• 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.
You also previously said



and


Ditto, here if you could provide the full context.

It is my view that given the survivor reports of a collision and explosion sounds, then the more I find out about this case, the more the 'accident' appears to be a case of sabotage. Previously, I thought the bad communications Tammes was experiencing was just one of those things but then I discovered Chief Coastguard Heimo Iivonen's testimony that there was a continuous jamming signal coming from the Russian base of Hoagland Island and the entire telephone company providing VHF was down for the duration of the sinking. Plus the two or three explosions happened on the stroke of midnight, indicating a timed device. The more I discover, the more I am beginning to suspect sabotage and that someone wanted to make sure the ship sunk.

It shows how objective I am as opposed to someone with a closed mind.
 
Pilot Kenneth Svensson rescued 9 people about 3:00am 28 Sept 1994, using the Mariella as a helipad and they were taken to Huddinge Hospital* in Stockholm at 4:30. Nine people, one died.

And they're all present and accounted for in table 7.8 of the final report.

The JAIC Report says Svensson rescued just one person at 5:10.

Could he have rescued other people at other times? Or are you saying he only made one trip during the entire rescue effort?

So eight names deleted with no explanation at all.

No deletion to explain. They're all there on table 7.8. We have 137 named survivors, and 137 survivors listed on the table, which indicates 9 people brought to Huddinge, one of whom died. Which names are you claiming were deleted, and when?

Svensson received a medal supposedly for recuing just one person, when in reality his heroism was even more amazing.

Look at this video of Captain Jan-Tore Thörnroos, who was in charge of the Mariella that night. If you fast forward to circa 8:45 towards the end (English subtitles are available via the settings) you'll note Thörnroos is asked, 'How many did you save that night?' and he replies, 'I believe 40.'

The interview footage fades to a black screen with captions, and then cuts back to the interview just before the question, so we don't know the context at this point. They could have been talking for an hour and changed topics in the interval, for all you now. How do we know he wasn't talking about the total number rescued by all the ships (which the report gives as 34)?

Note the conditional 'I believe' when surely a captain knows perfectly well how many were saved from the sea (there were 16 or 17 via the life chutes into the sea and a further 55 or so via helicopter winches), especially in one of what must be the most significant (and proudest) day of his life.

Again, note the cut in the interview footage. You don't have context to know what he's referring to. I suspect most likely he's talking at this point about the total number the ships rescued, and not just the Mariella.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry if I make you feel threatened. Nothing I can do about it.

You make me feel sorry for the people who might think you know what you're taking about and trust you.

A designed object can fail without the design being faulty. At the time Estonia was built, there were no industry or governmental design standards for the structures and operations of bow visors and car ramps. The customer's specification on this point -- as is often the case -- goes little further than to require the shipyard to build the ship in such a manner that it can operate safely. And it's up to the shipyard to know what "safe" means in whatever particular context. Any responsible engineering company will have its own internal design manuals and standards. That entails an awful lot of assumptions about use, maintenance, longevity, and a host of other variables that cannot be accurately foretold even by the most talented engineers. And once the ship leaves the shipyard, safety is up to the owners and operators.

The mere existence of a constructed object is not itself evidence that the object has been constructed to be suitable for some set of circumstances, no matter how illustrious or conscientious the builders. The inability for builders to foresee all possible outcomes is not a sign of their dereliction. The public's belief that "ordinary circumstances" prevailed at the time of some accident does not encompass the entire state of affairs leading up to it.

You're not objective. You're not open-minded. You're clearly pushing a conspiracy theory. You're clearly predisposed to ignore or summarily reject information that disputes your belief in that theory. Worse, you seem to think that whatever you happen to know about a particular thing is all that anyone ever needs to know or can know about it, and that your "mastery" of it makes you important. In the final analysis, nothing in this thread is about building and sailing ships, or investigating accidents, or justice for the survivors. It's about you play-acting at being someone you are not and expecting skeptics to go along with it.
 
Would you mind providing the full context of these quotes and not paragraphs cut in half? Together with what I was replying to?


Indeed the Cruise Ferry Ro-Ro-s between Finland - Sweden and Finland - Estonia are designed to withstand heavy Baltic weather, including frozen ice. That doesn't mean you can plonk it in the middle of the North Atlantic for a six week voyage.

It wasn't in the north atlantic
 
There is a long list of ships, planes, trains and building which were in good shape until unanticipated extreme forces lead to their demise.

You don't even need unanticipated extreme forces. The de Havilland Comets crashed under normal operating regimes in good weather. De Havilland were known to be highly competent and innovative, and produced many safe and rugged airplane designs.

The ocean doesn't play favorites. If there is a loose hatch, porthole, davit, rope, chain, bolt, screw, or bad weld the ocean will find it and punish it until it breaks.

This is true for engineered objects in any environment that imposes sustained or cyclic stress. Proper inspection, maintenance, and upgrades are part of the life cycle of any durable engineered product, and for any sufficiently complex engineering this part can evade even the most conscientious practitioners.

I'd love to see the metallurgy of the hood clamps and the bolt mounts to see what age and mileage had done to them.

The metallurgy was done. In the rush to identify signs in the metal that are consistent with explosives, the authors of the sabotage theory conveniently don't inform their readers that twinning is also an indicator of cyclic deformation. In a cyclic deformation, slip occurs in one half of the cycle and twinning occurs in the other half. In short, twinning is also consistent with metal fatigue. I asked Vixen about twinning like this several times, and got no answer. I didn't expect any, because I asked it in an open-ended way that precludes Googling hastily for the answer. It's something one just has to know.
 
And they're all present and accounted for in table 7.8 of the final report.



Could he have rescued other people at other times? Or are you saying he only made one trip during the entire rescue effort?



No deletion to explain. They're all there on table 7.8. We have 137 named survivors, and 137 survivors listed on the table, which indicates 9 people brought to Huddinge, one of whom died. Which names are you claiming were deleted, and when?



The interview footage fades to a black screen with captions, and then cuts back to the interview just before the question, so we don't know the context at this point. They could have been talking for an hour and changed topics in the interval, for all you now. How do we know he wasn't talking about the total number rescued by all the ships (which the report gives as 34)?



Again, note the cut in the interview footage. You don't have context to know what he's referring to. I suspect most likely he's talking at this point about the total number the ships rescued, and not just the Mariella.

I can't find Table 7.8, which you quote. However, the JAIC states the following about Helicopter Y64, of which Svensson was the commander.

Y 64 took off from Berga at 0445 hrs, picked up a physician and a nurse from Huddinge Hospital and arrived at the scene of the accident at 0552 hrs.
The crew noticed that many rafts were searched more than once because there were no markings showing that a raft already had been examined. Therefore the crew proposed by radio that the rescue men should cut up the canopies of searched rafts.
Y 64 began to rescue three people, one in a raft, one lying in the water tied to the raft and one lifeless entangled in the raft's sea anchor. The helicopter winched down its rescue man to the person in the water. Although the winch wire failed, the rescue man managed to raise him. The next to be lifted up was the man in the raft. He was not wearing a lifejacket. He fell into the water just before gaining the helicopter. The rescue man jumped after him and succeeded in grasping him. The winch now failed totally and another helicopter, Y 74, was called upon to rescue them. However, before Y 74 arrived, the person died.
Y 64 brought the survivor to Utö. The medical personnel on board were left to assist the Finnish nursing staff. As requested by the staff, Y 64 transported 20 survivors from Utö to Turku University Central Hospital. After this Y 64 got permission from the OSC to return to Berga to repair the broken winch, and landed there at 1530 hrs.
JAIC Report 7.5.5


So Svensson vis-à-vis Helicopter Y64, from the above, rescued just one person. And received a medal for it.

Let's turn the to historian's friend: the earliest newspaper reports:


Kenneth - one of the many Heros of the Night

… Kenneth Svensson 27 years old. One of the many heroes in connection with the ferry disaster. Kenneth Svensson ... is a rescue man. ... Kenneth Svensson, who was first on site of the rescue men, was lowered under dramatic conditions down to the persons in danger. ... The first rescue attempt failed and he was hauled up again to the helicopter. ... people called for help ... -After only just half a minute I made a new attempt and it went better.

-On a capsized raft sat three frozen and apathic men.

Kenneth Svensson could hardly fit the rescue harness around them. ... Eight humans Kenneth Svensson managed to pick up from the sea.Then he almost drowned himself.

When the last rescued person was going to be lifted, the rescue line got stuck in a rail and the rescue man Kenneth got hanging below the helicopter and he was close to being smashed against the underside of the helicopter in the strong wind. The helicopter crew understood the situation and quickly cut the wire to Kenneth Svensson. With a big splash he fell back into the water and hurt his face and one side of the body. Meanwhile his own helicopter was forced to return to Huddinge hospital with the injured persons and he must be rescued by another helicopter.

From that helicopter Olle Moberg, also 27 years old, was lowered. He managed to secure a new wire around the hero Kenneth Svensson, who was close to lose his own life in the battle to rescue survivors from the Estonia.
...
(Aftonbladet Wednesday 28 September 1994 ; by Sven-Anders Eriksson)

So at a stroke, nine persons deleted with no explanation in the JAIC Report. If these people were listed in error, how did the pilot also manage to report he flew nine people to Huddinge - one dead - and at three in the morning, not five as stated in the JAIC report?

The original survivors lists showed 146 survivors . Anér, a respected Swedish journalist and author of 'May Day' claims he himself saw 15 original lists of survivors - including pilot logbooks - and all eleven Estonian crew members who 'disappeared' were listed therein.

Anér claims that Chief Aviation Administrator of Sweden, Jan Lindqvist, gave him the receipts for the cargo planes to Amsterdam with 9 unregistered passengers and a second plane to Maine, USA, with five. The transits were both invoiced to the US Embassy in Stockhom.

He believes these passengers were the missing crew.
 

Attachments

  • enforced-disappearances-gulfstream4n971ldoc.jpg
    enforced-disappearances-gulfstream4n971ldoc.jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 2
  • enforced-disappearances-boeing727regvrclm.jpg
    enforced-disappearances-boeing727regvrclm.jpg
    17.9 KB · Views: 1
Ditto, here if you could provide the full context.

It is my view that given the survivor reports of a collision and explosion sounds, then the more I find out about this case, the more the 'accident' appears to be a case of sabotage. Previously, I thought the bad communications Tammes was experiencing was just one of those things but then I discovered Chief Coastguard Heimo Iivonen's testimony that there was a continuous jamming signal coming from the Russian base of Hoagland Island and the entire telephone company providing VHF was down for the duration of the sinking. Plus the two or three explosions happened on the stroke of midnight, indicating a timed device. The more I discover, the more I am beginning to suspect sabotage and that someone wanted to make sure the ship sunk.

It shows how objective I am as opposed to someone with a closed mind.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13536751#post13536751
 
That was about a ship called the Baltica, which actually, at one time had been used by the Soviets as a war ship.


Thank you for the correct context.

Baltica is a ship you were on. What you say of the Estonia is

When the M/S Estonia was known as Wasa King in its third reincarnation with Silja Lines, it was regarded as the most reliable ship in a storm, according to wiki, when it sailed regularly between Vaasa and Umeå.
 
How is that relevant? Is that all you can do, search around desperately for typos or a sentence taken out of context?

At least I knew what deformations were.

How is it taken out of context?

What typo?

You originally claimed the hull was 'reinforced steel'

When you were shown that it wasn't 'reinforced' and that the thickness varies depending on location you admitted you knew nothing about it.
 
You don't even need unanticipated extreme forces. The de Havilland Comets crashed under normal operating regimes in good weather. De Havilland were known to be highly competent and innovative, and produced many safe and rugged airplane designs.



This is true for engineered objects in any environment that imposes sustained or cyclic stress. Proper inspection, maintenance, and upgrades are part of the life cycle of any durable engineered product, and for any sufficiently complex engineering this part can evade even the most conscientious practitioners.



The metallurgy was done. In the rush to identify signs in the metal that are consistent with explosives, the authors of the sabotage theory conveniently don't inform their readers that twinning is also an indicator of cyclic deformation. In a cyclic deformation, slip occurs in one half of the cycle and twinning occurs in the other half. In short, twinning is also consistent with metal fatigue. I asked Vixen about twinning like this several times, and got no answer. I didn't expect any, because I asked it in an open-ended way that precludes Googling hastily for the answer. It's something one just has to know.

If the hinges and lugs in the Estonia were so deformed as a result of 'wear and tear', how come they are not available for examination by third parties and why are important parts left lying on the seabed, given they are exhibit B, after the bow visor?


Fact is, the Rockwater video appears to show signs of an explosive device on the bow bulkhead in four different places, including one that appears to have not gone off.
 
Last edited:
If the hinges and lugs in the Estonia was so deformed as a result of 'wear and tear', how come they are not available for examination by third parties and why are important parts left lying on the seabed, given they are exhibit B, after the bow visor?


Fact is, the Rockwater video appears to show signs of an explosive device on the bow bulkhead in four different place, including one that appears to have not gone off.

No, that is your claim, we have seen the images, they do not show that at all.
 
That was about a ship called the Baltica, which actually, at one time had been used by the Soviets as a war ship.


Thank you for the correct context.
Nope, you specifically said that the Estonia was regarded as the most reliable ship in a storm, in the post that Captain_Swoop referenced.

I'll even quote what you said about the Estonia.

Vixen said:
When the M/S Estonia was known as Wasa King in its third reincarnation with Silja Lines, it was regarded as the most reliable ship in a storm
 
Perhaps explain why the three countries to the treaty have agreed to review the wreck?

Perhaps you need to contact Rene Arikas in charge of the new expedition to let him know of your disapproval.

Or maybe you feel it is an affront to the victims' relatives to expect to want to understand what happened to their loved ones.

How arrogant and self-centered of you to believe that your sad performance in this thread has the slightest thing to do with reopening the investigation or with sympathy for the victims and survivors. Does it cross your mind that people can express genuine interest in a new investigation, have emotions about the tragedy, and desire to hold people accountable for their actions without suffering through your condescending role-play? Your busybody pretense to know all about eyewitnesses and such, declaring your they-should'ves about professions you know nothing about, and waving your hands frantically at every whiff of controversy has zero to do with the actual investigations. Try to understand for just a moment that the topic of re-investigating the loss of MS Estonia isn't about you.

So you are demanding this thread should cease on your say so...[...because?...].

Nobody's demanding that the thread cease. It may shock you to believe that a discussion of the sinking of a ship can proceed in earnest without your self-centered impositions and comically ham-fisted straw men. It speaks volumes that you habitually translate criticism against you into criticism for what other people are saying or doing. You don't speak for them. Your conspiracy-mongering isn't inevitably intertwined with the actual events and facts.
 
If the hinges and lugs in the Estonia was so deformed as a result of 'wear and tear'

Straw man. That's not my claim.

Fact is, the Rockwater video appears to show signs of an explosive device on the bow bulkhead in four different place, including one that appears to have not gone off.

That's one party's opinion. Other experts disagree.

You admitted you don't know anything about metallurgy. And here you demonstrate you don't want to be taught anything about it, if it means you have to question your firmly-held beliefs. Tell us again how "open-minded" and "objective" you are.
 
Baltica is a ship you were on. What you say of the Estonia is

Yes, I quoted Wikipedia, so I provided you with a source that you could check for yourself.


The fact the Wasa King was 'the most reliable ship in a storm' as quoted by the authority in wikipedia the context is, she sailed between Vaasa and Umeå, which is just 119 km.


Tallinn to Stockholm is 430 km.

Not sure how that translates into 'therefore, you argued that the Estonia could handle any conditions anywhere in the Baltic regardless of open sea mileage'.


Now we can all see why context is important when quoting someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom