The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

Stop judging others by your own standards.

Oh, look, another petulant one-line deflection to a post that raised the following points:

1. You're still not sure what the null hypothesis is.

2. You're still not sure what a standard deviation is.

3. You still have no basis to judge others' work in the field of forensic engineering.

Maybe you're not used to be judged according to real-world standards, but these are still errors you're making, regardless of what standards you want to apply to yourself.

 

[JayUtah]

The bow visor covered the car ramp. The car ramp was attached to the car deck floor which was raised above the waterline and as a means for cars and lorries to drive up the ramp. In other words it was part of the superstructure and not the hull.

Are you claiming the parts of the ship that are above the waterline are not the hull, but rather the superstructure?

Stop trying to obsfuscate the situation.

One could say...

 

[Vixen]

Didn't the bridge crew know the ship was sinking?

We went through this earlier too. Water on the car deck would flood the machinery spaces, they are open at sea from above for ventilation and induction air for the engines, big open intakes. Also the escape ways will be open to the upper decks. Engineers are very aware that the crew usually lost in a sinking are the engineers.

The JAIC gives the time of the bow visor falling off as 01:15. The eyewitnesses reported bangs, crashes and lurches well before that time, nearer 1:00-1:02. We know this as a couple of survivors noted the exact time. One said as she heard the crashing sounds, her cabin mate's alarm clock went off for Swedish midnight - possible as a reminder to put the clock back one hour - and another, Michael Oun recounted that his travel clock was thrown to the floor on impact causing the battery to fall out. Oun put the clock in his pocket due to it blocking the way and it had stopped at 01:00.

Fact is, Sillaste and Treu were in the machine room up to their knees in water. Perhaps they were too afraid to tell their dictatorial Captain Andresson the bad news and tried to rectify matters themselves, only telling the bridge when it was way to late.

Note all the senior officers, Andresson, Piht, Kaunnusaar, Tammes, (1st, 2nd and 3rd officers) Lembit, (Chief Engineer), Bogdanov (Chief Medical Officer) all died (Piht assumed to have done) whilst the trainee boatswain who kept changing his story, Linde, and the aforementioned three all managed to put on warm clothing and survivor suits and get up from Deck 0 to a life raft pronto.

You recall you posted a video as to how people in the engine room will work hard to stem a flood. That is what Sillaste and co were doing in the engine room before they beat it. Sillaste and Treu only saw the car deck from a monitor. Sillaste drew a diagram showing the car ramp firmly shut, but with water coming in at the sides (which appears to be what happened on a normal journey, hence all the bedding used to tried to block it). If the ramp was up, they never saw the bow visor was missing , as they later tried to claim.

Picture attached: what Sillaste saw and a Uni of Strathclyde recreation of what the ship looked like at 90°, although I for one am sceptical that those two guys Antti Arak and Ain-Alar Juhanson , climbed down the shut car ramp at circa 1:30 and thus the bow visor was missing. What would they have gripped onto with their fingers from the portside to reach the rungs. Anyway, it doesn't seem a huge amount of water would get in from a small gap at the top of the ramp two and a half metres high to immediately turn it on its side.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The bow visor covered the car ramp. The car ramp was attached to the car deck floor which was raised above the waterline and as a means for cars and lorries to drive up the ramp. In other words it was part of the superstructure and not the hull.

Stop trying to obsfuscate the situation.

A bow visor is part of the hull. Where do you think the hull stops and the superstructure starts?

The car deck is part of the hull, it is not part of the superstructure.

 

[Vixen]

No. Expertise and complexity exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.



You're hilarious. When you invoke Anders Björkman, even though he's thoroughly discredited you say we have to take his statements as gospel because he's a fully qualified marine engineer. When Professor Amdahl says he thinks a submarine hit the ship, and gives us a baffling array of collision energies, we have to take that as gospel because you say he's an expert in ship collisions. When it suits your beliefs, you're all about the experts you think support them. And in your mind it is heresy to question them.

But when expertise undermines your beliefs, you can't dismiss it fast enough. Expertise that doesn't agree with you simply doesn't matter, in your way of thinking. Not a very consistent or defensible approach.



Yes, it's very simple: actual ships are not the simplistically pure structures you insist they must be. The mechanics of sinking ships are not fully described by Archimedes' Law alone. Your understanding of the problem is not complete. That's the simple answer for why you're in the mess you are.

Conspiracy theories exist largely to create a world in which the theorist is the hero. You want to be the champion of those poor, ill-treated survivors. And you want to have been on what you think is the right side of history as those evil, mustache-twirling villains of the JAIC receive their comeuppance. But most conspiracy theories involve specialized knowledge. The Moon-landing hoax theory requires knowledge of space. The JKF hoax theory requires knowledge of how crimes are committed and investigated. The coronavirus conspiracy theories require knowledge of immunology and virology. The 9/11 conspiracy theories require knowledge of structural engineering. What's common to all of those, and to your conspiracy theory, is that whatever little knowledge the theorist possesses must be sufficient to argue the theory. Everyone "knows" that jet fuel can't melt steel beams. Just like everyone "knows" that a ship that begins to capsize must behave in certain simplistic ways. Conspiracism is about dumbing down the physical world so that it fits the understanding of the claimant, so that the claimant can make believe to have figured it all out and then condescend to teach all the sheeple about it.

You say if something doesn't submit to a simplistic explanation, someone must be pulling the wool over your eyes. I say if someone insists that everything is simple, they are the ones pulling the wool.

It is lucky it is not a conspiracy theory then and only the opinion of experts directly involved in the case.

I bet had you been around when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reported in the Washington Post a current news item about President Richard Nixon, you would have been furious at their sheer impudence. Bloody investigative know-nothing journalists.

Woodward and Carl Bernstein were both assigned to report on the June 17, 1972, burglary of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in a Washington, D.C., office building called Watergate. Their work, under editor Ben Bradlee, became known for being the first to report on a number of political "dirty tricks" used by the Nixon re-election committee during his campaign for re-election.

wiki

 

[Vixen]

A bow visor is part of the hull. Where do you think the hull stops and the superstructure starts?

The car deck is part of the hull, it is not part of the superstructure.

If you are calling the entire sides of a ship the hull - for example where the bow visor was afixed to the sides by hydraulic arms, then you would need to call the entire starboard - and port - the hull as well. However, as you well know we are talking about the waterline or plimsoll line when the seawater above which rises, buoyancy becomes destabilised.

The bow visor was nowhere near the waterline.

 

[Vixen]

Am I having deja vu? Id swear we discussed ships partially capsizing/ sinking on their side weeks ago. Do I need to link video of the Andrea Doria going down on her side again?

It is like wading through treacle isn't it, trying to explain simple concepts to people who just don't get it.

 

[phiwum]

Stop judging others by your own standards.

Yes, in fairness, we should all judge people by others' standards. We could do a round-robin.

 

[JayUtah]

It is lucky it is not a conspiracy theory then and only the opinion of experts directly involved in the case.

Asked and answered. You are literally promoting a conspiracy theory, regardless of what you think others are doing and saying. And when you open a post by saying, "I bet I know more about this than you," it seems you're hoping to come off looking smarter than your critics. When you brush off the rebuttals with frantic, one-sentence dismissals, it only makes it more obvious.

I bet had you been around when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein...

Oh, look, the predictable straw man. At least I got more than one line this time, but do try to stick to the topics at hand and stop inventing plays in your head for others to play parts in.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC gives the time of the bow visor falling off as 01:15. The eyewitnesses reported bangs, crashes and lurches well before that time, nearer 1:00-1:02. We know this as a couple of survivors noted the exact time. One said as she heard the crashing sounds, her cabin mate's alarm clock went off for Swedish midnight - possible as a reminder to put the clock back one hour - and another, Michael Oun recounted that his travel clock was thrown to the floor on impact causing the battery to fall out. Oun put the clock in his pocket due to it blocking the way and it had stopped at 01:00.

If the bow visor was working loose because of the storm it will have made noise well before it fell off, it was not a sudden event.

Fact is, Sillaste and Treu were in the machine room up to their knees in water. Perhaps they were too afraid to tell their dictatorial Captain Andresson the bad news and tried to rectify matters themselves, only telling the bridge when it was way to late.

Why would the engineer be afraid to tell the captain the machinery space was flooding?
By the tiome it was up to their knees the ship was well on the way to sinking. [/quote]

Note all the senior officers, Andresson, Piht, Kaunnusaar, Tammes, (1st, 2nd and 3rd officers) Lembit, (Chief Engineer), Bogdanov (Chief Medical Officer) all died (Piht assumed to have done) whilst the trainee boatswain who kept changing his story, Linde, and the aforementioned three all managed to put on warm clothing and survivor suits and get up from Deck 0 to a life raft pronto.

Then they did the right thing. When power was lost and the machinery spac flooded there was nothing left for the engine room crew to do apart from get out.
Of course they put warm clothing and survival suits on. It's the right thing to do when a ship is foundering and you are about to abandon it.
Should they have remained below to drown?

You recall you posted a video as to how people in the engine room will work hard to stem a flood. That is what Sillaste and co were doing in the engine room before they beat it. Sillaste and Treu only saw the car deck from a monitor. Sillaste drew a diagram showing the car ramp firmly shut, but with water coming in at the sides (which appears to be what happened on a normal journey, hence all the bedding used to tried to block it). If the ramp was up, they never saw the bow visor was missing , as they later tried to claim.

By the time that power was lost and the engine room flooded it would have been obvious that the ship was listing and water was flooding down in to the machinery space from above.
Where else would it be coming from apart from the bow visor they knew to be already faulty with water flooding in?

Picture attached: what Sillaste saw and a Uni of Strathclyde recreation of what the ship looked like at 90°, although I for one am sceptical that those two guys Antti Arak and Ain-Alar Juhanson , climbed down the shut car ramp at circa 1:30 and thus the bow visor was missing. What would they have gripped onto with their fingers from the portside to reach the rungs. Anyway, it doesn't seem a huge amount of water would get in from a small gap at the top of the ramp two and a half metres high to immediately turn it on its side.

How much water do you think it would need? a cubic meter of water weighs a ton. free surface effect on a rolling ship will take it beyond it's recovery point with surprisingly little water. it was established earlier that half a meter depth of the car deck would be 2000 tons of water, Add in the weight of the cars and lorries and it is enough to turn the ship on to it's beam ends.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The JAIC gives the time of the bow visor falling off as 01:15. The eyewitnesses reported bangs, crashes and lurches well before that time, nearer 1:00-1:02. We know this as a couple of survivors noted the exact time.

Suggesting the visor broke loose about 15 mins before it eventually fell away. Okay. Do you have any problem with this timeline?

 

[JayUtah]

It is like wading through treacle isn't it, trying to explain simple concepts to people who just don't get it.

Trying to simplify away the important parts about things that others understand better than you should meet with resistance. We're still helping you understand what the parts of a ship are.

 

[Vixen]

You need to stop with the Titanic stuff.

There is a 71-year gap between when both ships were constructed, other than being large oceangoing vessels they have zero in common other than sinking. The only people who can say exactly what kind of damage the Titanic received were the ship's engineers, and they went down with the ship. They managed to calculate the flow of water into the ship and give the captain an accurate estimate on how fast she would sink, None of Estonia's engineers made a physical inspection of the bow area of the car deck, or on the main deck leaving the command crew blind to the situation.

Had Titanic continued to steam at flank speed after the impacts she would have sank much faster...just ike the Estonia.




Oh now you're talking. I built dozens of plastic model warships of various sizes and scales as a kid (still do). Since I was a kid many of these ships ended up in the bathtub with me.

Here's what I learned:

Ballast is important for keeping a ship upright in the water.

For example, the USS Missouri and DKM Bismarck have nice stable hulls conducive to an easy float, but modern aircraft carriers won't float in the tub unless you let in an little water into the hull to act as ballast, otherwise they instantly capsize and sink.

Next thing I learned is that not all plastic is created equal.

Example: They still make a plastic fishing boat that looks like the SS Minnow from Gilligan's Island that sells for around $5. Like all bath toys, that boat will float even when full of water. Plastic models are made from Styrene or various compositions which do not float. At the end of every summer my friends and I would load all of the battleships we'd built since Christmas into our backpacks and head out to the lagoon where we'd spend the afternoon sinking them with firecrackers and lighter fluid. It was great fun.

The ones which sank the fastest were the ones which had the biggest holes blown out of their hulls.

None of this has anything to do with the engineering, design, or accident reconstruction of an actual ship.

An open bow ramp in rough seas is a big hole last time I checked.

Thank you for coming to my 12-year old self's TED Talk.

Heh. The bow ramp was not actually open, though.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If you are calling the entire sides of a ship the hull - for example where the bow visor was afixed to the sides by hydraulic arms, then you would need to call the entire starboard - and port - the hull as well. However, as you well know we are talking about the waterline or plimsoll line when the seawater above which rises, buoyancy becomes destabilised.

The bow visor was nowhere near the waterline.

Yes it is near the waterline, it extends from the top of the bulb upwards. Do you think the hull stops at the waterline?
6m waves and the ship plunging would put the entire bow up to the fox'l deck in to the sea.

Plimsol lines and waterlines are not the limit of the hull. Why would you think they have anything to do with it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you are calling the entire sides of a ship the hull - for example where the bow visor was afixed to the sides by hydraulic arms, then you would need to call the entire starboard - and port - the hull as well. However, as you well know we are talking about the waterline or plimsoll line when the seawater above which rises, buoyancy becomes destabilised.

The bow visor was nowhere near the waterline.

There may be a fundamental terminology problem here. At what point do you consider a ship's hull to end and its superstructure to begin?

 

[Kid Eager]

There may be a fundamental terminology problem here. At what point do you consider a ship's hull to end and its superstructure to begin?

At whatever point is most beneficial to the narrative being spun at that particular point in time. What a silly question.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe the submarine was hit by the bow of Estonia breaking the bow visor off. then the sub banged along the side of the ship and made the hole before drifting away.


If you go with that idea you can explain the visor and the hole, no need to have the explosives at all.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Heh. The bow ramp was not actually open, though.

It was not watertight or structural. It is just a ramp for cars to drive down.

 

[JayUtah]

At whatever point is most beneficial to the narrative being spun at that particular point in time. What a silly question.

Specifically, if Estonia was compromised in her "superstructure" and not her "hull," then the magic rule applies that a ship will invariably turn turtle and float for hours.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There may be a fundamental terminology problem here. At what point do you consider a ship's hull to end and its superstructure to begin?

Looking at the ship and at diagrams the height of the deck at the bow can be seen. That is the line of the main deck, it runs unbroken to the stern where there is an open deck for handling mooring lines.
Car decks are below this deck.

On some diagrams of the ship online the car decks are labelled as 'överbyggnad'.
This is being translated from Swedish as 'superstructure'.

I can't see this term being used on any of the official arrangement plans of the ship.

I think the word is either being misapplied or mistranslated because the car decks are obviously within the hull, not what is usually considered as a ship's superstructure.