• 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.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you claim Estonia should have been shadowed, tracked or otherwise protected against some or other nefarious thing but you have no idea what or who or how nor any hint of what could be done about it whatever "it" was. You just know tracking the ship on radar as normal was not the right thing to do and there your advice ends.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
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?
Click to expand...

If it was a hijack, what could a sub do to stop it?

If it was a sub attack why not escort with an AS frigate?

In fact, why not just put the stuff on a frigate in the first place?
 
Also, why would Putin and Co. want to sink the Estonia at "the last point it was in international waters"? What kind of cryptic message is that supposed to send?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is likely MI6, KSI and CIA never anticipated that the Russians would ruthlessly sink the ship killing near on 1,000 people.
 
Mojo said:
It’s very obvious that there was a cover-up, otherwise Vixen would have evidence of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...


Yeah - and this is exactly the thing that we sheeple will never realise: the very fact that there's no evidence is a clear indication of a cover-up and a conspiracy!!
 
Vixen said:
It is likely MI6, KSI and CIA never anticipated that the Russians would ruthlessly sink the ship killing near on 1,000 people.
Click to expand...
So what was the escorting submarine meant to be protecting the Estonia from and what was it supposed to do about it?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it went off the radar why do the 'military intelligence' have to be involved?

What 'intercepting and interfering' would the sub have been able to do?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

All the reports say the hole is only partly above the waterline. You can clearly see a towel wedged in the space where the designated the swimming pool and sauna area is. The swimming pool was on deck 0. Definitely in the hull, well below the waterline.
 

Attachments

  • ms-estonia-hole.jpg
    ms-estonia-hole.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 4
Vixen said:
The JAIC itself in its report states that 'no-one is to blame'.
Click to expand...


No it didn't. It stated that no individual could be held responsible for what caused the ship to sink that night. And that's correct: this incident wasn't the product of human error on the night.

But that's a very different matter from inferring that the report didn't ascribe blame at all. Rather, it (obviously) blamed flaws in the design and construction of the bow visor/door mechanisms, and it also blamed a pattern of poor maintenance and inspection of this critical bow section. The blame in this case is corporate rather than personal. In certain jurisdictions - including England & Wales - there would very probably have been corporate manslaughter charges brought against the owner and the designer/constructor of the ship.
 
JesseCuster said:
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? :confused:
Click to expand...

The JAIC never looked at anything else other than the bow visor. They devoted hundreds of pages as to its specifications.
 
Vixen said:
Putin was head of the KGB and the newly formed post-Soviet agency as of the time of the accident.
Click to expand...
So what? If he knew in advance that stolen military hardware was going to be loaded onto a ferry he could have intercepted it before it left Estonia. In what way is that less plausible than sinking the ferry at sea in a storm by some unidentified means?
 
JesseCuster said:
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.
Click to expand...

traditionally on a military ship the day is divided in to 'Watches' of four hours each with one of them split in to two, two hour parts called the 'dog watches'

Midnight is the traditional end of the' first watch' from 20.00 until midnight, followed by the 'middle watch' from midnight to 04.00.

Midnight is not the usual time for changing a watch on duty on a merchant ship.

I don't know any merchant ships that follows a four hour 'military' watch system.

they usually work a three watch system. for bridge and engine room staff with a 'normal' working day for routine 'make and mend' overlaid on top of it.

RN ships at sea divide in to two watches 'port' and 'starboard' which are divided in to first, second and third parts for 4 hour duty periods for engineering and bridge crew.
Everyone else works a 'normal' working day unless the ship is at war of course.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
All the reports say the hole is only partly above the waterline. You can clearly see a towel wedged in the space where the designated the swimming pool and sauna area is. The swimming pool was on deck 0. Definitely in the hull, well below the waterline.
Click to expand...

The hole is very obviously across the divide in the blue and white paint scheme. Photos of the ship show that is well above the waterline. Do you disagree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom