• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
*I* didn't say it was suspicious. I said some people have said it was.
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed your attempt to insinuate evil gossip into the discussion without taking responsibility for it. I rightly ignore that dishonest ploy and assign you responsibility for the claim. You go on below to suggest that it was, indeed, suspicious, so yes, you have said that it is suspicious.

Why would having a boat ready and correct clothing be suspicious before anyone knew the ship was sinking? Think about it and you will have answered your own question.
Click to expand...

Right, so you *are* saying it was suspicious. You're not "just a messenger"; You're a rumor-monger and unaccountable spreader of evil gossip.

More substantively, is this a reference to the Per-Ehrik guy you mentioned earlier? The passenger who ran outside at 1:30am during a chilly storm in his underwear? Are you trying to suggest that he did this completely unaware at the time that something was seriously amiss, and was bemused by what those crew members might be doing?

I surmise from the hour and his state of undress that this passenger had been asleep in a cabin, yes? What about the crew members he saw? Had they been on duty, or at least out and about?

So, a passenger who had been asleep gets roused by goings on not only sufficiently loud to wake him, but sufficiently alarming to motivate him to run out into the elements in his underpants. Why would it be suspicious that on-duty crew were already well into crisis mode by the time he saw them?
 
As for having a 'boat ready'

SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) Regulations state that all commercial vessels and yachts over 500GRT should be provided with a Rescue Boat meeting SOLAS requirements. to act as a man-over-board recovery boat and to serve as a marshalling vessel for life rafts in the event of abandoning ship.
This has to be ready to launch and have a designated crew ready to man the boat while at sea.

If there hadn't been a boat ready and a suitable crew on standby the ship would have been breaking the law.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
As for having a 'boat ready'

SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) Regulations state that all commercial vessels and yachts over 500GRT should be provided with a Rescue Boat meeting SOLAS requirements. to act as a man-over-board recovery boat and to serve as a marshalling vessel for life rafts in the event of abandoning ship.
This has to be ready to launch and have a designated crew ready to man the boat while at sea.

If there hadn't been a boat ready and a suitable crew on standby the ship would have been breaking the law.


https://assets.publishing.service.g...chment_data/file/896523/MSIS_14_Chapter_5.pdf
Click to expand...

Better just add SOLAS to the conspiracy.
 
Vixen said:
Some people can spot a fake report, others cannot.
Click to expand...

Given the insinuation in this statement, here are some questions for you.

  1. Have you ever been on the crew of an oceangoing vessel?
  2. Have you ever participated in the commissioned forensic engineering investigation of a notable mishap?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
As for having a 'boat ready'

SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) Regulations state that all commercial vessels and yachts over 500GRT should be provided with a Rescue Boat meeting SOLAS requirements. to act as a man-over-board recovery boat and to serve as a marshalling vessel for life rafts in the event of abandoning ship.
This has to be ready to launch and have a designated crew ready to man the boat while at sea.

If there hadn't been a boat ready and a suitable crew on standby the ship would have been breaking the law.
Click to expand...

That's even better and more lethal a response than mine. Good show!
 
Reformed Offlian said:
That's even better and more lethal a response than mine. Good show!
Click to expand...

As for what it is like to be in a flooding ship.
Here is the RN training school.



From 6 minutes brings back memories. 'Hands to Action Stations, Assume NBC State One, Condition Zulu'

At 7.30 minutes there is a good example of the 'free surface effect' in a partly flooded compartment

 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That is certainly in line with a collision with another vessel.
Click to expand...


But you claimed it's suspicious that the crew of the Estonia were twice as likely to survive as passengers were. Yet crewmembers from the Empress of Ireland were three times as likely to survive. So exactly how is it suspicious?
 
junkshop said:
I don't recall anyone saying this, Vixen.
Click to expand...

There are several vociferous people who want to close the thread down. From wiki:

Michael Radutzky, a producer of CBS 60 Minutes, said his show considers fake news to be "stories that are probably false, have enormous traction [popular appeal] in the culture, and are consumed by millions of people."

However, the issues around M/S Estonia are not false, they are fact. The three governments and the signatories to the treaty have agreed to relook at the case. This is on the basis of a hole found in the hull, which is not mentioned anywhere in the JAIC report nor the fact of Sweden's intelligence agency, probably in cahoots with that of the Estonian, and possibly the UK and US ones, were indeed appropriating ex-Soviet military secrets/equipment on what would have been packed passenger ferries, which can hold up to 1,500 passengers.
Click to expand...
 
Steve said:
Except it is not. There are also many, many, completely unfounded and unevidenced, and frankly ignorant, assertions and accusations.

As I said upthread - throwing so much **** against the wall that some small aspect might actually be found to have a shred of truth to it. That will allow our CT'ist to ignore all the rest and come back with an "I told you!"
Click to expand...

So you keep saying but you haven't advanced any rationale for why it should not be reopened or even discussed on a forum.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Yes, I noticed your attempt to insinuate evil gossip into the discussion without taking responsibility for it. I rightly ignore that dishonest ploy and assign you responsibility for the claim. You go on below to suggest that it was, indeed, suspicious, so yes, you have said that it is suspicious.



Right, so you *are* saying it was suspicious. You're not "just a messenger"; You're a rumor-monger and unaccountable spreader of evil gossip.

More substantively, is this a reference to the Per-Ehrik guy you mentioned earlier? The passenger who ran outside at 1:30am during a chilly storm in his underwear? Are you trying to suggest that he did this completely unaware at the time that something was seriously amiss, and was bemused by what those crew members might be doing?

I surmise from the hour and his state of undress that this passenger had been asleep in a cabin, yes? What about the crew members he saw? Had they been on duty, or at least out and about?

So, a passenger who had been asleep gets roused by goings on not only sufficiently loud to wake him, but sufficiently alarming to motivate him to run out into the elements in his underpants. Why would it be suspicious that on-duty crew were already well into crisis mode by the time he saw them?
Click to expand...

What do you mean 'evil gossip'? It is stated by several seamen that they were in their beds when they were able to get fully dressed and to climb out of the window (this indicates they knew there was trouble, no?) . They also knew exactly which staircase to avoid - the passengers mostly made their way up the main centre staircase, which only leads to a large lobby. The crew and staff knew to head for the side stairs for the deck. One seaman said he was desperately trying to get downstairs to investigate but came up against hordes of passengers rushing up the stairs.

Then there is the issue of the nine Estonian crew members who appear to have been rescued by M/S Viking Mariella from a lifeboat. However, as the ship sank rapidly the witnesses said the lifeboats could not be launched or they would have crashed onto the deck being at a 40° list. Some passengers got into the life boats anyway, and presumably did not survive, as they were not actually launched.

One tenacious Swedish guy - tenacious in more ways than one! - clung onto an upturned lifeboat he chanced upon in the sea for over six hours until rescue. This poor chap had to witness his fellow clingers on drop away one by one, either from pounding waves, hypothermia or exhaustion. H was the only one left.

Yet the nine crew picked up in their life boat - everybody else had to rely on inflatable rafts and life jackets - vanished shortly after rescue. In addition, seaman Sillaste on several occasions, did draw for the benefit of the investigators and the press a drawing of how the car ramp looked from his life raft (or was it a life boat) and it was plainly up each time he drew it. Yet the report says it fell open with the bow visor dragging it down when it fell off. Another seaman, Silver Linde, was later jailed for nine years for drug smuggling, so clearly is not a person of good character or reliable witness.

Given that at least some members of the crew would be privy to the fact of military vehicles on board ushered in under great secrecy then it becomes clear that all is not as it seems and is not at all 'evil gossip' for the families of the victims to understand how this impacted on the safety of their deceased loved ones.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
As for having a 'boat ready'

SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) Regulations state that all commercial vessels and yachts over 500GRT should be provided with a Rescue Boat meeting SOLAS requirements. to act as a man-over-board recovery boat and to serve as a marshalling vessel for life rafts in the event of abandoning ship.
This has to be ready to launch and have a designated crew ready to man the boat while at sea.

If there hadn't been a boat ready and a suitable crew on standby the ship would have been breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Estonia sank so rapidly there was no time to launch the life boats, except for some of the lucky crew (or maybe not so lucky after all). The life boats that were found were mostly upside down bobbing about in the sea.
 
JayUtah said:
Given the insinuation in this statement, here are some questions for you.

  1. Have you ever been on the crew of an oceangoing vessel?
  2. Have you ever participated in the commissioned forensic engineering investigation of a notable mishap?
Click to expand...

I have never been crew but I have certainly done quite a bit of sea faring, Tilbury to Helsinki ( a five-day trip) and in my experience the North Sea was far rougher than the Baltic, plus of course yachting, speedboats, rowing boats and motorboats. My family has an island in the archipelago which can only be reached by private boat.


No, I am not an engineer and have never investigated 'a notable mishap'. However, I have done proceeds of crime forensic accountancy and understand the ethics of writing an accurate and objective report. You have to objectively account for all anomalies not just the ones that fit your theory. One has to safeguard objectivity and that means not allowing anyone to influence your decision either through familiarity, threats, bribes or inducements.

Now, in the case of Estonia, failing to account for the hole in the hull and the secret Russian military transportation means the report is potentially flawed, even if these events turn out to be wholly unconnected to the accident.
 
SpitfireIX said:
No, they are not. What of it?

However, the one who lost his parents and girlfriend is Magnus Lindström, whose story was widely reported in the media.

Here is a link to his story.

And here is the story in English, for those, including me, who don't read Swedish.
Click to expand...

This is the same Magnus of Ludvik whom I cite earlier. You note he lost his parents and girlfriends and he is furious that he has not been allowed to give his version of events to the JAIC. The reason so many survivors complain about this is because when they saw the report they realised that the timeline as set out therein did not match theirs, and they were there, so should know.
 
Vixen said:
I have never been crew but I have certainly done quite a bit of sea faring, Tilbury to Helsinki ( a five-day trip) and in my experience the North Sea was far rougher than the Baltic, plus of course yachting, speedboats, rowing boats and motorboats. My family has an island in the archipelago which can only be reached by private boat.
Click to expand...

Is it your contention that operating a rowboat is the same as serving as an officer or crew on a major oceangoing vessel such as MS Estonia? You seem to position yourself as an expert on what officers and crewpersons in such a situation should be doing. Do I have that right?

No, I am not an engineer and have never investigated 'a notable mishap'. However, I have done proceeds of crime forensic accountancy...
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that forensic accountancy gives you the insight into what goes into a serviceable forensic engineering report?

You have to objectively account for all anomalies not just the ones that fit your theory. One has to safeguard objectivity and that means not allowing anyone to influence your decision either through familiarity, threats, bribes or inducements.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming such effects occurred in the official investigation of the loss of MS Estonia?

By the way, I can answer yes to both the questions I asked you. You said that some people can tell the difference between a fake report and others can't. Do you claim to be someone who can tell that difference? Do you claim that your critics cannot?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom