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

[Stamuel]

Faking a few documents to get back some cargo is hardly a deterrent to the USA, the Brits and the Swedes. This was political. It was sending a message. That is what terrorism and war is about. It's not about sending a stern letter, which it had already done twice to diplomats, including MI6. It was 'You had two warnings.'

This is exactly right. In international relations, the generally accepted rule is: two written warnings, then then the murder of 852 civilians.

And of course, the standard response when an enemy power murders 852 civilians is: nothing (other than helping the enemy cover up their crime).

This is such obvious stuff. Don't the rest of you understand how governments work?

 

[Andy_Ross]

There is evidence of explosives. See Brian Braidwood and now Professors Westermann and Ulfversson.

No. We went through this in detail already, there is no evidence for explosives.

 

[Vixen]

Of course they were getting ready to leave, the ship was sinking in a storm.

Isn't it your contention that the man with the tattoo is one of the supposed hijackers?

he didn't get away did he?

I said nothing of the kind. His body is on the bridge and nobody knows who he is. The JAIC showed no interest in noting who was on duty on the bridge (at least, not for public consumption).

 

[Andy_Ross]

There is evidence of explosives. See Brian Braidwood and now Professors Westermann and Ulfversson.

No. We went through this in detail already, there is no evidence for explosives.

Most importantly no one saw or heard explosions.

 

[Vixen]

This is the metal that was deformed by it's misuse and had been welded?

Was the part forged?

How hot is a welder?

What do you think over stressing a metal part does to it?

Maybe you should mansplain all of this to Professor Ida Westermann as I m sure all of this has never crossed her dumb air-filled head.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From TURUN SANOMAT today:



They certainly would not waste money on this unless there was a reasonable prospect of success.

Where are the official government statements that say they are going to do this?

How will they tell what is there in the jumbled mess of wreckage that will be in the car deck?

How will they get in among it to do this?

the ship went down stern first after turning on it's beam, all the vehicles will be jammed together in a tangled mess and will have decades of corrosion and sea life encrusting them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I said nothing of the kind. His body is on the bridge and nobody knows who he is. The JAIC showed no interest in noting who was on duty on the bridge (at least, not for public consumption).

So why mention him so often?

Would you blow up a ship you were traveling on in a storm?

 

[Vixen]

Because that was done with such precision and finesse.

Not many spies show such highbrow cultural inclinations, eh? People from a communist country coming to see an old English church with the highest steeple in Europe, eh? Not many Brits go to that trouble.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have never claimed to be an expert either so your grandstanding is just your blowing hard. Come off your high horse.

You've never made the specific statement "I am an expert in X", that is true.

However, you have made repeated declarative statements that you have confidently stated as accurate. You have infact stated confidently that you know how science is done, how scientists think and how you yourself are a scientist. You even stated as fact that Putin was head of the KGb and the Russian replacement service. You've made confident declarations as to what the Russian secret service would, could and indeed did do.

You have essentially stated that you are a small housepet that meows, catches mice, has whiskers and eats meat and fish, but then get offended when someone asks you if you're claiming to be a cat because of course you've not claimed that you're a cat.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Maybe you should mansplain all of this to Professor Ida Westermann as I m sure all of this has never crossed her dumb air-filled head.

Your flailing really is pathetic.

 

[Vixen]

At the start of the thread you said it was an escorting Swedish sub that sank the ferry by accident.

You've come a long way since then.

There could well have been a submarine involved as many people reported a collision. Kurm, who has insider knowledge, certainly does. And you know, there was a new Swedish prototype brought out that year that came out the following year instead, without any mention of the earlier one...

 

[Kid Eager]

Maybe you should mansplain all of this to Professor Ida Westermann as I m sure all of this has never crossed her dumb air-filled head.

You mean the Professor, who despite her expertise in the field and close examination of the material did NOT draw the conclusion that explosives were used? *That* Professor Westermann?

 

[Andy_Ross]

There could well have been a submarine involved as many people reported a collision. Kurm, who has insider knowledge, certainly does. And you know, there was a new Swedish prototype brought out that year that came out the following year instead, without any mention of the earlier one...

So now you are back to the Swedish sub and not the Russian bombs?

 

[Vixen]

Loosen a pipe flange on a sea cock.
I would choose the return pipe from one of the engine coolers, that way you have huge pumps forcing the water in to the ship as long as there is power.
A ship like the Estonia would probably be using seawater pumps of around 2000 cubic meters an hour.
That would be 2000 tons of water in to the ship multiplied by the number of engines.
Then I would move on to the return pipes for the generating plant, that would be another 3 or 4 pushing out 200 cubic meters an hour or so.

If I couldn't get in to the engine room I would break the fire main. That would be putting around 500 cubic meters an hour in to the ship.
That's probably the easiest way to do it. You could just open the fire hose valves then disable them to stop them being closed. I would do it on as many valves as I could find.

Most ship sinkings are caused by broken seawater pipes on engine coolant systems.

Not really so easy when you have a team of engineers and motormen checking everything is all right and the monitors and walkie talkie messages are automatically also on view in the control room. Plus, who has keys to which section is limited.

If there was a problem with the ventilation pipes the JAIC should have investigated the various alternatives. However, it looked only at the bow visor.

 

[Vixen]

How is that the same as being caught in a blast?

In a blast people tend to go deaf momentarily. It is by no means permanent.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How do you know? Hearing loss can take years to become apparent.

Hearing loss due to long term exposure to high noise levels can develop over years. Hearing loss due to standing inside a metal box next to a bomb is immediate.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why would a skilled military operator use a truck bomb? The Russians are not 'amateur hour' jihadis as was the case in USS Cole, when a couple of guys laden with suicide vests rammed a small boat loaded with 700lbs of explosives into it.



There is finesse and there is bull in a chain shop. Do you think the speznats are the latter?

Nobody used a truck bomb but that wasn't the point. Your claim that the Russians couldn't have got a truck aboard because they couldn't manage the paperwork is hilariously silly.

 

[Vixen]

This is exactly right. In international relations, the generally accepted rule is: two written warnings, then then the murder of 852 civilians.

And of course, the standard response when an enemy power murders 852 civilians is: nothing (other than helping the enemy cover up their crime).

This is such obvious stuff. Don't the rest of you understand how governments work?

Think about it. Person A is carrying stolen military equipment of a foreign state on his passenger coach. The coach is sabotaged after several warnings by that foreign power to cease and desist. People get hurt.

Question: is Person A vicariously liable for putting his passengers' safety at risk?

If your loved one was one of the passengers would you consider suing Person A or is the fault 100% the foreign power?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not really so easy when you have a team of engineers and motormen checking everything is all right and the monitors and walkie talkie messages are automatically also on view in the control room. Plus, who has keys to which section is limited.

If there was a problem with the ventilation pipes the JAIC should have investigated the various alternatives. However, it looked only at the bow visor.

Merely a demonstration of how easy it is to sink a ship.

No bombs needed.

If your theory is right and someone shot the captain, why would it be any more difficult to shoot whoever was on watch in the engine room?

How would you stop the crew checking the ship from finding your bombs?

 

[Vixen]

No. We went through this in detail already, there is no evidence for explosives.

Most importantly no one saw or heard explosions.

They have analysed actual samples of metal from the bow visor. The Swedish government six months after Westermann is now also analysing it. So let's see if they get the same results, which of course they will as it is a science in which results can be replicated empirically.