The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Steve]

This thread should not be here, it should be in the Conspiracies section.

I’m not sure about that. There has not actually been a conspiracy theory advanced. Just some nebulous JAQing from a “minority” of posters.

 

[Steve]

I am obviously not a 9/11 truther as I don't recall ever posting on that thread. I think I did post on the Pittsburg plane that came down on its way to Washington as I was intrigued by the brave passenger who said, 'Let's roll'. Like many people around the world, I wanted to understand what happened. You might claim such people are 'nutcases' but it doesn't make it so. You might be one of the apathetic majority who couldn't care less about such matters. It doesn't make you superior, as you seem to think it does.

You were not accused of being a 911 truther so your denial is unnecessary.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Shouldn't one show the crack was actually from an explosion of some sort before going off on who did it or how it was done? Is there evidence it blew out or blew in?

Explosions have indicators in how the metal is bent.

A stress fracture from the forces involved in sinking should be distinguishable from other kinds of fractures.

There has been a laughable claim that there were traces of explosives on a sample retrieved by the team that recently dived the wreck.

It's a clown show.

 

[Matthew Best]

They also have privy to classified and confidential stuff.

Have privy?

No.

 

[Vixen]

Some more detail on the ramp door in latest news:

In an interview with Vikerraadio Kristjan Tabri, a senior researcher at the Tallinn University of Technology’s Institute of Construction and Architecture explained that the ramp was attached to the vessel with eight eyelets and the final report of the investigation stated that only two eyelets remained intact.

«When the ship is upside down, the ramp, with its weight, which could be estimated at 10-15 tonnes, hangs on these two eyelets. I would say that the fundamental question is whether this ramp is completely off there or whether it is still there,» Tabri noted, adding that an amateur diver would not be able detach it.

Baltic News Network

 

[Vixen]

More news: an expert claims the current investigation has equipment that is not up to standard.

Technology used in a recent wreck survey of the MS Estonia, aimed at shedding light on the nature of the 1994 disaster is not up to the task, one expert says.

Jaanus Rahumägi, a security specialist and former MP, whose field includes maritime piracy prevention, told daily Postimees late last week that: "According to the available public information and the images, the technology currently used for diving to the Estonia is not suitable for this purpose.

<snip>
One of the key findings in the 10-day expedition, the first of its kind in many years and a preliminary to more extensive work to start next spring, revolves around the vessel's vehicle ramp, which was previously thought to have been in almost a fully-closed position, but now appears to be fully open and dislodged from its hinges.

Conclusions shouldn't be jumped to on this, Rahumägi said.

"The quality of the existing images is very poor and does not provide answers to experts too," he told the daily, quoted by BNS.

<snip>


At the same time, Rahumägi said, a proper investigation including work on the chain of events regarding the ramp would not be difficult.

He said: "In order to get a fact-based scientific and technological explanation to the new information concerning the MS Estonia, it is necessary to explore the locations of the fracture of the ramp, its condition, and the current position of the ramp in relation to the hull of the ship".

"Take metal samples, if necessary. This has not been done so far," he added.

Either a human diver or a remote-operated submersible would be up to the task and the right equipment could also physically open up the ramp's structure, to build up a clearer picture, he said – adding that the length of time the wreck has been on the sea bottom means there are various factors which could have influenced the attitude of the ramp, and the wreck as a whole.

News ERR.ee

So the options are:

• The ramp was initially closed (with gap at the top due to the bow visor falling off) but then fell open before sinking)
• Likewise, except it came open after sinking
• Someone has been there beneath the waves and removed the ramp, which an expert claims can't be done by an amateur diver
• The ramp was closed but has fallen open and off its hinges as a result of time (e.g., water pressure/ corrosion / rust).
• The ramp was open all along, as soon as the bow visor fell off (eye witnesses have notoriously incorrect recollections).

The implication impacts on how water filled the car deck and whether the water had an escape route.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Given the size and weight of the ramp I don't see that an 'amateur diver' would be able to do anything about 'removing' the ramp.
It would need a proper salvage team and heavy lifting equipment.

As for collecting 'samples' what does he propose are collected and how?


It's back to a full salvage team

 

[Vixen]

Given the size and weight of the ramp I don't see that an 'amateur diver' would be able to do anything about 'removing' the ramp.
It would need a proper salvage team and heavy lifting equipment.

As for collecting 'samples' what does he propose are collected and how?


It's back to a full salvage team

After videoing the underwater wreck, the bodies should have been recovered and the whole thing salvaged within days. It's one thing being shipwrecked at the bottom of an ocean floor in wartime conditions - over 70 years ago - and there simply isn't the resources or know-how, and an accident on public transport in modern times, on a relatively shallow clay seabed not far from land. Of course, it is too late to do it now as the flesh on the bodies will have come away, leaving skeletons, >630 of them, no doubt heaped high on top of each other at stairwells, behind cabin doors, together with young children and babes in arms. Whoever thought this was a dignified way to 'rest in peace' was totally lacking in empathy for the victim's families.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Would you dive inside a wreck?

Would you dive inside a wreck to recover 600 bodies?

Why would it have been salvaged within days?

What does the war have to do with it?

 

[Vixen]

Would you dive inside a wreck?

Would you dive inside a wreck to recover 600 bodies?

Why would it have been salvaged within days?

What does the war have to do with it?

It was you who drew our attention to sunken war ships being protected graves.

The emergency services, sadly, recover bodies of accident victims all the time. Many of the helicopter rescuers had to retrieve dead bodies as on a typical life raft of originally twenty survivors, only seven would still be alive when spotted (cf Kent Horstedt).

As it is >70m deep, it would have probably needed divers from the navy. It would have identified where the crew and the captain were. As you know, the Captain was declared a survivor but then mysteriously declared not a survivor.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It would not be navy divers, they would not have the equipment or expertise to recover over 600 bodies from a wreck in 70m of water.
60 metres is a 'technical' depth that requires hypoxic breathing gas and special equipment.
Specialised support vessels are needed to keep divers at that depth for any length of time to do any kind of work.

Rescuing people and recovering bodies from the surface is different to rescuing them from a wreck in deep water.

Recovering bodies from a ship sunk or aground in shallow water is not the same as entering a wreck in deep water to do the same.

It would not be normal practice to recover so many bodies from a wreck in deep water.

 

[Vixen]

It would not be navy divers, they would not have the equipment or expertise to recover over 600 bodies from a wreck in 70m of water.
60 metres is a 'technical' depth that requires hypoxic breathing gas and special equipment.
Specialised support vessels are needed to keep divers at that depth for any length of time to do any kind of work.

Rescuing people and recovering bodies from the surface is different to rescuing them from a wreck in deep water.

Recovering bodies from a ship sunk or aground in shallow water is not the same as entering a wreck in deep water to do the same.

It would not be normal practice to recover so many bodies from a wreck in deep water.

Presumably most of them were still inside the ship, so one way could have been to bring up the ship.

It's all moot now.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How would they bring the ship up?

 

[Vixen]

How would they bring the ship up?

The depth is half that of the length of the ship, so there would be good leverage for a couple of cranes.

 

[erwinl]

The depth is half that of the length of the ship, so there would be good leverage for a couple of cranes.

In a few days (that is what you said, didn’t you)?
Who, besides you, says that is possible in that time period?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The depth is half that of the length of the ship, so there would be good leverage for a couple of cranes.

Why do you think that would be practical?

Do you think that fixing a crane to one end and heaving it up would work?

Do you know of any ships that have been salvaged and raised from that depth?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I would think the bodies would be in the kind of condition that would require a closed casket. Any images escaping into the public would be distressing to the family members. Could you imagine asking them to come in for an ID?

"Nevermind the dismembered limbs and half of their chest cavity being devoured from the inside, is this your husband?"

I think leaving them there is the more dignified solution.

The "no empty graves" thing is rather callously detached, I agree.

Did they never erect a memorial stone or such? That could be a compromise.

 

[Vixen]

In a few days (that is what you said, didn’t you)?
Who, besides you, says that is possible in that time period?

I meant within a few days of the accident. Obviously, not now.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you think that would be practical?

Do you think that fixing a crane to one end and heaving it up would work?

Do you know of any ships that have been salvaged and raised from that depth?

There is certainly the technology or we wouldn't be able to construct rigs in the North Sea. As I recall, the Swedish government at the time estimated a recovery cost of 144m (not sure if this is dollar or pounds; if SKr, then that would be circa 1.4m) so rejected it as 'too expensive'. But the family members of the crew (who were insured by the employer) shared 44m in compo amongst them. The passenger's families are still fighting for compensation. They have a received a few thousand at most. Then many of the relatives were denied being allowed to buried their loved ones on consecrated ground in their own home town. Not all want this of course. Many prefer to imagine their family died in each others arms.

 

[Steve]

The depth is half that of the length of the ship, so there would be good leverage for a couple of cranes.

What size would the two cranes each have to be - what carrying capacity?

What type of mounting platform would be used so that they could be anchored and leveraged to prevent them from tipping into the water and joining the ferry?

What would be the secure anchor points on the ferry, each having the strength to support over half the weight of the ferry, that would ensure that this proposed operation could be completed safely?

Would the crane operators and support crew for this rather dangerous venture be allowed to volunteer, or would they be press-ganged into it?

You seem to know a lot about such things so I am assuming that you have given reasonable thought to the details.