The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[erwinl]

Note the Komsomolets had torpedoes. (As an example.)

Armament
SS-N-15 Starfish anti-submarine missiles
6 x 533 mm (21-inch) torpedo tubes for 53-65 torpedo and VA-111 Shkval torpedoes

Are you now suggesting that the Estonia was torpedoed?

 

[gypsyjackson]

Old Queen Street is in Victoria. It doesn't just refer to the station. Kindly apologise.

1. 1916.
2. Wouldn’t Old Queen St have been in St Margaret, then?

To be fair, I would call a reasonable amount of the area around Victoria station “Victoria”. Probably as far as Artillery Row. Old Queen Street is Westminster, though, or at a pinch St James’. Now I miss The Two Chairmen.

 

[Vixen]

1. 1916.
2. Wouldn’t Old Queen St have been in St Margaret, then?

To be fair, I would call a reasonable amount of the area around Victoria station “Victoria”. Probably as far as Artillery Row. Old Queen Street is Westminster, though, or at a pinch St James’. Now I miss The Two Chairmen.

Victoria is a ward of Westminster. When I first worked there, I was surprised to discover it was considered to be Victoria address. Some people approached work from Victoria Station, a short walk away, others from Charing X or from St James Park. Downing Street is also postcode SW1 and in the St. James Ward.

It should be readily apparent that anyone within a few hundred metres of the John Major mortar shelling could hardly fail to have witnessed at least hearing it.

In the context of the Estonia my argument is that people are quite able to tell the difference between the clanking of, say, a heavy anchor, heavy steel upon steel, say someone dropping a container by accident from a height, such as a crane, or even the crashing of a stormy wave into a loose bow visor, from an explosion or a collision with a vessel in which rhey are located.

The JAIC IMV has been disingenuous in trying to link the passenger survivor accounts of explosions/collision with the bow visor falling off. But then it never seriously investigated (at least no more than they thought the public was entitled to know) any other aspect of the 'accident'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We were talking about whether the average person in the street can recognise an explosion when they hear one?

Maybe, maybe not.

It would depend on the circumstances.

Explosion covers a lot of things. An artillery shell, dynamite, artillery firing, AA missile warhead, a gas cylinder, a demolition charge, depth charge etc.

I have heard all those listed, they were all different.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Do look at MS Jan Heweliusz. The reason the Estonia sank in 35 minutes and the MS Jan Heweliusz over several days underlines the point that the JAIC should have investigated (a) the speed in which it sank, (b) the passengers' accounts of explosions/collision and (c) the reason for the hole in the starboard hull and superstructure.

Your saying all of this is consistent with a ship losing it's bow visor in a storm and the ship heeling over as it foundered, does not constitute 'an investigation' in the normal meaning of the word.

Your example ship did not lose it's bow and scoop water in to the car deck.

I have given examples of ships that sank very quickly without turning turtle but for some reason they don't count.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here are the specs:

wiki


So would fit the 5,000 tonne submarine as touted by Professor Jørgen Amdahl as something that could cause a similar damage as the hole as highlighted by Evertsson's documentary.

No wonder Svensson advised Bildt to classify it and dream up a Herald of Fee Enterprise cock and bull story in its stead.

How would it have made a hole above the waterline?

Are you now saying it wasn't a Swedish sub which was a major part of your argument last week and are now saying it was a Russian sub?

If you think it was a big nuclear boat why did you mention the mini sub?

If it was a Russian sub that did it and there was evidence, why would Sweden cover it up?

 

[Vixen]

Are you now suggesting that the Estonia was torpedoed?

All I can glean is that the Russians knew about the theft of its military and space secrets, as Russia sent a strong message to the UK diplomats and the Swedes to cease and desist. IMV the attack on the Estonia was seen by them as counter-espionage and that the CIA, MI6 and the KSI had been warned more than once to stop.


The fact that PM Carl Bildt knew about the incident almost immediately indicates the vessel was being tracked by the KSI, especially as Bildt refused to say who informed him, claiming he couldn't remember. So Svensson immediately made the whole thing classified. Because of the possibility of radioactive contamination that is why he recommended a concrete tomb and not bringing up the bodies or the wreckage.

The Soviets had no qualms in shooting down a Korean Airline in 1983, and in that case, the sovereign nations were barred from recovering the bodies - one incidence of the USA being unable to bring home its dead nationals.

Soviet jet fighters intercept a Korean Airlines passenger flight in Russian airspace and shoot the plane down, killing 269 passengers and crew-members. The incident dramatically increased tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States.

That is my opinion of the matter.

 

[Andy_Ross]

BTW Water is very heavy and extremely loud. Nothing more annoying than than the noise of a running tap.

Yes a cubic meter is a ton of fresh water. Sea water is more.

How loud is rushing water?

If water was coming in through the hull at a rate sufficient to sink the ship quickly wouldn't it have been noisy too?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sure, there will be deformations due to sagging and stress, not to mention shifting on the seabed. However, the hole was first spotted Dec 1994, if you believe the Swedish guy who claims he was called as a diver within days of the acccident, or if you don't find him credible, then at least since 1999, when the Swedish papers reported his claims. That type of wear and tear - an impact hole in the starboard and a petalled small hole in the hull port bulkhead - does not happen within two months or even 26 years if it was there all along and not due to wear and tear. Wear and tear stress do not cancel out the damage to the hull before it sank.

It could have been damaged while sinking, the hull was subject to stress it was not designed for as it sank.

Ships break up on the surface, I just posted a couple of examples and a link to an extensive introduction to the forces involved.

 

[Vixen]

How would it have made a hole above the waterline?

Are you now saying it wasn't a Swedish sub which was a major part of your argument last week and are now saying it was a Russian sub?

If you think it was a big nuclear boat why did you mention the mini sub?

If it was a Russian sub that did it and there was evidence, why would Sweden cover it up?

No, it is former chief prosecutor Margus Kurm who thinks it was a Swedish sub. Because of the eagerness of the Swedes to present it as a Herald of Free Enterprise style accident right from the start, this made me consider Kurm might have a point.

On investigating further, I am moving to Jutta Rabe's POV that it was a Russian attack because it wanted to prevent the smuggling of state secrets.

I mentioned the Soviet subs because they fit the description of Reitmaan, survivor, of seeing 'something white', or bright'.

 

[Vixen]

Yes a cubic meter is a ton of fresh water. Sea water is more.

How loud is rushing water?

If water was coming in through the hull at a rate sufficient to sink the ship quickly wouldn't it have been noisy too?

Nobody reported a rush of water noise, the force of which would have sent the lorries and cars hurtling against the car deck walls with a terrifyingly loud noise.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Note the Komsomolets had torpedoes. (As an example.)

Armament
SS-N-15 Starfish anti-submarine missiles
6 x 533 mm (21-inch) torpedo tubes for 53-65 torpedo and VA-111 Shkval torpedoes

That little crack is not torpedo damage.

Are you seriously claiming the ferry was hit by a torpedo?

VA-111 Shkval has a 240kg warhead, Type 64-65 has 400kg warhead.

Here is a Mk 48 Torpedo with a 400kg warhead hitting a Leander Class Frigate

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, it is former chief prosecutor Margus Kurm who thinks it was a Swedish sub. Because of the eagerness of the Swedes to present it as a Herald of Free Enterprise style accident right from the start, this made me consider Kurm might have a point.

On investigating further, I am moving to Jutta Rabe's POV that it was a Russian attack because it wanted to prevent the smuggling of state secrets.

I mentioned the Soviet subs because they fit the description of Reitmaan, survivor, of seeing 'something white', or bright'.

Russian subs are black like everyone else.

That mini sub is not designed for open seas and chasing ships.

Why would Sweden cover up a Russian attack?

An attack on a passenger ship in territorial waters with a torpedo could not be claimed to be an accident or misidentification like with an aircraft.
It would have to be a deliberate act of aggression, it would have been an act of war.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Nobody reported a rush of water noise, the force of which would have sent the lorries and cars hurtling against the car deck walls with a terrifyingly loud noise.

Because that wouldn't have happened, the vehicles would have moved as the ship listed.
You are the only one claiming thousands of tons rushed in at one go.

 

[GlennB]

Deleted. I'm giving up

 

[Vixen]

No:



Source

There's a recreation here of what it might look like now.

 

[Vixen]

Russian subs are black like everyone else.

That mini sub is not designed for open seas and chasing ships.

Why would Sweden cover up a Russian attack?

An attack on a passenger ship in territorial waters with a torpedo could not be claimed to be an accident or misidentification like with an aircraft.
It would have to be a deliberate act of aggression, it would have been an act of war.

Imagine if the UK caught a hostile foreign power sneaking out its top secrets, despite several strong warnings not to. Then it might be seen by the armed forces as a fair military attack to stop that vehicle/vessel in their tracks. It will reason that if that hostile foreign power had been using a passenger ship or aircraft or whatever to transport those state secrets/equipment, then that is the problem of the hostile foreign power who used civilians as collateral damage in the first place.

 

[erwinl]

All I can glean is that the Russians knew about the theft of its military and space secrets, as Russia sent a strong message to the UK diplomats and the Swedes to cease and desist. IMV the attack on the Estonia was seen by them as counter-espionage and that the CIA, MI6 and the KSI had been warned more than once to stop.


The fact that PM Carl Bildt knew about the incident almost immediately indicates the vessel was being tracked by the KSI, especially as Bildt refused to say who informed him, claiming he couldn't remember. So Svensson immediately made the whole thing classified. Because of the possibility of radioactive contamination that is why he recommended a concrete tomb and not bringing up the bodies or the wreckage.

The Soviets had no qualms in shooting down a Korean Airline in 1983, and in that case, the sovereign nations were barred from recovering the bodies - one incidence of the USA being unable to bring home its dead nationals.



That is my opinion of the matter.

That is nowhere an anwser to my question 'Are you now suggesting that the Estonia was torpedoed?'.

That is a yes or no question (possibly qualified yes or qualified no).

Of course the yes or no can then be explained, why you feel it is a yes or a no (and please do), but the question itself askes for a very simple and short answer.

So.

Are you now suggesting that the Estonia was torpedoed?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Imagine if the UK caught a hostile foreign power sneaking out its top secrets, despite several strong warnings not to. Then it might be seen by the armed forces as a fair military attack to stop that vehicle/vessel in their tracks. It will reason that if that hostile foreign power had been using a passenger ship or aircraft or whatever to transport those state secrets/equipment, then that is the problem of the hostile foreign power who used civilians as collateral damage in the first place.

I can safely say that the Royal Navy would not torpedo a passenger ferry in another countries territorial waters.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So you are claiming only people in Whitehall could have seen the masses of smoke billowing out or heard it going off.

Obviously nobody is claiming that. This whole silly derail is because you claimed to have had a "bird's eye view ".

Anyway, the purpose of your posting it at all appears to be your belief that one example of people a few yards away from many kilograms of semtex detonating and recognising that it was a bomb is somehow proof that passengers in a ship can reliably tell whether a loud bang they hear reverberating through the ship is a bomb or something else. This seems like desperately weak evidence to me. Do you consider it some kind of slam dunk?