The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[LondonJohn]

Well it is pure sophistry isn't it, when your response to al of those 29 survivors of just 137 heard scraping noises/bangs/shudders/momentary stopping and you wave it away with 'oh, no they didn't, what they heard were trucks and lorries'. It is pure knee jerk without any consideration that those people were there and they know what they experienced without a forum chat person coming along and saying, 'Ah but it could have been a herd of elephants trampling across the promenade' as though that is the end of the matter.

Oh. My.

(And no, it's not "pure sophistry". You possibly ought to look up the definition of the word "sophistry" before throwing it around - presumably for effect.)

 

[erwinl]

The point being made is that it wasn't picked up on any acoustic listening post.

and that would be proof there was one?

If the Russians used the opportunity of a large NATO exercise to surreptitiously sell a sub

Oh yes. Use the moment when the other party is at its most active and alert to sail absolutely unseen between them. Instead of waiting till after an exercise and the ships are back in port for refit and everybody is staring at their desks and screens for evaluations and lessons learned.

to a hostile nation under all kinds of embargoes and OPEC sanctions by the rest of the world

and what country would that be, which Russia would not trade with under normal circumstances?

(= like selling a submarine to Afghanistan or North Korea)

Forget I asked. Yet again, you're not even trying anymore.

then it may have taken the opportunity to do so again when the clock struck midnight in Sweden on the 28 Sept 1994.

Again?
You're saying they've done this before?

 

[Vixen]

EPIRB buoys operate automatically when released by a ship sinking. They don't operate until the ship has sunk or the boats / rafts launched. That is their purpose and point.

Many do not have a manual operation to avoid accidental triggering and false alarms. Even those that have manual operation can't be 'turned off' just not manually activated, immersion in the sea will still activate them, that is the point.
They could only be 'turned off' by smashing them.
Is it your claim that they were somehow disabled?

That's right. The ship's EPIRB buoys were not activated, adding even more to the delay in getting urgent help. It took three minutes for Europa to even make their own contacts because of everything being down.

 

[Vixen]

Torpedoes that hit above the waterline? How?
Please explain how torpedoes could hit above the waterline, in order for this possibbility to be even considered.

If the ship was in a storm, it is quite possible for the location of the hole to have been completely beneath water. AFAICS it is at the waterline and Evertsson describes it as below the waterline.

 

[LondonJohn]

Torpedoes that hit above the waterline? How?
Please explain how torpedoes could hit above the waterline, in order for this possibbility to be even considered.

Perhaps they were those new super-secret Russian torpedoes - the ones which borrowed the technology from the software inside dolphins, allowing them to fling themselves out of the water at the last moment, in order to cause less damage to the target vessel than if they'd hit below the waterline.

Or at least that's what I read on the internet the other day. The information was prefaced by "People are saying that...", so I take it from this that it was trustworthy and factually accurate.

 

[erwinl]

If the ship was in a storm, it is quite possible for the location of the hole to have been completely beneath water. AFAICS it is at the waterline and Evertsson describes it as below the waterline.

We can see the center of the hole being in the white part of the ship. The fact that maybe a small part of the lower vertical crack would be below what was then the waterline, does not change that the center of the hole is very much above it.

And if (and this is an extremely large if) this hole was caused by a collision, this was the place where it hit the ship. Above the water.
IF it was a collision hole.

 

[erwinl]

If the ship was in a storm, it is quite possible for the location of the hole to have been completely beneath water. AFAICS it is at the waterline and Evertsson describes it as below the waterline.

If?

 

[erwinl]

Perhaps they were those new super-secret Russian torpedoes - the ones which borrowed the technology from the software inside dolphins, allowing them to fling themselves out of the water at the last moment, in order to cause less damage to the target vessel than if they'd hit below the waterline.

Or at least that's what I read on the internet the other day. The information was prefaced by "People are saying that...", so I take it from this that it was trustworthy and factually accurate.

Yes. The famous 'Some say.....'
I've learned an awful lot of facts concerning the Stig, this way.

 

[Vixen]

There is no way the ship had a 'momentary stop'

Think about the 'laws of physics' you like to mention.

I believe the witnesses who were there at the scene.

Leif Bogren - cabin 5128 - port inside, 4th cabin from forward

to bed at 23.30 hours (Swedish time);
vessel behaved like a small boat also does when slamming over the waves - explains the many noises created by a vessel proceeding against heavy seas;
so he was lying there and listened and suddenly there was the bom-bom, which was no more the same noise, it was not a good noise;
he continued lying still and listening, and was fascinated about why they were proceeding so fast?
from the time he went to bed to the first unusual noise bom-bom to when the engines stopped maybe 10-15 minutes had passed, i.e. it was 23.40/23.45 hours Swedish time;
at first there was an additional sound with this bom - an enormous bom-bom - then came bom;
he was lying awake and then came the next BOM.
This was definitely a different noise, now the sea was higher and they were proceeding slowly against it and then came the next VROM BOM, now they were smashing in the hull plates of the vessel and then there was also a CRASH.


[...]


Tanel Moosaar - motorman - cabin 7008

23.00 hours to cabin, hard bangs, vessel's doors were banging, thought vessel had run aground, 01.20 or 01.15 hours;

[...]


Carl Övberg - cabin 1049
- after a 'silence' of 30-40 seconds the next really extreme crash followed in connection with an abrupt stopping of the ferry which was so 'sudden' that he was thrown against the front wall of his bed;
it was a short, sharp intense crash as if the ship had struck against something;

Listen to what the eyewitnesses are saying and forget 'oven-ready explanations' and platitudes that 'oh it must have been something else they experienced, as what they think they experienced doesn't fit with the JAIC report so they must be mistaken and what they really experienced has to fit in with the JAIC theory, so what they must have heard was a bow visor dropping off'. No, these survivors know what they experienced as they were there.

 

[Vixen]

Then he either escaped from the bridge or his body washed out of the bridge.

What is the problem?

If he finished his call circa 1:28 he literally had less than a minute or so to jump in the sea before going down with the ship. He must have literally flung himself down the stairs out onto a deck that was now a wall and through a door that was now only a couple of feet wide, being on its side. Not to mention the stairs now also being a wall.

The bridge was intact when the divers found it, as they had to cut away a window to get in.

Tammes must have escaped as his body was recovered. The divers were forbidden from recovering any from the wreck when they went down.

 

[Vixen]

Wholly irrelevant wrt the NSA not being willing to divulge the nature of its surveillance of the activities of other sovereign nations.





The NSA is a secret service. It has a blanket exemption on FOI matters. And I'm afraid it doesn't speak highly to the knowledge and judgement of Drew Wilson that he found the NSA's refusal of his request surprising or in any way noteworthy.






It's not classified at all. The treaty would have been purely concerned with establishing and maintaining the sunken wreck of the Estonia as a recognised grave site. And since the wreck lies in international waters, the only way it - and the trapped bodies within it - can be protected in law against unauthorised diving/recovery in or near it, is for national governments to make it against their own national laws to do so.

The UK Govt signed the treaty because it was the correct and honourable thing to do. And because there are potentially many UK nationals who might have an interest in diving the wreck and seeing what they could find. Had the UK not signed, it would have been impossible for any jurisdiction - including the UK - to prosecute any UK nationals who dived in or near the wreck. There's zero mystery or conspiracy surrounding the UK's signatory status.

Oh, and I can state with certainty that the UK's inclusion to that treaty would not have required a new Act of Parliament. Long, long ago (probably some time in the 19th Century), legislation would have been enacted by the UK Parliament with regard to the preservation and protection of sunken ships that were designated as grave sites. And that Act would have amply covered the UK's inclusion in the Estonia treaty.

Really? It was compassion for the victims and concern people might dive down on looting expeditions? Of course that must be the reason.

Question: so why did Germany, who is a Baltic nation decline to sign it?


So what about France, Norway, Spain, Portugal: are they lacking in superior British morals?


BTW the passengers are not serving in any armed forces so there is no reason to declare it a war site.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I believe the witnesses who were there at the scene.




Listen to what the eyewitnesses are saying and forget 'oven-ready explanations' and platitudes that 'oh it must have been something else they experienced, as what they think they experienced doesn't fit with the JAIC report so they must be mistaken and what they really experienced has to fit in with the JAIC theory, so what they must have heard was a bow visor dropping off'. No, these survivors know what they experienced as they were there.

How could the ship stop?

What do you think was the momentum of a 15,000 ton ship under power?

 

[JayUtah]

If the ship was in a storm, it is quite possible for the location of the hole to have been completely beneath water.

What would make this possible?

AFAICS it is at the waterline...

You were shown how to tell how it was above the waterline. The operational waterline, the point on the hull to which the water extends, not the Plimsoll line.

...and Evertsson describes it as below the waterline.

That doesn't change the facts. The photograph is self-explanatory.

 

[LondonJohn]

Really? It was compassion for the victims and concern people might dive down on looting expeditions? Of course that must be the reason.

Question: so why did Germany, who is a Baltic nation decline to sign it?


So what about France, Norway, Spain, Portugal: are they lacking in superior British morals?

Well, since the only matter of any substance in that treaty was the protection of the wreck as a grave site, and the consequent sanctioning ability of any sovereign state that was a signatory..... what other reason for signing do you suggest might be the case?

As for the other countries you mentioned: I don't know why they didn't/haven't signed, but perhaps a reasonable stepping-off point for you would be to try asking them?

BTW the passengers are not serving in any armed forces so there is no reason to declare it a war site.

BTW I never mentioned anything about a war site (my bolding for emphasis) in my post to which you responded here.......

 

[LondonJohn]

How could the ship stop?

What do you think was the momentum of a 15,000 ton ship under power?

I remember once when I was a kid, my dad screwed with my brain by saying he could prove* that a fly could stop a locomotive. He invited me to agree that a fly flying straight towards the locomotive would, at the very instant it struck the train, cease travelling in its original direction and start travelling in the exact opposite direction (albeit considerably flatter than before).

He then pointed out that there must therefore have been the tiniest length of time when the fly - having gone from (say) 1m/s northwards to 20m/s southwards - must have had zero velocity.

And given that the fly must have been in contact with the locomotive at that precise point, this must therefore mean that the loco too must have had zero velocity at that precise moment. Ergo the fly stopped the locomotive!


So perhaps even a hapless seagull - let alone a Russian submarine - could have brought the Estonia to a sudden, jolting stop, even if only for a short moment


* BTW my dad knew full well that this was a fallacious argument - he just told it to me to see whether I'd be able to figure it out)

 

[Vixen]

How do you know it wasn't picked up?

Why would a NATO exercise in a different part of the Baltic be concerned with it?

How would a listening post know that the sub was being sold to Iran?

Why would the Russians at that time worry about sanctions on Iran by the rest of the world?

Are you still claiming it could have been a 'rogue' Russian sub hitting the Estonia or was it an official Russian Navy sub torpedoing it?

You jump around so fast it's hard to keep up.

The huge NATO exercise was a s nearby as Skagerrak, just four hundred miles away and one hour's flight. Ironically, one of their exercises was rescue missions. Did they not hear the distress calls? Were they all jammed by the Russians so that anyone outside of the area missed it? Fourteen nations on a search-and rescue exercise and they knew NOTHING about the stricken ship all night.

How do I know what type of sub could have collided with the Estonia? Looking at the facts of the matter, two reliable witnesses IMV who saw the military trucks loaded onto the ferry escorted by the military, Carl Bildt knew about the accident almost straight away yet the NATO rescue mission only one hours flight away - and many of these ships can carry 40 super fast aircraft on their decks, not to mention chinook or paramedical helicoptors. So Carl Bildt immediately labels it a Herald of Free Enterprise type accident. His top military guy advices the wreck and the bodies shouldn't be brought up from day one. No mention of the hole in the starboard which is undoubtedly there yet ignored by the JAIC. It seems to me a clear act of sabotage of some sort, or at least a possibility of same, which cannot be dismissed as 'the survivors must be imaging things and have false memories, as described by Dr. Loftus'. Given Sweden admitted it did smuggle Russian secrets on that passenger ferry, but only ten years later, and refuses to confirm the eyewitnesses who saw the military trucks loaded on 28 Sept. ISTM we can only assume that Sweden and the three intelligence agencies helping Estonia set up its own after the KGB were booted out had a reason for classifying the accident as secret and not going after the murderers - for that is what they are - because they had a liability in it, too, in using a passenger ferry at all. Given what we know about Russian submarines scouting the area and the KGB and its successor doing things outwith Yeltsin's knowledge or authority, had the means and military know how to (a) plant a timed device, if there was one , but it did go off n the stroke of midnight, and (b) collide something into the vessel so that it would sink for sure within minutes, together with (c) drowning out all radio wavelengths to interfere with Estonia's distress calls and (d) getting away with it completely, then I think there is a very strong case it was a KGB hit to prevent state secrets passed on to hostile (in their eyes) foreign powers. Calling it 'classified' by those agencies smuggling the secrets to save face is despicable IMV as the families of those innocent men, women and children deserve to know the truth.

What type of submarine/other brought down the Estonia? I don't know.


The Sound Surveillance System SOSUS failed to pick up the submarine that was sold to Iran as it headed out of the Baltic. We know about the Iran incident because the Swedish government issued a formal complaint to Russia when it found out about it. That steathy steal also happened during a NATO exercise involving literally dozens or hundreds of boats and planes.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Maybe you can explain why the Estonia 'accident' is a classified secret with the US National Security Agency (NSA)

Obviously the NSA don't want anyone to discover that the ferry sank. Is that it?

Or is it because the NSA has no obligation to reveal what they know and they neither confirm nor deny knowing anything about anything?

Clearly you want to spin this as suspicious and want us to infer they must have something to hide. Amazingly, it seems security agencies have thought about this, and worked out not to be so dumb that they only classify events about which they have something to conceal.

 

[Vixen]

How could the ship stop?

What do you think was the momentum of a 15,000 ton ship under power?

That is what a 'crash' does. You come across something in your path and it halts your progress, if only momentarily.


Oh I see, so suddenly the vessel is ENORMOUSLY HEAVY yet a bow visor one three-hundred-and twenty-seventh of its weight* can cause passengers to believe the ship had crashed/had a series of two or three explosions and shudders but now it is TOO BIG to come to a halt when struck by a 5,000 tonne submarine in motion.

*Imagine a street of 327 houses, and when one slams the door on one of them, all the other 326 houses are supposed to have experienced an enormous bang and a crash and a shudder.

 

[JayUtah]

now it is TOO BIG to come to a halt when struck by a 5,000 tonne submarine in motion.

If the submarine struck the ship on its side, how would that retard or halt its forward motion? Compute how fast a 5,000 ton submarine would need to be going in order to cancel out the momentum of MS Estonia traveling at 14 knots. Show your work.

 

[Vixen]

Well, since the only matter of any substance in that treaty was the protection of the wreck as a grave site, and the consequent sanctioning ability of any sovereign state that was a signatory..... what other reason for signing do you suggest might be the case?

As for the other countries you mentioned: I don't know why they didn't/haven't signed, but perhaps a reasonable stepping-off point for you would be to try asking them?






BTW I never mentioned anything about a war site (my bolding for emphasis) in my post to which you responded here.......

But the bodies of the Herald of Free Enterpise were recovered. The last body of the Concordia took three years to retrieve yet retrieve it they did. The TWA 800 flight, 4,000 dives and the bodies were recovered one by one, apart from a few still missing. Alpha Piper 190 kms out and 144m down yet every one of those men were returned home to their families, apart from the still missing.

It is nonsense of course, the UK has no affinity to any other nation than its own. Why would it care a darn about non-nationals.