The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Andy_Ross]

There was a fire in a bunker, but it was never out of control, and did not contribute to the ship sinking. It was one of the side questions the inquiries looked into back in 1912. If you want to know the whole story about the claim, and the facts you can check this out:

Drachinifel has dealt with coal bunker fires several times in various videos on individual ships and mire specialised design and propulsion videos as well as his weekly Q&As.

 

[Vixen]

For the record, Mike Brady of Ocean Liner Designs also does a nice take down of the MS Estonia disaster, and ro-ro ferries in general in this episode starting at the 12:02 mark. The first part deals with the design flaws of the HMS Invincible for the hardcore maritime engineering disaster buffs.

The information given by the Youtuber is not accurate. It was NOT a 'Beaufort Scale Ten' storm. It was scale 8.

Gale, fresh gale

34–40 knots 39–46 mph 62–74 km/h 17.2–20.7 m/s

18–25 ft 5.5–7.5 m

Moderately high waves of greater length; edges of crests break into spindrift; foam is blown in well-marked streaks along the direction of the wind

Twigs break off trees; generally impedes progress

Beaufort scale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And by the JAIC's own account:

The ship left harbour with all four main engines running. When she was clear of the harbour area full service speed was set. The engine setting was maintained up to the accident. The wind was southerly, 8-10 m/s. Visibility was good, with rain showers.

At 2000 hrs the watch on the bridge was taken by the second officer B and the third officer (The estonia had two second officers, here designated second officer A and second officer B).

The voyage proceeded normally. Sea conditions along the Estonian coast were moderate, but became more rough when the ship left the sheltered waters. The ship had a slight starboard list due to a combination of athwartships weight disposition, cargo disposition and wind pressure on the port side.

As the voyage continued the wind velocity increased gradually and the wind veered to south-west. Visibility was generally more than 10 nautical miles. At midnight the wind was south-westerly 15-20 m/s with a significant wave height of 3-4 m. The rolling and pitching of the vessel increased gradually, and some passengers became seasick.

At about 0025 hrs the ESTONIA reached a waypoint at position 59°20´ N, 22°00´ E and from there headed true course 287°. The speed was about 14 knots and the vessel encountered the seas on her port bow. Due to increasing rolling, the fin stabilisers were extended. JAIC CHAPTER 1

As you know Catain Mäkelä of Silja Europa said it was normally bad at the end of September.

• Captain Mäkelä's role: As On-Scene Commander, Captain Mäkelä was in charge of coordinating the rescue operation and described the weather at the time as "normally bad" for an autumn storm in the Baltic Sea.

Let's keep to the objective, recorded and measurable facts.

 

[Vixen]

Let's recap what Margus Kurm said five years ago:

Please describe the hole in the wreck.
It is a tear that measures four meters tall and 1.2 meters across. If you can imagine punching a hole through paper, there will be a kind of hole in the middle and tears running in four directions. The center of the hole is beneath the waterline, while it also reaches above the waterline, as high as the car deck.

What does the tear tell you?
It tells me that MS Estonia collided with something that was big enough to break through its hull.
What was it?
Considering that the hole’s center is beneath the waterline and that none of the survivors reported seeing an above water vessel, it is very likely that MS Estonia collided with a submarine. However, when it comes to this theory, people tend to imagine a submarine ramming the ferry at a 90-degree angle. That might not have been the case. It is far more likely that the vessels were moving in the same direction and bumped into each other. It is also possible that it was MS Estonia that brushed the submarine and not the other way around. The question that really matters is what was a submarine doing on MS Estonia’s route in the first place?

What was it doing there?
Here we have two versions. The first is that there were Swedish military drills taking place in the region. It was possible to observe helicopters in the middle of a naval operation from the decks of civilian ships that night. That is one version. The other is that the submarine was guarding MS Estonia because it had some kind of sensitive cargo. Personally, I tend to hold the latter version more likely. I cannot believe that a coverup of this magnitude would have been ordered had it simply been a navigational error.
Are we talking about a Swedish submarine?
Yes, quite probably.
What could have been the cargo MS Estonia was carrying that required a submarine escort?
Because there is no evidence to be taken seriously as concerns potential cargo, I would avoid the subject matter. But new information that effectively proves there was a coverup makes it likely that there was a sensitive shipment on board MS Estonia that night.

<snip>

Adviser to the foreign minister Mart Luik said during the government press conference on Monday that the ferry could have hit a rock as it sank.
That is either ignorance or wishful thinking. Firstly, the side of the ferry with the hole in it has never touched the seabed. MS Estonia does not lie on its side but is rather resting on its head or one ear so to speak. The position of the hull was recorded during the dive in 1994 and if we put it on paper, everyone can see that this part of the hull and the car deck are not touching the bottom. This fact also overturns the theory according to which this part was not accessible before. It was fully accessible. The entire area of the tear was accessible, visible and filmable in 1994.

<snip>

Would Estonia have sunk without that hole in its side?
Most definitely not. The hole fits the bill. It answers all previously unanswered questions. It explains how water made its way below the car deck, why the ferry didn’t tip over as quickly as all others have. It does away with conflicting evidence. We no longer need to twist the words of the three sailors who were in the engine room when the disaster happened. They have said that the visor was closed and the ferry alist. We can now believe that it was indeed shut and that water came in through the hole and created the tilt.

<snip>

So, the claim made at the government press conference according to which the hole was not visible before, while the ferry has moved since then is wrong?
We can say that, yes. While the hull has lifted a little, it basically still landed on its head so to speak. Nevertheless, the bottom of the ferry was always fully visible.

From Postimees

 

[JayUtah]

Let's recap what Margus Kurm said five years ago:

Why?

 

[Mojo]

Why?

Fringe reset.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The information given by the Youtuber is not accurate. It was NOT a 'Beaufort Scale Ten' storm. It was scale 8.

Gale, fresh gale

34–40 knots 39–46 mph 62–74 km/h 17.2–20.7 m/s

18–25 ft 5.5–7.5 m

Moderately high waves of greater length; edges of crests break into spindrift; foam is blown in well-marked streaks along the direction of the wind

Twigs break off trees; generally impedes progress

Beaufort scale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And by the JAIC's own account:



As you know Catain Mäkelä of Silja Europa said it was normally bad at the end of September.

• Captain Mäkelä's role: As On-Scene Commander, Captain Mäkelä was in charge of coordinating the rescue operation and described the weather at the time as "normally bad" for an autumn storm in the Baltic Sea.

Let's keep to the objective, recorded and measurable facts.

Normally Bad is bad. You are the one trying to minimise it.
Just a few days ago I posted pictures of the storm and the extent of pitching, maybe you have forgotten.

 

[Vixen]

Why?

It counters the erroneous belief that 'it is a conspiracy theory concocted by Anders Bjorkman'.

 

[JayUtah]

It counters the erroneous belief that 'it is a conspiracy theory concocted by Anders Bjorkman'.

No one is claiming that Björkman is the only conspiracy theorist.

 

[Vixen]

Normally Bad is bad. You are the one trying to minimise it.
Just a few days ago I posted pictures of the storm and the extent of pitching, maybe you have forgotten.

Even if it was pitching, and there is no evidence it was, it is still only conjecture.

 

[Vixen]

No one is claiming that Björkman is the only conspiracy theorist.

Speaking generically, calling something you don't understand or are not interested in, a 'conspiracy theory' is the lazy man's excuse to avoid thinking. It's far more honest to say, 'Sorry, not interested' or 'Sorry I don't understand the argument'.

 

[Vixen]

Fringe reset.

Anyone can do flippancy. At least some graffiti has an element of wit or irony but this comment doesn't even rise to that level. C'mon, must do better.

 

[JayUtah]

Speaking generically, calling something you don't understand or are not interested in, a 'conspiracy theory' is the lazy man's excuse to avoid thinking.

Speaking specifically, calling a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory is correct. Being able to identify a conspiracy theory, as opposed merely to alternative explanations, is not an intellectual failing. You draw your arguments from a number of conspiracy theorists.

 

[GlennB]

Even if it was pitching,
and there is no evidence it was, it is still only conjecture.

Is there even a 1% chance that it wasn't pitching?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Even if it was pitching, and there is no evidence it was, it is still only conjecture.

Bollocks.

It was going bow first at high speed in to waves many meters high.
Of course it was pitching. There are photos of a ship of similar size pitching heavily that same night.

 

[Mojo]

Even if it was pitching, and there is no evidence it was, it is still only conjecture.

 

[Mojo]

Anyone can do flippancy. At least some graffiti has an element of wit or irony but this comment doesn't even rise to that level. C'mon, must do better.

OK. You claim that the JAIC said that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", or even "was functioning on a 90° list". Please quote the passage or passages where they said this, and provide precise citations for them. You have so far failed to do this.

 

[Mojo]

Speaking generically, calling something you don't understand or are not interested in, a 'conspiracy theory' is the lazy man's excuse to avoid thinking. It's far more honest to say, 'Sorry, not interested' or 'Sorry I don't understand the argument'.

People have understood and refuted your arguments.

 

[The Common Potato]

Is there even a 1% chance that it wasn't pitching?

It was pitching as surely as a man walks into a Tesco.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Even if it was pitching, and there is no evidence it was, it is still only conjecture.

You're doubtful that a ship plunging headlong into heavy seas at full speed might have been pitching. Thanks for that useful insight.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Anyone can do flippancy. At least some graffiti has an element of wit or irony but this comment doesn't even rise to that level. C'mon, must do better.

Take pity. It's hard to be freshly witty when this is the umpteenth reset.