The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[JayUtah]

One thing all CEO's of large companies do know and that is damage limitation to the company's reputation is priority at all costs, so yes, he will have thought carefully before giving out his opinion.

You keep telling me what you infer should have been the case. I'm telling you want Johanson actually said, as quoted in your source. But if you're now willing to concede that CEOs too engage in spin-doctoring, especially when the company's reputation is in peril, then I will also accept your concession on the point that political reporting is somehow magically different.

 

[Vixen]

We are aware of the WW2 mines in the Baltic.

1941 was how long ago?

It was not a mine, if it had been a mine it would have been obvious to the crew of the ship when there was a huge explosion that would have burst ear drums, shattered the windows, broke ankles and more than just made some banging sounds and a bit of a lurch.

Forget the ******* mines.

You do know that many of the survivors suffered broken bones and internal injuries? When the Ilmarinen was sunk by a mine it sank very fast. The Estonia sank very fast. The JAIC has never investigated or explained why the Estonia sank very fast. At least Johanson picked up on the fact the Estonia sank extraordinarily fast.

The most dramatic event in the early months of the Continuation War was the sinking of the armored ship Ilmarinen. Ilmarinen drove into mines south of Utö on September 13, 1941.
The danger of mine on the renewed route was estimated to be so low that it was ventured without escorts.
On the sides of both armored ships were paravans, their own guard clearers. Their purpose was to prevent destructive explosives from drifting into the sides of ships by directing mines outside them.
After a brisk couple of hours, at about 8.30 pm Ilmarinen was at his turning point. At the time, the other screen had picked up a mine, probably two.
Two consecutive, powerful explosions followed. Ilmarinen quickly leaned to the left and fell to his side in less than a minute, spinning upside down. In seven minutes the ship had sunk.

The mines had hit the bottom of the ship at the engine room. The hull of the ship was compartmentalized, but the engine room was a uniform space. This allowed water to penetrate quickly from the opening torn by the explosion.

“We bravely watched the last moments of the death struggle of our flagship. Once again, Ilmarinen - as if feeling his strength - raised his bow and slowly sank below the water surface as oil and air bubbles rose as a sign of our ship's last resting place, ”Juvonen described.

Ilmarinen took 271 soldiers with him to the abyss, and 132 men survived. Only Sergeant Hugo Kurppa, who was rescued from the engine room, drowned in January 1945 when the minesweeper Louhe sank. Sailor Juvonen was saved for the second time.

https://www.apu.fi/artikkelit/meris...-uljaan-lippulaivamme-kamppailun-viime-hetkia

 

[Vixen]

You keep telling me what you infer should have been the case. I'm telling you want Johanson actually said, as quoted in your source. But if you're now willing to concede that CEOs too engage in spin-doctoring, especially when the company's reputation is in peril, then I will also accept your concession on the point that political reporting is somehow magically different.

And do you likewise concede that Carl Bildt was doing a legerdemain spot of covering his own back when he announced the cause of the accident within sixteen hours of it?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

If the massive hole in the starboard was carefully omitted from mention by the JAIC - as it was - then there is obviously a cover up.

When will you notice the elephant in the room?

When will you notice that the elephant is conjectural?

Where is the evidence that the JAIC "carefully omitted" the hole in question?

Also, whose message is this? You've said repeatedly that you're just reporting. So who reported that the JAIC "carefully omitted from mention" the hole?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

If something actually happened, it is not a conspiracy theory it is the truth.

The truth cannot be changed, spun, rewritten, revised, reconstructed or renamed. It has the ability to remain the truth.

I ask again: What do you think actually happened?

 

[JayUtah]

If Meek didn't think his source was reliable he would not have bothered to quote it.

Asked and answered repeatedly. Meek quoted Johanson because Johanson's comments -- whatever they might be -- are newsworthy. The world will want to hear what the head of the responsible company has to say.

So in that sense, Meek did indeed believe that the Chief of Estline's opinion was a newsworthy...

Changing horses. Your claim isn't that his statements are newsworthy. Your claim is that they are reliable. Your argument for that is that they wouldn't have been quoted had they not been reliable, and that they were quoted as if coming from a Baltic maritime expert. But that same outcome is also explained by Johanson being the CEO of the responsible company, regardless of his actual knowledge of maritime operations, and that by virtue of his position his statements should be given audience whether or not they have merit.

 

[Vixen]

What is your evidence for these claims?

The Swedes have used SOSUS to track the Soviets for a long time. The enmity between Sweden and Russia goes back a thousand years, if not more.

 

[JayUtah]

And do you likewise concede that Carl Bildt...

Bildt is irrelevant to my argument regarding Johanson.

 

[Vixen]

Why?

Should the rescue coordinators not ask those they rescue what happened?

Don't you think they would want to know what they were dealing with?

As no survivor provided a witness statement saying the bow visor was missing as of 28 Sept 1994, we can assume no-one mentioned it to the rescuers either or it would be sure to be in the JAIC report.

 

[Vixen]

You want us to swallow the idea that since the rescued were not immediately interrogated then none of them could or would have said anything at all about what happened.

That is just incredibly stupid.

Of course they will have said something. All survivors were provided with PTSD therapists in the early days and encouraged to talk about the accident to their heart's content (cf. Paul Barney). However, this would be confidential between patient and therapist. All survivors were interviewed by the security police ASAP after arriving at hospital. The crew were interviewed by the JAIC six or seven times over several years.

For a witness statement to have evidentiary value it needs to be properly recorded with date, time, witnesses and signed, preferably in the presence of someone like the police or lawyer.

 

[Mojo]

If the Estonia was sunk by an unexploded leftover WWII mine, then why would Carl Bildt make up a story about it being sunk by the bow visor coming off in a storm and letting water in that caused the ship to sink and why would the JAIC then go to the trouble of concocting a fraudulent investigation and report that affirmed that false story?

Because he was advised very early on that the whole thing was a botch up. The Russians warned the UK and Sweden to stop smuggling former Soviet military/space program secrets on the passenger ferry Estonia at least twice. Bildt would have known immediately this was hugely politcal and embarrassing so he did what Clinton and the US government has always done in these situations and that is to label the whole thing 'classified' meaning that anyone asking for information can be refused acknowledgement that there is any information to be had on the grounds of 'national security'. This is disgustingly unfair to the families of the deceased and to the survivors.

Are you claiming that the Russians came up with the brilliant plan of sinking the Estonia by retrieving a WWII mine from the seabed and striking the Estonia with it, and that Bildt made up a story about the bow visor to cover this up?

 

[Vixen]

I ask again: What do you think actually happened?

It is very obvious to me that it was an act of sabotage by person/s unknown who made darn sure the ship would end its journey at (a) Swedish midnight (b) in international waters and (c) it made sure it would sink ASAP with near zero chance of rescuing those on board. It is actually astonishing that 137 escaped, 58 of them crew. Just 79 passengers.


It is also clear the while thing is 'classified' to justify the deception. Of course the authorities knew of the hole in the starboard. The navy divers could not have missed it.

 

[Vixen]

Are you claiming that the Russians came up with the brilliant plan of sinking the Estonia by retrieving a WWII mine from the seabed and striking the Estonia with it, and that Bildt made up a story about the bow visor to cover this up?

We will have to await the findings of the two new investigations.

I wouldn't rule anything out.

 

[Mojo]

It is very obvious to me that it was an act of sabotage by person/s unknown who made darn sure the ship would end its journey at (a) Swedish midnight (b) in international waters and (c) it made sure it would sink ASAP with near zero chance of rescuing those on board.

Why?

Why is it obvious to you (i.e. what evidence do you base this on), and why would the “person/s unknown” think that it was necessary to sink it at midnight, in international waters, and with maximum loss of life?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Of course they will have said something. All survivors were provided with PTSD therapists in the early days and encouraged to talk about the accident to their heart's content (cf. Paul Barney). However, this would be confidential between patient and therapist. All survivors were interviewed by the security police ASAP after arriving at hospital. The crew were interviewed by the JAIC six or seven times over several years.



For a witness statement to have evidentiary value it needs to be properly recorded with date, time, witnesses and signed, preferably in the presence of someone like the police or lawyer.

All irrelevant to the conspiracy you want us to believe.

You want us to believe that Bildt could not have learned that any witness claimed the bow door broke off until after he told the press that this seemed to be what had happened.

So you want us to infer that either Bildt or whoever briefed him already knew the bow door caused the sinking or that they decided to claim it did and presumably divers faked that damage later, any version of which would be a conspiracy.

Well, no. The whole house of cards collapses because there was plenty of time for the rescued to begin telling their rescuers what happened and for that to be reported on.

Bildt *is* irrelevant.

 

[JayUtah]

It is very obvious to me that it was an act of sabotage...

Which of the several kinds of acts of sabotage is it obvious to you happened? Does Prof. Amdahl, for example, believe a sea mine caused the damage to the starboard side? You've told us we have to accept his conclusion because he is well qualified and dispassionate. But you bristle every time we point out any of the several ways in which he could be in error. At the same time, he must be in error if the sea-mine theory that you're now preaching is what's "obvious" happened.

As I wrote weeks ago, the difference between real investigation and conspiracism is that real investigators hope to converge in the direction toward some hypothesis that explains all the evidence. Conspiracy theorist merely run away from the conventional narrative. They have no better idea what actually did happen, or at least none they can articulate without speculation, contradiction, and often foot-stamping.

 

[Mojo]

Frankly, relying on the Estonia hitting a WWII mine doesn’t look like a very reliable method of sabotage.

 

[junkshop]

I wouldn't rule anything out.

This much is obvious (with the inexplicable exception of the failure of a poorly maintained bow hood).

 

[Andy_Ross]

You do know that many of the survivors suffered broken bones and internal injuries? When the Ilmarinen was sunk by a mine it sank very fast. The Estonia sank very fast. The JAIC has never investigated or explained why the Estonia sank very fast. At least Johanson picked up on the fact the Estonia sank extraordinarily fast.

Broken bones and injuries are to be expected.

Why do you think I asked about ankles and ears?

Where is the damage that would indicate a WW2 mine had hit the ship?

Did you see the pictures of mine damage? did you watch the video of a mine blowing up?

there is no damage to the Estonia that indicates any kind of mine damage. there is no testimony that indicates any kind of mine damage.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And do you likewise concede that Carl Bildt was doing a legerdemain spot of covering his own back when he announced the cause of the accident within sixteen hours of it?

How was he 'covering his own back'?