• 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.
Jack by the hedge said:
If Western intelligence agencies just wanted to get a peek at ex-Soviet hardware left behind in Estonia, I wonder why it never occurred to them to, you know, go to Estonia and maybe bribe whoever was guarding it instead of paying them to nick it and escort it to a ferry heading for Sweden. Not so intelligent after all, eh?
Click to expand...

NATO was doing that already at this time.

And we're still stealing Russian secrets and they're still stealing ours. Nobody is sinking ships over this.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Aha. So what you're saying is it wasn't a bow visor at all. It was a sooper seekrit rocket interceptor painted to look like the bow visor, and the Estonia sank because it was accidentally launched in mid voyage when the Estonia's combination ramp/blast shield wasn't locked in place.

Well that explains everything.
Click to expand...

Aha! I knew aliens would come into it somewhere... :cool:
 
Mojo said:
That’s why it crashed.
Click to expand...

The mini-sub was there to recover the flying sub from the seabed in case it crashed. Likewise the flying sub was there in case the mini-sub was following to close to the Estonia and a shudder caused her to ram her near the lettering on the hull/superstructure (god lets not argue that one again), which is clearly below the waterline despite the fact that it isn't. The pieces of the puzzle are really starting to fall in place.
 
lobosrul5 said:
The mini-sub was there to recover the flying sub from the seabed in case it crashed. Likewise the flying sub was there in case the mini-sub was following to close to the Estonia and a shudder caused her to ram her near the lettering on the hull/superstructure (god lets not argue that one again), which is clearly below the waterline despite the fact that it isn't. The pieces of the puzzle are really starting to fall in place.
Click to expand...

And the Swedes were at pains to cover all this up because reasons.
 
Mojo said:
It’s very obvious that all of this was covered up, otherwise there would be evidence for it.
Click to expand...


It's not the evil act itself which catches the perpetrators out in the end. It's not even the cover-up. It's the cover-up of the cover-up.
 
I refuse to study 20th Century Swedish history or the politics of the early 1990s of the Baltic States. Mostly because I don't have to, we're dealing with shipwreck, not a Gerard Butler action movie plot.

What I have learned is that at the time of the Estonia's construction up until the day she sank there was no universal standard for the bolt system which held the bow hood in place. The system was subcontracted out to a smaller company. And those locks worked just fine up until the night of the accident.

I have a background in Marine Science, and I understand how waves behave in combination with weather, a bathymetry. Unfortunately I'm not good at physics but I'm sure it's not hard to calculate the weight of the ship (16,000 tons + cargo), the force at her bow created by sailing at her top speed of 21 knots, and combining those numbers with that of the force of impact by large waves driven by high winds. I'm pretty sure someone already did this.

Then combine all that with the fact Estonia was sailing headlong into those waves for hours and the idea that the bow hood would be knocked loose, and fall off is in no way unbelievable.

All the other crap had nothing to do with the sinking. The investigation, the unwillingness of the Swedes to recover bodies, placing the shipwreck off limits is all just a side show.
 
Axxman300 said:
I refuse to study 20th Century Swedish history or the politics of the early 1990s of the Baltic States. Mostly because I don't have to, we're dealing with shipwreck, not a Gerard Butler action movie plot.

What I have learned is that at the time of the Estonia's construction up until the day she sank there was no universal standard for the bolt system which held the bow hood in place. The system was subcontracted out to a smaller company. And those locks worked just fine up until the night of the accident.

I have a background in Marine Science, and I understand how waves behave in combination with weather, a bathymetry. Unfortunately I'm not good at physics but I'm sure it's not hard to calculate the weight of the ship (16,000 tons + cargo), the force at her bow created by sailing at her top speed of 21 knots, and combining those numbers with that of the force of impact by large waves driven by high winds. I'm pretty sure someone already did this.

Then combine all that with the fact Estonia was sailing headlong into those waves for hours and the idea that the bow hood would be knocked loose, and fall off is in no way unbelievable.

All the other crap had nothing to do with the sinking. The investigation, the unwillingness of the Swedes to recover bodies, placing the shipwreck off limits is all just a side show.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the ship was not well maintained and already had a problem with the bow visor and had been butting in to those storm waves for over a decade.
 
I don't understand why the Swedes would involve themselves in a coverup when it is obvious that it was the Canadians who were behind the deed. Just like when they sank the Edmund Fitzgerald...
 
I HAVE studied 20th Century Baltic politics, as well as security studies and the Cold War and post Cold War former Soviet Union.

Which is why I keep asking Vixen, have you?
 
The only question that needs a new investigation is, why does everyone call it a visor rather than a fairing? Was the ship really a hat?
 
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...

Here you go.

The plots have not been analyzed by JAIC or other parties. Without any fact JAIC concluded the last voyage on a number of assumptions, such as departure time, route and speed. They didn't even bother to interrogate the second M/V Estonia crew to determine the normal route for the ship. As to the weather situation they assumed it to be worse than their own investigation proved, something that did not stop them from stating that the weather situation was extreme during the last voyage.

From various sources, not used in this report as evidence, we have got information that M/V Estonia's normal route from Tallinn was through the north exit, not through the west bound exit as JAIC assumed. After leaving the north exit a north west course was set to join the other ships in the traffic separation zone, following the same in an almost westerly course. The reason was mainly a safety matter as they then followed the zone together with the other ships and thereby they never had to cross the traffic zone in mid night and unfavorable angle (not permitted/recommended). But it is also true that M/V Estonia used two alternative routs, one called the "South route" and one called the "North route". See the following picture.

The both M/V Estonia routes (green arrows) had in common the north exit in and out from Tallinn. Both routes also followed the traffic separation zone and the other ships (blue and red arrows) in the Gulf of Finland. The South route was heading for Stockholm via Sandhamn, and the North route also heading for Stockholm was via the north entry at Söderarm. When M/V Estonia on route from Tallinn should use the South route they had to alter the course to avoid meeting the fleet from Stockholm to Finland in a small and dangerous angle. Therefore they followed the traffic separation zone to the south (south west of Hangö) before changing course towards Sandhamn.
Click to expand...
privat. bahnhof


Re the ship's watch it is in the JAIC report that the personnel on the bridge - the senior officers - changed watch at 1:00am. EET.

Seaman Silver Linde claims he saw Captain Andresson walking up the stairs in on front of him just ahead of this time, although I don't know why Linde went to pains to state this (maybe he was asked) and I disbelieve everything he says anyway.

- at 01.00 hours the officers changed watched on the bridge and that had already taken place when he returned to the bridge;
Click to expand...

From one of Linde's interviews with the JAIC.
 

Attachments

  • altcourse.jpeg
    altcourse.jpeg
    49.8 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom