|
The impossible Sinking of the 'Estonia' |
|
|
|
Up-dates
2007
|
(to hide the true cause of accident!) - June 5 2008 How or why did the MV 'Estonia' sink
1994? It will be explained 2008 - maybe! Answers 2006-2008 The Swedish government decided 2005 that the ferry MV 'Estonia' sinking 1994 should be explained by scientists based on the official 'facts' of the JAIC. It is common knowledge that all these 'facts' are in fact lies, so it will be very interesting to see how the scientists will proceed. The project is directed by Swedish innovation authority Vinnova and Mr. John Graffman. Mr Graffman is a naval architect and ex Swedish Navy, i.e. was working for the Swedish Navy when the 'Estonia' sank 1994. Mr Graffman is also a friend of Mr Hans Wermelin that was the first to announce, before anybody else, that the 'Estonia' sank due to a lost visor. There is no evidence that the visor actually fell off the 'Estonia' - it is cleverly planted disinformation on part of the Swedish authorities - as described on other pages of this web site. It is quite disturbing that the man in charge of the latest 'Estonia' sinking explanation project 2007 is a friend of the person that spread the false rumour about the visor 1994 ... but Stockholm is a small place. In January 2006 Vinnova decided that SSPA Sweden AB - Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland - MARIN, Delft, Holland shall carry out the study under the lead of SSPA at a cost of SEK 8 million! Responsible persons are Claes Källström, Björn Allenström and Jianbo Hua, SSPA (total 31 months work), Olle Rutgersson, CTH (11 months work ), Dracos Vassalos and Andrzej Jasionowski, Strathclyde (total 30 months work) and Reint Dallinga, Jan Otto de Kat och A.P. van't Veer, MARIN (total 17 months work). They explain: "The loss of MV Estonia has unravelled inherent weaknesses of ships with large undivided spaces when subject to hull damage ... !" (This is a strange observation - the MV Estonia hull was divided into 14 watertight compartments and was undamaged and there was no damage of the superstructure except that the bow ramp was allegedly open permitting water to enter there). The results of the study 2006 shall be reported 15 September 2006, 15 March and 17 September 2007 and 15 March 2008 with a complete final presentation on 17 September 2008. Heiwa Co will report the developments on this web page. No public call for any professional opinion, analyses or other evidence was made June 2006! A back-dated (1 April) call was published on a web site in July 2006 after the writer had asked where it could be found. The above scientists Claes Källström, Björn Allenström and Jianbo Hua, SSPA, Olle Rutgersson, CTH, Dracos Vassalos and Andrzej Jasionowski, Strathclyde and Reint Dallinga, Jan Otto de Kat och A.P. van't Veer, MARIN have on the other hand been fully briefed by Heiwa Co that all essential 'facts' suggested by the JAIC are lies: The initial Lies The Joint Accident Investigation Commission, JAIC, of the MV Estonia sinking alleged 1994 -1997 that big waves hit the front of the superstructure of the ferry several meters above waterline and ripped off the visor that then pulled open the interior ramp and that nobody aboard noticed these noisy events! Anybody who has been to sea on a ferry in severe weather knows of course that, when a ferry slams into a wave causing an impact, this event is heard all over the ship as a big bang - as you fire a canon - followed by vibrations. There is no way that you can continue, because if you do, there will be a second, noisy impact and vibrations! So you must slow down, change course ... take action, which is standard practice. Evidently the vessel bow/visor is designed to withstand the wave impacts, but the noise and vibrations are infernal and discomfortable. In falsified model tests JAIC later showed that the impacts occurred almost every minute with an upward and aft force of the order 300-700 tons. The first lie of the JAIC is that nobody heard any impacts, and if they did, no action was taken. Actually there were no wave impacts at all and only one or two big bangs ... and soon after the ship got suddenly >30° list ... but the ship was stable and the list was reduced to <15° ... people could evacuate to open decks during about 10 minutes! There was no sudden capsize (big list, sudden loss of stability and floating upside down) as stated by the JAIC that you would have expected with a certain amount of water loaded inside the superstructure on the car deck 2.5 m above waterline (1 900 tons in the case of the Estonia). There is no evidence that the visor was lost or the ramp was pulled open at this time! There are many indications on the other hand that the visor was removed from the wreck under water after the accident with the knowledge of the JAIC! The three surviving witnesses of the ramp after the sudden list all say that it was CLOSED. The second lie of the JAIC was then that the visor was actually lost and the ramp was pulled open and that these events contributed to the accident! The Commission suggested that they filmed the wreck and that the visor had disappeared and was found three weeks later a mile West of the wreck. These are clever lies based on edited films and false facts without any evidence! The visor was simply removed from the wreck under water after the accident to support the first lie! There is no evidence that the visor was found a mile West of the wreck! The third lie of the JAIC was then that a ferry sinks, when water enters into the superstructure through an open ramp (door) 2.5 m above waterline and floods a watertight car deck. Evidently water enters if the opening is under water, e.g. due to ship pitching, BUT as soon as the ship stops, all the water simply flows out again! According JAIC the ship stopped after a few minutes with opening away from the waves and more water flowed in! The fourth lie of the JAIC was thus that the water did not flow out! On the contrary - more water flowed up and in through the opening and on the side of the ship and caused the vessel to list. It is correct that a weight in the side lists a ship, but the JAIC conveniently forgot that this (weight) water would have trimmed the vessel and flowed out immediately when the ship stopped and pitched and trimmed on the bow. It was quite easy for the JAIC to get away with all these lies - they bribed some experts to support them and threatened other experts to shut up, including the writer. And as the JAIC got away the above four outrageous lies, they decided that they could lie as the liked. All essential facts in the JAIC Final report are simple lies. No evidence at all is presented! The sad thing is that at least one of these 'experts' is now in the SSPA team! 33 more lies are described below. And there are many more. Thus the following:
E-mail to the scientists to explain the Estonia sinking (23 april 2006) ----- Original Message ----- From: Anders Björkman To: d.vassalos@na-me.ac.uk ; n.barltrop@na-me.ac.uk ; valanto@hsva.de ; Claes Källström Cc: VINNOVA ; Katarina Stenström Ros ; John Graffman Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 11:54 AM Subject: Dnr 2006-00547 VINNOVA - Research Study on the Sinking Sequence of MV Estonia Gents, I understand that you are now very busy with subject at Swedish tax payers' expense, which please confirm. I assume that the events just before the vessel started to load water in the superstructure http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt319.htm will be included in the study, but I summarize them anyway: The MV Estonia was doing 15 knots heading into 4.2 meters waves with a large relative motion forward. The MV Estonia superstructure bow flare was struck several times by heavy 350-700-1000 tons wave impacts that nobody heard (no action taken on the bridge, eg slow down). You are recommended to test this in full scale on any ferry yourselves. It is very simple. Just ask the Master to head at full speed into heavy waves and notice the first wave impact. You cannot avoid hearing the BANG, feeling the VIBRATIONS in the structure and seeing the BIG SPLASH. Ask yourself if the MV Estonia crew was deaf, etc. allowing the following to happen: Then various steel structure parts in the MV Estonia superstructure were damaged 10 meters forward of the bridge during at least 10-20 minutes: the visor side (deck 3) and bottom locks (main deck) were ripped off due to wave impacts, the visor moved up-down and damaged its bottom and the ship's main deck due to waves and relative motion, the visor lifting arms were ripped apart at the deck hinges on deck 4 due to wave impacts, the lifting hydraulic foundations were also ripped apart (deck 3) due to wave impacts, the hydraulic pistons and lugs then cut the deck 4 steel plate and a strong deck steel beam web and flange and the visor started to hit against the ramp protecting the superstructure, all ramp hooks and locks were ripped apart, etc. You are kindly recommended to verify the damages and ask yourselves how they could develop without being noticed by anybody - except as noise from the bow. Then the visor fell off (time is 01.15 hrs) and the ramp was fully open - the ramp top was then below the waterline and the forward speed was 14-15 knots. Water could enter into the superstructure 2.5 meters above waterline, when the MV Estonia with forward speed pitched the ramp opening below the waves. There is no evidence for this - three crewmembers in the ECR saw the ramp closed at 01.17 hrs, but assume that they are lying (they had of course escaped from the ECR at that time - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunk148.htm - after having started the bilge pumps as they were standing in water to their knees in the engine room). So water started to be loaded on the MV Estonia superstructure car deck (deck 2) and the water ended up inside on starboard side and suddenly listed the vessel. Then the MV Estonia turned 180° port and stopped with the opening away from the waves. There was no capsize (GZ<0, vessel floating upside down) that you would expect with 1 900 tonnes of water in the superstructure side (considering also trim, of course) so less than 1900 tons of water were loaded. You would now expect much water in the superstructure to flow out again through the opening in the bow and the vessel to upright. Evidently no more water could enter through the bow opening at this time as it was high above the waterline! Do you agree? If you agree, you must conclude that there are some basic errors in the JAIC analysis and evidence of the MV Estonia accident that you shall base your research study on. Then the MV Estonia started to sink - and maybe you will just concentrate on that in your study? The time is 01.20 hrs and the ferry is more than a mile from the position of sinking after 01.54 hrs. So the MV Estonia was drifting at >2 knots speed while sinking. Do you believe that? See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt19.htm . Anyway - the MV Estonia was sinking. The hull below deck 2 is undamaged all the time. All watertight doors are closed at 01.20 hrs. Most water in the superstructure should now flow out through the bow opening (easy to verify by model tests) and only a little water should remain due to the original stern trim, and this water should flow out through the scuppers. There is no way that more water can enter the superstructure at this time with the bow in lee and speed away from the waves and you should expect the MV Estonia to upright due to the buoyancy of the hull. But in order for MV Estonia to sink you must now flood at least three, four or five watertight and undamaged hull compartments after which the bulkhead deck comes under water and all the other compartments fill up. How could it take place? I will tell you. Model tests! Primo - start to verify the model in calm weather and closed ramp with 0.5 meter stern trim as per MV Estonia original loading condition at zero speed. Car deck is full of trucks and cars. This is fun! Load water on deck 2 (car deck) just by filling the compartment with a hose from above and observe what happens (the ramp is closed); vessel lists and trims more on stern, with 1900 tons of extra water on the car deck (among all the trucks and cars) model turns upside down. Capsize. Evidently the vessel does not float on the deck house decks 4-9 (doors are open aft on deck 4, 5 and 6 and in the side of deck 7, the windows are broken when coming below water) that is flooded completely immediately. Secondo - verify the model in calm weather and open ramp and zero speed. Load water on deck 2 with a hose and observe again what happens; vessel lists and trims again on stern and capsizes with 1900 tons of water on the car deck. The bow was high over water all times. Same result as first test. Tertio - repeat the second test in heavy weather, open ramp with opening away from the waves, zero speed (the condition at 01.20 hrs); fill the superstructure with a hose but due to vessel pitching (>trim), you will find that the water flows and sloshes forward and back on the car deck and out through the bow opening in spite of original stern trim. Interesting! The sloshing is in reality very noisy. Recommendation - when you visit a ferry in heavy weather to check the bow impacts, also put 50 tons of water on the car deck and listen to it sloshing around. Fourth - open ramp down below waterline, forward speed 14 knots into 4.2 m irregular waves, big relative motion forward (no change of heading during test); after 10-20 pitching movements (1-2 minutes) up/down vessel stops and capsizes quickly. Fifth - like four but with a 180° change of course prior to capsize; vessel lists but after change of heading we are back to test 3 - and the water flows out through the bow opening due to the pitching. Six - repeat two but prevent the vessel from capsizing (cheating a little by using an outside support) and allow the model to trim on stern only due to the water in the superstructure until the first opening on deck 4 (apart from the bow ramp deck 2-4) comes below water. What opening is first underwater? Right - the aft vents on deck 4 into the superstructure below. You do not have to fill the superstructure anymore by hose - it fills itself. Release the support and see what happens! Capsize of course! All the water in the superstructure flows to the starboard side again and model turns upside down. Seven - ask yourself how the clock on the bridge, starboard side deck 9, could stop at 01.36 hrs. Did it stop when it came under water? But the vessel didn't sink until 01.54! Eight - like five but no water flows out through the bow opening for some reason at 01.20 hrs, no capsize takes place and the hull compartments are being flooded one way or another (you shall describe that) and the deck house decks 4-9 comes under water. The vessel is drifting at >2 knots for 35 minutes while sinking. How? How can a sinking ferry drift so fast? Please keep me informed of your progress of your study. Kind regards Anders Björkman, Heiwa Co (Prof Vassalos and Dr. Jasionowski have later confirmed that they will consider above information) Actually - the scientists will not do the above model tests! Instead they (task 3.2) will only run a special model with forward speed into irregular seas with an open ramp to see how much water enters into the superstructure. This water is collected in a tank inside the model to be measured after each test. That is all! The 'Bow water ingress ..." test results will then be used in 'simulations' of the sinking. No tests will be done at zero speed with the opening away from the waves to demonstrate that the water flows out by itself. The SSPA model tests and study are extremely limited in scope to avoid revealing the Truth: That the water flows out by itself as soon as the vessel stops and never sinks will never be admitted by the SSPA scientists (September 2006) because their job is to show that it sinks. Not that it does not sink! Prove me wrong! (In February 2007 the SSPA tested the above model and noticed that at least four times more water than suggested by the JAIC entered into the model! The model collection tank thus has to be re-arranged for final tests to be carried out later 2007! SSPA may also just fit a real deck behind the ramp opening - in lieu of a collection tank - and see what happens as suggested by Heiwa Co). (In March 2007 the SSPA tested the model almost as requested by Heiwa Co. The model listed 25° within one minute and reached a stable condition with 46-47° heel after three, four minutes! An incorrect model was used. A correct model would have capsized already at 33-37° heel).
Some Comments on Research study on sinking sequence of MV Estonia (31 August 2007) http://www.ntf-research.org/21-11-06/Claes_Källström_SSPA.pdf The SSPA/Strathclyde consortium has produced the above, un-dated report (Power Point Presentation) probably spring 2007 and some relevant slides are listed in the Appendix. As suggested in slide 16 Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea provides the following substantive information (31 August 2007): Of the two main scenarios (slide 23) the first one (lost bow visor and water loaded in the Car deck superstructure) is not possible as the vessel capsizes and floats upside down, when 1600-2000 t of water is loaded on the Car Deck causing a heel of 33-37°, when GZ<0 assuming correctly that the deck house is not buoyant. The Consortium is (again) strongly recommended to verify the GZ righting lever curves with various amounts of water loaded on the Car deck. Therefore, only the second scenario is likely, i.e. underwater hull leakage that will be explained below. Underwater hull leakage - several compartments flooded abt 1 m - will cause an initial heel of maximum 12-18°; further heel is evidently prevented, if the Car Deck superstructure space is weather tight. Slide 26 is misleading in many ways; a volume is not defined as tons, etc. It should be emphasized that the vessel is only floating on the hull - 12,200 t - and that there is 7,700 t of reserve buoyancy in the hull. The Car Deck will only contribute to residual stability (GZ) in heeled conditions as long as it remains weather tight and GZ>0. The Deck House does not contribute to buoyancy or residual stability (GZ) as it is not weather tight. Slide 27 is correct in as much as the vessel sinks, when the reserve buoyancy is reduced due to hull water inflow (leakages), and disappears from the surface when all reserve buoyancy is consumed.. However, if, e.g. the vessel trims on the stern during sinking (reserve buoyancy aft lost first) and the hull comes under water there and the Car Deck superstructure is flooded, then the vessel sinks immediately with some reserve buoyancy forward still available. In fact only 3000-4000 t of reserve buoyancy may be lost until the ship suddenly disappears below the surface. Slide 28 is correct and is fully in accordance with slide 23 2nd scenario, i.e. as long as the Car Deck superstructure is not flooded, the angle of heel cannot exceed 12-18°. Later the heel can be 40°+, but in order for that condition to be stable, hull decks 0/1 must be flooded with at least 1000-1500 t of water due to hull leakages. Slide 29 is wrong. The Upper Decks deck house will not provide any support (?) of any kind. Stability equilibrium is only achieved by the hull (decks 0/1) and the Car Deck superstructure, as long as the latter is weather tight. Slide 30 is misleading. Based on scenario 2 (slide 23) sinking starts, when the hull leakages developed, and the vessel first heels 12-18° due to flooding several hull compartments. When the Car Deck superstructure is submerged and water enters it (e.g. through a partly open aft ramp, open starboard pilot door or any ventilator) the angle of heel will increase >18° and soon reach 40° and later 90°. Equilibrium is always achieved by the hull (decks 0/1). The Upper Deck deck house does not contribute to anything. The deck house is just instantaneously filled with water. Slide 32 - the JAIC scenario - is evidently impossible. GZ becomes negative already at 33-37° heel (it takes less than two minutes according SSPA latest model tests) and the vessel floats upside down and no further loss of buoyancy can take place = no sinking can take place. The figure 2 should be vessel upside down! Slide 34 - Heiwa Co has already provided the SSPA consortium with a chain of events leading to the known processes; (i) hull leakage, probably due to a collision, starting the sinking, (ii) flooding of several hull compartments deck 0/1 causing negative GM and a new equilibrium with 12-18° heel, (iii) flooding of the Car Deck superstructure, when it becomes submerged while sinking, and increased heel to 90°, sinking vessel being in equilibrium all the time. The answer to the first question is therefore available; the hull decks 0/1 was flooded first and the Car deck superstructure later, when it was submerged during the sinking. The answer to the second question is basic; the Upper deck deck house does not contribute with any buoyancy at any time. It is instantaneously flooded as it becomes submerged. The SSPA consortium is kindly requested to consider the above. Anders Björkman Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea 31 August 2007 Slide 11: Detachment of the bow visor. This slide is not clear. Slide 16: Announcement It is hereby announced that to aid the proceeding of this study, the SSPA Consortium invites any substantive information to be provided in written form for the consideration in explaining the circumstances of the loss of the MV Estonia Slide 23: Two main scenarios 1. Due to water on the car deck with an intact underwater part of the hull 2. A damage in the watertight hull with consecutive flooding of the car deck Slide 26: Total volume up to 6th Deck 65,870 t Ship mass/intact buoyancy 12,200 t Deck house 26,000 t Car deck 20,000 t Reserve buoyancy deck 0/1 7,700 t Slide 27: Vessel sinking process For the MV Estonia to sink some 7,700 tonnes much have reached below the car deck Slide 28: Vessel heeling process For the MV Estonia to heel to 40deg+, flooding of Car Deck spaces must take place Slide 29: Vessel stability deteriorations process: For the M/V Estonia to retain stable heel in excess of 40deg+, Upper Decks have to provide temporary support Slide 30: Loss process - Summary: MV Estonia sank. Therefore Car Deck, Upper Decks and Decks 0/1 must have flooded. MV Estonia attained heel angle in excess of 40 deg. Therefore, large scale flooding of the Car deck spaces had to take place. MV Estonia floated on her side, Therefore flooding of Upper decks must have been slow, taking place between 13-28 min. Slide 32: Jaic Scenario (figures) 1. Water enters Car Deck 2. Vessel with 85° heel (car deck and deck house 4, 5, 6 flooded) 3. Hull (not to scale) being flooded Slide 33: JAIC scenario incomplete: - how Estonia floated on her side ? - how Estonia sank (Deck 0/1) ? Slide 34: QUESTIONS: No consistent explanation of the chain of events leading to all these processes has been provided to date The 1st question remaining is: was the Car Deck first to flood and the Decks 0/1 flooded "from above" or were the Decks 0/1 the first to flood and the Car deck flooded "from below" The 2nd question is: what is the time frame of the loss of buoyancy in the upper decks
The fundamental Deficiency The fundamental deficiency of the Final report into the sinking of the 'Estonia' issued 1997 is of course that it does not explain how and why the ferry actually sank as a result of the published proximate causes of accident - defective locks securing the visor protecting the ramp of the forward opening in the superstructure, wave loads, structural damages, ripped open ramp and finally water entering the superstructure! If you, like Heiwa Co, ask that simple question - why sink due to all those fairy tales - the only reply you get is an insult; you are stupid, conspirative, unreasonable. This is a normal reaction when official people are caught with their pants down lying. Because it is very easy to show that all info about defective locks, wave loads, structural damages, water inside the superstructure, etc., etc. are simple lies. The Commission evidently censored the fact that the ferry floated on its undamaged watertight hull according to the principle of buoyancy of Archimedes developed circa 252 BC and that sinking could only have started, when (or if) the hull started to fill up with water. The Commission never explained - they could not - how the undamaged hull - 14 watertight compartments - were filled with water so that the ferry could sink. The now infamous Final report does not mention or investigate watertight integrity, watertight doors, bilge pumps and bilge alarms in the hull preventing sinking and ignore crew statements to the effect that the ship was leaking below waterline and being flooded from below. The Commission instead alleges (invents - because nothing is true) that
Why and how 14 watertight compartments of the undamaged hull - totally 18 000 cubic meters volume - on which the 'Estonia' initially floated with displacement about 12 000 tons and with 6 000 cubic meter of reserve buoyancy and closed watertight doors was water filled is never explained. One major reason to make a new study is actually to clarify this very serious deficiency - how can a heeling moment produced by water inside a superstructure cause an intact ship hull to sink? Naval architects everywhere are also invited to answer the riddle. The members of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and students of marine accidents have been invited 2002 to explain why the 'Estonia' sank in the official sequence of events of the Commission/Final report as quoted below. Nobody at the RINA has replied (2004). The Swedish National Maritime Administration (Sjöfartsverket) has officially announced that the Final report into the sinking of the 'Estonia' is complete in all respects in spite of it not explaining the inevitable sinking (sic). As a matter of fact the Swedish Director of Safety at Sea, Mr Johan Franson, has explicitly told his expert staff not to look into the matter at all - the floating and sinking of the 'Estonia' cannot be discussed at the Swedish NMA. So much for safety at sea - floating of ships - at the Swedish NMA. The Swedish NMA is not happy that a new study is made 2006-2008! Previous study 2002-2003 full of lies The Swedish government did on 19 April 2001 acknowledge that the Final report does not explain the sinking. However, instead of asking some real experts to clarify the matter, the government decided that the Swedish Board of Psychological Defence, SPF, should provide 'one explanation that, based on the sequence of events of the Final report (sic), describes how the 'Estonia' was filled with water at the end of accident'. This in an interesting task. 'The sequence of events of the Final report' is quoted below. Other sections of the Final report give slightly different descriptions. But how was the hull of the 'Estonia' flooded and filled with water 'at the end of the accident' so that she sank is not described anywhere. Staffan Sjöling - the lying SPF 'Expert' On 30 September 2002 the SPF appointed Mr Staffan Sjöling, a young naval architect of the Swedish Defence Board of Equipment, to carry out a 60 hours pre-study (sic) how to carry out the task to explain the water filling to be ready on 31 December 2002. However Mr Sjöling could not produce the pre-study in time. But on the 28th March 2003 Mr Sjöling did in fact produce not only a pre-study but a full report describing the water filling of (a) the superstructure, This water filling report is full of new, false assumptions and manipulated calculations that are easy to reveal and is only the latest contribution to the 'Estonia' tragedy and cover-up ordered by the Swedish government. Mr Sjöling never considered the below, basic facts. Why didn't the 'Estonia' capsize and float upside down latest at Events 15 - 23 of the Commission? There are at least 33 'events' according to the Commission/Final report before the sinking (none of them proven!) - events 1-18 are about the list occasioned by alleged very large, increasing amounts of water inside the superstructure on the watertight car deck producing a big heeling moment (the trimming moment is conveniently forgotten) of the intact hull. Why didn't the 'Estonia' trim so that the Water either flowed out (bow trim) or stopped flowing in (stern trim - opening high above water)? Then there are events 19-33 about the flooding of the deck house on top of the superstructure and 8-18 meters above the waterline. There the Commission states - event 30 - that due to flooding of the deck house (sic) - 8-18 meters above the waterline - the watertight compartments of the hull below waterline started to flood from above!? Mr Sjöling was appointed to explain this surprising effect - the watertight compartments of the hull started to flood from above. How? No scientific Explanation No scientific explanation had been given for eight years why water in the open deck house of the 'Estonia' flooded the hull compartments below the superstructure. It is evidently not possible to explain at all! Event 34 - that the ship inevitably sank - is therefore not explained. Please dear reader, remember, every event must also have a proven cause to produce an effect. In spite of the fact that Mr Sjöling should explain the water filling based on the official sequence of events including flooding from above, Sjöling invents new defects - ventilation ducts in the side - and new phenomena - the vessel floats on the deck house, which is only flooded when one or two doors or a few windows break open - preventing capsize for 35 minutes! Some basic information that Mr Sjöling ignores in his study:
More basic information to consider:
The falsified Plot of the Accident The movements (speed, course, position, angle of heel, etc) of the 'Estonia' during the 33 events leading up to the sinking at 0152 hrs are plotted in figure 13.2 of the Final report. It can easily be proven that this plot is a total falsification. It is in fact only a plot of an undamaged ship that turns under engine power and then drifts due to weather and wind (and never sinks). The inventor of the plot has then added alleged angles of list at various times and the Commission has later modified, increased, these alleged angles of list to the plot to make it appear that it is a plot of the 'sinking' 'Estonia' and it then deleted the drifting after 0152 hrs to make it appear that the vessel sank at 0152 hrs. Thus, the alleged events of the Commission are based on a false and manipulated plot! It is a pity that Mr Staffan Sjöling does not understand this and points it out to the SPF! The Final report gives some key times 01.14, 01.24, 01.27, 01.33, 01.42 and 01.52 hrs with certain amounts of water in the superstructure and the deck house and the associated angle of list as per below table. The expert of the Commission, Dr. Michael Huss, FRINA, who made the original plot, had previously suggested other - much smaller - amounts/angles of list in a report to the Commission, which were later modified in the Final report. Huss only calculated the water inflow into the superstructure and the resulting list until capsize (at 01.42 hrs). Trim was not considered. Huss knew that the ship would capsize but cannot admit it. His calculations therefore stop, when 2 000 tons have entered the superstructure. Huss has falsified the inflow rates to delay the capsize. Huss cannot explain how the hull would fill with water. Dr Huss assisted the Commission to falsify the accident investigation. The Commission arbitrarily then suggested that the water inflow (tons/min) into the superstructure was about six to seventeen times larger than suggested by dr Huss. Huss did not protest! The Commission did not provide any stability calculations except a falsification for the event at about 0130-0133 hrs with 18 000 tons (sic) of water in the ship 19-22 minutes before the sinking which allegedly was stable not causing capsize. The 'Estonia' loaded 18 000 tons of water - she had only a deadweight of 3 000 tons - but was still stable - and didn't sink. Sjöling improves on this - he states that even more water can be loaded without causing sinking. Below is a table showing the water inside the vessel at different times - the hull is always dry - according to Huss and the Commission.
There is no doubt that the Commission manipulated (added to) Huss figures. Thus all alleged events of the Commission are not based on any correct stability calculations - just on arbitrary angles of heel and amounts of water inside the ship. It is a scandal that Mr Sjöling does not discover this. Evidently you must check the validity of the input data. Has Mr Sjöling not heard the expression 'Rubbish in - rubbish out'? 33 False Events (no evidence of any sort!) = Lies - The fairy Tale! The 33 events or statements of the Commission below left are verbally from the Final report with right some comments and references to the book Disaster Investigation ! All 'events' are false, misleading or distortions of facts. So now will we finally know how and why the ship sank, i.e. how the buoyancy in the hull was lost ... or?
The above 33 'events' are the alleged 'scientific' explanations by the Commission after 38 months of secret deliberations, why the 'Estonia' sank in 37 or 20 minutes, i.e. how 14 watertight compartments in the hull were flooded and 12 000 m3 of buoyancy and 6.000 m3 of reserve buoyancy in the hull were lost. But the latter - event 34, the inevitable sinking - is never explained. The conclusion that a ship sinks due to windows breaking in a deck house 8-12 meters above waterline is of course ridiculous - but it is the official explanation for the biggest maritime accident in the Baltic since 1945. You wonder what clown wrote this? And why not one Estonian, Finnish or Swedish expert has queried it! Except the undersigned (who is based in Egypt and France). Anyway, Mr. Staffan Sjöling of the Swedish Defence Board of Equipment accepted in September 2002 to explain in 60 hours how to describe the sinking. And Mr Sjöling accepted all above 33 events as truth! Mr Sjöling has then proven himself incompetent. We are in fact not very interested in the various 'events' when the ship was still floating, we are only interested why the 'Estonia' sank according to the principle of Archimedes. More basic information: Basic Particulars and Assumptions - Deck House - Intact Stability - Water in the Deck House
Events 19-33 are about water in the deckhouse causing a ship to sink. Everybody (including Mr Sjöling) should know that a ship does not float on a deckhouse or its windows (it is always high up in the air) but the Commission made up 15 events to explain that water in a deckhouse with broken windows causes sinking of the hull. It is to say the least unsatisfactory. An even more obvious and serious question was never replied to in the Final report - why didn't the 'Estonia' capsize and float upside down when the superstructure was flooded? Doesn't the principle of Archimedes apply at every alleged 'event'? All 'Events' are false - the whole Story is one Fairy Tale - 100's of lies!! It is sad to conclude that all 33 'events' above are false - the listing (events 1 - 18) cannot have been caused by water in the superstructure and the flooding of the deck house (event 19 - 33) with broken windows is irrelevant and cannot have caused the sinking - the flooding of the watertight hull below the superstructure and associated loss of buoyancy. It is even sadder to note that Mr Sjöling in 2002-2003 expands on the broken windows deckhouse doors theory - he assumes that the deckhouse is watertight and allows small amounts of water to enter the deck house through selected windows and doors, while at the same time the ship floats on the deck house. This is not incompetence - it is unscientific and in the circumstances ... criminal. Sjöling assists to clean up after the cover up. If the ramp had been fully open when the ship was making 14/15 knots and pitching up/down five meters every six seconds, as alleged by the Commission, the ship should simply have capsized in the first minute - each wave entering the superstructure (every six second) would have added 180 tons of water into the superstructure. Any other story with an open ramp, speed forward and big pitching is a fairy tale. Mr Sjöling does not agree ... he believes the vessel floats on unbroken windows. Why did the Commission make up the false Story of 33 different Events, none of which is true? Who wrote the fairy tale in the Final report? It seems to have been written by persons with some knowledge of ship and stability and it should be clear that these persons are fully aware that they are making it up? Evidently the story does not tally fully with the official plot of the accident. Why did the Commission publish a false plot of the accident based on a plot of an undamaged ship? Why did the Commission then try to make up 33 events to fit the plot? And why didn't Mr Sjöling react when he wrote his report? What kind of 'Stability Experts' did the Commission use? The stability experts were, i.a. dr. Michael Huss, FRINA, professor Olle Rutgersson, FRINA and member of RINA Safety Committee, captains Hans Rosengren, Olle Noord and Sten Anderson, Sweden, mr Tuomi Karppinen (head of Finnish Bord of Accident Investigations since 2002), Anti Rantanen and Veli-Matti Junnila and professor Jerzy Matusiak, Finland and professor Heino Levald of Estonia, none of whom have questioned the info on this page - they all refuse to answer. Rutgersson, FRINA, is back in action again 2006 to assist the latest government study. Rutgersson is infamous in Sweden for having received millions is research grants from Swedish government agency Vinnova 2000-2006 without producing any results at all. Rutgersson is one of these useful idiots always telling the media that the government and JAIC and the JAIC Final report are fantastic but that you can always improve. The result - Vinnova is giving Rutgersson SEK1 000 000's to carry out research of better safety at sea. The sad thing is that Rutgersson has not produced any results for better safety at sea at all for the last 15 years. The writer has in fact met dr Michael Huss (August 1997) and asked him to explain the stability during the sinking. Dr Huss refused but was kind enough to accuse the writer of being conspiratorial before he (Huss) hysterically left the room in anger with Rutgersson looking on. Dr Huss is today the head of the ship department of the Swedish Maritime Administration in charge of stability, etc. It seems that dr Huss is looking for new staff to help him falsifying more stability calculations - the NMA is looking for new staff - call in Sweden (+46) Mikael Huss 011-19 18 12, Göran Liljeström 011-19 13 29, Tina Hjort 011-19 14 46 for more info. (It seems Huss asked for an got early retirement in 2006). And how comes that no serious naval architects except Heiwa Co have questioned the fairy tales of the Commission for seven years? (Or twelve years - this article is up-dated in 2006) A new investigation should give the answer. All new facts are, as stated above, to be collected and analysed by the Swedish Board of Psychological Defence, SPF, which has, as stated, been given the job on 19 April 2001 by the Swedish government to explain why the 'Estonia' sank (was filled with water at the end of the accident'). That job should have been completed early 2002, but on 3 March 2002 the SPF had not even started looking into the matter. It is an impossible task because the Final report is a falsification. On 30 September 2002 the SPF appointed, as stated above, naval architect Staffan Sjöling to have a go. On 31 December 2002 Mr Sjöling could not provide any method to prove sinking based on the official events. But on 28 March he produced a report - another criminal manipulation of the 'Estonia' tragedy. Yes, it is criminal to write such a report - to assist cover up serious mistakes of the Commission. Heiwa Co suggests since 1994 that the 'Estonia' sank due a simple leak of the hull below the waterline. The Commission never investigated the possibility. According to the Commission the hull is undamaged and there is no leak (but neither the Commission nor Mr Sjöling has evidently not provided any evidence to this effect). Maybe the reason is that 12 extra Estonians survived - and disappeared? Heiwa Co suggests since 2002 that the Swedish government ordered the removal of the visor under water after the accident to assist the Commission to produce a false investigation report. Explosives were used and a big hole made in the superstructure. Heiwa Co encourages 2004 the Estonian people to demand a completely new investigation into the sinking of the 'Estonia' 1994. On 17 March 2005 the Swedish government announced that SEK 8 million should be used in a research project to explain the impossible sinking. The project starts 1 February 2006 and is controlled by Vinnova. The project will end 15 September 2008. It will be interesting to see if the 'scientists' can confirm any JAIC facts in that time. And more interesting - how will the scientists announce that all JAIC 'facts' are outrageous LIES to cover up the real cause of the MV Estonia sinking? Anders Björkman, Heiwa Co, 2002-2006 Back to 'Disaster Investigation' Back to 'Lies and Truths about the M/V Estonia accident' To more info in English about the Estonia investigation
|
the hull was undamaged all the times (all
watertight doors were closed and the hull was
intact and, indirectly the Commission confirmed, that the
Principles of Archimedes applied at all times), and that
the 'Estonia' floats on the watertight
hull,
which is subdivided into 14 watertight compartments
by watertight, transverse bulkheads fitted with
(too many) watertight doors. The hull, 7.56 meters
deep, is shown in green in the figure right where
the double bottom of the hull is shown blue. The
main engine room compartment in the hull is purple.
The top of the
hull is
the watertight car deck no. 2
(red in the
figure), which is >2,15 meters
above the waterline,