• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Because of the sheer number of people involved and the extreme urgency?
Click to expand...

How is that an answer. If it was 400 miles and the fastest ships could make around 15 knots in the heavy seas they would take around 24 hours to arrive in the search area.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
...and to forestall a likely dodge attempt: No, the simple fact of holding a security clearance is not itself typically classified. It is usually considered poor OPSEC to brag about currently held clearances, though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a standard question on job applications in my neck of the woods, but one wouldn't spontaneously bring it up on a first date.
 
Vixen said:
Sure it will be felt, or even ring out like a bell, as Captain_Swoop poetically puts it, but it couldn't by any stretch of imagination be confused with an explosion or an 'extremely heavy collision' as one survivor put it.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the sort of conclusory or interpretive statements that are of little value from lay eyewitnesses. Unless a witness has previously been on a ship that collided with something, his estimate of an "extremely heavy collision" should not be taken at face value. Unless a witness has previously heard an actual explosion, the identification should be questioned -- and even then it's a good idea to ask how the witness knew it was an explosion. A skilled interviewer would intercept statements like that and ask additional questions to more accurately determine what the witness heard or felt. Absent specific knowledge of causation, only the sensory perceptions the witness experienced are evidentiary.
 
Is the argument now that NATO was in on it? That they didn't travel 400 nm for search and rescue because they wanted the MS Estonia to sink and didn't want to save anyone? That must be the argument, otherwise the fact that they didn't take part in the search has no connection to why the Estonia sank.

On the other hand, this theory goes against the idea that the Russians knew from experience that NATO exercise time is the right time for sub attacks (because they can easily sneak past all the NATO guys). If NATO is in on it, there is no need to sneak.

Is it possible... Could it possibly be the case... that there isn't anything remotely close to a coherent case for a coherent theory here, just a bunch of random stuff that might seem weird if you don't think about it, interspersed with disconnected speculation?
 
Stamuel said:
Is the argument now that NATO was in on it? That they didn't travel 400 nm for search and rescue because they wanted the MS Estonia to sink and didn't want to save anyone? That must be the argument, otherwise the fact that they didn't take part in the search has no connection to why the Estonia sank.

On the other hand, this theory goes against the idea that the Russians knew from experience that NATO exercise time is the right time for sub attacks (because they can easily sneak past all the NATO guys). If NATO is in on it, there is no need to sneak.

Is it possible... Could it possibly be the case... that there isn't anything remotely close to a coherent case for a coherent theory here, just a bunch of random stuff that might seem weird if you don't think about it, interspersed with disconnected speculation?
Click to expand...

The theory, IIRC, has gone from fishing boats to planted explosives to a collision with a Swedish sub back to collision with sub that was there to monitor said planted explosives to torpedoed by a Russian sub to a collision with a Russian sub. The theory is lets put something out there and see if it sticks.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So they would fly to a shore base and refuel then carry on to the sinking site?

How long extra would that take compared to local dedicated search and rescue helicopters just flying there anyway?

How many helicopters do you think were involved?

What kind of search and rescue exercise do you think it was?

Those that I have been involved with are concerned with coordinating surface vessels in to a coordinated search pattern and liaising with shore assets like long range patrol aircraft

A Destroyer or Frigate will carry one helicopter. Not all ships have helicopters.

If you want to search you send a dedicated maritime patrol aircraft that has a much longer range, can loiter over the search area and is equipped and trained for the job. Anti Submarine helicopters have some rescue capability but they are not dedicated SAR aircraft.
Click to expand...


OK, fair enough but I for one think it a terrible irony and massive tragedy that no-one at all was available to rescue these doomed people, despite NATO having a search-and-rescue exercise nearby.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
As already posted everything they do is classified. It will be signal intelligence, intercepts of radio and telephone traffic.
Spy stuff. They are not going to reveal what information they are getting from other countries signals traffic.
Click to expand...

They do release information on request, as per FOIA. Anything classified is simply redacted.
 
Stamuel said:
Is the argument now that NATO was in on it? That they didn't travel 400 nm for search and rescue because they wanted the MS Estonia to sink and didn't want to save anyone? That must be the argument, otherwise the fact that they didn't take part in the search has no connection to why the Estonia sank.

On the other hand, this theory goes against the idea that the Russians knew from experience that NATO exercise time is the right time for sub attacks (because they can easily sneak past all the NATO guys). If NATO is in on it, there is no need to sneak.

Is it possible... Could it possibly be the case... that there isn't anything remotely close to a coherent case for a coherent theory here, just a bunch of random stuff that might seem weird if you don't think about it, interspersed with disconnected speculation?
Click to expand...

Stamuel, you are mistaking this for 'conspiracy theory'. Fact is, NATO was gathered nearby albeit they claim the limits was Skagarrak to the East on a search and rescue exercise. It is the opinion of the then head of Finnish coast guards that the Russians at the military base on Hogland Island did jam the signals. The VHF was down for the duration of the sinking between 1:03 to 1: 58, the EPRIB buoys were inactive. The VHF channel 16 is the international channel for transmitting a May Day call. The other cruise ships nearby tried communicating with Channel 2180 (iirc) and this covers the entire Baltic area, which I feel sure would have been picked up by Nato personnel near Copenhagen Bornholm Island, a massive military base. However, this also seemed to be down and they had to use their hand held phones to get help. This is not conspiracy theory, it a matter of recorded fact.

As for the submarine, don't take my word for it. Here's the ex-chief prosecutor of Estonia's words:

Margus Kurm, former state prosecutor and head of the government's investigative committee looking into the sinking of ferry MS Estonia in 2005-2009, said in an interview with ETV's "Pealtnägija" that new scenes of the shipwreck show the ship most likely sank after a collision with a submarine.

You have seen these clips that have reached the media repeatedly and before anyone else. What was your first reaction and emotion seeing scenes of the dive?

The first reaction was shocking. Not because the hole (in the ship's hull - ed.) was visible but rather because it was discovered so simply.

Explain, what is the location of this hole and what is the meaning of it?

The meaning is [MS] Estonia did not sink because of a bow visor breaking, it was a collision with something large enough to create a four-meter long hole in the ship's hull.


But a collision? With what?

Considering that the tear is below the water line and considering noone has ever mentioned that another ship could have sunk with Estonia and none of the survivors have said they saw a ship close to Estonia - the most likely cause is Estonia collided with a submarine.

That means there should be a damaged submarine somewhere?

Yes, it means there should be a damaged submarine somewhere. But I will specify a bit. If one says a collision with a submarine, the first thought is the submarine ran into Estonia from its side. It might not have been so simple. It was more likely a intrusion. That Estonia and a submarine went in the same direction. And we can not rule out that Estonia might have hit the submarine, grazed the submarine. The question is what was a submarine doing on Estonia's route.

There has been mentions of an explanation that perhaps the hole developed after the ship had sunk. There is a theory that it bumped into a large rock or cliff while sinking and that caused the hole.

I do not consider that likely. The part, the section where the damage was found has never touched the seabed. The position that Estonia is in post-accident was documented during dives conducted in 1994. There have been figures drawn, graphics made on how Estonia lies on the seabed. The entire bottom of the ship, including the vehicle deck, on both sides, is out of water. It is a simple thing, everyone can check it on paper at home. We know, according to the report that the ship is under a 211-degree angle. Meaning, if we draw a straight line vertically on Estonia's hull, from funnel to keel, and compare it to the seabed, the angle is 211 degrees.

In addition, from the footage provided, we know that Estonia's so-called hotel part is partly under mud but a large part still sticks out. A part of the captain's deck is also out. You can draw a two-dimensional picture of the position Estonia is in underwater. It clearly shows that the entire bottom, including vehicle deck, is away from the seabed.

And therefore, a statement has been made that the location of the damages was not visible earlier. It absolutely was. The entire bottom, including the vehicle deck, was away from the seabed and could have been filmed in 1994.
Click to expand...
https://news.err.ee/1140442/head-of...tion-estonia-sank-on-collision-with-submarine

Anyone who thinks this is a conspiracy theory is sadly deluded.
 
JayUtah said:
You're declaring what classified documents must say. Therefore your experience with classified documents -- especially why they might be classified -- is relevant. Otherwise it's just ignorant guesswork.
Click to expand...

See the UK most wanted criminals here at #21? I was part of that team that brought these people to justice and helped refund literally hundreds of million pounds back to the UK taxpayer. Your setting yourself up as somehow my superior is amusing.
 
Vixen said:
OK, fair enough but I for one think it a terrible irony and massive tragedy that no-one at all was available to rescue these doomed people, despite NATO having a search-and-rescue exercise nearby.
Click to expand...

It was not 'nearby'
 
Vixen said:
See the UK most wanted criminals here at #21? I was part of that team that brought these people to justice and helped refund literally hundreds of million pounds back to the UK taxpayer. Your setting yourself up as somehow my superior is amusing.
Click to expand...

Did your work involve a government security clearance or access to classified documents, especially from an intelligence-gathering organization?
 
Vixen said:
See the UK most wanted criminals here at #21? I was part of that team that brought these people to justice and helped refund literally hundreds of million pounds back to the UK taxpayer. Your setting yourself up as somehow my superior is amusing.
Click to expand...
The list is not numbered, so maybe a name would be more useful.

Given your propensity for making vague statements that are marginally true but entirely irrelevant, I imagine "part of the team" means you called a tip line and reported some dubiously useful information and at some point later, the offender was apprehended.

What organization were you employed with or contracted to?

What was your role in the matter?

And, of course, the underlying question you are beating around the bush to avoid answering: did you possess a security clearance?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
And, of course, the underlying question you are beating around the bush to avoid answering: did you possess a security clearance?
Click to expand...

The more underlying question is how Vixen can know what a redacted classified document says or is likely to say. Familiarity with classified documents, especially from the intelligence community, is one way to establish a background. Having had a security clearance is one way to establish that familiarity, but certainly not the only way. This is not a matter of wounding someone's pride. It's simply examining the possible basis of claimed knowledge -- voir dire, if you wish.

The argument is, "This classified document is missing or redacted, therefore it must describe the thing that is my pet theory." First of all, that's an argument from silence and can be immediately dismissed on those grounds. Second, if one is attempting to guess at what the redacted or missing documents say, prior familiarity with classified documents is required. Since access to classified documents requires a clearance of some kind, asking the proponent whether he or she held that clearance seems to be the proper first step.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
I can guarantee they weren't involved in a NATO exercise in the Baltic.

At the time the RN were operating the Lynx off ships, it has a range of 530 miles and an endurance of 5 and a half hours with extra fuel tanks installed.

They were also operating the Sea King and Wessex off the carriers but they were not involved in any Baltic exercises, the Wessex had a range of 300 miles.

A Sea King could have made it with a range of 750 miles and an endurance of nearly 8 hours but they were not in the Baltic.

Again, why would a nato exercixe over 400 miles away be involved at all when there were shore based assets a lot closer?
Click to expand...

Again, you are correct.

And the US Navy wouldn't fly one in that kind of weather. A CH-53 would get the call. Was the US Navy even involved in this NATO exercise?


Lost in this conversation is the fact that Sweden took control of the rescue operation early on. Possible that the NATO ships were waved off upon inquiry.

The next problem was the first responding helicopters had to turn back due to mechanical issues, which speaks to the level of competence of just about everyone involved in this story at that time.
 
Vixen said:
Come off it. It could refuel at Gdansk or Rosktock or Ystad. what is the point of a military search and rescue if it is confined to a 400 mile radius? That rules out any Atlantic, India or Pacific Ocean searches...I doubt it.
Click to expand...

The point of a military SAR depends on whose navy gets the call. They are not all created equal. And it appears that nobody called NATO to ask for assistance, And finally as as already been pointed out, none of the NATO ships had helicopters with the kind of range needed on an sunny day, let alone a storm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom