The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Steve]

Watertight from being impinged from the upper decks, such as a car deck.

The bilge pumps are there as a safety net. If you have ever been in a rowing boat or speed boat, or even a yacht, you'll know that water getting in is not at all uncommon.

Of course it is not uncommon. You are making my point for me and failing to grasp it at the same time. Bilges on ships are not water tight. The source of the water in the bilge has no relevance to that fact.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That the ramp is open now doesn't mean it was open before it sank.
When the ship capsized then sank it was subject to stresses it was not designed for. When it hit the sea bed it was subject to stresses it was not designed for.
It has been corroding on a soft, shifting sea bed for decades and subject to stresses it it was not designed for.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You may have noticed that the signatories to the M/S Estonia treaty, are all Baltic nations...excluding Germany, who declined to sign...and Britain, which is nowhere near the Baltic.



Do check your geography.



[credit: wikipedia]

You may have noticed those facts were never even called into question to begin with.

A statement about why one country did a thing doesn't mean all countries did, or for those which did, were for that same reason, and none of that has any bearing on their relative geographies.

You can take the pants off of your head now.

ETA: it's called "denying the antecedent" or fallacy of the inverse.

 

[Steve]

Yes, but I see we are talking past each other.



















This exchange started when I said the guy who stopped to brush his teeth when the ferry was listing was odd because he should have been freaked out at the list.

Vixen was saying it was normal to slide all over. Instead of you or Captain Swoop saying simply "but not ferries, on a ferry it would not be normal" the exchange continued as if it was common or at least occurred occasionally.

Given the exchange started when I said the guy brushing his teeth with the listing ferry, folks not attuned to that initial issue probably didn't understand my issue: i.e. talking past each other.

I think we're good here.

I think we are too. Apologies for missing the earlier part of the discussion.

 

[theprestige]

"A gust of wind blew the wing off the plane".

"Heavy turbulence tore a poorly-maintained wing off a plane that would otherwise have continued flying."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

"...in addition, early signs of the failure weren't diagnosed properly due to confusing and ambiguous language in the QRH, contributing to the crew's failure to identify and respond to the problem in time.

Further concerns arise from elements of the pilot training simulator exercises...

...maintenance procedures have been updated to inspect these surfaces for fatigue at regular intervals..."

And on and on and on.

It is never one thing.

We all get it is never one thing.

These are just thinly veiled personal attacks on the credibility of other participants.

ETA: if you tilt your head just so, close one eye, and squint, it kinda looks like Captain_Swoop said Germany has no Baltic Coastline...

...or something.

 

[Vixen]

"...in addition, early signs of the failure weren't diagnosed properly due to confusing and ambiguous language in the QRH, contributing to the crew's failure to identify and respond to the problem in time.

Further concerns arise from elements of the pilot training simulator exercises...

...maintenance procedures have been updated to inspect these surfaces for fatigue at regular intervals..."

And on and on and on.

It is never one thing.

We all get it is never one thing.

These are just thinly veiled personal attacks on the credibility of other participants.

ETA: if you tilt your head just so, close one eye, and squint, it kinda looks like Captain_Swoop said Germany has no Baltic Coastline...

...or something.

Let's get this into perspective. According to the passenger list, the breakdown of citizens aboard the M/S Estonia were as follows:

Belarus 1
Canada 1
Danish 6
Estonia 343
Finland 16
Germany 8
Great Britain 2
Latvia 27
Lithuania 4
Morocco 2
Netherlands 2
Nigeria 1
Norway 9
Russia 13
Sweden 559


The signatories to the treaty to make the place it sank into a protected area in international waters includes:

The Baltic nations, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Denmark and Russia, plus the UK. Excluded is Germany, which had eight passengers. Included is the UK, which had two, of which one survived. The UK is about a thousand miles away from the Baltic.

Therefore, it can readily be seen that Captain_Swoop's claim the UK signed, 'because it had victims amongst the dead' is not a fact, especially as the UK government has declined to explain why. It is pure speculation on his part, which is clearly misconceived.


So are we now singing from the same song sheet?

 

[Andy_Ross]

So why did they sign?

What speculation are you going to contribute?
Will it involve MI6 and Russian electronics?

 

[Steve]

Let's get this into perspective. According to the passenger list, the breakdown of citizens aboard the M/S Estonia were as follows:

Belarus 1
Canada 1
Danish 6
Estonia 343
Finland 16
Germany 8
Great Britain 2
Latvia 27
Lithuania 4
Morocco 2
Netherlands 2
Nigeria 1
Norway 9
Russia 13
Sweden 559


The signatories to the treaty to make the place it sank into a protected area in international waters includes:

The Baltic nations, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Denmark and Russia, plus the UK. Excluded is Germany, which had eight passengers. Included is the UK, which had two, of which one survived. The UK is about a thousand miles away from the Baltic.

Therefore, it can readily be seen that Captain_Swoop's claim the UK signed, 'because it had victims amongst the dead' is not a fact, especially as the UK government has declined to explain why. It is pure speculation[/I] on his part, which is clearly misconceived.


So are we now singing from the same song sheet?

You say this like you think speculation is a bad thing. And yet you are continuously speculating in this very thread on things you really do not understand. Can you say "hypocrite"?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Also the UK has a lot of sunken ships with restrictions on diving.
They are WW1 and WW2 remains and are classed as war graves.
We have the remains of a WW1 German U-Boat off the coast that is embargoed. Just a couple of years ago a pair of divers that took artefacts from it and were prosecuted.

 

[Vixen]

So why did they sign?

What speculation are you going to contribute?
Will it involve MI6 and Russian electronics?

They signed because they border the Baltic waters...except for the UK.

If I speculate I make it clear it is speculation. It is a fact that the Swedish government had moved Russian military equipment via the M/S Estonia. It is mentioned in the report that Sweden admits to doing one such military manoeuvre just two weeks before, and as confirmed publicly by the Swedish government and the Swedish establishment press. It has probably been advised by lawyers not to admit to anything on the night of the accident. However, surveillance cameras at the Tallinn port and independent eye witnesses did report a couple of military trucks being loaded after a long delay in leaving. The Estonia was running one hour late, which is very much frowned on by the authorities - rather like in airports - as many of its passengers have connecting flights, buses, coaches, taxis and trains to catch at the other end.


The MI6 is not my speculation, it is a belief of sole British survivor, Paul Barney, as I clearly cited.

 

[Vixen]

You say this like you think speculation is a bad thing. And yet you are continuously speculating in this very thread on things you really do not understand. Can you say "hypocrite"?

But it is all right for others to speculate and present it as fact? I think you just like arguing, Steve.

 

[Vixen]

Also the UK has a lot of sunken ships with restrictions on diving.
They are WW1 and WW2 remains and are classed as war graves.
We have the remains of a WW1 German U-Boat off the coast that is embargoed. Just a couple of years ago a pair of divers that took artefacts from it and were prosecuted.

Great Britain was actually a party to World War I and World War II, employing such servicemen and women. For example, the hospital ship HMS Lancastria:

About 4,000 men, women and children lost their lives when the Lancastria sank 20 minutes after it was bombed by the Germans near the French port of Saint-Nazaire on 17 June 1940. Fewer than 2,500 people survived.

BBC News Scotland


However, M/S Estonia was not at war, was not a military ship, it was a registered passenger cruise ship and ferry. The UK has absolutely nothing to do with M/S Estonia. None of the waters around the Baltic are British waters and never have been.

It has an interest in the sunken ships of WWI and WWII because it was party to the wars.


No comparison whatsoever.

 

[Steve]

But it is all right for others to speculate and present it as fact? I think you just like arguing, Steve.

It is acceptable for anyone to speculate. That can be a normal part of a discussion. It is equally acceptable for such speculations to be questioned in order to determine if they are reasonable and contribute useful information to the topic. It is not acceptable to present speculations as fact. It is not acceptable for anyone who speculates to hypocritically criticize others solely for speculating. This board is populated largely by people who like to argue, myself included. You also appear to enjoy an argument.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Are you claiming the Russians sank the ship?

If you aren't then what is your point?

 

[Vixen]

It is acceptable for anyone to speculate. That can be a normal part of a discussion. It is equally acceptable for such speculations to be questioned in order to determine if they are reasonable and contribute useful information to the topic. It is not acceptable to present speculations as fact. It is not acceptable for anyone who speculates to hypocritically criticize others solely for speculating. This board is populated largely by people who like to argue, myself included. You also appear to enjoy an argument.

This topic started off as 'social and current affairs' as I was merely reporting that the M/S Estonia was being reinvestigated by experts and that the treaty signed by the Baltic countries - plus the UK - had been amended to allow for this official re-visiting of the site. The Act has been amended up to 2024. The reason the investigators are back, is because a couple of German 'investigative journalists' on behalf of Estonian and Swedish survivors and relatives of the dead, and as approved by the German shipbuilders who designed and constructed the M/S Estonia whose diver robot cameras showed a hole in the hull , together with a four metre long fracture.


As the case goes back to 1994, I presume it was then moved to 'History' as it has a lot of background. For people to understand why the site has been reopened for approved official investigators, of course, the controversial issues need to be explained. The null hypotheses is that the bow visor simply fell off in a storm and has nothing at all to do with other circumstances. As the hole at the side tends to call for a rejection of the null hypothesis - because, of course, a hole in the hull will cause any ship to sink rapidly then you can see why it is being reevaluated.

Yet posters here believe the whole thing should be shut down and forgotten about, which i don't think demonstrates scepticism. It might demonstrate lack of interest, which is anybody's prerogative. However, I for one am interested in it. I am not sure why I should be criticised for bringing the topic up, when it is being reported in the Estonian, Swedish and Finnish newspapers.

 

[Steve]

Are you claiming the Russians sank the ship?

If you aren't then what is your point?

Doesn't seem to be one. More like just casting a wide net aimlessly for any conspiracy that can gain a foothold. You know - the most likely and reasonable scenario cannot possibly be correct, someone is hiding something, somehow.

 

[Vixen]

Are you claiming the Russians sank the ship?

If you aren't then what is your point?

I have never claimed it was the Russians. There are many people who believe it was a Swedish accident. I have no view, being determined, as always, to be as objective as possible. I have no eggs in the basket, as it were.


However, I enjoy problem solving so maybe that is what perplexes others, who prefer being told what to believe, as per the mass media. If it is not being reported by the BBC it can't be happening.

 

[Belz...]

I enjoy problem solving

Careful you don't end up creating the problems you want to solve.

 

[Vixen]

Doesn't seem to be one. More like just casting a wide net aimlessly for any conspiracy that can gain a foothold. You know - the most likely and reasonable scenario cannot possibly be correct, someone is hiding something, somehow.

Then perhaps you should contact the Swedish and Estonian authorities who are funding the new investigation that they are a bunch of conspiracy theorists who are wasting their money because you from your keyboard prefer to not to have to read about this in the press because everything is clear and obvious to you.