Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[abaddon]

When Vixen indulges in these evidence-free "factoids" that she's either a) read on a CT website about the case, and hasn't bothered to check the veracity/credibility/reliability of the claim for herself (because the "factoid" fits her agenda), or b) made up entirely out of whole cloth...... it makes a mockery of the debate/discussion frankly.

I called her out on another one today: the one where she claimed that all the survivors were "treated as potential suspects" in the hours after they were rescued, and that they were sequestered and prevented from having undocumented conversations with anyone else. I suspect that Vixen gleaned this particular piece of arrant nonsense from one or other of the CT websites.

Yeah, that was strange. The survivors were treated as suspects? Really? Sequestered? Really?

Having been in ICU, I know there is zero chance of a journo getting an interview or even entering one. Not even family is allowed in. Watching the dead getting wheeled out is both depressing and scary.

 

[JesseCuster]

3.4 thousand. Only one in five Swedes.

Ooops. Well spotted.

 

[Vixen]

Of course you don't. You like to post hypothetical, but don't dare show your own thinking.



From the final report:


How do you know that JAIC never investigated the possibility of sabotage? They say that the final report only include what actually had contributed to the accident.

Do you have any documents or reports from JAIC members where they are specifically forbidden to investigate that aspect? Any whistlelblowers?

A whole sleuth of them. The Estonian side of the JAIC claimed they had information withheld from them. Look up Werner Hummel, investigator for the ship builders Meyer-Werft. Look up ex-Royal Navy military and explosives expert Robin Braidwood, Professor Ulfversson, Professor Ida Westermann, etcetera.

 

[Matthew Best]

A whole slewth of them.

A what now?

 

[Vixen]

You do realise that words have meanings? Just read what you write before posting. Jeez.

That was their preliminary report in the long three years it took for them to bring out the final report, not a thing changed, even though they had had their attention drawn to the breach in the starboard.


In business, we call it 'change management' (management of expectations). For example, you don't tell the work force straight out that they are being made redundant, you start by putting out a subtle hint (a 'trigger') and then you start an education and consultation process.

This is what the JAIC did here. It was decided immediately this was top level highly classified material and a decision taken to present the whole thing as The Herald of Free Enterprise Mk II, and to this end there was a press statement by Bildt to say the bow visor had come off and seawater flooded the car deck, when all Sillaste - a relatively lowly fourth engineer - had witnessed was water coming in at the sides of the bow ramp (which, it transpired was not unusual in rainy weather on that vessel). Next step, the JAIC to put out a preliminary statement announcing what they will be finding.

Leave a long time gap to make it look as though you have been really really busy, when the meetings were barely minuted, then bring out the final report - same as the first one - job done.

Next, the Swedish government in response to the ensuing outcry, set up a 'Ministry of Information' to educate and consult with people who did not believe the report. The archives include hundreds of illustrations of the bow visor and calculations of the nuts and bolts, yet their simulations defy the laws of Archimedes Principle, because to get to their [preordained] 'conclusions' they had to adopt a hypothetical scenario of this 15,000 tonne vessel floating on its superstructure for an appreciable amount of time, instead of turtling.


It is no surprise that nobody at all believes the JAIC report, except for a small number of people on a forum.

 

[LondonJohn]

A whole slewth of them. The Estonian side of the JAIC claimed they had information withheld from them. Look up Werner Hummel, investigator for the ship builders Meyer-Werft. Look up ex-Royal Navy military and explosives expert Robin Braidwood, Professor Ulfversson, Professor Ida Westermann, etcetera.

So your answer to the actual question you were asked* is "No".

What you've chosen to provide instead is uncorroborated (and undocumented) claims, plus stuff to do with people who are not only totally unconnected to the JAIC investigation & report, but who are in fact vested in trying their hardest to find a "cause" of the disaster which absolves the designer and constructor of the ship from any blame.


* To remind you, that question was: "Do you have any documents or reports from JAIC members where they are specifically forbidden to investigate that aspect? Any whistlelblowers?"

 

[Vixen]

So they were prevented from talking to outsiders, except when they told the police who they were talking to and the police could listen in they were allowed. And you think somehow that means nobody could learn anything they were saying and pass it on to higher authorities. I wonder if it's possible the police took note of anything they were saying. What do you think?

No witness at all is reported as having seen the bow visor fall off, so where did Bildt get it from? Not from a survivor.

 

[LondonJohn]

A what now?

Perhaps it means "a large collection of sloths".

Which, in a way, would be apt in this context........

 

[LondonJohn]

That was their preliminary report in the long three years it took for them to bring out the final report, not a thing changed, even though they had had their attention drawn to the breach in the starboard.

1. What inspired you to insert the pejorative "long" before "three years"? What exactly are you implying by your deliberate choice of that adjective?

2. If they had all the evidence they needed by the time of the preliminary report to form the provisional conclusion that the cause of the sinking was the failure of the bow visor and bow ramp..... and then they spent more time following the release of the preliminary findings examining everything in more depth and making sure they'd covered off every possibility..... and after that they concluded that there really was nothing other than the bow opening failures that caused the disaster......

.....then it stands to reason that their final report would tally closely with their preliminary report.

You seem to be insinuating that the JAIC spent most of the time in-between the interim and final reports either a) twiddling their thumbs (having already made their minds up that they knew the cause and there was no point investigating further) or b) actively suppressing investigation into the types of sinister CT bollocks that you believe were the "real" cause.

You obviously have no experience of accident/disaster reports, and you don't know what you're talking about.

3) Explain to us exactly how/when the JAIC investigators/report authors "had their attention drawn to the breach in the starboard", please. With particular attention paid to the "when" part.

In business, we call it 'change management' (management of expectations). For example, you don't tell the work force straight out that they are being made redundant, you start by putting out a subtle hint (a 'trigger') and then you start an education and consultation process.

Oh. Right. Yes, this is relevant. LMAOOOOOO.

This is, well, I really don't know how to even approach telling you how wrong and irrelevant you're being here. Suffice it to say though that you're employing the intellectually-dishonest practice of firstly assuming a fact not in evidence then criticising the JAIC for not following your prescribed procedure (which isn't even remotely applicable in the context of an accident/disaster investigation anyway LOL) based on your prior (incorrect) assumption.

Even for you Vixen, that's an impressive low!

This is what the JAIC did here. It was decided immediately this was top level highly classified material and a decision taken to present the whole thing as The Herald of Free Enterprise Mk II, and to this end there was a press statement by Bildt to say the bow visor had come off and seawater flooded the car deck, when all Sillaste - a relatively lowly fourth engineer - had witnessed was water coming in at the sides of the bow ramp (which, it transpired was not unusual in rainy weather on that vessel). Next step, the JAIC to put out a preliminary statement announcing what they will be finding.

Leave a long time gap to make it look as though you have been really really busy, when the meetings were barely minuted, then bring out the final report - same as the first one - job done.

Next, the Swedish government in response to the ensuing outcry, set up a 'Ministry of Information' to educate and consult with people who did not believe the report. The archives include hundreds of illustrations of the bow visor and calculations of the nuts and bolts, yet their simulations defy the laws of Archimedes Principle, because to get to their [preordained] 'conclusions' they had to adopt a hypothetical scenario of this 15,000 tonne vessel floating on its superstructure for an appreciable amount of time, instead of turtling.


It is no surprise that nobody at all believes the JAIC report, except for a small number of people on a forum.

This is total and utter bat guano. It's a sinister fairy tale, pulled out of thin air by you and your fellow CT travellers, entirely free of any (reliable, credible) supporting evidence, burnished and embellished via a toxic combination of ignorant misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation. It's deeply, unequivocally crazy.

 

[LondonJohn]

No witness at all is reported as having seen the bow visor fall off, so where did Bildt get it from? Not from a survivor.

You sure about that "fact", Vixen?

(Hint: you're wrong)


(Note also that it's not necessary for someone to have actually directly seen the bow visor as it physically detached from the ship and drifted away & sank.... for them to have seen the consequences of the bow visor's detachment and inferred - correctly - that the bow visor must have come detached. Such as, say, a crew member seeing a) the bow ramp in an unnatural and damaged part-open position, and water pouring round each side of the compromised bow ramp.....)

 

[Vixen]

Exactly as he said. Two days later. And not "two weeks later" as you'd originally claimed.

You're still pathologically unable to admit to being wrong, I note.....






Yeah.....no. You clearly know nothing whatsoever about Sonar imaging either. In fact, is there anything relevant to this disaster about which you are qualified to offer a properly-sourced, properly-researched, properly-understood and properly-reasoned opinion?






Because...... the bow visor was not actually anywhere near the ship when divers put physical eyes on the wreckage (as opposed to an imprecise and ambiguous Sonar image).






You're being stupid again. As I said: you clearly know nothing whatsoever about Sonar imaging (and specifically, its limitations and its inherent imprecision).

The bow visor was not recovered until almost three weeks later. We obviously knew where the wreck was for there to have been a sonar image in the first place.

Estonia visor found a nautical mile from the wreckage STT

19.10.1994 2:00

The detached bow visor of the accident vessel Estonia was found on Tuesday afternoon about a nautical mile, or less than two kilometres west of the wreckage of the vessel. The visor was found during the diagonal echo measurements of the sentry ship Tursas this afternoon.

Video footage taken by robotic cameras confirmed at 3:30 p.m. that it was a missing visor. The 55-tonne bow lies at a depth of 76 metres. The search for Visor involved the patrol ship Tursas and the Estonian patrol ship EVA-200.

In the evening, The Tursas continued to film the visor. The aim was to bring the tapes through Turku to Helsinki for analysis by experts today, Wednesday. The International Commission of Inquiry will then review the tapes and decide on the lifting of the visor.

HS

 

[Vixen]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *breathes* AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!


Tell us all a bit more about how the buoys could have been "automatically switched on by a quick-thinking member of the crew", Vixen.

We're in clown-school territory at this point, ladies and gentlemen.


(Oh and I hate to break it to you Vixen, but the EPIRBs on the Estonia did not feature an automatic activation feature. I know that may come as a big shock to you, and I offer you my condolences at this difficult time.)

From the mouth of JAIC itself, as reported 5.10.1994

According to the Commission's report, it has so far not been possible to point out any faults in the ramp fastening system that would explain why the ramp opened in the sea. Nor has it been yet been able to investigate the breach of the ship's distress signal lines. Estonia's aforesaid epirb buoy signal was not received at all. The investigation has not confirmed whether the buoys came off the ship at all or whether the severe list prevented them from coming off. The visor will be searched and lifted The bow ramp was hit hard Helsingin Sanomat

HS


Let's stick to the recorded facts, please, and not your ill-considered 'opinion' and 'alternative suggestion'.

 

[Vixen]

People tend to give themselves away embarrassingly when they pull "facts" like this straight out of their waste pipes. Although in this particular case of course, the "giving themselves away embarrassingly" part was already conclusively reached a long, long time ago.......

This is a fact as recorded in the popular public domain. That is, as reported by newspapers and main stream media.

Here in the nordic countries, entire villages know each other, or of each other. People keep a close eye on the obituaries column in the regional newspaper because they know who the people are even if only from a distance.


I completely believe 'a fifth of all Swedes knew someone who died in the disaster'. For example, it included a group of young mothers from one village, a group of engineers from one firm, seventy police officers from Stockholm. It is very easy to see that the degrees of freedom will intertwine with each other.

 

[Vixen]

No. That's the rule known as "Vixen's Bogus Razor".

Occam's Razor, on the other hand, tells us that Bildt almost certainly got the information about the bow visor via survivors - either directly, or via hospital/rescue staff, or via police or other first-line investigators.


"Swedish intelligence" LOLOLOL. Did it involve the captain of the mythical Swedish submarine which rammed the Estonia?

Seriously, Vixen: do you really not realise quite how crackpot your position is?

Bildt cannot have known the bow visor fell off on Day One, as none of the survivors reported this (the only survivor interviewed on the day of his announcement was Sillaste and all he said is what he saw on the engine control room monitor. The wreck was not located until two days later, a sonar image taken six days later. I believe the Swedish navy sent down a couple of divers on day 2, although I don't think they filmed anything. The bow visor was not found until 17/18 October 1994.

Yet by 5 October 1994, the JAIC put out its preliminary report, despite none of the senior officers on the bridge not having survived to testify.

Preliminary report by the Commission of Inquiry completed Estonia sinking began with the detachment of the visor SUBSCRIBERS Backman Nils-Eric 5.10.1994 2:00 The cause of the sinking of TURKU-Estonia has been confirmed by a devastating sequence of events. First the ship's visor was cut off, then the water leaked through the bow ramp to the car deck in the storm. When the car deck filled with water, the ship lost its severity and capsized. Many of the events that led to the accident, on the other hand, are unclear. It is not known what time it all happened and what information was available on the bridge prior to the accident. It remains unclear what action the ship's officers and crew had taken at different stages of the accident. On Tuesday, the International Commission of Inquiry into the Estonia disaster published its preliminary report in Turku.

HS

That people in the UK believe this is all perfectly normal, indicates to me the UK must be so used to this type of corruption (misinformation) they have normalised it as acceptable behaviour by their government.

 

[Vixen]

How do such investigations uncover evidence of sabotage normally? Since you're such an expert in forensic engineering investagation techniques, please enlighten us.

If Jutta Rabe's team spotted holes in the bow bulkhead sides and Braidwood spotted what in his expert opinion looked like an unexploded explosive device attached to the bow, together with Ida Westermann more recently identifying possible deformations i the bow - having personally arranged metallurgy laboratory tests - indicating extreme high temperatures/points of high impact, then one has to wonder why the JAIC never investigated this area of possibility, especially when so many of the passenger and crew survivors mentioned hearing a series of bangs and/or collision sensations, together with the devastatingly rapid sinking.

Instead, from Day One, we are told a wave was responsible.

 

[Vixen]

Who, in your opinion, brutally killed them? And no, telling us you have already said who did the killing would be a blatant lie. Who, Vixen, who?

Nobody has ever been brought to justice as it was immediately asserted to be due to a force of nature.

 

[Vixen]

1. What inspired you to insert the pejorative "long" before "three years"? What exactly are you implying by your deliberate choice of that adjective?

2. If they had all the evidence they needed by the time of the preliminary report to form the provisional conclusion that the cause of the sinking was the failure of the bow visor and bow ramp..... and then they spent more time following the release of the preliminary findings examining everything in more depth and making sure they'd covered off every possibility..... and after that they concluded that there really was nothing other than the bow opening failures that caused the disaster......

.....then it stands to reason that their final report would tally closely with their preliminary report.

You seem to be insinuating that the JAIC spent most of the time in-between the interim and final reports either a) twiddling their thumbs (having already made their minds up that they knew the cause and there was no point investigating further) or b) actively suppressing investigation into the types of sinister CT bollocks that you believe were the "real" cause.

You obviously have no experience of accident/disaster reports, and you don't know what you're talking about.

3) Explain to us exactly how/when the JAIC investigators/report authors "had their attention drawn to the breach in the starboard", please. With particular attention paid to the "when" part.






Oh. Right. Yes, this is relevant. LMAOOOOOO.

This is, well, I really don't know how to even approach telling you how wrong and irrelevant you're being here. Suffice it to say though that you're employing the intellectually-dishonest practice of firstly assuming a fact not in evidence then criticising the JAIC for not following your prescribed procedure (which isn't even remotely applicable in the context of an accident/disaster investigation anyway LOL) based on your prior (incorrect) assumption.

Even for you Vixen, that's an impressive low!






This is total and utter bat guano. It's a sinister fairy tale, pulled out of thin air by you and your fellow CT travellers, entirely free of any (reliable, credible) supporting evidence, burnished and embellished via a toxic combination of ignorant misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation. It's deeply, unequivocally crazy.

In answer to your question, the JAIC itself said the final report was delayed.

When you go potty-mouthed we know it means you have lost the argument.

 

[JesseCuster]

Let's stick to the recorded facts, please, and not your ill-considered 'opinion' and 'alternative suggestion'.

Recorded facts?

Like rogue KGB agents, escorting Swedish submarines crashing into the Estonia, British submarines of a type unknown to the public crashing into the Estonia, the bridge being hijacked, EPIRBs being found in the roof structure of the bridge, explosive charges being seen on the wreck, mysterious minisubs rescuing conspirators and slinking off into the night, a minisub firing limited range torpedos at the Estonia, a minisub attaching a limpet mine to the Estonia in the middle of a storm, leftover WWII mines sinking the Estonia, radioactive material dissolving part of the bow doors causing them to fail, Bill Clinton having something to do with the entire affair because of Israel/Palestine something something, crew members being whisked away on CIA rendition flights operating as cargo planes...

Those kind of "recorded facts"?

 

[JesseCuster]

In answer to your question, the JAIC itself said the final report was delayed.

Was the JAIC report rushed out in a hurry or did it take a long 3 years because it was delayed?

Here's a suggestion: Try actually answering the actual question that I actually asked in this actual post and not something else entirely.

 

[JayUtah]

A whole sleuth of them. The Estonian side of the JAIC claimed they had information withheld from them. Look up Werner Hummel, investigator for the ship builders Meyer-Werft. Look up ex-Royal Navy military and explosives expert Robin Braidwood, Professor Ulfversson, Professor Ida Westermann, etcetera.

Could the people hired by the ship's builders possibly have an ulterior motive in making it seem like the official investigation was flawed?