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

[Vixen]

Hmmmmm..... I wonder:

The bow visor was missing from the wreck of the ship when it was surveyed on the seabed. The bow visor was also nowhere remotely near to the wreck on the seabed. The bow visor is/was incapable of having been moved (or of getting up and moving under its own steam) so far from the wreck. If the bow visor had been properly closed and locked at the time the ship sank, it would have remained attached to the ship and would still be attached to the wreck on the seabed.

Therefore: the bow visor must have come detached from the wreck before the ship sank. That's Part 1.


Part 2: when the wreck was officially surveyed, there was visible damage to the part of the bottom lock (for the bow visor) that was attached to the hull of the ship. And there was also visible damage to the top hinges and the hydraulic piston mountings. And there was also visible damage to the area of the hull against which the bottom of the bow visor would ordinarily have mated.

Therefore 2: the bow visor must have detached from the ship because its bottom lock failed, causing it to swing up and down by its top hinges (banging down each time against that mating surface on the hull) until eventually the top hinges and pistons failed in turn - at which point the bow visor no longer had anything attaching it to the ship and it ripped free, sinking separately some distance away.


Part 3: the bow ramp, as viewed when the wreck was officially surveyed, was visibly deformed. And this - coupled with what the investigators knew about a) the operational interactions/interference between the bow visor and the bow ramp and b) the fact that they knew by then that the bow visor had failed and totally detached from the ship before it sank - mean that.....

Therefore 3: the loss of the bow visor and the deformation to the bow ramp meant that the bow was no longer watertight at these points, and that the vehicle deck of the ship must have been exposed to open seas prior to the ship sinking.


Part 4: knowing all of the above, and knowing the sea conditions on the night of the sinking, and knowing the appropriately-weighted sum of witness testimony, and knowing the likely rate of seawater ingress through the broken bow door section, and knowing the mass of seawater on the vehicle deck that would cause the ship to become terminally unstable and non-buoyant....

Therefore 4: the ship sank because the bottom lock on the bow visor failed; causing the bow visor to swing up and down in the ocean swells until its other fastenings failed as well; causing it to detach completely from the ship; causing the bow ramp to become dislodged and deformed; causing the vehicle deck to become open at the bow to the oncoming seawater; causing seawater to rush in at rapid volume/mass into the vehicle deck; causing the ship to experience a terminal loss of stability and buoyancy; causing the ship to capsize and sink.


Let me know if you'd require any further clarification.

False premise: the bottom lock, the Atlantic lock, was never 'officially surveyed, [and] there was visible damage'. It was picked up by Bjore Stenstrom who was head of the Swedish investigative engineers and immediately thrown back onto the seabed .

As the rest of your case is predicated on this logical fallacy, we'll move swiftly on.

 

[Vixen]

A "breach of the keel"? What fresh hell is this?

Going on the supposition that you meant "breach of the hull", then no: the (relatively) recently-revealed damage to the starboard hull, including an area where the hull was punctured, does not "explain the water seen on deck 1 and the rapid sinking". For starters, the puncture was very clearly above the waterline - and however much you want to continue arguing otherwise, the ferry's paint scheme simply doesn't lie.

But over and above that, water flowing sideways along the side of a forwards-travelling ship-shaped object is a very different proposition from water flowing head-on hitting the bow of a forwards-travelling ship-shaped object. It's a shame you don't know much (if indeed anything) about fluid dynamics, specifically wrt how fluids flow around a solid object. Otherwise you'd realise this yourself.

But perhaps an (imperfect*, but sufficient to illustrate the general principle) example from something you might already understand would help you out: Imagine you're driving in your car, at (say) 40 miles per hour. Now you open your driver's side window about half way. There's plenty of wind noise in the cabin, sure. And some of the outside air will enter the cabin too. But not actually all that much. And that's because almost all the outside air passing your driver's-side window is channeling straight down the side of your car: there's no significant sideways vector of momentum that would be necessary for the air to make that sideways move through your window and into the cabin.

Now imagine you wind your window back up, then you kick out half your car's windscreen/windshield. You might perhaps be able to conceptualise how a wall of air that's (in relative terms) travelling head-on towards your windscreen/windshield would find its way into your cabin quickly and easily.


(And by the way: having an open mind is only valuable when one has the necessary knowledge and analytical ability to figure out a) which possibilities can be safely excluded with reference to the (reliable) known evidence, b) which possibilities are consistent with the (reliable) know evidence, and c) which possibilities are simply not feasible on their face.)


* The main imperfection being that the car example involves air displacing air, thereby implying the need for pressure differentials. Whereas for a ship, it would be a case of water displacing air. But, as I said, there's sufficient similarity of general principles to make the illustration relevant and fair.

Well, yes, transverse waves pounding on an already loose bow visor hanging precariously (whether because of 'poor maintenance' or because of an explosion or explosions) would be far more powerful than any wave load from the front. And indeed, we know on that night the waves were coming on to the port side bow strongly.

 

[Vixen]

And that damage was caused by the ship colliding with a rock outcrop sticking out of the clay-silt seabed when it sank.

Y'know, the rock outcrop which is now visible right next to the now-revealed area of damaged hull. The rock outcrop whose topology closely fits with the deformation/puncturing of the hull.


Those good ol' twins Logic and Reason ride to the rescue once again......

Oh dear. Firstly, there is no sharp rock outcrop that could have made such a hole and secondly, the twisted metal clearly seen on video bends outwards, not inwards.

 

[Vixen]

Jonathan Hirschfeldt retracts his statement of 2005

Appeal Court judge, Jonathan Hirschfeldt has now turned volte face and concurred there may well have been illicit military equipment on board the Estonia that night.

From Espressen 3.10.2021

Johan Hirschfelt investigated whether there were military transports on board Estonia when the ship sank.

He concluded that this was not the case.

In an interview with SR , he now says:

- There may be information that I did not receive. It may also be the case that information of various kinds was present in the material I took part in, and that I have made an overall assessment of what I could do within the framework of such an investigative assignment.

<snip>

On Sunday, Johan Hirschfelt is interviewed in the P1 program "Sunday interview". There he says that the assignment he received in 2004 was limited. It concerned two authorities and he assumed that he received correct information.

Not excluding
Had it been a proper police investigation, a prosecutor would have had freer reins to investigate more closely, he says.

Hirschfelt does not rule out that there may have been military equipment on board the night the ship sank.

- There may be information that I did not receive. It may also be the case that information of various kinds was in the material I took part in, and that I have made an overall assessment of what I could do within the framework of such an investigation assignment, he says in the program.

Things are really moving apace now.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh dear. Firstly, there is no sharp rock outcrop that could have made such a hole and secondly, the twisted metal clearly seen on video bends outwards, not inwards.

It isn't a claim that 'sharp' or 'jagged' rocks punctured the hull. the hull sagged over the rocks, it is not designed to be supported along it's full hull length. Anything else will cause stress it was not designed for. It would sag over the rocks. The damage looks like stress fractures and tears along weld lines between hull plates and framing.

 

[Vixen]

I want to hear more about the tattooed dude on the bridge that shot the captain before applying radioactive waste to the bow. And bombs/mines. And submarines. And the crew that were wearing survival suits in anticipation of the sinking. And all the other bizarre stuff that was proposed earlier in the thread and seems to have been dropped in favour of the current wacko theory of the week.

Perhaps you can clear up the mystery of the 'attaché case'? This was specifically searched for, yet no attempt was made to identify the five bodies on the bridge.

29. It is visible on video tape RWiSEMII/EST/D/018 delivered by the diving company that divers were looking for a person's suitcase in the cabins on deck 6, which they eventually found and took along. This is also fixed in the video tape log. The fact that a specific suitcase was being looked for can be concluded from the diver's preceding activity and from the diver's dialogue with the person who led the diving on the deck and also because the diver read the name on the nametag of the suitcase repeatedly letter by letter. At a meeting with the Chairman of the Committee, Johan Franson, who led the operation, denied any search of a suitcase. He confirmed that no such task was given to the divers.

Kurm Report 2006

 

[Vixen]

"Whoops"? How the **** do you either mis-read or mis-type "starboard hull" as "keel"?

That's not a minor slip that can be covered by a "whoops", it's a blatant lie.

It was a translation from the Swedish. You really need to calm down.

 

[Vixen]

It isn't a claim that 'sharp' or 'jagged' rocks punctured the hull. the hull sagged over the rocks, it is not designed to be supported along it's full hull length. Anything else will cause stress it was not designed for. It would sag over the rocks. The damage looks like stress fractures and tears along weld lines between hull plates and framing.

Do look once again at the new evidence.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/sw...n-sunken-estonia-reveals-surprising-discovery

 

[Andy_Ross]

Perhaps you can clear up the mystery of the 'attaché case'? This was specifically searched for, yet no attempt was made to identify the five bodies on the bridge.


Kurm Report 2006

Why is it important?

How do we know it happened?

If the ship was sunk because of the case then someone didn't do a very good job if it was still there.

WHy are the identities of the bridge crew important?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Do look once again at the new evidence.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/sw...n-sunken-estonia-reveals-surprising-discovery

How does that change anything?

 

[Vixen]

Why is it important?

How do we know it happened?

If the ship was sunk because of the case then someone didn't do a very good job if it was still there.

WHy are the identities of the bridge crew important?

When investigating an accident in which a thousand civilians died, it is imperative to identify who was rhe captain/pilot/driver, no? Especially as divers cut off the window to the bridge to enter. It should have been relatively easy to identify who's who?


The search for the attaché case (or suitcase, as translated from Estonian) is clearly recorded on the diver's log of the video sequences. He is heard spelling out the name of Voronin, a Russian-Estonian who ran an arms trading business. Voronin had been in cabin no, WXYZ, and some believe this was an erroneous juxtaposition of numbers and that they mistook this cabin for that of Captain Arvo Piht, who was in cabin no, WXZY. As Sillaste, or was it Linde, only identified three men on the bridge to the interrogators, and no-one knew anyone with the said tattoo on the hand seen of the person trapped under a cabin, together with a Finnish diver claiming to have seen Andresson with a bullet wound to the head, that surely should have been treated as a crime scene, no?

 

[erwinl]

It was a translation from the Swedish. You really need to calm down.

According to Google Translate the Swedish word voor 'Starboard Hull' is 'styrbordskrov' and for 'keel' it is 'köl'.

Aside from the Swedish word for hull, these words sound and look very similar to the Dutch or even English variants.

Which makes your translation error, very puzzling. Especially as your source, is in English and as such does not speak about a breach of any keel.

 

[Vixen]

How does that change anything?

The JAIC claimed the only damage to the ship was at the bow. Despite experts bringing to its attention the hole in the starboard. (German Group in 1996.)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

False premise: the bottom lock, the Atlantic lock, was never 'officially surveyed, [and] there was visible damage'. It was picked up by Bjore Stenstrom who was head of the Swedish investigative engineers and immediately thrown back onto the seabed .

As the rest of your case is predicated on this logical fallacy, we'll move swiftly on.

Your source tells you he brought it to the surface and then threw it back into the sea because something about its being too heavy for some helicopter and that's all it tells you, therefore that is the only thing known about it. Nobody examined it, nobody photographed it, nobody took any notice of its condition. It was just kinda lying around down there and he picked it up and stuck it in his pocket and when they got to the surface he decided it was a crappy souvenir and just lobbed it back into the water. And that's all that's known.

Right.

 

[Vixen]

Your source tells you he brought it to the surface and then threw it back into the sea because something about its being too heavy for some helicopter and that's all it tells you, therefore that is the only thing known about it. Nobody examined it, nobody photographed it, nobody took any notice of its condition. It was just kinda lying around down there and he picked it up and stuck it in his pocket and when they got to the surface he decided it was a crappy souvenir and just lobbed it back into the water. And that's all that's known.

Right.

From Margus Kurm's report, bearing in mind he was an ex-Head of the JAIC and also Estonia Chief Prosecutor who interviewed everyone plus 50 further persons, except the divers whom he claims he was denied access to:

30. The largest and strongest of the visor locks was the bottom lock, also called the
"Atlantic lock". It functioned as a big locking device so that the locking bolt was
moved by a hydraulic actuator through the hull and the mating lugs attached to the
visor. According to section 8.6.1 of the Final Report, three lugs attached to the hull
had failed; the lug on the visor and the locking bolt were not broken. The locking bolt
was unwelded and brought up during the diving operation for close investigation.
Regrettably Börje Stenström, the only member of the Joint Commission who participated in the diving operation, decided to throw the bolt back to the sea and thus destroy the evidence of such importance. The fact, that it was so, was confirmed to the
Chairman of the Committee by Ann-Louise Eksborg, the latest leader of the Joint
Commission on the part of Sweden. Even if the locking bolt was not broken, it is
regrettable that an experienced investigator just threw away an important evidence.

Kurm Report 2006.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When investigating an accident in which a thousand civilians died, it is imperative to identify who was rhe captain/pilot/driver, no? Especially as divers cut off the window to the bridge to enter. It should have been relatively easy to identify who's who?


The search for the attaché case (or suitcase, as translated from Estonian) is clearly recorded on the diver's log of the video sequences. He is heard spelling out the name of Voronin, a Russian-Estonian who ran an arms trading business. Voronin had been in cabin no, WXYZ, and some believe this was an erroneous juxtaposition of numbers and that they mistook this cabin for that of Captain Arvo Piht, who was in cabin no, WXZY. As Sillaste, or was it Linde, only identified three men on the bridge to the interrogators, and no-one knew anyone with the said tattoo on the hand seen of the person trapped under a cabin, together with a Finnish diver claiming to have seen Andresson with a bullet wound to the head, that surely should have been treated as a crime scene, no?

When investigating an accident in which a thousand people died and when diving on a wreck deep underwater it is really important that everyone knows exactly what they are tasked with and how they're going to do it and they don't just potter off to look at stuff that might be interesting.

So, what's this attaché case stuff? That's all a bit ambiguous. Do you mean they entered a cabin believing it was the captain's but found an attaché case with someone else's name on it? Or do you mean they scoured the ship attempting to locate the captain's attaché case, or Voronin's case, or what? Please try to be specific if you know for sure. Please try not to be specific if you're guessing.

 

[Kid Eager]

The JAIC claimed the only damage to the ship was at the bow. Despite experts bringing to its attention the hole in the starboard. (German Group in 1996.)

There is no “despite”.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC claimed the only damage to the ship was at the bow. Despite experts bringing to its attention the hole in the starboard. (German Group in 1996.)

Because the ship has moved since it sank.
We have been through this several times already .

 

[Jack by the hedge]

From Margus Kurm's report, bearing in mind he was an ex-Head of the JAIC and also Estonia Chief Prosecutor who interviewed everyone plus 50 further persons, except the divers whom he claims he was denied access to:

Kurm Report 2006.

You highlighted the bit you already told us over and over about how the parts got thrown back and woe is me now we'll never know. How about highlighting the "section 8.6.1" bit instead?

https://web.archive.org/web/2004062...nettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_3.html#1

Sadly this link only has the text and the original pictures are broken links (if anyone has those I'd be grateful) but the descriptions remain:

"8.6.1 The visor bottom lock
All three attachment lugs for the bottom lock installation had failed (Figures 8.13 and 8.14). The locking bolt (Figure 8.15) remained attached to the actuating cylinder piston rod, which was bent (Figure 8.13). The remains of the attachment lugs and the locking bolt were removed from the wreck during the diving operation for close investigation.

It was noted that the weld beads between the lugs and the bolt housing and the support bushing respectively had failed partly in the bead itself and partly in the fusion zones. The steel plate of the lugs had failed in their thinnest sections, generally in a forward-upward direction. The two lugs for the bolt housing were twisted towards the port side.
When the locking bolt was removed from the actuator piston rod, the actuator was in fully extended, i.e. locked, position. The piston rod was bent upwards, away from the forepeak deck. The hydraulic hoses were connected. The bolt was checked for wear and deformation. The bolt was straight. The general diameter of the bolt was about 78 mm. Only a slight variation in diameter was measured at the contact area between the bolt and the visor lug. No other damage to the bolt was noted.
The mating lug in the visor was attached to the structure but was bent about ten degrees to starboard and the adjacent structure was deformed and cracked (Figure 8.10). The hole in the lug for the locking bolt had an original diameter of 85 mm while after the accident the hole was oval with dimensions at mid-thickness about 83 x 95 mm. The visor lug was removed from the visor after it had been brought ashore."

 

[Andy_Ross]

You highlighted the bit you already told us over and over about how the parts got thrown back and woe is me now we'll never know. How about highlighting the "section 8.6.1" bit instead?

https://web.archive.org/web/2004062...nettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_3.html#1

Sadly this link only has the text and the original pictures are broken links (if anyone has those I'd be grateful) but the descriptions remain:

You mean that the story about the bolt being 'thrown back' is a lie?