The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

All right, you've uncovered Sweden's plan to steal Russian technology to build crappy, smoking diesel engines, and develop automobiles with lousy gas mileage. They've had to suffer with SAAB making quality vehicles, submarines, and jet fighters for decades.

They even have the nerve to have a website where you can buy one for your own navy:

https://www.saab.com/products/naval/submarines

Kipper-eating monsters.

Anyway, by stealing Russian technology, Sweden could finally take twelve steps backward to produce third-rate weaponry to compete with Norenco. Not everyone can afford Bofors. Plus it makes way more sense than, I don't know, BUYING Russian technology through third-parties, like Israel and the CIA do.

I should add that all submarines track surface traffic with passive sonar, and they can do this from a safe distance, and have done so since WWII.

Hey, only neighbours of Sweden are allowed to mock it. I don't think PM Bildt at the time of the Estonia tragedy was looking to trade in his old model for a 1950's Lada. According to Wikileaks, he was hand in glove with the CIA, even so far as to consult with them over Sweden's own state plans.

Newspaper Aftonbladet said documents from anti-secrecy website Wikileaks showed Bildt gave confidential details to a U.S. envoy about negotiations to form a coalition government in 1976.

The information also included details about the Swedish government’s attitude at the time to a possible referendum on nuclear power, the newspaper added.

Bildt, a high profile former prime minister and Balkan war mediator, stopped short of denying he had ever passed on any information.

<snip>

Another newspaper, Expressen, reported in February last year WikiLeaks was poised to out Bildt as a U.S. spy - but he dismissed that report as a smear campaign.

Reuters

Bildt was the one who covered up the transportation of Soviet state secrets - some believe these were electronics to do with space (as in 'outer') - and treated the passengers quite highhandedly, really.

Certainly, it is commonly held that MI6 was helping KSI, together with the CIA to help the new liberated Estonia to build up its own intelligence service. Somebody wanted that stuff, ordered it and it was conveyed with the blessing of those higher up than the government, bypassing even the Swedish Customs.

 

[Vixen]

Spying is always smart to do, if you can do it.
At the very least it gives confirmation concerning the capabilities of the stuff your weapons are expected to be used against.
In some cases it can give new insights or fresh ideas.

What is unreasonable is for Vixen to suggest that Russia would sink a ferry, just because it was used to transport some of said technology.
What they would do, was go after the people selling or stealing, this technology.
But sinking the transport out of spite? No, I don't believe this, not without an awful lot of more evidence than what Vixen is prepared to suggest here.

You're absolutely right concerning the shadowing capabilities of submarines.
The idea that a submarine, in order to track it, would have to get so close to a noisy vessel like the Estonia, even in a storm, as to be able to collide with it, is ludicrous beyond words.

Now. Accidents between surface vessels and submarines have happened in the past. But not as a result of the submarine trying to track said surface vessel. Trying to use the surface vessel as a noise shield in order to evade a closeby marine vessel. Yes that has happened, several times even. As a result of simply tracking it? No. Not to my knowledge.

I wasn't suggesting Russia would. However, organisations are made up of people. After the fall of the USSR 1991, Estonia was awash with serious organised crime and gangland type murders. The fact the Swedish intelligence ordered the Swedish customs to OK the transportation of Soviet classified material to pass through uninspected [Nota Bene: not a conspiracy theory, do have a look at Appeal Court Judge Hirschfeld [_sp?] own declaration in the Swedish rikstag [citation earlier] and as set in stone in the legal parliamentary diary, which confirms it certainly did do this and is not just 'evil gossip', as one poster, rather hysterically, calls it].

The fact of the aforementioned cover up, under Bildt, indicates Swedish liability, because after, all, were it a random criminal, Estonian mobster or rogue Old Stalinist counter-spies, I think there would have been a huge diplomatic row.

Instead, Bildt ordered an anodyne report based on the Herald of Free Enterprise in the belief that would appease everybody all round with admitting any blame.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Concerning noises, bangs and shudders on a sinking ship.
As compartments flood the bulkheads against dry compartments buckle and unless they are supported they will fail.
Aboard a warship trained teams use wooden beams and jacks to keep them shored up.
Similarly a dry compartment under a flooded one can cause the deck to buckle and fail.
When this happens it can be heard and felt through the ship.
A passenger vessel has larger compartments, is lighter in build, doesn't have trained damage control teams and doesn't have tools and materials positioned through the ship.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I wasn't suggesting Russia would. However, organisations are made up of people. After the fall of the USSR 1991, Estonia was awash with serious organised crime and gangland type murders. The fact the Swedish intelligence are ordered the Swedish customs to OK-ed the transportation of Soviet classified material to pass through uninspected [Nota Bene: not a conspiracy theory, do have a look at Appeal Court Judge Hirschfeld [_sp?] own declaration in the Swedish rikstag [citation earlier] and as set in stone in the legal parliamentary diary, which confirms it certainly did do this and is not just 'evil gossip', as one poster, rather hysterically, calls it].

The fact of the aforementioned cover up, under Bildt, indicates Swedish liability, because after, all, were it a random criminal, Estonian mobster or rogue Old Stalinist counter-spies, I think there would have been a huge diplomatic row.

INstead Bildt ordered an anodyne report based on the Herald of Free Enterprise in the belief that would appease everybody all round with admitting any blame.

Or maybe the bow fell off and the ship flooded

Or was the bow thing just a coincidence?

 

[Vixen]

How could it be mentioned if it wasn't there?

Erm, time line old chap, time line. If the ship hit a rock when it sank to the seabed, then it follows, ipso facto that this would have been apparent when the investigators moved in.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

Bjorkman cannot be trusted in *anything*, and I'd be willing to bet that few people in his field do. You should never rely on him, since anything he says that's any good you should be able to find better in some other source.

Don't worry about me. I have good critical faculties of my own. I can smell a lie like a fart in a lift.

 

[Vixen]

I thought Vixen was alleging the Estonia was rammed by a Swedish sub?

That's the view of Estonia's state prosecutor, Margus Kurm.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Erm, time line old chap, time line. If the ship hit a rock when it sank to the seabed, then it follows, ipso facto that this would have been apparent when the investigators moved in.

Not if the ship has shifted since it sank and not if this particular damage is from stress rather than impact.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's the view of Estonia's state prosecutor, Margus Kurm.

For which he has no evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't worry about me. I have good critical faculties of my own. I can smell a lie like a fart in a lift.

I don't believe this. You took Björkman's self-reported c.v. at face value and insisted on no stronger evidence that he was an expert in his field and that he could be trusted to represent the facts accurately. After hearing about Loftus, whose academic and professional stature can be easily verified from objective sources, you wrote her off as nothing but a paid shill. Your "critical faculties" seem to be to accept whatever source reinforces your belief, regardless of how obviously crackpot, and to reject whatever source disputes your belief, regardless of objective eminence.

 

[JayUtah]

That's the view of Estonia's state prosecutor, Margus Kurm.

It may be his view, but it is inconsistent with the evidence as it presently stands.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen is alleging a large number of different things - a shotgun approach to try and find some detail of the original investigation that may be overturned. Some might even say (a favorite non-committal phrase of Vixen's) suggesting a conspiracy while at the same time pretending not to. Vixen's allegations are uniformly ill considered guesswork with no actual supporting expertise. Jay Utah has recently been doing an excellent job of exposing Vixen's allegations and arguments for what they really are.

You'd be quite wrong there. First came the news that a team led by Estonian, Rene Arikas, was to revisit the Estonia on the seabed 8th July 2021, just four weeks ago, and as I was interested in this case, having been familiar with the vessel when it was Viking Sally I posted it as a topic on social and current affairs. If you object to that make a complaint in the proper way and don't keep having a go at me.

I have reported on what the various different experts have said, together with background and update on how the review was going. When it is my opinion I make it clear, as in 'IMV'.

Like Evertsson I am interested in getting to the bottom of this issue. How can you do that without listening to what all the various different parties are claiming?

How do you think your numerous vehement protests that I should be somehow censored come across?

 

[erwinl]

That's the view of Estonia's state prosecutor, Margus Kurm.

Which one would this be?
As far as I can find out, Sweden had 6 submarines active in 1994.


Näcken (I won't count this one, as it was in refit and upgrade during that period)
Neptun
Najad
Västergötland
Hälsingland
Södermanland
Östergötland

It must have been one of these.
They're all very small submarines, so a collision with a ship like the Estonia, heavy enough to sink that one so quickly, must have really messed one of them up, or even sunk it.

Which one would it be?

Or could it be that neither of these showed any collision damages during this period?

 

[Vixen]

Bombs too, and sabotage by the crew

When you have a passenger ferry that sinks within 35 minutes killing almost 900 people on board with virtually zero chance of escape and it turns out there appears to be a hole in the side of the vessel, which the commissioned Joint Accident Investigation Committee has completely omitted to mention in its 1997 report - already three years after the event - then to account for the hole you do have to consider what might have caused it that made the ship sink so fast.

Sadly, there are people who vandalise, sabotage and bomb public transport. Some guy in the US Navy has recently been charged with deliberately starting a fire on a US vessel.

Apathy is the friend of regimes like China or Russia. Nobody cares. Everybody is too apathic to give a darn.

 

[Vixen]

Or maybe the bow fell off and the ship flooded

Or was the bow thing just a coincidence?

So if the bow visor bolts were of a poor design, why are they lying on the sea bed? No point bringing up the bow visor without the incriminating bolts. 'Too heavy for the helicopter', indeed.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[JayUtah]

I have reported on what the various different experts have said...

You have chosen your slate of experts (some of whom simply aren't) to be favorable to a narrative that accuses malfeasance.

When it is my opinion I make it clear, as in 'IMV'.

You have offered your uninformed opinion on a number of subjects as well as misstating the facts that apply to them, often on a tacit basis of implied expertise. When you walk back the insinuation of expertise, you somehow still expect your previous declarations to have evidentiary force.

Like Evertsson I am interested in getting to the bottom of this issue. How can you do that without listening to what all the various different parties are claiming?

You flat-out refuse to listen to some parties that dispute your beliefs, such as experts who dispute your claims about the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

How do you think your numerous vehement protests that I should be somehow censored come across?

Holding you to account for your claims is not "censoring" you. If you simply want a pulpit from which to pontificate unopposed, try a blog instead. This is a discussion forum and you are expected to engage criticism against propositions you make here.

 

[Vixen]

Not if the ship has shifted since it sank and not if this particular damage is from stress rather than impact.

Obviously there will be damage caused by the stress of shifting (four times, at least, according to Arikas). That doesn't cancel out any hole in the hull as of the time it sank.

 

[JayUtah]

...then to account for the hole you do have to consider what might have caused it that made the ship sink so fast.

The hole is too small for a flood rate that would have caused Estonia to sink as fast as it did.

 

[JesseCuster]

Don't worry about me. I have good critical faculties of my own. I can smell a lie like a fart in a lift.

Anders Bjorkman believes that photos online of 9/11 showing the collapse of the WTC have been faked because it shows an impossible collapse, that atomic bombs were never dropped on Japan during WW2, that humans have never been to space, etc. He advised people who don't believe in these things he posts on his website to get psychological help for their cognitive dissonance.

Just how good are your self-claimed objectivity and critical faculties when you bend over backward to characterise these nutty beliefs as merely those of a curious individual who is interested in questioning things? And that on this particular topic, he can be trusted as a bona fide expert? It's clear that he his critical thinking skills are severely lacking, yet you pride yourself on yours, and think he's reliable?

As well as putting your trust in this crank, you outright dismiss other bona fide experts as being nothing but paid shills based upon nothing but your say-so. You can claim objectivity all you want, it's clear you're not objective at all in what supposed experts and authorities you chose to trust.

 

[JayUtah]

Like Evertsson I am interested in getting to the bottom of this issue.

Evertsson undermined this when he admitted he selectively reported the additional damage he found. He omitted reporting other damage to the ship because, in his own words, it did not fit the narrative he wanted to establish in his documentary. Your argument seems fairly soundly predicated on the premise that the original investigators were delinquent in that they selectively reported the facts. But you're hanging your hat on an investigation that expressly did the same thing, and expressly admitted it was for the purpose of creating a biased narrative. Can you reconcile that?