• 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.
Captain_Swoop said:
How would they know who was on the helm at any given time?
You know the helmsman just follows the orders of the OOW?
On the ships I served aboard the helmsman wasn't even on the bridge, he was down in the hull.
An emergency generator would not supply the tillers.
Even whith power to the helm if the engines are stopped the ship can't be steered, it will turn side on to the waves.
Click to expand...

Someone appears to have steered it towards the east away from the oncoming waves. Once the engines have stopped, then surely the water crashing over the decks, including the car deck, would simply wash away, especially if the ramp was hanging open and the hull intact is still keeping the ship buoyant.

2,000 tonnes of water on deck would not affect the buoyancy of a vessel than can carry 18,000 tonnes and stay comfortably afloat.
 
Vixen said:
Bjorkman believes the accident was a straighforward breach of the hull. His key argument is that had the hull not been breached the vessel would simply have turtled. This is not particularly controversial IMV. Bjorkman is heavily defamed as a 'conspiracy theorist' because of his 9/11 and moon landings beliefs.

That doesn't cancel out Bjorkman's expertise in marine architecture/engineering.

Let's face it , calling someone a 'conspiracy theorist' is the new defamation, hence the attempt by people claiming to be sceptics - but IMV more closely adherrent to mass media believers - to vilify this thread as a conspiracy theory when it is an important current news item, as immediate and as salient as Hurricane Ida hitting Louisiana. People think it's their job to 'shut it down' not realising the massive implications of Sweden, Finland and Estonia accepting that the hole in the Estonia is a serious and key piece of new evidence that is potentially enough to render the original JAIC verdict as 'no-one's fault except the bow visor had a weak design which meant a few strong waves caused the bow visor to fall off, thus seawater flooding the car deck' as complete and utter nonsense and the 29 survivor who reported explosions and/or a collision as having been correct all along.


Who cares if one of the persons who believes the JAIC report is woefully deficient and defective happens to be someone RO once sparred with on ISF and appears to have been banned, I presume for upsetting too many people?

This is not about personalities or whether you like or dislike certain posters, it is about the facts of the matter surrounding the sinking of the Estonia 28 Sept 1994. This cannot be denied or brushed under the carpet.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as: "Yes, I never had the Aftonbladet articles in front of me and was relying on Bjorkman all along."
 
Vixen said:
Bjorkman believes the accident was a straighforward breach of the hull. His key argument is that had the hull not been breached the vessel would simply have turtled. This is not particularly controversial IMV. Bjorkman is heavily defamed as a 'conspiracy theorist' because of his 9/11 and moon landings beliefs.

That doesn't cancel out Bjorkman's expertise in marine architecture/engineering.

Let's face it , calling someone a 'conspiracy theorist' is the new defamation, hence the attempt by people claiming to be sceptics - but IMV more closely adherrent to mass media believers - to vilify this thread as a conspiracy theory when it is an important current news item, as immediate and as salient as Hurricane Ida hitting Louisiana. People think it's their job to 'shut it down' not realising the massive implications of Sweden, Finland and Estonia accepting that the hole in the Estonia is a serious and key piece of new evidence that is potentially enough to render the original JAIC verdict as 'no-one's fault except the bow visor had a weak design which meant a few strong waves caused the bow visor to fall off, thus seawater flooding the car deck' as complete and utter nonsense and the 29 survivor who reported explosions and/or a collision as having been correct all along.


Who cares if one of the persons who believes the JAIC report is woefully deficient and defective happens to be someone RO once sparred with on ISF and appears to have been banned, I presume for upsetting too many people?

This is not about personalities or whether you like or dislike certain posters, it is about the facts of the matter surrounding the sinking of the Estonia 28 Sept 1994. This cannot be denied or brushed under the carpet.
Click to expand...

Nice verbose straw man argument you’ve built there. Banging the table, much?

Notwithstanding your veil of apparently deep concern, it does not establish that Anders has evidence, nor that the conclusions he has formed on the basis of the alleged evidence are valid.

The position is further weakened by Anders having a propensity for vehemently holding beliefs at odds with evidence.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
I'll take that as: "Yes, I never had the Aftonbladet articles in front of me and was relying on Bjorkman all along."
Click to expand...

I didn't realise you were discussing a personality. I was discussing the apparent difference in the JAIC report wherein it claims the first Swedish helicopter, Q97, arrived at 3:50 and then to and fro-ed from Hanko, Finland and Uto, Finland, from 5:00 in the morning all the way through to 10:50 am, after which it flew back to Sweden in the late afternoon, when the survivors list clearly shows nine survivors arriving at Huddinge hospital at 4:40am Stockholm time.

Q 97 (Super Puma)

The Swedish stand-by helicopter Q 97 took off from Visby at 0250 hrs, arriving at the scene of the accident at 0350 hrs. The OSC requested the helicopter to pick up as many people as possible from the sea.

On its first flight Q 97 rescued six survivors from the keels of two upside-down lifeboats. As instructed by the OSC, Q 97 flew them to Utö, where it landed at 0500 hrs. During the stop the crew called ARCC Arlanda, informing about the situation at the scene and asking for as many helicopters as possible.

After refuelling, Q 97 returned at 0540 hrs to the scene and rescued nine survivors, five from a liferaft and four from the water. They were in very poor condition. The pilot decided to take them directly to Hanko on the mainland. Q 97 landed at a sports field in Hanko at 0735 hrs, and local residents quickly summoned ambulances to the field. The crew was advised to fly to the Hanko coast guard station landing field, where they could refuel.

Q 97 took off from Hanko for the accident scene at 0810 hrs and returned to Hanko at 1050 hrs. After refuelling Q 97 returned to its base and finished the mission at 1615 hrs.
Click to expand...

So the first Swedish helicopter to arrive didn't even fly back to Sweden until 16:15 in the afternoon.

Yet the original survivors lists clearly shows that nine survivors arrived at Huddinge at 4:40am

Avo Piht X1 Y 64 03.30 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs
Kahlev Vatras X1 Y 64 03.30 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs
Hannely (Anne) Veide X1 Y 64 03.30 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs
Hanka-Hannika Veide X1 Y 64 03.30 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs
Kaimar Kikas X2 Y 64 03.50 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs
Merit Kikas X2 Y 64 03.50 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs
Tiit Meos X2 Y 64 03.50 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs (dead*?)
Agur Targama X2 Y 64 03.50 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs
Ago Tomingas X2 Y 64 03.50 hrs Huddinge 04.40 hrs
Click to expand...

And by police helicopter:

Viktor Bogdanov X Mariella 03.30 hrs Police helicopter Huddinge 24.00 hrs
Lembit Leiger X Mariella 03.30 hrs Police helicopter Huddinge 24.00 hrs
Tina Müür X Mariella 03.30 hrs Police helicopter Huddinge 24.00 hrs
Click to expand...

Some of these are very high profile in the ship's personnel, including the chief engineer, the deputy Captain and the chief medical officer. It is hard to believe they could have been mistaken for anybody else. Note the first nine were rescued between 3:30 and 3:50, by 'hero Kenneth Svensson' and hence the correct source of Aftonbladet's early story by a named journalist on 28 Sept 1994, as having been the first. As you can see from the list, above, it clearly names Helicopter Y64 as their rescuer. Where did Aftonbladet get its information from, if not from Svensson himself and as confirmed by Huddinge, Stockholm, the scene of a clamour of journalists?

The 'first' named by the JAIC arrived by coincidence also at '3:50' saving nine survivors who were transferred to Finland and not to Sweden and by a completely different helicopter, not returning to the Swedish mainland until after four in the afternoon.

NB Kalev Vahdras was later found bruised and washed up on shore, drowned.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I didn't realise you were discussing a personality.
Click to expand...

Neither did I. I thought I was discussing your shoddy research and plagiarism.

I was discussing the apparent difference in the JAIC report wherein it claims the first Swedish helicopter, Q97, arrived at 3:50 and then to and fro-ed from Hanko, Finland and Uto, Finland, from 5:00 in the morning all the way through to 10:50 am, after which it flew back to Sweden in the late afternoon, when the survivors list clearly shows nine survivors arriving at Huddinge hospital at 4:40 Stockholm time.
So the first Swedish helicopter to arrive didn't even fly back to Sweden until 16:15 in the afternoon.

Yet the original survivors lists clearly shows that nine survivors arrived at Huddinge at 4:40am



And by police helicopter:



Some of these are very high profile in the ship's personnel, including the chief engineer, the deputy Captain and the chief medical officer. It is hard to believe they could have been mistaken for anybody else. Note the first nine were rescued between 3:30 and 3:50, by 'hero Kenneth Svensson' and hence the correct source of Aftonbladet's early story by a named journalist on 28 Sept 1994, as having been the first. As you can see from the list, above, it clearly names Helicopter Y64 as their rescuer. Where did Aftonbladet get its information from, if not from Svensson himself and as confirmed by Huddinge, Stockholm, the scene of a clamour of journalists?

The 'first' named by the JAIC arrived by coincidence also at '3:50' saving nine survivors who were transferred to Finland and not to Sweden and by a completely different helicopter, not returning to the Swedish mainland until after four in the afternoon.

NB Kalev Vahdras was later found bruised and washed up on shore, drowned.
Click to expand...

Please cite and link (and I'm sure you're getting all your info online, so yes, you can link) your sources. The ones you actually used for all this.
 
Vixen said:
Bjorkman is heavily defamed as a 'conspiracy theorist' because of his 9/11 and moon landings beliefs.
Click to expand...

It's not defamation if it's true. Björkman publishes his beliefs on those topics from an alleged position as a highly qualified and respected engineer. He may once have been the former, but is certainly not the latter. But more importantly, his beliefs on those points are based on an incorrect understanding of the facts. They have no basis in science or engineering. Moreover, with his million-euro prize offerings and bravado, it's clear he's merely showboating, not trying to get to the truth.

He has earned his reputation as a conspiracy theorist by his own behavior. Trying to spin that as being unjustly defamed and silenced by the majority is just you falling for his schtick.

That doesn't cancel out Bjorkman's expertise in marine architecture/engineering.
Click to expand...

It very much does. Whatever his qualifications and former employment, his subsequent behavior shows the lengths to which he is willing to lie and deceive others about those things in order to get attention. He exited the mainstream marine engineering industry long before he starting spouting nonsense about other branches of engineering. Your frantic attempts to rehabilitate him will not restore whatever credibility he may once have had.

Let's face it , calling someone a 'conspiracy theorist' is the new defamation...
Click to expand...

Or so the conspiracy theorists wish you to believe. They love to style themselves as sincere seekers after truth, persecuted and vilified for their minority beliefs. They love to teach you that opposing and criticizing them will put you on the wrong side of history, that time will tell regarding their claims, and that you're much smarter than those other sheep for coming to that realization early on.

But all that empty rhetoric aside, their actual stories just don't stand up. They count on you not being informed enough on your own to see this, and to rely on them to spoon feed you "facts" and knowledge from their alleged expertise. But in the final analysis, the stories are so much bunk.

Anders Björkman earned his position as a conspiracy theorist, not because skeptics are such big meanies, but because he demonstrably lies and misrepresents the facts in order to foist an improbable (but certainly exciting) alternate narrative. Pointing out when people do that is not defaming them. The central doctrine of defamation is that no person is entitled to a false reputation. Björkman very much wants a reputation that he has not earned. And you're all too willing to give it to him.

This is not about personalities or whether you like or dislike certain posters, it is about the facts of the matter surrounding the sinking of the Estonia 28 Sept 1994. This cannot be denied or brushed under the carpet.
Click to expand...

But you don't have any facts. You have piles of fantasy and innuendo that are flatly contravened by facts. You have propositions presented to you as fact by others, which you implicitly believe without question. You've been led around by the nose by people who flatter you that when they do that, they're somehow making you a better person.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, are you claiming that Bjorkman has invented this list and that it is falsified?
Click to expand...

He's saying you didn't source your quotes.
And when asked for the source, a link was given to another site, which in turn had a link to the original Bjorkman table.

All Reformed offlian has done is what was asked of you.
 
Vixen said:
Yet the original survivors lists clearly shows that nine survivors arrived at Huddinge at 4:40am
Click to expand...

The list you linked doesn't seem to be an "original survivors list". It's a document that originates from Anders Bjorkman.
ETA: I see you have admitted as much. So there's no real there there. Just Bjorkman's unsupported claims being repeated uncritically as if they were historical fact.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
It's not defamation if it's true. Björkman publishes his beliefs on those topics from an alleged position as a highly qualified and respected engineer. He may once have been the former, but is certainly not the latter. But more importantly, his beliefs on those points are based on an incorrect understanding of the facts. They have no basis in science or engineering. Moreover, with his million-euro prize offerings and bravado, it's clear he's merely showboating, not trying to get to the truth.

He has earned his reputation as a conspiracy theorist by his own behavior. Trying to spin that as being unjustly defamed and silenced by the majority is just you falling for his schtick.



It very much does. Whatever his qualifications and former employment, his subsequent behavior shows the lengths to which he is willing to lie and deceive others about those things in order to get attention. He exited the mainstream marine engineering industry long before he starting spouting nonsense about other branches of engineering. Your frantic attempts to rehabilitate him will not restore whatever credibility he may once have had.



Or so the conspiracy theorists wish you to believe. They love to style themselves as sincere seekers after truth, persecuted and vilified for their minority beliefs. They love to teach you that opposing and criticizing them will put you on the wrong side of history, that time will tell regarding their claims, and that you're much smarter than those other sheep for coming to that realization early on.

But all that empty rhetoric aside, their actual stories just don't stand up. They count on you not being informed enough on your own to see this, and to rely on them to spoon feed you "facts" and knowledge from their alleged expertise. But in the final analysis, the stories are so much bunk.

Anders Björkman earned his position as a conspiracy theorist, not because skeptics are such big meanies, but because he demonstrably lies and misrepresents the facts in order to foist an improbable (but certainly exciting) alternate narrative. Pointing out when people do that is not defaming them. The central doctrine of defamation is that no person is entitled to a false reputation. Björkman very much wants a reputation that he has not earned. And you're all too willing to give it to him.



But you don't have any facts. You have piles of fantasy and innuendo that are flatly contravened by facts. You have propositions presented to you as fact by others, which you implicitly believe without question. You've been led around by the nose by people who flatter you that when they do that, they're somehow making you a better person.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I am not sticking up for Bjorkman (or Rabe or Evertsson). I do not believe in time-wasting so I don't give credence to career conspiracy theorists, such as David Icke or even Bjorkman. Fact is, the Estonia case has been been re-opened and the JAIC report is insufficient to explain the sudden sinking of the ship.

AIUI nine to eleven people who were originally listed as 'survivors', including Piht, Leiger and Bogdanov and of whom Piht was definitely claimed to have been interviewed by the Swedish interior minister, together with an Interpol Warrant for his arrest, but were subsequently deleted from the survivors list with no explanation at all, is a matter of act, not conjecture dreamt up by a career conspiracist.

Are you claiming they never did appear on a survivors list?
 
Vixen said:
Someone appears to have steered it towards the east away from the oncoming waves. Once the engines have stopped, then surely the water crashing over the decks, including the car deck, would simply wash away, especially if the ramp was hanging open and the hull intact is still keeping the ship buoyant.

2,000 tonnes of water on deck would not affect the buoyancy of a vessel than can carry 18,000 tonnes and stay comfortably afloat.
Click to expand...

Without power a ship will always turn beam on to the waves.
Beam on to a heavy sea is the worst position for a ship. 2000 tons of water high up will flow to the lower side as a ship rolls in a heavy sea.
We went through this in detail.
Free surface effect is very dangerous, it can and has rolled a ship beyond it's recovery point.

Water inside the superstructure and hull will not 'wash away'.
 
Vixen said:
Don't get me wrong. I am not sticking up for Bjorkman...
Click to expand...

Yes you are. You're trying to rehabilitate him as an expert witness because it's now obvious you've been cribbing from his material, knowing full well it's a discredited source. Having failed to conceal that source, you're now trying to make it seem legitimate.
 
Vixen said:
Arikas clearly states that as well as deformations caused by shifts and geological matches (wear and tear), there is also a large deformation on the starboard side which must have been caused by an enormous force. This is obviously over and beyond 'matching the geology'.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. A sinking ship striking geology will generate an enormous force. "Geological matches" is not "wear and tear."
 
Vixen said:
Nope. According to Evertsson, there are no rocky protusions in the region the ships sank that could have caused that shape of deformation.
Click to expand...

Evertsson had in mind the story he wanted to tell, and ultimately had to admit he left out information that didn't fit his desired narrative.

In addition, it has been known of since Swedish Navy diver Hakan Berkman (_sp?) was part of an early team of divers reported it.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Neither he nor you could produce evidence to corroborate his claim. Hence you floated the hypothesis that he was merely a proxy for divers that did dive on the wreck, but who you allege cannot speak for security reasons. (This is immediately ludicrous to anyone who has actually had to comport to secrecy obligations.) Finally, the description given of the hole does not match the video taken by Evertsson.
 
Vixen said:
Maybe you were not listening to Professor Amdahl carefully enough. He points out in Evertsson's documentary that paint has flaked as he would expect in a collision.
Click to expand...

Let me be specific. I'm looking for a particular kind of coating damage. From Evertsson's video I can see plenty of paint spalling exactly at the fracture site. That is inevitable. It will occur practically anywhere the underlying substrate fractures. I can also see "stretch marks" where the shell plating has obviously become ductile under tensile stress. Paint is less ductile than metal. This is coating damage that would be expected regardless of cause. What I'm looking for is coating damage consistent with a glancing blow (so as to create an indent and an outdent in the shell plating). These would appear as, among other things, linear creases in whose troughs there would be coating damage -- either loss, or thermal marring. (Collisions generate considerable heat at the contact site.) I haven't seen any of that in Evertsson's footage, so I consider a collision less likely at this point than stress fractures.

He is an expert specialist in marine collisions.
Click to expand...

And apparently the only person you consider to have relevant expertise, except when you disagree with him and try to correct his "verbal typos."
 
Vixen said:
I have no idea. German investigative journalist Jutta Rabe claims she has seen the proof of this. She may or may not be a crackpot but it is interesting she has certainly been heavily vilified, perhaps understandably in making a commercial film, Baltic Storm, out of the tragedy. Note also, how Graham Philips in his film (starring Paul Barney) absolutely crucifies her and rubbishes her film. Anyone famliar with Graham Philips, will recall he was once arrested in Ukraine around the time of their troubles as a pro-Russian agitator. Philips is a known Russo-phile and worked for a Russian tv/radio station as of the time of the Ukraine crisis. As Rabe believes Russia lies behind the sabotage of the Estonia - as per her film, which she claims is a close approximation as to what happened in her view - it is little surprise that Philips furiously disagrees with her.

The more one discovers about this incident, the more Rabe seems to have been on to something.
Click to expand...
So it wasn't a UK or Swedish submarine escorting the Estonia accidentally colliding with it that caused the sinking? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom