• 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:
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?
Click to expand...
You've already said the missing crew were probably just a clerical error. Are you changing your stance on that?
 
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...


Could something weighing thousands of tons hitting the seabed have produced an enormous force?
 
Vixen said:
How can you begin to understand an accident if you don't even know who was at the wheel or even attempt to ascertain this key fact?
Click to expand...

In American NTSB reports, the individuals involved are never named. They are described in relevant detail, but their names are not used.
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I have opinions of my own.
 
GlennB said:
Why is anybody bothering to continue this debate?
Click to expand...

I have a professional interest in transportation accidents and their investigations. I'm therefore interested in a continuing investigation of a notable maritime accident. I have a professional interest in the physical modeling of structures, especially under dynamic loads. What people are doing with this specific bit of damage to the ship is interesting to me.

But I have very little interest in, or patience for, wild conspiracy theories for how the damage might have occurred. I have a personal interest in testing why people believe what they believe, and this thread provides a laboratory for looking at that.
 
Vixen said:
Nonsense. I have opinions of my own.
Click to expand...

But you didn't explain how your own opinions match exactly those of a discredited source. And you haven't explained why all of a sudden you decided that calling Anders Bjorkman a conspiracy theorist was a mean, unfair thing to do and that we should still respect him as an expert in maritime engineering. Why would you do that, if not to rehabilitate the source?
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
So it wasn't a UK or Swedish submarine escorting the Estonia accidentally colliding with it that caused the sinking? :confused:
Click to expand...

Did you miss that Sweden, USA and the UK intelligence agencies were helping Estonia establish its own after having kicked out the KGB?

The fact Sweden seemed to have known about the accident as soon as it happens implies their intelligence was tracking the vessel. The UK suddenly becoming a Baltic nation and signing the Treaty forbidding anyone to visit the site, together with ignoring an act of parliament that ensures UK citizens have a right under the Freedom of Information Ac to inspect public documents, should tell you all you need to know.

As the accident was never properly investigated then all we have is speculation. Given Sweden admitted to smuggling out FSU state secrets on the Estonia passenger ferry and it took a whistleblower to come forward, likewise for that of the two cargo planes from Arlanda, it is clear the whole episode has been labelled 'classified' and all the public gets is a soporific story based on the Herald of Free Enterprise.

Whilst I am sure you are happy with this, there are plenty of people who want a full explanation.
 
JesseCuster said:
You've already said the missing crew were probably just a clerical error. Are you changing your stance on that?
Click to expand...

That's the default position. What I am trying to understand is why no-one has bothered to explain how the 'clerical error' came about and why the same survivors' names appear on helicopter logs, as well as hospital and police logs.

If it was a mistake, then come out and explain how and why it happened.
 
JayUtah said:
But you didn't explain how your own opinions match exactly those of a discredited source. And you haven't explained why all of a sudden you decided that calling Anders Bjorkman a conspiracy theorist was a mean, unfair thing to do and that we should still respect him as an expert in maritime engineering. Why would you do that, if not to rehabilitate the source?
Click to expand...

Anders Bjorkman believes the accident was a straight forward breach of the hull. If you think he is the only person who has disputed the JAIC's findings you are very much mistaken as it is a big topic in Sweden, Estonia and Finland and even Germany.

The idea that Bjorkman is some kind of guru is laughable.
 
Vixen said:
The idea that Bjorkman is some kind of guru is laughable.
Click to expand...

He is the authority you plagiarized for one of your claims. When you were caught doing that, you tried to rehabilitate him as an authority. Now you're trying to disavow him.

I agree Bjorkman is not a credible authority. You should stop using him.
 
JayUtah said:
He is the authority you plagiarized for one of your claims. When you were caught doing that, you tried to rehabilitate him as an authority. Now you're trying to disavow him.

I agree Bjorkman is not a credible authority. You should stop using him.
Click to expand...

Bjorkman is not my authority. However, he has closely catalogued events, such as the list of survivors, which AFAIAC is simply a copy of what was being circulated by the relevant authorities at the time. Bjorkman is NOT the author of the survivors list.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Do read the JAIC accident report, which states:
Click to expand...

And what about the parts they weren't able to observe because they were, at that time, in contact with the seabed? "No damage was observed" is not the same as "there was no damage." You're claim sounds like a ship that initially makes contact with the seabed at its stern will incur no further damage as the rest of it lands.
 
Vixen said:
The ship - length 155m - sank stern first in water 64m - 80 m deep and then face forward like a domino. The hull therefore largely escaped impact apart from at the stern area.
Click to expand...

It weighs many thousands of tons and is designed to be supported by the water around it over the entire area of the hull. It is not designed to be resting on rock at it's midships side .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom