• 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.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it immediately capsized having passed the point of stability, how come it had to wait twenty minutes for its windows* and inner dividers (>700 individual cabins) to break and allow ingress of water in order to weight it down enough, whilst floating on its side?

*Windows on these cruisers are made to withstand wind speeds of 41 m/s. The wind speed on that night was 15 to 20 m/s (29 to 39 kn; 34 to 45 mph) and once the ship was at 90° it was no longer in the direct path of the wind.

It didn't wait for windows or 'inner dividers' to break.

Windows on cruise ships are not made to withstand waves of the size the ship was subject to hitting them. They are supposed to always be well above the waterline in the superstructure. Wind is not the same as wave.
 
The probability of sinking fast is only high when certain parameters are met.

Imagine you are in a rowing boat. A sudden wave capsizes it. Do you really believe it floats on its side for twenty minutes or even for one minute before sinking to the bottom like a stone?

Of course you don't believe it.

How is a rowing boat the same as a ferry?
 
A 55-tonne visor crashing on the hull would not reverberate around a 55,000 tonne vessel and be likened to a series of bangs.

How do you know this?

I've been just across the bulkhead from the chain locker when the anchor lets go. It's literally deafening and it sounds just like a series of explosions. I have no problem believing that a visor banging up and down would sound very loud to passengers.
 
You mean like waves defying gravity?

The ship was listing to starboard, the windows were impacted by the waves, why would you think they were 'defying gravity'?

Window on cruise ship being smashed by wave.

 
So now there is a €15m Finnish 8-part series being made about the Estonia disaster. I understand one of the directors is the same guy who did Bordertown (Netflix). This was set near the border of Finland and Russia (Lappeenranta IIRC) and thus had a lot of Russian-culture input in the form of cops and criminals. In the Scandinavian style of Wallander and Larsson, he is 'crime noir'. In other words, lots of 'social issues' content and 'cop as human' with 'relatable' family, health, work and personal problems.

I'm guessing there'll be the usual 'love interest' and much Danish-style political shenanigans (well, that would be true to life).

HS

That's not to say it'll be the usual predictable stuff.


Is this an attempt at the 20 points for item 23?
 
Last edited:
So now there is a €15m Finnish 8-part series being made about the Estonia disaster. I understand one of the directors is the same guy who did Bordertown (Netflix). This was set near the border of Finland and Russia (Lappeenranta IIRC) and thus had a lot of Russian-culture input in the form of cops and criminals. In the Scandinavian style of Wallander and Larsson, he is 'crime noir'. In other words, lots of 'social issues' content and 'cop as human' with 'relatable' family, health, work and personal problems.

I'm guessing there'll be the usual 'love interest' and much Danish-style political shenanigans (well, that would be true to life).

HS

That's not to say it'll be the usual predictable stuff.

Sure. If it appears in a TV series, it must be true. This is how we can be certain vampires are real.
 
So now there is a €15m Finnish 8-part series being made about the Estonia disaster. I understand one of the directors is the same guy who did Bordertown (Netflix). This was set near the border of Finland and Russia (Lappeenranta IIRC) and thus had a lot of Russian-culture input in the form of cops and criminals. In the Scandinavian style of Wallander and Larsson, he is 'crime noir'. In other words, lots of 'social issues' content and 'cop as human' with 'relatable' family, health, work and personal problems.

I'm guessing there'll be the usual 'love interest' and much Danish-style political shenanigans (well, that would be true to life).

HS

That's not to say it'll be the usual predictable stuff.

That's the great thing about disasters. There is always money to be made.
 
No, because, as others have stated, composition b is not used as a demolition charge. And even in the types of explosives used, they wouldn’t be placed or configured as the picture showed to do steel cutting. That packaging is more akin to the standard blocks they come in when shipped in bulk.

What is seen us more like a satchel charge, primarily used for cratering and general destruction, rather than anything purpose built for breaking steel.

And there’s be no reason to use such for something like this, unless one was utterly incompetent or very short on resources (IOW, not a government actor).

ETA: I’ll also state, for the record, that the assertion that a half pound of Compound B would destroy the ramp is WILDLY inaccurate. That assertion bears more relation to movie physics than real physics. An unrestricted blast like that would have deformed the steel underneath it, possibly breaching the immediate area, at best. The placement is not optimal, the charge configuration is not optimal, and a half pound is a woefully small amount of explosive.

ETA2: the formula for a steel cutting charge is P=3/8A, where P is pounds in TNT equivalent and A is cross-sectional area. 1/2 pound of C B is about .7 pounds of TNT. That gives a charge of that type the capability of cutting about 1.867 square inches. So assuming quarter inch steel, that’s be a cut about 7 inches long. A far cry from destroying the ramp. Or in other terms, it’s be about enough to cut through a .84 inch diameter steel cable.

And my info is from FM 5-34, the “Engineers Bible” of the U.S. Army. If you find a copy, check page 9-9, tables 9-4 and 9-5.

Frankly, your “expert” is wrong.

Hellbound, thank you so much for looking into this. That is a useful formula, and I have made due note of it!


Well, nobody was claiming the car ramp door was 'destroyed', just that a detonation had been applied to one of the side locks. As you know, the other appears not to have activated and thus, can be seen in the Rockwater video, albeit mysteriously disappeared later, presumably by the persons in charge of editing and storing the tapes.

Your comment is fantastic, in that it says: "the formula for a steel cutting charge is P=3/8A, where P is pounds in TNT equivalent and A is cross-sectional area. 1/2 pound of C B is about .7 pounds of TNT. That gives a charge of that type the capability of cutting about 1.867 square inches. So assuming quarter inch steel, that’s be a cut about 7 inches long. A far cry from destroying the ramp."


This backs up the opinion of Michael Fellows, MBE*. DSC. BEM (45 continuous years of 'hands on' military and commercial bomb and mine disposal, *MBE for his work on The Herald of Free Enterprise, [thus, not someone who would recklessly risk his reputation for a 'foreign' accident]). He statess in his report into the evidence of possible explosives applied to the Estonia:

The ROV pilot, Supervisor and diver however were possibly not looking for, or experienced at collecting forensic evidence connected with explosive devices and thankfully, inadvertently, managed to collect sufficient evidence to initiate the Braidwood reports.

The Suspect Package believed to be an Explosive Device.

Located on camera in the area between the loading ramp and the visor. The package was seen between hawsers near to the port hydraulic side-lock
recess and bow ramp.

The physical characteristics and my experience of IEDs
(Improvised Explosive Devices) give every indication of the package being an explosive device with a magnetic source secured to its base. This as the report suggests is for attaching the device to the ship hull.
Braidwood's conclusions on this item of evidence are on Page 22 of The Investigation Report.

On a balance of probabilities I have concluded that:
I agree that the suspect package could have been an explosive device containing between one and three kilograms of explosive.

This could have been Plastic or any one of the powerful liquid/powder explosive mixtures readily available (Fixor). The latter are much more powerful than TNT or C4 Plastic explosive. Can be transported easily and are not classified as explosive until mixed.

I agree, there is relatively easy access and availability of materials to make an explosive device and with the possible construction and estimated size of the package. The placing and the arming scenario suggested is however conjecture and one of a multitude of possible scenarios.
Fellows Report

Brian Braidwood also a hands on expert in military explosives, especially pertaining to the Royal Navy, sent samples from the Estonia, collected by divers on the Greg Bemiss expedition to three different independent laboratories for metallurgy examination. He explains his reasoning thus:

When an explosive charge detonates close to and penetrates a metal surfa ce, the metal is forced away from the seat of the explosion. Typically the metal splits in the form of petals with very sharp edges. Nearby metal will often be severely deformed into shapes that could not possibly be caused by mechanical or physical force. The heat will produce burn or scorch marks. In air these can be widespread, in water localised.
Now to the evidence and conclusions in the /Braidwood/ reports.
Braidwood's conc Investigation Rep
Strictly, it is this detonation power that determines the violence of the damage of an explosive on adjacent and surrounding matter. Plastic explo sive has a velocity of detonation of 8 000 m/s whereas TNT has a lower rate of 6 900 m/s. Plastic explosive, almost certainly the composition of the charges used on the Estonia, is therefore by charge/ weight ratio a much more violent explosive substance.
The stored energy of a high explosive is delivered up very quickly during detonation. A high explosion is converted into gas by the passage of a supersonic shock wave that induces reaction in the next slice of material. The speed of this shock wave is referred to as the velocity of detonation. (detonation power). Velocity of detonation is measured in m/s or ft/s and the practical values are in the range 2 000 - 9 000 m/s (about 6 500-30 000 ft/s).

<snip>

When an explosion occurs next to metal it affects the metal in several ways. It is possible to detect these effects by testing samples of metal taken from the area and so provide evidence that there was an explosion. This evidence can be divided into four types. These are chemical traces, surface marking, crystalline deformation, and hardening. The extent of each effect depends on how much contamination may have occurred since the explo sion, how long after the explosion the samples were taken, and how close the sample was to the centre of the explosion.
Braidwood Report

His sketch of the petal-shaped deformation the rip in the metal that he observed as an experienced explosives expert is attached. As you can see, the extreme deformation, left, is right by the forward bulkhead actuator/cylinder on the starboard side. On the right is the lug.


So, perhaps 'a cut of maybe seven inches square' was the aim.
 

Attachments

  • Deformation in Forward Starboard Bulkhead.jpg
    Deformation in Forward Starboard Bulkhead.jpg
    51 KB · Views: 6
Hellbound, thank you so much for looking into this. That is a useful formula, and I have made due note of it!


Well, nobody was claiming the car ramp door was 'destroyed', just that a detonation had been applied to one of the side locks. As you know, the other appears not to have activated and thus, can be seen in the Rockwater video, albeit mysteriously disappeared later, presumably by the persons in charge of editing and storing the tapes.

Your comment is fantastic, in that it says: "the formula for a steel cutting charge is P=3/8A, where P is pounds in TNT equivalent and A is cross-sectional area. 1/2 pound of C B is about .7 pounds of TNT. That gives a charge of that type the capability of cutting about 1.867 square inches. So assuming quarter inch steel, that’s be a cut about 7 inches long. A far cry from destroying the ramp."


This backs up the opinion of Michael Fellows, MBE*. DSC. BEM (45 continuous years of 'hands on' military and commercial bomb and mine disposal, *MBE for his work on The Herald of Free Enterprise, [thus, not someone who would recklessly risk his reputation for a 'foreign' accident]). He statess in his report into the evidence of possible explosives applied to the Estonia:

Fellows Report

Brian Braidwood also a hands on expert in military explosives, especially pertaining to the Royal Navy, sent samples from the Estonia, collected by divers on the Greg Bemiss expedition to three different independent laboratories for metallurgy examination. He explains his reasoning thus:

Braidwood Report

His sketch of the petal-shaped deformation the rip in the metal that he observed as an experienced explosives expert is attached. As you can see, the extreme deformation, left, is right by the forward bulkhead actuator/cylinder on the starboard side. On the right is the lug.


So, perhaps 'a cut of maybe seven inches square' was the aim.

Complete and utter bollocks.
 
We could at least have had a formal "Previously on 'Estonia'" kind of intro.


Here you go:
Jukkelus, thanks for your contribution and welcome.

Actually there were an enormous number of problems in communication on the night of the disaster. Channel 16 wasn't working and it was only by sheer fluke that the weak message from Tammes came through at 01:21:55. From the transcript you can hear he didn't follow standard procedure (saying Mayday three times , giving name of ship and location) which indicates he had likely been trying to communicate for some time. When he was heard, by the Captain of Viking Mariella, who responded, he did not hear the response as he again repeated. This time, Silja Europa heard and Tammes also responded to Silja Europa. Europa and Mariella both had to use 2152 as the international distress Channel 16 was not working or poor (Finnish Rear Admiral Heimo Iivonen told the JAIC that the Finnish coastguards had been experiencing what they assessed to be a blocking transmitter from a nearby Russian base on a former Finnish island). The Captain of Mariella had to use his own NMT mobile to ring the MRCC Turku landline. The guys at Turku needed a location, which Tammes could not provide to Mariella/Europa as he said they had 'blackout'. However, Ainsalu called back two minutes later, with the IVth Officer calling out the coordinates (which must have been showing on the navigational systems). MRCC Turku ordered Helsinki Radio to convey the Mayday to MRCC Stockholm, which it could not do until it received the location and had trouble getting through. It did nto get through until 01:48, which is when Estonia was gone completely. So, it is incorrect to say there were no communication problems.

The JAIC confirms the EPIRBs were:

JAIC REPORT

From their brochure, Kannad confirms the 'F' suffix denotes 'free-floating' and it is confirmed by Rockwater and JAIC appointed navigational communications system expert, Asser Koivisto, that it was installed in a case with a hyrdostatic release unit.



And this HRU was retrieved by the Rockwater divers when they went to the bridge and you can see them putting it in the net. The HRU is triggered when it is submerged in water between one to four metres deep.

MRCC Commander Montonen was so surprised there was no signal emitted he ordered the COSPAS-SARSAT base in Norway to search through their records for the missing signal.

So you see, it cannot have been a manually activated model or it would be obvious why it didn't emit (no-one activated it). If you have a citation showing otherwise, please present it.

As for the claim it was as a result of the Estonia accident that automatically activated EPIRBs became mandatory, that is incorrect as SOLAS had advised a mandatory use of them by 1 Aug 1993.



As for seismology, the coast guard may well have come to investigate your pyrotechnic display. However, it would not show on a seismograph, which is designed to detect tremors and movements in the earth. Kursk was picked up at many seismology centres throughout Europe - who immediately rushed to offer help - because the extremely powerful explosion, equivalent to 2- 3 tonnes of TNT. A seismograph is not designed to pick up explosions above the earth or sea level, otherwise it would be peaking wildly all day day long, with the noise of ship-building yards and unloading of cargo. In any case, the amount of explosives estimated to have been contained in the package noted by Royal Navy military explosives experts Braidwood and Fellow was only about 1kg of 'composite B', enough to dislodge a lock, rather than blow a ship out of the water.

Kursk disaster Wiki


As you would know, living in Helsinki, dynamite is a very common factor in building work and excavating wells, due to the ice-age-formed granite that is so characteristic of the Finnish landscape. When a neighbour built nearby our summer cottage, they had to come and ask permission and warn us that the builders would be applying dynamite (luckily it didn't dislodge anything of ours). You can even buy the stuff at hardware stores. So you see, it would not be practical for a seismograph to pick up minor explosions such as Vappu or New Years Day fireworks, but concentrate on the earth's surface.

Earthquake Authority com

Thus, it becomes readily apparent that semtex-style explosives applied to a car ramp or bow visor some 2 to 15 metres above sea level is unlikely to register on a seismograph as other than normal background noise.

The Estonia survivors, certainly - including Sillaste, Treu and Linde - did report hearing a bang or a series of bangs before the violent list to starboard.

It is not a slogan, it is how ships are designed. Even the ancient Polynesians knew instinctively and by hard experience that for a boat to float it needed to have a hull of such a shape that the (imaginary) righting arm would correct any excess listing to the left or right, as a natural product of the centre of gravity and buoyancy and its concommitant metacentric height. They may not have had the mathematical or literary tools to formulate these principles but they understood that the main aim was to stay afloat. If you design a ship to float on its side, you are ipso facto getting rid of the crucial righting mechanism. Plain sight should tell you that a vessel the size of the Estonia will not float on its side (whilst it waits for seawater to permeate the windows presumed by the JAIC to be gradually smashed by waves, as it admits water on the car deck alone would not have sunk it or capsized it). Yet for the JAIC theory to work, it has the Estonia floating on its superstructure (its side) for over twenty minutes, whilst the pesky waves did their job.

No seaworthy vessel will float on its side as that is not what it is designed to do. Wrong dynamics all together.

Try it out on a toy boat and test the principles for yourself.

Channel 16 was not blocked. The Mayday calls were received by 14 ship- and shore-based radio stations.
The signal was weak because it was sent from a battery powered, hand held transmitter, the ship had lost power for the main radio systems.
The beacons were found to be in working order, they had full batteries and when they were activated they broadcast their distress signal for over 4 hours.

They didn't activate because the crew did not activate them. They were manual activation units.

Are we going to go through all that again?

Where is your evidence that dynamite can be bought in hardware stores?

Where is your evidence that explosions aboard the ship would not be detected?

Estonia did not 'float on it's side' it sank.


I think that covers most of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom