• 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.
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?
Wouldn't have been top of my mind. Especially not if I weren't part of the bridge crew. I sincerely doubt that Johanson had significant info from the crew and didn't mention it.

In any case, you're not reporting what others said. You're drawing inferences about their knowledge.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
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?


Oh boy, not this bat guano again....?
 
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.


Run by us again (just for a laugh) your reasoning behind your claim that it's "apparent" that all of these four listed nations were involved in the sinking of the Estonia (and/or the consequent "cover-up") :D
 
Translated: 'This is what the JAIC report says and we must believe it blindly'.

The weasel phrase in your Bildt story is "when nobody could have known this for sure", as if formal interviews are needed before a politician can say anything to the clamouring press.

You blur the distinction between that and "when nobody could have known this", which is obviously not true; within a few hours of the rescues the Prime Minister could have been told what the survivors were saying.
 
What type of attack do you imagine their defending against and with what? If the cargo you're speculating about was genuinely "ultra sensitive" why put it on a civilian passenger ferry at all?

This is exactly the question the deceased relatives want an answer to.


Bear in mind, the public as of 1994 had no idea the Estonia was being used by the Swedish government for sensitive FSU smuggling. It is thanks to a whistleblower customs officer who bravely came forward that we know this happened at all.
 
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'.


Once again, the fact that you write "their NMTs" shows that you don't know what you're talking about on this matter either.

As I've now told you several times: NMT is nothing more or less than a mobile phone (cellphone) technical standard - it was one of the prevailing analogue standards in 1994, but has long since been superseded by a succession of digital standards.

Where you write "their NMTs", what you should be writing is simply "their mobile phones" or "their cellphones".
 
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.

Poor analogy. A component failing as one drives home could not be put down to 'poor maintenance' as that would be a factual observation that should have been picked up at the M.O.T.
 
Wear and tear damage doesn't cancel out damage that occurred pre-sinking.


I have no idea what you mean by this. The damage to the starboard hull wasn't "wear and tear" damage. It was damage caused on the night the ship sank. It was caused when the ship landed - on its starboard side - on the sea bed. It was caused by the topology of the sea bed, most notably a rock outcrop which correlates strongly with the area of more significant damage to the starboard hull.



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


Nope. You're inventing things that are not in evidence (what else is new?).
 
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?


I can only assume you didn't even bother to read my post properly before "replying" to it. Have another go.
 
It was clear from the rhetorical question tagged on the end of the post that that accusation was aimed at the posters here.

I do not consider an inability to believe six mutually exclusive things before breakfast to be a weakness.

Rubbish. There are obviously some posters here capable of critical thought. I was referring to the public, actually but if you want to take it personally, I can't stop you. Nothing to be ashamed of. At least it's an honest stance to take.
 
The hole in the starboard was not investigated. The passenger survivor accounts not investigated. The claims of poor maintenance not investigated. The claim the vessel was seaworthy was not investigated.

The JAIC declared that there was no damage to the ship other than at the car ramp and bow visor.

Isn't that lying by omission?

Not what I asked. You made this claim:
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.

Do you have any evidence that it is true? Or, if you are not making the claim, but reporting it, can you cite your source?
 
This is exactly the question the deceased relatives want an answer to.

It's a question I'd quite like an answer to as well.

Why in your opinion would it not be sufficient just to track the Estonia by radar? What type of attack do you imagine they needed to be ready for and which needed more resources? What do you envisage they would do about it?
 
So which is it: Did your saboteur need his bomb to go off at exactly Swedish midnight to send some kind of message? Or because he couldn't adjust the timer? Or did he need the ship to founder in international waters? Or did he need the ship to get exactly halfway then sink because he was a really OCD saboteur?

If any of these was a reason then the rest are coincidences.

The military precision of it all was Putin and co showing off how clever and efficient they were, without actually claiming responsibility for it.
 
I have never shied away from it.


LOL. For umpteen pages of this thread, you were claiming that you weren't presenting all of these (ludicrous) theories as your own beliefs, but rather that you were simply reporting others' beliefs so that they could be discussed and evaluated within the thread.
 
Why does Bildt need to be covering anything? What exactly is Bildt's motive? Who was going to blame the Swedish ex-Prime Minister for the sinking of a Estonian car ferry?

Bildt was smuggling Russian military and space program equipment out of Estonia via the Estonia ferry. As this cargo is top military secret of course it was classified.
 
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.

Did they?

Several spoke about the ship heeling considerably to starboard. Did anyone claim a collision came from the starboard side? Citations, please.

Here's an interesting report of Thiger's 1997 testimony (not in the legal sense):
On the night of the casualty he had not been out on deck, but watched the sea state through the windows, the speed of the "Estonia" was highly excessive under the circumstances, as a matter of fact Pierre Thiger has never before or thereafter experienced that a vessel was smashed so hard into heavy headseas, each time the bow smashed into the sea, the vessel almost stopped, was shaking and vibrating and then accelerated again until it smashed into the next wave and so on, in addition to this very hard pitching, she was rolling, always more to starboard than to port, because he remembers having to continuously hold himself to the bar with one hand (for the last hour or so he was sitting together with Altti Hakanpää in the Admiral's Pub on 5th deck) to avoid his bar stool tilting over to starboard.
According to his observations the sequence-of-events started 10-15 minutes before midnight (Swedish time) when he heard 3 bangs with 15-20 seconds in between, metal to metal and thought it was a collision, the ship was shaking and vibrating differently than before, shortly afterwards he noted that she was pitching more, but made much slower and deeper movements, there were no more bangs but suddenly he felt vibrations in the aft ship which made him think that they had turned the stern into the sea and the pitch was on astern, he could not see anything out of the window, he felt the vibrations from the propeller (glasses were clinking) and then he heard the strange noise: A very low noise and simultaneously the pitch movements stopped as if a wave had struck under the stern, then all vibrations stopped and in the same second she continued to pitch again, however, without any engine noise, for about one minute she was only pitching, then pitching and rolling, and then only rolling - she made two full swings - more to starboard, less to port, and the third time she heeled over deep to starboard, did not right up again and then fell abruptly to about 40°/45°, this was just before midnight (Swedish time), she came back to almost upright position and then heeled to about 10°/15° and further heeled to about 40°/45° when she stabilised herself for at least 10 probably 12 minutes, whereafter she continued to heel from 45° to 90° relatively quickly before she was fully on the side, the funnel smashed a couple of times on the waves;
when he had reached the outside of the 7th deck, the list was about 40°, wind and sea were coming abeam from starboard and at port side, 5-6 points aft of abeam there were lights, after they had been on deck for sometime already and the list had slowly increased to about 45°, the lights went out, but immediately thereafter came back, all this was within the ca. 10-12 minute phase, when the ferry had stabilised herself at a heel of 40°-45°.
He was subsequently picked-up by SILJA SYMPHONY and came ashore at Helsinki, where he was interrogated for the first time but does not have a copy of the protocol. In Stockholm he was subsequently questioned again by the Swedish police and by Olof Forsberg from the JAIC.

We have here a report that he did, at the time, think it was a collision, but he doesn't say that it was on the starboard side. Note that his report of the events contradicts your claim that everything happened at the stroke of midnight[1]. Note also that his observations prior to the event are quite consistent with the JAIC conclusion.

Again, who specified that the collision was on the starboard side? Or is it your inference that those who reported both a collision and a starboard list reckoned the collision was on the starboard side?

[1] Because, after all, nefarious bombers like to choose dramatic times for their deeds and nature never cares for such drama.
 
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.


Ah the good old "It is only we who have advanced powers of perception who can figure these things out - the rest of you sheeple are just nodding cluelessly at whatever you're fed by your government and their media mouthpieces" gambit. Lovely stuff!
 
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.

Did they?

Is that really a natural role for the Navy? To investigate ferry accidents in international waters?

Or by "of course" do you mean "I assume"?
 
Run by us again (just for a laugh) your reasoning behind your claim that it's "apparent" that all of these four listed nations were involved in the sinking of the Estonia (and/or the consequent "cover-up") :D


It’s very obvious that there was a cover-up, otherwise Vixen would have evidence of the conspiracy.
 
What good is that? If someone attacks your protected vessel carrying ultra sensitive cargo, how will tracking by radar ensure its safety?

How does ramming it with one of your submarines protect it?

What do you think a submarine would do if the Estonia was hijacked and diverted to Russia?

Would they sink it anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom