The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
It doesn't have to be a mini, does it? It may not be white but it classifies as 'bright'.


Pictured: DN-SN-87-07042-Mike class submarine-1 Jan 1986

Note: this is just an example of what Reitmaan, independent passenger survivor of Estonia might have seen.
Click to expand...


Ah yes. Bright matt black.

:rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
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'.
Click to expand...


It's not in Victoria.

And. Never. Ever. Has. Been.

Pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


What the flaming heck does the KAL007 incident* have to do with the Estonia sinking?????


* And the Soviets shot down that KAL airliner because its flight crew had set their autopilot incorrectly and consequently had inadvertently strayed into Soviet airspace (there were other significant coincidental factors too, but the navigation error was the catalyst for everything). Which..... obviously...... is in no way whatsoever comparable to anything concerning the Estonia sinking.
 
Vixen said:
BTW Water is very heavy
Click to expand...


Is a wine glass of water "very heavy"?

What's the density of water? (in coulombs per square lumen please (I'm sure you're fully cognisant of this as the correct unit))



and extremely loud.
Click to expand...


Water is "extremely loud", is it?

I see........................ :jaw-dropp



Nothing more annoying than than the noise of a running tap.
Click to expand...


Oh I can think of one or two more annoying things, right off the top of my head :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
Oh dear. Do look up displacement of air.
Click to expand...


Vixen: would you please do me the courtesy (and I've asked you twice previously as well) of explaining your (no doubt pertinent) point about "displacement of air" wrt the Estonia sinking? Many thanks in advance!!
 
Vixen said:
...as you know, submarines are black, usually, or perhaps painted dark blue to make them less visible from the air, due to the rubber coating being oxygenised, (which is why car tyres are black).
Click to expand...


Yet another True FactTM from Vixen. :rolleyes:
 
tyres are black because of the carbon black added to the rubber, it makes tyres stronger and last longer.
 
Vixen said:
Do look it up on wiki. It is common knowledge.
Click to expand...

I have studied all there is to know about the Titanic and you are very wrong. And the problem with Wiki is that any nutjob conspiracy theorist can add their insanity/stupidity to it. It is well known what caused the Titanic to sink and it has nothing to do with rivets or fires.
Maybe focus on the lies of the sinking of MS Estonia before stating lies about another sinking.
 
kali1137 said:
I have studied all there is to know about the Titanic and you are very wrong. And the problem with Wiki is that any nutjob conspiracy theorist can add their insanity/stupidity to it. It is well known what caused the Titanic to sink and it has nothing to do with rivets or fires.
Maybe focus on the lies of the sinking of MS Estonia before stating lies about another sinking.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a Russian sub towed a mini-iceberg into the Estonia. After sinking the ship, the sub could tow the iceberg into warmer water allowing the evidence to melt. There would be no transfer of paint onto the ship, and the eyewitness testimony of something white in the water would make sense.

ETA: It could have been a Swedish or Romanian sub as well...
 
Metullus said:
Perhaps a Russian sub towed a mini-iceberg into the Estonia. After sinking the ship, the sub could tow the iceberg into warmer water allowing the evidence to melt. There would be no transfer of paint onto the ship, and the eyewitness testimony of something white in the water would make sense.

ETA: It could have been a Swedish or Romanian sub as well...
Click to expand...

But how does that explain the torpedoes?
 
Oh good, we're back to non-existent submarines again. And we're getting more of Vixen's poor history knowledge thrown in.

1. No submarine captain is going to willingly ram a surface vessel, it's not just stupid it's insane.

2. Why task any vessel to shadow a ferry sailing from a known point of departure to a known point of arrival? Last time I checked the KGB/FSB has agents all over Europe, and would have simply had a guy waiting for the Estonia when it arrived. He would have likely photographed the drivers of the mystery trucks, and followed them to their destination. Hell, they might have had a guy on the Estonia following the stolen items (maybe it was a KGB sting operation). Hardware is not as important as fleshing out a smuggling network who is stealing your state secrets to sell to the west.

3. There was no torpedo. We know this because there was no fire. Torpedo technology has evolved since WWII, which is what the average person thinks of when this subject comes up. The warheads and they way they're designed to explode are more destructive today:

giphy.gif


4. KAL-007 has nothing to do with this conversation. It was an airplane, not a ship. It was within Soviet air-space, not international air-space. The Soviets thought it was a US spyplane (RC-135). The irony is today the US will shoot down an unresponsive passenger jet in broad daylight over its air-space.

Just stop.
 
Vixen said:
Imagine if the UK caught a hostile foreign power sneaking out its top secrets, despite several strong warnings not to.
Click to expand...

Foolish. There would be no warning as when stealing state secrets the threat is ALWAYS implied. Every intelligence agency on earth knows this.

Then it might be seen by the armed forces as a fair military attack to stop that vehicle/vessel in their tracks.
Click to expand...

Maybe, it depends on who owns the vessel and where it happens to be when you decide to stop it.

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.
Click to expand...

Please cite a post-WWII example of a civilian ship targeted and sunk by any Navy.

The Russians aren't that stupid. Had they known something important was on Estonia they would have sent surface warships to intercept, and forced her to a Russian port to be searched.

You're trying to stretch a narrative to justify a CT and you're failing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom