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

[Mojo]

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.

“There’s no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.”

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

True. Hitting an old sea mine definitely is not a "very obvious" act of sabotage, so I infer that means Vixen does not believe that happened.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

That is not evidence that the estonia was being tracked by a submarine.

How do you think SOSUS works?

If they wanted to track the Estonia why not just follow it on radar?

Why would it need tracking? they knew where it was going.

 

[Mojo]

True. Hitting an old sea mine definitely is not a "very obvious" act of sabotage, so I infer that means Vixen does not believe that happened.

What happened to the last however-many-it-was pages?

 

[phiwum]

Political news is very different from developing news of a disaster. People know that politicians are skilled spin doctors and thus what they have to say is often carefully scripted to achieve a certain political effect.

Trump was damned by his own words. No comment needed to be added.

Estline's opinion, being the vessel operators, as to the possible cause of the accident is bound to be a carefully weighed consideration of probabilities based on skill and know how.

Sure, Estline"s opinion will weighed, but not by the reporter. For one thing, it's doubtful he's qualified.

Estline's comments were newsworthy. That's all that the publication indicates.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

The survivors were evacuated to three hospital locations: Mariehamn, which is the capital of the autonomous Åland Islands (it is geographically and politically Finnish because the open sea doesn't start until west this). Turku hospital which is nearby Parainen/Utö, the nearest land to the accident and Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm.


I assume the crew would have had NMT phones or hospital phones to ring their employers.

Waterproof phones?

(ETA: I just saw that I missed the "hospital phones" and focused on the cell phones, so this response wasn't entirely apt. It was still an error to even consider that the crew had working cell phones after the sinking.)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Mojo]

Waterproof phones?

Waterproof landlines.

 

[JesseCuster]

Are you able to contribute anything constructive that relates to the title of this thread? Like most people I find 'flame wars' extremely boring, so please try to focus on the thread topic.

If you find flame wars so boring then why have you falsely claimed that your critics have made callous jokes about the victims of the disaster, that your critics want survivors testimony censored and that your critics need Fox News and the Daily Mail to tell them what to think?

You made these claims and refuse to offer evidence to defend them, and when called on it, you accuse me of derailing the thread?

 

[JesseCuster]

It is very obvious to me that it was an act of sabotage by person/s unknown.

So you’re going back on your claim that it was likely an accident caused by a collision with a British or Swedish submarine escorting the Estonia?

 

[JesseCuster]

Common sense common knowledge. Were I to say the sky was blue no reference or citation needed. You are just being silly for the sake of it. Please stop it.

It’s “common sense common knowledge” that the crew, after abandoning ship, being rescued, taken to hospital, presumably given dry clothing to replace the wet clothing they were rescued in, having gone 24 hours without sleep, been treated for things like whatever shock, trauma or injuries they suffered, would still have their NMT phones and that still worked and that would choose to phone their employers? Or that they would choose at that traumatic moment to use a hospital phone to phone their employers?

How is that common knowledge or common sense?

 

[phiwum]

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.

What is it about a sea mine that leads to broken ankles? Do you know how that works?

Just curious.

 

[LondonJohn]

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 realise that the real elephant in the room - wrt your increasingly far-fetched conspiracy theories - is that the original investigators didn't see that "massive hole in the starboard" (the starboard what, for that matter?) because....

.... the ship was lying on the sea bed on its starboard side at the time when the original investigators conducted their survey of the wreck?


And to this end, it's been observed that the pattern of damage to the starboard hull closely correlates to the topography of the sea bed adjacent to the hull - including the presence of an outcrop of bedrock matching (in location and size) the area of most severe damage. Which serves to bolster the hypothesis that initially the ship was resting on its starboard side, and only subsequently shifted its position* such that a) the starboard hull damage was now visible and b) the sea bed topography that likely caused that damage was also now visible.


* probably owing to strong currents, coupled with the indication that this initial resting point was something of an unstable equilibrium (owing to the topography of the sea bed where the Estonia very probably first came to rest).

 

[LondonJohn]

The survivors were evacuated to three hospital locations: Mariehamn, which is the capital of the autonomous Åland Islands (it is geographically and politically Finnish because the open sea doesn't start until west this). Turku hospital which is nearby Parainen/Utö, the nearest land to the accident and Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm.


I assume the crew would have had NMT phones or hospital phones to ring their employers.

Well if you're assuming this, it's strange that you still appear not to believe in the (very real) possibility that these crewmembers' employers asked them if they'd seen anything which might explain how & why the ship sank.

And that at least some of these crewmembers very probably saw - either while abandoning ship or once they were in a life raft/boat - that the bow visor was entirely missing and the bow ramp was so badly damaged that sea water could easily enter the vehicle deck at a rapid rate.

And that these crewmembers might very easily have understood enough about the catastrophic effect of flooding the ship's interior - especially the wide-open vehicle deck - that they would quickly & easily be able to understand that the missing bow visor and the damaged bow ramp were responsible (especially when coupled with the very choppy sea and the fact that the ship remained at high speed until after it was too late) for the sinking of the Estonia.


(And, in passing, one would never talk of "NMT phones" in this context. As I explained before, NMT was simply a standard for early analogue mobile phones. To talk of an "NMT phone" would be akin to talking about an "LTE-A phone" nowadays (LTE-A is one of the global standards for 4G mobile telephony). In 1994 they would simply have talked of "using a mobile phone (or cellphone)". Just as nowadays we simply talk of "using a mobile phone (or cellphone)")

 

[LondonJohn]

There has not been an accident like it before or since

Very true. And one would think that this alone would have given you pause for thought wrt leftover mines. But clearly not.

unless you count the ships sunk by torpedo during the wars.

Nope, irrelevant in this context. As has been explained to you many, many times by now: all the sea lanes (and anywhere near those sea lanes) were cleared of mines and other military ordnance decades ago. It's the reason why no ships - including the Estonia - have encountered a mine explosion in the seven-and-a-half decades since the end of WWII.

It is nothing like the Herald of Free Enterprise, which did not have a bow visor and was simply due to the boatswain not putting up the car ramp.

It's everything like the HOFE disaster. The architecture of the vehicle ingress/egress mechanisms might have been different, but the generalised cause & effect was near-identical: the critically-vulnerable vehicle access portals were fatally compromised, causing seawater to rush into the wide open vehicle deck, causing stability and buoyancy problems that quickly became impossible to overcome, causing the ship to list then sink.

 

[LondonJohn]

Look I know or have known quite a few respected journalists, one who writes for the Independent these days, another writes articles, another two are famed cartoonists. Sometimes it is just easier to write 'hack' than journalist. Whether it is derogatory or not depends on context. If I were to say 'some old hack at the SUN' that is very different in tone than, 'he works as a GUARDIAN hack'.

I note you are again judging others by your own standards. You think nothing of besmirching and hurling abuse, and when challenged about your scurrilous and disgraceful insults, your Modus Operandi is to deny you ever aimed any low blow.

No. In the UK - as in the US - the term "hack" is virtually never used as either a) a generalised means of referring to newspaper reporters or (especially) b) a term of endearment or support towards a newspaper reporter. Sometimes journalists use the term amongst themselves in a deliberately self-deprecating and ironic manner, but the default way of interpreting/parsing a sentence such as "Alex is a hack" - as spoken to me by Jim - is to infer that Jim has a low opinion of Alex's journalistic credibility/insight.

 

[LondonJohn]

Carl Bildt was obviously briefed by his intelligence agents. On the noght in question, he was at a farewell party having lost the election when he was called away not long after one in the morning, as witnessed by the guests in the hotel/restaurant and briefed in his shell-like. The Finnish PM, Aho and the Estonian PM Laar didn't find out until a phone call in the middle of the night, which they were both able to remember clearly and from whom. When Bildt was asked the same question, he claimed he couldn't remember.

It is so obvious the Swedish - or affiliated intelligence agencies - knew about the accident as soon as it happen because...hello? they were tracking the vessel, whether by submarine or by SOSUS.

This is all nothing but hysterical - and totally unsubstantiated - conjecture, I'm afraid.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

This is horrible circular reasoning. One could apply your rule, for example, to those 9/11 "Truthers" who believe the Twin Towers were brought down from within by Thermite: they could (and do) "reason" that their Thermite theory actually happened ("Just look at the footage which clearly shows cascading explosions as the towers fall!"), and must not therefore be labelled a conspiracy theory.

Perhaps this will serve to illustrate the logical failure of your approach on this matter. But perhaps not.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Hoo boy.

(I suppose at least you're finally putting your own cards on the table, rather than pretending that all you're doing is putting forth others' opinions for discussion....)

 

[Andy_Ross]

What is it about a sea mine that leads to broken ankles? Do you know how that works?

Just curious.

he shock of the explosion through the hull.

If you are standing on a steel deck close enough to the explosion the shock through the hull can break ankles, it was noticed in WW1.

On Minesweepers there used to be rubber mats to stand on to cushion the shock wave through the deck of any mine that might detonate close to the ship.

Ear damage is obvious, close proximity to a large explosion will do damage to ears on deck or below.

 

[phiwum]

he shock of the explosion through the hull.

If you are standing on a steel deck close enough to the explosion the shock through the hull can break ankles, it was noticed in WW1.

On Minesweepers there used to be rubber mats to stand on to cushion the shock wave through the deck of any mine that might detonate close to the ship.

Ear damage is obvious, close proximity to a large explosion will do damage to ears on deck or below.

Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk