• 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.
Vixen said:
So this AB seaman must have been on the car deck or how else could he have been at the 'forward ramp'. Yet, if so, how come he had to watch the water from a monitor? Surely he was standing in it at that point?
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by "at that point"? At the point a crewman on the car deck heard a loud bang or at the point a crewman looked at a video monitor and saw water cascading in at the sides of the ramp? Those do not seem likely to be simultaneous otherwise the sailor on the car deck would have reported the water.
 
Vixen said:
TS today reports an interview with Margus Kurm, leading the private investigation on RS Sentinel in which Kurm believes that having filmed inside the car ramp deck and found two doors completely shut and intact, then this directly contradicts the JAIC findings that the ingress of water from the bow ramp quickly led to the flooding in deck four (decks one and two of the ground level car ramp represented Decks 3 and 4 on the ship).

I have looked into the JAIC report. It clearly concludes that the water quickly flooded deck four (upper car deck) - NB the entire car deck is 5m high or about 16 feet - causing windows to break and thus the ship began to sink rapidly.

Had the water just remained in the car deck, it would have cause instability but wouldn't necessariy have caused the ship to sink, due to buoyancy from the lower decks. The JAIC takes it for granted that the ingress of water via the [undoubtedly] defective bow visor and car ramp flooded the entire deck four breaking the windows at the aft and thus quickly filling the air spaces that gave buoyancy to the vessel causing it to sink within minutes. It cites a long list of other bow visor deficiencies in other vessels, yet all of these other vessels had no problem reaching port for repairs and one even sailed twice more before being fixed.

Fact is, the Estonia sank within 35 minutes. Even if the windows on the other decks began to systematically break as the ship listed, it would still take a lot of time before it caused the vessel to sink as the ferry was divided into about 700 cabins and it takes time for ingressing seawater to replace the air in each one of them, separated as they are by walls from each other.

The JAIC has assumed that the water ingress via the car deck rapidly spread to other decks. However, if the doors to the car deck remained shut and intact - there were 16 of them - as Kurm now suggests, then the JAIC's assumption this water incursion led to breaking windows and rapid flooding elsewhere cannot be correct.

In any case, if that was their conclusion, should they not have tested it by sending down ROVs into the car deck. They claim they never did as the car ramp was hut with just a small space at the top but this doesn't sound likely to me, as the Rockwater divers drilled a couple of square panels in the hull in order to gain access to the vessel and thus could have got in by that means. In addition, the divers report they had to break the bridge window to get in so how likely were the windows smashed, given windows on vessels tend to be reinforced glass and ultra thick?


From the JAIC Reporrt [excerpts] re Ingress of water via the car deck


- this assumes water flooded out of the car deck to the accommodation decks ceteris paribus, i.e. the hull and all other parts intact as of this point.

The physics:



All well and good, the water flooding into the vessel and at what rate, but does it explain the core cause of flooding?

The JAIC's description of the flooding

13.2.6
While the ramp was partly open in- side the visor, water entered the car deck along the sides of the ramp, as observed first by the third engineer at 0110- 0115 hrs on the TV monitor showing the forward part of the car deck. The water noted by the first passengers fleeing from their cabins on deck 1 could at this stage have poured down to the accommodation on deck 1. Later, during the evacuation, several passengers observed on deck 2 that water entered the staircases through the slots around the fire doors to the car deck.
After the main engines stopped, the ESTONIA drifted with a list of about 40 degrees and the starboard side towards the waves. Water continued to enter the car deck through the bow but at a significantly lower rate. Waves were pounding against the windows on deck 4. Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start. As the flooding progressed, the list and the trim by the stern increased and the vessel started to sink.

13.6
The speed of flooding, however, depended on the size of the openings to the sea and on the escape of air from inside the. hull regarding Which there are several witness observations. Calculations indicate - as an example - that 18,000 tons of water on board, distributed between the car deck and decks 4 and 5, would have given a heel angle of about 75 degrees. This amount of water had entered the vessel in about 15 minutes, indicating an average flow rate of 20 tons per second. This is feasible through openings which have a total area of 5-10 m2. Progressive flooding was under way to several decks and compartments at the same time as the upper decks gradually sank under the mean water level.


However, it has to assume a broken window to conclude the rapid sinking. The car deck doesn't have windows, so it is assumed the water breached the car deck so violent as to smash windows in the accommodation areas.



However, it never ascertained whether these windows were actually broken. If so, why would the divers need to use cutters to enter the vessel or need to cut the windows out of the bridge to get in? These windows simply do not 'smash' like ordinary glass.

The JAIC from these assumptions - which could be erroneous if the water never breached the car deck doors as violently as claimed:



But what if the car deck doors remained shut and intact as Kurm's investigations seem to suggest? That surely renders the JAIC's assumptions and findings misconceived.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You don't understand the (related, when it comes to factors affecting sinking) principles of buoyancy and stability in ships.

You're still wrongly obsessed with nonsense about water "filling the air spaces that gave buoyancy to the vessel". You simply don't know what you're talking about.


Let me perhaps put an example to you, in order to show you how little you understand about this subject:

Suppose we were able to obtain some material (a very heavy metal, perhaps) that had a density of 100 tons per cubic metre. And suppose we were experimenting on the Estonia, the week before it sank.

Suppose we now put 1-metre-cubes of this material over the entirety of the Estonia's vehicle deck. If that deck had a surface area of 8 x 50 = 400m2, we'd thus be able to place 400 of these 1-metre-cubes.

Now, remember that only a small portion of the air space on the vehicle deck has been replaced by our metal cubes, and none of the other air spaces in the ferry have been affected in any way whatsoever.

But.... we now have 400 x 100 = 40,000 tons of our metal sitting on the vehicle deck.

Do you think this would cause the ferry to sink, or not?

(And that's just concerning the overall buoyancy factor. Our experiment would also cause the ship to become so unstable that it would inevitably capsize in any case as well...)


Please spare us any more of your horribly ill-informed, ill-judged and flat-out ignorant stabs at the science of buoyancy & stability in ships.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
SHIP RECKONING
I swam for my life in freezing seas as hundreds died in MS Estonia disaster – now I want the truth over ‘MI6 cover-up’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12916...er-documentary-britian-spies-soviet-missiles/

NEW STATESMAN

And in case you are still not sure:

DAILY MAIL
Click to expand...


LOL "In case we are still not sure" :D :thumbsup:

You probably also ought to do a bit of research into Richard Tomlinson before using him as some sort of authoritative/reliable source....

(Spoiler alert: he's an unhinged crackpot with an axe to grind against his former employers at SIS, and he's "evolved" into a conspiracy-theorist for hire)
 
Vixen said:
The bow visor lower part (atlantic lock area) would be banging on the bulbous bow area every time the thing moved forward and down.
Click to expand...


No. No it would not. It would (and here comes the HUGE SURPRISE) be banging on the main-hull-side part of the (now broken) bottom lock. Well away from the bulbous bow.
 
Vixen said:
How do you know there were not more of them elsewhere?
Click to expand...


1) How do you know there were? (oh, what's that? You don't know?)

2) Regardless of whether there were more, what possible reason would/could there have been to group three of them close together, 100m from the wreck, if they were anything to do with triangulation-based positioning wrt the wreck?


In this - and in so, so many other science-based matters relating to this incident - you're totally out of your depth (pun partially intended).
 
Vixen said:
We were talking about Hikipedia's claim there was a fire - causing the panels on the car ramp to darken - so the crew - it claims - hastily opened the car ramp and visor in an attempt to dispose of it, whilst opening the stern ramp door slightly at the top to let the fumes out. It doesn't specify what substance the nuclear waste was but we know it is dangerous for it to catch fire.
Click to expand...


Wow. You just don't get it, do you?
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, your claim is a hypothesis. Prove that the hypothesis is credible.
Click to expand...


Vixen: I've heard some nebulous unsourced stuff about caesium. And caesium is strange and nasty stuff around water.

** Vixen links to something akin to the classic school chemistry experiment showing caesium fizzing around on top of water **

Person who understands science properly: So if you're suggesting that caesium was the cause of the disaster, there is a requirement for you to work through the numbers to see whether this would even be a feasible possibility.

Vixen: I don't deal in hypotheticals.


Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
What exactly do you mean by "at that point"? At the point a crewman on the car deck heard a loud bang or at the point a crewman looked at a video monitor and saw water cascading in at the sides of the ramp? Those do not seem likely to be simultaneous otherwise the sailor on the car deck would have reported the water.
Click to expand...

If it was AB seaman Linde, I would not believe him.

From JAIC 13.2.1

One of the key witnesses, the AB seaman of the watch, was interrogated several times and some details are not consistent throughout his statements. His latest statement seems, however, to be more reliable concerning specific parts and supplementary details because he then revealed new information that was partly to his discredit, and also commented upon his earlier statements.
Click to expand...

Now this is his 'final statement' (as of 1997).

He claims he was at the car ramp 12:55 EET then progressed down to deck 1 and 0 and then up to the bridge. He claims he saw Captain Andresson ahead of him on stairs up to the bridge circa 12:58.

So really? If he stayed at the car ramp for five minutes, how did he manage to go down to decks 1 and 0 and then up to the bridge via deck 7 by 12:58?

To get out of the car deck you have to walk some 17m just to get to the door and then walk along a corridor to get to the stairs up or down. Whilst the ship is upright, sure, he could get from 0 to 7 in two or three minutes if he was leaping up them. The alternative are the emergency stairs from the engine room on deck 0, which is literally a wall ladder that leads into the car deck. Even then, there was walking to do to get to the doors. If he went up the funnel chimney stairs then that is of course quicker but then how did he manage to to Andresson going up the usual stairs to take over watch on the bridge? Plus he claims he was handing out life jackets to passengers and still had time to change into a survivor suit and get a life raft.

A witness claims he saw Linde sitting in the Admiral pub at 12:45.
 
Vixen said:
That would be correct.

Re the windows smashing: by the time the vessel was at that type of list for the sea to be in direct contact with the deck 4 windows, that wouldn't be a cause of the ship sinking but a result of it sinking.
Click to expand...


Wait.... what? Nobody is suggesting that the breakage of these windows was a cause of the sinking. Where did you get that idea from?


(And, as a point of clarity, those windows would very probably have broken - owing to pressure differentials on either side of them - when the ship was listing heavily. Which would have been prior to its capsize, and prior to its sinking.)
 
LondonJohn said:
Wait.... what? Nobody is suggesting that the breakage of these windows was a cause of the sinking. Where did you get that idea from?

(And, as a point of clarity, those windows would very probably have broken - owing to pressure differentials on either side of them - when the ship was listing heavily. Which would have been prior to its capsize, and prior to its sinking.)
Click to expand...

All of Vixen's ideas come from the same place. Every one of them.
 
Vixen said:
Westermann and myself were referring to the bulbous bow area. See the area in blue.
Click to expand...


1) The area in blue (on that illustration) is nothing more - or less - than the area of the hull that sits below the typical waterline.

2) The area of the bulbous bow is (and I can barely believe I need to spell this out) the area of that bulbous protrusion right at the front end of the ship - which, since it sits below the waterline, is also coloured blue in your illustration.

3) The bottom lock of the bow visor was approximately half way along the bottom edge of the visor - just forward of the red circle in your illustration. And quite apart from the bulbous bow.
 
LondonJohn said:
You don't understand the (related, when it comes to factors affecting sinking) principles of buoyancy and stability in ships.

You're still wrongly obsessed with nonsense about water "filling the air spaces that gave buoyancy to the vessel". You simply don't know what you're talking about.


Let me perhaps put an example to you, in order to show you how little you understand about this subject:

Suppose we were able to obtain some material (a very heavy metal, perhaps) that had a density of 100 tons per cubic metre. And suppose we were experimenting on the Estonia, the week before it sank.

Suppose we now put 1-metre-cubes of this material over the entirety of the Estonia's vehicle deck. If that deck had a surface area of 8 x 50 = 400m2, we'd thus be able to place 400 of these 1-metre-cubes.

Now, remember that only a small portion of the air space on the vehicle deck has been replaced by our metal cubes, and none of the other air spaces in the ferry have been affected in any way whatsoever.

But.... we now have 400 x 100 = 40,000 tons of our metal sitting on the vehicle deck.

Do you think this would cause the ferry to sink, or not?

(And that's just concerning the overall buoyancy factor. Our experiment would also cause the ship to become so unstable that it would inevitably capsize in any case as well...)


Please spare us any more of your horribly ill-informed, ill-judged and flat-out ignorant stabs at the science of buoyancy & stability in ships.
Click to expand...

Sinking occurs only, when the weight of the ship and cargo exceeds the available buoyancy of the hull. In the Estonia AIUI this was 18,000 tonnes so loading 40,000 tonnes of metal on to the superstructure is just silly and it would sink like a stone.

However, it could handle the 2,000 tonnes ingress of water because with its tonnage of 15.5 tonnes with maximum allowed cargo and passengers (it was only half occupied 28.9.1994) if it capsized due to imbalance, it would simply float upside down.

Try it. Get an empty plastic bottle. Fill up a kitchen sink or bath. Throw the bottle in. It floats of course. Now half fill it with [very heavy] water and throw it in. Guess what it still floats! Now fill it completely with water. It immediately sinks. Why? It is all to do with displacement of air.

If the car deck was never violently filled with sea water nor breached its doors with a 9cm water barrier, then there is no way the vessel would have sunk.

So the JAIC had to assume it breached the doors, smashed windows on the next deck up and this displacement of air by very heavy water caused the sinking. However, it would still take time for it to displace all of the air in each of the cabins.

However, Kurm's investigators found the car deck doors shut and intact.
 
Vixen said:
Let's clarify what area we are talking about:

JIAC report

So we are talking about the area at the top of the bulbous bow, not the bulbous bow itself (obviously).

Likewise the banging was coming from this area, according to JAIC:

JAIC

So this AB seaman must have been on the car deck or how else could he have been at the 'forward ramp'. Yet, if so, how come he had to watch the water from a monitor? Surely he was standing in it at that point?
Click to expand...


"On top of the bulbous bow" (="above the bulbous bow") isn't "the bulbous bow".

This is all rather elementary stuff.
 
LondonJohn said:
LOL "In case we are still not sure" :D :thumbsup:

You probably also ought to do a bit of research into Richard Tomlinson before using him as some sort of authoritative/reliable source....

(Spoiler alert: he's an unhinged crackpot with an axe to grind against his former employers at SIS, and he's "evolved" into a conspiracy-theorist for hire)
Click to expand...

Well he managed to reveal the Swedish FSU arms smuggling in 1998, some seven years before Sweden admitted it officially in the Riksdag in 2005.

Howzat!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom