The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

If the charge was visible on video of the sunken ship it obviously didn't contribute to the sinking.

The Germans were of the opinion that a saboteur could leave explosives in several key places. These are plastics which are not harmful to the handler and only ignite when an ignition cord is attached. In 1994 there were no security checks on passengers boarding.

 

[RolandRat]

Braidwood was with the German Group of Experts (led by Hummel who employed Bemis, the US diver who as the rights to the Lusitania) wreck). Braidwood cut a piece of the metal from the bulkhead and had it tested. He also examined the video footage of the JAIC and spotted what looked like explosives attached to the side bolts of the bow visor. As he was a Royal Navy explosives expert and diver, I expect he knows a device when he sees one. He also pointed out the typical debris scattered nearby which is indicative of this type of explosion.


It is the Germans who believe the accident was by sabotage via explosives.


The Estonian former prosecutor Margus Kurm believes it was sunk by a collision with a Swedish submarine.

These are both considered expert opinions based on objective evidence.


It strikes me that the explosive devices might have been left by some careless Swedish navy divers, who will have been sent to do some intelligence work on behalf of Sweden, independently of the JAIC, and perhaps needed to blow off the lugs and bolts to examine them, although why they left the offending atlantic lock on the seabed is anybody's guess.

Whilst Braidwood was an expert, I don't think you can say the same about the former prosecutor. As far as I know he has no expertise with ships, submarines, oceans or marine engineering.

 

[JesseCuster]

A Finnish company examined the bow visor for traces of explosives but found none. However, the same thing happened with the TWA 800 bomb on an airplane that crashed into the Atlantic. As the wreck had been in the water for seven days, it was no longer possible. The Estonia had been underwater for seven weeks so it should have realised tests won't be able to identify the chemicals.

But you said that 3 separate independent labs found traces of explosives on parts of steel panels from the wreckage sent to them.

Did they or didn't they?

 

[Andy_Ross]

A Finnish company examined the bow visor for traces of explosives but found none. However, the same thing happened with the TWA 800 bomb on an airplane that crashed into the Atlantic. As the wreck had been in the water for seven days, it was no longer possible. The Estonia had been underwater for seven weeks so it should have realised tests won't be able to identify the chemicals.

Wiki

This is why the German Group arranged for metallurgical examination instead.

Three independent laboratories confirmed that the twinning deformation found in the Estonia bow bulkhead port side panel showed the force of an explosion in its structure. The BAM sponsored by the German government didn't even test the panel from the Estonia. It used an ordinary panel and tried to recreate the twinning by other means (shot peening) which the Estonia had never had done, according to records, and was of a superficial nature.

How would a lab determine that the deformation was caused by an explosive?

What sample did they test and how did they test it?

If the ship had been repainted at any time it would have been shot blasted to remove the old paint. We know the ship was more than a decade old, it has been repainted several times at least.

 

[Vixen]

Or, he was in on the sinking and knew the bow door had been blown off with explosives!

It is very obvious isn't it that very quickly it was deemed 'classified' information and it is likely this information will stay that way for seventy years.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Germans were of the opinion that a saboteur could leave explosives in several key places. These are plastics which are not harmful to the handler and only ignite when an ignition cord is attached. In 1994 there were no security checks on passengers boarding.

How many charges are there supposed to have been?

Are you abandoning the submarine theory now?

 

[RolandRat]

Lehtola tried to brush it off as a piece of broken wood and the remains of a tarpaulin.

The JAIC never even considered any other scenario other than a few strong waves causing the bow visor to drop off.

The Germans at least looked at the levels of maintenance and seaworthiness and found both severely lacking.

So why did the JAIC say the vessel was seaworthy? Because the report is little more than window dressing.

I would agree that the investigation needs to be re-opened and evaluated. I also think that muddying the waters (so to speak) with tall tales of submarines doesn't help.

In my opinion, it seems that the ferry wasn't constructed or probably maintained as it should have been. Whilst the company didn't break any actual laws with it, perhaps they didn't do as much as they probably should have to make sure it was, and remained, seaworthy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Whilst Braidwood was an expert, I don't think you can say the same about the former prosecutor. As far as I know he has no expertise with ships, submarines, oceans or marine engineering.

Braidwood only watched the lousy video. He hasn't dived on the wreck himself or examined any of the supposed charges and explosive bags.

 

[Vixen]

One of the survivors interviewed in the documentary said he was told to set his parking break and that was it. They didn't tie the cars down.

There was one known container on the ferry with a number plate EEE117, which the Swedish state prosecutor said at the time had no registered driver and it was believed it was packed with between 140 - 170 Kurdish refugees. The prosecutor didn't manage to bring any criminal charges in the end re the Estonia.

I for one am hoping that this new investigation will now reveal the true situation and bring up those poor people.

 

[RolandRat]

Braidwood only watched the lousy video. He hasn't dived on the wreck himself or examined any of the supposed charges and explosive bags.

Very true. Which made me think of how he was asked to identify things he was shown. Shame he is no longer with us so can't verify his report.

For the record, I don't think the ship was sunk with explosives but because of the calibre of the expert used it seemed worth bringing up. I totally get your "James Bond" point.

 

[Vixen]

We went through all this at length in this thread last week.
Have you forgotten already?

Can you guess the main difference between Estonia and the WTC buildings?

Or the difference between Estonia and an aircraft?

Or the differnce between the Estonia and the 58 m 741ton Ehime Maru and that there were only 9 missing crew?

The Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 had a death toll of 227,898. Medical and forensic volunteers worked tirelessy to identify victims via their DNA. These, like the Estonia and the victims of TWA800 who didn't die from bomb shrapnel but then drowned strapped to their seats in the very deep Atlantic, were recovered by dedicated divers and rescuers from the sea or ocean.

 

[Vixen]

How does that answer the question?

Why would that make a difference if the ship wasn't overloaded?

It changes the water line.

 

[RolandRat]

Wouldn't it be easier to recover bodies from plane wreckage than from a ship?

 

[JayUtah]

It changes the water line.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Plimsoll line, which was where this line of questioning started because you brought it up. Do you agree that the Plimsoll line is irrelevant to this discussion? See my response to Captain Swoop below.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 had a death toll of 227,898. Medical and forensic volunteers worked tirelessy to identify victims via their DNA. These, like the Estonia and the victims of TWA800 who didn't die from bomb shrapnel but then drowned strapped to their seats in the very deep Atlantic, were recovered by dedicated divers and rescuers from the sea or ocean.

Can you think of any differences between the Estonia and Tsunami victims or aircraft passengers strapped in seats?

 

[JayUtah]

Wouldn't it be easier to recover bodies from plane wreckage than from a ship?

Yes. Aircraft fuselages tend to disintegrate in water crashes.

 

[Andy_Ross]

duplicate

 

[Andy_Ross]

It changes the water line.

Only the maximum load line.

How much do you think it would change the waterline on a ship like the Estonia?

Here is a clue, in the winter the waterline is lower on the hull.
It would put the hole further above the waterline.

 

[Vixen]

It wasn't a 'few strong waves' It was more than a decade of operating in 'strong waves'

Waves in a Beaufort scale 7 of 6 - 8 m high south westerly do not have a force of 3,000 - 5,000 mps.

 

[Vixen]

But you said that 3 separate independent labs found traces of explosives on parts of steel panels from the wreckage sent to them.

Did they or didn't they?

I had initially thought they had found explosives but what they found was a twinning deformation which was caused by a force of between 3,000 - 5,000 metres per second. A force of 1,000mps is categorised as an explosion. These were the results of three independent laboratories (including one that did police forensics) in the USA, UK and Germany.

As the metal had been immersed in water, it was realised from the TWA800 accident in 1996, that explosive substances may not be traceable. (See reference, above.)