The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

What is important is to identify who or what is responsible for the damage Braidwood claims he noted, bearing in mind several diving teams had already been down there.

No, first it's important to determine whether Braidwood's conclusions are properly evidenced and well-reasoned. You don't look for causes when the effects are still in question.

 

[JayUtah]

Hardly a conspiracy theory. It is a current affairs news item. The thread will stay open all the way until we get the Arikas analysis.

You have more straw men than a cornfield at Halloween. The reopening of the investigation is a current news item. The wacky theories you're copying from other people and ignorantly pasting here are conspiracy theories. The two are not the same thing. Arikas' work does not legitimize your conspiratorial handwaving.

 

[Vixen]

You have more straw men than a cornfield at Halloween. The reopening of the investigation is a current news item. The wacky theories you're copying from other people and ignorantly pasting here are conspiracy theories. The two are not the same thing. Arikas' work does not legitimize your conspiratorial handwaving.

Not really, as Meyer Werft presented their theories in a court of law. The fact you strongly disagree with Meyer Werft doesn't make it conspiracy theory.

If the JAIC had investigated this fully there would not be all of this controversy now.

 

[JayUtah]

They do not do that unless there is a genuine concern it is of significant value.

What makes you think their genuine concern has anything to do with what you seem to believe about the accident?

The question is what caused the hole. Various professors, former chief prosecutors and the ship builder's insurance claims investigators have put forward their expert opinions.

All of which differ markedly, and all of which have problems that other experts have found, which you cannot address. Note that the people re-investigating the sinking aren't falling for any of what you are proffering here.

If you wish to dismiss these as 'conspiracy theory' that reflects on your inability to discern factual news from fantasy.

You are literally proposing that there was a coverup of the "real" cause of the sinking. That is literally a conspiracy theory. For some reason you are strongly averse to having it be called that. I'm able to distinguish between what the real investigators are doing and what your sources have done. Can you?

Your claiming it is a conspiracy theory does not make it so.

No, but its having all the elements of a conspiracy theory makes it so.

 

[JayUtah]

If the JAIC had investigated this fully there would not be all of this controversy now.

But you claim they didn't, and you claim they didn't on purpose to cover up what might have been the real cause. That is literally a conspiracy theory.

 

[phiwum]

Summary: Not a single explicit report of an explosion found below.

. Anders Ericson - cabin 4131 - 45 years old - port outside (3rd cabin from forward)

went to cabin at 22.15 hours (Swedish time), but impossible to sleep, each time the vessel met a wave it was shaking/vibrating severely;

ca. 24.00 hours (Swedish time) came suddenly two heavy bangs, one straight after the other which almost threw him out of his athwartships bed, he realised that something must be wrong, thus got up and dressed himself

Loud bangs and violent motion. The summary doesn't say he heard an explosion. We often use the word "bang" to describe loud noises of various kinds.

He might, totally might, have meant he heard an explosion, but the summary we have doesn't give any clear evidence to that effect.

Mikael Öun - cabin 4217 - port inside, middle.

was in bed and continuously heard banging noises which he believed to be caused by the waves hitting against the bow;
he slept a bit and woke up again and finally was fully awake when he heard a particularly loud bang and because the vessel started to behave differently in the sea state;
he noticed that the vessel started to roll from side to side instead of pitching against the sea;
he also heard 3 heavy scraping noises which followed straight one after the other with some seconds in between and after these scraping noises the vessel heeled severely to starboard;

Scraping noises are not explosions.

Eckard Klug - cabin 4214 - 54 years old - port inside middle

was in bed, heard many bangs which he had never heard on his many previous voyages, in his opinion these were cars floating on the car deck;
in his opinion the unsecured cars and trucks had moved forward against the bow ramp due to the hard setting in of vessel's bow and forced the bow ramp open and this is the cause of the casualty;
Klug heard in addition to the above explained bangs a bang which was heavy as if breaking of a thick plate;

Surprised you quote this guy, who evidently is strong evidence for the visor being the issue. The bolded part speaks of the breaking of a thick plate, not of an explosion.

Stephan Duijndam - cabin 4221 - port inside middle

at 23.00 hours to bed;
woke up at 01.00 hours from a noise as if the vessel had collided with something, heard several cracking/crashing noises thereafter;
a little later the vessel heeled to starboard to such an extent that he was thrown out of his bed

Cracking noises are not explosions. A crashing noise could be, but could be other things. This summary does not say he heard an explosion.

Jukka Pekka Ihalainen - cabin 4212 - port inside - (cabin mate of truck driver Leo Sillanpää)

truck driver who had previously been with the Coast Guard/Navy at Russarö;
to bed at 22.30 hours, woke up due to radio music at 00.32 hours, turned down the sound and slept again;
woke up again shortly afterwards from 3 very hard bangs/crashes;

Bangs and crashes. Again, it doesn't say he heard an explosion. An explosion may be described as a bang or crash, but so may other things.

Morten Boje Jensen - 28 years old - cabin 4603 - port outside, 2nd cabin behind the Reception

ca. 22.40 hours Swedish time in bed - 23.00 hours switched off the light, but could not sleep, he heard continuous "small banging noises" which did not appear to him to be natural.
after a certain time, cannot say how much later, he heard 3 "bangs" one after the other.

Bangs again, see above.

Sten Jolind - cabin 5135 - first outside cabin, port side, forward

was on deck 7 several times and looked over the foreship; heard heavy bangs and thought that the vessel was going much too fast;
at 00.00 hours to bed;
before 01.00 hours 2-3 really heavy bangs from forward;

Bangs.

Leif Bogren - cabin 5128 - port inside, 4th cabin from forward

to bed at 23.30 hours (Swedish time);
vessel behaved like a small boat also does when slamming over the waves - explains the many noises created by a vessel proceeding against heavy seas;
so he was lying there and listened and suddenly there was the bom-bom, which was no more the same noise, it was not a good noise;
he continued lying still and listening, and was fascinated about why they were proceeding so fast?
from the time he went to bed to the first unusual noise bom-bom to when the engines stopped maybe 10-15 minutes had passed, i.e. it was 23.40/23.45 hours Swedish time;
at first there was an additional sound with this bom - an enormous bom-bom - then came bom;
he was lying awake and then came the next BOM.
This was definitely a different noise, now the sea was higher and they were proceeding slowly against it and then came the next VROM BOM, now they were smashing in the hull plates of the vessel and then there was also a CRASH.

And we move to a new word, at least, "bom". But again, this is just an onomatopoeic description of the sound, not a claim about its cause. He heard a loud booming sound (I guess), but many things make sounds described as a boom. A tree falling in the forest makes a mighty boom, at least if someone's there to hear it (covering my bases).

It doesn't say he heard an explosion.

Sarah Hedrenius - in the Café Neptunus

asleep since ca. 21.30 hours, but felt the hard movements;
woke up from two heavy bangs which made the vessel shake (she thought they had hit a rock), vessel moved up and down

Bangs.

Paul Barney - in the Café Neptunus

woke up from a bang/shock and thought there had been a collision;
then he heard cracking and scraping noises and something was gliding along the vessel's hull side;

Bang or shock. Again, no direct claim of an explosion as the cause. He heard a loud noise.

. Pierre Thiger - Admiral's Pub on deck 5 - together with Altti Hakanpää

ca. 23.45 hours (Swedish time) = 00.45 hours ship's time he heard a dull bang and ca. 1/2 minute later a similar bang, these were really sharp and short sounds which he clearly heard in spite of the music. The vessel was shaking somewhat. The noises were not created by waves striking against the bow;

Sharp, short sounds. I don't know what explosives on a boat or underwater would sound like, but I tend to think that explosives make a rolling sound. In any case, the summary does not say he heard an explosion.

Ronnie Bergqvist - Policeman ST Section

vessel started to shake and vibrate;
bar personnel took down the bottles from the shelves;
just after 01.00 hours the vessel heeled first to port, then followed a very hard push combined with a bang/crash and then the vessel heeled very severely to starboard.

Shake and vibrate could mean a lot of things. Doesn't say he heard an explosion. Again, bangs and crashes don't imply explosion.

Kent Härstedt - member of a social team

was sleeping in his cabin on deck 4;
ca. 00.00 hours woke up from a "muffled" sound which was nevertheless "heavy" - like something moving from side to side and then crashing against the hull with force;

A muffled, heavy sound doesn't mean explosion. Nor does something crashing against the hull with force.

Marianne Ehn - cabin 6222 - 59 years old


it was 01.00 hours;
shortly afterwards the vessel was diving into a deep wave trough, there was a heavy bang - the vessel heeled severely and the engines stopped;
before this she had already noticed that something was beating heavily against the vessel.

Another bang. Also something beating heavily against the vessel which definitely does not sound like an explosion.

Alexander Voronin - cabin 6320 or cabin 6230

cabin 6320 together with cousin Vassili and uncle Vasili Krjutjkov;
ca. 00.30 hours very hard bang;
slight heel to starboard, some minutes later another much stronger bang, more heeling;
another bang and vessel heeled further;

Bang, bang, bang. Could be explosions, but he didn't say he heard an explosion and bangs could be other things.

Christer Eklöf - cabin 4219

The vessel was pitching extremely hard which caused the hull to shake and vibrate almost continuously.
After a while, he believes it was ca. 24.00 hours ST / 01.00 hours ET, the first of three very heavy bangs was felt and the foreship was rising and fell back and there was another heavy bang, the foreship rose again and the third bang - metal to metal - was heard and felt, followed by the heel to starboard.
There was less than one minute between the last bang and the heel to starboard.

Several bangs, one of which is "metal to metal". That last is not the sound of an explosion, which strongly suggests that he was not using the word "bang" (or whatever word he literally used) to suggest explosion anywhere in his testimony. Again, with the caveat that these are third party summaries and not his literal words.

Ervin Roden - safety officer - cabin 7013

to bed at 21.00 hours, had been on car deck before;
felt one bang and the vessel was shaking, after some time another bang, the vessel rocked;
heavy heel to starboard, which caused him to slide to the foot end of his bed

Bangs.

Ulla Marianne Tenman - outside on deck 7 - starboard side

from her cabin 1098 she went up to deck 7 and waited, suddenly heavy bang and the vessel heeled;
some time before casualty heard heavy bangs and something beating against the hull.

Bangs.

If you do not believe these passengers experienced what they say they experienced or that it was 'like a screen door slamming in the wind', that is your prerogative. There is no requirement for them to have investigated the cause of their experiences. It is enough they managed to get out alive.

You are going far beyond the words you cite. There's not a single claim of an explosion in the above passages. There are claims of loud noises. I bet they did hear bangs. I don't conclude that they heard or are even claiming to have heard explosions.

Thus, it is you who is being disrespectful. You are interpreting every "bang" as an explosion, but that's not how the word is used. Yes, explosions are bangs, but so are the sounds made by car crashes and even slamming doors. The word is used in many ways in different contexts.

In sum, you have no clear evidence that anyone heard or even claims to have heard an explosion. There was one witness, not listed above, who said that the noise she heard sounded like an explosion. That's it.

Basic honesty requires that you stop saying several heard an explosion. Literally no one said they heard an explosion[1]. Not one person said "I heard an explosion." It's totally conceivable that some of them who used the word "bang" (or whatever word they really used) meant to convey an explosive sound, but we don't know that. We cannot ask them, so we can only go with the summaries we have or the few English translations we can find (or original transcripts if you are more linguistically competent than I am).

In short, your entire premise that several reported hearing explosions is just ********. You're making it up, consciously or carelessly.

[1] As usual, what words we have come from a third party and may well be incomplete or biased. I am more than willing to change my opinion given new evidence.

 

[Vixen]

What makes you think their genuine concern has anything to do with what you seem to believe about the accident?



All of which differ markedly, and all of which have problems that other experts have found, which you cannot address. Note that the people re-investigating the sinking aren't falling for any of what you are proffering here.



You are literally proposing that there was a coverup of the "real" cause of the sinking. That is literally a conspiracy theory. For some reason you are strongly averse to having it be called that. I'm able to distinguish between what the real investigators are doing and what your sources have done. Can you?



No, but its having all the elements of a conspiracy theory makes it so.

No, some of the passenger survivors and some of the deceased passengers' relatives are alleging a cover up. As the survivors were there at the scene of the accident, their accounts should have been investigated and all those close relatives who were told their loved ones had survived but then told they had not, deserved an explanation of how the mistake happened. The JAIC should have included all of this in its report and then there would not have been such an outcry.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Not being funny, phiwum, but your screen door slamming shut in the wind would not cause you to fall off your feet, slam into a wall or make you fall out of bed.

Yeah, and I bet his screen door isn't even painted the same colours as the Estonia either. What an poor analogy.

You're right about the not being funny bit, though. Deliberately missing the point by a country mile is just tedious.

 

[Vixen]

But you claim they didn't, and you claim they didn't on purpose to cover up what might have been the real cause. That is literally a conspiracy theory.

I have said that the JAIC seem to have taken PM Carl Bildt's announcement that the accident was caused by the bow visor falling off and that they have treated it as a foregone conclusion without testing it. It might well be Carl Bildt knew all of this from the top secret SOSUS tracking Sweden was doing in the Baltic with regards to tracking the movement of Soviet or FSU military personnel but was not able to disclose it. However, simply assuming that the public would be too dimwitted to question the report was a mistake on the JAIC's part.

 

[Vixen]

Summary: Not a single explicit report of an explosion found below.



Loud bangs and violent motion. The summary doesn't say he heard an explosion. We often use the word "bang" to describe loud noises of various kinds.

He might, totally might, have meant he heard an explosion, but the summary we have doesn't give any clear evidence to that effect.



Scraping noises are not explosions.



Surprised you quote this guy, who evidently is strong evidence for the visor being the issue. The bolded part speaks of the breaking of a thick plate, not of an explosion.



Cracking noises are not explosions. A crashing noise could be, but could be other things. This summary does not say he heard an explosion.



Bangs and crashes. Again, it doesn't say he heard an explosion. An explosion may be described as a bang or crash, but so may other things.



Bangs again, see above.



Bangs.



And we move to a new word, at least, "bom". But again, this is just an onomatopoeic description of the sound, not a claim about its cause. He heard a loud booming sound (I guess), but many things make sounds described as a boom. A tree falling in the forest makes a mighty boom, at least if someone's there to hear it (covering my bases).

It doesn't say he heard an explosion.



Bangs.



Bang or shock. Again, no direct claim of an explosion as the cause. He heard a loud noise.


Sharp, short sounds. I don't know what explosives on a boat or underwater would sound like, but I tend to think that explosives make a rolling sound. In any case, the summary does not say he heard an explosion.



Shake and vibrate could mean a lot of things. Doesn't say he heard an explosion. Again, bangs and crashes don't imply explosion.


A muffled, heavy sound doesn't mean explosion. Nor does something crashing against the hull with force.



Another bang. Also something beating heavily against the vessel which definitely does not sound like an explosion.



Bang, bang, bang. Could be explosions, but he didn't say he heard an explosion and bangs could be other things.



Several bangs, one of which is "metal to metal". That last is not the sound of an explosion, which strongly suggests that he was not using the word "bang" (or whatever word he literally used) to suggest explosion anywhere in his testimony. Again, with the caveat that these are third party summaries and not his literal words.


Bangs.



Bangs.



You are going far beyond the words you cite. There's not a single claim of an explosion in the above passages. There are claims of loud noises. I bet they did hear bangs. I don't conclude that they heard or are even claiming to have heard explosions.

Thus, it is you who is being disrespectful. You are interpreting every "bang" as an explosion, but that's not how the word is used. Yes, explosions are bangs, but so are the sounds made by car crashes and even slamming doors. The word is used in many ways in different contexts.

In sum, you have no clear evidence that anyone heard or even claims to have heard an explosion. There was one witness, not listed above, who said that the noise she heard sounded like an explosion. That's it.

Basic honesty requires that you stop saying several heard an explosion. Literally no one said they heard an explosion[1]. Not one person said "I heard an explosion." It's totally conceivable that some of them who used the word "bang" (or whatever word they really used) meant to convey an explosive sound, but we don't know that. We cannot ask them, so we can only go with the summaries we have or the few English translations we can find (or original transcripts if you are more linguistically competent than I am).

In short, your entire premise that several reported hearing explosions is just ********. You're making it up, consciously or carelessly.

[1] As usual, what words we have come from a third party and may well be incomplete or biased. I am more than willing to change my opinion given new evidence.

How did I guess that you would come back with these word games? You have been told that they are English translations of the original. There is no requirement for eyewitnesses to use the specific word 'explosion' in their eye witness accounts. The public, being largely honest, will not claim they experienced 'a bomb going off' if they did not actually see it or had it confirmed and of course will describe it to the best of their ability as how it felt and what the noise sounded like.

Stop playing semantics phiwum and admit that these passenger survivors shared a common experience compatible with a collision ( being thrown ) feeling vibrations and shudders, and hearing a series of bangs/crashes/collisions compatible with a visceral experience of a series of blasts followed by a crash.

We can pretend they do not fulfil your exact criteria or we can be intellectually honest and admit these passengers experienced something out of the ordinary that the JAIC did not investigate further.

 

[Andy_Ross]

. Anders Ericson - cabin 4131 - 45 years old - port outside (3rd cabin from forward)

went to cabin at 22.15 hours (Swedish time), but impossible to sleep, each time the vessel met a wave it was shaking/vibrating severely;

ca. 24.00 hours (Swedish time) came suddenly two heavy bangs, one straight after the other which almost threw him out of his athwartships bed, he realised that something must be wrong, thus got up and dressed himself

Mikael Öun - cabin 4217 - port inside, middle.

was in bed and continuously heard banging noises which he believed to be caused by the waves hitting against the bow;
he slept a bit and woke up again and finally was fully awake when he heard a particularly loud bang and because the vessel started to behave differently in the sea state;
he noticed that the vessel started to roll from side to side instead of pitching against the sea;
he also heard 3 heavy scraping noises which followed straight one after the other with some seconds in between and after these scraping noises the vessel heeled severely to starboard;

Eckard Klug - cabin 4214 - 54 years old - port inside middle

was in bed, heard many bangs which he had never heard on his many previous voyages, in his opinion these were cars floating on the car deck;
in his opinion the unsecured cars and trucks had moved forward against the bow ramp due to the hard setting in of vessel's bow and forced the bow ramp open and this is the cause of the casualty;
Klug heard in addition to the above explained bangs a bang which was heavy as if breaking of a thick plate;

Stephan Duijndam - cabin 4221 - port inside middle

at 23.00 hours to bed;
woke up at 01.00 hours from a noise as if the vessel had collided with something, heard several cracking/crashing noises thereafter;
a little later the vessel heeled to starboard to such an extent that he was thrown out of his bed

Jukka Pekka Ihalainen - cabin 4212 - port inside - (cabin mate of truck driver Leo Sillanpää)

truck driver who had previously been with the Coast Guard/Navy at Russarö;
to bed at 22.30 hours, woke up due to radio music at 00.32 hours, turned down the sound and slept again;
woke up again shortly afterwards from 3 very hard bangs/crashes;

Morten Boje Jensen - 28 years old - cabin 4603 - port outside, 2nd cabin behind the Reception

ca. 22.40 hours Swedish time in bed - 23.00 hours switched off the light, but could not sleep, he heard continuous "small banging noises" which did not appear to him to be natural.
after a certain time, cannot say how much later, he heard 3 "bangs" one after the other.

Sten Jolind - cabin 5135 - first outside cabin, port side, forward

was on deck 7 several times and looked over the foreship; heard heavy bangs and thought that the vessel was going much too fast;
at 00.00 hours to bed;
before 01.00 hours 2-3 really heavy bangs from forward;


Leif Bogren - cabin 5128 - port inside, 4th cabin from forward

to bed at 23.30 hours (Swedish time);
vessel behaved like a small boat also does when slamming over the waves - explains the many noises created by a vessel proceeding against heavy seas;
so he was lying there and listened and suddenly there was the bom-bom, which was no more the same noise, it was not a good noise;
he continued lying still and listening, and was fascinated about why they were proceeding so fast?
from the time he went to bed to the first unusual noise bom-bom to when the engines stopped maybe 10-15 minutes had passed, i.e. it was 23.40/23.45 hours Swedish time;
at first there was an additional sound with this bom - an enormous bom-bom - then came bom;
he was lying awake and then came the next BOM.
This was definitely a different noise, now the sea was higher and they were proceeding slowly against it and then came the next VROM BOM, now they were smashing in the hull plates of the vessel and then there was also a CRASH.

Sarah Hedrenius - in the Café Neptunus

asleep since ca. 21.30 hours, but felt the hard movements;
woke up from two heavy bangs which made the vessel shake (she thought they had hit a rock), vessel moved up and down

Paul Barney - in the Café Neptunus

woke up from a bang/shock and thought there had been a collision;
then he heard cracking and scraping noises and something was gliding along the vessel's hull side;

. Pierre Thiger - Admiral's Pub on deck 5 - together with Altti Hakanpää

ca. 23.45 hours (Swedish time) = 00.45 hours ship's time he heard a dull bang and ca. 1/2 minute later a similar bang, these were really sharp and short sounds which he clearly heard in spite of the music. The vessel was shaking somewhat. The noises were not created by waves striking against the bow;


Ronnie Bergqvist - Policeman ST Section

vessel started to shake and vibrate;
bar personnel took down the bottles from the shelves;
just after 01.00 hours the vessel heeled first to port, then followed a very hard push combined with a bang/crash and then the vessel heeled very severely to starboard.


Kent Härstedt - member of a social team

was sleeping in his cabin on deck 4;
ca. 00.00 hours woke up from a "muffled" sound which was nevertheless "heavy" - like something moving from side to side and then crashing against the hull with force;


Marianne Ehn - cabin 6222 - 59 years old


it was 01.00 hours;
shortly afterwards the vessel was diving into a deep wave trough, there was a heavy bang - the vessel heeled severely and the engines stopped;
before this she had already noticed that something was beating heavily against the vessel.


Alexander Voronin - cabin 6320 or cabin 6230

cabin 6320 together with cousin Vassili and uncle Vasili Krjutjkov;
ca. 00.30 hours very hard bang;
slight heel to starboard, some minutes later another much stronger bang, more heeling;
another bang and vessel heeled further;


Christer Eklöf - cabin 4219

The vessel was pitching extremely hard which caused the hull to shake and vibrate almost continuously.
After a while, he believes it was ca. 24.00 hours ST / 01.00 hours ET, the first of three very heavy bangs was felt and the foreship was rising and fell back and there was another heavy bang, the foreship rose again and the third bang - metal to metal - was heard and felt, followed by the heel to starboard.
There was less than one minute between the last bang and the heel to starboard.

Ervin Roden - safety officer - cabin 7013

to bed at 21.00 hours, had been on car deck before;
felt one bang and the vessel was shaking, after some time another bang, the vessel rocked;
heavy heel to starboard, which caused him to slide to the foot end of his bed

Ulla Marianne Tenman - outside on deck 7 - starboard side

from her cabin 1098 she went up to deck 7 and waited, suddenly heavy bang and the vessel heeled;
some time before casualty heard heavy bangs and something beating against the hull.


If you do not believe these passengers experienced what they say they experienced or that it was 'like a screen door slamming in the wind', that is your prerogative. There is no requirement for them to have investigated the cause of their experiences. It is enough they managed to get out alive.

No explosions or collisions then?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I have said that the JAIC seem to have taken PM Carl Bildt's announcement that the accident was caused by the bow visor falling off and that they have treated it as a foregone conclusion without testing it. It might well be Carl Bildt knew all of this from the top secret SOSUS tracking Sweden was doing in the Baltic with regards to tracking the movement of Soviet or FSU military personnel but was not able to disclose it. However, simply assuming that the public would be too dimwitted to question the report was a mistake on the JAIC's part.

You have indeed said this. It seems to be your fantasy.

This is predicated on Carl Bildt continuing to be some sort of decisive influence on the investigation in spite of the fact that he left office mere days after helping create the JAIC.

 

[JayUtah]

However, simply assuming that the public would be too dimwitted to question the report was a mistake on the JAIC's part.

Stop deflecting. You're describing a conspiracy to deceive the public. That's a conspiracy theory. Why do you have such a hard time calling something what it is?

 

[Vixen]

No explosions or collisions then?

Yes, let's just completely ignore them. After all, the public are a thick bunch. Who needs their eyewitness accounts in an accident that killed almost a thousand of their peers, including a baby of 2 months? Too stupid, by half.

 

[JayUtah]

How did I guess that you would come back with these word games? You have been told that they are English translations of the original. There is no requirement for eyewitnesses to use the specific word 'explosion' in their eye witness accounts.

If you're the one saying they really meant "explosion" when they said other things -- in any language -- then you're the one playing word games.

Stop playing semantics phiwum and admit that these passenger survivors shared a common experience...

No one is disputing they shared a common experience. What's in dispute is whether any significant portion of them described it as an explosion, as you claim they did.

We can pretend they do not fulfil your exact criteria or we can be intellectually honest and admit these passengers experienced something out of the ordinary that the JAIC did not investigate further.

Experiencing a ship that fell apart and sank is certainly out of the ordinary. But you're claiming a specific cause. Therefore the specificity of the language matters no matter how much you want to rewrite their testimony.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

How did I guess that you would come back with these word games? You have been told that they are English translations of the original.

They are the translations you presented to us. As far as your audience need be concerned, they are the basis for your argument as they appear, and may be treated as such. I've already pointed out that looking at the original language doesn't seem to reveal additional indications that the passengers concluded or insinuated explosions. Rather than complain about "word games", why don't you make a stronger case that the witnesses reported explosions.

There is no requirement for eyewitnesses to use the specific word 'explosion' in their eye witness accounts.

There is if you're suggesting that they reported explosions.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, let's just completely ignore them. After all, the public are a thick bunch. Who needs their eyewitness accounts in an accident that killed almost a thousand of their peers, including a baby of 2 months? Too stupid, by half.

Emotionally-laden deflection again. You do realize that injecting emotion into a debate over facts is a sign of desperation?

 

[Vixen]

You have indeed said this. It seems to be your fantasy.

This is predicated on Carl Bildt continuing to be some sort of decisive influence on the investigation in spite of the fact that he left office mere days after helping create the JAIC.

His military chief Svensson stayed on. Bildt appointed the Swedish head of the JAIC committee. The same guy who handed out the medal to Kenneth Svensson, hero number Y64, Uwe Victorin, is the same guy who arranged to use the Estonia to smuggle out FSU state secrets. What reason could there possibly be to have labelled the whole affair 'classified'?

 

[Andy_Ross]

How did I guess that you would come back with these word games? You have been told that they are English translations of the original. There is no requirement for eyewitnesses to use the specific word 'explosion' in their eye witness accounts. The public, being largely honest, will not claim they experienced 'a bomb going off' if they did not actually see it or had it confirmed and of course will describe it to the best of their ability as how it felt and what the noise sounded like.

Stop playing semantics phiwum and admit that these passenger survivors shared a common experience compatible with a collision ( being thrown ) feeling vibrations and shudders, and hearing a series of bangs/crashes/collisions compatible with a visceral experience of a series of blasts followed by a crash.

We can pretend they do not fulfil your exact criteria or we can be intellectually honest and admit these passengers experienced something out of the ordinary that the JAIC did not investigate further.

When a ship is rolling and taking on a list you will be thrown. You will be thrown if a ship turns beam on to the se and the roll rate increases.

Vibrations and shudders would be expected if a ship had lost it's bow and was taking on a lot of water from a head sea.

Lots of things cause a sip to shudder and lurch.

Just heading in to a big sea in normal sailing will cause a ship to shudder.

Iowa Class Battleships were noted for the bow section forward of the armour shaking and shuddering due to it being too fine for it's length, it could be seen twisting in a big sea and was felth through the ship. That is a 58,000 tons and 270 meters in length.

Frigates I served on would shudder and shake with every sea they butted in a big Atlantic blow.

If the safety valve on the boilers opened it sounded like the 4.5 firing as it hit it's stops and you could feel it through the ship. When it closed there was an even bigger bang as it hit it's seat.

When the anchor slammed home in to the Hawse Pipe you could hear it ring through the hull.

Lots of things make loud noises on ships.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, let's just completely ignore them. After all, the public are a thick bunch. Who needs their eyewitness accounts in an accident that killed almost a thousand of their peers, including a baby of 2 months? Too stupid, by half.

You say they are eyewitness accounts but not one person on the ship witnessed an explosion or collision.