• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
JesseCuster said:
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"? :D
Click to expand...

A marine expert believing it might be sabotage?


Estlinen Estonian CEO: "Collision or explosion"


JROTKO Assistant
9/30/1994 2:00 AM
TALLINN - "Estonia was submerged by an unusual factor: an explosion or an underwater collision." Johannes Johanson, CEO of Laivinja's Estonian side, is confident.


"The incident is otherwise incomprehensible. An Estonian-sized car ferry will not crash even if all the trucks are stacked on the other side of it," says Johanson.
Click to expand...
HS
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's just the same old conspira-spew you've fallen back on for 250 pages now. The question was what a forensic engineering investigation would ordinarily do when looking for evidence of sabotage. You're claiming JAIC was derelict in that search. Tell me what the proper procedure is and how you know that.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

You edited 'slewth' but replaced it with more nonsense. A 'sleuth' is a detective.
 
Vixen said:
Let's stick to the recorded facts, please, and not your ill-considered 'opinion' and 'alternative suggestion'.
Click to expand...

JesseCuster said:
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"?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
A marine expert believing it might be sabotage?[/URL]
Click to expand...
And what about the 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?

Are they recorded facts and not merely alternative suggestions? They can't all be facts given how mutually exclusive they are.
 
Vixen said:
A whole sleuth of them.
Click to expand...
p2036_p_v10_ab.jpg
 
GlennB said:
You edited 'slewth' but replaced it with more nonsense. A 'sleuth' is a detective.
Click to expand...
She clearly meant "slew." It's one thing to make a typo, but another thing to "correct" it to something even less literate. I predict ten pages of her backpedaling and trying to say she was somehow right all along.
 
JayUtah said:
Could the people hired by the ship's builders possibly have an ulterior motive in making it seem like the official investigation was flawed?
Click to expand...

No. They were exempt from any prosecution as the visor was designed and built pre-relevant regulations in respect of this. In fact, unlike The Herald of Free Enterprise, an accident which happened three years after Estonia/ aka then VIKING SALLY did not have the protective 'gate' that the bow viosr provided, so in fact already had the extra protective gate that came into regulatory being as a result of the The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster.

It was a matter of principle of them to have been wrongly accused, in their eyes, when AFATAC the ship design was sound. The faults found were due to poor care and maintenance by the owners, they argue, which, having looked at the reports of water leaking in to the car deck long before this accident seems to be a reasonable claim to me.

Plus ask yourself, how come Germany never signed their name to the Estonia Grave Site Treaty, yet the UK - nowhere near the Baltic Sea - did.
 
JayUtah said:
She clearly meant "slew." It's one thing to make a typo, but another thing to "correct" it to something even less literate. I predict ten pages of her backpedaling and trying to say she was somehow right all along.
Click to expand...

Whatevs. When the only time you can do a 'gotcha' is over a typo, then do have at it.
 
Vixen said:
No. They were exempt from any prosecution.
Click to expand...

Why would that be all they feared? Have you ever worked in a high-stakes engineering enterprise? Why did all the carriers start welding their bow visors shut? Why don't we use the same design anymore?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
From the mouth of JAIC itself, as reported 5.10.1994

HS


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


What the bejeezuz?

My post was about EPIRBs. The stuff you're talking about refers (solely) to the bow visor and bow ramp. Nothing whatsoever to do with EPIRBs.

Perhaps slow down a little and take more time to actually read the post to which you're attempting a response.... before launching into one? That might help.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yes, well, you've proven to be very highly credulous when it comes to crackpot "factoids" and conspiracy theories, so this should hardly surprise anyone.


(And you don't know what "degrees of freedom" means in this context either. This phrase specifically refers to the number of connected people one is removed from a given event or person. So in the context of the Estonia disaster, I dare say that there are plenty of Swedes who know someone who knows someone who knew someone who died in the disaster. But that's not what you were claiming, was it Vixen?)
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Weasel words. You're saying no survivor saw the moment it happened therefore none could have seen that the bow visor had fallen off. You're saying Bildt didn't hear it from the survivors personally therefore he could not have known.

Not exactly persuasive.
 
Vixen said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you're talking about, Vixen.

The JAIC investigators knew very soon after the disaster - via reliable physical evidence and testimony - that a) the bow visor had completely detached from the ship well before it capsized and sank, b) something had also happened to dislodge and compromise the bow ramp, c) this had caused seawater to flood quickly into the vehicle deck, and d) this huge water ingress (coupled with the ability of the water flooding the open vehicle deck to greatly exacerbate the ship's list, plus the rapid passage of water to lower decks) quickly caused the ship to lose sufficient stability and buoyancy to cause it to sink.

They were able to reach this (correct) provisional conclusion so quickly because 1) as I said, they had ample evidence and testimony very quickly to enable them to do so, and 2) they know what they're talking about.

Unlike you.
 
Vixen said:
Nobody has ever been brought to justice as it was immediately asserted to be due to a force of nature.
Click to expand...


That's not what he asked. You probably know that though, don't you?

Try answering his question. Or state that you don't want to answer it. But don't give a BS misdirection that's masquerading as an "answer".
 
Vixen said:
From the mouth of JAIC itself, as reported 5.10.1994

HS


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

Amazingly, nothing in your quote addresses the substance of the point you were replying to.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


1. Whether the report was delayed or not is irrelevant when it comes to an analysis of why you chose to write "three long years".

2. Yes, I went totally potty-mouthed there, didn't I? PAHAHAHAHAHA. And yes, "we" know it means I've lost the argument :D :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom