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

[JesseCuster]

The military precision of it all was Putin and co showing off how clever and efficient they were, without actually claiming responsibility for it.

If it was Putin and co showing off how clever they were, then it wasn't an accidental collision with a British or Swedish submarine.

Do you therefore concede that your earlier opinion that the sinking was probably caused by a British or Swedish escort submarine accidentally collided with the Estonia was wrong?

 

[Vixen]

Not what I asked. You made this claim:


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?

The JAIC itself in its report states that 'no-one is to blame'.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The military precision of it all was Putin and co showing off how clever and efficient they were, without actually claiming responsibility for it.

So now you're adding "and it was Putin who dunnit". So what tipped you off? Was it the choice of midnight, the international waters or the halfway point? Which one gave it away to you as Putin's handiwork?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The act of timed explosives is clearly sabotage. The issue of the starboard collision - as it very possibly was - could either be a deliberate ram by, submarine, torpedo head or placed mine to make absolutely sure the vessel would sink as quickly as possible with no hope of rescue (an extremely aggressive act) or as I say, an accidental bump thanks to the unexpected explosives going off at the bow, if there was such an event.

Whichever way one looks at it , it is a highly suspicious 'accident' given the timing, the location and the passenger survivor accounts and Sweden's breakneck speed in rushing to claim it was nobody's fault.

A hole above the waterline could not be caused by a torpedo or mine!

A small hole above the waterline would not sink the ship so quickly.

That hole does not look anything like torpedo or mine damage.

Submarines hitting the ship would not cause damage of that nature and certainly not above the waterline. We went through this at length, submarine bows are rounded down to the waterline, if a sub rammed it any damage would be below the waterline and of a different form.
A sub colliding with enough force to sink the ship would have sunk itself.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Estoniia was tracked by radar. All ships are tracked by coastguards' radar. The Finns knew exactly what time the vessel went down...because it went off the radar.

Simply tracking something by radar doesn't actually tell you what happens to it.

When something is given police or military escort, normally it is as a protection to a person or thing (such as a van delivering bullion) and the aim being to intercept any attempt to interfere with it.

The fact Carl Bildt was informed almost immediately as to what had happened suggests that his intelligence was almost certainly present the entire time and explains his reticence in answering the question when and from whom did he find out about the accident.

 

[LondonJohn]

If James Meek flew all the way to Tallinn, or his stringer on his behalf, there will also have been research assistants who automatically made their way to the British Library Newspaper Library which was then situated in Colindale and had a collection of original newspapers going back to year dot, and foreign newspapers mostly on microfiche. The place was daily jampacked with hacks doing research (often on the past foibles of celebrities in the news) or lawyers looking for trade (ambulance chasers or noting who inthe local papers was going to court, and thereby getting the office to send out fliers to the individuals named offering their services).

One can always spot the articles that are well researched.

I am betting that Meek's team will almost certainly have looked up the possibility of a mine being the culprit for the shocking disaster.

AHAHAHAHAHA!

This wasn't some in-depth piece of investigative journalism about the disaster. It was Meek - a generalist reporter - being sent to Tallinn to file a short report on what the head of Estline had said, given that the Estonia sinking was a significant news story at that point.

And that's literally all he did: report what was said. Nothing more (or less) than that.

It's amusing that you started off, wrt this particular matter, by claiming that Meek's article indicated that he (Meek) had supported the "mine" claim. But then, under challenge, you backed down and agreed that he was in fact only reporting the claim. Yet now you're claiming that he had "a team" back in UK who would have been trying to verify the "mine" claim (with the obvious implication that a) his "team" had judged the claim to be entirely reasonable, otherwise b) he would not have filed the story at all).

Tralalalalalalala

 

[Andy_Ross]

You don't know it was not. If you are claiming Johanson suggesting a mine was in bad faith, the onus is on you to provide reasoning for this view.

A complete lack of evidence for a mine would do it.

 

[JesseCuster]

The JAIC itself in its report states that 'no-one is to blame'.

You said that the Swedish government rushed to say 'no-one is to blame'.

The Estonia disaster happened in 1994 and the JAIC report was published in 1997.

How is taking 3 years to say 'no-one is to blame' evidence that they were in rush to claim that?

 

[Vixen]

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.

I have put forward the German theory, the Swedish survivors' theory, the Swedish safety at sea theory, the shipbuilder's theory. When someone asked for my theory I gave it. Having said that I would have no idea the exact details of what happened. Note, Germany never signed the Treaty.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

This is the stuff you claim arrived with a military escort. Which military? Not Sweden's I suppose.

 

[Andy_Ross]

One survivor said she knew it was midnight because her cabin mate's alarm clock went off. Michael Oun said his alram clock crashed onto the floor and the battery fell out. He stuffed it in his pocket as it was in his way as he fled and it had stopped at 1:00. This would have been the same time the ship was at the half-way point on its journey, the last point it was in international waters, the ship's watch was changing shifts, etc.

What were the watch hours on the Estonia?

Was it at the half way point of the journey? why would that be important?

Was it the 'last point' it was in international waters? why is that important?

 

[LondonJohn]

The only point I made was that Johanson's opinion it might have been a mine was a perfectly sound one as of the time, when nobody knew anything more. At least his opinion was honestly held.

And how, pray, do you know this to be true?

(See: I suspect that he quite possibly - probably perhaps - was, either consciously or unconsciously, seeking to point the finger of blame as far away from Estline as possible....)

 

[JesseCuster]

One survivor said she knew it was midnight because her cabin mate's alarm clock went off. Michael Oun said his alram clock crashed onto the floor and the battery fell out. He stuffed it in his pocket as it was in his way as he fled and it had stopped at 1:00. This would have been the same time the ship was at the half-way point on its journey, the last point it was in international waters, the ship's watch was changing shifts, etc.

I want to see sources, citations and proper references for your claim that i) at midnight the ship was the the half-way point on its journey ii)at midnight the last point it was in international waters and ii) at midnight the ship's watch was changing shifts.
Remember, your posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced. You said so yourself.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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")

Israel seems to have been dropped from the list.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

It seems they were under some kind of 'gagging' order to stop them speaking to anyone until a formal interview was held when they were told what to say.

 

[Vixen]

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):


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.

The shaking and vibrating that so many of the survivors relate is quite typical of an explosion aftershock. This guy heard a series of three bangs. The ship listing towards starboard would be consistent to a collision on the starboard side. There is no doubt at all the list was to starboard with an interim self correcting slight list upright and then slightly to port before swinging violent again to the right. There was a 10-minute interim in which passengers had time to flee to the upper decks, after which climbing stairs would be very difficult due to the angle. So a collision on the starboard side would be perfectly consistent with a starboard lilt.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

You are the one that offered the analogy.

If it was a component not tested it would not be picked up.

A part can pass an MOT test and fail afterwards.
Why do you think cars with valid test certificates break down?

Same applies to ships or aircraft.
A test only tells you that the thing tested was compliant at the time of the test.

 

[phiwum]

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.

Not that the cellphones really matter, but are immersion suits watertight?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[LondonJohn]

You don't know it was not. If you are claiming Johanson suggesting a mine was in bad faith, the onus is on you to provide reasoning for this view.

LMFAO. You forget (possibly) that you were the one who originated the declaration that Johanson was honest in his belief that a mine might have sunk the ship.

The crap you're trying to pull here (and it's far from the first time you've done this) is akin to:

Person A: In the Andromeda galaxy, there's a planet made entirely of salt.

Person B: How can you know this? There's no evidence that such a planet exists.

Person A: If you're claiming that I'm wrong, the onus is on you to provide reasoning for this.

 

[Vixen]

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!

Not at all. It is the same for any topic. Some people have more interest in finding out more than others.

What intrigues me is why posters are so upset about people asking questions about the Estonia disaster. Why should you care or find it threatening?