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

[Andy_Ross]

See wikileaks memo re Carl Bildt and the CIA. Bildt appointed the Swedish-led JAIC member. His military defence leader, Svensson announced almost on Day One the bodies should not be recovered.

There were reports of fifteen men in US Marine uniform escorting two mysterious trucks onto the vessel. One entered onto the consignment notes at the last minute and the other - oddly - notified to the Port Authorities/Customs by Andresson during the journey.

Likewise at the time, there was still controversy over the assassination of Olof Palme, and with 70 Stockholm police officers - of whom only four to six survived - there is every reason to look towards the politics, given it was Bildt who announced the accident was the bow visor falling off within hours of the accident when it vessel wasn't even located until two days later and a sonar imaging - which showed a bow visor shape under the bulbous bow - six days later, retracted and the bow visor then not found until circa 17/18 October 1994.

Bildt led the narrative, that is why he is mentioned.

Where are there reports of fifteen men in US Marine uniform escorting two mysterious trucks onto the vessel?

Was Olof Palme involved in the sinking?

Were the 70 police officers from the USA?

How were they involved in the sinking?

Do you think the bow visor was on the ship when it sank?

Was it moved later and who by?

If it was on the ship why do you claim it was blown off by explosives?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is well-documented.

Where is it 'well documented'?

What does being a 'puppet' of the USA involve?

Does it involve the Swedish navy sinking foreign passenger ships when commanded by the USA?

 

[Vixen]

How is it a false equivalent?

It is a ship of the same design and construction operating in the same waters.

The Administration says that no information on the incident was received until after the Estonia accident.
An inspector from the Administration visited the Diana II about one month after the visor incident.
He was called to survey a gangway and says that at the time of the visit, he had no information on any damage to or repair of the bow visor or its attachments.

Do you think that if the ship or shipping line had passed on the information about the damage the Administration could have inspected both the bow of the Dianna II and the Estonia?

Yes, after the mass public hysteria - BBC even ran a programme on The Herald of Free Enterprise-type accidents, suggesting an extra 'gate' (bow visor) and car ramp indicator lights be brought in, unaware the Finns/Swedes/Germans already did all of this - all car ferries were being frantically checked and flaws and defects found. It does not prove that it was the bolts, locks, hinges and lugs that were the primary cause of the Estonia accident, and even if they were, it would not sink like that. Even the JAIC had to grudgingly admit that.

It used the Diana II Atlantic lock to support its theory that this was the lock that failed first, simultaneously loosening the other locks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It undermines the JAIC conclusions. Hoffmeister's report was dated September 1996. Why didn't the JAIC acknowledge the challenge in their report, being for the shipbuilders and their right of reply at being blamed?

How does it undermine the JAIC conclusions when it doesn't say that there was sabotage?

 

[Vixen]

Again, I'm not doing your work. Show me the document that shows that Card Bildt contacted Bill Clinton to get approval for forming a government..

And again, no sources, but can I assume that Bildt somehow was involved in this also according to your story, since you bring it up?

He was still in office ATT.

 

[Vixen]

and yet just yesterday and earlier today you were making comparisons with a liner that sank for different reasons to those of the Estonia.

I think you'll find that London John hilariously introduced the Oceanos.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, it was a storm. What is with all the odd descriptors you are trying to add to my plain words? Do you get satisfaction from pretending that people have posted things they have not?

You said there was a storm, as if this was somehow significant.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This was a normally bad autumn storm in the Baltic, not Shakespeare's Tempest, with sorcerers and magicians able to conjure up a supernatural wave cast by the diabolical hand of the wicked one.

6 to 8 meter waves are pretty bad.
I have sailed in them aboard a ship designed to weather storms of that, and greater magnitude.
You haven't the slightest idea.

 

[Vixen]

Where are there reports of fifteen men in US Marine uniform escorting two mysterious trucks onto the vessel?

Was Olof Palme involved in the sinking?

Were the 70 police officers from the USA?

How were they involved in the sinking?

Do you think the bow visor was on the ship when it sank?

Was it moved later and who by?

If it was on the ship why do you claim it was blown off by explosives?

The CIA, MI6 and KSI were helping newly independent Estonia develop its own security services, the KGB having been thrown out. The West were very interested in Russia's military secrets and the Swedes did indeed smuggle out ex-Soviet military materiel on behalf of hostile powers (to Russia).

Why do you think the police were at a conference in Tallinn?

To discuss road traffic, perhaps?

 

[Vixen]

Where is it 'well documented'?

What does being a 'puppet' of the USA involve?

Does it involve the Swedish navy sinking foreign passenger ships when commanded by the USA?

President Clinton was keen to portray himself as peace maker extraordinaire of the Middle East. Let's face it it is this man's vanity that the causes of the Estonia accident were deemed 'classified' (I believe for 70 years). Just to save this vain man's face.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Why else would then-USA-puppets Sweden* immediately come out with a cock and bull story within hours of the accident?

*As evidenced by then PM Carl Bildt (for an independent sovereign state) sending Bill Clinton (a foreign power) his desired coalition government for approval.

Again, I'm not doing your work. Show me the document that shows that Card Bildt contacted Bill Clinton to get approval for forming a government..?

He was still in office ATT.

Nope, you fail again. Show the sources for your statement, or admit you you were lying.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, after the mass public hysteria - BBC even ran a programme on The Herald of Free Enterprise-type accidents, suggesting an extra 'gate' (bow visor) and car ramp indicator lights be brought in, unaware the Finns/Swedes/Germans already did all of this - all car ferries were being frantically checked and flaws and defects found. It does not prove that it was the bolts, locks, hinges and lugs that were the primary cause of the Estonia accident, and even if they were, it would not sink like that. Even the JAIC had to grudgingly admit that.

It used the Diana II Atlantic lock to support its theory that this was the lock that failed first, simultaneously loosening the other locks.

Did you read the report on the Diana II? It's locks broke apart before the Estonia incident.
It shows that yes, it was the bolts, locks, hinges and lugs that were the primary cause of the Estonia accident, they failed in the same way as those on the Diana II.
If it had been properly reported by the shipping line then the Estonia could have been checked for similar damage.
How is that 'mass public hysteria'?

When the Estonia sank it was still not compliant with the new requirements for bulkheads brought in after the Herald OF Free Enterprise sinking.

 

[Vixen]

How does it undermine the JAIC conclusions when it doesn't say that there was sabotage?

It says the JAIC conclusion the bow visor had a design defect was erroneous.

This must ipso facto mean the JAIC report is defective,

 

[Andy_Ross]

You said there was a storm, as if this was somehow significant.

Of course it was significant. If it had been calm weather the bow visor would not have been stressed and it would not have come loose.
It may have been possible to that the defects would be discovered and fixed before it went in to a storm.

Why would you think the storm wasn't significant?

 

[Vixen]

6 to 8 meter waves are pretty bad.
I have sailed in them aboard a ship designed to weather storms of that, and greater magnitude.
You haven't the slightest idea.

Poor logic. A passenger car ferry sailing in the Baltic on a normally bad late September evening - just like the Europa, Mariella, Symphony and Isabella - was quite normal.


In severe weather warnings, these vessels do not sail.

 

[Steve]

You said there was a storm, as if this was somehow significant.

It was significant. Very. The continuous wave action, 6 meters+ in height, associated with the storm caused a catastrophic failure of previously compromised bow components, following which further continuous wave action associated with the storm caused sea water to enter the open hull of the Estonia in quantities that precluded the ship remaining buoyant on the surface of the water (ie; it sank!).

If there was not a storm that night the Estonia would not have sank that night. It does not get any more significant than that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The CIA, MI6 and KSI were helping newly independent Estonia develop its own security services, the KGB having been thrown out. The West were very interested in Russia's military secrets and the Swedes did indeed smuggle out ex-Soviet military materiel on behalf of hostile powers (to Russia).

Why do you think the police were at a conference in Tallinn?

To discuss road traffic, perhaps?

OK so no evidence for US Marines loading trucks on to the ship and the police officers aboard had nothing to do with the sinking?

Why do you bring them up?

 

[Andy_Ross]

President Clinton was keen to portray himself as peace maker extraordinaire of the Middle East. Let's face it it is this man's vanity that the causes of the Estonia accident were deemed 'classified' (I believe for 70 years). Just to save this vain man's face.

So no evidence that Sweden was a 'puppet' of the USA.

What is your evidence that Clinton had any involvement in the sinking or the enquiry?

 

[Vixen]

Did you read the report on the Diana II? It's locks broke apart before the Estonia incident.
It shows that yes, it was the bolts, locks, hinges and lugs that were the primary cause of the Estonia accident, they failed in the same way as those on the Diana II.
If it had been properly reported by the shipping line then the Estonia could have been checked for similar damage.
How is that 'mass public hysteria'?

When the Estonia sank it was still not compliant with the new requirements for bulkheads brought in after the Herald OF Free Enterprise sinking.

Circular logic. Had explosives been applied to the for'ard bulkead then the thing would have fallen off anyway.

The Estonia bow visor did not fail in the way the JAIC said according to Hamburg University. They cannot both be right. One of these two parties is making a specious claim.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It says the JAIC conclusion the bow visor had a design defect was erroneous.

This must ipso facto mean the JAIC report is defective,

But the bow visor did have a design fault, it fell off and the locks broke. Just like they did on the Diana II but luckily the problem on that ship was noticed and they were repaired.

There were no design or strength standard for bow visors at the time so how would the designers know if there was a fault?

How does the report show you that there was sabotage?