• 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:
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 missing the point of the question. Conspiracy reasoning often starts from the observed events and works backwards to a hypothesized need or cause. The event in question -- whether the assassination of a leader, the destruction of a building, or the depopulation of the planet -- is postured as the necessary outcome of someone needing to solve some problem. But if we reason forward instead, postulating the hypothetical need as the premise, and evaluate the events as a putatively workable solution to meet that need, it usually becomes apparent that the plan is not the best way to solve the problem, and often incurs additional complications that any competent person would have been able to see and avoid. Or, as in this case, the proposed plan doesn't really solve the problem; it just results in the observable outcome while dragging the conspiracy hypothesis along with it.

The plausibility of the scenario has to be reasoned both forward and backward. It's not enough to simply posit an antecedent whose only virtue is producing the consequent. It has to be the most parsimonious antecedent in other respects.
 
JayUtah said:
You're missing the point of the question. Conspiracy reasoning often starts from the observed events and works backwards to a hypothesized need or cause. The event in question -- whether the assassination of a leader, the destruction of a building, or the depopulation of the planet -- is postured as the necessary outcome of someone needing to solve some problem. But if we reason forward instead, postulating the hypothetical need as the premise, and evaluate the events as a putatively workable solution to meet that need, it usually becomes apparent that the plan is not the best way to solve the problem, and often incurs additional complications that any competent person would have been able to see and avoid. Or, as in this case, the proposed plan doesn't really solve the problem; it just results in the observable outcome while dragging the conspiracy hypothesis along with it.

The plausibility of the scenario has to be reasoned both forward and backward. It's not enough to simply posit an antecedent whose only virtue is producing the consequent. It has to be the most parsimonious antecedent in other respects.
Click to expand...
Precisely. Vixen's scenario (or at least this one, from the several she's juggling) does not fix Putin's problem.

It wields a sledgehammer to crack a single nut, but does nothing to diminish the nut supply, which could have been more effectively tackled with less wholesale destruction.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Precisely. Vixen's scenario (or at least this one, from the several she's juggling) does not fix Putin's problem.

It wields a sledgehammer to crack a single nut, but does nothing to diminish the nut supply, which could have been more effectively tackled with less wholesale destruction.
Click to expand...

More importantly, it presumes the expertise of the Spetsnaz. It's so obviously an ineffective and clumsy way to solve the presumed problem that it's hard to conceive of it being a plan concocted by experts in spycraft. It's what people mean when they say, "That sounds like a bad spy novel."
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

There were no explosives used.

There was no collision with another ship.

Knee-deep water in the car deck caused it to capsize in heavy seas. With the visor gone and the ramp torn open water flooded the ship, which is why it sank so fast.

One of the engineers who escaped said as soon as he saw how deep the water was on the car deck he made his escape because he knew the Estonia would "sink like a rock".

You are trying way too hard to make something out of nothing.
 
Vixen said:
[Simply tracking something by radar doesn't actually tell you what happens to it.
Click to expand...

But it does tell you if there was another ship in the area. A submarine on the surface would show up on radar, and had one collided with Estonia it would have stayed on the surface.

No ships were seen around or near Estonia on radar.
 
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Asking questions and making allegations is not the same thing. You are doing to later. With each post you demonstrate almost total lack of knowledge of the subjects you pull into this conversation (explosives, mines, torpedoes, shipboard crew training, espionage, special operations, submarines, surface ships, weather, the ocean, rescue capabilities, human psychology, politics, scuba diving, metallurgy, basic physics, water, gravity, and basic fact-checking).

Once again, nobody posting on this thread is against another investigation.
 
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...

Why is there no scorching of the paint if it was an explosion?

A towel wedge in the crack suggests water flowing out, not in, or just gravity as the ship lay on its side.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I asked you whether anyone reported a starboard collision. You have told me that the list was consistent with such a collision, but that's not what I asked.

And whether it is consistent with such a collision or not isn't all that clear to me. If the list is due to an ingress of water, it wouldn't be immediately after a collision. Furthermore, the ship had been noticeably listing starboard for some time per this witness's account, which could be coincidental but perhaps not. (The coincidence is easily explained by the bow visor theory, since the water would flow into the low side, further increasing the list.)

So, again, did anyone actually say that they believed it was a collision on the starboard side or did you misspeak when you said that they did?
 
Vixen said:
Swedish navy divers. They have the equipment.
Click to expand...

Where can I learn about this? Were they assisting in the investigation or was the Navy itself investigating, as you said? Citation, please and thanks.
 
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...

Well, what sort of protection would a sub escort provide then? If they weren't expecting a ruthless attack, then what sort of calamity would be prevented by a submarine?
 
Well, I have completed a thorough analysis of all of Vixen's competing and contradictory theories, statements and comments in this thread. In the end result they seem to all cancel each other out and lead to the startling conclusion that a vessel called the MV Estonia never sank. In fact, this vessel, and all the persons claimed to have been aboard, may have never even existed at all. It is all actually a very elaborate ruse conducted by the governments of Russia, Sweden, the USA, the UK, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Peru, New Zealand, Vanuatu, India, and several others, along with NATO, KADS, and SMERSH, and orchestrated by our very own Vixen, to cover up what they were really doing. Unfortunately, what they were really doing will never be publicly known because the ruse was completely successful. And is still going strong to this very day with the assistance of all the innocent suckers participating in the misdirection perpetuated in this very thread!


You're welcome.
 
Vixen said:
Russia had no jurisdiction, military power or authority in Estonia in 1994.
Click to expand...

You mean like how they had no jurisdiction, military power, or authority in Georgia, or Crimea?

Seems like there was a pro-Russian infrastructure in those places and other former Communist-Block countries. But whatever.:rolleyes:
 
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...

Nothing about this accident suggests Spetsnaz.

If Spetsnaz had been onboard Estonia they would have recovered their stolen state secret Maguffin, and the team that had stolen it would have gone over the side. The Estonia would have reached port, and the Spetsnaz team would have driven to a safehouse and laid low until they could return to MOTHER Russia.
 
Axxman300 said:
But it does tell you if there was another ship in the area. A submarine on the surface would show up on radar, and had one collided with Estonia it would have stayed on the surface.
Click to expand...


Wouldn’t it need to leave the surface to strike the Estonia above the water line?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom