The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Jack by the hedge]

It's no win, isn't it? If I quote sources and cite experts I am accused of having a 'superstitious' dependence on experts and science, and when I don't I am lambasted anyway. <shrug>

Poor you. My question was not about your sources. I asked what did you mean when you said the Swedish government confirmed "it". Still a mystery.

 

[LondonJohn]

The huge NATO exercise was a s nearby as Skagerrak, just four hundred miles away and one hour's flight.

"Just" 400 miles away? So it would have taken any of those ships around 9-10 hours to reach the Estonia's position. Far too late to participate in any rescue (of survivors) operation*.

Therefore we're talking about a recovery scenario only. And no country's navy is going to divert its ships immediately to assist in a recovery (ship and/or bodies) operation, at least until the scale and scope of any such potential recovery operation has been ascertained - and even then, probably only if the relevant navy has skills/equipment which are not available to commercial operators and which might materially assist with any recovery.

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

I do know.


*And since the ship had no latent buoyancy, it would have been a near-total certainty that nobody who'd remained within the ship after it sank would have been alive.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Like the UK Freedom of Information Act, US citizens are also entitled to apply to view information.

Why would the Estonia be top secret classified that not even a redacted copy can be seen, when there were no US citizens involved, had nothing at all to do with the CIA and was just a 'sad freak accident' caused by an errant bow visor.


Come on, you can't have it both ways!



It can't both be a fluke accident and a top US classified secret.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I am sure you can do that in your head. Professor Amdahl calculates 1.9 knots. That would give an impact of 1.9 x 18,000 (loaded ship) = 34,200 joules. Long time since my physics O-Level, so I am sure you will take great pleasure in correcting me.

- When I was on deck I saw something strange in the ocean.

It was a pale, several-meter-sized object.

It moved to the left and the waves washed over it, Reintamm described.

- I have never been in the army and I have no idea what a submarine could look like below the surface.

The water was black and I can’t understand how a submarine could look lighter than the water.

- I can't say for sure that I saw a submarine.

But that is the only logical explanation, Reintamm notes.

Eye witness Carl-Eric Reintamm.


Eye witness. Who was there.

 

[Vixen]

Poor you. My question was not about your sources. I asked what did you mean when you said the Swedish government confirmed "it". Still a mystery.

Remind me of the question.

 

[Vixen]

"Just" 400 miles away? So it would have taken any of those ships around 9-10 hours to reach the Estonia's position. Far too late to participate in any rescue (of survivors) operation*.

Therefore we're talking about a recovery scenario only. And no country's navy is going to divert its ships immediately to assist in a recovery (ship and/or bodies) operation, at least until the scale and scope of any such potential recovery operation has been ascertained - and even then, probably only if the relevant navy has skills/equipment which are not available to commercial operators and which might materially assist with any recovery.






I do know.


*And since the ship had no latent buoyancy, it would have been a near-total certainty that nobody who'd remained within the ship after it sank would have been alive.

Er, the one-hour's flight refers to aircraft. You do know military ships have aircraft carriers. And helicopters - all the cruise liners have helicopter pads - it was a 'search and rescue' exercise, after all. You'd think at least a distress signal would be picked up and the opportunity to carry out a real-life search and rescue.

So i seems our Russian friends successfully blocked out all distress signals very effectively.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Come on, you can't have it both ways!

It can't both be a fluke accident and a top US classified secret.

Please supply your evidence that it is a "top US classified secret". How would you know whether the NSA hold a file on the Estonia at all, let alone whether it is classified any higher a level of secrecy than any other file they hold?

You're still trying to imply it's suspicious, based on absolutely nothing.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Both of the ships you mention were only partially submerged after sinking. As a result, recovery operations on both were comparatively extremely easy, for extremely obvious reasons.

The TWA800 recovery was led by the NTSB and the FBI. There were concerns that a missile or bomb might have brought down the aircraft, and the only real way to affirm or refute those possibilities was to salvage the black boxes and much of the aircraft's fuselage. In those circumstances - coupled with the fact that the wreckage was only around 10 miles off Long Island in 45m of water - it would have been nearly unthinkable not to recover the bodies as well.

Regarding Piper Alpha, there were credible concerns about a terrorism factor as well. But the chief reason for the extensive (and very costly) recovery of the platform's crew quarters and bodies was that Occidental - the owner/operator of the platform - funded the operation for political and PR reasons.

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.

So then (just by way of an example) why does the UK help fund and staff an organisation such as UNICEF, which carries out the overwhelming majority of its aid operations in countries other than the UK? Why would the UK "care a darn about non-nationals"....?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Remind me of the question.

Sure, no problem. Initially you said this:

And were you to discover that MI6, together with the Swedish and American intelligence agencies were involved in Former Soviet Union secrets smuggling and the sinking of the Estonia was in retaliation (it is suspected) by the Russians, or criminal gangsters, could you still 'safely' hold that view?

And when I suggested such a discovery seemed unlikely you said:

Well, the Swedish government already confirmed it was real. ...

My question was what exactly did you mean by "it" there.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

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.

What mistaken beliefs some passengers came to and the actual momentum of the vessel at the time aren't comparable phenomena.

You may as well ask someone to describe the aromatic qualities of a 342Hz sine wave.

Besides, the jolting and lurching has been repeatedly explained to you as the vessel heeling violently as a result of the waves. The same waves that caused the partially dislodged bow visor to hit the ship.

Your willfully disregard of that information is quite telling.

 

[JayUtah]

I am sure you can do that in your head.

I'm asking you to do it.

Professor Amdahl calculates 1.9 knots.

That's how much he calculates would inflict the damage, not how much it would take to "momentarily stop" the ship. I've already explained the issues I have with his computations, but in any case the figure you cite from him is irrelevant to the question I asked you to answer.

That would give an impact of 1.9 x 18,000 (loaded ship) = 34,200 joules. Long time since my physics O-Level, so I am sure you will take great pleasure in correcting me.

I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this. Do you think you've proven that a 5,000-pound submarine can stop a fully-loaded ferry dead in its tracks when it's moving at 14 knots, by striking its side?

Eye witness...

Don't pivot, dear. Stay on the ball.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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)

Well, think of a tank, the tracks in contact with the ground are stationary while the tank is moving forwards.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If a passenger described their sensation that the ship suddenly stopped due to an impact (with a wave, a submarine, an ichthyosaur, doesn't matter) how would they know whether the ship actually stopped? They wouldn't, of course. They would have felt a severe jolt, sure, but it's not at all likely that the ship literally stopped.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

then they were defective or not released and sank with the ship.

If they were defective that is down to the company, they should have been regularly checked and replaced.

If they were not released then they sank with the ship, again that is down to the company not maintaining them.

What would be the point of sabotaging them when they only work after the ship sinks?

Why would any saboteurs onboard the ship sabotage their means of rescue after it sank?

 

[Vixen]

Please supply your evidence that it is a "top US classified secret". How would you know whether the NSA hold a file on the Estonia at all, let alone whether it is classified any higher a level of secrecy than any other file they hold?

You're still trying to imply it's suspicious, based on absolutely nothing.

The reply sent to author Drew Wilson from NSA denying him information quotes:

FOIA Title 18 U.S. Code 798; Title 50 U.S. Code 403-3(c)(7) and Section 6.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

'(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1)concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2)concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3)concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4)obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.'

It also quotes as its reason for denial

Public Law 86-36 (50 U.S. Code 402 note

50 U.S. Code § 3605 - Disclosure of Agency’s organization, function, activities, or personnel
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this chapter or any other law (including, but not limited to, the first section and section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1935) [1] shall be construed to require the disclosure of the organization or any function of the National Security Agency, or any information with respect to the activities thereof, or of the names, titles, salaries, or number of the persons employed by such agency.
(b)The reporting requirements of section 1582 of title 10 1 shall apply to positions established in the National Security Agency in the manner provided by section 3603 1 of this title.

402 note: Codification
Section was formerly classified in a note under section 402 of this title prior to editorial reclassification as this section.

At least NSA replied.

 

[Vixen]

Both of the ships you mention were only partially submerged after sinking. As a result, recovery operations on both were comparatively extremely easy, for extremely obvious reasons.

The TWA800 recovery was led by the NTSB and the FBI. There were concerns that a missile or bomb might have brought down the aircraft, and the only real way to affirm or refute those possibilities was to salvage the black boxes and much of the aircraft's fuselage. In those circumstances - coupled with the fact that the wreckage was only around 10 miles off Long Island in 45m of water - it would have been nearly unthinkable not to recover the bodies as well.

Regarding Piper Alpha, there were credible concerns about a terrorism factor as well. But the chief reason for the extensive (and very costly) recovery of the platform's crew quarters and bodies was that Occidental - the owner/operator of the platform - funded the operation for political and PR reasons.






So then (just by way of an example) why does the UK help fund and staff an organisation such as UNICEF, which carries out the overwhelming majority of its aid operations in countries other than the UK? Why would the UK "care a darn about non-nationals"....?

The reason the Swedish government refuses to allow a salvage - despite their contracted recovery firm saying it was feasible and could be done - has absolutely nothing at all to do with logistics or difficulty of the process or even the cost.

The reference to the UK caring a darn was in the context of passing laws that don't even apply to anywhere near its own waters and involves just one British national. Germany had eight deceased and di not sign.

The reference to UNICEF is reaching a bit?

 

[Vixen]

Sure, no problem. Initially you said this:
And when I suggested such a discovery seemed unlikely you said:


My question was what exactly did you mean by "it" there.

The appeal court judge, Johan Hirschfeldt was tasked with investigating a whistleblower's claims that when he was a Customs Officer he was ordered by powers higher than the government (who oversee border control) to let through military arrivals from the Estonia ferry uninspected. This happened 14th September 1994 and on 20 September 1994. His curiosity got the better of him and he insisted on looking. He says he saw what looked like electronic equipment in one of the boxes. on 27 Sept - 28 th Sept 1994 he was on holiday (however Carl Ovberg and Sara Hedrenius said in the eyewitness statements they saw military trucks loaded on the the boat at the last minute, with military escort. Hirschfeld stood up in the Swedish government riksdag 2005 and confirmed that Sweden had indeed smuggled FSU military secrets out of Estonia on the Estonia ferry, so that is a matter of recorded fact and not a conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

I'm asking you to do it.



That's how much he calculates would inflict the damage, not how much it would take to "momentarily stop" the ship. I've already explained the issues I have with his computations, but in any case the figure you cite from him is irrelevant to the question I asked you to answer.



I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this. Do you think you've proven that a 5,000-pound submarine can stop a fully-loaded ferry dead in its tracks when it's moving at 14 knots, by striking its side?



Don't pivot, dear. Stay on the ball.

Don't call me 'dear'.

 

[LondonJohn]

Er, the one-hour's flight refers to aircraft. You do know military ships have aircraft carriers. And helicopters - all the cruise liners have helicopter pads - it was a 'search and rescue' exercise, after all. You'd think at least a distress signal would be picked up and the opportunity to carry out a real-life search and rescue.

So i seems our Russian friends successfully blocked out all distress signals very effectively.

You realise that aircraft carries carry fixed-wing aircraft which are only of very limited use to any rescue or recovery operation? And you realise that appropriate SAR helicopters do not fly anywhere near 400mph (in fact closer to 150mph, equating to over 2.5 hours to get to the Estonia)? And you realise that there were adequate resources far closer to the Estonia (and far better suited to the task at hand) than those warships were?

 

[JayUtah]

Don't call me 'dear'.

Edited by Agatha: 

Do not continue to use an epithet for another poster after being requested to stop

You have attempted to deflect several valid criticisms of your claims based on vague, handwaving references to "the laws of physics." This implies that your knowledge of those laws is sufficient to allow you simply to refer to them and that no further inquiry is warranted.

I'm testing your knowledge of those laws.

Please explain how an impact against the side of a ship will have any appreciable effect on its forward momentum.

Tell me how fast a 5,000 tonne object would need to be traveling -- and in what direction -- to stop MS Estonia moving at 14 knots.

Yes, I'm capable of answering these questions myself. But the objective is to compel you to demonstration your prowess with "the laws of physics" such that we can have some degree of confidence that your prior references to them actually have merit, and were not just ignorant appeals to things you know nothing about.

Put up or shut up.