• 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 Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meh... This thread is getting tiresome. It's like a certain poster's postings from that notorious Italian court case thread have had a search and replace done on them and transposed to here. Different thread, same disingenuous techniques.
 
Vixen said:
There was a huge NATO exercise at the time. How come not one of those vessels/aircraft overheard the May Day distress signals?

.
Click to expand...

This has been covered already. To refresh your memory they were 400 miles away. And what makes you think they didn't hear the distress call? We're not playing this line of "What If?" again.

Whilst the crew were pretty hapless, it can't really be blamed on them as there would be no way to evacuate 1,000 within the ten minute time line they had, with about 80% tucked up asleep in their cabins across seven or eight decks.
Click to expand...

Sure as hell can be blamed on them. Nobody on that ship knew how fast it would sink, nobody followed any of the basic emergency procedures they were at least briefed on.

And they never inspected the water in the car deck or the bow. Slowing the ship down would have bought time.

So yes, the crew can be blamed.

How can a few strong waves twist wrought iron/steel bolts and even if they did, the bow visor was not a plug, so even it did fall off that shouldn't have caused the ship to sink
Click to expand...

A few? I've never been to Europe, does your water behave differently than the Pacific? We don't have the Baltic but we do have the Bering Sea. Large fishing vessels sink in storms about every five years because "a few waves" beat them silly.

And thanks to the ship's design, the car ramp was tucked under the hood, and when the hood was knocked off it wrenched open the ramp, opening the car deck to the sea...while the ship sailed at flank speed.
 
Vixen said:
It was a direct quote from BNS ('Baltic News Service') a perfectly respectable source.
Click to expand...
What was a direct quote? I'm talking about your practice in general, not just one quote.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
The CEO of Estline, trust me, knows more about the Baltic and its history than any keyboarder on ISF. He and a reputable prize-winning journalist James Meek thought a mine was a genuine possibility as of the time of the incident.
Click to expand...
Meek was reporting what the CEO said. It's newsworthy. That doesn't mean Meek agrees.

The journalist's reputation matters only as evidence that the CEO said it, not as evidence that it was true.

Obviously.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
JayUtah said:
No, I don't trust you. The CEO of Estline was on the cusp of having his company blamed for the worst maritime disaster in recent memory. He's obviously spin-doctoring. In other sources he made the same handwaving allusions to sea mines or rocks, but with no details.

The fact remains that in thousands of passages a year through those waters, no one else has encountered a sea mine. It's a farfetched possibility. You know it. I know it. Johanson knows it. But he's trying to save face.



No. Whatever the CEO of Estline says at a time like this is newsworthy, even if it's utter bollocks. You have no evidence that Meek agreed with Johanson. Other articles written by Meek, including the one he wrote the next day after seeing the video footage, are highly critical of the ship's owners and operators and how they operated the vessel, citing sources that attest to that effect.
Click to expand...


Then as Sweden's Thule & Nordstrom were joint owners, the Swedes, too, as per PM Carl Bildt, were also talking 'utter bollocks' (I didn't know that was an American term) when they said the bow visor is what done it before the vessel was even located and despite early interviewee Sillaste never saying the bow visor was missing when visited in hospital by the three PMs later that morning?


So when a Swede says a thing, it is gospel truth but when Estonian, 'He's just trying to save his own skin', is your message. Nice.
 
Axxman300 said:
This has been covered already. To refresh your memory they were 400 miles away. And what makes you think they didn't hear the distress call? We're not playing this line of "What If?" again.



Sure as hell can be blamed on them. Nobody on that ship knew how fast it would sink, nobody followed any of the basic emergency procedures they were at least briefed on.

And they never inspected the water in the car deck or the bow. Slowing the ship down would have bought time.

So yes, the crew can be blamed.



A few? I've never been to Europe, does your water behave differently than the Pacific? We don't have the Baltic but we do have the Bering Sea. Large fishing vessels sink in storms about every five years because "a few waves" beat them silly.

And thanks to the ship's design, the car ramp was tucked under the hood, and when the hood was knocked off it wrenched open the ramp, opening the car deck to the sea...while the ship sailed at flank speed.
Click to expand...

So how did Sillaste manage to draw a diagram clearly showing the car ramp shut but with water seeping in at the sides (but not the top)? He reproduced this same diagram several times for the benefit of the press and investigators. Likewise, two passengers claimed to have climbed down the car ramp from the outside when the vessel was at a ninety-degree list.

Plenty of car ferries do not have a bow visor, thus it is not essential for keeping water out.
 

Attachments

  • car ramp as drawn by Sillaste.jpg
    car ramp as drawn by Sillaste.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Meek was reporting what the CEO said. It's newsworthy. That doesn't mean Meek agrees.

The journalist's reputation matters only as evidence that the CEO said it, not as evidence that it was true.

Obviously.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

At last it had dawned on you that simply quoting someone as a source does not mean one either agrees, disagrees or even endorses that view. As a reporter, Meek was merely doing his job, which was to go to Tallinn and report on the incident, as I did here, as an important current affairs topic.

Thank you for conceding that in doing so, does not make one a 'conpsiracy theorist'.
 
Vixen said:
Then as Sweden's Thule & Nordstrom were joint owners, the Swedes, too, as per PM Carl Bildt, were also talking 'utter bollocks' (I didn't know that was an American term) when they said the bow visor is what done it before the vessel was even located and despite early interviewee Sillaste never saying the bow visor was missing when visited in hospital by the three PMs later that morning?


So when a Swede says a thing, it is gospel truth but when Estonian, 'He's just trying to save his own skin', is your message. Nice.
Click to expand...

A bow visor that you admit was already faulty and leaking.
A bow visor that was working loose and not properly investigated.
A bow visor that had already sunk ferries in the past.
A bow visor that was known to be at the scene unlike your proposed mine.

If the ship had hit a mine it would have been immediately obvious, the explosive charge on a sea mine is huge. There would have been a lot more than a Feb banging sounds and a bit of lurching.

How many broken ankles were reported?
 
Vixen said:
You have already been answered. Please refer back to it.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to fid where. Please link to the post or at least give me a post number.

I do recall you saying something that didn't in any way answer my question but was a lot of bluster. Did you mean that post?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A bow visor that you admit was already faulty and leaking.
A bow visor that was working loose and not properly investigated.
A bow visor that had already sunk ferries in the past.
A bow visor that was known to be at the scene unlike your proposed mine.

If the ship had hit a mine it would have been immediately obvious, the explosive charge on a sea mine is huge. There would have been a lot more than a Feb banging sounds and a bit of lurching.

How many broken ankles were reported?
Click to expand...

What 'bow visor that had already sunk ferries in the past'? Citations needed please, in the plural preferably.

You know as well as I do that impact of detonation depends on how much explosives are used. There are big mines - on the sea bed - and there are small ones that could theoretically, be attached to the side of a vessel.

Think about the sheer expertise involved in sinking this ship so rapidly and efficiently. Unlike the Al-Quaeda suicide bombers loaded with 400lbs - 700lbs of explosives on their small ship and likely suicide vests, when they decided to ram the USS Cole in 2000, a clear couple of amateurs who failed completely to sink the vessel despite blasting a massive hole in Cole's side, many times bigger than that seen on Estonia. If the Estonia was sabotaged then whoever did it was highly skilled in marine matters to a military expert level: not only ensuring that the bow visor and car ramp would be compromised - they didn't stop at just 'blowing off the doors' - they made darn sure the thing would sink by smashing into the starboard either by weapon or by vessel, whilst at the same time blocking all communications to prevent rescue of same and ensuring the ship was in international waters ATT, and even timing it to the stroke of Swedish midnight. If it was sabotage, the perpetrators were not only highly skilled to a professional military level but they also made damn sure the ship would go no further on its route.

Compare and contrast with USS Cole, which managed to limp home.
 
Vixen said:
Then as Sweden's Thule & Nordstrom were joint owners, the Swedes, too, as per PM Carl Bildt, were also talking 'utter bollocks' (I didn't know that was an American term) when they said the bow visor is what done it before the vessel was even located and despite early interviewee Sillaste never saying the bow visor was missing when visited in hospital by the three PMs later that morning?


So when a Swede says a thing, it is gospel truth but when Estonian, 'He's just trying to save his own skin', is your message. Nice.
Click to expand...
Sorry, are you accusing those who deny it was a mine of racism? That's cute.

Anyway, I don't recall anyone using the comments of the Swedish co-owners as evidence. Once again, just a stupid argument.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
At last it had dawned on you that simply quoting someone as a source does not mean one either agrees, disagrees or even endorses that view. As a reporter, Meek was merely doing his job, which was to go to Tallinn and report on the incident, as I did here, as an important current affairs topic.

Thank you for conceding that in doing so, does not make one a 'conpsiracy theorist'.
Click to expand...
Your theories go beyond reporting into synthesis and novelty. You have a terrible time distinguishing what others have said from your own fanciful inferences.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
What 'bow visor that had already sunk ferries in the past'? Citations needed please, in the plural preferably.

You know as well as I do that impact of detonation depends on how much explosives are used. There are big mines - on the sea bed - and there are small ones that could theoretically, be attached to the side of a vessel.

Think about the sheer expertise involved in sinking this ship so rapidly and efficiently. Unlike the Al-Quaeda suicide bombers loaded with 400lbs - 700lbs of explosives on their small ship and likely suicide vests, when they decided to ram the USS Cole in 2000, a clear couple of amateurs who failed completely to sink the vessel despite blasting a massive hole in Cole's side, many times bigger than that seen on Estonia. If the Estonia was sabotaged then whoever did it was highly skilled in marine matters to a military expert level: not only ensuring that the bow visor and car ramp would be compromised - they didn't stop at just 'blowing off the doors' - they made darn sure the thing would sink by smashing into the starboard either by weapon or by vessel, whilst at the same time blocking all communications to prevent rescue of same and ensuring the ship was in international waters ATT, and even timing it to the stroke of Swedish midnight. If it was sabotage, the perpetrators were not only highly skilled to a professional military level but they also made damn sure the ship would go no further on its route.

Compare and contrast with USS Cole, which managed to limp home.
Click to expand...

You are claiming a sea mine left over from WW2 That means Hundreds of pounds of explosives.
Cole was not in a storm it was stationary and it is a warship, subdivided against damage and with a crew trained to stop flooding.

If a sea mine had exploded against the Estonia the damage would have been massive and below the waterline, not a small hole above it.
 
Vixen said:
So when a Swede says a thing, it is gospel truth but when Estonian, 'He's just trying to save his own skin', is your message. Nice.
Click to expand...

If you put as much effort into meaningfully participating in this thread as you do into manufacturing these elaborate straw men, the thread would be so much shorter. You really need a new act. This one's worn thin.

Johanson's claim is absurd on its face, and he even qualifies it as his personal opinion. It's fairly clear he didn't have any evidence at the time for it, and that he's just grasping at straws. And from the other coverage of his claim in other media, it seems that no one was really taking him seriously. It has zilch to do with anoyone's nationality, so quit trying to paint me as some kind of racist.

Further, you seem to argue a strange notion that a journalist must endorse whatever he prints as a quotation. No, Meek never endorsed the sea-mine theory. He's merely quoting a newsworthy statement from an important person associated with the incident. You're going to comical lengths to create the illusion that the sea-mine theory was credible at the time and had the support of "reputable" people. It wasn't, it isn't, and it didn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom