expand...


Do look at MS Jan Heweliusz. The reason the Estonia sank in 35 minutes and the MS Jan Heweliusz over several days underlines the point that the JAIC should have investigated (a) the speed in which it sank, (b) the passengers' accounts of explosions/collision and (c) the reason for the hole in the starboard hull and superstructure.

Your saying all of this is consistent with a ship losing it's bow visor in a storm and the ship heeling over as it foundered, does not constitute 'an investigation' in the normal meaning of the word.
 
Axxman300 said:
That small white mini-sub is not fast enough to chase, or catch the Estonia in calm waters. Sure as hell couldn't get near it in a storm. And it would be lying on the bottom nearby.
Click to expand...

Here are the specs:

Displacement 4,400–5,750 tons surfaced, 6,400–8,000 tons submerged
Length 117.5 m (385 ft)
Beam 10.7 m (35 ft)
Draft 8 to 9 m (26 to 30 ft)
Propulsion One 190 MW OK-650 b-3 pressurised water reactor, two 45000 shp steam turbines, one shaft
Speed 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph) surfaced, 26 to 30 knots (48 to 56 km/h; 30 to 35 mph) submerged
Test depth 1,000 m safe, 1,250 m design, 1,500 m crush
Complement 30 officers, 22 warrant officers, 12 petty officers and enlisted
Armament
SS-N-15 Starfish anti-submarine missiles
6 x 533 mm (21-inch) torpedo tubes for 53-65 torpedo and VA-111 Shkval torpedoes
Click to expand...
wiki


So would fit the 5,000 tonne submarine as touted by Professor Jørgen Amdahl as something that could cause a similar damage as the hole as highlighted by Evertsson's documentary.

No wonder Svensson advised Bildt to classify it and dream up a Herald of Fee Enterprise cock and bull story in its stead.
 
10cm of standing water on the car deck was enough to roll the ship. The ship already had a 2 degree list which developed after leaving the port, and the ship's ballast tanks had already been shifted to account for it leaving nowhere to go once the bow-cover dislodged. One of the ship's engineers reported the water was knee-deep, well over 10cm. He knew he had to get out of there fast because he knew - and testified to - the ship would roll and sink like a rock, which did.

Apparently the Estonia's sister ship had her bow clamps repaired due to damage suffered in high seas which...knocked it loose. The company never bothered to do the same for Estonia. There is a clear issue with the clamps.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What is your evidence for this? Water on the car deck would have gone straight down in to the hull through open hatchways and stairways.
It would have filled the machinery spaces, they are the largest open areas and span multiple decks, it's the reason ships usually sink by the stern.



Why would it have been any louder than the noise of the water flooding through a hole caused by a submarine or down the stairwells or in through the broken windows?
Didn't the bombs blow the bow visor off and let the water in?

Make your mind up.



They reported loud noises and movements consistent with a ship losing it's bow visor in a storm and the ship heeling over as it foundered
Click to expand...

BTW Water is very heavy and extremely loud. Nothing more annoying than than the noise of a running tap.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Already posted these earlier in the thread

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=672&pictureid=12875[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=672&pictureid=12873[/qimg]

A good little intro piece

https://cultofsea.com/ship-construction/ship-stresses/
Click to expand...

Sure, there will be deformations due to sagging and stress, not to mention shifting on the seabed. However, the hole was first spotted Dec 1994, if you believe the Swedish guy who claims he was called as a diver within days of the acccident, or if you don't find him credible, then at least since 1999, when the Swedish papers reported his claims. That type of wear and tear - an impact hole in the starboard and a petalled small hole in the hull port bulkhead - does not happen within two months or even 26 years if it was there all along and not due to wear and tear. Wear and tear stress do not cancel out the damage to the hull before it sank.
 
Vixen said:
Here are the specs:

wiki


So would fit the 5,000 tonne submarine as touted by Professor Jørgen Amdahl as something that could cause a similar damage as the hole as highlighted by Evertsson's documentary.

No wonder Svensson advised Bildt to classify it and dream up a Herald of Fee Enterprise cock and bull story in its stead.
Click to expand...

That is not the mini sub you posted about.

Could you at least keep your story straight?
 
Vixen said:
Here are the specs:

wiki


So would fit the 5,000 tonne submarine as touted by Professor Jørgen Amdahl as something that could cause a similar damage as the hole as highlighted by Evertsson's documentary.

No wonder Svensson advised Bildt to classify it and dream up a Herald of Fee Enterprise cock and bull story in its stead.
Click to expand...

Those are not the specs for the white sub, which had a top speed of 6 knots on the surface and 2 knots submerged.

Anyway, there was no sub involved in the sinking.
 
Vixen said:
Sure, there will be deformations due to sagging and stress, not to mention shifting on the seabed. However, the hole was first spotted Dec 1994, if you believe the Swedish guy who claims he was called as a diver within days of the acccident, or if you don't find him credible, then at least since 1999, when the Swedish papers reported his claims. That type of wear and tear - an impact hole in the starboard and a petalled small hole in the hull port bulkhead - does not happen within two months or even 26 years if it was there all along and not due to wear and tear. Wear and tear stress do not cancel out the damage to the hull before it sank.
Click to expand...

Considering the Estonia was laying on her side in such a way that it would have been impossible to see the hole in 1994 I'd say there is a credibility issue. The ship has rolled to its port raising the other side of the hole enough to see it today. Nobody reported the hole on the night of the sinking, which they would have seen as they walked along the side of the ship.
 
erwinl said:
That is not the mini sub you posted about.

Could you at least keep your story straight?
Click to expand...

The main point is that Carl Reitmaan claims he saw something white or 'bright' moving away from the ship in the water, after he had been frightened into sprinting up to the upper decks. He says he has no military training and wondered whether a submarine could even be white. Now at first sight he appears to have 'thought he saw something and we'll never know what he saw', but on doing a google - as you know, submarines are black, usually, or perhaps painted dark blue to make them less visible from the air, due to the rubber coating being oxygenised, (which is why car tyres are black). A key selling point of a submarine is stealth so one would have thought the last thing a navy would want is one that is white, or shines, in the water. However, look at what the FSU Russian Northern Fleet were using...that's right...white submarines or metallic ones that look silver.

So the Finnish police* were interested enough in Reitmaan's sighting to try to find out more.

*In Finland the secret services are a part of the police.
 
Axxman300 said:
Those are not the specs for the white sub, which had a top speed of 6 knots on the surface and 2 knots submerged.

Anyway, there was no sub involved in the sinking.
Click to expand...

And you know that how, when the Soviets were seriously annoying its neighbours by constantly encroaching on their waters? One Soviet submarine crew caught red handed in Finnish waters came out with a cock and bull story about its compass being broken, and they were not snooping, honest, Guv.
 
Vixen said:
The main point is that Carl Reitmaan claims he saw something white or 'bright' moving away from the ship in the water, after he had been frightened into sprinting up to the upper decks. He says he has no military training and wondered whether a submarine could even be white. Now at first sight he appears to have 'thought he saw something and we'll never know what he saw', but on doing a google - as you know, submarines are black, usually, or perhaps painted dark blue to make them less visible from the air, due to the rubber coating being oxygenised, (which is why car tyres are black). A key selling point of a submarine is stealth so one would have thought the last thing a navy would want is one that is white, or shines, in the water. However, look at what the FSU Russian Northern Fleet were using...that's right...white submarines or metallic ones that look silver.

So the Finnish police* were interested enough in Reitmaan's sighting to try to find out more.

*In Finland the secret services are a part of the police.
Click to expand...

The mini sub you spoke about is indeed white.

The submarine you collected the specs from was neither mini nor white.

Let's at least agree on that, shall we?
 
Axxman300 said:
Considering the Estonia was laying on her side in such a way that it would have been impossible to see the hole in 1994 I'd say there is a credibility issue. The ship has rolled to its port raising the other side of the hole enough to see it today. Nobody reported the hole on the night of the sinking, which they would have seen as they walked along the side of the ship.
Click to expand...

It isn't lying on its side. It is face down on a slope of circa 30° angle. The starboard side is on the moraine clay slope and the port side on the soft muddy clay. It is anchored in place at the upside down bridge by a naturally formed long rock ridge that has stopped it from moving about much. The bottom of the ship is face down and landed that way so won't have had much damage apart from at the hull, where it landed on the seabed.

Imagine there was a collision with a submarine causing a breach penetrating passenger cabins on the starboard side. These passengers may have drowned quite quickly. In one of Evertsson's ROV shots you can see a bath towel stashed in the broken area, as though someone was trying to stem the flow of water.
 
Vixen said:
It isn't lying on its side. It is face down on a slope of circa 30° angle. The starboard side is on the moraine clay slope and the port side on the soft muddy clay. It is anchored in place at the upside down bridge by a naturally formed long rock ridge that has stopped it from moving about much. The bottom of the ship is face down and landed that way so won't have had much damage apart from at the hull, where it landed on the seabed.

Imagine there was a collision with a submarine causing a breach penetrating passenger cabins on the starboard side. These passengers may have drowned quite quickly. In one of Evertsson's ROV shots you can see a bath towel stashed in the broken area, as though someone was trying to stem the flow of water.
Click to expand...

Could you please show a plausible way, how a submarine, with their rounded bows can cause a hole like you've show, above the waterline?
 
erwinl said:
The mini sub you spoke about is indeed white.

The submarine you collected the specs from was neither mini nor white.

Let's at least agree on that, shall we?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a mini, does it? It may not be white but it classifies as 'bright'.


Pictured: DN-SN-87-07042-Mike class submarine-1 Jan 1986

Note: this is just an example of what Reitmaan, independent passenger survivor of Estonia might have seen.
 

Attachments

  • 1000px-DN-SN-87-07042-Mike_class_submarine-1_Jan_1986.jpg
    1000px-DN-SN-87-07042-Mike_class_submarine-1_Jan_1986.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 4
erwinl said:
Could you please show a plausible way, how a submarine, with their rounded bows can cause a hole like you've show, above the waterline?
Click to expand...

Note the Komsomolets had torpedoes. (As an example.)

Armament
SS-N-15 Starfish anti-submarine missiles
6 x 533 mm (21-inch) torpedo tubes for 53-65 torpedo and VA-111 Shkval torpedoes
 
Vixen said:
It doesn't have to be a mini, does it? It may not be white but it classifies as 'bright'.


Pictured: DN-SN-87-07042-Mike class submarine-1 Jan 1986

Note: this is just an example of what Reitmaan, independent passenger survivor of Estonia might have seen.
Click to expand...

Your post was about mini subs and only mentioned the Komsomolets as an afterthought.

But. Neither mini nor white. Check!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom