• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Splashing up to it. And the context is water they first saw on the car deck. Reinterpreting his statements to support a claim that the fire suppression sprinklers were going off seems very stilted.
Click to expand...

Everything points to the fire sprinklers beings switched on (cf 'Mr Skylight' fire warning code), which suggest there may have been a fire or fumes in the car deck.

In order to be able to explain further observations on the car deck by survivors also the fire-fighting system installed here - a sprinkler system called Drencher system - has to be explained as follows:

On the car deck there were also heat-sensors installed, which activated control lights on the bridge indicating the particular area. By pushing a respective bottom the watch officer started the fire pump and activated one or more quick-opening valves of the sprinkler system installed underneath the car deck ceiling, i.e. below the 4th deck. This sprinkler fire protection system was spraying water out of nozzles under high pressure all over the area and the fire pump was continuously pumping water into the system. This sprinkler pump could also be activated from the ECR and from the sprinkler room (B-deck level in the aft part of the centre casing). It was connected to the emergency generator. This means that this pump has been running until the vessel was more or less on the side.

In this connection the observation of passenger Juuse Veljo is of importance who testified among others "On my way down the port side in about the middle of the ship I reached the fender bar and heard the noise of pumps. While I was still sitting on the edge the light started to blink." - See his statement Enclosure 20.245.

Note: The emergency generator then still running was supplying power to three pumps, viz.: the bilge pump, the fire pump and the sprinkler pump.

It is possible that the sprinkler pump was then still running together with the bilge pump, which according to Margus Treu, Henrik Sillaste and Hannes Kadak was also running already since or even before the big heel.

Furthermore there are some observations/indications which could point to a fire in the forward part of the car deck. These are

(1) the statement of the watch engineer Margus Treu that a jet of water hit the lens of the video camera transferring pictures from the partly open bow ramp to the monitor in the engine control room (ECR) where he was watching - see his statement dated 29.09.94 Turku - Enclosure 21.2.3.263. Treu believed that this water jet came from the partly open bow ramp, which however is not possible because the camera is fitted at the forward part of the centre casing underneath the ceiling. The distance to the bow ramp is 25 m and the height above car deck is about 5 m - see the pictures below taken on board the near-sister DIANA II where the camera was installed as on ESTONIA.
Click to expand...
https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/29.3.htm

Five metres high! That's almost 16 feet.

See the situation of the CCTV camera in the picture attached, it is facing away from the car ramp and towards the cars below.

It can thus be excluded that water penetrating the bow ramp at that relatively early stage could have reached the camera in such high position as much as the car deck between bow ramp and camera was full of trucks and cars.

It is much more likely that the camera lens was hit by a jet of water from the sprinkler installation which had been activated manually in the forward part of the car deck.
Click to expand...
ibid
 

Attachments

  • 2021-09-24 (6).jpg
    2021-09-24 (6).jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 4
Vixen said:
The crew were specifically asked by the JAIC investigators what was what looked like a red mattress doing near the car ramp, as pictured on the Rockwater videos. They were also asked whether a store of bedding was kept there and the answer was that the ramp was known to leak so they stuffed this bedding in the car ramp frame. The fact they kept a store of bedding - not towels but mattresses!!! - and that customers had complained in the past of water splashing around their tyres at journey's end, tells you all you need to know.
Click to expand...
Yes. It tells me that there was something seriously wrong with the bow visor. I'm curious, what does it tell you?
 
Can you give us the quote where Sillaste says he looked at the monitor, saw water gushing in on both sides from floor to ceiling, said "Meh. Normal." and went back to what he was doing?

No of course you bloody can't.
 
Vixen said:
Everything points to the fire sprinklers beings switched on (cf 'Mr Skylight' fire warning code), which suggest there may have been a fire or fumes in the car deck.



https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/29.3.htm



Five metres high! That's almost 16 feet.



See the situation of the CCTV camera in the picture attached, it is facing away from the car ramp and towards the cars below.



ibid
Click to expand...
We have covered the fact that Mr Skylight was not specifically a fire alarm. Do pay attention.
 
Vixen said:
Sillaste says the CCTV camera is located in the car deck ceiling and it had water sprinkling over it.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. You quoted him yourself.

Saw how the water rushed in
The ship mechanic Henrik Sillaste was on board Estonia and far below deck when the ferry first got into trouble. He then went up to the control room where two other engineers told that the ship took in water via the bow. Next to all panels and meters there was also a black and white monitor that showed camcorders from car tires. There he could see with his own eyes how water rushed in next to the ramp at the front.
Two of his colleagues saw after a while how the water covered the car tires and later how it splashed up over the camera that was in the ceiling. To Filter, Sillaste says that he is disappointed with the viewers who uncritically took in the content of the series.

- People who spread misinformation about such a thing exploit the despair of vulnerable people, he says.

- What can I say? Start thinking! I can 't give people physics books. If you do not understand: go to the archive, retrieve the documents, read on.
Click to expand...

He said that he saw water rushing in next to the ramp and water "splash[ing] up over the camera." That is not water "sprinkling" onto the camera.

You have again shown deep respect for the survivors by changing their testimony to fit your theory d'heure[1] (du jour no longer seems to fit).

I'd like to see this excerpt in context, but if I recall correctly, you say that Filter is behind a paywall, right? I'm not that interested, I reckon. The closing comments seem as if Salaste is explicitly criticizing folks like you, but I can't tell for certain without more context.

But he sure as hell isn't claiming that the sprinklers were sprinkling water on the camera.

[1] Did I just give away my ignorance here? Should it be de l'heure? I think it should, but I'll let my first guess remain.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Everything points to the fire sprinklers beings switched on (cf 'Mr Skylight' fire warning code), which suggest there may have been a fire or fumes in the car deck.
Click to expand...
Nothing whatsoever points to the sprinklers being on.

"Mr Skylight" was a general alert with many meanings. It's almost as though we hadn't already had this conversation over several days. What justifies your reset? Are you going to bring new evidence?
 
Vixen said:
The bow visor is quite separate from the car ramp.
Click to expand...

Doesn't address the question.

The bow visor kept the open sea away from the ramp. Water was cascading in around the ramp all the way up its sides. What, if anything, does that tell you about the visor?
 
Vixen said:
The bow visor is quite separate from the car ramp.
Click to expand...

The top of the ramp extends into a housing in the car ramp. It would be difficult for the visor to go by the board without affecting the ramp. Again, this is something we've discussed at length, but with you it seems like we have to keep repeating ourselves.
 
phiwum said:
No he doesn't. You quoted him yourself.



He said that he saw water rushing in next to the ramp and water "splash[ing] up over the camera." That is not water "sprinkling" onto the camera.

You have again shown deep respect for the survivors by changing their testimony to fit your theory d'heure (du jour no longer seems to fit).

I'd like to see this excerpt in context, but if I recall correctly, you say that Filter is behind a paywall, right? I'm not that interested, I reckon. The closing comments seem as if Salaste is explicitly criticizing folks like you, but I can't tell for certain without more context.

But he sure as hell isn't claiming that the sprinklers were sprinkling water on the camera.
Click to expand...

Sillaste was likely contacted by a journalist. We don't know what question the journo asked. It could have been, 'What do you think of people who spread misinformation?'

Of course, I for one, condemn misinformation.

The Friatider link is within the Espressen article quoted earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom