The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Axxman300]

It has three documents spanning seven pages. As the 'investigation' of the 'accident' is in the public domain, what's with the 'classified secret' stuff? To save the then President Bill Clinton's face..?

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

The US is not the only country eavesdropping on Baltic countries, and I guarantee the NSA has the same intelligence that all of those other countries have. So why pick on us? Because we're on the other side of the Atlantic? The Germans, the Swedes, the UK,Norway, and the Russians all would gain political advantage by revealing any "Truth" behind the Estonia disaster. In all of these years none of those countries has said anything.

Compare that to the Russian shootdowns of KAL-007 and MA-17 where multiple countries released radar, GPS, and other electronic data to the press.

The more you stretch unrelated facts to fit your CT, the faster it has fallen apart.

 

[Axxman300]

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

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.

Why should we take his word for it? There was no submarine. The hole is a stress fracture. You have nothing but bad information from people looking to blame anyone else but the Estonia's parent company. Remember, these theories came from private entities who hired by insurance companies of the ship builder (Ze Germans) and Estline, whose job is to clear their clients of wrong-doing to save them from paying through the nose. And every good lawyer knows that when you have nothing the first thing you do is put up a smoke screen to divert attention.

My clients are not guilty, Your Honor, it was these other people and their submarine!

Give me a break.

 

[JesseCuster]

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.

Velocity of the submarine in knots multiplied by the weight of the Estonia in tonnes gives you something in Joules?

Can you explain exactly what it is you think you've calculated here and what relevance it has?

Long time since my physics O-Level, so I am sure you will take great pleasure in correcting me.

I'll correct it by saying it makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[GlennB]

Velocity of the submarine in knots multiplied by the weight of the Estonia in tonnes gives you something in Joules?

Can you explain exactly what it is you think you've calculated here and what relevance it has?

I'll correct it by saying it makes absolutely no sense at all.

It's part of a Gish Gallop that's designed to create maximum confusion and dispute. I can't for the life of me explain why though.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

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.

Agreed wholeheartedly

 

[Vixen]

Why should we take his word for it? There was no submarine. The hole is a stress fracture. You have nothing but bad information from people looking to blame anyone else but the Estonia's parent company. Remember, these theories came from private entities who hired by insurance companies of the ship builder (Ze Germans) and Estline, whose job is to clear their clients of wrong-doing to save them from paying through the nose. And every good lawyer knows that when you have nothing the first thing you do is put up a smoke screen to divert attention.

My clients are not guilty, Your Honor, it was these other people and their submarine!

Give me a break.

M/S Estonia was joint owned by Estline - a commercial company based in Estonia - and Nordstrom & Thulin in Sweden, together with government funding.

The shipbuilders, Meyer Werft in Germany, although it designed and built the ship, are not legally liable as it was designed and built before regulations came in about specifications - legally, these regulations can't work in retrospect.

The ship's inspectors, Veritas signed the vessel off as seaworthy. However, the French court that heard the case recently re Meyer Werft / Veritas vs The Estonia Survivors' Group found in the formers' favour.

Thus, we have the perfect situation as far as each of the defending parties are concerned: neither the owners, Nordstrom & Thulin, Estline, Swedish government, nor Meyer Werft, nor Veritas are financially liable.

Thus, Margus Kurm has no motive to claim it was a submarine if he or his country are not vicariously liable for the 'accident'. From the point of view of all of them, the best outcome is 'the hand of God' (force majeure) verdict, which effectively, it is at the moment, thanks to the JAIC blaming the cause solely on the 'poor design of the bow visor' and its bolts.

As a professional prosecutor, Kurm likely sees himself as quite independent from other government departments, and further, someone of his high office is not going to stick his neck out unless he is 100% sure of his position. He has nothing to gain and nothing to lose.

I recall you said - or someone did - that the Germans have a red hot intelligence service. Well, maybe that intelligence service has noticed things, which made Germany decline to sign the Estonia Gravesite Treaty of 1995.

 

[Vixen]

Velocity of the submarine in knots multiplied by the weight of the Estonia in tonnes gives you something in Joules?

Can you explain exactly what it is you think you've calculated here and what relevance it has?

I'll correct it by saying it makes absolutely no sense at all.

I was teasing JayUtah. I was always more of a Chemistry person when we did all this stuff at school. I don't agree that you have to be a PhD in marine physics to be allowed to comment.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't agree that you have to be a PhD in marine physics to be allowed to comment.

Many of your comments contain propositions whose plausibility must be evaluated from a position of competence in physics because they insinuate behaviors in the physical world. You cannot demonstrate competence in physics. Therefore there is no reason to believe that you have considered the plausibility of your statements yourself before expecting others to take them at face value. Allusions to the behavior of the physical world do not become true or plausible simply because they issue from your keyboard. And you don't get to simply bluster your way past people for whom competence in physics is an integral part of their licensed professions.

Further, as I mentioned before, you have answered a number of challenges to your claims by simply invoking "the laws of physics" with no further elaboration. Now that it is evident you don't understand the laws of physics, the critics to whom you have responded with that ignorant brush-off have cause to demand a more substantive response to their challenges.

A prerequisite to being taken seriously is being able to demonstrate you know what you're talking about. You can comment all you want, but you don't have the privilege of your uninformed say-so being considered anything more than noise.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I recall you said - or someone did - that the Germans have a red hot intelligence service. Well, maybe that intelligence service has noticed things, which made Germany decline to sign the Estonia Gravesite Treaty of 1995.

What is so 'hot' aboutthe German intelligence service that other countries do not have/

What is your evidence for this 'hotness'?

 

[GlennB]

What is so 'hot' aboutthe German intelligence service that other countries do not have/

What is your evidence for this 'hotness'?

'Someone' said it, Vixen says. Isn't that good enough for you?

 

[whoanellie]

I was teasing JayUtah. I was always more of a Chemistry person when we did all this stuff at school. I don't agree that you have to be a PhD in marine physics to be allowed to comment.

Perhaps you were teasing but you've made a similar mistake before, haven't you. Anyone with a modicum of training in chemistry should have a basic understanding of dimensional analysis and different systems of units, shouldn't they?

 

[Steve]

I was teasing JayUtah. I was always more of a Chemistry person when we did all this stuff at school. I don't agree that you have to be a PhD in marine physics to be allowed to comment.

It is interesting how your serious posts and your "teasing" posts cannot be told apart.

 

[GlennB]

It is interesting how your serious posts and your "teasing" posts cannot be told apart.

It's a common enough occurrence. 'Light hearted', 'tongue in cheek' etc etc

 

[Vixen]

Many of your comments contain propositions whose plausibility must be evaluated from a position of competence in physics because they insinuate behaviors in the physical world. You cannot demonstrate competence in physics. Therefore there is no reason to believe that you have considered the plausibility of your statements yourself before expecting others to take them at face value. Allusions to the behavior of the physical world do not become true or plausible simply because they issue from your keyboard. And you don't get to simply bluster your way past people for whom competence in physics is an integral part of their licensed professions.

Further, as I mentioned before, you have answered a number of challenges to your claims by simply invoking "the laws of physics" with no further elaboration. Now that it is evident you don't understand the laws of physics, the critics to whom you have responded with that ignorant brush-off have cause to demand a more substantive response to their challenges.

A prerequisite to being taken seriously is being able to demonstrate you know what you're talking about. You can comment all you want, but you don't have the privilege of your uninformed say-so being considered anything more than noise.

Wrong. I do not need to demonstrate anything to you. If you want to know what sort of momentum would stop a ship in its tracks, go away and work it out for yourself. Can I suggest you concentrate on the topic at hand and not on me?

The review is happening/has happened whether you like it or not.

19.12.2020 15:37


Sweden said Friday it would seek to lift a ban on inspections of the wreck of the Estonia ferry, which sank in the Baltic Sea in 1994 with the loss of 852 lives in one of the worst maritime disasters of the 20th century.

The Swedish Accident Investigation Authority has made a request to amend a law banning dives in order to allow a re-examination the wreck after a documentary presented evidence of a previously unknown hole in the vessel.

https://news.err.ee/1213615/sweden-seeks-new-probe-of-m-s-estonia-ferry-wreck-after-25-year-ban


In other words a news item. If you don't like people posting news items into the current affairs slot, there is a little triangle you can click on to register your complaint.

 

[Axxman300]

To paraphrase someone on Twitter today, Vixen has more straw-men than a Ray Bolger estate-sale.

As someone already said, nobody posting on this thread is against re-opening the case, and documenting the wreck to get a better understanding of the events which sank Estonia. What sets us apart is we understand that we'll have to wait for the new report to be issued this fall, and then let the chips fall.

All the revolving speculation is nothing ,more that Conspiracy weaving. None of it supersedes the facts as we know them; that the hood(bow-cover) failed and wrenched open the bow ram as it dislodged causing the ship to fill with water, capsize, and sink.

Submarines, explosives, arms smuggling, and torpedoes are all irresponsible speculation. There is no evidence to support any of these.

*I was the one who said Germany has a solid intelligence operation. The Bundesnachrichtendienst and the Militärischer Abschirmdienst are both quality services. And if the Russians or the Swedes or the Estonians were holding out these two units would know, especially by now.

 

[JayUtah]

Wrong. I do not need to demonstrate anything to you.

Yes you do, if you expect to be taken seriously. Especially if you're going to call me "deluded" when I disagree with you.

If you want to know what sort of momentum would stop a ship in its tracks, go away and work it out for yourself.

I have. The question now remains whether the scenario you proposed would satisfy that. You seem unable and unwilling to prove that it can. I know whether your claim is plausible. You do not. Therefore your claim is properly not taken seriously.

Can I suggest you concentrate on the topic at hand and not on me?

The topic at hand is your claim that a 5,000-tonne submarine could have stopped MS Estonia by colliding with it. I'm asking you what speed that submarine would need to be traveling in order for that to happen, and how an impact on the side of Estonia could have had anything to do with slowing down or shopping the ship.

You don't seem competent to answer those questions, so your point is properly rebutted. Alternatively you can admit in so many words, "I guess I don't know what I'm talking about." But constantly being butthurt when your claims are refuted is not a very mature option.

The review is happening/has happened whether you like it or not.

The review has little if anything to do with the ludicrous claims you're making in this thread. I'm holding you responsible for claims you make, whether or not you've copied them from some other source. If you don't like it, find a place to pontificate that isn't focused on testing claims for correctness.

And no, you're not just posting current news events for general interest. You flat-out called everyone deluded who doesn't accept the claims you're making. Either debate or don't, but don't debate and then try to tell everyone you're not debating after you paint yourself into corner. If you lose a debate because you're not competent to have it, own that.

 

[JayUtah]

As someone already said, nobody posting on this thread is against re-opening the case, and documenting the wreck to get a better understanding of the events which sank Estonia.

Agreed. I have no problem with a competent, professional, thorough, well-funded new investigation into MS Estonia.

Submarines, explosives, arms smuggling, and torpedoes are all irresponsible speculation. There is no evidence to support any of these.

And there have been plenty of people here with professional expertise to examine the proffered claims, scenarios, and evidence and draw reasonably substantial conclusion regarding the conspiracy theories. That the proponent of the conspiracy theories is unable to keep up is not anyone else's problem.

 

[Kid Eager]

What an intriguing thread…. I’ve had to bite my tongue several times over the ludicrous speculation re submarines. I can extremely confidently say that the circumstances and the evidence don’t support the claims of submarine involvement. I have as a professional in the field served on submarines, studied naval architecture and held a security clearance. Make of that what you will.

 

[Vixen]

Yes you do, if you expect to be taken seriously. Especially if you're going to call me "deluded" when I disagree with you.



I have. The question now remains whether the scenario you proposed would satisfy that. You seem unable and unwilling to prove that it can. I know whether your claim is plausible. You do not. Therefore your claim is properly not taken seriously.



The topic at hand is your claim that a 5,000-tonne submarine could have stopped MS Estonia by colliding with it. I'm asking you what speed that submarine would need to be traveling in order for that to happen, and how an impact on the side of Estonia could have had anything to do with slowing down or shopping the ship.

You don't seem competent to answer those questions, so your point is properly rebutted. Alternatively you can admit in so many words, "I guess I don't know what I'm talking about." But constantly being butthurt when your claims are refuted is not a very mature option.



The review has little if anything to do with the ludicrous claims you're making in this thread. I'm holding you responsible for claims you make, whether or not you've copied them from some other source. If you don't like it, find a place to pontificate that isn't focused on testing claims for correctness.

And no, you're not just posting current news events for general interest. You flat-out called everyone deluded who doesn't accept the claims you're making. Either debate or don't, but don't debate and then try to tell everyone you're not debating after you paint yourself into corner. If you lose a debate because you're not competent to have it, own that.

What ludicrous claims? What is it that prevents you from grasping that the JAIC report is seriously defective, hence the agreement of three sovereign states to amend the law. What are you so scared of?

 

[Vixen]

To paraphrase someone on Twitter today, Vixen has more straw-men than a Ray Bolger estate-sale.

As someone already said, nobody posting on this thread is against re-opening the case, and documenting the wreck to get a better understanding of the events which sank Estonia. What sets us apart is we understand that we'll have to wait for the new report to be issued this fall, and then let the chips fall.

All the revolving speculation is nothing ,more that Conspiracy weaving. None of it supersedes the facts as we know them; that the hood(bow-cover) failed and wrenched open the bow ram as it dislodged causing the ship to fill with water, capsize, and sink.

Submarines, explosives, arms smuggling, and torpedoes are all irresponsible speculation. There is no evidence to support any of these.

*I was the one who said Germany has a solid intelligence operation. The Bundesnachrichtendienst and the Militärischer Abschirmdienst are both quality services. And if the Russians or the Swedes or the Estonians were holding out these two units would know, especially by now.

Germany hasn't signed the Treaty? Nor has it prosecuted its German citizens visiting the site. Why is the opinion of survivors and the Estonian former chief prosecutor 'irresponsible speculation'? What is it you abhor about the survivors' eyewitness accounts? These guys had to watch as their fellow passengers/crew died in front of them, only to discover their witness statements count for zippo, when we should be grateful that at least someone survived to relate to the world an historical event of what happened as it happened.