The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Andy_Ross]

I haven't speculated it. The Swedish government has confirmed it.

I never claimed stabilisers did one thing or another.

Your comment was indeed directly aimed at my comment, so don't try to pretend it was about Russian weapons.

They have not confirmed that secret Russian weapons were aboard the ship. That is the fantasy

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why shouldn't it sink within 30 minutes?
Shops have sunk within minutes, sometimes so fast that the entire crew has been lost.

I gave an example of a huge bulk carrier that went down in just a few minutes.
Some ships sink so fast that they don't have chance to get off a Mayday.

 

[Architect]

The only reference to that person was his riddle how did 2,000 cubic metres of potential water on the car deck capsize when there was 18,000 cubic metres of air below. He is a naval architect and ship surveyor so it seems he might know about such calculations.

If you look at his webpage, you will see that Mr. Bjorkman makes many assertions but rarely provides any detailed calculations sufficient to justify his interpretation of events.
Nobody doubts, I suggest, that water ingress can lead to potentially severe heeling within a ship and that the free surface effect contributes.

Now, if we assume that the water ingress is mid-height (i.e. the car deck) with watertight, unflooded compartments below then there is the obvious issue that your centre of gravity moves upwards and there is a greater risk that heeling occurs.

One of Mr. Bjorkman's views is that, once the heeling occurs, the ship effectively stabilises in that position. An obvious problem is that further water ingress may occurr, either from the same source as the original or through openings below water as a result of the heeling. It also assumes that watertight compartments remain so.

This is typical of the problems we encounter with Mr. Bjorkman's work on any subject I have seen to date - he makes broad assumptions, fails to back them up with a rigorous argument, and argues from personal incredulity.

Take, for example, this section:

Nobody saw the ramp fully open, 4.7 and 4.23. This means that three visor locks, two visor hinges, two visor lifting pistons had been ripped off, that the lifting pistons had eaten through the bulkheads at fr. 159 and that two ramp hooks and four ramp lock pins/bolts had been ripped apart during circa 15 minutes between 01.00 and 01.15 hrs, and that no particular noises had been heard on the bridge, even if noise was allegedly heard elsewhere on the ship, when the flipping visor had pounded against the fore peak deck. The Final Report does not say that the JAIC had previously reported that the ramp was partly open, more open and later closed, 1.11 and 1.15

There is no discussion of the relative positions of the bow and crew areas, let alone the bridge. There is no discussion as to whether crew members would have been on the car deck and in a position to view the bow (my own experience is that the car decks of ferries are not patrolled or supervised after departure). There is no discussion of the positions of video cameras. It is no more or less than a series of framed assumptions.

As for his interest in JFK or 9/11, what is 'nutcase' about that, when millions of people still show an interest in JFK, given the sheer number of documentaries that still come out. If he is indeed mentally ill, that doesn't mean he is not able to remain an expert in his field.

You are, I think, complaining that we are using these references to poison the proverbial well. Rather, what I am warning you is that he has a consistent modus operandii and advising you that a more rigorous, sceptical approach is merited. What you will not find in the post you responded to is any reference to JFK, or me calling Mr. Bjorkman a "nutcase". Probably best that you avoid such strawmen in future.

 

[Vixen]

They have not confirmed that secret Russian weapons were aboard the ship. That is the fantasy

Stop trying to introduce subtle changes of meaning. The official report into the accident confirms that the Swedish government had used the M/S Estonian ship to move Russian military equipment two weeks before. The Swedish government also confirmed it as per the article on Swedish Radio (their equivalent of the BBC and not given to fanciful theories). But oh no, Captain Swoop from his keyboard knows better.

Whether or not it had military equipment on the night doesn't really change the fact (although surveillance cameras show military trucks being loaded whilst the boat on the night in question and was already very late in departing; and eye witnesses also saw them).

If your favourite pub or restaurant suddenly blew up or burnt down, that would be a surprise. However, if information becomes known that the place had been used regularly by gangsters involved in Serious Organised crime, that certainly throws a different light on the 'surprise', especially if police confirm they had been there just a fortnight ago.

 

[Vixen]

Why shouldn't it sink within 30 minutes?
Shops have sunk within minutes, sometimes so fast that the entire crew has been lost.

I gave an example of a huge bulk carrier that went down in just a few minutes.
Some ships sink so fast that they don't have chance to get off a Mayday.

Stop citing rusty scrapheap vessels that were being used for purposes other than they were designed for (e.g., the 31-year-old Lestari Maju, a cargo ship, now being used as a RoRo and the cars not even 'tied down' [of course it sank!]).

The Titanic took four hours to sink, and that hit an iceberg and had an engine room on fire. These luxury RoRo cruise ships are made in their hundreds every year by reputable shipbuilders, such as Werrft, who designed and built the Estonia (which was only fourteen years old). They are made to withstand flooding on the deck and in any case would take hours to cause a problem if not days, by which time it would have been spotted.

You are correct, many ships sink suddenly, with hardly a chance to put out a May Day. These are the ships that had been torpedoed, as happened a lot in WWII. The Estonia sank as fast as one of those ships. We are agreed on that, at least.

 

[Vixen]

If you look at his webpage, you will see that Mr. Bjorkman makes many assertions but rarely provides any detailed calculations sufficient to justify his interpretation of events.
Nobody doubts, I suggest, that water ingress can lead to potentially severe heeling within a ship and that the free surface effect contributes.

Now, if we assume that the water ingress is mid-height (i.e. the car deck) with watertight, unflooded compartments below then there is the obvious issue that your centre of gravity moves upwards and there is a greater risk that heeling occurs.

One of Mr. Bjorkman's views is that, once the heeling occurs, the ship effectively stabilises in that position. An obvious problem is that further water ingress may occurr, either from the same source as the original or through openings below water as a result of the heeling. It also assumes that watertight compartments remain so.

This is typical of the problems we encounter with Mr. Bjorkman's work on any subject I have seen to date - he makes broad assumptions, fails to back them up with a rigorous argument, and argues from personal incredulity.

Take, for example, this section:


There is no discussion of the relative positions of the bow and crew areas, let alone the bridge. There is no discussion as to whether crew members would have been on the car deck and in a position to view the bow (my own experience is that the car decks of ferries are not patrolled or supervised after departure). There is no discussion of the positions of video cameras. It is no more or less than a series of framed assumptions.

You are, I think, complaining that we are using these references to poison the proverbial well. Rather, what I am warning you is that he has a consistent modus operandii and advising you that a more rigorous, sceptical approach is merited. What you will not find in the post you responded to is any reference to JFK, or me calling Mr. Bjorkman a "nutcase". Probably best that you avoid such strawmen in future.

I accept that Anders Bjorkman may not be a reliable witness as per his writings. However, I only cited him once, and that was through seeing a comment by someone else in a different source. No, you didn't call him a 'nutcase', that was someone else earlier as to why we shouldn't give this person any credence.

A seaman did actually check the car deck and he reported it was filling up with water so fast there was no chance to do anything. Another heard three bangs from below and fifteen minutes later, the bow visor fell off. About thirty minutes later the 55,000 tonne monster had turned face down and then sank stern first at a near vertical angle.

 

[crescent]

The Titanic took four hours to sink.

Two hours forty minutes.

 

[Vixen]

Two hours forty minutes.

OK, I stand corrected.


What is interesting re the Titanic, is that it is believed that the rivets holding the hull together fell off as a result of the impact with the ice berg, causing holes in the hull to enable the lower decks to fill with water.

The holes created in the ship's hull allowed six compartments to flood, causing the allegedly “unsinkable" ship to not only sink, but to do so quickly. The Titanic disaster shocked the world and led to several new maritime safety regulations, including ensuring enough lifeboats to carry everyone on board.

https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-did-the-unsinkable-titanic-sink

So torpedoed war ships sank because of a hole in the hull, as did the Titanic. Now we see the Estonia had a hole in the hull.

Are we seeing a pattern here..?

 

[Vixen]

In SVT Nyheter today, a chap called Magnus from Ludvika, who was 24 at the time, was on the stricken ship, and says:

His experience is even today that the ship was hit by a loud bang.

- First a hard blow, then a list and within three to five minutes a lot happened, he says.

Wants to be interviewed by the Accident Investigation Board
In the first investigation carried out by the State Accident Investigation Board, the survivors were not heard.

Something that Magnus hopes for now, when new investigations of the ship are done.

The eye witness survivors 'were not interviewed'? So he backs up Paul Barney's claim not to have been contacted. One would have thought survivors would be key witnesses, as they were there when it happened.

 

[Architect]

OK, I stand corrected.


What is interesting re the Titanic, is that it is believed that the rivets holding the hull together fell off as a result of the impact with the ice berg, causing holes in the hull to enable the lower decks to fill with water.

https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-did-the-unsinkable-titanic-sink

So torpedoed war ships sank because of a hole in the hull, as did the Titanic. Now we see the Estonia had a hole in the hull.

Are we seeing a pattern here..?

Turning firstly to the Titanic, which I think is probably of limited assistance here, NIST have indeed suggested that brittle fracture failure of the rivets as a result of the side-on collision would have been a major contributing factor - as opposed to just a large gash in the vessel's hull. However testing has also shown that the hull sheeting underwent brittle fracture, being insufficiently ductile in the cold North Atlantic waters, so the answer - as ever - is "it's complex".


Turning to torpedoed ships, they can sink for a number of reasons including holing, internal detoniation or part detonation of warheads, or a combination of both. Unless anyone is suggesting the Estonia was torpedoed, I don't think that takes us anywhere.

As for the holes or splits visible in the recent images of the Estonia, I still think it would be a big ask to show that was pre-sinking rather than due to impact with the seabed.

 

[Steve]

OK, but such a ship shouldn't sink within thirty minutes.

Is that so? Your evidence for this particular ship is what, exactly? Note that the sinking rates of other ships is irrelevant to this particular sinking. Note further that uneducated speculation is also not evidence. Now please proceed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Stabilisers will not stop you being tossed like a bag of potatoes in a storm'.
They reduce short pitch beam rolling for passenger comfort.

They are useless in a head or stern sea, they are useless, they will not damp out storm effects.

I believe you but how do they keep the vehicles from sliding into each other?

 

[Steve]

Are we seeing a pattern here..?

Many of us definitely are.

 

[Steve]

I believe you but how do they keep the vehicles from sliding into each other?

Sometimes they don’t.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sometimes they don’t.

So you take a ferry and end up with a car that has smashed sides? And how do they get them off the ferry if the vehicles are against each other?

No, that just can't be factual. Sorry, not logical.

 

[theprestige]

This is the ship we used to travel to Finland by via Tilbury. How is it 'fantasy' that we were tossed like a bag of potatoes in a storm?

Tell us more about your life experiences from 1957.

 

[theprestige]

So you take a ferry and end up with a car that has smashed sides? And how do they get them off the ferry if the vehicles are against each other?

No, that just can't be factual. Sorry, not logical.

I find it hard to believe that a long-time resident of the Seattle area assumes that tying down cars on a ferry is the norm.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stop citing rusty scrapheap vessels that were being used for purposes other than they were designed for (e.g., the 31-year-old Lestari Maju, a cargo ship, now being used as a RoRo and the cars not even 'tied down' [of course it sank!]).

The Titanic took four hours to sink, and that hit an iceberg and had an engine room on fire. These luxury RoRo cruise ships are made in their hundreds every year by reputable shipbuilders, such as Werrft, who designed and built the Estonia (which was only fourteen years old). They are made to withstand flooding on the deck and in any case would take hours to cause a problem if not days, by which time it would have been spotted.

You are correct, many ships sink suddenly, with hardly a chance to put out a May Day. These are the ships that had been torpedoed, as happened a lot in WWII. The Estonia sank as fast as one of those ships. We are agreed on that, at least.

What 'rusty scrap heap vessel' are you talking about?

I gave you the example of MV Derbyshire, a ship far bigger and newer than this little ferry. It sank in less than ten minutes, all the crew were lost.

Two ships a week sink, they are not 'rusty scrap heap vessels. If we take away groundings and collision, 32 ships sank last year by flooding and hull breach.
Some sank so quickly they never even had chance to get off a mayday and relied on the emergency beacons attached to life rafts and SOLAS buoys that activate automatically when immersed in water.

Vehicles on ferries are not 'tied down' where are you getting that from?

What has the Titanic got to do with anything?

Why should a ferry with a flooded car deck and the bows missing take a hours or days to sink?

What does WW2 have to do with it? Are you implying that it was torpedoed? That would have been noticed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK, I stand corrected.


What is interesting re the Titanic, is that it is believed that the rivets holding the hull together fell off as a result of the impact with the ice berg, causing holes in the hull to enable the lower decks to fill with water.

https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-did-the-unsinkable-titanic-sink

So torpedoed war ships sank because of a hole in the hull, as did the Titanic. Now we see the Estonia had a hole in the hull.

Are we seeing a pattern here..?

Yes it had a hole in the hull, the bloody bows fell off.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I believe you but how do they keep the vehicles from sliding into each other?

By not going out in a storm that would cause rolling far enough to move the vehicles.