The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

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.

But I thought your contention was the JAIC was beholden to outside political pressure. And that the Finns (including Lehtonen) didn't play along. And you also denied that you were questioning Lehtonen's integrity. Why would Lehtonen or anybody else care what Carl Bildt wanted once he left office? Who would he be working for, at that point? And why would the other commission members just let themselves be cowed by him? And why would none of them subsequently come forward to say that they had had their arms twisted?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The intelligence agencies do not change.

But the political agenda does, as does whether anybody cares about what Carl Bildt wants.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

You assume they didn't rule it out and never investigated this angle. Investigators work with the physical evidence since it speaks loudest. It wasn't terrorism because neither Estonia nor Sweden had pissed anybody off in 1993, and neither country is a threat to its neighbors.

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.

In that weather?

Why can't it be simple crew ineptitude? I ask only because it seems like it was. The vehicles were loaded incorrectly distributing weight to one side, and then the bridge crew failed to slow the ship while they investigated the loud noises below, meaning the ship was slurping in water at a high rate.

For example, the recent US Navy fire; a US Sailor has been charged with arson.

Charged and convicted are two different things. The US Navy has a sorted history with prosecuting innocent sailors to cover for systemic problems. The USS Iowa incident is a glaring example. The sailor will have his day in court and we'll get to see the evidence.

Should point out that the ship was moored to the pier, not out at sea in bad weather.

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.

And yet it wasn't the first time this kind of thing had happened. MS Herald of Free Enterprise capsized for the same reason. in 2014 MV Sewol sank when a sudden turn caused the cargo to shift to one side. I'm not quoting anybody. I own a small pickup truck, when I haul a heavy load I need to know the weight, and I have to distribute the load and tie it down so it doesn't shift. Pickup trucks and ferries share the same proclivity to roll over.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

There is a big difference between saying that Bildt could not have known what caused the accident and that he could not have know that the bow visor had come off. The latter is what is under contention in your "cover story" story.

Also, you cannot make this all about Carl Bildt's political agenda and then pretend it's irrelevant that he left office a mere ten days later, after which he was no longer driving said agenda.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

Seven collisions since 2000. Four were with other military ships.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

The smuggling is a peripheral issue, and something you clearly do not understand.

Second, if the "sensitive military stuff" was really important - it would have been put the submarine.

Third, submarines track ships with sonar, and if the target is important there is ALWAYS backup in the way of surface radar tracking from other ships, or from the air.

Fourth, EVERYBODY KNEW THE CIA AND SWEDEN HAD A JOINT PROJECT TO RECOVER STOLEN SENSITIVE SOVIET EQUIPMENT AND WEAPONS DURING THIS TIME. Come on, am I the only one who remembers loose Ukrainian nukes and Red Mercury? Con-artists were making a mint of the US and European intelligence agencies back then.

Finally, the fun thing about the Russians is their predictability. If someone was smuggling legit sensitive gear or tech to the west their response would not have been to sink a ferry. They would target the smuggler, the purchaser, and anyone else involved directly.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Several thousand tonnes of water pouring into the car deck smashing all of the vehicles would make a much louder noise.

Why do you think pouring water would be louder than parts of a ship's structure failing, and why do you think the water would smash vehicles?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Finally, the fun thing about the Russians is their predictability. If someone was smuggling legit sensitive gear or tech to the west their response would not have been to sink a ferry. They would target the smuggler, the purchaser, and anyone else involved directly.

Most likely with poison. Red Storm Ricin.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Passenger cabins are included as to where the hole breached.

Okay. Passenger cabins are small. A car deck which runs the length of the vessel is really big. I think flooding into the car deck is a much bigger threat to the ship than cabins.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Absolutely nobody is suggesting that Bildt immediately and independently determined the cause of the sinking. The idea is asinine.

Your imagined movie scene of the survivors struck dumb and unable to utter a word to their rescuers appears to be yanked from your behind. If you wish to claim that Bildt was not repeating what the crew members had already said then please show us your evidence that their reports were not given to him before he told the press the same thing. The very basic thing that you seem to have overlooked is that Bildt could perfectly well have said we don't know yet.

 

[Andy_Ross]

C

Why would Bildt cover it up? Because it was a joint Swedish-UK intelligence operation shadowing the boat and he decided the Swedish pesky peasants who have kept on rising in revolt throughout Sweden's history had no right to know and that they'd be happy with a non-answer.

Why would they be 'shadowing the boat'?

What was the purpose of the shadowing?

If they were shadowing why did they sink it?

Have you made your mind up if it was a submarine or the mysterious crew members planting a bomb?

How do the mines play in to this?

Who removed the bow visor?

What happened to your 'Russian revenge' theory?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Even if there was a problem with the bow, that doesn't ipso facto mean it was the cause of the accident.

It does when the ship is in 6 meter waves and they are flooding the ship.

Herald Of Free Enterprise ring a bell? that wasn't even a storm.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

It did capsize though.

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.

What uniform do you think they were wearing?

Are you now suggesting there weren't a bunch of crew men mysteriously in a boat ?

Are you now suggesting there wasn't any criminal involvement by any of the crew?

It's hard to keep up.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This type of coating wouldn't transfer in the same way a coat of paint does? I would have thought it would simply crumble, or whatever rubber does.

What rubber does is it obliges squash courts to put up signs insisting we only wear non-marking soles. What does that tell us?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The number one criterion for coating a submarine with this stuff is to avoid detection, not cosmetic reasons.

What good would it be if it washed away and rotted?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

A search with the periscope is done before surfacing. If a ship is in very close the sonar will not detect it as an active ping will give a 'simultaneous echo' and not be detected and passive sonar will be swamped by the sound of the boat itself.

They can move swiftly under water and nuclear boats can do around 20kt on the surface and more than 30ky submerged. Diesel electric boats like the ones used by Sweden can do around 12kt on the surface and around 20kt submerged. In 6 meter waves considerably less on the surface.

Not ideal for shadowing a ship that can make the same speed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

What 'sensitive military stuff'?

Why would a sub be shadowing it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Several thousand tonnes of water pouring into the car deck smashing all of the vehicles would make a much louder noise.

what is your evidence for this?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

Alternatively, there was no such error and the missing crew is just an urban legend. We know for a fact that the twelve people pulled out of the lifeboat onto the Mariella are accounted for. Are you suggesting that they miscounted, and that there were really twenty-one?

Why is it "likely" due to clerical error?

 

[RolandRat]

Why would a sub be shadowing it?

So it can it can ram it of course, keep up Capt! Why would the sub ram the ferry and cause damage that high up on the ship you ask? Well don't ask, you don't need to know /Jediwave.