• 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.
Wait, do you think that muzzle velocity IS the velocity of the projectile?

Because that would be even more hilariously embarrassing.

 
junkshop said:
Do you have source for this assertion?
Click to expand...

Of course.

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.
Click to expand...
https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/29.3.htm
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh and for the record, it's beyond all doubt that there was no fire on the vehicle deck (or elsewhere) of the Estonia on the night she sank.

Because if there had been a fire - and if, as Vixen keeps on incorrectly asserting, the bridge knew about this fire and sounded a fire alarm - then 1) this would beyond question have been included in the information the Estonia's bridge gave to Silja Europa, and 2) the official investigation would easily have found evidence of this fire when it inspected the wreck.

There. Was. No. Fire.

(And. There. Was. No. Fire-specific. Alarm.)
Click to expand...


The point being discussed is Finnish Expert Harri Ruotsalainen's recently state view int he press that a fire on the car deck should be ruled out as part of the investigation is based on a theory that one of the cargo containing highly inflammable/toxic materials was letting off fumes, so a member of the crew may have had the bright idea of trying to push the vehicle into the sea via the car ramp. The evidence for this are some burnt looking panels ont he car rmap, the 'Mr Skylight 1 and 2' messages that were definitely played over the tannoy, the sheer amount of pumps in operation as witnessed and the confirmation of at least two crew members of seeing a load of water splashing the cctv monitors in the car deck. In addition, the stern ramp had been opened slight at the top suggesting someone was letting fumes escape.

Of course, as with most fire alarms, there may not have been any fire at all but someone had triggered a fire warning and seems to have set of the fire pumps. In addition, the 'water flooding into the car deck' may well just have been the drencher system in operation.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Wait, do you think that muzzle velocity IS the velocity of the projectile?

Because that would be even more hilariously embarrassing.

Click to expand...

You had better contact the Maritime Museum in Greenwich without further ado - :train tout suite:train - to urgently let them know that their animated graphics for the kiddies are all wrong. Let them know post-haste that you know someone on an internet forum called LondonJohn who can fix it for them.

Let us know how you get on!
 
Vixen said:
The point being discussed is Finnish Expert Harri Ruotsalainen's recently state view int he press that a fire on the car deck should be ruled out as part of the investigation is based on a theory that one of the cargo containing highly inflammable/toxic materials was letting off fumes, so a member of the crew may have had the bright idea of trying to push the vehicle into the sea via the car ramp. The evidence for this are some burnt looking panels ont he car rmap, the 'Mr Skylight 1 and 2' messages that were definitely played over the tannoy, the sheer amount of pumps in operation as witnessed and the confirmation of at least two crew members of seeing a load of water splashing the cctv monitors in the car deck. In addition, the stern ramp had been opened slight at the top suggesting someone was letting fumes escape.

Of course, as with most fire alarms, there may not have been any fire at all but someone had triggered a fire warning and seems to have set of the fire pumps. In addition, the 'water flooding into the car deck' may well just have been the drencher system in operation.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone try to open the bows of a ship in a storm?
How would they have got the lorry overboard?

Why would you open the stern of the ship in a storm?

Why do you think that pumps would be working on a sinking ship?

How can you tell the difference between engine noise and pumps?

There is no evidence that someone set off the sprinkler system.

How does any of this fit in with submarines, bombs, hijacking and assassins?
 
Last edited:
RS Sentinel Update

M / S Estonia: The divers stopped diving after three minutes on the bottom. Poor visibility is stated. Sometimes visibility can quickly deteriorate in the Baltic Sea due to underwater currents that stir up the loose deep bottom. A new attempt will be made later. Meanwhile, the robot goes down again. Source: Postimees

https://twitter.com/AndersJallai/status/1442125961386860549?s=20
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So sprinklers, not a drench. Do you know the difference?

Why do you think you would hear pumps on a sinking ship?

There is no evidence that the sprinkler system was activated.
Click to expand...

The German Expert Group call it the 'Drencher system', with a capital 'D'.

One piece of evidence is the water splashing all over the car monitor camera lens. These cctv monitors are almost 16 feet high and reach Deck 4. The camera faces away from the car ramp so is unlikely to be seawater spray coming in over the top of the ramp.
 

Attachments

  • 2021-09-24 (6).jpg
    2021-09-24 (6).jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 3
Using water on a shipboard fire is always a balancing act. If you activate sprinkler systems or use hoses you are filling the ship with water.

If a lorry was on fire or giving off fumes it would be best to first tackle it with a fire team and a spray hose. Activating an area suppression system is a last resort as you are adding water you don't need to. You need to make sure that the water you are adding can be removed by the pumps. If you put too much in too soon you reduce the reserve you might need later.
Fighting a fire on a ship is not the same as in a building where there is no danger of sinking or capsizing the building by using too much water.
 
Vixen said:
You had better contact the Maritime Museum in Greenwich without further ado - :train tout suite:train - to urgently let them know that their animated graphics for the kiddies are all wrong. Let them know post-haste that you know someone on an internet forum called LondonJohn who can fix it for them.

Let us know how you get on!
Click to expand...

I put in a link to two sites that you can use to find out the velocity of a cannonball.
 
Vixen said:
The German Expert Group call it the 'Drencher system', with a capital 'D'.

One piece of evidence is the water splashing all over the car monitor camera lens. These cctv monitors are almost 16 feet high and reach Deck 4. The camera faces away from the car ramp so is unlikely to be seawater spray coming in over the top of the ramp.
Click to expand...

How about the ship rolling and riding over the waves? It is unlikely to be direct spray from the water entering and more likely the water swilling and sloshing across the decks and being disturbed by the vehicles.

I don't think you have any idea of the volumes and energies involved.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why would anyone try to open the bows of a ship in a storm?
How would they have got the lorry overboard?

Why would you open the stern of the ship in a storm?

Why do you think that pumps would be working on a sinking ship?

How can you tell the difference between engine noise and pumps?

There is no evidence that someone set off the sprinkler system.

How does any of this fit in with submarines, bombs, hijacking and assassins?
Click to expand...

This is a reported theory. Maybe someone criminally irresponsible might attempt it if it meant a possible ten-year stretch in jail if it got to Stockholm. If this is what did happen, it would certainly explain the cause of the accident. The person responsible, in such a scenario, should then be brought before the courts and charged with mass homicide. I am not convinced of it myself. Maybe that is a circumspect of way of Ruotsalainen saying, all the vehicles on the car deck should be checked, in such a way that it doesn't upset 'them next door'.
 
Vixen said:
The point being discussed is Finnish Expert Harri Ruotsalainen's recently state view int he press that a fire on the car deck should be ruled out as part of the investigation is based on a theory that one of the cargo containing highly inflammable/toxic materials was letting off fumes, so a member of the crew may have had the bright idea of trying to push the vehicle into the sea via the car ramp. The evidence for this are some burnt looking panels ont he car rmap, the 'Mr Skylight 1 and 2' messages that were definitely played over the tannoy, the sheer amount of pumps in operation as witnessed and the confirmation of at least two crew members of seeing a load of water splashing the cctv monitors in the car deck. In addition, the stern ramp had been opened slight at the top suggesting someone was letting fumes escape.

Of course, as with most fire alarms, there may not have been any fire at all but someone had triggered a fire warning and seems to have set of the fire pumps. In addition, the 'water flooding into the car deck' may well just have been the drencher system in operation.
Click to expand...

So far, this might rank as the most outrageously stupid idea you've come up with. So far ...
 
GlennB said:
So far, this might rank as the most outrageously stupid idea you've come up with. So far ...
Click to expand...

Not my idea.

According to the official explanation, the Estonian accident happened when the bow gate failed, but the bad languages ​​say that the real cause was after nuclear waste smuggled from Russia to the west spilled on the car deck from a Russian truck trailer. Nuclear waste instantly etched the already rusted bow visor into nothingness, and the masses of water plunged into the car deck. Unfortunately, at the same time, the staff opened the stern gate of the ship to vent the tobacco smoke off the car deck. The cargo began to move, and this created a heel that caused the ship to sink.
Click to expand...
Hikipedia

You have to admit, the Swedes immediately wanted to cover the whole thing with concrete.
 
junkshop said:
On the very page you took those photographs from, and that you linked to earlier, they write 'Drencher' only once. They write 'sprinkler' eight times.

And the context for that single use?
Click to expand...

Maybe the translators didn't know the difference between valves and sprinklers. But they definitely cite 'Drencher' system as though they thought it was a brand.

ETA: It says:

"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"

so it was a valve (drencher/deluge) system and not a sprinkler.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom