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

[whoanellie]

Nt

 

[LondonJohn]

The only connection between the Estonia and 9/11 is the involvement of the CIA and information being unnecessarily made 'classified'. I find it interesting that you label the relatives of the deceased in 9/11 'conspiracy-theory nutters' as it shows not only a knee-jerk reaction to anyone with a contrary view to the 'given wisdom' as it were but also a deep contempt for the loved ones of the victims the right to understand why their lives were cut short. I don't know enough about 9/11 to comment. Each case should be determined on its own merits.

Your attitude is rather like someone deciding that 'all vegans must be green-voting lefties [add all kinds of additional stereotypes]' which portrays a laziness in thinking, prejudice and a narrow mind, not to mention fallacious reasoning because it should be obvious that not all people who question the cause of mass fatality accidents are 'conspiracy theory nutters'. That contemptuous sneering attitude says more about you than about them.

Reminds me of Alf Garnett calling labour voters 'long-haired gits'.

Umm..... firstly, please try to wean yourself off these entirely improper and out-of-place appeals to emotion. This has now been raised to you several times in this thread alone.

Secondly, if there are relatives of those who died on 9/11 who believe that their loved ones were killed because (for example) the US Government was behind the operation, well yes: they're conspiracy theorists. Although I'd hesitate to label this specific group with the "nutters" modifier, on account of their understandable vulnerability. I'd reserve that label for those who are the primary drivers of these conspiracy theories - and I'm moved to disgust towards those who seek to exploit the grief and vulnerability of relatives etc in order to "recruit them to the cause".

And as I said before wrt the Estonia disaster: the families of the victims - along with everyone else connected with the accident - already know what happened. There was an official investigation, and an official report. This investigation/report took a wholly-dispassionate view of all the available evidence (and lack of evidence where relevant), and came to the correct conclusion. Just as the official 9/11 report came to the correct conclusion.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Swedish government of 1994 - 2020 did label documents 'classified' and even prevented the Estonian members of the JAIC (who were nominally its appointed 'Head' [Meister, Kurm]) access to film of the wreck. Survivors were denied seeing their own witness statements. The bow visor has been unavailable for viewing until now.

You really do not get that the new evidence of the starboard rupture changes everything.

It's like a kid clinging onto the belief of Father Christmas well into late childhood because it cannot accept that Mummy and Daddy were actually lying.

LOL. More Kool-Aid, Vicar?

 

[LondonJohn]

You would be hard-pressed to find anyone more 'establishment' than myself.

Well this is one of the most bizarre non-sequitur "responses" in this whole thread. And it's up against some pretty stiff competition.

 

[Vixen]

Umm..... firstly, please try to wean yourself off these entirely improper and out-of-place appeals to emotion. This has now been raised to you several times in this thread alone.

Secondly, if there are relatives of those who died on 9/11 who believe that their loved ones were killed because (for example) the US Government was behind the operation, well yes: they're conspiracy theorists. Although I'd hesitate to label this specific group with the "nutters" modifier, on account of their understandable vulnerability. I'd reserve that label for those who are the primary drivers of these conspiracy theories - and I'm moved to disgust towards those who seek to exploit the grief and vulnerability of relatives etc in order to "recruit them to the cause".

And as I said before wrt the Estonia disaster: the families of the victims - along with everyone else connected with the accident - already know what happened. There was an official investigation, and an official report. This investigation/report took a wholly-dispassionate view of all the available evidence (and lack of evidence where relevant), and came to the correct conclusion. Just as the official 9/11 report came to the correct conclusion.

And you know that how? Someone here said that many of the 9/11 brigade are themselves engineers and architects. Has it never occurred to you that they might actually have an intelligent interest in the issue of buildings and structures which drew them to those occupations and course of study int he first place. It is disgraceful to tar them all with the brush of 'exploiting vulnerable people'. You will find that type of person in all walks of life.

You are woefully ignorant if you believe the JAIC had a view of all of the available evidence. That is patently not true. Why do you think ex-Transport Minister Meister and ex-Chief Prosecutor Kurm resigned as JAIC head? Even Finland's Lehtola wanted to carry out his own private radioactivity test on the vessel.

The Rockwater video was heavily edited and only about two and a half hours IIRC of it was made available by the Swedes to the Finns and the Estonians.

The Fokus (survivors representatives) are appealing for an internationally neutral body to now carry out a new investigation as clearly Sweden had a conflict of interest in sharing information with the other members of the Accident Investigation Committee.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry to sound sarcastic but did you really believe the bow visor fell off 'because of a few strong waves'?

One can see how and why Lychencko was so successful for so long.

Did you miss the area in this thread where the whole "a few strong waves" was safely put to bed?

As a recap: the official report neither claimed nor implied that it was only these few strong waves that caused the bow visor bottom lock to fail. The report merely stated that this was the condition which was the final straw.

Do you remember when I likened it to the "straw that broke the camel's back" saying? Maybe think about this for a few minutes, and it all might then finally become apparent to you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And you know that how? Someone here said that many of the 9/11 brigade are themselves engineers and architects. Has it never occurred to you that they might actually have an intelligent interest in the issue of buildings and structures which drew them to those occupations and course of study int he first place. It is disgraceful to tar them all with the brush of 'exploiting vulnerable people'. You will find that type of person in all walks of life.

There is an entire forum dedicated to 9/11. We don't need to rehash it's contents here.

If you want to discuss the 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' take it there.

 

[LondonJohn]

Apparently, nobody is allowed to question 9/11 investigations for fear of being called a 'conspiracy-theory nutter' by LondonJohn, who claims to have special powers of perception.

Oh my word. Here we go again.

(And by-the-by, what level of engagement/endorsement do you think I should give to people who claim that (eg) the US Govt brought down the Twin Towers itself? Should I embrace these sorts of theories with equivalent credence that I give to the official report?)

 

[Vixen]

Oh my word. Here we go again.

(And by-the-by, what level of engagement/endorsement do you think I should give to people who claim that (eg) the US Govt brought down the Twin Towers itself? Should I embrace these sorts of theories with equivalent credence that I give to the official report?)

YOU were the one who scurrilously tried to claim that those people requesting a new investigation for the Estonia accident were the same as the '9/11 conspiracy-theory nutters'.

This attitude shows utter contempt for the relatives of the victims and the survivors as well as dismissing them all with one sweeping generalisation and portraying yourself as the arbiter as to whether they have any right to ask questions.

You just do not get that in this case there is new evidence on enough legal basis for the three sovereign nations to have changed the law to allow a new investigation. This is not at all equivalent of 'declassifying one or two papers after 20 years', You really cannot comprehend that this issue has zero to do with grape seed extract or woo.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are woefully ignorant if you believe the JAIC had a view of all of the available evidence. That is patently not true. Why do you think ex-Transport Minister Meister and ex-Chief Prosecutor Kurm resigned as JAIC head? Even Finland's Lehtola wanted to carry out his own private radioactivity test on the vessel.

The Rockwater video was heavily edited and only about two and a half hours IIRC of it was made available by the Swedes to the Finns and the Estonians.

The Fokus (survivors representatives) are appealing for an internationally neutral body to now carry out a new investigation as clearly Sweden had a conflict of interest in sharing information with the other members of the Accident Investigation Committee.

Ah, but you see, it's you who is "woefully ignorant" here.

In established accident investigation mechanisms - most notably those carried out by the various official air accident investigation groups - there's a system of protocols that works (by now) extremely efficiently and effectively: the "host country" outfit is in overall charge, and publishes the interim & final reports. And where other countries send their own investigators to be part of the team (eg the US NTSC always sends one or two representatives if the aircraft was built by a US manufacturer such as Boeing), they understand from the start that they will be working under the overall command of the "host country" group.

In this Estonia investigation, two things seem clear: firstly, a multinational investigative team was put together from scratch, meaning that there were no established protocols; and secondly, there was obvious friction within this multinational team, which was very likely to have been related to things like team hierarchy and dissemination of information.

There's absolutely no need to assume/suspect that the friction and fallouts among this investigation team were in any way indicative of malevolent goings-on regarding things such as the suppression of the "true" cause of the disaster. Rather, it sounds to me as if the Swedes simply got fed up with the internal tensions, and decided - with the aim of actually getting things done properly and within a reasonable timescale - to more-or-less go it alone.

 

[Axxman300]

The only connection between the Estonia and 9/11 is the involvement of the CIA and information being unnecessarily made 'classified'. I find it interesting that you label the relatives of the deceased in 9/11 'conspiracy-theory nutters' as it shows not only a knee-jerk reaction to anyone with a contrary view to the 'given wisdom' as it were but also a deep contempt for the loved ones of the victims the right to understand why their lives were cut short. I don't know enough about 9/11 to comment. Each case should be determined on its own merits.

First, the CIA has nothing to do with the Estonia disaster in any way.

Second, families of victims are not exempt from being called nutjobs if they embrace nutjob theories. The bow visor of Estonia was knocked loose and knocked off by large waves causing it to sink. The captain and the crew failed to take basic actions which any responsible ship's crew would do in that situation. It wasn't Russians, it wasn't a submarine, there was no fire, no sea mine, no hijacking.

Some of the families have been sucked into the delusional world of a German "journalist" who had her credentials revoked for unethical practices. Every big event has it's Mark Lane, Geraldo Rivera, or Richard Gage.

 

[Axxman300]

Sorry to sound sarcastic but did you really believe the bow visor fell off 'because of a few strong waves'?

One can see how and why Lychencko was so successful for so long.

It certainly did get knocked off by large waves,

The man you quote as an expert is actually a hack if he believes otherwise. There is zero evidence of explosive charges being used to block the visor off.

 

[Axxman300]

Apparently, nobody is allowed to question 9/11 investigations for fear of being called a 'conspiracy-theory nutter' by LondonJohn, who claims to have special powers of perception.

If their questions are without merit, yes they are conspiracy theory loons.

 

[Axxman300]

YOU were the one who scurrilously tried to claim that those people requesting a new investigation for the Estonia accident were the same as the '9/11 conspiracy-theory nutters'.

This attitude shows utter contempt for the relatives of the victims and the survivors as well as dismissing them all with one sweeping generalisation and portraying yourself as the arbiter as to whether they have any right to ask questions.

You just do not get that in this case there is new evidence on enough legal basis for the three sovereign nations to have changed the law to allow a new investigation. This is not at all equivalent of 'declassifying one or two papers after 20 years', You really cannot comprehend that this issue has zero to do with grape seed extract or woo.

There is no "new evidence".

Some CT guy used an ROV to confirm a rupture on the starboard side of the ship which was reported to him by a diver who'd found it earlier. The video shows a stress fracture along the seem of the hull plates. The fact that it has been almost thirty years since the ship sank played a large part in the decision to allow access to the wreck.

So now there are two competing expeditions going on. As will all CTs, and you have very much embraced a conspiracy theory, those advancing the nonsense will probably not like the answers when the work is done.

 

[phiwum]

Vixen often raises the "few strong waves" ********. It's worth noting that JAIC actually estimated the number of hours Estonia operated in significant waves. See this section on the history of Estonia operating in waves.

Vixen also says that JAIC claimed Estonia was seaworthy. I don't know where she gets that information. The most relevant passage I've found is Section 3.2.10 about the maintenance history. Main points I noticed:

Individuals concerned with maintenance of the ship during the various periods of her life have generally expressed satisfaction with the vessel as a sound and trouble-free one.

The last inspection [May 1994] did not give rise to any remarks.

Minor on-board repairs of cracks in the ramp locking devi-ces were reported a couple of times. Damage to a visor hinge pin was once repaired at the Finnboda yard in Stockholm. For further details regarding damage of the bow visor and the ramp, see 3.3.6.

Now, of course, I don't really think JAIC would claim the ferry was seaworthy. It had been, what, five months since the last inspection? And even if less time had elapsed, surely, one can report that she passed the inspection with no remarks, but not that she is "seaworthy".

So, Vixen, did JAIC literally claim Estonia was seaworthy on that day? If so, where? It's a big document and I haven't read it all, so help me out here.

 

[LondonJohn]

YOU were the one who scurrilously tried to claim that those people requesting a new investigation for the Estonia accident were the same as the '9/11 conspiracy-theory nutters'.

I did nothing of the sort.

I used 9/11 - and the US Govt's decision to release the case files - as a comparator example to the Swedes allowing certain groups to see the Estonia evidence. And I did so to point out to you that you're wrong in your assertion that the action of the Swedes somehow necessarily indicates that there are flaws with the original official findings. Sheesh.

This attitude shows utter contempt for the relatives of the victims and the survivors as well as dismissing them all with one sweeping generalisation and portraying yourself as the arbiter as to whether they have any right to ask questions.

Yeah, uh: no and no.

You just do not get that in this case there is new evidence on enough legal basis for the three sovereign nations to have changed the law to allow a new investigation. This is not at all equivalent of 'declassifying one or two papers after 20 years', You really cannot comprehend that this issue has zero to do with grape seed extract or woo.

I can comprehend the situation perfectly well, thanks. And modifying a treaty to reopen an investigation is not "changing the law". Oh and the "new evidence" is nothing more (or less) than the ship shifting on the seabed to reveal the damage which the hull sustained when the ship first hit the seabed when it sank (as well as revealing the area of the seabed that the ship originally impacted).

 

[junkshop]

Junkshop reenters the thread, having watched the 'Fokus Estonia' press conference. He looks up from the sheaf of notes he had prepared on the many questions he had about the presentation and it's authors.

As his eyes adjust to the dancing, guttering light of several fires scattered about the blasted landscape, and he hears the feeble moans of logic tortured beyond reason, the sickening shapes of facts torn asunder, and ground beneath the misshapen hooves of wild speculation come into focus.

He backs away, at first slowly, but his speed increasing with the overwhelming need to escape this hellish perversion of current affairs. It is nigh on impossible for his feet to gain purchase on the greasy, shifting surface of contradictory claims, and more than once he stumbles against the forgotten carcass of a mini-sub or the bones of an abandoned torpedo.

At last the ground beneath his feet becomes firmer, the air clearer, and he vows to himself that he will never return to that forsaken place. Never, despite the questions that were never answered, regardless of the preversions inflicted on innocent scientific principles.

Never.

He would remain strong. He would, as the poet said "let it go". He would....

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Sorry to sound sarcastic but did you really believe the bow visor fell off 'because of a few strong waves'?

One can see how and why Lychencko was so successful for so long.

Lysenko, as I correctly wrote in the following post you did not adequately address:

No see, you've missed my point yet again. At this stage I really have to wonder if it's deliberate.

If it isn't, let me break down this wall'o'text "response" to my point and show you where you go wrong. Multiple times.


Firstly the specifics of the error are not the point. I picked something that was obvious because it's one of the things I know about Finland that I knew there would be absolutely no controversy over.

The point is that you are treating Bjorkman, who is no longer a respected engineer, the same way the fictional person in my hypothetical treats Jonsson. This person is an expert, therefore he is right.

Of course it gets worse if you actually know anything about how badly Bjorkman mangles engineering in support of his lunatic theories. He does the equivalent of claiming that the Finns speak Flemish on a regular basis. In some ways it's worse than the hypothetical because at least Flemish is a real language.


Again you've missed the point. I'm directly comparing your attitude towards Bjorkman, whose failures in his crackpot theories rely on him not being a competent engineer.

Someone quoting Icke as an expert on the Royal family does almost exactly the same thing that you are doing with Bjorkman. The only real difference is that Bjorkman was at one point actually capable (presumably).

Nope. I know exactly the example you are using and you have it exactly wrong. Specifically you have it completely the wrong way around.

What actually happened with Lysenko is that Stalin wasn't happy with the theory of evolution because it had been discovered by a decadent Westerner and not a noble Soviet. So when a crackpot called Lysenko suggested an alternate theory of Evolution, despite it being totally insane and very, very wrong, Stalin jumped all over it like white on rice because it was a SOVIET idea. He wasn't regarded as right because he was the establishment, he was pushed into being the establishment because Stalin was a total lunatic.

Please, stop trying to talk about Soviet history when you clearly know little about it. It's getting embarrassing now.


Nope. He's a deluded weirdo. You seem to forget that many in this thread, myself included, have actually TALKED to this guy. He used to post here until he got banned. He was 100% totally serious with his physics defying abuses of engineering. He's a crackpot. He fails as an engineer. He's not an authority on anything.



Assuming multiple facts not in evidence. Are you now claiming that the CIA helped cover up...whatever it was that happened with the Estonia?

No, but again you're missing the point. We aren't claiming Anders Bjorkman is wrong on Engineering because his knowledge of and abuse of cooking (or something equally irrelevant) is wrong, we are claiming his ideas on engineering are wrong because he has a track record, including on this very forum, of being spectacularly, indefensibly wrong on engineering.

Speaking of posts that you ran away from

I don't want you flitting to another topic before answering me Vixen.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen often raises the "few strong waves" ********. It's worth noting that JAIC actually estimated the number of hours Estonia operated in significant waves. See this section on the history of Estonia operating in waves.

Vixen also says that JAIC claimed Estonia was seaworthy. I don't know where she gets that information. The most relevant passage I've found is Section 3.2.10 about the maintenance history. Main points I noticed:




Now, of course, I don't really think JAIC would claim the ferry was seaworthy. It had been, what, five months since the last inspection? And even if less time had elapsed, surely, one can report that she passed the inspection with no remarks, but not that she is "seaworthy".

So, Vixen, did JAIC literally claim Estonia was seaworthy on that day? If so, where? It's a big document and I haven't read it all, so help me out here.

The last inspection was September 1994 as per section 3.6.4 of the JAIC report:

Bureau Veritas carried out the first load line survey at the time of delivery of the vessel. The compliance with the load line convention requirements was verified at the stipulated annual surveys and the five-year periodic surveys. The load line certificate was renewed when the ship changed flag in January 1993. The last annual inspection for verification of the load line certificate was carried out on 9 September 1994.

There are claims that Estonia was actually barred from sailing the day of the accident. In Silver Linde's 2002 Helsinki [prison] interrogation the interrogator mentions a mysterious 'committee of men' having been seen arguing with the officials on the bridge. [To which Linde responds with his classic 'I know nuuuuthing' routine'].

 

[Vixen]

Junkshop reenters the thread, having watched the 'Fokus Estonia' press conference. He looks up from the sheaf of notes he had prepared on the many questions he had about the presentation and it's authors.

As his eyes adjust to the dancing, guttering light of several fires scattered about the blasted landscape, and he hears the feeble moans of logic tortured beyond reason, the sickening shapes of facts torn asunder, and ground beneath the misshapen hooves of wild speculation come into focus.

He backs away, at first slowly, but his speed increasing with the overwhelming need to escape this hellish perversion of current affairs. It is nigh on impossible for his feet to gain purchase on the greasy, shifting surface of contradictory claims, and more than once he stumbles against the forgotten carcass of a mini-sub or the bones of an abandoned torpedo.

At last the ground beneath his feet becomes firmer, the air clearer, and he vows to himself that he will never return to that forsaken place. Never, despite the questions that were never answered, regardless of the preversions inflicted on innocent scientific principles.

Never.

He would remain strong. He would, as the poet said "let it go". He would....

<sfx> A completely gratuitous round of 'Concrete and Clay' beneath my feet begin to crumble.