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

[Vixen]

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....)

I have never shied away from it.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I bought an airport book on 9/11 conspiracy theories and whilst I don't subscribe to any, as about 15 of the 22 or so terrorists involved were Saudi Arabian, of course it is a cover up by the US government to claim 'it has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia'. Sometimes things are obvious and in plain sight! Just because the PTB refuse to confirm it doesn't mean it ain't so. Even Osama Bib Laden is a Saudi. Come on.

This is what happens when something is declared 'classified'. Anyone asking reasonable questions is defamed as a 'conspiracy theorist'. Some are, of course, but others are ordinary people like you or I with enquiring minds that need to know.

If you can't smell a rat with the sinking of the Estonia maybe you are just have less curiousity than others, who do.

 

[JesseCuster]

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.

Why would they go to the trouble of ensuring their phones were waterproofed, keeping them on their person throughout the whole ideal, throughout the abandonment, rescue, hospital treatment, change of clothes etc. and then after having faced death in the face, suffering from trauma, having gone 24 hours without sleep, then decided to phone their employers?

Remember, it's your claim that all of this is "common sense and common knowledge" that this would have happened and that you don't need to provide any citations or sources or references to this because it's as obvious to you as the sky is blue.

Please explain how this is a safe assumption.

 

[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?

The short answer is: I don't know.

It's very obvious to you that the sinking of the Estonia was an act of sabotage.

But you don't know whether or not it was an accidental collision with a friendly submarine?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

No it is not. JAIC has nothing to do with testing or certifying the ship as seaworthy.
At the time the ship sailed it was seaworthy.

As for an MOT on a car. It tests only certain certain mechanical components. If they pass the test the car is roadworthy at the time of the test
One of the components could fail as you drive home from the test, your car would still have been roadworthy at the time of the test though.

 

[Vixen]

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.



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.

Nonsense. It was scheduled to set off at 7:00pm from Tallinn but was about fifteen minutes late. It made up time by going slightly faster than the usual 18 knots, or so.

Given 34 of the surviving 79 passengers related in their signed witness statements hearing a series of bangs and/or a feeling of collision from the starboard side, with those reaching the deck, assembling literally on the now horizontal port side, it was the JAIC's duty to investigate these accounts.

Grossly negligent to ignore them or rewrite them to fit the forgone conclusion, as edicted by Bildt.

Two eyewitnesses (Reintaam, Barney) recounted something seeming to move away from the vessel shortly after.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Of course it would be 'as ferocious' Did you not see the photographs of mine damage? That was damage to warships, designed to withstand far more damage than a ferry.

How could a 'controlled' explosion be more 'ferocious' than the mine exploding on contact with a ship?

Explosives might be 'big or small' but we know the quantities used in German naval mines of WW2

 

[Andy_Ross]

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!

'ipso facto'?

How is it almost certain the ship was carrying a 'military cargo'?

What would this 'military escort' do?

What did they think was going to happen to the Estonia that a submarine could influence?

Was a pirate ship going to force them to heave to in a storm and board them?

If the hijackers were already aboard, what good would a sub be?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

So they told the Estonian Embassy staff what happened but none of the rescuers or hospital staff?

 

[Vixen]

It's very obvious to you that the sinking of the Estonia was an act of sabotage.

But you don't know whether or not it was an accidental collision with a friendly submarine?

It is not something that has been revealed to the public. Of course the Swedish navy immediately did its own investigation. The results of that naturally are a state secret.

The JAIC investigation was a formality in confirming Bildt's edict it should not blame anybody for the accident and was just a facsimile replication of The Herald of Free Enterprise capsizing six years earlier, except this, time, the covering bow visor had to somehow have come off for water to have flooded the car deck.

 

[junkshop]

The JAIC investigation was a formality in confirming Bildt's edict it should not blame anybody for the accident and was just a facsimile replication of The Herald of Free Enterprise capsizing six years earlier, except this, time, the covering bow visor had to somehow have come off for water to have flooded the car deck.

Source? Citation? Evidence? Anything at all to back up this theory of a conspiracy?

 

[JesseCuster]

It is not something that has been revealed to the public.

That's not what I asked you.

You stated that it is obvious that the Estonia was sunk by an act of sabotage.

So I then asked you if that means you're going back on your claim that it was probably sank by an accidental collision with a friendly submarine.

You stated that you didn't know.

How can you think it's obvious that it was sank by an act of sabotage and simultaneously not be sure if it was probably sank by an accidental collision with a friendly submarine?

 

[JesseCuster]

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.

You weren't asked about witness statements.

You were asked about survivors being asked in the immediate aftermath of the disaster what happened to give some idea of what caused the disaster.

When someone is asked in the immediate wake of a disaster what happened to allow rescuers or investigators some idea of what happened, you don't have lawyers, cops, signed statements, witnesses, etc. Where do you get this nonsense from?

 

[JesseCuster]

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'.

Why would an accidental sinking of the Estonia by a leftover WWII unexploded mine be "hugely political and embarrassing" but an accidental sinking of the Estonia by a failing bow visor not be such that it's worth the Swedish government's while going to the byzantine lengths to cover up the former story and railroad an investigation into coming up with the latter cover story?

Remember that I asked you about "an unexploded leftover WWII mine", i.e. an accident. You're answering an entirely different scenario involving sabotage, which I didn't ask about.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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'.

Their training was obviously poor but none existent.
Anyone with a crew ticket will have done training in abandoning a ship. They will know how to use an immersion suit, how to put a raft canister in to the water, how to right it, how to get aboard it etc.


I would expect the actual sailing crew and engineers to have more training than the domestic and passenger side crew but all of them will have had some level of training in emergency procedures to get a job onboard.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.


ERR. News

Where is this damage? W have seen nothing other than the hole above the waterline already discussed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

What 'communications equipment' do you think a crew are supplied with?
Some may have had their own mobile phones but the only 'communications equipment' supplied would be the ship's own radio equipment.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is not something that has been revealed to the public. Of course the Swedish navy immediately did its own investigation. The results of that naturally are a state secret.

If it is secret how do you know about it?

What is your evidence for this secret Swedish navy investigation?.

 

[JesseCuster]

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.

Are you suggesting that the crew, when abandoning a sinking ship, took the ship's communication equipment with them, all the way to shore and to hospital, and then used the ship's communication equipment to contact their employers? Seriously?

So if the passengers rang home then why wouldn't the crew ring in to their employers?

In the immediate aftermath of "facing death in the face" (your words), you're suggesting that the crew made the decision to phone their employers? People phone their loved ones and immediate family in those situations to let them know they're safe, then don't phone their employers to discuss the details of how the disaster happened.

And do you have any evidence that the crew actually did that? Where's your source, citation and proper reference for this idea that the crew called their employers after the rescue? Remember, your posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced.

 

[phiwum]

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

I don't know what you're trying to prove.d

Immediately after an accident, when there is a paucity of evidence regarding the cause, a reporter is not there to judge the credibility of an authority giving his opinion. The opinion itself is newsworthy.

That the comments from an authority for the ferry company appeared in a newspaper is not evidence that what the authority said is credible. Duh.

Your refusal to accept this obvious fact is embarrassing.