• 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.
Captain_Swoop said:
But you say that it was being escorted.

If they weren't anticipating the ship being attacked, why was it escorted?

What was the point of the escort if it made no difference to the sinking?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Formality? I wouldn't know.
Click to expand...
You said that the reason the Estonia would have been escorted instead of merely being tracked by radar was because radar wasn't up to the task.

So when further questioned on what the actual purpose of the escorting submarine would have been, given that it did nothing to actually protect the Estonia from a (claimed) attack by a Russian submarine, your answer is

"Formality? I wouldn't know."

Why on earth would Sweden go to the trouble of having one of their navy's submarines escort the Estonia as merely a "formality" as opposed to it actually providing some sort of protection or whatever to the Estonia, as you previously indicated was its purpose?

Your inability to remember your previous claims in this thread is just staggering. It's as bad as your inability to answer the questions you quote before rambling on about something else.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC never looked at anything else other than the bow visor. They devoted hundreds of pages as to its specifications.
Click to expand...


That's probably because it was quickly apparent - to people who are properly qualified & experienced at this sort of thing - that 1) the bow visor had failed and 2) the failure of the bow visor was the proximate cause of the chain of events that led directly to the loss of the ship.

Dontcha think?
 
Vixen said:
I'll stop attempting to answer your questions.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you're not attempting to answer my questions. You're quoting my questions, and then talking about something else.

You've been called out on this many times by many posters including myself.

Spare me your indignation.
 
Vixen said:
That is not what the experts say.

Indeed, three sovereign nations have amended the Estonia Treaty to allow for this very hole in the starboard to be investigated. This would not happen unless they thought it of significance.
Click to expand...

You have no idea why they consider it "of significance."

So your claim 'it is too small and above the waterline' is misconceived and ill-informed.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The position of the hole is a matter of observable fact. The capacity of the hole to admit seawater is a matter of straightforward flood-rate computations. In contrast, you're second-guessing those who are conducting the new investigation, imagining that their reasons must be the same as your reasons.
 
Vixen said:
That is not what the experts say.

Indeed, three sovereign nations have amended the Estonia Treaty to allow for this very hole in the starboard to be investigated. This would not happen unless they thought it of significance.

So your claim 'it is too small and above the waterline' is misconceived and ill-informed.
Click to expand...

Which 'experts'?

You can see with your own eyes the size of the hole and that it is above the waterline.
 
JesseCuster said:
You said that the reason the Estonia would have been escorted instead of merely being tracked by radar was because radar wasn't up to the task.

So when further questioned on what the actual purpose of the escorting submarine would have been, given that it did nothing to actually protect the Estonia from a (claimed) attack by a Russian submarine, your answer is

"Formality? I wouldn't know."

Why on earth would Sweden go to the trouble of having one of their navy's submarines escort the Estonia as merely a "formality" as opposed to it actually providing some sort of protection or whatever to the Estonia, as you previously indicated was its purpose?

Your inability to remember your previous claims in this thread is just staggering. It's as bad as your inability to answer the questions you quote before rambling on about something else.
Click to expand...

I thought it was an accident with the escorting sub that sank the Estonia?
 
Vixen said:
The photo shown is of the swimming pool area.

As you can see, the swimming pool is way below the waterline.
Click to expand...

How do you know it is of the swimming pool?

It doesn't matter where the swimming pool is if the hole is above the waterline.
 
Vixen said:
Ensuring the vessel would not reach its destination.


There have been plenty of Herald of Free Enterprise scenarios in which ar ferries limped home or sank hours later.

This one sank fast.

It almost certainly was carrying smuggled Russian state secrets.
Click to expand...


My my. You're so far down the rabbit hole!

Do you know how long it took HOFE to sink? I do. It took less than two minutes.

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Vixen said:
How do you know those nine 'missing' Estonian crew, including the second captain Piht, Chief Engineer Lembit and Chief Medical Officer Bogdanov, were not 'disappeared' by the Swedes/USA to face top secret charges of crimes against humanity? It 'disappeared' two Egyptian terrorists in 2000.

Just sayin'?
Click to expand...


Oh bloody hell. Ludicrous.
 
JesseCuster said:
The problem is that you're not attempting to answer my questions. You're quoting my questions, and then talking about something else.

You've been called out on this many times by many posters including myself.

Spare me your indignation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Vixen has many times quoted my posts only to argue a completely different issue in the response.
 
Vixen said:
This was not some 'gang', this was the Swedish government on behalf of the CIA, allegedly. Sweden has a very sizeable navy and military. Russia was broke in 1991 and even in 1994 all that was left was an elite core of ex-speznats, still fiercely loyal to the Old Fatherland and dreams of Soviet military might. However, despite the Soviet Union having fallen, these guys were still extremely highly skilled. That ship was not brought down by a couple of amateur terrorists, as with the USS Cole.
Click to expand...


You're right. That ship was "brought down" by the bow visor failing, pulling the bow ramp out of position, which allowed extreme volumes of seawater to flood the vehicle deck, which in turn fatally affected the ship's stability and buoyancy.
 
Vixen said:
This was not some 'gang', this was the Swedish government on behalf of the CIA, allegedly. Sweden has a very sizeable navy and military. Russia was broke in 1991 and even in 1994 all that was left was an elite core of ex-speznats, still fiercely loyal to the Old Fatherland and dreams of Soviet military might. However, despite the Soviet Union having fallen, these guys were still extremely highly skilled. That ship was not brought down by a couple of amateur terrorists, as with the USS Cole.
Click to expand...

No. In that imagined scenario the Swedish government would have been the customers, not the thieves or their fences or smugglers.

Those highly skilled patriotic Spetsnaz would have been just the people needed to intercept a convoy of stolen gear before it got out of the country, and to kill the treacherous smugglers too. That's the sort of operation they might see the purpose of and get behind, rather than sinking a ship and killing a thousand innocent people to destroy a couple of truckloads of stuff.

Indeed, if they managed to get some of their own people onto the Estonia, destroying the trucks, rather than the entire ship, makes more sense.
 
Vixen said:
The photo shown is of the swimming pool area.

As you can see, the swimming pool is way below the waterline.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address my question. Have you any reason at all to think the object you say is a towel was not from some cabin at that height in the ship?

Knowing that the pool is on a lower deck does not magically move the damage down to the waterline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom