The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

What ludicrous claims?

Lately, that MS Estonia was "momentarily stopped" by a collision with a 5,000-tonne submarine. But yesterday or the day before it was that Estonia may have been torpedoed. And last week it was that explosives blew off the visor. And so back to the beginning of this thread.

What is it that prevents you from grasping that the JAIC report is seriously defective...

The degree to which the JAIC report may be defective has nothing to do with whether you know what you're talking about when it comes to things like forensic engineering, eyewitness testimony, elementary physics, maritime operations, or any of the other things you've invoked and demanded that everyone just accept your say-so on.

...hence the agreement of three sovereign states to amend the law.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's plausible that a submarine hit the ship, whether NATO exercise forces could have rescued the survivors, or any of the other ignorant, cockamamie ideas you've promulgated.

What are you so scared of?

What are you accusing me of being scared of?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Why is it it ludicrous? There is a massive hole in the starboard, which has almost certainly been there since Oct/Nov 1994, when the first team of divers went down to make a report (Rockwater). Don't you think the JAIC should have mentioned it and investigated it? It is not something that can be missed.

 

[Steve]

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?

A fascinating thread indeed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What ludicrous claims? What is it that prevents you from grasping that the JAIC report is seriously defective...

False dichotomy much? If you are not satisfied with the report's conclusions of what caused the sinking, that does not make your scattergun ideas about submarines or torpedoes correct.

 

[Vixen]

Lately, that MS Estonia was "momentarily stopped" by a collision with a 5,000-tonne submarine. But yesterday or the day before it was that Estonia may have been torpedoed. And last week it was that explosives blew off the visor. And so back to the beginning of this thread.



The degree to which the JAIC report may be defective has nothing to do with whether you know what you're talking about when it comes to things like forensic engineering, eyewitness testimony, elementary physics, maritime operations, or any of the other things you've invoked and demanded that everyone just accept your say-so on.



Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's plausible that a submarine hit the ship, whether NATO exercise forces could have rescued the survivors, or any of the other ignorant, cockamamie ideas you've promulgated.



What are you accusing me of being scared of?

Survivor eye witness, Carl Ovberg related that he saw the military vehciles being loaded onto the ferry He also gave a very detailed and comprehensive account of what he experienced. You might think it ludicrous. I believe Carl Ovberg. I believe Sara Hedrenius, who also saw the military vehicle. I believe Paul Barney when he says he believes an involvement of MI6 becuase of how they have all been gagged.

Carl Övberg - cabin 1049:

- at about 22.30 hours (Swedish time) down to the cabin and to bed;
- he woke up suddenly from the strong noise of rushing water which he could hear from both sides, but loudest from starboard side; these noises alarmed him;
- in addition he heard quite strong metallic banging noises which definitely had not been there before; he sat up in bed and put his feet on the floor, since the bed was athwartships he was facing the door looking aft;
- he lit a cigarette and listened intently to the strange and frightening noise scenario;
- after a little while he suddenly heard the starting up noise of an hydraulic pump or pumps followed by the clicking of valves and then the typical noise created by an hydraulic system under load;
- simultaneously he heard the banging of sledge hammers;
- the noises came probably from forward;
- the hydraulic under load noise faded away and came back again whilst the sledge-hammer banging noise more or less continued. Both the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer banging noise continued for ca. 10-15 minutes whilst the other banging noises, then heard already for some 20-25 minutes, also continued;
- the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer noise stopped with a short, sharp metallic crash which gave him the impression that something heavy, metallic had broken;
- 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;
- he jumped out of his bed and put his clothes on very quickly when he realised that all the engine noises had stopped and that the ferry was now making much softer pitch movements; this must have been at about 01.00 hours.
- he rushed out of his cabin, turned right towards the stairway, around the aft part of it, through the open WT-door (watertight) towards aft, but turned around after some meters and headed forward, by now the vessel had started making sideway movements (rolling), the door at the port side of the stairway was either open or missing, and he rushed through it;
- he turned right up the stairs when his coat got caught at the beginning of the right handrail, he turned round to his right and looked over his right shoulder out through the door opening into the alleyway;
- he saw 2 goosenecks next to the cabin wall, as indicated on the drawing on the pages 517/518;
- out of these goosenecks water was streaming under great pressure, he also saw water penetrating the door forward of these goosenecks in the 3rd compartment which belonged to a cleaning room;
- he saw the water running over the floors;
- he had freed his jacket and he rushed up the stairs;
- when he was about half way up to the car deck the vessel heeled suddenly and abruptly more than 45°, probably 50° or 60°;

I respect these enormously brave and courageous people enough to find them credible witnesses. It is your prerogative to dismiss their accounts as Dr. Loftus type false memories.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

As I recall, someone did say it. Now Vixen's saying it too.

"People are saying." What more proof could you need?

 

[Steve]

I respect these enormous brave and courageous people enough to find them credible witnesses. It is your prerogative to dismiss their accounts as Dr. Loftus type false memories.

Enormous people are some of the best!

 

[Vixen]

False dichotomy much? If you are not satisfied with the report's conclusions of what caused the sinking, that does not make your scattergun ideas about submarines or torpedoes correct.

Where did I say my ideas were correct? I have an opinion. Look up the meaning of the word opinion. I explained what my opinion was based on. That is how a forum works.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Survivor eye witness, Carl Ovberg related that he saw the military vehciles being loaded onto the ferry He also gave a very detailed and comprehensive account of what he experienced. You might think it ludicrous. I believe Carl Ovberg. I believe Sara Hedrenius, who also saw the military vehicle. I believe Paul Barney when he says he believes an involvement of MI6 becuase of how they have all been gagged.

Which one of these witnesses saw the contentious submarine hit the ship? Were they able to tell how fast it was going?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Enormous people are some of the best!

Maybe if they'd been less enormous the Estonia wouldn't have sunk. I'll show myself out.

 

[LondonJohn]

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



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.

As you and others are saying (and have been saying all along), there's nothing to criticise about the relevant authorities conducting a fresh investigation, especially if it's going to be able to lead to a greater understanding & perspective about what actually happened to the ship that night.

And I think there's nobody (well, erm, almost nobody) in this thread who's closed-minded about the case.

But....

It's wholly possible - given the quality and reliability of key evidence (and the apparent absence of certain other relevant evidence) about the sinking - for well-informed and well-qualified observers to a) rule certain scenarios in as plausible possibilities, and b) rule certain scenarios out as plausible possibilities.

And unless the evidence (and absence of evidence) which is currently in the public domain turns out to be significantly less robust/reliable that it presently appears to be (and there's currently no credible reason why that might be so)..... it's entirely fair and reasonable to form the confident view that the Estonia sank because its old and poorly designed/maintained bow visor detached during a storm (compromising the bow ramp in the process), which consequently allowed large volumes of water to enter into the vehicle deck, which in turn caused the ship to disastrously lose stability and bouyancy, which in turn caused the ship to list and heel beyond the point of no return and sink.

Likewise, the evidence (and absence thereof) demonstrates clearly that no external collision of any sort (whether another vessel, a weapon, or natural features such as rocks) played any role in the Estonia's sinking.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I respect these enormously brave and courageous people enough to find them credible witnesses.

Do bravery and courage make one better at sensing whether a ship has stopped? I get that the report indicates he was thrown forward. But he's inside a cabin in a ship at sea in a storm at night. He has no reference. No way to tell if the ship has stopped.

 

[Vixen]

Which one of these witnesses saw the contentious submarine hit the ship? Were they able to tell how fast it was going?

Carl-Eric Reintamm saw something moving away through the water. The Finnish Police were interested enough in his account to pay a visit to Estonia to specifically ask him what he saw.

The JAIC rewrote his statement to say he saw 'some broken off stair rails'.

So maybe you now have a sense of why the survivors are dissatisfied with the report and their accounts being treated as worthless or rephrased to fit the JAIC narrative.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe if they'd been less enormous the Estonia wouldn't have sunk. I'll show myself out.

Maybe the "explosions" that some of the passengers said they heard were actually several of these enormous people bursting (a la Mr Creosote) as they realised the ship was sinking and helped themselves to one last raid of the 24-hour buffet bar.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Carl-Eric Reintamm saw something moving away through the water. The Finnish Police were interested enough in his account to pay a visit to Estonia to specifically ask him what he saw.

The JAIC rewrote his statement to say he saw 'some broken off stair rails'.

So maybe you now have a sense of why the survivors are dissatisfied with the report and their accounts being treated as worthless or rephrased to fit the JAIC narrative.

That still doesn't tell me how fast the submarine was going when it hit the Estonia.

 

[Vixen]

Do bravery and courage make one better at sensing whether a ship has stopped? I get that the report indicates he was thrown forward. But he's inside a cabin in a ship at sea in a storm at night. He has no reference. No way to tell if the ship has stopped.

You own your experiences. If you are in an accident, you can only relate your experience of it. If you felt a collision or heard an explosion or felt yourself suddenly stopping, who am I to tell you you didn't experience any of those things?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Where did I say my ideas were correct?

It was when you reacted to criticism of your wild submarine ideas by accusing the critic of being afraid even to consider the report was flawed. That is not the only alternative to submarines.

 

[JayUtah]

Survivor eye witness, Carl Ovberg ...gave a very detailed and comprehensive account of what he experienced. You might think it ludicrous.

A literal interpretation of Övberg's testimony cannot be reconciled with a collision with a 5,000-tonne submarine according to physical law. I don't have to apply a value judgment either to the witness or to the testimony in order to note that the evidence cannot be explained by a proffered hypothesis.

I respect these enormous brave and courageous people enough to find them credible witnesses.

The credibility of a witness is measured solely in the degree to which their report coincides with what actually happened, and with objectively obtained evidence. Their courage or bravery has nothing to do with it. I can look critically at their testimony and attempt to reconcile it with what can be known by other means without having to comment on their character.

You, in contrast, seem to want certain eyewitness testimony to be taken as literally and incontrovertibly true, including all the attendant interpretation and inference, and that anything other than that is an attack on the character of the witness. That is simply not how a credible forensic investigation occurs.

It is your prerogative to dismiss their accounts as Dr. Loftus type false memories.

I dismiss the literal interpretation of the witness you cite as evidence of the submarine collision you've hypothesized to explain it by the simple fact that it's physically impossible. I have no problem believing that the witness exaggerated his perception of whether the ship actually ceased forward motion. I have no problem with the witness simply having been jolted off his feet by the unexpected motion of the ship. These are not disrespectful interpretations, in light of other evidence. This does not call his character or fitness into question.

As to the science, you've made it plain you have no use for science that doesn't confirm your beliefs, and you have no problem defaming the experts who disagree with you. It's therefore rather disingenuous that you're trying to trump up an emotional argument for why we should consider eyewitness claims paramount.

 

[JayUtah]

Carl-Eric Reintamm saw something moving away through the water.

If your claim is that what the witness saw was a 5,000-tonne submarine that had just collided with Estonia hard enough to stop it, then how fast would that submarine need to have been traveling in order to do that? How could impact with the side of a ship slow its forward progress?

Eyewitness testimony must be reconciled with other evidence. You can't simply pretend physics doesn't exist just so you can feel righteously in solidarity with survivors.

 

[Vixen]

That still doesn't tell me how fast the submarine was going when it hit the Estonia.

Professor Jørgen Amdahl, an expert in marine collisions, estimated that if it was 5,000 tonnes in weight, it will have been travelling at 1.9 knots, or as speed and weight are inversely proportional, at the other end of the possible scale of what caused such an impact, it could be something weighing 1,000 tonnes moving at 5 knots. He decisively ruled out a bow visor weight 55 tonnes could have made that type of damage.


Yet JayUtah thinks Professor Amdahl doesn't know what he is talking about.