The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Jack by the hedge]

Well I gleaned it from wikipedia, which I am sure we can all do without having to ask me.

You didn't glean "limp home" from Wikipedia. There's no mention there of Olympic so much as reducing speed let alone "limping".

You got the story from Wikipedia, but you sprinkled it with a dash of colour of your own invention in an attempt to make that ship sound more fragile than it was, to bolster your previous argument that Titanic was unseaworthy due to weak rivets.

i.e. you made it up as "evidence" for your own claim. That kind of **** is really tiresome and it's exhausting trying to read between the lines of stuff you say.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I was already aware of it.

What is your evidence for this?

 

[JayUtah]

Facts:

• 
  [...]
• Marine collisions expert, Professor Amdahl, assesses that it was a 500MJ impact that could have caused such damage to the starboard, if it took place before it sunk.

That is not a fact. He said "500 tonnes." That is the fact. Your frantic attempts to retcon what he said into something else is your rewrite -- the thing you hate when someone else does it. You saw a number here on the forum and have glommed onto it thinking you can now pretend that it jives with a number your preferred expert threw out, albeit in answer to a different question, and that all is now right with the world.

A well-meaning contributor gave you a figure of around 500 MJ as the kinetic energy of MS Estonia at 14 knots. Unfortunately the tonnages used in the various discussions here -- including that calculation -- have been regulatory tonnages, which are actually derived from the ship's volume. They have nothing to do with the mass of the vessel as required in physics computations.

Since I have yet to find MS Estonia's displacement when loaded to the Plimsoll waterline, we can use other measurements provided by the shipyard. The ship's lightweight tonnage is 9,733 tonnes. This is the mass of the ship as constructed, excluding fuel, cargo, etc. The ship's deadweight tonnage is 3,000 tonnes, depending on season. This is the mass the ship can carry as fuel, cargo, supplies -- excluding the mass of the ship itself. So the mass of the ship for physics purposes is at most 12,739 tonnes, the sum of the two actual masses used in shipbuilding.

At 14 knots, the kinetic energy if the ship is thus around 330 MJ, not 500+ MJ. So no, Prof. Amdahl didn't mistakenly say tonnes when he "really" meant megajoules, because the numbers you're frantically trying to bring into the illusion of coherence do not actually cohere.

Now you get to explain to us why MS Estonia's kinetic energy reckoned from its overall forward speed is not the value we use to determine the collision damage to its starboard side.

Which part is 'conspiracy theory'?

The part about a submarine, maybe Russian, maybe shooting torpedoes at the ship, maybe crash-surfacing, and maybe shaped charges cutting the bolts holding on the visor while leaving a bystander unscathed.

Yes we should treat all preliminary issues with heightened scepticism but that doesn't make it a 'conspiracy theory'.

You're literally proposing that parties conspired to conceal the known or suspected true cause of Estonia's sinking. That is literally, exactly a conspiracy theory. It is quite possible to treat the novel discoveries without insisting that a prior conspiracy have taken place.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Around 13,000 is probably around the actual tonnage at the time. Estonia will not have been at full load with full tanks.

Displacement used to be quoted for ships but it's hard to find now it seems.

 

[JayUtah]

AIUI

From what sources do you understand it?

Reintamm gave his statement a couple of days after the accident and that would have been to the police.

Would have been, or was?

He would have had to sort through statements in three different languages, not all fully translated into Swedish.

The only published statement I can find from Reintmann is in Swedish. Did he give his statement in Swedish natively? Was his statement at any time translated into different languages to facilitate analysis?

[T]he JAIC ... looked for commonalities that fit with their own time line.

Is this a statement they made, or is this your belief regarding what they did?

For example, after his initial police statement, Paul Barney was never contacted again, when one would have thought with only 137 of them - of which 58 were crew and staff - it would not have been a particularly onerous task.

Is the reason documented anywhere why Barney was not contacted? Or are you inferring the reason?

I expect the police are still in possession of the original witness statements.

Are they?

Reintamm also claims JAIC changed his words from 'a lot of water' in deck one, to a 'thin trickle of water'.

Did he substantiate the change via objective evidence, or is he working from memory?

 

[Kid Eager]

If you look at this clip of Professor Amdahl form circa 38" onwards you can see his professional opinion for yourself.



Prof Amdahl does indeed either have a skip of tongue and says the hole appears to have been caused by an impact of about '500 tonnes', when he obviously meant 'MJ's' (not tonnes), or perhaps he was just trying to make it easy for the viewer to understand by saying 'tons' instead of 'MJ's'.

Unless he’s managed to redefine physics, my calculations refute your subamarine-hitting-and-stopping-Estonia scenario. End of story.

 

[Kid Eager]

That is not a fact. He said "500 tonnes." That is the fact. Your frantic attempts to retcon what he said into something else is your rewrite -- the thing you hate when someone else does it. You saw a number here on the forum and have glommed onto it thinking you can now pretend that it jives with a number your preferred expert threw out, albeit in answer to a different question, and that all is now right with the world.

A well-meaning contributor gave you a figure of around 500 MJ as the kinetic energy of MS Estonia at 14 knots. Unfortunately the tonnages used in the various discussions here -- including that calculation -- have been regulatory tonnages, which are actually derived from the ship's volume. They have nothing to do with the mass of the vessel as required in physics computations.

Since I have yet to find MS Estonia's displacement when loaded to the Plimsoll waterline, we can use other measurements provided by the shipyard. The ship's lightweight tonnage is 9,733 tonnes. This is the mass of the ship as constructed, excluding fuel, cargo, etc. The ship's deadweight tonnage is 3,000 tonnes, depending on season. This is the mass the ship can carry as fuel, cargo, supplies -- excluding the mass of the ship itself. So the mass of the ship for physics purposes is at most 12,739 tonnes, the sum of the two actual masses used in shipbuilding.

At 14 knots, the kinetic energy if the ship is thus around 330 MJ, not 500+ MJ. So no, Prof. Amdahl didn't mistakenly say tonnes when he "really" meant megajoules, because the numbers you're frantically trying to bring into the illusion of coherence do not actually cohere.

Now you get to explain to us why MS Estonia's kinetic energy reckoned from its overall forward speed is not the value we use to determine the collision damage to its starboard side.



The part about a submarine, maybe Russian, maybe shooting torpedoes at the ship, maybe crash-surfacing, and maybe shaped charges cutting the bolts holding on the visor while leaving a bystander unscathed.



You're literally proposing that parties conspired to conceal the known or suspected true cause of Estonia's sinking. That is literally, exactly a conspiracy theory. It is quite possible to treat the novel discoveries without insisting that a prior conspiracy have taken place.

The numbers I ran were on the basis of the Estonia being fully laden per the details of the event and traveling at 31 km/h, its normal cruising speed for the trip. I think 330MJ KE is a bit low.

 

[Vixen]

You didn't glean "limp home" from Wikipedia. There's no mention there of Olympic so much as reducing speed let alone "limping".

You got the story from Wikipedia, but you sprinkled it with a dash of colour of your own invention in an attempt to make that ship sound more fragile than it was, to bolster your previous argument that Titanic was unseaworthy due to weak rivets.

i.e. you made it up as "evidence" for your own claim. That kind of **** is really tiresome and it's exhausting trying to read between the lines of stuff you say.

All in your mind.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The numbers I ran were on the basis of the Estonia being fully laden per the details of the event and traveling at 31 km/h, its normal cruising speed for the trip. I think 330MJ KE is a bit low.

Speed would be reduced because of the sea running, it would not be fully laden with full tanks, 75% load and 60% tankage would be nearer the reality.

Actual GRT is never realised.

 

[JayUtah]

The numbers I ran were on the basis of the Estonia being fully laden per the details of the event and traveling at 31 km/h, its normal cruising speed for the trip. I think 330MJ KE is a bit low.

While 18 kt was Estonia's normal cruising speed, the consensus is that she was traveling at 14 kt at the time of the accident, due to heavier-than-usual weather. I'm certainly willing to be corrected as to the mass of the ship. My mass estimate is obviously derived from values specified by the shipyard and may not be accurate. How did you estimate the mass?

 

[junkshop]

My critics? Any hope of concentrating on the current affairs topic which I posted as current affairs?

(Bolding mine)

You keep saying this, and it's been bothering me, as I was sure that this thead was in 'History, Literature and the Arts' before moving here.

Maybe my recollection was wrong (after all the accuracy of human memory is somewhat questionable). Anyway, I consulted the wayback machine and found out who was remembering correctly.

I guess we shouldn't rely on witness testimony without verification, huh?

 

[Vixen]

(Bolding mine)

You keep saying this, and it's been bothering me, as I was sure that this thead was in 'History, Literature and the Arts' before moving here.

Maybe my recollection was wrong (after all the accuracy of human memory is somewhat questionable). Anyway, I consulted the wayback machine and found out who was remembering correctly.

I guess we shouldn't rely on witness testimony without verification, huh?

You are right, your memory is questionable. If I say I opened it in current affairs then I opened it in current affairs.


10th July 2021, 10:24 AM
AutoModAction
~
System Responder

AutoModAction's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 105,705
Thread Moved
Hi Vixen,

The following thread that you created has been moved

-----
Thread: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened
Original Forum: Social Issues & Current Events
New Forum: History, Literature, and the Arts
-----

This is an automated message, please do not reply.

Regards,
International Skeptics Forum Moderating Team


Will I be getting an apology?

 

[junkshop]

That link doesn't work.

The thread was in History etc. when I first read it. I suppose it could have started out in News and Current Affairs then been moved to H,L&tA, and thereafter moved again to C&CT. Stranger things have happened, and the Wayback snapshot is from about a week after you started the thread.

However, I'm afraid that without some form of corroboration I can't just take your word as gospel.

ETA: My apologies, I stand corrected. When I first posted this reply the AutoModAction message was a broken link (I can only assume that your edit coincided with my reply). The move to History, Literature & the Arts was a bit weird, wasn't it?

 

[Vixen]

What is your evidence for this?

Er, I mentioned it?

 

[JayUtah]

Speed would be reduced because of the sea running, it would not be fully laden with full tanks, 75% load and 60% tankage would be nearer the reality.

My estimate used the largest value for DWT, so in theory the ship could never be burthened greater than that. At a smaller percentage of cargo, and with fuel expended (and/or short-fueled), you'd never get more kinetic energy than my estimate.

Actual GRT is never realised.

GRT is not mass, as I understand it. It's an abstraction for the volume of a vessel, regardless of its mass. Unless you're not talking about gross register tonnage.

 

[JayUtah]

Er, I mentioned it?

What is it that you think you mentioned? You suggest you "knew all along" that Amdahl really meant "megajoules" when he said "tonnes." But I can't find any statements from you prior to Kid Eager bringing up the ship's kinetic energy where you "corrected" the professor's statements from "tonnes" to "megajoules." Your theory that he misspoke the units is a recent addition.

You previously theorized that he was hedging on the size of the submarine and the required speed, but that's not the same thing. You opined he may have been referring to a range of compatible vessels.

 

[Kid Eager]

Speed would be reduced because of the sea running, it would not be fully laden with full tanks, 75% load and 60% tankage would be nearer the reality.

Actual GRT is never realised.

While 18 kt was Estonia's normal cruising speed, the consensus is that she was traveling at 14 kt at the time of the accident, due to heavier-than-usual weather. I'm certainly willing to be corrected as to the mass of the ship. My mass estimate is obviously derived from values specified by the shipyard and may not be accurate. How did you estimate the mass?

Ah, well spotted. I've probably over-stated the tonnage actual in that case. I also used the normal cruising figure rather than actual. I don't have figures on actual tonnage for that trip - any suggestions?

 

[Vixen]

What is it that you think you mentioned? You suggest you "knew all along" that Amdahl really meant "megajoules" when he said "tonnes." But I can't find any statements from you prior to Kid Eager bringing up the ship's kinetic energy where you "corrected" the professor's statements from "tonnes" to "megajoules." Your theory that he misspoke the units is a recent addition.

You previously theorized that he was hedging on the size of the submarine and the required speed, but that's not the same thing. You opined he may have been referring to a range of compatible vessels.

Can people stop putting words in my mouth? Sheesh!

 

[JayUtah]

Ah, well spotted. I've probably over-stated the tonnage actual in that case. I also used the normal cruising figure rather than actual. I don't have figures on actual tonnage for that trip - any suggestions?

If the figures I found in the JAIC report, which were given by the shipyard, are correct then my value for mass should be an upper bound. As Captain Swoop notes, the ship was not likely to have been fully laden up to its maximum DWT, so all actual kinetic energy values will be lower than the max I've computed. Perhaps a detailed study of the accident report might give estimates for fuel and cargo.

 

[JayUtah]

Can people stop putting words in my mouth? Sheesh!

Here are the words regarding the "verbal typo."

He said '500 tons' when he meant to say '500 megajoules'. You know, like a verbal typo?

How do you know this?

Until anothre poster mentioned megajoules you were not aware of this 'verbal typo'

I was already aware of it.

What is your evidence for this?

Er, I mentioned it?

Is that what you're disputing?