The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[lobosrul5]

Swedes, Norwegians, Russians... has anyone considered that it could've been Captain Nemo?

Battering ram at the waterline, do we need anymore evidence?

 

[lobosrul5]

Why can't a submarine 'see aft'?

Because in Hunt for Red October the Russians have to do a "crazy ivan" to see behind them. And Hollywood/Tom Clancy novels are always 100% accurate.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The claim is that that 2,000 tonnes of seawater crashing through the car ramp would have made one a hell of a noise but no-one reported it. Someone disputed the level of noise this would make. The witnesses did report a series of bangs and shudders occurring sometime before the list happened.

Water entering the ship is not waves breaking on a beach. 2000 tons did not enter at one go.

Bangs are what you would expect.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Inconsistent with impact damage to the starboard side.

A modern submarine that is submerged is deaf on its aft quarter only when moving at relatively high speeds. At other times, towed sonar arrays provide perfectly adequate sonar coverage. A modern submarine that is on the surface has its bridge manned with lookouts. You know, to avoid collisions.

At periscope depth they also have radar masts that give lookout coverage

 

[JayUtah]

At periscope depth they also have radar masts that give lookout coverage

And conventional maritime anticollision lights. The scenario vacillates between the poor submarine getting snuck up upon, and the fiendish submarine "shadowing" the ship. This would get laughed right out of the writers' room.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because in Hunt for Red October the Russians have to do a "crazy ivan" to see behind them. And Hollywood/Tom Clancy novels are always 100% accurate.

On the surface they would have both radar and lookouts posted.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And conventional maritime anticollision lights. The scenario vacillates between the poor submarine getting snuck up upon, and the fiendish submarine "shadowing" the ship. This would get laughed right out of the writers' room.

We now have a 'rogue' Russian sub sold to an inexperienced third world crew in the mix.

 

[lobosrul5]

On the surface they would have both radar and lookouts posted.

Maybe they were drunk or sleepy, or too busy sending the dimensions of that months playmate of the month via lamp signal. Betcha didn't think of that

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Have a guess as to who Finland's neighbours are?


We have a saying, 'A Russian is a Russian even when cooked in butter'.

I thought Lehtola was working for Swedish intelligence and by proxy the CIA, who were puppeting Carl Bildt? Now it's Russians he's secretly working for?

Still doesn't explain how one could reasonably characterizing him as acting with integrity.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

There are many things which discretion tells us are better kept secret, such as a sovereign's defence strategy and tactics. I am sure Lehtola was of this mindset.

Since Lehtola wasn't Swedish, any unofficial knowledge he had of Sweden's security secrets would already constitute a serious breach of national security. If he cared about that crap at all, he'd be saying to Swedish intelligence: "You really shouldn't be telling me any of this. Why are you?"

 

[GlennB]

And conventional maritime anticollision lights. The scenario vacillates between the poor submarine getting snuck up upon, and the fiendish submarine "shadowing" the ship. This would get laughed right out of the writers' room.

Yes, this sketch thread is getting very silly.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Uno Laur?

wiki - shurely shome mishtake?

Or somebody else with the same name? I don't see what your point is here. Are you suggesting the JAIC report was issued with made-up names?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

There is something in diplomatic circles called 'honourable deception'.

Secretly working for a foreign government isn't considered honorable in diplomatic circles.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Exactly. However, the initial investigation did not take a few years. It took three years to issue their report, the conclusion of which had been predetermined from day one and made to fit.



It said the vessel was seaworthy but can't have been if the bow visor's locks and bolts were not fit for purpose.



It is a nordic tradition you bring home your dead to rest in your churchyard or memorial park. The USA brings home dead soldiers. A Norwegian specialist divers company offered to rescue the bodies for circa SEK250,000 (=€30K apx) within days of the accident in a not-for-profit exercise but were turned down flat by the Swedish government. The Finnish environment agency demanded that the wreck be removed from its environmentally protected area because of the threat of leaking fuel and oil. It even offered to send down divers to remove the fuel by means of pipes and tubes but the Swedes didn't want anyone diving down their except themselves, plus an outsourced company called Rockwater.

We already covered the problems with sending divers into that wreck.

Either you're being transparently disingenuous or you have the memory of a goldfish.

 

[malbui]

Yes, this sketch thread is getting very silly.

Heh.

Although cultural references aside this thread has been performance art since about page 2.

 

[Axxman300]

There might have been issues with the bow visor as seawater had been coming into the deck. Having said that, it doesn't ipso facto prove the bow visor was the cause. I don't know if you have ever experienced a door slam which caused an ornament to fall off the shelf? A collision with another vessel could well cause something precariously loose to drop or hang off, as virtually all of the survivors did feel two or three bangs or shudders, together with a scraping sound.


How would Bildt have known anyway on the 28 Sept when none of the crew except Sillaste had been interviewed as of that date.

Working backwards...

Some of the survivors worked their way along the port side of the ship to get down to the water AND USED THE OPEN RAMP TO CLIMB DOWN. So you have three or four people right there who could give immediate testimony.

The bangs were the bow cover clamps failing. The scraping sound was the bow cover scraping the hull as the ship plowed over it.

Yes, I have had things fall off a shelf due to a slamming door. I have also experienced a 6.9 earthquake. Neither of this things is comparable to being on a large steel ship in rough seas.

 

[Axxman300]

If you look at pictures of the Estonia, the hole, with the possible exception of lowest part of the 'cross' is above water.

Seeing the shape and size of a submarine, how could it possibly have gotten that high?

What I want to know is why is the "hole" right along the seam of the steel plating?

I watched the video of the "discovery" and they state technical facts and then ignore them. The first thing they illustrate is how the Estonia has listed an additional 8 degrees on the bottom since the initial survey back in the 1990s. Right off the bat this proves the hull has shifted, and it also suggests that the hole - if it was there in 1993 - would not have been visible at the time of the investigation...so no cover-up, just incomplete data.

The main problem, as you point out, is the hole is above water. And while one side of the hole has metal wrenched outward, the other side does not.

This, in my layman opinion, is a stress fracture.

It could have been caused on the surface as the ship wrestled with the growing stress of the water shifting weight on the car deck compounded by wind and waves. Estonia sank stern-first and would have made contact with the sea floor while the bow was above water causing potential additional lateral stress on the hull.

Or the hole was caused by the weight of the ship combined with a weak spot in that section of hull as the ship shifted on the sea floor over the years.

I don't see evidence of an impact.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The claim is that that 2,000 tonnes of seawater crashing through the car ramp would have made one a hell of a noise but no-one reported it. Someone disputed the level of noise this would make. The witnesses did report a series of bangs and shudders occurring sometime before the list happened.

And you thought that a paper describing the noise of waves breaking on the shore would be helpful because <shrug> something.

You've read the report so you can see what sequence of events it describes and which would have made loud noises. Pounding waves breaking latches would have been loud. Further waves battering the loosened visor against the ship would have been loud. The visor tearing the ramp away from its latches would have been loud. Waves washing seawater into the car deck through the partly open and later torn wide open ramp? Maybe not so loud.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How would Bildt have known anyway on the 28 Sept when none of the crew except Sillaste had been interviewed as of that date.

What would Bildt have told the press other than what he himself had already been told?

You surely can't be inviting us to infer he decided to make up a story, pretending to have information that he didn't have, and just assuming that nobody who knew he didn't have that info would call him on it. That would be insane, so I'm going to assume that's not what you mean. Which creates a puzzle: what do you mean?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What would Bildt have told the press other than what he himself had already been told?

You surely can't be inviting us to infer he decided to make up a story, pretending to have information that he didn't have, and just assuming that nobody who knew he didn't have that info would call him on it. That would be insane, so I'm going to assume that's not what you mean. Which creates a puzzle: what do you mean?

He was under orders from the military and CIA obviously.
They told him what to say