The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Andy_Ross]

At the initial ingress it would have entered in via the front car ramp (where vehicles enter - they exit at the destination at the stern) the listing would have meant the sea water crashed in at a 30° - 40 ° angle to the car deck so surely some of those cars near the car ramp would have been lifted up by the sheer force and lifted out as the ship itself would have been lifted up as though on a wave. Thus, one would have expected those vehicles near the ramp to have been washed away with the tide.

Why would you expect that?
I would expect the opposite, they would have been pushed further in and then slid to the side as the ship heeled.

 

[Vixen]

Your speculation on submarines, bombs, spies and disappearing crew members is the conspiracy theory.

OK, so you are a boffin on all things naval: you explain the hole in the starboard, bearing in mind there were no rocky protusions on the seabed that could have puncture the thing thus. Bearing in mind it has been witnessed as being there since at least 1999 when some diver called Hakan Bergmark came forward, claiming to have been on the initial dive.

 

[Vixen]

Do people not fly from Sweden to the USA or Holland?
If you aren't sure of their authenticity why post them?
If they are real what do they show?

They are pre-ordered cargo planes which coincide with the date of the accident and the 'disappearance' of nine survivors, including Captain Piht.

So, if the military cargo was ordered by the CIA then that would need to somehow be transported off to the USA.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Firstly, the M/S Mariella reported X number of people rescued, and that included the nine Estonian crew in question. The commander of that ship received a medal for a drastically reduced number of survivors than the original report.

Evidence for this assertion, please? Please document the original and subsequent numbers reported. Please also provide the captain's citation stating that he is receiving the medal for drastically reducing the number of the survivors in the original support.

Failing that, please explain what basis there is for thinking any of the above is true.

 

[Vixen]

Why would you expect that?
I would expect the opposite, they would have been pushed further in and then slid to the side as the ship heeled.

But stormy sea is not static like bath water, it rises and falls in great waves, hence the cars at the car ramp would have been carried out on a contra wave to that coming in.

 

[Vixen]

Your speculation on submarines, bombs, spies and disappearing crew members is the conspiracy theory.

Wrong. If there is a hole in the starboard of a vessel that sunk suddenly in 35 minutes killing 852 people - over a thousand, if indeed, as suspected by the Swedish prosecutors there was also a container load of 174 Iraqi Kurdish refugees/illegal immigrants/asylum seekers/smuggled people - it is perfectly reasonable to discuss what is a public matter, being civilians on a public passenger vehicle, as to what might have caused it. The idea that all discussion should be shut down as conspiracy theory is anathema to anyone who belongs to that 'public'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK, so you are a boffin on all things naval: you explain the hole in the starboard, bearing in mind there were no rocky protusions on the seabed that could have puncture the thing thus. Bearing in mind it has been witnessed as being there since at least 1999 when some diver called Hakan Bergmark came forward, claiming to have been on the initial dive.

Stress fracture along a weld in the hull plating caused by the actual sinking or subsequent settling.

No submarines or bombs needed. It doesn't look like impact or explosion damage.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They are pre-ordered cargo planes which coincide with the date of the accident and the 'disappearance' of nine survivors, including Captain Piht.

So, if the military cargo was ordered by the CIA then that would need to somehow be transported off to the USA.

Why would the military not use military aircraft?

 

[Andy_Ross]

But stormy sea is not static like bath water, it rises and falls in great waves, hence the cars at the car ramp would have been carried out on a contra wave to that coming in.

How would that work?

 

[JayUtah]

What do you mean evidence? The documentary has been out since last year and widely discussed. That's how I picked up the comments about Prof Amdahl's calculations.

Again with the straw man. We're not talking about what Prof. Amdahl actually said, which is a matter of record. We're talking about your "correction," where you say he really meant "megajoules" when he said "tonnes."

In all your prior discussions of Amdahl's work, you never mentioned this "verbal typo." It suddenly appeared only after someone else started doing his own computations and came up with a number in the neighborhood of what the professor mentioned as the force required in the hypothetical collision. That's when you -- all by your lonesome -- decided that the professor must have misspoken, and that the when he said "500 tonnes" he must have really meant "500 megajoules," to coincide with what someone computed for you as the kinetic energy associated with the ship. And -- according to you and only you -- he "must" have done this to avoid confusing his audience with unfamiliar units.

The professor himself didn't say any of that. This is you second-guessing your source in order to grasp at a straw that someone else offered you. We're questioning your lately-manifested ability to read Professor Amdahl's mind and "correct" his statements to suit your beliefs. We're asking for evidence that the professor actually did mean what you're fervently claiming he meant instead of what he actually said.

You don't think I calculated it myself do you?

No, we know you're not competent to do so. Or, it seems, even to understand when other people compute things for you. So don't worry. You're being held accountable only for what you have done, not for what someone else has done.

Kid Eager, using the best information he had available to him, calculated the kinetic energy of the ship at around 500 MJ. Now that we have arrived at more or less a consensus of the ship's physical mass and its stated velocity, we have a better estimate for its kinetic energy -- somewhere in the low to mid 300's in megajoules. Now that a more accurate number for kinetic energy doesn't match the number for Prof. Amdahl's estimate for force, you're left hanging. Trying to say he "must" have meant a different unit than the one he said -- just because the numbers seem similar -- is now revealed as just more making it up as you go and believing you're not obliged to justify anything to anyone.

But of course the 315-330 MJ number (depending on deadweight) applies only if Estonia hit something head-on, which is what would have been required to satisfy your interpretation of the witness statement that the ship stopped dead in its tracks. Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity, but it's derived from the vector quantity of velocity. In a collision, it's reckoned specifically according to a vector analysis of the objects that collide. This is true even in the simple Minorsky model of ship collisions. 330 MJ is not what is involved if Estonia is hit on her starboard side. 330 MJ has nothing to do with Prof. Amdahl's quantitative estimates for that alleged collision. As I computed for you before, his estimate for that energy is down in the single-digit megajoules. And the geometry of the collision as Prof. Amdahl reckons it has no possibility of stopping the ship dead. If anything, it would have surged the ship forward slightly.

Your problems in comprehension are more manifestly profound that you seem to realize. You're trying to shoehorn your pidgin understanding of physics into the professor's actual statements, to make it seem like your beliefs and his estimates are on the same page. You don't understand the dimensions -- literally -- of the errors you're making.

 

[JayUtah]

you explain the hole in the starboard, bearing in mind there were no rocky protusions on the seabed that could have puncture the thing thus.

I'm also going with stress fracture, based on the location of the damage and the disposition of the shell plating, and the proliferation of other stress-related damage as lately observed.

Bearing in mind it has been witnessed as being there since at least 1999 when some diver called Hakan Bergmark came forward, claiming to have been on the initial dive.

A claim that is not corroborated by evidence, and a claim you walked back by saying he was speaking for some other unnamed person who allegedly dove the wreck and reported the hole -- which doesn't match Evertsson's photograph.

 

[Axxman300]

OK, so you are a boffin on all things naval: you explain the hole in the starboard, bearing in mind there were no rocky protusions on the seabed that could have puncture the thing thus. Bearing in mind it has been witnessed as being there since at least 1999 when some diver called Hakan Bergmark came forward, claiming to have been on the initial dive.

This is another area where you ignore all the facts.

The current investigation shows Estonia lies on a sea floor where there is hard rock in the mid ship, and soft clay under the bow and stern segments of the hull. The hole is a tear along the seam of the hull-plates indicating a stress fracture. This could have been caused upon impact with the sea floor on the night of the sinking, or within hours, days, weeks, months, or years after the ship settled.

One interesting note from the video; towels can be seen wedged in the crack suggesting a surge of water outward, not inward. This would have happened after the ship had filled with water either on the surface in the rough seas, or after she hit the bottom.

 

[GlennB]

This is another area where you ignore all the facts.

The current investigation shows Estonia lies on a sea floor where there is hard rock in the mid ship, and soft clay under the bow and stern segments of the hull. The hole is a tear along the seam of the hull-plates indicating a stress fracture. This could have been caused upon impact with the sea floor on the night of the sinking, or within hours, days, weeks, months, or years after the ship settled.

A point that has been made a number of times. Vixen has no interest in paying the slightest attention to anything of this nature.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is important as the stern section contains the engines, generators, pumps etc.
they add a lot of weight.

 

[Steve]

This is another area where you ignore all the facts.
The current investigation shows Estonia lies on a sea floor where there is hard rock in the mid ship, and soft clay under the bow and stern segments of the hull. The hole is a tear along the seam of the hull-plates indicating a stress fracture. This could have been caused upon impact with the sea floor on the night of the sinking, or within hours, days, weeks, months, or years after the ship settled.

One interesting note from the video; towels can be seen wedged in the crack suggesting a surge of water outward, not inward. This would have happened after the ship had filled with water either on the surface in the rough seas, or after she hit the bottom.

A thread has been started here in the forums describing a TV series titled "War of the Worlds" that appears to have a story that has no connection to anything pretty much everyone understands to have happened in the Wells War of the Worlds story.

Here we have a thread titled, in part, "The Sinking of MS Estonia" that appears to have a story that has no connection to anything pretty much everyone understands to have happened during the sinking of the Estonia.

What does this mean? I really have no idea!

 

[Kid Eager]

I'm also going with stress fracture, based on the location of the damage and the disposition of the shell plating, and the proliferation of other stress-related damage as lately observed.



A claim that is not corroborated by evidence, and a claim you walked back by saying he was speaking for some other unnamed person who allegedly dove the wreck and reported the hole -- which doesn't match Evertsson's photograph.

Agree - looks like a stress fracture - more of a split than a hole - particularly given its location and Estonia’s position on the sea floor. Importantly, it lacks the expected characteristics of sudden external force having been applied.

 

[Axxman300]

A thread has been started here in the forums describing a TV series titled "War of the Worlds" that appears to have a story that has no connection to anything pretty much everyone understands to have happened in the Wells War of the Worlds story.

Here we have a thread titled, in part, "The Sinking of MS Estonia" that appears to have a story that has no connection to anything pretty much everyone understands to have happened during the sinking of the Estonia.

What does this mean? I really have no idea!

This one has been frustrating because Vixen didn't bother to have all the facts, even with the CTs, lined up in advance. I was the one who linked to the BBC article about the NATO exercise. She didn't know Estonia developed a 2-degree list once she left port due to improper loading of the vehicles, and was unaware that many of the trucks were not tied down to the deck. Or that 15cm of water on the car deck is enough to capsize the ship in rough seas.

I've had to sit through almost eight hours of Youtube videos documenting the sinking from every angle including the one that "found" the hole in the side. The Estonia disaster is an awful, heartbreaking event, and the way Sweden, Estonia, and Finland handled the aftermath is unfortunate for many reasons.

All of the charges: Submarines, stolen Russian goodies, truck loads of Kurds, are all parallel issues which do not appear to have anything to do with the sinking. The known evidence: the ship, the damaged hood, and the damage where the clamps had failed speak for themselves. There is no evidence of explosive charges used to knock the hood off and the ramp open.

We're all fine with an updated investigation and survey of the wreck, and I'm happy to wait for the report to be issued later this Fall.

 

[Vixen]

Stress fracture along a weld in the hull plating caused by the actual sinking or subsequent settling.

No submarines or bombs needed. It doesn't look like impact or explosion damage.

So how come it wasn't mentioned by the JAIC?

 

[Kid Eager]

So how come it wasn't mentioned by the JAIC?

You really are being dense now. From the report Summary:

"This is the final report by the Joint Accident Investigation Commission on the background and sequence of events leading to the foundering of the ro-ro passenger ferry ESTONIA shortly before 0200 hrs (If not otherwise stated all times in the report are given in Estonian time = UTC + 2 hrs.) on 28 September 1994, and on the subsequent rescue operation. The vessel was on a scheduled voyage from Tallinn to Stockholm with 989 people on board."​

 

[Vixen]

Probably because they survived. Which crew members are you claiming didn't?



The wheels of justice turn slowly sometimes? Interpol Arrest Warrants can take a while to happen?



What adjustment, specifically, are you referring to? And why is it weird?

How do clerical errors happen? Seriously? And you're an accountant?!

Pilot Kenneth Svensson rescued 9 people about 3:00am 28 Sept 1994, using the Mariella as a helipad and they were taken to Huddinge Hospital* in Stockholm at 4:30. Nine people, one died.

The JAIC Report says Svensson rescued just one person at 5:10. So eight names deleted with no explanation at all. Svensson received a medal supposedly for recuing just one person, when in reality his heroism was even more amazing.

Look at this video of Captain Jan-Tore Thörnroos, who was in charge of the Mariella that night. If you fast forward to circa 8:45 towards the end (English subtitles are available via the settings) you'll note Thörnroos is asked, 'How many did you save that night?' and he replies, 'I believe 40.'

Note the conditional 'I believe' when surely a captain knows perfectly well how many were saved from the sea (there were 16 or 17 via the life chutes into the sea and a further 55 or so via helicopter winches), especially in one of what must be the most significant (and proudest) day of his life.



Further, I don't understand how the 'missing Estonian crew' can have been identified so many times by different authorities and then their names struck out with no explanation for the 'error' in the first place. Police and hospitals don't tend to go by hearsay, they check ID. Some say they got the names from an Estonian (?) Radio Station, Kuku, but how likely is it that police will identify people from what a radio station says?

Jutta Rabe claims she has a copy of the pilot’s logbook that flew survivors to the hospital and their names were in it.

Crew members managed to pull 16 people from the churning waves. 'There was no time to think,' Thoernroos said. 'The one thing I had in my mind was to try to save as many people as possible, and it's only now I begin to realize the enormity of what happened.

Patrik Dahlblom MARIENHAMN, Finland, Sept. 29


In addition, missing Captain Avo Piht, is reported as having been interviewed in at least two reliable sources: Evening Standard 'Jail warning for the guilty as key witness is found alive', Colin Adamson 29 Sept 1994.

As for the two twins who were listed as 'survivors' but then their names removed: Variety Dancers Hannely Veide and her sister Hanka-Hannika 'Anne' Veide:

On 29.09.94 message from the Swedish police and also Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs that both were alive. Both had been added correct first names.
On 30.09.94 message from Swedish Crisis Center that both were alive.
On 01.10.94 reply from Swedish Red Cross that both were alive.
On 04.10.94 from Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm that both were alive.
On 06.10.94 from Swedish Red Cross that both were alive. After that date all official circles deny forwarding of any kind of information regarding the sisters.


List of lost and found persons, who were lost again for forever. All 13 were Estonian members of the crew: Anukas, Veiko - Sailor Bogdanov, Viktor - 520502 - the Ship's Doctor Juust, Merle - 1973 - Dancer Kikas, Kaimar - 730409 - Navigation Officer Leiger, Lembit - 501201 - Chief Engineer Meos, Tiit - 690616 - Musician Müür,Tiina - 621021 - Person in charge of the tax free store Piht, Avo - 541129 - Relief Captain Targama, Agur - 661218 - 4th Engineer Tomingas, Ago - 560906 - Shop Assistant Vahtras, Kalev - 510325 - Quarter Master Veide, Hannely - 700324 - Dancer Veide, Hanka-Hannika - 700324 – Dancer.

Bear in mind, these people were actually listed by various authorities as survivors. For example, former Head of the JAIC who resigned, Andi Meister, wrote in his book:

"September 30, 1994, Bengt Erik Stenmark, director of the Swedish Maritime Administration, told the news agency Reuter that accident researchers have already spoken to Piht. Stenmark was allowed to resign shortly thereafter."

*Avo Piht is believed to have arrived at Huddinge at night after M/S Mariella arrived at Stockholm, then transferred in the morning to Turku TYKS hospital to be interviewed by PM Carl Bildt, PM Aho and PM Laar, who, if you recall, came to Turku to interview Sillaste, engineer, and other crew, who were taken there, together with police to take their statements. It is believed Piht was transferred to Helsinki accompanied by Bildt, Aho and Laar, (where they went to establish the JAIC), and Piht flown out from there.

A Russian tv channel claims this is the image of Piht arriving in an ambulance looking out of the window. The B-804 on the ambulance is a Huddinge reference number.