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

[Reformed Offlian]

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

How is it very obvious? And if the hallmarks of "very obvious" sabotage are present, you should be able to tell us *which* method of sabotage was used. And yet you have yet to decide whether it was a torpedo, a submarine ramming, a mine, or an explosive charge place by someone on board the ship. Which, among other things, suggest that the signs of sabotage are not so "very obvious" as you make out.

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.

How do you know that these specific outcomes were intended?

It is also clear the while thing is 'classified' to justify the deception.

How do you know? What facts in your possession make this "very clear"?

Of course the authorities knew of the hole in the starboard.
The navy divers could not have missed it.

How do you now?

 

[Axxman300]

Yes, but apart from that, what reason do you have for thinking it wasn’t a mine?

Because they didn't find a hole in the side of the ship in the shape of a coyote.

 

[Axxman300]

We know now it was not a mine but at the time of the accident it was a realistic possibility, given the disaster occurred in the military region of Utö and its history of mines. Johanson was actually being very logical.

Then why even bring it up.

And no, the guy was just covering his butt because there was a good chance the crew and captain screwed something up, which is at the heart of most disasters at sea.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

1. Swedish Midnight sounds like a cheap perfume, or dirty movie from the 1970s. The problem is the Estonia was three hours behind schedule so if your claim is correct then it didn't sink where they wanted it to sink.

2. International waters but Sweden took control anyway, so who cares? And if the Estonia had left on time, using your theory, it would have sunk in Swedish waters and then ze Germans could never have dived on the wreck and found the hole.

3. Technically it didn't sink all that fast. Had the crew and the captain done their job and sent a damage control party to the car deck they would have identified the problem, slowed down, called for help sooner, and got more people off the ship.

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.

And how would they have seen it with the ship lying on its side covering the hole and eliminating access to that part of the ship? You can't cover up something you don't see.

 

[Mojo]

And how would they have seen it with the ship lying on its side covering the hole and eliminating access to that part of the ship? You can't cover up something you don't see.

I’m sure it should have been “very obvious” that the hole was there, even if it couldn’t be seen.

 

[Vixen]

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?

To send a clear message. Isn't that what political/terrorist acts aim to do?

Think about the KAL civilian airline shot down by the Russians. Everybody thinks it is OK because the pilot accidently impinged on Russian airspace. Same principle here, except this time it is 'classified'.

 

[Vixen]

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.

No, I didn't say the divers faked any damage. Think about it. One of the biggest civilian maritime accidents of all time. PM Aho and PM Laar had no problem remembering how they found out about it and by whom. Bildt, when asked the same question at the time, replied 'I don't remember'.

Of course he remembers! It was his leaving do. He was called aside in the middle of it. Bildt just didn't want to reveal a highly significant fact: that he was likely informed immediately by his intelligence agents. Having decided very early on the whole thing was to be 'classified' the cover up started from Time Zero.

Who believes Bildt forgets who informed him and when?

Bildt did not interview any survivors until late afternoon 28 Sept 1994 the same day of the accident and that was Sillaste, together with Aho and Laar and the police. Laar confirmed Sillaste never mentioned the bow visor in that interview.

If you look at the JAIC report you'll see the other crew were not interviewed until 29 Sept 1994.

Bildt made the bow visor announcement as per press conference with the Swedish press at circa 4:00pm 28 Sept 1994 when nobody could possibly have known this for sure...unless they had military/intelligence personnel who were there at the time or ... actually carried it out.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I have not instructed anyone we have to accept his conclusion because he is well qualified and dispassionate. We are all adults capable of making up our own minds. It was you who cast aspersions on Professor Amdahl's expertise and thus his qualifications became relevant: he is (a) an expert in marine collisions - he has investigated them first-hand, he knows what they look like; he knows how to do the calculations and (b) he has no dog in this fight: he is Norwegian and thus has no bias conscious or unconscious one way or another.


The JAIC never even considered the possibility of a collision - despite the huge hole in the starboard - so IMV you err when you claim it did its job properly and thoroughly.

I don't stamp my feet because I could not care less whether people agree with me or not. Unlike you, I can accept that people disagreeing with my views is their prerogative and does not mean they should be told off and given a dressing down over all of their perceived and imagined short-comings and grilling them on whether they ever studied physics or advanced rocket science and space aerodynamics to shut them down.

 

[Vixen]

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

I very clearly said it was poorly maintained, with the atlantic lock needing to be hammered into place by the crew and the mating lugs misaligning so that oftentimes as not the car ramp was secured by hawsers to the capstan on the front deck. In addition, the car ramp was known to be leaky with crew stuffing bedding in the gaps to try to block out the ingress. Passengers had complained in the past of 9cms of water lapping around their vehicles.

Yet the JAIC made it clear the vessel was seaworthy. (This is equivalent to a car annual MOT.)

You can't cherry pick the JAIC conclusions. You can't claim the vessel was poorly maintained but yet agree with the JAIC and claim its conclusions are correct and logical.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Yes, showing pictures of controlled explosions is very spectacular but most times a mine on a ship's hull or a ship running into one would not be as ferocious as it has not met explosive with explosive as in a controlled blast.

You knows as well as I do explosives come in all quantities. They can be big or small.

 

[Vixen]

How was he 'covering his own back'?

Er, Bild was ultimately responsible for authorising the Swedish intelligence services to use the Estonia ferry to smuggle out Russian state secrets knowing full well this was highly dangerous to the passengers. The capacity was some 2,000. The Estonian intelligence agencies (then KSI, CIA and MI6 developing it) were formally warned by the Russians at least twice to cease and desist.

Calling the whole affair 'classified top secret' was the disgusting cowardly response of the Swedish defence forces, the CIA and the MI6, instead of coming clean.

It makes my blood boil that the relatives were denied bringing home their loved ones for a proper burial. Even the clerics (Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox et al ) who perform the annual memorial service refuse to consecrate it as the victims' final resting place.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It was a perfectly reasonable supposition at the time by Johanson of Estline. Given the sheer speed of sinking.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It very likely and almost certainly (cf eyewitnesses Hedrenius and Ovberg) carried military cargo and thus would have ipso facto needed a military escort. Wouldn't want bootleggers getting their hands on such sensitive material!

 

[Vixen]

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

A good journalist does his or her homework. That means researching previous newspaper articles.

 

[Vixen]

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?

It is true, is it not? People won't accept something as being true until it is endorsed by the Murdoch/Barclay Brothers/Fox News/AP/Reuters press. This is hardly controversial. If the cap fits, wear it. If not, then why take it personally?

 

[Vixen]

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?

The short answer is: I don't know. What is apparent is the involvement of:

• Sweden
• the USA
• the UK
• Russia

...And it was not an everyday accident as the JAIC tries to claim.

 

[Vixen]

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?

The Estonian Embassy were in contact with the Estonian survivors acting on their behalf. They then acted as a go between to inform relatives of the survivors. The Estonian Embassy were told that eleven crew members were survivors and even notified the wives and next of kin as to what flight niumber and date their loved ones would return home (for example, Captain Piht) so obviously there were means of communication. If one has staff of course you would feel responsible for their welfare and take steps to contact them.

 

[Vixen]

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?

The crew managed to nip into warm clothing and survivor suits sharpishly so why wouldn't they have ensured their NMT's weren't likewise safe and waterproofed. After all, they managed to find their way to life rafts tout suite despite their 'poor training'.

 

[Vixen]

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).

Wear and tear damage doesn't cancel out damage that occurred pre-sinking.


The Arikas team clearly states there is a large hole which is quite separate from the geologically-consistent deformations to be expected after 26 years.

The force that caused damage in the side of the hull, on the other hand, would have to be "enormous", Arikas said, adding that the exact extent of the damage is not known as it could also reach below the hull; the ferry's seventh and eighth decks (of 10) remained inaccessible, he said.

ERR. News

 

[Vixen]

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)")

Then it is a pity Sillaste never mentioned this key point when first interviewed 28 September 1994. Clearly, it was not at the forefront of his mind. And he was there, unlike Bildt.

It seems obvious to me that crew would be supplied with proper communications equipment whilst out at sea. Many passengers said when they rang up their next of kin to say they had survived, their kin were very surprised as the accident hadn't even been on the news yet or hadn't seen the news. So if the passengers rang home then why wouldn't the crew ring in to their employers?