[ad_1]
Published:
Experts who have examined the images of the hole in the Estonian hull agree: an object has penetrated with great force from the side.
One theory is that it is a submarine.
– 500-600 tons, is the force that is needed to obtain this deformation, says Jørgen Amdahl, professor of marine technology in the new documentary series on Dplay, ESTONIA, the find that changes everything.
The hole in the hull is four meters high and 1.2 meters at the widest point. When it happened, the frame and half frame, the heavy steel beams of the ship’s hull, were also damaged.
Professor Amdahl and his colleagues at the Trondheim Institute of Marine Technology have created a model of elements of the side of a ship.
With the help of images from the film, they have recreated the damage and calculated what force was needed to cause it.
Photo: DPLAY
The damage is roughly on the waterline, one-third aft of the Estonian starboard side. Here it is illustrated in a graph.
Photo: GYRID FRIIS EDLAND / VG
Over the years, Jørgen Amdahl has studied a number of ship injuries that have occurred due to collisions. He is convinced that an external force caused the damage to Estonia.
The damage extends both above and below the waterline. The question is how and when the damage occurred.
“An external force that pressed”
Theoretically, a large rock, lying on a hard bottom, could have caused the damage when the ship sank and fell on its side. But the available data show that the substrate on which Estonia rests consists of soft clay sediments. It is not documented that it would be rocky nearby.
Photo: DPLAY
The damage to the Estonian hull is four meters high and 1.2 meters at the widest point. Here it is illustrated in a graph.
Photo: Dplay
Underwater image of the new documentary series “Estonia: the discovery that changes everything”.
A Norwegian military explosives expert who has seen the footage from the film believes that the damage does not appear to have come from an explosion. Then the edges would have faded more.
– It appears as an external force that has pressed on the side of the hull, says Naval Captain Frank Børressen in the documentary.
“Power from 500 to 600 tons”
Professor Jørgen Amdahl has studied over the years a number of injuries on boats that have occurred due to collisions. He is convinced that it is an external force that he has also counted on. Calculations show that it is a force of more than 500-600 tons that caused the damage to Estonia.
What does that mean then?
The bow visor that came off weighs 55 tons and that excludes Amdahl as the cause. In that case, 20 bow visors would have been needed, it says in the documentary. Also, the damage has been a third aft, so it is unlikely that the bow visor was moved there.
Photo: URBAN ANDERSSON
The Estonian bow visor was salvaged on November 18, 1994.
Instead, Amdahl takes some other more likely examples that may have caused the force.
“Ships of several thousand tons”
– It corresponds to a 1000-ton boat at a speed of four knots, for example a large fishing boat, he says.
– Or a 5000 ton ship at 1.9 knots.
The largest ship in the Swedish Coast Guard, the 001 series, is intermediate in size compared to a weight of 3,700 tons.
But since no ships of this size have been seen in the fateful night, there is practically only one alternative left, Amdahl believes. A submarine.
Photo: THE COAST GUARD
The largest ship in the Swedish Coast Guard, the 001 series, weighs 3,700 tonnes.
“I saw something strange in the water”
One survivor, Carl Eric Reintamm, was in his cockpit located on the deck below the car deck. He was one of the first to climb the stairs to the walking platform. He had been startled by a terrible noise and ran out alone in his underpants. He thought it sounded like the ship was going through ice.
Photo: PRIVATE
“When I stand there and look down, I see something strange in the water. I see something that is white, several times several meters long,” says survivor Carl Eric Reintamm.
Talk about an amazing observation:
– When I stand there and look down, I see something strange in the water. I see something that is white, several times several meters long. It moves to the left and at the same time there are waves on it.
– I’ve never done military service and I have no idea what submarines are like in water. It was dark in the water, I have no idea if a submarine can look brighter than water.
Was it a submarine?
Marine engineering expert Jørgen Amdahl is asked if it is reasonable. What was a submarine?
– He sees something, but it is not certain that he sees everything. There are many different sizes of submarines, from less than a thousand tons to several thousand tons, Amdahl says in the documentary.
– All witnesses must be valued. This is an observation that must be taken seriously.
When Carl Eric Reintamm sees the images from the film, he is captivated.
– It’s something I’ve been waiting for all these years. And that seems revolutionary.
On Friday last week, representatives of the Estonian government also had the opportunity to examine the documentation more closely in Oslo.
“It is unlikely with another ship”
Naval engineer Märten Vaikma is part of the expert committee and, following the presentation, tells Aftonbladet’s sister magazine VG that Estonia at the time of the accident had a speed of 14 knots.
– Any other boat must have moved faster to have caused this damage. I would say it is unlikely. My first impression is that it must have happened while the ship was sliding to the bottom of the sea.
– It must have been an object like a stone, he tells VG.
Photo: GYRID FRIIS EDLAND / VG
Naval engineer Märten Vaikma is one of the experts who examined the cinematic images of the damage in Estonia.
Vaikma believes that the damage, had it been caused by another ship, would not have had an elongated shape.
– If the boat slides on something sharp, the crack will be very long. If a collision had occurred, the entire side would have been scratched and damaged. This damage is, as I see it, very local.
Photo: Dplay
Seafloor mapping taken from the Swedish Maritime Administration.
Another of the Estonian experts is Kristjan Tabri, with a doctorate in shipbuilding and principal investigator at Tallinn University of Technology.
It refers to the testimonies given in the report of the Accident Investigation Board of survivors who fled this part of Estonia.
– They do not mention that they have seen water in this region. This also applies to the engineers who fled the control room, says Tabri. It is very difficult to believe that they would have made it out if the water had entered here.
The Estonian delegation, which also included Mart Luik, an adviser to the Estonian Foreign Minister, declined to comment on the need for a new investigation, which is already necessary.
Were the initial investigations of the wreck deficient?
– It is difficult for me to assess it, says Mart Luik. There has been a large number of speculations, but most experts in this field believe that we should continue to trust the original report.
Can new research end speculation?
– No, with the great ship tragedies, unfortunately there is always speculation, Luik tells VG.
– But, of course, it should be an objective to substantiate the original conclusion or add significant details, or find out what is the cause of this damage and if it affected the sinking.
Published:
