• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

I've long suspected you...
Now that I have outed myself I admit that I was the driver of that tracked submarine. My job, under direct supervision of the Estonia's captain, was to remove all evidence of the radioactive substance that made the bow fall off. And then remove the captain. I was so successful that investigators now think that a wave caused it. I was handsomely rewarded by the Russians, English, Swedish, Estonians, USA, Finns, Lloyd's Underwriters, CIA...... I was taken into the witness protection program and given the new identity of "Steve".
 
So that's a no. You can't tell us what the significance was that you said was being ignored. You just have an irrelevant 'first thought'.


I don't think your 2,000 tons number was the capacity of the car deck. It might have been the amount of water that the report estimates flooded into the deck initially but that water did not remain on the car deck. It found its way down to lower decks.

The ship was 155m long and 24m wide. And the car deck was almost the full size of the deck, less the central corridors, and at least 4m high plus headroom for articulated trucks. So very conservatively perhaps 125m x 20m x 4m car deck volume. That's over 10,000 cubic metres, and seawater is over a tonne per cubic meter.

mere details
 
Do pay attention. What I quoted in the post your replied to was the Rockwater report from the dives.

Regarding the JAIC report identifying the bodies on the bridge, I posted that a couple of days ago (Friday):



The Estonia Collection contains about 16500 documents, is maintained by the Swedish National Archive, and is available online. You just need to register an account.

We used documents, diagrams and pictures from the archives extensively when all this came up for the first time.
They were ignored.
 
Now that I have outed myself I admit that I was the driver of that tracked submarine. My job, under direct supervision of the Estonia's captain, was to remove all evidence of the radioactive substance that made the bow fall off. And then remove the captain. I was so successful that investigators now think that a wave caused it. I was handsomely rewarded by the Russians, English, Swedish, Estonians, USA, Finns, Lloyd's Underwriters, CIA...... I was taken into the witness protection program and given the new identity of "Steve".


And on that bombshell.... Back to the studio!
 
Yep, that’s how water works.
You know better than eye witnesses who were there?

- he left his cabin at once and found a lot of water in the alleyway;
- when he passed the shower/WC area on his way into the stairway he saw water about 0.4 m high which was rushing along the longitudinal wall with speed;
Carl-Erik Reintamm - cabin 1094 - 26 years old

Holger Wachtmeister - cabin 1047 - 41 years old - Adjacent cabin to Reintaumm

"At first I heard screaming and then I saw water running in the alleyway. I heard no engine noises when we were pulling us up the stairs. The lights were normal until we reached the railing on deck 7, when it began to blink."
Antti Arak - cabin 1056 - 21 years old

After that bang the vessel suddenly heeled to starboard. All 4 of us woke up, grabbed our clothes and jumped into the alleyway, where we noted water."
Ain-Alar Juhanson - cabin 1056 - 18 years old

- went to bed ca. 23.30 hours (Swedish time) and changed beds shortly afterwards with Daniel Svensson;
- both heard strange noises "as if the sea was striking against the vessel's bow";
- they discussed the situation when Daniel's alarm clock rang at midnight;
- she dozed for some minutes - she believes ca. 5 - when there was a "hard bang" from the car deck;
- at the same time the vessel heeled over to starboard and Daniel Svensson rushed out of the cabin while she dressed and followed;
- when she jumped out of her cabin door she saw water in the alleyway which trickled from somewhere;
Jasmina Waidinger - cabin 1027

- they rushed upwards and when they passed the 2nd deck (car deck) cold water came from the vessel's side, he cannot say exactly where it came from and it was not in big quantities.

Nikolajs Andrejev - cabin 1016

None of the survivors from Decks four and five mentioned seeing water. But of course, "eye witness accounts are unreliable".
 
Driving over the A66 near Appleby few years ago, the bonnet of a car coming in the opposite direction flew up and pivoted back in to the drivers view smashing his windscreen.
He lost control but luckily it was a dual carriageway section and he just hit the central barrier.
Well, there you go then.
 
Exactly how were they disregarded?

There are mentions in the JAIC report about water on deck 1. For example 6.3.2 and 13.6 - the latter talks about how the water got down there.
Yes very generic. Treated as random anecdotes, which of course, it had to include some, excerpts collated by the psychologist. Doesn't give any weight to them. Doesn't even name Treu and Linde, who it does give great weight to.
 
Exactly how were they disregarded?

There are mentions in the JAIC report about water on deck 1. For example 6.3.2 and 13.6 - the latter talks about how the water got down there.


The only mention I can see is:

Another witness opened his cabin door. The corridor outside was empty, but there was a thin trickle of water on the floor. At this time the ship had only a very slight list. He ran out in his underwear. The ship remained starboard heeled. In the central corridor there was water on the floor.

No mention of names, quick comment on 'thin trickle' of water. Talk about playing it down!
 
There's no ignoring going on. It doesn't tell you how the water got into the ship. Only that the water pressure was higher wherever those pipes led to, so he was almost certainly below sea level at his location in the ship.

Can you explain to us what you think is the significance of Ovberg's observations that anyone is overlooking?
Common sense tells you to consider a breach in the hull. You don't need to confect 'windows got smashed by waves and that's how a further 4,000 tonnes got in' ["in theory"]'.
 
How is such a state of mind possible? Either you think it plausible in which case you agree, even if tentatively with him, or you do not think it plausible and you disagree with him.

Not having an opinion is impossible on any question that relates to objective reality that you have read. You are either a theist or an atheist, you are either a stamp collector or you're not. You can certainly refuse to give your opinion on something, but that isn't the same as not having one.
Just as one can report on what Trump is saying and what Davie of the Beeb is saying, it is possible to present what the issues are in influential people demanding the MS Estonia be reinvestigated. They aren't pundits or the guy down the pub, they are people in positions of authority, expertise and direct experience in the disaster.
 
So that's a no. You can't tell us what the significance was that you said was being ignored. You just have an irrelevant 'first thought'.


I don't think your 2,000 tons number was the capacity of the car deck. It might have been the amount of water that the report estimates flooded into the deck initially but that water did not remain on the car deck. It found its way down to lower decks.

The ship was 155m long and 24m wide. And the car deck was almost the full size of the deck, less the central corridors, and at least 4m high plus headroom for articulated trucks. So very conservatively perhaps 125m x 20m x 4m car deck volume. That's over 10,000 cubic metres, and seawater is over a tonne per cubic meter.
From 12.6.1 of the JAIC Report:

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 (Figure 12.12). The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.
0_bit.gif
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 (Figure 12.14). Soon thereafter the windows and the aft entrance doors of deck 5 would also be submerged. A little less than 2,000 t of water on the car deck would be sufficient to bring the first flooding points down to the mean water surface. In this condition the list would be about 35°. The lowest corner of the ramp opening would here be still a little above the mean water surface. As soon as water was free to enter the accommodation decks all residual stability would be impaired and the ship in practice lost. Without an intact superstructure above deck 4, the largest possible equilibrium heel angle before a complete capsize would be 40°. This condition would be exceeded with about 2,000 t of water on the car deck.
 
What do you think the uniform is for a winter storm when the ship is sinking?

We went through this in detail recently with illustrations of different clothing worn by merchant crews and storm clothing.
MS Estonia was not a merchant ship, it was a passenger ferry and staff were expected to be seen in uniform. Do have a look at the picture of Captain Mäkelä's of Europa (again), as worn on the night of the accident and donated to the maritime museum in Turku.
 

Back
Top Bottom