The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Where did he get the evidence for a Swedish submarine?

Looks to me like he pulled it out of his arse.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may but that is one of the theories being advanced whether you or I agree with it or not.

It seems obvious that of course the Estonians will want to blame the Swedes and the Russians the Swedes. The Swedes want to blame the bow visor. The Germans point to the Russians (there is history between those two countries!) with the explosives claim. It's clear they can't all be to blame.

Paul Barney who says he is conversant with marine matters, said he definitely saw the bow against the moonlight when the vessel went down, stern first. He says he knows what a bow looks like. Without the visor, the Estonia bow does not look like a bow, as it thus becomes blunt instead of pointed. He saw the bow pointed upwards at is went down.

Bjorkman reckons the Swedes removed the bow visor themselves, later.

Carl Bildt claimed it was the bow visor at fault to the Swedish press on 29 Sept 1994 - the very next day after the tragedy. How did he know? And lo! and behold, three years later, the official story is 'the bow visor fell off'.

How very prescient of Carl Bildt. The same Carl Bildt who allowed Russian state secrets to be transported on the Estonia passenger ferry at least twice that the Swedish has admitted to, in September, in 1994, and kept schtum for ten years about it, when it is obvious that to the public this was important information and should have been mentioned and investigated.

Since Estonia was a joint owner with the Swedes, I am not sure how it conveys an advantage to Kurm to claim it was a Swedish submarine in bad faith. After Sweden, Estonia had the second worst death toll.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Who says it was caused by 'hitting a sharp rock'?
Click to expand...

Both Amdahl and Arikas says the puncture must have been caused by an enormous impact. Simply sinking to the seabed (it was 150 metres long and sank vertically 80 metres) it then turned face down forward like a domino (it did not capsize). With the stern already on the seabed (with the other 70m of the ship still sticking up out of the water) the remainder would have fallen flat more gently. The bump would have been on the stern, not on the hull starboard.
 
Vixen said:
Paul Barney who says he is conversant with marine matters, said he definitely saw the bow against the moonlight when the vessel went down, stern first. He says he knows what a bow looks like. Without the visor, the Estonia bow does not look like a bow, as it thus becomes blunt instead of pointed. He saw the bow pointed upwards at is went down.

Bjorkman reckons the Swedes removed the bow visor themselves, later.

.
Click to expand...

He says he is conversant with marine matters? what does that mean?
You know that the visor does not run the full length of the bow from deck to keel? It starts at the waterline, below that is the rest of the bow.
You know there is a large bulbous bow below the waterline?

How were the Swedes supposed to have moved it? Did they use the same sub that sank it?

Bjorkman seems to be a fool.
 
RolandRat said:
Why does his CV prevent him from being a conspiracy theorist? There are plenty of titled people in positions of authority who spout unfounded nonsense.
Click to expand...

See Heiwaco / Anders Bjorkman, for example. Bjorkman is not just a conspiracy theorist, but a full-blown crazy person.
 
Vixen said:
Both Amdahl and Arikas says the puncture must have been caused by an enormous impact. Simply sinking to the seabed (it was 150 metres long and sank vertically 80 metres) it then turned face down forward like a domino (it did not capsize). With the stern already on the seabed (with the other 70m of the ship still sticking up out of the water) the remainder would have fallen flat more gently. The bump would have been on the stern, not on the hull starboard.
Click to expand...

How do you know any of that?

What evidence is there for an 'enormous impact other than with the seabed

If the stern was on the bottom first and it settled 'like a domino' then it is even more likely that the hull has tears and stress fractures.
it was never meant to have one end resting on the seabed while the remainder fell.
Any impact would have been enormous, it would not have 'fallen flat more gently'.
 
carlitos said:
See Heiwaco / Anders Bjorkman, for example. Bjorkman is not just a conspiracy theorist, but a full-blown crazy person.
Click to expand...

Bjorkman did not hold the office of Estonia State Prosecutor. He is a private individual who can pontificate to his heart's content, as can you or I. Kurm was the chief prosecutor as of the time of the accident. He is hardly going to spout conspiracy theories in his official capacity, even if he privately has his own views about things. He interviewed the crew. Think about it.
 
Vixen said:
Bjorkman did not hold the office of Estonia State Prosecutor. He is a private individual who can pontificate to his heart's content, as can you or I. Kurm was the chief prosecutor as of the time of the accident. He is hardly going to spout conspiracy theories in his official capacity, even if he privately has his own views about things. He interviewed the crew. Think about it.
Click to expand...

Which of the crew reported seeing a Swedish submarine?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Which of the crew reported seeing a Swedish submarine?
Click to expand...

Who knows? Perhaps you should consult the JAIC report if you have any questions. Fact is, Kurm disagrees with the findings (obviously) so think about it: he had unique access to what went on in these ships.

It could be he is of the old Russian school and is covering up for the KGB by pointing at the Swedes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom