The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

The Strange Case of Captain Avo Piht

So it was thought Captain Avo Piht had been rescued, together with eight other crew members. His wife Sirje Piht remained convinced he was alive until her death in 2006.

To compound matters, Interpol, too, thought he was alive and a warrant was put out for his apprehension.

Captain Piht had been on his way to Stockholm to sit an exam in the morning so he was not on duty that night.

It was probably a clerical error IMV - put on a survivors list by mistake - but as Paul Barney put it, 'How can you be listed as a survivor if you were not there?'

What is intriguing is that the USA had 'disappeared' a couple of Egyptians suspected of terrorism by the CIA in the early 2000's, even though the Treaty of Rome (Criminal Law) prohibit the 'disappearing' of people by the state.

 

[JayUtah]

What is intriguing is that the USA had 'disappeared' a couple of Egyptians suspected of terrorism by the CIA in the early 2000's, even though the Treaty of Rome (Criminal Law) prohibit the 'disappearing' of people by the state.

...but it's not a conspiracy theory!

 

[Vixen]

Here are the words regarding the "verbal typo."

​

Is that what you're disputing?

So as well as Jack the Hedge, Captain_Swoop, too, claims to know my thoughts, and you take him at his word that he has special insight.


If I said I was aware of it before, I was aware of it before. Clear now?


Stop judging others by your own standards.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Yes and the sheer amount of abuse I was subjected to as a result!

 

[Vixen]

And yet you are cherry-picking survivor quotes to fit the CT narrative while casting aspersion on quotes supporting the official findings.

Don't take my word for it. Read the JAIC's star witness Silver Linde's six or seven statements and then count how many times he contradicts himself or changes his story. It is quite amusing. I am afraid he is not a reliable witness. Sillaste and Treu a bit better if you suspend all credulity.

 

[JayUtah]

If I said I was aware of it before, I was aware of it before. Clear now?

Clear, but unsatisfactory.

You were asked for evidence that you were "aware of it before," and you were presented with evidence consistent with your not being "aware of it" before. "Because I said so" is not the evidence you were asked to produce.

Stop judging others by your own standards.

I'm simply holding you to an ordinary and reasonable standard of proof. If you decide you don't want to provide evidence for your claims, then people will continue not to take you seriously.

 

[junkshop]

Yes and the sheer amount of abuse I was subjected to as a result!

Abuse? You should probably report that then.

 

[junkshop]

I've seen several reports claiming that the Estonia was listing prior to the event due to poor loading, only some of which say this was corrected by moving the ballast. Does anyone know if this is fact or conjecture, and if there was an uncorrected list whether it was to port of starboard?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The Victorians were very great engineers.

The Edwardians who built the Titanic weren't bad, either.

 

[junkshop]

The Edwardians who built the Titanic weren't bad, either.

You and your details, spoiling everyone's fun.

 

[Kid Eager]

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.

Okay, I've re-run the numbers using lower mass and speed for Estonia to arrive at 313MJ. Using the "sub stopped the Estonia" scenario we get:
- a 1,000 ton sub @ 90km/h, or
- a 5,000 ton sub @ 40km/h

with the assumption that there was 100% efficiency in transferring the kinetic energy and no punch-through.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

...but it's not a conspiracy theory!

She's trying to sneak the "nine missing crew members" meme back into the discussion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe the captain escaped on the submarine.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.



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.

As you say GRT is connected with the cargo volume of the vessel, there are several ways of calculating it. Deadweight is a closer figure for the actual weight of the ship.
I will look out my Royal Navy manual Of Seamanship Volume 3.
It has a chapter on calculating tonnage.

It may help.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Various tonnage terms.

Displacement tonnage is nothing more than the total weight of the volume of water a ship “displaces” when it is sitting in the water.

Standard displacement tonnage is basically the same minus the weight of any fuel and potable water carried on board the ship.

Lightweight tonnage is the weight of the ship when it was built in the shipyard including all framing, machinery, decking, etc. but does not include the weight of any consumable such as fuel, water, oil, or supplies.

Deadweight tonnage is the weight of all the cargo, fuel, dry provisions, supplies, etc. carried on board the ship. In other words, it is the “displacement tonnage” of the vessel minus the “lightweight tonnage”.

Gross Tonnage is a measure of the ships total interior volume and is calculated by multiplying the interior volume “V” of the ship in cubic meters by a variable known as “K” which varies depending on the ships overall volume (See next post)

Gross registered tonnage is a measurement of volume of all enclosed spaces on a ship with 100 cubic feet = to one ton.

Net Tonnage is a measure of the total interior volume of a ship’s cargo spaces. The total volume of designated cargo spaces in cubic meters is multiplied by myriad factors resulting in an official net tonnage value. The actual calculation of Net Tonnage takes into account factors such as moulded draft and the number of passengers a vessel is rated to carry. (see next post)

Net registered tonnage is also a measurement of volume however you only consider the volume of actual cargo storage areas when dividing the cubic volume in feet by 100 to get your “tonnage”. This includes any tanks, cargo holds, etc. that are normally used for transporting cargo.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The method of determining the Gross and Net Tonnages is prescribed by formula as follows:-

Gross Tonnage (GT) = K1V

where, V = total volume of all enclosed spaces in cubic metres
K1 = 0.2 + 0.02 log10 V

Net Tonnage (NT) = K2Vc(4d/3D)2 + K3(N1+N2/10)

where, Vc = total volume of cargo spaces in cubic metres
K2 = 0.2 + 0.02 log10 Vc
K3 = 1.25 (GT + 10,000)/10,000
D = moulded depth amidships in metres
d = moulded draught amidships in metres (Summer Load Line draught)
N1 = number of passengers in cabins with not more than 8 berths
N2 = number of other passengers
N1 + N2 = total number of passengers the ship is permitted to carry as indicated in the ship's passenger certificate; when N1 + N2 is less than 13, N1 and N2 shall be taken as zero
GT= gross tonnage of the ship as determined above

The factor (4d/3D)2 shall not be taken as greater than unity
The term K2Vc(4d/3D)2 shall not be taken as less than 0.25 GT
NT shall not be taken as less than 0.30 GT

The 'Gross Tonnage' and 'Net Tonnage' figures as determined from the above formulae are to be those quoted on the ship's International Tonnage Certificate

Simple.

 

[JayUtah]

Various tonnage terms.

Yep, all that seems familiar. Thanks!

 

[whoanellie]

Okay, I've re-run the numbers using lower mass and speed for Estonia to arrive at 313MJ. Using the "sub stopped the Estonia" scenario we get:
- a 1,000 ton sub @ 90km/h, or
- a 5,000 ton sub @ 40km/h

with the assumption that there was 100% efficiency in transferring the kinetic energy and no punch-through.

and a head on collision, right?

 

[Andy_Ross]

So, without knowing the displacement and lightweight tonnage we can't know the actual weight of the ship, all we can go on is the deadweight or gross tonnage.

 

[Axxman300]

What exactly is the 'CT narrative'


Facts:

• There *is* a hole in the starboard side
• the three sovereign states have amended to law to investigate it
• At least twenty-nine survivors (of just 137) reported sounds and/or sensations of a series of explosions and/or an enormous collison.
• These survivors used the words 'explosion', 'collision', 'scraping', 'hitting rocks', 'a crash'.
• 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.

This is as reported in the mainstream press.

Which part is 'conspiracy theory'?

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

As presented here? All of it.

Nobody knows when the hole in the hull was formed.

Three countries can do what they want,

Trust me, "Sounded like" is not the same as "It was". Those bolts failing would have sounded like an explosion - because technically there is a sudden release of energy as the steel sheers. The hood struck the bulbous bow when it fell off, hence a scraping noise. Trucks and cars were tossed around in the car deck, also a source for something sounding like explosions, and certainly loud bangs.

Professor Amdahl doesn't explain why the hole is right along the seam of the hull plates, or why it resembles a stress fracture, and not an impact.

This list, in the light of the physical evidence as we have it right now, is meaningless.