The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Andy_Ross]

Do read the JAIC accident report, which states:

We have gone over this several times, the damage looks like a stress fracture, it is a result of the ship moving over the bottom and not being supported at the ends. it probably wasn't there at the time of the report.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The idea that Bjorkman is some kind of guru is laughable.

I agree that it is a laughable idea. Unfortunately, your current lipservice disavowal notwithstanding, it seems to be your idea. You continue to consult and use his stuff, and not just for engineering or maritime safety. You have uncritically used him for a variety of claims, such as some recent ones about the exploits of Y 64.

Why do you continue to use Bjorkman for *anything*? And what was with trying to conceal the fact that you were doing so?

 

[JayUtah]

Bjorkman is not my authority.

Then why were you trying to rehabilitate him?

Bjorkman is NOT the author of the survivors list.

He is the author of the edited information you presented and insinuated came from a different source, as others managed to discover.

You reproduced word for word, and ellipse for ellipse, the excerpt from the Aftonbladet that appears in Bjorkman's e-book.

 

[Mojo]

The ship - length 155m - sank stern first in water 64m - 80 m deep and then face forward like a domino. The hull therefore largely escaped impact apart from at the stern area.

Something that big doesn’t need to be moving very fast to have a lot of kinetic energy. Note the “m” in 1/2mv².

 

[JayUtah]

Something that big doesn’t need to be moving very fast to have a lot of kinetic energy. Note the “m” in 1/2mv².

Indeed, if we accept Prof. Amdahl's broad estimate for kinetic energy in the collision that caused the hole Evertsson discovered, that was only in the tens of megajoules.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Bjorkman is not my authority. However, he has closely catalogued events, such as the list of survivors, which AFAIAC is simply a copy of what was being circulated by the relevant authorities at the time. Bjorkman is NOT the author of the survivors list.

Bjorkman did not cite a source for the list. He did not give anybody else credit for it. Thus, deliberately or not, he is presenting it as his own work.

If you really want to help your boy Anders out, why don't you find the actual "original survivor's list" and prove us wrong.

 

[Vixen]

And what about the parts they weren't able to observe because they were, at that time, in contact with the seabed? "No damage was observed" is not the same as "there was no damage." You're claim sounds like a ship that initially makes contact with the seabed at its stern will incur no further damage as the rest of it lands.

It doesn't say that, though, does it?

 

[Vixen]

It weighs many thousands of tons and is designed to be supported by the water around it over the entire area of the hull. It is not designed to be resting on rock at it's midships side .

It doesn't cancel out damage that may have occurred before the ship sank.

 

[Mojo]

And what about the parts they weren't able to observe because they were, at that time, in contact with the seabed? "No damage was observed" is not the same as "there was no damage." You're claim sounds like a ship that initially makes contact with the seabed at its stern will incur no further damage as the rest of it lands.

It doesn't say that, though, does it?

No, but you kind of implied it, didn’t you:

The ship - length 155m - sank stern first in water 64m - 80 m deep and then face forward like a domino. The hull therefore largely escaped impact apart from at the stern area.

 

[JesseCuster]

Did you miss that Sweden, USA and the UK intelligence agencies were helping Estonia establish its own after having kicked out the KGB?

The fact Sweden seemed to have known about the accident as soon as it happens implies their intelligence was tracking the vessel. The UK suddenly becoming a Baltic nation and signing the Treaty forbidding anyone to visit the site, together with ignoring an act of parliament that ensures UK citizens have a right under the Freedom of Information Ac to inspect public documents, should tell you all you need to know.

As the accident was never properly investigated then all we have is speculation. Given Sweden admitted to smuggling out FSU state secrets on the Estonia passenger ferry and it took a whistleblower to come forward, likewise for that of the two cargo planes from Arlanda, it is clear the whole episode has been labelled 'classified' and all the public gets is a soporific story based on the Herald of Free Enterprise.

Wat? My question was...

So it wasn't a UK or Swedish submarine escorting the Estonia accidentally colliding with it that caused the sinking?

You didn't even attempt to answer the question.

 

[JayUtah]

It doesn't say that, though, does it?

The report says no further damage was observed. You're trying to parlay that into a claim that no further damage occurred. Your claim was that the hull "largely escaped" damage except to the stern. That's an allegation of what happened. The report merely notes what was observed, which is naturally limited by what is observable. If you had any experience in forensic engineering, you'd recognize that careful wording.

 

[Vixen]

The report says no further damage was observed. You're trying to parlay that into a claim that no further damage occurred. Your claim was that the hull "largely escaped" damage except to the stern. That's an allegation of what happened. The report merely notes what was observed, which is naturally limited by what is observable. If you had any experience in forensic engineering, you'd recognize that careful wording.

Even the Rockwater divers said there was a lot of debris indicating a pile of bodies and damage on the starboard side. There was a violent list to starboard. Why would an investigation into the accident not notice the external appearance of the starboard side? In 26 years it has only shifted 12°. If there was an enormous impact to the starboard side caused by a collision then that is a massive omission by the JAIC. Bearing in mind quite a few surviving passengers reported feeling an impact.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There is no evidence of an impact before the sinking. The damage observed does not look like impact damage from any ship or submarine.
There was a violent list to starboard because the ship was rolling and the water on the car deck amplified the roll and the ship did not recover.

 

[LondonJohn]

Something that big doesn’t need to be moving very fast to have a lot of kinetic energy. Note the “m” in 1/2mv².

But the "m" in this case is just 20 (ie the 20m length of the hull deformation*); and then also, the ship can't have been travelling at more than, say, 10 knots/hour², and if the damage had been caused by the ship shifting on the sea bed, this wouldn't have taken more than around 15 seconds maximum - so the "v" here would be 10 divided by 15 = 0.5. So "v²" would be 2.5.

And therefore 1/2mv² would be 0.5 x 20 x 2.5. Which makes 200 jills. And Archimedes' Principle dictates that this is obviously far too few jills to buckle and twist the hull. Something else must have caused all that deformation while the ship was at the surface.


* I'm even being generous by opting for the 20m length of the deformation, rather than the 4m height

 

[Vixen]

There is no evidence of an impact before the sinking. The damage observed does not look like impact damage from any ship or submarine.
There was a violent list to starboard because the ship was rolling and the water on the car deck amplified the roll and the ship did not recover.

What do you mean there 'is no evidence of an impact'? So 29 survivors, out of just 79 passengers who escaped alive, gave an eyewitness account at the time of having experienced a series of two or three explosions and/or a collision/crash/scraping as though against rocks is not evidence?

So Captain_Swoop knows better than people who were there and were the lucky one in ten to get out alive. Yet their experience counts for nothing in his view.

 

[JayUtah]

What do you mean there 'is no evidence of an impact'? So 29 survivors, out of just 79 passengers who escaped alive, gave an eyewitness account at the time of having experienced a series of two or three explosions and/or a collision/crash/scraping as though against rocks is not evidence?

Correct, it is not evidence of a collision.

So Captain_Swoop knows better than people who were there and were the lucky one in ten to get out alive. Yet their experience counts for nothing in his view.

You're emotionally pleading again as advocate for what you think eyewitness testimony should be taken as. "Won't someone please think of the survivors?"

 

[LondonJohn]

Correct, it is not evidence of a collision.

Exactly. It's nothing more than evidence of:

1) inexpert passengers on a ferry, none of whom (apparently) have any experience of being on a ship which is the victim of a collision,

2) hearing unusual and alarming noises and other sensual stimuli which

a) are well outside the routine type of noises etc that they'd expect to witness while travelling on a ferry (even in adverse sea conditions) and

b) under the circumstances would reasonably be considered by these passengers to be symptomatic of a serious problem with the ship and the ship's ongoing viability

.....leading these passengers to (incorrect) inferences that........

3) the noises and other stimuli they experienced might have been caused by the ship colliding with a large external object.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What do you mean there 'is no evidence of an impact'? So 29 survivors, out of just 79 passengers who escaped alive, gave an eyewitness account at the time of having experienced a series of two or three explosions and/or a collision/crash/scraping as though against rocks is not evidence?

So Captain_Swoop knows better than people who were there and were the lucky one in ten to get out alive. Yet their experience counts for nothing in his view.

What is their experience with ship collisions?

What is their experience with explosions aboard a ship?

What is their experience of a ship 'scraping as though against rocks'?

If they can't tell the difference, how do they know what it was?

 

[whoanellie]

What do you mean there 'is no evidence of an impact'? So 29 survivors, out of just 79 passengers who escaped alive, gave an eyewitness account at the time of having experienced a series of two or three explosions and/or a collision/crash/scraping as though against rocks is not evidence?

So Captain_Swoop knows better than people who were there and were the lucky one in ten to get out alive. Yet their experience counts for nothing in his view.

Did any of the witnesses say they heard an explosion? Any of them say they saw or heard a collision?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Exactly. It's nothing more than evidence of:

1) inexpert passengers on a ferry, none of whom (apparently) have any experience of being on a ship which is the victim of a collision,

2) hearing unusual and alarming noises and other sensual stimuli which

a) are well outside the routine type of noises etc that they'd expect to witness while travelling on a ferry (even in adverse sea conditions) and

b) under the circumstances would reasonably be considered by these passengers to be symptomatic of a serious problem with the ship and the ship's ongoing viability

.....leading these passengers to (incorrect) inferences that........

3) the noises and other stimuli they experienced might have been caused by the ship colliding with a large external object.

In a way it did collide with a large object, the bow visor hammered against the hull before falling off and striking the hull as it fell away.