• 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 Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Jan Heweliusz did not lose it's bow. It was already an unstable ship. It was already known to have ballast problems and the stability was further reduced following repairs to the upper deck which involved pouring around 100 tons of concrete to level it out.
It also sailed in hurricane force winds and far worse conditions than the Estonia.


Have you been reading.

Björkman, Anders,(2007). Estonia revisited +Learning from the often forgotten Jan Heweliusz disaster
http://estonia.kajen.com/Naval_Architect_Jan_07.pdf
Click to expand...

Exactly, yet it floated for five days. It didn't have a bow visor to fall off.


No I haven't been reading that reference. Björkman doesn't agree with the German Group of Experts or the Estonians and believes Linde's fairy stories. Having said that, his diagrams of elementary physics principles are sound, as he is a qualified naval architect who ran his own ferry company, after all.

I am capable of thinking for myself, thank you.
 
Vixen said:
That is because they sink because




  • the vessel collides with another ship, submarine or heavy object
  • the vessel has been topredoed
  • the vessel is hit by the one-in-ten super wave swell causing it to break in half
  • the vessel hits a natural disaster such as a hurricane which causes a deadly whirlpool
  • water gets into the ventilation pipes
  • a terrorist act such as the USS Cole.





The JAIC assumed the windows on Deck 4 (the upper car deck) had broken allowing ingress of sea water to accommodation areas. Yet Kurm has found the windowed doors of the car deck completely intact, unbroken and shut. Further investigation is needed but it suggests the JAIC assumption is wrong. Based on a false premise.
Click to expand...
Ships sink because they fill with water. The report suggests the windows on deck 4 broke due to pressure when they were underwater, speeding the flooding. You think these windows were impregnable because it doesn't suit you to believe they weren't. Doors leading off the car deck on the side to which the ship was not listing are not relevant to its flooding.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Two doors out of how many openings to the lower decks?

You do realise that there are a number of passenger doors from the car deck as well as crew access, ventilators and various air intakes and exhausts.
Once the ship had a list other openings would be below the surface.
Click to expand...

Various citations suggest sixteen doors, or four. Bearing in mind these are sliding doors, the discrepancy may in part refer the one set being described as two doors. In addition, it may also refer to the end doors for staff only. The car deck extended the length and athwartships (circa 155m x 24m beam)

This is what the JAIC rely on: that when the ship was floating at 90° on its superstructure (this is an intellectual error as a ship cannot float on its superstructure) the water pressure burst the windows, thus flooding the superstructure spaces.
 
Vixen said:
Exactly so an overturned boat doesn't sink straight to the bottom by your own account.
Click to expand...
I think there's a misunderstanding here. Swoop is saying it's hard to go from upright to upside down (without sinking the dinghy in between?). You think he means it's hard to right a flipped dinghy.

Swoop can tell me if I'm the one misunderstanding.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A sailing dinghy has sealed buoyancy tanks or inflated 'bladders' strapped in to the hull to stop it sinking otherwise it will sink straigh to the bottom.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/bYZPKDnl.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/ZA4cqZll.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Iqz1pz2l.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

None of these illustrate how the Estonia sank. The Estonia sank in a remarkably similar way to the Wilhelm Gustloff except that the latter sank bow first and also face down.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Various citations suggest sixteen doors, or four. Bearing in mind these are sliding doors, the discrepancy may in part refer the one set being described as two doors. In addition, it may also refer to the end doors for staff only. The car deck extended the length and athwartships (circa 155m x 24m beam)



This is what the JAIC rely on: that when the ship was floating at 90° on its superstructure (this is an intellectual error as a ship cannot float on its superstructure) the water pressure burst the windows, thus flooding the superstructure spaces.
Click to expand...

The ship was 24m wide. The car deck was not 24m wide, otherwise its doors would have deposited passengers into the sea.

I love that "intellectual error" crap. You stuff words into people's mouths which they never used then tell us they're wrong. It's exasperating but still kinda funny.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The Jan Heweliusz was already unstable, there were concerns over it's ballasting and the topweight added by repairs.

Water did not enter the car deck, it capsized in a storm because it was an unstable ship. It was in hurricane conditions and turned over quickly without extensive flooding.

As I keep saying, different ships sink for different reasons.
Click to expand...

The Estonia also had problems with its ballasts (water tanks) because of uneven distribution of the traffic inside the car deck (NB the JAIC say it was properly loaded). Even before it left port, the left hand ballast was full to the top. Thus when the starboard list started shortly after the series of bangs was heard/collision felt, there was no room in the left ballast for more water to right the list.

You keep saying the Jan Heweliusz was worse than the Estonia in numerous different ways yet it did not sink for five days.


Estonia sank within about half an hour.
 
Vixen said:
No I haven't been reading that reference. Björkman doesn't agree with the German Group of Experts or the Estonians and believes Linde's fairy stories. Having said that, his diagrams of elementary physics principles are sound, as he is a qualified naval architect who ran his own ferry company, after all.
Click to expand...

In his days 'discussing' 9/11 CT here he stated he was a loss adjuster in maritime insurance. What ferry company did he own, as a matter of interest?

He was also a notable fraud, claiming to run the 'European agency for safety at sea', while using the EU flag logo to advertise it. The EU denied any knowledge of the agency and, I believe, took action to stop him using their logo. His 'agency' operated (?) out of a 2 bedroom flat in a backstreet in Beausoleil.

As for his knowledge of physics ... **giggle** ... the man is a fool and a liar.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Did they inspect two doors under all the car deck debris on the relevant side of the ship, or two doors on the accessible but irrelevant side?
Click to expand...

These were centre doors midships. Bear in mind, they were not expecting to see this so now they know about it they will return in Spring to investigate it further.

Why do you consider the centre doors 'irrelevant'?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How big do you think the machinery and pool spaces are?

What percentage of the reserve buoyancy do they represent??

How much water was already in the hull when the order to secure openings came?

How do you know the status of all the openings in the ship?

How do you know the condition of all the pipe and cable glands that run through compartments?

Did the last person out of every compartment make sure the openings were all securely dogged?

Were all the compartments watertight from above?

Unlike a warship where every compartment below the waterline only has access from above, on a ferry or merchant ship there are openings between the compartments.

Even on navy ships doors and hatches don't always get correctly closed when evacuating a compartment. I can link you to a document that details how flooding progressed through warships in WW2.
A surprisingly large amount of flooding was due to unsecured openings and badly packed or neglected glands on pipes and cable runs.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, the JAIC said the only part of the ship that was involved in the accident was the bow area. It investigated nothing else.
 
Vixen said:
Various citations suggest sixteen doors, or four. Bearing in mind these are sliding doors, the discrepancy may in part refer the one set being described as two doors. In addition, it may also refer to the end doors for staff only. The car deck extended the length and athwartships (circa 155m x 24m beam)

This is what the JAIC rely on: that when the ship was floating at 90° on its superstructure (this is an intellectual error as a ship cannot float on its superstructure) the water pressure burst the windows, thus flooding the superstructure spaces.
Click to expand...

Do you think there is a reason that large windows are not near the waterline of ships? or that any portholes near the waterline have steel 'deadlights' on the inside that can be bolted down over the glass?
 
Vixen said:
The Estonia also had problems with its ballasts (water tanks) because of uneven distribution of the traffic inside the car deck (NB the JAIC say it was properly loaded). Even before it left port, the left hand ballast was full to the top. Thus when the starboard list started shortly after the series of bangs was heard/collision felt, there was no room in the left ballast for more water to right the list.

You keep saying the Jan Heweliusz was worse than the Estonia in numerous different ways yet it did not sink for five days.


Estonia sank within about half an hour.
Click to expand...

It had less stability than Estonia, it turned over without extensive flooding.

We know that the bad trim of the ship contributed to Estonia sinking.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Because you were claiming the ship was torpedoed so I showed you pictures of torpedoed ships.
Find me one of a torpedoed ship floating upside down if you can.


Wilhelm Gustloff took 40 minutes to turn on her side after being torpedoed, then it sank bow-first ten minutes later.
It did not turn turtle and float for any length of time.
Click to expand...

My mistake it sank bow first - as opposed to Estonia stern first - with over 9,000 people still trapped inside, and only slightly heavier than the Estonia. No, it did not turn turtle and nor did the Estonia.

Q.E.D.
::
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Estonia car deck did not have enough volume capacity for seawater ingress to outweigh the buoyancy. A heavy list might have capsized it, sure, but it would have floated belly up like the JH.
Click to expand...

Who has said that the water on the car deck would 'outweigh the buoyancy'?

Why would it have floated belly up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom