• 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.
Vixen said:
Awfully sorry but I am on a chat forum and not writing a peer-reviewed paper, so I don't need to answer to quibbles over petty semantics. Stop feigning ignorance as to what was meant.
Click to expand...


Anyone can see exactly what you meant, even if you are feigning amnesia.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
And in all that time and activity no one thought to ask any of the survivors what happened?
Not one of the survivors said anything to the rescuers, hospital staff or anyone else?

Why do you think they wouldn't have asked any of the crew what went wrong or what happened to the ship?

In my experience it's one of the first things you do, try to find out what you are dealing with or what went wrong, it is part of your training.
Click to expand...

Er, hello, the ship sank in thirty-five minutes. Isn't it rather obvious what happened?

Imagine someone being recued from a car crash and being grilled by the rescue services as their car is being cut open as to what caused the accident.

Doesn't work like that.
 
Vixen said:
Oh for crying out oud. These guys literally faced death in the face. Do you really think they would even begin to be experts into the cause of the accident. She-eesh.

Rolf Sörman, first-hand eyewitness survivor says:

Baltic Times

How could any responsible person know as of Day One the cause of the accident before (a) the ship was even located or (b) there had even been an initial investigation.
Click to expand...

So everyone was silent? not one survivor was asked what happened?
None of the rescue or support teams was curious as to the cause?

No one was allowed to speak until a formal interview a day after the event?
 
Vixen said:
Awfully sorry but I am on a chat forum and not writing a peer-reviewed paper, so I don't need to answer to quibbles over petty semantics. Stop feigning ignorance as to what was meant. You'll be combing for typos and grammatical errors next. You are desperate.
Click to expand...


And, once again, you have entirely failed to support your claim that posters here have cast aspersions on Meek’s journalism or intelligence. You need to support the claims or withdraw then and apologise.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So everyone was silent? not one survivor was asked what happened?
None of the rescue or support teams was curious as to the cause?

No one was allowed to speak until a formal interview a day after the event?
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness me. These people had just endured extreme stress - knowing their partners/friends/family had disappeared below the waves with sunken ship - they had not slept for up tot 24 hours, had varying degrees of hypothermia, had an adrenaline overload as they desperately tried to save their own lives, watched their companions on the life raft die, including young children, saw helicopters and ships come and go as they launched flares, which seemed to have been unnoticed, assaulted by ten foot waves every few minutes, watching their raft mates washed away. Gimme a break!

Sillaste was interviewed the same day 28 Sept 1994, the only member of crew, likely even have a clue as to what caused the half-hour sinking and he never mentioned the bow visor, as confirmed by Estonian PM Laar.

Rescuer: You speaky Eenglish?

Survivor: Me no speaky Eenglish, me half dead, me just want sleepy byes.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Er, hello, the ship sank in thirty-five minutes. Isn't it rather obvious what happened?

Imagine someone being recued from a car crash and being grilled by the rescue services as their car is being cut open as to what caused the accident.

Doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...

It works exactly like that.

When I have witnessed or been involved in a crash it's my experience that people start to tell the ambulance team and the police what they saw or experienced straight away.

Even people 'cut from the car' if they are conscious will talk to the police.

As for the Estonia nd it being 'obvious what happened'

Yes, as far as the rescuers and authorities know, the ship sank quickly for an unknown reason.
They would want to know why as quickly as possible, it's important information that might have implications for the rescue effort.
It is also potentially important for the safety of other ships in the area and ships similar to the one that sank.
It is also important for the possible safety of the teams involved in the rescue.

I can think of lots of reasons why I would want as much information as quickly as possible.

If the command crew of the Estonia had been trained to a reasonable standard there are questions they would have asked and information they would have wanted very early on in the incident that could have prevented the ship from sinking or at least given them a chance to evacuate the passengers.

Asking questions and, more importantly asking the right questions is an important and high priority thing.
 
Vixen said:
A Baltic maritime expert likely knows better than London John as to whether there are mines in the Baltic Sea.
Click to expand...

What is a 'Baltic maritime expert'?

Does being an executive in a ferry company make you an expert in sea mines?
 
Vixen said:
Oh my goodness me. These people had just endured extreme stress - knowing their partners/friends/family had disappeared below the waves with sunken ship - they had not slept for up tot 24 hours, had varying degrees of hypothermia, had an adrenaline overload as they desperately tried to save their own lives, watched their companions on the life raft die, including young children, saw helicopters and ships come and go as they launched flares, which seemed to have been unnoticed, assaulted by ten foot waves every few minutes, watching their raft mates washed away. Gimme a break!

Sillaste was interviewed the same day 28 Sept 1994, the only member of crew, likely even have a clue as to what caused the half-hour sinking and he never mentioned the bow visor, as confirmed by Estonian PM Laar.

Rescuer: You speaky Eenglish?

Survivor: Me no speaky Eenglish, me half dead, me just want sleepy byes.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between a 'formal' interview and telling rescue teams what you know or even a rescue team asking what is happening.

Rescuer: You speaky Eenglish?

Survivor: Me no speaky Eenglish, me half dead, me just want sleepy byes.
Click to expand...

Is that a quote from the interview?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Er, he is the Head Honch of Estlines.


It is his job to know.
Click to expand...


The only names your source mentions in connection with the claim are “James Meek in Tallinn and Greg Mcivor in Stockholm“. Which of them is “the Head Honch of Estlines”?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It works exactly like that.

When I have witnessed or been involved in a crash it's my experience that people start to tell the ambulance team and the police what they saw or experienced straight away.

Even people 'cut from the car' if they are conscious will talk to the police.

As for the Estonia nd it being 'obvious what happened'

Yes, as far as the rescuers and authorities know, the ship sank quickly for an unknown reason.
They would want to know why as quickly as possible, it's important information that might have implications for the rescue effort.
It is also potentially important for the safety of other ships in the area and ships similar to the one that sank.
It is also important for the possible safety of the teams involved in the rescue.

I can think of lots of reasons why I would want as much information as quickly as possible.

If the command crew of the Estonia had been trained to a reasonable standard there are questions they would have asked and information they would have wanted very early on in the incident that could have prevented the ship from sinking or at least given them a chance to evacuate the passengers.

Asking questions and, more importantly asking the right questions is an important and high priority thing.
Click to expand...

If anyone had access to the crew - who were a majority Estonian - then it would surely have been the bosses ar Estline. Meek's article was dated 3 Oct 1994. By then, the Estline managers will certainly have taken steps to contact all available crew or vice versa so IMV Johanson's opinion was just as good as PM Bildt's, as of that stage. In fact, more so, as he likely had Naval Academy and navy military training, rising through the ranks.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What is a 'Baltic maritime expert'?

Does being an executive in a ferry company make you an expert in sea mines?
Click to expand...

He would have been briefed by his experts and that is how he came to his opinion as of that date. Note the salient point is how fast the vessel sank.

Even the JAIC had to admit it needed more than the bow visor dropping off.

It had to create a scenario of the car ramp door also coming off to fit the Herald of Free Enterprise prototype.
 
Vixen said:
If anyone had access to the crew - who were a majority Estonian - then it would surely have been the bosses ar Estline. Meek's article was dated 3 Oct 1994. By then, the Estline managers will certainly have taken steps to contact all available crew or vice versa so IMV Johanson's opinion was just as good as PM Bildt's, as of that stage. In fact, more so, as he likely had Naval Academy and navy military training, rising through the ranks.
Click to expand...

How would the bosses at Estline have had access to any of those rescued before the rescue teams?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom