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

[Axxman300]

The official Estonia investigation folks posted this hour-long ROV video from their recent survey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeBixj2uP_c

06:30 - The camera pans up from a rock outcrop to the hole in the hull. Two things stand out:

1. The documentary team would have seen this too and omitted it intentionally, meaning they are not interested in the truth, just their agenda.

2. There are shattered rocks in the mud suggesting the ship had impacted the rock outcrop when it hit the bottom. The amount of smaller rocks indicates the wreck has been shifting in the two decades on the sea floor.

3. Some of the puncture marks appear to line up with the rock outcrop.

Along the way they block human remains with dark gray circles.

The bow footage begins around 57:11

At 1:00:17 the cross beam framing the base of the ramp portal shows obvious signs consistent with bending from a sudden downward force (like the ramp being wrenched open when the visor fell off).

I think there are a few more being posted. I'll get to them and post highlights.

I must be honest, I don't see anything contradicting the original conclusion about the Estonia's sinking in this video. All I see is a big ship laying in her side that will eventually roll upside down in a decade or so. The paint is still visible which is good because had explosives been used this would be painfully obvious, and there are zero signs of detonations at the bow or on the starboard side. In fact, that hole is right along the seem of the hull plates, and there are other dents in the side which did not breach the hull because they are in the middle of the plates, and not at the seems.

And I'm not an expert in ships but my training is in geology, and those rocks were shattered by a heavy object, and they're right where the hull breach is, and how this can be anything other than post-sinking structural damage is beyond me.

 

[Vixen]

Hard to tell. "hewser" appears to be a mexican marketing company. What they have to do with it is anyone's guess.

Vixen likely meant "hawser" I suppose.

If one is unable to spell it, how likely is it that one knows what it is?

Do refer to my previous reference to a hawser and you'll be aware it is a typo.

Do have a look at the diagrams below to elucidate yourself.

 

[Vixen]

Everything you've written here is wrong.

1. The visor could not have detached from the ship without wrenching the ramp open due to the design.

Sorry to burst your bubble but it happened. How do we know it happened? The obvious answer is it is now completely detached from the ship, the joints or hinges or whatever held the ramp in place were OBVIOUSLY damaged. The stern ramp and ramp cover are still locked in place.

The divers found the ramp closed, but never checked to see if it was secured (not sure how they'd do that) and the forces involved with a large ship sinking combined with rough seas the ramp shutting on its own is well within reason.

2. The crewman reported water coming into the car deck BECAUSE IT WAS UNUSUAL, and occurred AFTER a large wave struck the ship. What he saw was just the beginning part of the disaster and the visor had been knocked loose but was still in place. I think the crewman would have mentioned the ramp being opened.

3. The Captain was clearly inept. The engineering crew was lazy.

Oh, and the car deck being above the waterline is relative in high seas.

1. If the car ramp came off because it shared the same superstructure framework as the bow visor, how come the bow visor was 1,000m away from the car ramp which is still attached to the vessel?

2. The official timeline is that Linde heard a loud noise in the car ramp/bow visor area - although he had told Dagens Nyheter in early October 1994 he had seen water in the car deck - and the guys in the engine room, Sillaste and Kikas heard it from the walkie-talkie message or as instructed by the bridge and checked the monitor. Sillaste has drawn a diagram at least five times for investigators and the press showing what he saw, and it is water coming in through the sides, not the top. Linde claims he was then instructed to go down to the car deck to investigate but was hampered by passengers running up the stairwell. All the indications are that Sillaste and Kikas were already up to their knees in the engine room and Linde's claim he went to the Information Desk on Deck 5 to ask the lady to open the car deck, which was supposedly locked, but in actuality rarely was, sounds like another fabrication by him and he was likely sent to tell her to put out a general emergency alarm.

3. The captain was far from inept. He trained at a Russian naval school and it took six years for him to get his captain certificate. He was a stickler for discipline and was under contract to run the vessel to schedule.

For all of Sillaste's edited recollections, he did his human best, not leaving the ship until 1:30, unlike Linde who was in his survival suit and life raft before you could say Jack Robinson and before Tammes and Ainsalu had even sent their Mayday calls.

Oh, and even it was high seas, the car deck height was 5m (sixteen feet) so for the waves to even get into the one metre gap at the top, they'd have to break the record for wave height, even in a Beaufort 7 gale.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do refer to my previous reference to a hawser and you'll be aware it is a typo.

Do have a look at the diagrams below to elucidate yourself.

A person cannot elucidate himself/herself.

Perhaps - amusingly and ironically - you mean "....to educate yourself"

 

[Steve]

A person cannot elucidate himself/herself.

Perhaps - amusingly and ironically - you mean "....to educate yourself"

"Scientists" always use the correct and proper words, don't you know.

 

[Vixen]

The official Estonia investigation folks posted this hour-long ROV video from their recent survey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeBixj2uP_c

06:30 - The camera pans up from a rock outcrop to the hole in the hull. Two things stand out:

1. The documentary team would have seen this too and omitted it intentionally, meaning they are not interested in the truth, just their agenda.

2. There are shattered rocks in the mud suggesting the ship had impacted the rock outcrop when it hit the bottom. The amount of smaller rocks indicates the wreck has been shifting in the two decades on the sea floor.

3. Some of the puncture marks appear to line up with the rock outcrop.

Along the way they block human remains with dark gray circles.

The bow footage begins around 57:11

At 1:00:17 the cross beam framing the base of the ramp portal shows obvious signs consistent with bending from a sudden downward force (like the ramp being wrenched open when the visor fell off).

I think there are a few more being posted. I'll get to them and post highlights.

I must be honest, I don't see anything contradicting the original conclusion about the Estonia's sinking in this video. All I see is a big ship laying in her side that will eventually roll upside down in a decade or so. The paint is still visible which is good because had explosives been used this would be painfully obvious, and there are zero signs of detonations at the bow or on the starboard side. In fact, that hole is right along the seem of the hull plates, and there are other dents in the side which did not breach the hull because they are in the middle of the plates, and not at the seems.

And I'm not an expert in ships but my training is in geology, and those rocks were shattered by a heavy object, and they're right where the hull breach is, and how this can be anything other than post-sinking structural damage is beyond me.

1. Kurm's expedition estimates that the ship has shifted ten metres to the south. Why would the nearby rocks in the new position have been improtant to Evertsson, whose interest was in damage to the starboard hull?

2. The 'shattered rocks nearby' are the stones and pebbles the Swedish government poured over it.

"Wreck damage was not a spontaneous and natural process, but a larger damage to the wreck took place in 1996, when preparations were made for concreting the shipwreck," Kurm said of the reasons why the wreck is no longer in place.

Kurm explained that the soil was then covered with geotextile, on which sand and gravel were poured. "It is believed that the mass became so heavy that the clay slipped down the slope and the wreck slipped along it. Some of the sand and gravel sank into the crater left by the wreck."

At the same time, Kurm wants to find out the details of why this was the case in 1996.

"The case allegedly culminated in a lawsuit in which the Swedish state sued a worker to damage the seabed and allow the wreck to move," he told himself of new information he intended to investigate further. "Based on the information, experts can assess what might happen during a shipwreck slip."

3. But do they, or is it an optical illusion? In any case calculations and simulations will need to be carried out to discover if the rocks could possibly cause the concomitant damage seen on the starboard.

.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A person cannot elucidate himself/herself.

Perhaps - amusingly and ironically - you mean "....to educate yourself"

You do find yourself wondering if it's deliberate.

 

[LondonJohn]

1. If the car ramp came off because it shared the same superstructure framework as the bow visor, how come the bow visor was 1,000m away from the car ramp which is still attached to the vessel?

No. There were points of connectivity between the bow visor and the bow ramp. When the visor eventually tore itself free from the ship, it damaged the structural integrity of the ramp as it did so. There's zero mystery as to why the visor came off the ship while the ramp - though damaged and fatally compromised - stayed attached to the ship.

2. The official timeline is that Linde heard a loud noise in the car ramp/bow visor area - although he had told Dagens Nyheter in early October 1994 he had seen water in the car deck - and the guys in the engine room, Sillaste and Kikas heard it from the walkie-talkie message or as instructed by the bridge and checked the monitor. Sillaste has drawn a diagram at least five times for investigators and the press showing what he saw, and it is water coming in through the sides, not the top. Linde claims he was then instructed to go down to the car deck to investigate but was hampered by passengers running up the stairwell. All the indications are that Sillaste and Kikas were already up to their knees in the engine room and Linde's claim he went to the Information Desk on Deck 5 to ask the lady to open the car deck, which was supposedly locked, but in actuality rarely was, sounds like another fabrication by him and he was likely sent to tell her to put out a general emergency alarm.

The sides of the bow ramp - which by now were not watertight, after the ramp's structural integrity was damaged when the bow visor tore off the ship - were (obviously) closer to the waterline than the top of the ramp. It's therefore zero mystery as to why the majority of the water forcing its way around the ramp and into the vehicle deck came in via the sides of the ramp rather than the top.

3. The captain was far from inept. He trained at a Russian naval school and it took six years for him to get his captain certificate. He was a stickler for discipline and was under contract to run the vessel to schedule.

For all of Sillaste's edited recollections, he did his human best, not leaving the ship until 1:30, unlike Linde who was in his survival suit and life raft before you could say Jack Robinson and before Tammes and Ainsalu had even sent their Mayday calls.

And?

Oh, and even it was high seas, the car deck height was 5m (sixteen feet) so for the waves to even get into the one metre gap at the top, they'd have to break the record for wave height, even in a Beaufort 7 gale.

Once again: no dice. Your (ignorant and ill-founded) attempt at an argument on this point can immediately be refuted by reference to the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. That ferry also had a vehicle deck above the waterline. That ferry was sailing in relatively flat-calm seas at the time. And that ferry sank because its open bow doors allowed enough water into the ship to fatally compromise its buoyancy. By contrast, the Estonia - pitching up and down in the high swell and still sailing at speed - would have taken in water via its broken bow opening even more easily than HOFE did.

 

[LondonJohn]

3. But do they, or is it an optical illusion? In any case calculations and simulations will need to be carried out to discover if the rocks could possibly cause the concomitant damage seen on the starboard.

Another "big-sounding" word used incorrectly. Again, something that's (presumably) designed to impress.... ends up having completely the opposite effect.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

1. If the car ramp came off because it shared the same superstructure framework as the bow visor, how come the bow visor was 1,000m away from the car ramp which is still attached to the vessel?

"If". No, that's not why it got damaged.

The ramp, when closed, extended above the deck level and when the visor lowered it had a box-like structure to accommodate this. So when the visor broke loose it became a dead weight hooked over the ramp. We all know this already.

2. The official timeline is that Linde heard a loud noise in the car ramp/bow visor area - although he had told Dagens Nyheter in early October 1994 he had seen water in the car deck - and the guys in the engine room, Sillaste and Kikas heard it from the walkie-talkie message or as instructed by the bridge and checked the monitor. Sillaste has drawn a diagram at least five times for investigators and the press showing what he saw, and it is water coming in through the sides, not the top. Linde claims he was then instructed to go down to the car deck to investigate but was hampered by passengers running up the stairwell. All the indications are that Sillaste and Kikas were already up to their knees in the engine room and Linde's claim he went to the Information Desk on Deck 5 to ask the lady to open the car deck, which was supposedly locked, but in actuality rarely was, sounds like another fabrication by him and he was likely sent to tell her to put out a general emergency alarm.

How disrespectful of you to lambast these poor victims for failing to have perfect recall of these rapidly changing, confusing and frightening events. Perhaps you think they should have kept notes. [/sarcasm]
If, as seems reasonable, the ramp was damaged by being hauled upon by the dead weight of the visor, and was perhaps being held shut by a hawser, which would allow a degree of flexing, why would it be surprising if it had no good water seal all the way up each side? Was it even designed to be watertight? It was after all the visor's job to keep the sea out.

3. The captain was far from inept. He trained at a Russian naval school and it took six years for him to get his captain certificate. He was a stickler for discipline and was under contract to run the vessel to schedule.

Clearly you have decided to rely on his qualifications rather than the evidence of his actions. Why should his captain's certificate make him infallible when the Estonia's seaworthiness certificate obviously did not do likewise for the ship?

For all of Sillaste's edited recollections, he did his human best, not leaving the ship until 1:30, unlike Linde who was in his survival suit and life raft before you could say Jack Robinson and before Tammes and Ainsalu had even sent their Mayday calls.

Your oft-repeated anecdote about Linde already waiting in a liferaft in a survival suit is rather light on timeline details about when he was found there.

Oh, and even it was high seas, the car deck height was 5m (sixteen feet) so for the waves to even get into the one metre gap at the top, they'd have to break the record for wave height, even in a Beaufort 7 gale.

If the ship had been sailing serenely through the storm and not pitching at all you might have the beginnings of a point but, alas, you don't.

 

[erwinl]

Another "big-sounding" word used incorrectly. Again, something that's (presumably) designed to impress.... ends up having completely the opposite effect.

Nah. In my opinion not designed to impress, but designed to muddle the discussion.

In every substantive post (substantive as in quantity, not quality of words) there is one of these 'silly mistakes', specifically put there so that people can point these out and the resulting de-rail/misunderstanding can than be strung out for yet another few pages, without ever getting to some kind of resolution.

Having said that. They are still valuable. Not only as a point for fun, but also as something where actual pieces of knowledge from the other posters result from.

 

[catsmate]

To even get to temperatures above 700°C artificially you need to be in a laboratory. There is no way 'welding' would cause the type of deformation as seen here. Professor Westermann was being purely descriptive and was not giving an opinion as all she did was microscopically examine the bow visor for deformations and its type.

Utter and complete bollocks.

 

[catsmate]

On a ship, really? In the middle of the sea, when you need a constant power supply?

Strange as may seem to use welding is often done on-board ships, rigs and other maritime structures. And electricity has been available on ships for a century or more.

 

[LondonJohn]

If the ship had been sailing serenely through the storm and not pitching at all you might have the beginnings of a point but, alas, you don't.

She wouldn't really have a point even then. The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster took place in benign sea conditions: the combination of 1) a bow wave and 2) the inevitable bow-stern oscillations of a ship propelling itself forward from the stern.... allowed more than enough water to get into the vehicle deck (which, as on the Estonia, was above the waterline) to sink the ship in under two minutes.

 

[catsmate]

A huge overclaim based on nothing. You simply don't know what sample she examined microscopically and you definitely don't know what temperatures are involved in welding. It's not the same thing as soldering. You blithely mix and match fragments of what you've read as if hull plate deformations on the scale of tens of centimetres were something you would examine with a microscope.

It illustrates the point. Plumbers' blowtorches burn hotter than the 700C you claimed and are entirely portable. Much more powerful/hotter devices are also portable. Please stop talking such palpable bilge.

eta:

Candle flame ≈1,100 °C (≈2,012 °F) [majority]; hot spots may be 1,300–1,400 °C (2,372–2,552 °F)
Propane blowtorch 1,200–1,700 °C (2,192–3,092 °F)

wiki

The classic fuel/oxygen welding systems burn even hotter, and have been portable and used at sea for over a century:
Propane/air burns at 1,980°C
Propane/oxygen burns at 2,250°C
Ethyne ('acetylene)/oxygen burns at 3,500°C

There are other mixes.

 

[Vixen]

A person cannot elucidate himself/herself.

Perhaps - amusingly and ironically - you mean "....to educate yourself"

Really? Perhaps you need to enlighten yourself.

https://mobile-dictionary.reverso.net/en/english-definition/elucidate+oneself

 

[Vixen]

^^^THIS^^^
There are clearly posters here who know something (quite a bit actually) about the design, construction, and operation of ships. If Vixen were 'wise' she'd figure that out, realize that she is out of her depth, and head to shallow water. If...

Actually, it is very disconcerting that for all their braggadocio, none of them seem to be familiar with what happens when a boat capsizes. They think a longboat immediately sinks to the bottom.

 

[Mojo]

Really? Perhaps you need to enlighten yourself.

https://mobile-dictionary.reverso.net/en/english-definition/elucidate+oneself

Perhaps you need to read the page you just linked to.

 

[Vixen]

Everything you've written here is wrong.

1. The visor could not have detached from the ship without wrenching the ramp open due to the design.

Sorry to burst your bubble but it happened. How do we know it happened? The obvious answer is it is now completely detached from the ship, the joints or hinges or whatever held the ramp in place were OBVIOUSLY damaged. The stern ramp and ramp cover are still locked in place.

The divers found the ramp closed, but never checked to see if it was secured (not sure how they'd do that) and the forces involved with a large ship sinking combined with rough seas the ramp shutting on its own is well within reason.

2. The crewman reported water coming into the car deck BECAUSE IT WAS UNUSUAL, and occurred AFTER a large wave struck the ship. What he saw was just the beginning part of the disaster and the visor had been knocked loose but was still in place. I think the crewman would have mentioned the ramp being opened.

3. The Captain was clearly inept. The engineering crew was lazy.

Oh, and the car deck being above the waterline is relative in high seas.

Actually, the top of one (or even both) of the stern ramps was found to be open. Hence the satire in Hikipedia it was opened to let cigarette smoke out.

Seriously though, that someone saw fit to open the stern ramp slightly, indicates there was a fire, hence the Mr Skylight 1/2 message, together with the fire drenchers turned on in the car deck.

 

[Vixen]

"If". No, that's not why it got damaged.

The ramp, when closed, extended above the deck level and when the visor lowered it had a box-like structure to accommodate this. So when the visor broke loose it became a dead weight hooked over the ramp. We all know this already.


How disrespectful of you to lambast these poor victims for failing to have perfect recall of these rapidly changing, confusing and frightening events. Perhaps you think they should have kept notes. [/sarcasm]
If, as seems reasonable, the ramp was damaged by being hauled upon by the dead weight of the visor, and was perhaps being held shut by a hawser, which would allow a degree of flexing, why would it be surprising if it had no good water seal all the way up each side? Was it even designed to be watertight? It was after all the visor's job to keep the sea out.


Clearly you have decided to rely on his qualifications rather than the evidence of his actions. Why should his captain's certificate make him infallible when the Estonia's seaworthiness certificate obviously did not do likewise for the ship?


Your oft-repeated anecdote about Linde already waiting in a liferaft in a survival suit is rather light on timeline details about when he was found there.


If the ship had been sailing serenely through the storm and not pitching at all you might have the beginnings of a point but, alas, you don't.

The crew were trained to keep time. Linde mentions looking at his watch and noting the time on several occasions. It is Linde who said he knew it was 1:22 when he got in the life raft because he looked at his watch. This information comes from Linde himself.