• 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 Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
erwinl said:
Anders Bjorkman? Who used to be the user Heiwa here?

You’ve been on his website, where he, still to this day, declares that atomic bombs are hoaxes (now there are some train wrecks of threads in days gone by), man never went to the moon in ‘69. That there were no planes involved in 9/11. And more.
(And you can’t say you didn’t notice this, because he puts it on virtually every page of his ‘website’).

Anyway. You’ve seen all this on his website and decided that this was someone who could be trusted to tell a reasoned story concerning the Estonia?!

What on earth made you decide that?!
Click to expand...

No, I have not been on his webpage and I have never heard of the guy except in a passing book mention. The Anders Bjorkman (these are both incredibly common names in Sweden) is described as a 'naval architect'. https://prabook.com/web/anders_b.bjorkman/158180
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
True, our dear Swedish cousins haven't seen any war since circa 1780 when they had a contretemps with the Norwegians, whereas the Finns and the Estonians have had the pesky bear from the east on their necks constantly, so we have to make allowances for their soft gentle ways.
Click to expand...

Well, Sweden is totally a great country and society, in many ways (even more) advanced than Finland. But I always thought that their reaction to the Estonia disaster - I guess the worst thing to happen to the country since the 19th century - was kind of out of the proportion, like bit hysterical. These are things that regularly do happen in the world, amidst even far worse things that also pretty regularly do happen.

I guess our memory of the WW2, the Estonian memory of that same war and the brutal totalitarian occupation that happened after it were so much fresher than the 1860's famine like conditions in Northern Sweden and the Finnish War of 1808-09 before that.
 
erwinl said:
Considering the speed of sinking of the Estonia and thus the presumed amount of water entering it. At least through a hole big enough to be a stand in for the conventional theory of the broken off visor bow.
Did any of the surrounding countries find one of their objects weighing 1000 to 5000 tons missing (presumably with their entire crew), or have it return to port heavily damaged?

That would need to be one of the first questions to be answered, I’d guess.
Click to expand...

Military manoevres are hardly going to be mentioned in Aftonbladet, Expressen, Bild or the Sun by way of a press release.
 
theprestige said:
Appeal to racial stereotypes is a terrible argument. I'd ask you to do better, but it's probably long past time you just stop.
Click to expand...

Meyer Werft of Papenberg are one of the largest and most modern shipbuilders in the world. OK, so they have a conflict of interest in this matter as they are responsible for building the ship. However, they seem fairly adamant the fault was not theirs.
 
theprestige said:
Hopefully it isn't rammed by a U-boat before it gets there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's one of most bizarre alternative scenarios: an accidental ramming by a Russian submarine with the simultaneous and totally co-incidental failing of the visor with the attendant damaging of the ramp... One of the few things outcompeting this in absurdity is an intentional ramming of the ship by a submarine (with the simultaneous and co-incidental failing of the visor etc.) Because that's how submarines do sink huge passenger ships covertly all of the time. Though to be honest submarines cannot basically do that covertly in any fashion. But whatevs.
 
llwyd said:
Yeah, that's one of most bizarre alternative scenarios: an accidental ramming by a Russian submarine with the simultaneous and totally co-incidental failing of the visor with the attendant damaging of the ramp... One of the few things outcompeting this in absurdity is an intentional ramming of the ship by a submarine (with the simultaneous and co-incidental failing of the visor etc.) Because that's how submarines do sink huge passenger ships covertly all of the time. Though to be honest submarines cannot basically do that covertly in any fashion. But whatevs.
Click to expand...

Ramming by a submarine whether Russian or Swedish is a tall story which I haven't seen perpetuated here, except as a troll (clearly people have failed to notice that the Swedish government itself, together with the Estonians, have returned to the scene to reinvestigate it). Having said that, a submarine could easily cause more than a dent on a thin metal plate of a passenger ship.

It is a confirmed news item that there are a further two long fractures in the hull. This is official. Reality. Enquiring minds want to understand why. Those who aren't interested are not obliged to follow the topic.
 
Vixen said:
Ramming by a submarine whether Russian or Swedish is a tall story which I haven't seen perpetuated here, except as a troll (clearly people have failed to notice that the Swedish government itself, together with the Estonians, have returned to the scene to reinvestigate it). Having said that, a submarine could easily cause more than a dent on a thin metal plate of a passenger ship.

It is a confirmed news item that there are a further two long fractures in the hull. This is official. Reality. Enquiring minds want to understand why. Those who aren't interested are not obliged to follow the topic.
Click to expand...

A sub hitting a ship hard enough to sink it would have done considerable damage to itself and ended up on the bottom alongside it.
 
Vixen said:
Ramming by a submarine whether Russian or Swedish is a tall story which I haven't seen perpetuated here, except as a troll (clearly people have failed to notice that the Swedish government itself, together with the Estonians, have returned to the scene to reinvestigate it). Having said that, a submarine could easily cause more than a dent on a thin metal plate of a passenger ship.

It is a confirmed news item that there are a further two long fractures in the hull. This is official. Reality. Enquiring minds want to understand why. Those who aren't interested are not obliged to follow the topic.
Click to expand...

Because it capsized and sank that's why.
 
erwinl said:
It seems you know a lot about this stuff.

What was the metacentric height of the Estonia in original loaded condition and what would the estimated metacentric height be with your 2000 tons of water in the cardeck. More importantly, what would the angle of stability be in that case?
And would a storm be able to push the ship beyond that angle?
The conventional explanation says, it will, but you seem to know it wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand your post but once the visor came open there were large waves that pushed water into the car deck until it went lower than the waterline.

Then water started flooding the cabin decks and I believe that is when the vessel started to list.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yes, the failure of the life-saving equipment is to be abhorred. However, when you compare the sinking of the Titanic to the Estonia, the former took hour hours, the latter less than ninety minutes from the estimated onset of problems and within 24 minutes of the distress signal.

The crew were heavily criticised but they were not blamed for the tragedy. Bear in mind, they were for the most part Russian naval school trained, with a very different cultural ethos from the western ones. For example, the Captain had sole authority. Whilst designated naval officers on a Swedish (say) ship had the authority to immediately put right any issues within their remit and report it later, an Estonian crew man was expected to ask permission from the Captain first, before doing anything. In that type of authoritarian regime, the personnel below will develop a 'not my responsibility' attitude, perhaps for fear of being seen as an upstart or speaking out of turn should they bring issues up.

The captain, Avo Piht wasn't on duty that night AFAIK and it was the second in command, Anders Tammas - the one who sent the weak May Day - both of them presumed to have gone down with the ship, although Piht was originally named as a survivor and several people claimed to have seen him, one at Turku hospital, in a mix-up.
Click to expand...
I've been on a lot of boats, big, small, ferries, cruise ship, whatever and I'm very safety conscious. Sometimes there are excellent practice drills giving everyone an idea what to do in an emergency and sometimes the crew doesn't even point out where the lifejackets are. I did not get the impression the crew took the actions they could have regardless there wasn't a lot of time. Like that guy who stopped to brush his teeth, people just don't act in an emergency, crew or not. It's a kind of denial that comes over people.
 
Vixen said:
clearly people have failed to notice that the Swedish government itself, together with the Estonians, have returned to the scene to reinvestigate it
Click to expand...
I've noticed. I just don't see a good reason for them to do so.

It is a confirmed news item that there are a further two long fractures in the hull.
Click to expand...
So either your vaunted Germans were incompetent and incomplete in their survey, or else the ship is continuing to settle and develop new ruptures in the hole.

Enquiring minds want to understand why. Those who aren't interested are not obliged to follow the topic.
Click to expand...
I subscribe to the latter hypothesis. I'm following the topic to see if anyone comes up with a plausible explanation for why it's important to re-open the investigation.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Because it capsized and sank that's why.
Click to expand...
Angels guided her gently to the seabed and have guarded the ship's condition from any deleterious effects since the incident. She is, today, in the exact same state as she was when she slipped beneath waves.

It makes perfect sense!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom