• 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.
Vixen said:
I assumed the diving platform was underwater. If it was literally brought out of the water, it doesn't change the IMPORTANT fact, it was thrown back onto the seabed (or so claims Stenström) . It was never made available for examination. It was enough that he just looked at it and claims he measured it but I suspect it was measured 'by eye' as I doubt he had a tape measure hanging around his neck.
Click to expand...

So you're just making crap up and casting baseless aspersions. You imagine divers operate from some sort of weird underwater platform just so you can pretend to yourself you weren't wrong and they didn't recover material to the surface. You want to spin a tale that the divers brought the bolt all the way up to the surface, just to glance at it, say "meh, about 78mm" and lob it overboard.

That's your smoking gun, is it? That fantasy?

PS Regarding your repeated "so claims Stenström", can you quote his actual words from a primary source rather than a CT site?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The front 'luxury' cabins were occupied by a retired sea captain and his wife, the Voronin family, Captain Piht and various members of the Stockholm Police ST Department. Also in adjacent cabins were the chief engineer and chief medical officer. All presumed dead, after initially being listed as survivors, with only the Voronin family and an old sea captain as survivors. Divers were sent to retrieve various items from those cabins, including an attaché case from Piht's cabin, but had the name tag 'Voronin', so either he was sharing the same cabin - and this is common on these ferries - or the police mixed up Voronin's cabin with his. The fact they had to break down the door tells you they were looking for something specific, and although it was the Rockwater divers, it did not seem to be on their survey remit, but you can see all these side searches on the Rockwater tape.

Members Tripod


As the JAIC deals with none of this, it must be a police matter, who as you know, don't have a requirement to explain anything to the public.


Aside: and you thought Jutta Rabe's character in Baltic Storm with an attaché case strapped to his wrist was a corny bad B-list spy movie plot, but actually, it is based on fact.
Click to expand...


Your analysis of this matter is so far off base it's laughable.

You're claiming the divers were "sent to retrieve certain items from those cabins, including an attaché case.....". But the transcript simply doesn't necessarily support that interpretation - in fact it tends not to do so. The transcript suggests merely that they were looking round the cabin, were trying to identify which passengers were linked to which cabin, and came across an attaché case, which they decided to retrieve.

And where does this crap about the attaché case being "strapped to (someone's) wrist" come from? Your credibility is less than zero at this point.
 
abaddon said:
But you claimed that nuclear waste dissolved the hinges. Osmium is not nuclear waste. It is a rare earth element. I guess I can add chemist to my list of doctorates not held.

Besides, Osmium is not going to dissolve any hinges. You are simply chucking it in in the hopes nobody heard of it before. A forlorn hope. Even if we had not, a quick google reveals the abject ignorance.

In any event, Osmium is the last metal in the Lathanide series. It is a rare earth element. It has no known reactive properties.. Not least melting a ship via bow doors.

I have no idea why you chucked that in. Go ahead, tell us all how Osmium melted the bow doors via fusion reaction or whatever the next mad claim is. Because we know that is not possible.
Click to expand...

Heh, did you think Osmium was going to leap out of a lorry singing, 'I'll be your long-haired lover from Liverpool'...?


I am going now.

(Sorry about the ear worm.)
 
Vixen said:
That is the standard protocol.
Click to expand...

Is that from your extensive knowledge of diving protocol which earlier brought us underwater diving platforms?

I'll take it as a "No, I can't give you any evidence whatsoever there was another controller talking in the diver's other ear, and I'm not even going to link to the source which gave me the idea".
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Well you recently used him as one, linking to his website for information on something. So do you consider him to be a credible source? (This is Heiwa, in case you forgot)
Click to expand...

If he is giving straightforward factual information and as based on his naval architecture qualification it's fine. Interpretations of who was behind the sinking is more to do with subjectivity.

Take football, for example, we can all agree that someone like, say, Ian Wright, is extremely knowledgeable about football and we can use him as a source but that doesn't mean we necessarily support Arsenal FC, and that bit we can disregard - or agree - as that is borne of subjective opinion.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So you're just making crap up and casting baseless aspersions. You imagine divers operate from some sort of weird underwater platform just so you can pretend to yourself you weren't wrong and they didn't recover material to the surface. You want to spin a tale that the divers brought the bolt all the way up to the surface, just to glance at it, say "meh, about 78mm" and lob it overboard.

That's your smoking gun, is it? That fantasy?

PS Regarding your repeated "so claims Stenström", can you quote his actual words from a primary source rather than a CT site?
Click to expand...

I have no idea whether or not the thing was brought up to the surface. What I do know is that it was never brought back to land to be examined. That is the salient point. Who cares if Stenström placed it on some sundry boat, leant back or had a cup of tea. What is important is that it was lobbed back onto the seabed.
 
Vixen said:
I have no idea whether or not the thing was brought up to the surface.
Click to expand...
More than one source says it was, both already quoted by you, so claiming not to know is hilariously inconsistent compared with the stuff you insist is true on much flimsier grounds.

What I do know is that it was never brought back to land to be examined. That is the salient point. Who cares if Stenström placed it on some sundry boat, leant back or had a cup of tea. What is important is that it was lobbed back onto the seabed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would like to explain to us what exactly is salient about that point. What further examination would you propose giving the bolt if you had it in your hand right now?
 
Vixen said:
If he is giving straightforward factual information and as based on his naval architecture qualification it's fine. Interpretations of who was behind the sinking is more to do with subjectivity.

Take football, for example, we can all agree that someone like, say, Ian Wright, is extremely knowledgeable about football and we can use him as a source but that doesn't mean we necessarily support Arsenal FC, and that bit we can disregard - or agree - as that is borne of subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

But what if Ian Wright, in his analysis on MOTD started talking about how teams had 13 players, or that the goalkeeper could carry the ball from his penalty area to the opposition one? Or that a goal counted as 5 points and hitting the bar counted as one? Would we still count him as a reliable source on football?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I never, ever disputed that the bolt was eventually thrown back into the sea. The nearest I ever came to saying anything like that is to point out that one of the sources you quoted says the bolt was left on the dive support vessel rather than helicoptered away.

What I dispute is your baseless claim that it was at best cursorily examined and your later frankly bizarre claim that it was not brought to the surface to be examined.
Click to expand...

We don't know that it was thrown back in to the sea. Vixen's own source says it was left on the ship.
 
LondonJohn said:
Your analysis of this matter is so far off base it's laughable.

You're claiming the divers were "sent to retrieve certain items from those cabins, including an attaché case.....". But the transcript simply doesn't necessarily support that interpretation - in fact it tends not to do so. The transcript suggests merely that they were looking round the cabin, were trying to identify which passengers were linked to which cabin, and came across an attaché case, which they decided to retrieve.

And where does this crap about the attaché case being "strapped to (someone's) wrist" come from? Your credibility is less than zero at this point.
Click to expand...

Just noticed the 'luxury' bit.

Cabins at the top of the superstructure are mostly crew accommodation, with officers cabins being nearest to the bridge.

This can be seen from deck plans of the Estonia.
 
Vixen said:
Having one earpiece for one set of instructions and the other for another - enabling two people to issue orders or comments, from their remote positions.
Click to expand...

What makes you think this is protocol at all?

I freely admit I have zero knowledge about how divers comms operate. I could well imagine you might have surface comms in one ear and maybe the returns from other divers fed to the other ear. That might be helpful. But if there's a second controller on the surface, potentially giving contradictory instructions, putting them on a circuit isolated from the main controller sounds like a recipe for dangerous confusion.
 
Vixen said:
Stenström is shorthand for the whole team.
Click to expand...

So you think none of the dive team or the crew of a ship chartered to support recovery and inspection of material from the ship would have any facilities for inspecting or measuring the parts?
 
Vixen said:
I have no idea whether or not the thing was brought up to the surface. What I do know is that it was never brought back to land to be examined. That is the salient point. Who cares if Stenström placed it on some sundry boat, leant back or had a cup of tea. What is important is that it was lobbed back onto the seabed.
Click to expand...

We don't know this. Your own source as quoted by you says it was left on the diving support ship rather than being taken by helicopter.
It could be on someone's desk as a paper weight.
 
Vixen said:
Having one earpiece for one set of instructions and the other for another - enabling two people to issue orders or comments, from their remote positions.
Click to expand...


Yes. I think we all understand that it's normal for there to be 2-way communications between the surface dive controllers and the divers in the water.

That's not what's at issue here.

What's at issue here is your "assumption" that in this instance, the surface was giving certain specific instructions to the divers - including such things as looking for specific attaché case, plus other specific named items.

Explain how you consider this to be "standard protocol", together with your evidence that this is precisely what happened here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom