• 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.
Absolutely classic conspiracy-theory rationalisation! Brava!!!






Oh dear. Oh deary deary me.

Let's wait and see what the new investigation/s reveal. Then I guarantee
once it is reported in the Murdoch/Barclay Brothers press, you will try to claim that this is what you had been waiting for, confirmation by the press barons, because you believe a thing cannot be true until confirmed by AP or Reuters. You will claim you knew the Cult of the Bow Visor was ridiculous all along. Just needed the DM to confirm it.
 
Let's wait and see what the new investigation/s reveal. Then I guarantee
once it is reported in the Murdoch/Barclay Brothers press, you will try to claim that this is what you had been waiting for, confirmation by the press barons, because you believe a thing cannot be true until confirmed by AP or Reuters. You will claim you knew the Cult of the Bow Visor was ridiculous all along. Just needed the DM to confirm it.


You can take, as my response to this little rant, the last sentence from the post of mine you "answered" with the above post.

My. My. My.
 
The Foreign Office actually provided a totally adequate answer, since it linked to the actual text related to the accession to the treaty (which was indeed done under the Foreign Office's aegis). It's only ongoing implementation matters that are done under the successor departments to the former DETR. And since nothing's happened in that respect since the UK acceded, there's nothing for (eg) DfT to provide.


And even if the DfT had had anything relating to it, they would no longer have had anything by the time the request was made, for reasons I drew attention to above.
 
And even if the DfT had had anything relating to it, they would no longer have had anything by the time the request was made, for reasons I drew attention to above.


Oh yes, indeed (though if something had happened which warranted UK involvement - eg an unauthorised dive to the wreck involving a UK national - within the past 20 years, they'd have had it on file. And they'd have provided it under FOI).


ETA: I now leave this transmission for a few hours in order to see if Ms Raducanu can go all the way at Flushing Meadows. (I actually met her just over two years ago at an LTA partnership event - so obviously I'm claiming a fair bit of credit for her current success :D )
 
Last edited:
Get a grip, Jesse Custer. If the information is classified of course it isn't ratified in the public domain.
If the information is classified then what evidence do you have for a classified order that was agreed between Clinton, Bildt/Persson and Major? :confused:
 
If the information is classified then what evidence do you have for a classified order that was agreed between Clinton, Bildt/Persson and Major? :confused:

Carl-Erik Reintaam requested to see his original statement to the police as he strongly disputes having said he saw what looked like white stair rails in the water. He was denied on the grounds it was 'classified.

Also see here re another survivor, Paul Barney:

Hailed as a hero after the disaster in 1994, Barney now wants to know the truth about a connection between Britain’s spies, Cold War missile secrets and the capsizing of the MS Estonia.

It was the worst post-war maritime disaster in Europe, claiming 852 lives.

New footage from the wreckage of the ship reveals a huge hole in the hull.

Those images not only contradict the official cause of the disaster, which was a fault in the bow doors, but suggest there might have been an explosion.

The British government signed a treaty in 1995 making it illegal for anyone to dive down to the wreckage.

That meant the documentary makers had to break the law in order to get to the truth.

Barney wants to know why.

<snip>

The landscape gardener from Reading, Berks, tells The Sun: “I want the British government to finally tell the truth about what happened to the Estonia and the extent of British involvement in this disaster.

“It was no secret that Soviet military technology was being bought and smuggled out in the free for all that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and that Estonia was the conduit.

“This seems to be the link that explains why the UK government, as the only non-Baltic nation, signed a treaty that means the wreck remains on the sea bed and no one can explore it.

“Why did we sign that treaty? There seems no possible civilian reason. The only explanation can be military.

"We have never had an explanation from our government.”

<snip>

Another MI6 agent, who didn’t wish to be identified, told a journalist that it contained crucial information about the Russian ballistic missile programme and electronic equipment connected to it.

The spy also claimed there had been a direct warning from the Russians to MI6 to stop smuggling out their tech on the Estonia.

<snip>

Barney admits that he will “not hold my breath” that the British government will explain what its interests were in signing the treaty but nor will he forget what happened.
SUN

He wrote to the British Government to enquire the reasons the UK signed the Treaty. He has had no reply. The only time a public body does not have to respond to a request for information under the FOI Act is when it is a 'security matter' and is 'absolute'. So perhaps that explains the lack of any repsonse.
 
I asked the following question to Vixen earlier today. I made it clear thay I wanted an answer to this question and to nothing else. This was the question I asked and this was the question I wanted answered:
JesseCuster said:
If the information is classified then what evidence do you have for a classified order that was agreed between Clinton, Bildt/Persson and Major?

This is what Vixen answered.
Carl-Erik Reintaam requested to see his original statement to the police as he strongly disputes having said he saw what looked like white stair rails in the water. He was denied on the grounds it was 'classified.

How the **** is that an answer to a request for evidence of a classified order between Clinton, Bildt/Petersson and Major?
 
Thanks but I cannot find it. Citation, please.


Journals of the House of Commons, Session 1999-2000, page 6.

ETA: Sorry, I missed that there’s a volume number, it’s Vol 256. But since it’s one volume per session that doesn’t actually give you any more information, either the volume number or session is enough to uniquely identify the volume.
 
Last edited:
Don't talk wet.
Now you're just straight up denying reality despite the fact anyone can look back on this recorded text conversation and see that no, he isn't "talking wet" but is in fact giving an accurate statement.

I love it.
 
Thanks but I cannot find it. Citation, please.

Here you go

Commons Journal said:
16 Treaty Series (No. 74, 1999),—Agreement, done at Tallinn on 23rd February 1995 and at Stockholm on 23rd April 1996, between the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden regarding the M/S Estonia with Additional Protocol [by Command] [Cm. 4512] [Mr Secretary Cook].

Found by googling Mojo's provided citation (first result).
 
Last edited:
Here you go



Found by googling Mojo's provided citation (first result).


Vixen's posts in this thread have continually demonstrated a woeful deficiency in seeking out & assimilating accurate/reliable/relevant research. So I guess it should come as little surprise that this particular piece of research ended up having to be spoon-fed.
 
See attached fax from Kari Lehtola dated 9 Oct wherein he confirms there is a sonar image fitting the bow visor under the bulbous bow.


privat bahnhof


The next day he claimed they were 'still looking for it'. LOL. It was 'found' 18 October instead despite no-one having had a quick butchers at the one seen in the sonar to double check it still needed to be searched for.

So what this says is they had to knock off the search due to weather, and misinterpreted sonar clutter for the hood. When they resumed they realized it wasn't the hood and the search continued.
 
Vixen's posts in this thread have continually demonstrated a woeful deficiency in seeking out & assimilating accurate/reliable/relevant research. So I guess it should come as little surprise that this particular piece of research ended up having to be spoon-fed.

That’s agnorance for you…
 
Please read carefully. I pointed out that IF water - to a maximum 2,000 tonnes - flooded the free surface car deck, it would have rushed in with a tremendous roar as water is not only heavy but sea waves crashing is incredibly loud. For example, passengers who made it to the deck were unable to hear what other people were shouting. Yet not one single survivor relates hearing the deafening sound of water ingressing the car deck and slamming the vehicles against the sides.
Well, towards the maximum end of that range, it would roar. So it would be proper to say more of a gradient. Let's propose that there's a positive association between the amount of water entering and the resulting volume. Okay.

Now recall the ship is proceeding in a turbulent head sea. There's a lot of torque noises coming from the hull, this wasn't a luxury liner inching along on a Caribbean island pub crawl. This ship was cracking on and with the list issue, I'd add the embellishment dipping her leeward fore chains into the foam.

People couldn't hear each other shouting, you say? Well, my understanding of speech intelligibility standards tells me that if you can't hear shouting nearby because of what I imagine would be something like white noise at 100+ dB (but far more complex with waves cascading along the hull strake, wind howling then whipping directions, metal creaks, etc), then I don't place high reliability on them hearing and specifically remarking about one more kind of roaring (i.e. "broadband" noise that covers a wide portion of the human hearing spectrum). The louder the environment, the fewer independent "bands" of focus your cochlea can maintain. It is 3 or less above 90 dB. And that's "programming" (an identifiable voice, instrument, animal call, etc) material without broadband interference.

Plus it has been repeatedly covered that the water would have "lapped" in at each forward pitch of the vessel. It would not come shooting in like a water jet, the ramp was above the "waterline" but with the rolling seas, it was of course smothered in water at times. So there's no high pressure blasting kind of aspect like naval flooding simulators going on. The water was (from a relative perspective from the POV of the very front of the car deck) basically being propelled upward and over the entry ramp in successive waves. Depending on the exact timing and interpolation of the vessel pitching and wave action, some of the water might even break back and recede out again. A much more rhythmic action like a strong tide on the rocks. Noisy, lots of slaps at the crash, mist, and foam, and sloshing.

It could easily go uncomprehended amidst all the other loud noises I have and haven't covered. Especially by anyone not literally on the car deck and probably fairly far forward, at that.
 
Last edited:
So he is a conspiracy theorist even though his report to the police immediately after the accident from his hospital bed suffering from one of the lowest body temperatures they had ever seen but lived to tell the tale, clearly states the following:
What does his body temperature when he was rescued have something to do with whether or not he's a conspiracy theorist? Nothing, but you think we should feel bad because we're being mean and awful to the victims of the Estonia disaster when we disagree with any conspiracy theories that Vixen is shotgunning the thread with.

Your attempts to make people feel bad because they agree with anything you say is frankly pathetic, you want people who disagree with you when you discuss anything to with Paul Barney, by making them feel bad for disagreeing with anything to do with him, because the poor man suffered so much, and we are bad mean people for not buying into conspiracy theories based on anything he said.

Earlier in this thread you reference a 2 month old victim of the Estonia disaster in a disgusting attempt to frame your opponents in this as shameful hateful people who don't want justice for a 2 month old dead baby. Your cheap attempts at hamfistedly shaming your opponents are painfully obvious and really portray you in a very poor light.

Equally obnoxious are your attempts to portray everyone else as a bunch of mindless sheep who read the Daily Mail and watch Fox News and can't think for themselves but need Rupert Murdoch to tell them what to believe. Nobody in this thread has actually said anything or displayed any behaviour to lead you to think this, but you're just insulting them anyway as an attempt to portray them as mindless sheep and yourself as some sort of intellectually superior crusader for truth. It's truly ironic because this is so straight out of the conspiracy theorist playbook, it's absolutely a truther trope, yet you insist that you're not a conspiracy theorist. Well then, perhaps you should stop acting like one if you don't want to be viewed as one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom