The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
Imagine for a moment that it isn't "very obvious". Can you explain why it had to be so? Was it somehow impossible that he could survive the humiliation of have been seen to have repeated early reports which later turned out to be incorrect?

You appear to be inviting us to infer that after he said the bow visor had failed, if that turned out to be mistaken the evidence would have to be faked to make it seem true. Well, why?
Click to expand...

I believe he decided to label the cause of the accident 'classified' which is why he put out disinformation from Day1 before anyone could possibly know for sure what had caused the accident. Even if the bow visor did fall off, that would not necessarily be the cause of the accident, but to a serious investigator could just as well been incidental or even coincidental to the real cause or causes.
 
Vixen said:
If it was rammed by a sub and its side penetrated in the impact, then this explains why it sank so fast without capsizing or turtling.

As for the so-called 'missing crew' IMV this is likely due to clerical error rather than that these nine people really were rescued. However, an initial search by divers found three bodies on the bridge, which they could have easily identified simply by the insignia on the uniforms. There was one body under a cabinet described as having a tattoo on his or her hand but no crew fit that description. Why didn't they even attempt to identify the captain Andresson, if he was indeed there, yet they went to great pains looking for a breif case or suitcase in his cabin, accidently searching the cabin of someone called Voronin, as they had inadvertently juxtaposed a couple of numbers in the cabin numbers. So they searched his cabin but made no attempt to identify the dead on the bridge, when it was easy enough from their uniforms. The divers said the bodies were intact, still wearing clothes and what have you.

Andresson was trained at a Soviet naval school and was an old-style authoritarian. crew had to OK things with him first and could not use their own initiative, as that was the Russian way.

As captain he has to be held responsible for what goes on on his ship. Why didn't he take the May Day call and why Captain Tammes, third mate?


Also, in a disaster such as this, you can't assume that 'it was just an accident' you have to consider the possibility of crew involvement, even it just to rule out sabotage or criminal involvement of any kind.
Click to expand...

And that is how we end up with a submarine colliding above the waterline!
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It's superb! That's how the sub managed to bounce right off without suffering any damage to itself. Maybe it bounced off several times but the absorption was so good they didn't realise and they just gunned the engines to try to make progress. The last time they were going so fast they leapt right out of the sea and hit Estonia above the waterline.
Click to expand...

There have been quite a few cases of submarines crashing into vessels above them as they emerge, usually because the pilot hasn't done a proper sonar check first (pings) and acoustic listening. In the case of the one in Japan, the captain of the submarine did a quick sonar routine without bothering with the comprehensive one and managed to wreck a research ship above them in so doing.

Submarines can also move extremely swiftly if they are of the technology that enables it.
 
Axxman300 said:
To be clear, you're claiming that hypothermia effects everyone equally, and that those who saw the bow cover gone cannot be trusted due to hypothermia...but the ONE passenger who says he saw the bow cover in place as the ship sank is 100% credible.

Look, there are two Navy guys active in this thread so they'll have to correct my work, but WHERE and WHO you are on a ship when things go sideways will inform what you experience, and what you believe to be true. Someone who rides a ferry regularly (a passenger) is not equal to a seasoned crew member. Not all crew members are created equally either, and their testimonies must be weighed against their total experience, and their knowledge of ship's operations beyond their stated skill-set (this is why the US Navy encourages crew members to learn about as many aspects of their ship as possible. Those who do earn a dolphin pin.)

So an officer is going to take the extra time to observe his damaged vessel as time permits since he's going to be in the hot seat for the next few years answering questions at inquests, investigations, and lawsuits. A passenger is going to be in a state of panic, and is going to be focused on not drowning. Guess whose testimony carries more weight?

And this post is indicative of how you paint yourself into a corner. The Estonoia sank fast because the bow cover failed or was torn loose, or off. A big hole in the hull is conducive to rapid sinking in a bad storm.

Again, why a submarine? Why not a rogue wave? The right wave at the right angle would damage the bow cover.
Click to expand...

I agree that the ship crew are much better acquainted with ship movements and noises, and what is normal and what is strange. However, in a disaster of this type involving over 850 passengers and 1,000 people on board you can't just rule out sabotage and terrorism from the start. This means you have to treat what the crew say with suspended credulity because for all you know as an independent investigator is that they might have something to do with it. That is not a reflection on the Estonia crew, that is just a sad fact of life today. For example, the recent US Navy fire; a US Sailor has been charged with arson.


When you state: 'The Estonoia sank fast because the bow cover failed or was torn loose, or off. A big hole in the hull is conducive to rapid sinking in a bad storm.' You are simply quoting Carl Bildt and the JAIC report, which very few people who have looked at the case (Estonia Survivors Group, Independent Fact Group, the German Group, Hummel, insurance claim guy, Safety at Sea networks, the Estonians) believe. Not because it is false per se but because it was constructed improperly to fit a predetermined narrative.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
And again, let us not forget that Carl Bildt was the very lamest of ducks when all of this happened. He was due to leave office in a matter of days. A mere 10 days after the disaster, he was no longer in charge of anything except a mouthy opposition in the Riksdag.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. He was the guy who coordinated the Soviets arms/space program smuggling on board the passenger ship Estonia and then immediately covered up the accident by blaming a technical fault in the bow visor before anyone had even found the wreck. He appointed the JAIC committee member who went on to dominate the board. Bildt is likely to have been responsible for almost 900 deaths if indeed the ship was collided with a submarine, even only if by accident, if that sub was shadowing the boat because of the sensitive military stuff.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Why is this the only explanation? How did you conclude that this is the only explanation? What other explanations did you consider, and with what expertise and evidence?

Also, what were the "powers influencing the JAIC" at this point? You do realize that the Swedish government changed in this time period, right? That Carl Bildt was no longer in charge by 18 October? Nor 8 October for that matter?
Click to expand...

The intelligence agencies do not change.
 
KDLarsen said:
It's interesting to note that two of the ships that participated in the rescue, the Mariella and Silja Europa, had both previously suffered damages to their bow visor hinges.

I'm sure they arranged for it as a cover-up.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the damage caused to one of these was by Captain Andresson himself, the same captain of Estonia, when he was a rookie captain, just qualified. He managed to ram the bow into Naantali harbour, in much the same way newly qualified driver Timmy manages to demolish a low wall after pressing his foot on the gas instead of the brake whilst reversing into a parking space.

You'll find the damage caused here was because of human error and impact with a physical object, not 'a few strong waves'.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
This sounds more like a response to what I posted earlier than it does a response to Captain Swoop's request for evidence that it was a submarine.

The JAIC report states that certain crew members were interviewed on the 28th. It also states that those crew members reported seeing the bow visor missing.

I see no reason to conclude that they are lying, yet they would need to be for your proposed Carl Bildt cover up story to work. I think it's far more likely that you're just wrong.
Click to expand...

If you really believe they managed to climb down the car ramp from the port in a frightening storm with waves pounding at them, as this seems to be the reasoning of the JAIC. It had to somehow get an external observer because simply seeing the closed car ramp from inside the ship meant nothing. It is just bunkum.
 
Vixen said:
You are simply quoting Carl Bildt and the JAIC report, which very few people who have looked at the case (Estonia Survivors Group, Independent Fact Group, the German Group, Hummel, insurance claim guy, Safety at Sea networks, the Estonians) believe. Not because it is false per se but because it was constructed improperly to fit a predetermined narrative.
Click to expand...
I know you don't like this being pointed out, but "Safety at Sea networks" is just Anders Bjorkman, a guy who believes that humans have never been to space, that nuclear bombs were never used on Japan in World War 2, is an anti-relativity crank, that gravity doesn't make the earth orbit the sun, and other strange and bizarre beliefs. His website is full of bizarre rants about how all these things.

You can dress him up all you want, he's a bona fide conspiracy nutjob and pseudoscience crank, despite your desperate attempt to invent a narrative where he's some sort of freethinking maverick who merely questions authority.
 
Vixen said:
If it was rammed by a sub and its side penetrated in the impact, then this explains why it sank so fast without capsizing or turtling.
Click to expand...
To my inexpert eye that crack in the ship's side, above the waterline, looks unlike the result of a collision as I would expect to see a larger area driven inward and signs of abrasion and paint/coating transfer between the two vessels.

If I wanted to discover whether that damage, however caused, could have been the cause of the sinking I might start by working out which compartment(s) it would allow to flood. Do you know? If not, it doesn't seem you have any basis for claiming it explains anything.
 
Vixen said:
I believe he decided to label the cause of the accident 'classified' which is why he put out disinformation from Day1 before anyone could possibly know for sure what had caused the accident. Even if the bow visor did fall off, that would not necessarily be the cause of the accident, but to a serious investigator could just as well been incidental or even coincidental to the real cause or causes.
Click to expand...

He seems to have repeated to the press the same thing that 4 surviving crew had reported. Calling that "disinformation" appears only to be a conclusion of the preconceived narrative in your head.

If, say, the visor hinges failed and left the heavy visor hanging, hooked over the top of the ramp, while 6-8 metre waves battered against it, then yes it is hypothetically possible that some other catastrophic damage elsewhere was simultaneously causing the ship to flood and founder. But it would be one hell of a coincidence, would it not?
 
Vixen said:
The number one criterion for coating a submarine with this stuff is to avoid detection, not cosmetic reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't see the relevance of this to whether or not there would be abrasion and transfer of paint/coating between two colliding vessels.
 
Vixen said:
There have been quite a few cases of submarines crashing into vessels above them as they emerge, usually because the pilot hasn't done a proper sonar check first (pings) and acoustic listening. In the case of the one in Japan, the captain of the submarine did a quick sonar routine without bothering with the comprehensive one and managed to wreck a research ship above them in so doing.

Submarines can also move extremely swiftly if they are of the technology that enables it.
Click to expand...

How many colliding submarines caused cracks above the waterline?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
To my inexpert eye that crack in the ship's side, above the waterline, looks unlike the result of a collision as I would expect to see a larger area driven inward and signs of abrasion and paint/coating transfer between the two vessels.

If I wanted to discover whether that damage, however caused, could have been the cause of the sinking I might start by working out which compartment(s) it would allow to flood. Do you know? If not, it doesn't seem you have any basis for claiming it explains anything.
Click to expand...

Passenger cabins are included as to where the hole breached.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
He seems to have repeated to the press the same thing that 4 surviving crew had reported. Calling that "disinformation" appears only to be a conclusion of the preconceived narrative in your head.

If, say, the visor hinges failed and left the heavy visor hanging, hooked over the top of the ramp, while 6-8 metre waves battered against it, then yes it is hypothetically possible that some other catastrophic damage elsewhere was simultaneously causing the ship to flood and founder. But it would be one hell of a coincidence, would it not?
Click to expand...

How can Bildt conclude that within sixteen hours of the accident? Especially as the survivors had only been rescued that morning and were desperate for sleep, as well as treatment for hypothermia, wounds, bruises, broken bones, etc.

It shows how willing people are to believe what a figure in authority said, when common sense tells us Bildt cannot have possibly determined the cause of the accident straight away. Especially when he himself was the authority who gave the intelligence services the OK to smuggle Soviet state secrets on that exact same ferry during that exact same month. No way would he have not immediately wondered whether there was a connection to this fact (which was also covered up, that time for ten years) even if none of the public knew about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom