The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

At least I knew what deformations were.

No, you didn't. You didn't know the difference between elastic deformation and plastic deformation. Do not pretend to have knowledge you do not.

 

[Vixen]

How is it taken out of context?

What typo?

You originally claimed the hull was 'reinforced steel'

When you were shown that it wasn't 'reinforced' and that the thickness varies depending on location you admitted you knew nothing about it.

There you go then. So much for the claim I never admit anything.

 

[Vixen]

Nope, you specifically said that the Estonia was regarded as the most reliable ship in a storm, in the post that Captain_Swoop referenced.

I'll even quote what you said about the Estonia.

Don't take my word for it. Here's wikipedia:

The following spring Silja Star began her service with Wasa Line, another company owned by EffJohn. Her name was changed to Wasa King and she served on routes connecting Vaasa, Finland to Umeå and Sundsvall in Sweden.[2][3] It has been reported that the Wasa King was widely considered to be the best behaving ship in rough weather to have sailed from Vaasa.

Sorry if it disappoints you I was quoting a reliable source.

 

[JayUtah]

There you go then. So much for the claim I never admit anything.

Your concessions never last. You admitted you don't know anything about metallurgy. And you admitted you don't know about forensic engineering. And you make similar admissions to deflect the criticism du jour. But as soon as that's passed, you go right back to claiming as "fact" expert judgments like whether certain damage was caused by an explosion or collision or whether witnesses can be contradicted.

And your concessions have no force. You're happy to admit you don't know something, but then you vehemently oppose the notion that someone else does, especially if they happen to disagree with you. You're content to be ignorant only if everyone else is too.

 

[JesseCuster]

Don't take my word for it. Here's wikipedia:




Sorry if it disappoints you I was quoting a reliable source.

How on earth could you interpret my post as being disappointed?

I was merely correcting you when you said that your claim about the Estonia being "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Baltica.

You were wrong about which ship you were talking about and I quoted you to show that you were incorrect. How you got from there to conclude that I'm somehow disappointed in something is completely beyond me.

You appear to have a habit of ignoring the meat of people's posts and going off on tangents about emotional contents to people's posts that you've simply imagined.

 

[Vixen]

How on earth could you interpret my post as being disappointed?

I was merely correcting you when you said that your claim about the Estonia being "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Baltica.

You were wrong about which ship you were talking about and I quoted you to show that you were incorrect. How you got from there to conclude that I'm somehow disappointed in something is completely beyond me.

You appear to have a habit of ignoring the meat of people's posts and going off on tangents about emotional contents to people's posts that you've simply imagined.

My post was about the Baltica. Do get it right. And it was said about Wasa King:

The following spring Silja Star began her service with Wasa Line, another company owned by EffJohn. Her name was changed to Wasa King and she served on routes connecting Vaasa, Finland to Umeå and Sundsvall in Sweden.[2][3] It has been reported that the Wasa King was widely considered to be the best behaving ship in rough weather to have sailed from Vaasa.

In addition, I correctly stated that these cruise ro-ro ferries are design to withstand stormy weather.

Stop making wild accusations.

 

[JesseCuster]

My post was about the Baltica. Do get it right.

Your post was about the Baltica and the Estonia.

Your comment about the ship being about the most reliable in a storm was about the Estonia.

The Baltica is a red herring when it comes to your claim about the Estonia being reliable in a storm.

When it was mentioned that you said that the Estonia was "the most reliable in a storm" you asked for the context in which you said that. Captain_Swoop provided the context by linking to the post in which you claimed that the Estonia, while sailing under the name of Wasa King, was "the most reliable in a storm".

You then claimed that your post was about the Baltica, despite that your comment about being "the most reliable in a storm" was unambiguously about the Estonia.

Honestly, I've no idea what you're trying to prove by saying that your post was about the Baltica. Your comment about "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Estonia, so it's hard to know what you're actually trying to prove by saying your post was about the Baltica, because you now agree that you said the Estonia was "the most reliable in a storm".

In addition, I correctly stated that these cruise ro-ro ferries are design to withstand stormy weather.

Why are you telling me that? I never said anything about what you did or didn't say about cruise ro-ro ferries and stormy weather.

 

[Vixen]

Your post was about the Baltica and the Estonia.

Your comment about the ship being about the most reliable in a storm was about the Estonia.

The Baltica is a red herring when it comes to your claim about the Estonia being reliable in a storm.

When it was mentioned that you said that the Estonia was "the most reliable in a storm" you asked for the context in which you said that. Captain_Swoop provided the context by linking to the post in which you claimed that the Estonia, while sailing under the name of Wasa King, was "the most reliable in a storm".

You then claimed that your post was about the Baltica, despite that your comment about being "the most reliable in a storm" was unambiguously about the Estonia.

Honestly, I've no idea what you're trying to prove by saying that your post was about the Baltica. Your comment about "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Estonia, so it's hard to know what you're actually trying to prove by saying your post was about the Baltica, because you now agree that you said the Estonia was "the most reliable in a storm".

Why are you telling me that? I never said anything about what you did or didn't say about cruise ro-ro ferries and stormy weather.

Look. The Estonia was formerly The Wasa King and I pointed out to Captain_Swoop within the context of that post that in her carnation as The Wasa King she was regarded as the most reliable ship in a storm on that route.

That means I was sceptical that the bow visor simply fell off 'due to a strong wave' and I still am.

I said absolutely nothing remiss in that post. If you would like to explain exactly what I am being accused then I am all ears.

 

[JesseCuster]

Sorry if it disappoints you I was quoting a reliable source.

The Wikipedia article has no reference for the claim that Estonia, while under the name of Wasa King, "was widely considered to be the best behaving ship in rough weather to have sailed from Vaasa".

I'm not saying it is or isn't true, but what makes you think it's reliable when there's no source for the claim?

 

[Axxman300]

It was not a 'bad storm'. It was a storm typical for late September. It was a Beaufort Scale 7. In the wikipedia, it is confirmed the storm was not particularly bad, with both Silja and Viking Lines running ships from Helsinki to Stockholm.

Obviously it was bad enough.

Quite frankly, had it been a simple case of the car deck leaking, that would have become apparent within minutes of setting off and with time for the ship to turn back or move it into shallow ground, as the Captain of the Maru did.

What you're saying is you are not familiar with any of the facts. As confirmed by the next paragraph:

Fact is, this 'bow visor falling off' which nobody saw falling off (the JAIC get around this by saying it wasn't visible from the bridge. However, it had a blue light which was visible). How do you know the visor falling off was Event Number One? Or that it happened before the ship sank? 29 of the 137 survivors describe hearing an explosion (two or three of them in succession) and/or a collision that knocked them off their feet/out of bed. And how would Carl Bildt know it was the visor what done it on Day One 28 Sept 1994? Sillaste is reported as saying it was closed over the car ramp, not missing.

This is a tap-dancing routine around the sequence of events. The clamp at the base of the hood broke causing it to come loose, and water began to surge into the car deck. Not a lot at first. There was no warning light on the bridge for this kind of problem. The clamp failing would have sounded like and explosion. A crewman testified the loud bang came after a wave struck the bow, and then water surged in. He called the bridge, the captain's astute way of dealing with the report was not to send a damage control party to the bow of the car deck, but instead had the engineers check closed circuit TV monitors.

None of the engineers ever went to the bow to look for possible damage or get eyes on the situation.

From there the waves smashed the bow until the remaining bolts failed.

The one one witness who claims to have seen the bow intact as the ship sank is wrong. We know this because other survivors used the EXPOSED BOW RAMP to climb down into the water instead of jumping...that plus the fact it was recovered nowhere near the ship. I've had hypothermia, it makes you stupid.

And it's 'Murphy's Law' the explosions, crash and sudden violent list to starboard were on the stroke of midnight and bang on the middle of its voyage in international waters, where any submarine can roam?

Fact: 10cm of standing water on the car deck can cause a ship of this design to capsize in rough seas. There was six times a that much before the Estonia "suddenly listed". She already had a 2-degree list which had taxed her ballast system. There had been no interdiction at the bow because nobody from engineering had bothered to go forward until the water was knee-deep, and by that time the ship's fate was sealed. The ship never slowed down, forcing water into the ship at a high rate.

Hood Failure + No warning lights+non-existent damage control+water entering the car deck+ hood falling into the sea yanking the ramp open+ massive surge of water into the car deck+rough seas= Estonia sinks like a rock.

No submarines, no explosives, just fair-weather crew on a stormy night.

 

[Vixen]

What did I wildly accuse you of?

Please quote me where I made a wild accusation against you.

You came racing to Captain_Swoop's defence when he accused me of claiming the Estonia - when she was known as Wasa King was the most reliable ship in a storm, when I was factually correct all along, and I provided you with the wikipedia reference.

In addition I said the ships that sail the Baltic - for example, the Baltica are designed to withstand the high waves of that sea. There is nothing at all remiss in anything I said.

I used the Baltica as an example of my own experience in storms, particularly in the North Sea. So now I am being accused of goodness knows what.

 

[JesseCuster]

Look. The Estonia was formerly The Wasa King and I pointed out to Captain_Swoop within the context of that post that in her carnation as The Wasa King she was regarded as the most reliable ship in a storm on that route.

And when it was brought up that you had previously said that about the Estonia, you said that your post was actually about the Baltica, even though you were unambiguously talking about the Estonia when you made the claim about how reliable is supposedly was in stormy weather.

This is what you said when Captain_Swoop linked to the post where you said the Estonia was "the most reliable in a storm".

That was about a ship called the Baltica, which actually, at one time had been used by the Soviets as a war ship.

No it wasn't about a ship called the Baltica, you were talking about the Estonia (when it was called the Wasa King).

You weren't talking about the Baltica, you were talking about the Estonia when you said it was "the most reliable in a storm" and you were wrong when you said your post was about the Baltica. You mentioned the Baltica only to provide an anecdote about it being a ship which you had been on, and didn't claim it was "the most reliable in a storm".

 

[JesseCuster]

You came racing to Captain_Swoop's defence when he accused me of claiming the Estonia - when she was known as Wasa King was the most reliable ship in a storm, when I was factually correct all along, and I provided you with the wikipedia reference.

Captain_Swoop didn't accuse you of anything.

He correctly pointed out that you had previously claimed that the Estonia was called "the most reliable in a storm." That was a statement of fact, you did in fact say that about the Estonia.

He said that you said that about the Estonia, and you acknowledge that you did in fact say that about the Estonia. There's no accusation, it's not even clear what you think he's accusing you of.

But for some reason, when linked to the post where you said that about the Estonia, instead of acknowledging that you had said that about the Estonia, you tried to claim that your post was about the Baltica, when it's perfectly clear that your claim about being "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Estonia, not the Baltica.

All this nonsense about the Baltica is a red herring, you didn't make any claim about the Baltica being "the most reliable in a storm" and Captain_Swoop was entirely correct when he pointed out that that you said that about the Estonia.

Can you explain, unambiguously, what you think he was accusing you of?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I can't find Table 7.8, which you quote.

Your copy of the document mentions Table 7.8, but does not contain it. Try this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040626014721/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt07_2.html

It appears at the end of Section 7.5, just before the 7.6 heading.

However, the JAIC states the following about Helicopter Y64, of which Svensson was the commander.

Svensson was not the commander; that would be the pilot. Svensson was, as the very newspaper article you later quote, a rescueman. This becomes important later.

JAIC Report 7.5.5


So Svensson vis-à-vis Helicopter Y64, from the above, rescued just one person.

The JAIC report identifies him as rescuing seven people, not one. He rescued six more on Y74 after Y64 had to cut him loose. Read the section on Y74.

And received a medal for it.

You sell his exploits short. Again, read what he did after he was rescued by Y74.

Let's turn the to historian's friend: the earliest newspaper reports:




So at a stroke, nine persons deleted with no explanation in the JAIC Report.

Nope. The report identifies him as having rescued seven people and retrieved one body. No deletions, sorry.

If these people were listed in error, how did the pilot also manage to report he flew nine people to Huddinge - one dead - and at three in the morning, not five as stated in the JAIC report?

No idea. And not relevant, since most of the people rescued by Svensson were on Y74, not Y64.

The original survivors lists showed 146 survivors.

Where are these lists? Which names are missing?

Anér, a respected Swedish journalist and author of 'May Day' claims he himself saw 15 original lists of survivors - including pilot logbooks - and all eleven Estonian crew members who 'disappeared' were listed therein.

So, no real evidence, then.

Let me remind you that you initially claimed that nine crew members were rescued by Mariella and never seen again. Then you tried to say that nine people brought to Huddinge were subsequently deleted from survivor lists. Neither of those claims seems to be true. Next you said that the “eight human beings” that Svensson pulled up out of the water were deleted, and that also seems not to be true.

Now you're claiming that some guy saw more names on another list, and that that's supposed to mean something. You'll need to do better than that.

 

[Vixen]

Obviously it was bad enough.




What you're saying is you are not familiar with any of the facts. As confirmed by the next paragraph:



This is a tap-dancing routine around the sequence of events. The clamp at the base of the hood broke causing it to come loose, and water began to surge into the car deck. Not a lot at first. There was no warning light on the bridge for this kind of problem. The clamp failing would have sounded like and explosion. A crewman testified the loud bang came after a wave struck the bow, and then water surged in. He called the bridge, the captain's astute way of dealing with the report was not to send a damage control party to the bow of the car deck, but instead had the engineers check closed circuit TV monitors.

None of the engineers ever went to the bow to look for possible damage or get eyes on the situation.

From there the waves smashed the bow until the remaining bolts failed.

The one one witness who claims to have seen the bow intact as the ship sank is wrong. We know this because other survivors used the EXPOSED BOW RAMP to climb down into the water instead of jumping...that plus the fact it was recovered nowhere near the ship. I've had hypothermia, it makes you stupid.



Fact: 10cm of standing water on the car deck can cause a ship of this design to capsize in rough seas. There was six times a that much before the Estonia "suddenly listed". She already had a 2-degree list which had taxed her ballast system. There had been no interdiction at the bow because nobody from engineering had bothered to go forward until the water was knee-deep, and by that time the ship's fate was sealed. The ship never slowed down, forcing water into the ship at a high rate.

Hood Failure + No warning lights+non-existent damage control+water entering the car deck+ hood falling into the sea yanking the ramp open+ massive surge of water into the car deck+rough seas= Estonia sinks like a rock.

No submarines, no explosives, just fair-weather crew on a stormy night.

And that would be Silver Linde coming on duty at 1:00am changing watch. the crew man who changed his story with every sitting. Sillaste and Treu originally said they were knee deep in water in the engine room, which is in the hull. Sillaste originally claimed he ran up to deck 7 or 8 in two minutes. His story changed to climbing up the chimney funnel. Linde claims he was handing out life vests on the deck. Another guy claimed he'd found a protection suit on the life raft (really?). Paul Barney and Rolf Sormann seemed surprised to recount their life rafts had crew fully kitted out in survival gear.

 

[Vixen]

And when it was brought up that you had previously said that about the Estonia, you said that your post was actually about the Baltica, even though you were unambiguously talking about the Estonia when you made the claim about how reliable is supposedly was in stormy weather.

This is what you said when Captain_Swoop linked to the post where you said the Estonia was "the most reliable in a storm".


No it wasn't about a ship called the Baltica, you were talking about the Estonia (when it was called the Wasa King).

You weren't talking about the Baltica, you were talking about the Estonia when you said it was "the most reliable in a storm" and you were wrong when you said your post was about the Baltica. You mentioned the Baltica only to provide an anecdote about it being a ship which you had been on, and didn't claim it was "the most reliable in a storm".

My first sentence is about the Baltica, so therefore it was the subject of the post explaining why such ships are built to withstand storms. That fact I said Estonia as Wasa King was considered the most reliable ship in a storm really, really doesn't equate to saying therefore 'you said she'd be all right in a storm and now you are saying she wasn't made for X miles of open sea between Tallinn and Stockholm'.

 

[Vixen]

Captain_Swoop didn't accuse you of anything.

He correctly pointed out that you had previously claimed that the Estonia was called "the most reliable in a storm." That was a statement of fact, you did in fact say that about the Estonia.

He said that you said that about the Estonia, and you acknowledge that you did in fact say that about the Estonia. There's no accusation, it's not even clear what you think he's accusing you of.

But for some reason, when linked to the post where you said that about the Estonia, instead of acknowledging that you had said that about the Estonia, you tried to claim that your post was about the Baltica, when it's perfectly clear that your claim about being "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Estonia, not the Baltica.

All this nonsense about the Baltica is a red herring, you didn't make any claim about the Baltica being "the most reliable in a storm" and Captain_Swoop was entirely correct when he pointed out that that you said that about the Estonia.

Can you explain, unambiguously, what you think he was accusing you of?

Yes, and I asked him to provide the context. When he provided the context, it showed that I was quoting wikipedia, which he omitted to mention.

 

[Vixen]

Your copy of the document mentions Table 7.8, but does not contain it. Try this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040626014721/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt07_2.html

It appears at the end of Section 7.5, just before the 7.6 heading.



Svensson was not the commander; that would be the pilot. Svensson was, as the very newspaper article you later quote, a rescueman. This becomes important later.



The JAIC report identifies him as rescuing seven people, not one. He rescued six more on Y74 after Y64 had to cut him loose. Read the section on Y74.



You sell his exploits short. Again, read what he did after he was rescued by Y74.



Nope. The report identifies him as having rescued seven people and retrieved one body. No deletions, sorry.



No idea. And not relevant, since most of the people rescued by Svensson were on Y74, not Y64.



Where are these lists? Which names are missing?



So, no real evidence, then.

Let me remind you that you initially claimed that nine crew members were rescued by Mariella and never seen again. Then you tried to say that nine people brought to Huddinge were subsequently deleted from survivor lists. Neither of those claims seems to be true. Next you said that the “eight human beings” that Svensson pulled up out of the water were deleted, and that also seems not to be true.

Now you're claiming that some guy saw more names on another list, and that that's supposed to mean something. You'll need to do better than that.

The pilot of Y74 was Olli Moberg.

How do you reconcile that?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The pilot of Y74 was Olli Moberg.

How do you reconcile that?

How do I reconcile what?

 

[Vixen]

How do I reconcile what?

Svensson was the pilot of Y64. The JAIC times his first rescue at 5:22 yet early sources have him rescuing eight or nine (depending on the edition) at circa 3:00 am and delivering them to hospital circa four.

The Aftonbladet itself reports he rescued eight people from the water. The JAIC credits him with one. And then flying some people from Utö Island (which is part of Parainen) to Turku Hospital, all of which was a strraight forward mainland transfer of rescued and dead passengers, not a rescue from the water itself.