Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[Steve]

It looks rather silly to use empty condescension when you plainly know much less about the subject than the person you're "oh dearing" at.

Oh and by the way, condescension means talking down to people.

I have it on good authority that Vixen is merely reporting facts gleaned from other sources. There is no editorializing or condescension whatsoever.

 

[Vixen]

You evaded the context. They stated that, right after describing the severe starboard list and the sea pounding on the starboard side. Which part still has you confused?


Do you mean the starboard side that's lying on the sea bed? That starboard side? Do you mean the starboard side that has all the interior debris collected on top of it? That starboard side?

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't examine it.



And we've gone full circle. When you made this claim before I asked you to substantiate it. And you backed off and said you meant decks 4 & 5. Now your stuff about 4 and 5 is laid to rest you've leapt back to claiming stuff about the car deck.

Well, the question still stands: Can you substantiate your claim that the JAIC asserts the car deck doors must have broken or can you not?

Let's do the chronology.

JAIC Report 1997

Even though the list developed rapidly; the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles. The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.

Next para specifically about the car deck doors and aft windows. If the JAIC were only talking about portside windows then they are lying by omission and should have said so.

According to the hydrostatic calculations, a continuously increasing amount of water on the car deck would make the aft windows of deck 4 the first possible flooding point to other areas. Soon thereafter the windows and the aft entrance doors of deck 5 would also be submerged.

Follow it, so far? The JAIC specifies the aft windows of deck 4 the first 'possible' point of flooding. (=therefore an assumption, see the word 'possible').

Fast forward to JAIC 13.2.6

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.

Again it clearly states window panels and aft doors broke. It doesn't say 'port side only'.

It reasons:

If the windows and doors had remained unbroken the vessel may have remained in a stable heel condition for some time. It is, however, less likely that any reasonable strength of the large windows would have been adequate to with- stand the wave impact forces.

It can be concluded that, although the vessel fulfilled the SOLAS damage stability requirements valid for its building period, she had no possibilities to withstand progressive flooding through the superstructure openings once the heel angle approached 40o. When windows on the accommodation decks were broken by wave forces, subsequent sinking was inevitable.

A Swedish ex-navy man claims to the Swedish press in 1999 that he was a diver in early Dec and he witnessed a large hole in the starboard.

Kurm in 2007 points out the following re what witnesses saw happeningg on the car deck:

1) First, when they saw on the monitor that water was pressing in from the sides of the ramp, the ramp was in the closed position. Treu looked at this monitor picture once. Sillaste did several times. Kadak was watching and clicking the monitor practically all the time when he was in the engine room. Not once did anyone see that the ramp had opened.

2) Secondly, when they saw on the monitor that water was pressing in from the sides of the ramp, the ship was in the list. The ship was in the list already when Treu was alone and looking at the monitor. Because the list was the reason why he stood up and went to the control board. The list was also the reason why Sillaste left the sewage room and Kadak left the workshop. And the list was gradually increasing. When Sillaste and Kadak left, the list
was about 30 degrees; when Treu left, it was more than that.

As we know, according to the Final Report, the cause that brought about the shipwreck was that the bow visor locks broke, the visor fell into water and the ramp opened completely.

<snip>

This scenario can only be valid if we consider the above testimony of the three crew members to be wrong. I claim that the contradiction between the JAIC scenario and the witnesses' statements cannot be eliminated otherwise.

Kurm Glasgow

Update October re the Kurm Expedition:

Kurm: "Car deck doors being shut contradicts the JAIC report"
________________________________________
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).

Quote:
The color images show that the two sliding doors leading to the stairs leading up and down the car deck are closed and intact.

Margus Kurm , the former prosecutor leading the investigation team, considered the finding significant. He recently commented on the research ship to Postimees that closing the doors is inconsistent with the previous official version.

One sure achievement Kurm considered was the fact that the Swedish diving robot operator Linus Andersson managed to photograph almost the entire wreck. The images are intended to be a detailed three-dimensional imaging.

TS

Kurm was the Chief Prosecutor during the time of the accident. He was Head of the JAIC at one stage. He interviewed about 50 people, includin the crew members several times. He has been on the spot at the wreckage.

Don't have a go at me. This is the expert opinion of someone who has been deeply involved in the case from the start.


It is YOUR claim 'the JAIC are only talking about port side windows. The JAIC said nothing of the kind.

 

[Vixen]

The phrase "No ****, Sherlock" would seem appropriate at this point.


As you allude to in your post here, the official investigators had more than enough evidence and knowledge to know what caused this ship to sink (and, as importantly, what didn't cause this ship to sink). I suspect the primary - if not the only - reason for them to have attempted to gain entry into the ship through the (port) windows was to better assess the realistic possibility of recovering victims' bodies. It more-than-likely wouldn't have been anything to do with determining the cause of the disaster.

Vixen (and organisations such as this Fokus Group) seem to be of the (mis)understanding that it's incumbent on official investigators to keep on looking for causes of an accident long after it's become abundantly clear to them (the investigators) what the actual cause of the accident really was. At the risk of doing something which is probably close to Godwinning: Warren et al were right all along about the cause of the JFK assassination.....

Stop lying. Neither the JAIC report or the Rockwater report said it was port or starboard windows. The Rockwater Report, like the JAIC, very clearly refers to the aft windows on deck 4 and 5. They had to use a marlin spike and hammer to remove the tough panes, together with ocxyacetyline cutters to cut through dividers and panels.

Stop making unwarranted claims and presenting them as fact. It shows a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. If you one of those people who think that merely refuting a thing makes it so, may I suggest you add the term 'IMV' after it and not pretend it is official.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If the ship was on it's starboard side how could they get access to the windows on the starboard side?

The power was lost when the engine sand generators stopped due to flooding (ships have generators powered from the prop shafts when the main engines are running and separate diesel sets.

Water was getting down in to the hull before any windows broke. There are as we keep saying lots of access points like intakes and exhausts to the engineering spaces from above which water will enter.

 

[whoanellie]

Stop lying. Neither the JAIC report or the Rockwater report said it was port or starboard windows. The Rockwater Report, like the JAIC, very clearly refers to the aft windows on deck 4 and 5. They had to use a marlin spike and hammer to remove the tough panes, together with ocxyacetyline cutters to cut through dividers and panels.

Stop making unwarranted claims and presenting them as fact. It shows a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. If you one of those people who think that merely refuting a thing makes it so, may I suggest you add the term 'IMV' after it and not pretend it is official.

Guess who is the one who is actually lying.

Here's what the JAIC says in section 13.2.6 about the breaking of the windows. (Jack by the hedge already posted the same quotation).

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.

I think it would be clear to most people whether the waves broke the windows on the port or starboard side of the ship. If Vixen is not lying then she is not very good at reading comprehension. Which is it, Vixen?

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's do the chronology.

JAIC Report 1997



Next para specifically about the car deck doors and aft windows. If the JAIC were only talking about portside windows then they are lying by omission and should have said so.



Follow it, so far? The JAIC specifies the aft windows of deck 4 the first 'possible' point of flooding. (=therefore an assumption, see the word 'possible').

Fast forward to JAIC 13.2.6



Again it clearly states window panels and aft doors broke. It doesn't say 'port side only'.

It reasons:



A Swedish ex-navy man claims to the Swedish press in 1999 that he was a diver in early Dec and he witnessed a large hole in the starboard.

Kurm in 2007 points out the following re what witnesses saw happeningg on the car deck:

Kurm Glasgow

Update October re the Kurm Expedition:

TS

Kurm was the Chief Prosecutor during the time of the accident. He was Head of the JAIC at one stage. He interviewed about 50 people, includin the crew members several times. He has been on the spot at the wreckage.

Don't have a go at me. This is the expert opinion of someone who has been deeply involved in the case from the start.


It is YOUR claim 'the JAIC are only talking about port side windows. The JAIC said nothing of the kind.

I think you're in one almight mix-up here.

You're conflating two separate things: 1) the windows/doors which gave under significant water pressure during the capsize on the night of the sinking; and 2) the windows which the investigators broke open when they surveyed the wreck on the seabed.

In the case of (1), it was the aft starboard windows/doors which gave in as the ship listed to starboard. As the ship leaned further and further, the windows/doors on that side of the ship disappeared under water, and encountered exterior water pressures that they'd never been designed to withstand.

In the case of (2), it was the port windows that were broken open by the investigators as they surveyed the wreck. The investigators only had access to the port windows at that time - the wreck was lying on its starboard side at that time, making it functionally impossible for the surveyors to access any starboard windows.

Hope this helps..............

 

[LondonJohn]

Stop lying. Neither the JAIC report or the Rockwater report said it was port or starboard windows. The Rockwater Report, like the JAIC, very clearly refers to the aft windows on deck 4 and 5. They had to use a marlin spike and hammer to remove the tough panes, together with ocxyacetyline cutters to cut through dividers and panels.

Stop making unwarranted claims and presenting them as fact. It shows a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. If you one of those people who think that merely refuting a thing makes it so, may I suggest you add the term 'IMV' after it and not pretend it is official.

Why do you keep groundlessly accusing me of lying? You know what "lying" actually means, don't you? If we're in the business of telling people to stop doing things, I'll respond by telling you to stop groundlessly accusing me of lying. OK?

In this particular instance, your intemperate outburst is even more puzzling. It's an absolute given that when the JAIC investigators were talking about having broken in through windows, these windows cannot have been on the starboard side - because at that time the starboard side was lying on the seabed. Likewise, the windows/doors that gave in under water pressure as the ship capsized must have been on the starboard side - because it was the starboard side which entered the water as the ship rolled over onto that side (before, incidentally, sinking in the same 90-degree-rolled attitude and coming to rest on the seabed still in that 90-degre-rolled attitude).

 

[Vixen]

If the ship was on it's starboard side how could they get access to the windows on the starboard side?

The power was lost when the engine sand generators stopped due to flooding (ships have generators powered from the prop shafts when the main engines are running and separate diesel sets.

Water was getting down in to the hull before any windows broke. There are as we keep saying lots of access points like intakes and exhausts to the engineering spaces from above which water will enter.

AFT. The windows, doors and panels on the AFT. You know, the area that runs parallel to the stern.


The JAIC did not say it was to the left or to the right. Just 'aft'.

 

[Vixen]

Guess who is the one who is actually lying.

Here's what the JAIC says in section 13.2.6 about the breaking of the windows. (Jack by the hedge already posted the same quotation).


I think it would be clear to most people whether the waves broke the windows on the port or starboard side of the ship. If Vixen is not lying then she is not very good at reading comprehension. Which is it, Vixen?

By your own account the JAIC report reads: 'Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start.'

 

[Vixen]

I think you're in one almight mix-up here.

You're conflating two separate things: 1) the windows/doors which gave under significant water pressure during the capsize on the night of the sinking; and 2) the windows which the investigators broke open when they surveyed the wreck on the seabed.

In the case of (1), it was the aft starboard windows/doors which gave in as the ship listed to starboard. As the ship leaned further and further, the windows/doors on that side of the ship disappeared under water, and encountered exterior water pressures that they'd never been designed to withstand.

In the case of (2), it was the port windows that were broken open by the investigators as they surveyed the wreck. The investigators only had access to the port windows at that time - the wreck was lying on its starboard side at that time, making it functionally impossible for the surveyors to access any starboard windows.

Hope this helps..............

No. When the JAIC and Rockwater are referring to the aft they are talking about the stern area: you know, the part that sank first? Yet the divers arrived and found they had to break the windows and doors by means of marlin spikes, hammers and oxy-acetyline cutters.

Penny dropped now?

 

[Andy_Ross]

AFT. The windows, doors and panels on the AFT. You know, the area that runs parallel to the stern.


The JAIC did not say it was to the left or to the right. Just 'aft'.

No, they would be the Stern windows. Aft means everything from the middle of the ship to the stern.

Words have meanings.

 

[Andy_Ross]

By your own account the JAIC report reads: 'Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start.'

Yes, the After part of a ship is from the middle of the ship to the stern.
As the ship sank by the stern the aft windows will have been submerged first.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you keep groundlessly accusing me of lying? You know what "lying" actually means, don't you? If we're in the business of telling people to stop doing things, I'll respond by telling you to stop groundlessly accusing me of lying. OK?

In this particular instance, your intemperate outburst is even more puzzling. It's an absolute given that when the JAIC investigators were talking about having broken in through windows, these windows cannot have been on the starboard side - because at that time the starboard side was lying on the seabed. Likewise, the windows/doors that gave in under water pressure as the ship capsized must have been on the starboard side - because it was the starboard side which entered the water as the ship rolled over onto that side (before, incidentally, sinking in the same 90-degree-rolled attitude and coming to rest on the seabed still in that 90-degre-rolled attitude).

For the umpty-ninth time, neither they or the Rockwater guys mention the starboard. They clearly state it was the aft windows and doors, referring to the stern area, or they would have said 'starboard' or 'port'.

Just because it might seem intuitively obvious to you that if the boat tips to starboard then these are the windows that broke. However, we were discussing whether the JAIC were correct to assume that the pressure of water ingressing via the bow caused the windows and doors on the aft fourth and fifth decks to break.

Stop substituting the JAIC's words for your own.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As the ship was listing to starboard the windows on that side of the ship would have been submerged first. As the ship was sinking by the stern the windows towards the rear of the ship would have been battered and underwater first.
As the ship had lost power it would be the windows on the starboard side being battered, not those on the ster.

Aft is everything from the midships line to the stern.

Aft is not the same as Stern. They are specific terms with specific meanings at sea.

You are the one substituting the term Aft for Stern.

 

[Vixen]

No, they would be the Stern windows. Aft means everything from the middle of the ship to the stern.

Words have meanings.

The JAIC didn't say that did they? They didn't say starboard aft they said the aft every time, as did Rockwater, who were very specific.

These are the aft windows and doors of a cruise ferry.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC didn't say that did they? They didn't say starboard aft they said the aft every time, as did Rockwater, who were very specific.

These are the aft windows and doors of a cruise ferry.

that is the stern. That is not the Estonia

This is the stern of the Estonia

 

[Vixen]

As the ship was listing to starboard the windows on that side of the ship would have been submerged first. As the ship was sinking by the stern the windows towards the rear of the ship would have been battered and underwater first.
As the ship had lost power it would be the windows on the starboard side being battered, not those on the ster.

Aft is everything from the midships line to the stern.

Aft is not the same as Stern. They are specific terms with specific meanings at sea.

You are the one substituting the term Aft for Stern.

Yes it might be so to assume these would be the windows to break first but the JAIC / Rockwater does not say this. They do not commit themselves to 'starboard broke first' or 'starboard aft' they merely say 'aft' and let's face it the righthand stern area was under the greatest list.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC didn't say that did they? They didn't say starboard aft they said the aft every time, as did Rockwater, who were very specific.

These are the aft windows and doors of a cruise ferry.

Saying aft is not 'specific'

It means everything from midships to the stern. As the ship was on it's side with the starboard side submerged first and then on the sea bed with the port side up. We know they mean that the starboard windows went first and the port windows were the ones the divers entered.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes it might be so to assume these would be the windows to break first but the JAIC / Rockwater does not say this. They do not commit themselves to 'starboard broke first' or 'starboard aft' they merely say 'aft' and let's face it the righthand stern area was under the greatest list.

the ship listed heavily to starboard and sank by the stern.
Which windows do you think they mean?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...

Don't have a go at me. This is the expert opinion of someone who has been deeply involved in the case from the start.





It is YOUR claim 'the JAIC are only talking about port side windows. The JAIC said nothing of the kind.

This is *your interpretation* of a secondhand report of what an investigator said. And you have a poor track record of correctly grasping what people actually mean in this case. What exactly does his finding contradict about the JAIC report? *Your* claim is that it contradicts the JAIC's assumption that the car deck doors must have failed. Well *show us* the JAIC's claim that the car deck doors must have failed or get off your high horse.

If you are not capable of making the leap to infer that the windows the JAIC say were smashed by the sea and then allowed the sea to flood in were the ones which were dipping into the sea due to the list and facing the oncoming waves as the ship drifted, and not the ones on the sheltered side of the ship which were being lifted ever higher away from the water by the list, then why would we listen to any of your confused wot-I-reckon at all?

And it's the starboard side. The port side windows were the high up, sheltered and not-in-the sea ones. The starboard ones were the low down, pounded by waves, ever-more-underwater ones.

Just to fully father-Dougal the point, the water came in through the windows which were *in* the water, and not through the windows which were far away from the water.