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

[Reformed Offlian]

I did tell you about Einseln but mysteriously the post was removed.

Only once? Compared to all your prattling about Bildt? Why not use this opportunity to tell me about Einseln now?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I did tell you about Einseln but mysteriously the post was removed.

The posts about Einseln and Simm are still there. They aren't Swedish generals and could not have influenced much how Swedish authorities would have approached the investigation. Why would Ingvar Carlsson care about covering for Einseln?

 

[JesseCuster]

There is a direct relationship between how high the wind is (m/s, mph) and the force of a wave. In addition, it also drives direction, thus a southwesterly wind drives a wave in a southwesterly direction.

The reason the wave smashed through the Hamburg ferry window with such force was because - hello?!!! - Storm Eunice* was currently in progress throughout northern Europe!!!!


The wave didn't come from nowhere!!!

The wave smashed the windows, not the wind.

What's your point in all this Vixen? Do you have some actual coherent argument that because the windows on the Estonia were designed to withstand a windspeed of 41 metres/second that therefore the waves that hit it that night couldn't have broken the windows?

If so, can you actually provide a cogent argument to that effect instead of just waffling on about how the waves were caused by wind?

 

[Mojo]

I have been in the North Sea in ferocious weather and have also been adrift in the Baltic, once in a rowing boat…

Was your accountancy firm attacked by the Crimson Permanent Assurance?

 

[JesseCuster]

I did tell you about Einseln but mysteriously the post was removed.

Which post? Was it this post where you mentioned Einseln and which wasn't mysteriously removed?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13735833&highlight=einseln#post13735833

See Alexander Einseln. A US citizen installed in Estonia:

Aleksander Einseln (25 October 1931 – 16 March 2017) was an Estonian general, the Commander of the Estonian Defence Forces from 1993 to 1995 and previously a United States Army colonel.

 

[Myriad]

Last Super Bowl Sunday, my wife and I had planned to visit relatives a few miles away. But our car wasn't running well. The day before, it had overheated. Also, there was a moderate snowstorm going on that day. I'm quite experienced with driving in snow, so the snowfall alone wouldn't have deterred me from a short car trip. I'm also not overly afraid of breaking down. I can do minor repairs and there's good roadside service available in the area. But the combination of the two factors kept us home. A relatively minor breakdown, plus heavier than expected snow that delayed roadside service for hours, would make the choice to travel regrettable. If we had decided to risk it, you can be sure that I'd have driven like a nervous granny and kept an eye on every dashboard instrument every mile of the way, rather than insist on going full speed.

The point is, when the adverse factors stack up against you, that's when you change your plans, or at least proceed with an over-abundance of caution. Especially when you're responsible for the well-being of others (such as passengers or guided clients). If you hike, cave, fly, dive, climb, or sail, you already know this. Every inherently risky activity has its own library of cautionary stories where the motif of cumulative adverse factors leading to disaster appears over and over.

How is that relevant to Estonia? The dialog in my mind goes something like this:

"Here's a ferry. Its design is considered by international experts to only be safe in coastal waters."

"Actually, we're going to sail it across the Baltic Sea."

"Okay, but only when the weather conditions are calm, right?"

"Actually, we're going to make the crossing in stormy weather."

"Okay, but you'll at least make sure the ship is in the best possible condition and in the ideal configuration to react to unforeseen problems during the crossing, right?"

"Actually, we're going to set off with leaky seals and an unbalanced trim condition that makes further trim adjustments impossible."

"Hmm, you might get away with that if you're lucky, but you'll at least slow down or change your route to minimize the risk from wave impacts, right?"

"Actually, we have a schedule to keep so we're going to steam in a direct line at full speed."

"That's really asking for trouble. I think I'll stay on shore and wait for another ferry. But just for my peace of mind, at least tell me your officers and crew are going to be extra vigilant for any sign of equipment failure or danger to the passengers."

"Actually, we're all going to slack off and disregard every warning sign until it's too late."

At this point it's clear that if the ship had made the crossing without foundering, it would only have been due to near-miraculous luck. The operation of the vessel amounts to what in U.S. law would be described with phrases like "reckless endangerment" and "depraved indifference." Unfortunately the passengers had no idea of all the accumulated adverse factors, apart from the stormy weather itself. If they knew, none of them would have boarded. But the captain and senior officers knew all of them, or should have known if they were competent. They're fortunate to now be little bits of the marine life of the Baltic Sea floor. It's better than they deserved.

 

[phiwum]

Delete

 

[GlennB]

There is a direct relationship between how high the wind is (m/s, mph) and the force of a wave. In addition, it also drives direction, thus a southwesterly wind drives a wave in a southwesterly direction.

Eh? I thought a southwesterly wind was one blowing from the south west?

"The North wind doth blow, And we shall have snow ..."

 

[Steve]

Eh? I thought a southwesterly wind was one blowing from the south west?

"The North wind doth blow, And we shall have snow ..."

You are, of course, correct. And we can add meteorology to the long, long list of things Vixen is ignorant of.

 

[Axxman300]

Take a minute to reflect why storms at sea (or even inland) are measured in terms of

1. wind speed
2. direction

Whut?

You left out barometric pressure, temperature across the air column and water column, timing of the tide, and some other stuff. Then there is the fetch, which is a huge factor in wind and wave and wave-power(force) generation.

Let's take a moment to ponder why you even went there without looking things up.

Thus if you know windspeed over 25 m/s causes waves to smash a window of a ship, then you, as a designer, ensure your windows are reinforced to withstand wind speeds of 41 m/s , or within 99.9 percent probability range it will never get that high.

Where do you get 99.9% from?

The only way to achieve that level or probability is if the ship never leaves port.

I'm sure there are standards for window/porthole specs. I'm not looking them up.

Of course water is heavier than air but air acting on water meets a resistance that is proportionate to the power of the wind driving it, thus a windspeed of 40 m/s does not cause a similar speed of 40 m/s in a wave. Sometimes only one parameter is needed (wind speed) for you to know the type of force this will create in a wave.

Nothing here is true. Ask a surfer.

The waves which hit the Pipeline in Hawaii, or Mavericks, up the road from me, are all generated in the South Pacific. Those waves are not 40 to 60 feet tall where they're generated. The wind has to combine with the fetch (the amount open space) and then the sea floor, or a sudden mixing of primary ocean currents to make big, and or powerful waves.

The Estonia was headed into the wind and into the waves. This is why the bow visor was knocked off. The windows made no difference.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong. The investigation was initiated by the Swedish Government (Regering), not the Parliament (Riksdag).

Wrong. As can be read in his report, the scope was the month of september 1993.

Wrong. He submitted his report to the Government. As such it's public, and available at Riksarkivets site, as well as Riksdagens site.



Wrong. KSI is part of the Swedish Armed Forces (Försvarsmakten), and that was within his power, and was covered in his investigation. In the report KSI is even mentioned, including the name of the person that was interviewed.

Wrong again. There was an agreement set up between the two government agencies (The Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish Customs) that described how the transport was to happen, what notifications was necessary, and how the customs could inspect the goods transported.

And wrong. Held accountable for exactly what? What was illegal about it?

Your whole post is just conspiracy ********. Try to read the source material instead of trusting conspiracy authors descriptions of it.

Yes, intelligence services in many countries are part of the defence forces if it pertains to military intelligence. No dispute there. As you know, in Sweden and Finland the home intelligence services come under the Police (Säpo and SuPo).

Hirschfeldt might have 'interviewed' some guy from the KSI but that was not included in his investigation.

As was pointed out in this link here:

"Hirschfeldt in an interview 2021 says he now regrets having destroyed all of his materials in this case. He provided interesting information about his "investigation" into the transport of military equipment in Estonia. Göran Persson suddenly limited the investigation directives and omitted KSI, which was probably the body responsible for the transports. IOW KSI was exempt from the investigation and of course being secret services would have classified everything, anyway."

If the investigation was as transparent as you claim, why the need to destroy all of Hirschfeldt's documents, as opposed to storing them, albeit confidentially?

BTW nobody said it was 'illegal' as the KSI has a licence to do what it will in the course of achieving its operations. However, the point is, despite being democratically tasked with investigating the two discrete incidents of smuggling Russian materiel, Hirschfeldt actually had his hands tied as the KIS remained outwith his investigation, for whatever reason, good or bad, legal or illegal, right or wrong. But one can hardly call it democratically carried out.

 

[Vixen]

Royally missing the point. It's presumed that some windows will never meet the full force of a wave, i.e. they will only encounter spray.

eta: My garden greenhouse is a good example. It survived the driving rain of storm Eunice but would probably smash or at least get a pane of glass dislodged if I threw a bucketworth of water at it hard enough.

You are totally not getting it. If the weather forecast in your area tomorrow is >80 mph winds and in the direct path of your green house, you would be well-advised to board it up. Whether the greenhouse glass can break by other means is neither here nor there.

 

[Vixen]

So tell us, oh wise one, what do you calculate is the amount of wave force that windows designed to withstand 41m/s will be able to withstand under the conditions of that the Estonia was sailing in that night?

Thrill us with your acumen.

It is all set out in the naval standards MIL-S-901 & MIL-STD-167 and ISO 21005.


You are naïve if you think cruise ships use ordinary glass or glass that has not been certified as being of a safety standard (usually this means kite marked).

 

[Vixen]

Now you wish to pretend to know there is a simple, direct relationship between wind speed and wave energy and that the windows were actually designed to withstand both 41m/s winds and the waves that would create.

No. That is a complete invention you just pulled from your backside.

If the bus only had 10 litres of diesel instead of 200 litres, would my windows withstand it?

A bus is powered by a person igniting an engine and applying an acccelaration towards your window. In other words it is moving of a velocity controlled by the person driving it. A wave or a sheet of rain - as in a storm - is driven by (a) gravity and (b) the wind, unless you think it can move of its own volition.

 

[Vixen]

But it wasn't the wind that broke the windows, it was the waves.

A cubic meter of water weighs a ton. Think of the volume hitting the windows and the velocity of the water.

How does that compare to the wind?

But how does the wave get to be six metres high in the first place unless there are gale force winds?

 

[Vixen]

But the wind didn't break the ferry window. We know this because the wind was already blowing against the windows and they weren't breaking.

The wind was the force behind the waves. Here, any time there is a storm, there is invariably a power cut - thankfully, usually short - due to falling power cables (gradually being replaced by underground ones). After almost every storm, going to our villa out in the deep countryside, I know I will be greeted with the sight of a fallen tree or two.

The wind is incredibly powerful. How can an inanimate object such as an extremely heavy tree fall of its own accord, ceteris parabus, assuming it is not old or diseased?

That ferry in Hamburg had panes of glass that could not withstand winds of a rare wind speed of up to 122mph (as recorded in England recently in Storm Eunice). The wave that smashed it was driven by a powerful wind, that had not been anticipated by the builders who installed the glass.

 

[Vixen]

And I have spent weeks weathering Atlantic storms with the bows of the ship pitching in to waves that came right over the deck and in to the bridge.

Just like this



This is a ship designed to weather a head sea and the force of the waves. But, to do it they slow right down to reduce the force of the impact. Driving at speed into waves increases the pitching which increases the force on the hull.

Here is film of a Destroyer forcing it's way in to the waves to get ahead of the Carrier it is escorting. This isn't even a storm but see how the pitching is increased by forcing in to the waves with too much speed?

Now, imagine the effect in a storm and on a Ferry with short, bluff bows not designed for such things.

It is measurable. In respect of Estonia, the height of the waves was nothing exceptional on the night of the disaster:

The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) has investigated the weather conditions met by WASA KING in the Gulf of Bothnia and by ESTONIA in comparison to the wind and wave conditions met by ESTONIA on her last voyage. The result is quoted as follows:

»SMHI have earlier studied and found that m/s ESTONIA the last 1-2 hours during the accident night 27-28 Sept 1994 was exposed of:

* winds: direction S-SW, mean speed of 14-20 m/s
* significant wave height 3.5-4.5 m, with some possible maximum waves of 6.5-7.0 m.

For m/s ESTONIA earlier voyages we have found the similar conditions as follows:

1. Tallinn-Stockholm/Stockholm-Tallinn 02.02.93 - 27.09.94

* Westbound voyages 3 occasions;

- 4/5 Feb. 1993
- 22/22 Jan. 1994
- 5/6 March 1994

* Eastbound voyages 3 occasions (means that winds must be from E-SE-S)

- 15/16 Sept. 1993
- 2/3 Dec. 1993
-19/20 Aug. 1994

2. Vaasa-Umeå/Sundsvall 01.01.91 - 31.01.93

Only one occasion with the similar conditions

- 19/20 Dec. 1992 «

Consequently ESTONIA had encountered similar or worse wind and wave conditions at least 6 times before the casualty in her last trading area, whereby the last time had been only about 5 weeks before the casualty, i.e. at a time when the visor and bow ramp had been in a very bad condition for several months already, as will be explained later on.

The complete SMHI opinion is attached as Enclosure 12.2.139.

EFD

 

[Vixen]

The windows in question were never expected to be hit by anything worse than spray, being four decks up and toward the stern. They weren't expected to resist waves pounding against them.

Vixen clings to her windspeed factoid like a lifebelt and seeks a way to make it seem relevant to the situation where the drifting, listing ship put those windows broadside on to the waves. Sadly it's not relevant at all.

I mean, if I had the skills to convert a 41m/s windspeed rating into a static load against those large panes, I could have a go at estimating how deep an immersion they might resist, but I wouldn't even know where to begin with the dynamic loads of pounding waves. The remark upthread about a greenhouse which withstands wind and driving rain but likely wouldn't survive having a bucketful of water thrown at it is a nice comparison.

No, that is nonsense. Passenger and naval ships have to comply with standards (ISO, IMO, SOLAS). The elements in its structure have to undergo rigorous strength, tensile and vibration testing. Things of course have developed enormously in the twenty-seven years since the disaster in glass window design, acrylic glass, thermal or chemical heating, there are all kinds of permutations and of course the windows in such a vessel would be expected to withstand intense pressures (air pressure, extremes of climate, shock waves, storms, fractures caused by flying debris, etc) as in an aeroplane.

 

[JesseCuster]

You are totally not getting it. If the weather forecast in your area tomorrow is >80 mph winds and in the direct path of your green house, you would be well-advised to board it up. Whether the greenhouse glass can break by other means is neither here nor there.

And what has that got to do with the fact that the windows on the Estonia were broken by waves and not by wind?

 

[Vixen]

It 's nothing to do with the wind speed. You are just gibbering.

Stop embarrasing yourself.

It is everything to do with the foreseeable forces of nature.