• 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 IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Let's face it. The early Italians who are credited with inventing criminology had a simple formula for pinpointing the culprit:

"Cui bono?"


Who would benefit from claiming, 'No-one is to blame?' ('It is 'just a design fault.')


"Cui bono?"


With 500 Swedes including 63 civilian police wiped out, you would think they would be chomping at the bit to bring whomever was responsible to justice.


Unless... ah.
Click to expand...

Spoiler Alert: Rough Seas, poor locking mechanism design, and lousy seamanship sank the Estonia.

But if you're looking for a scapegoat, blame Fate, God, or Poseidon.

Or if you're cool, Cthulhu or Rodan.
 
Vixen said:
He was de facto head of state, was he not? The CIA was answerable to him? (When he wasn't with that woman.)
Click to expand...

We've been through this before.

Your irrational beliefs about Clinton weigh heavily on your tapestry of intellectual failure.

The President of the United States is not a king, he and his National Security Council can direct the CIA to conduct covert operations... as long as they are legal. That doesn't mean the CIA won't push the definition as to what is and isn't legal right up to the fine-print - they do, and will continue to do so.

However...

Placing the lives of 800 civilians in danger is not line the CIA will cross, and nowhere in its history has it done so.

And the CIA doesn't tell foreign countries what to do. The CIA makes a case to the NSC, and the NSA runs it by the State Department, and the State Department makes the request. On the flip side, at any point the NSA or the State Department can say no, and the CIA goes back to square-one. This will come as a shock to you, but most European countries don't want the CIA running around doing stuff in their borders. They also don't want the FSB, MI6, Mossad, or any other spy agencies doing stuff either - but it happens. As a result, no country wants to be seen as "CIA Friendly", even our allies.

This has been true since 1947.

The other fact you ignore is that the CIA can tell the President of the United States "No". The CIA and the USSOCOM both told Clinton and his NSA they could not carry out requested actions on multiple occasions. That's on record.

Again, on the night of the Estonia disaster, Yelstin WAS IN WASHINGTON D.C. for a peace summit with Clinton.

Knock off the CIA-Clinton nonsense (they really didn't like him anyway).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Despite Piht being described as waiting for questioning in Turku and described as having been interviewed (Stenmark), not one newspaper or official ever retracted this claim or stated it was an error.

The Estonian government officially believes that those nine Estonians listed as survivors have been disappeared by Sweden.
Click to expand...

Cool, then they issued a public statement to this fact, and then Sweden has responded to the accusation. Please post links to those.
 
Axxman300 said:
Was it in rough seas? No.
Was it sailing at flank speed after the bow visor fell off? No.

You are really bad at this.
Click to expand...


Yes. And in addition to all of the above, we can add in the fact that the Oceanos was only taking on water at a very low rate, compared with the Estonia.

Incidentally - and as others have already alluded to recently - once the Oceanos lost sufficient buoyancy and stability, it capsized onto its side. This capsize was the death knell for the ship. Just as it was for the Estonia. I'd suggest it's pretty likely that the Estonia and the Oceanos exhibited similar modes and times of sinking, once that 90-degree capsize had happened.

The overall time difference (from the problem first being found, to the moment the ship disappeared below the surface) between the two sinkings is bound to be nearly entirely due to the very different manner and rate of water ingress into the two ships.
 
Axxman300 said:
Cool, then they issued a public statement to this fact, and then Sweden has responded to the accusation. Please post links to those.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've requested reliable (and properly-sourced) documentary evidence on this stuff already.

I'm not holding my breath.....
 
Vixen said:
No, they advise him. The POTUS generally does what he is 'advised' by his generals. Fact is, Clinton was building up his image as Middle East Peacemaker.

No way would he have wanted to spoilt his image of chumminess with Yasser Arafat (See Camp David) 2000) by being revealed as helping Israel through the back door.

So 'classify' anything that might tarnish that image.
Click to expand...

Wait, you JUST said he is the de facto leader of the CIA.

Almost nobody listens to the CIA at the White House, especially the Clinton White House. And while any good President listens to good advice, the President makes his own decisions.

The Baltic is not in the Middle East
 
LondonJohn said:
Yeah, I've requested reliable (and properly-sourced) documentary evidence on this stuff already.

I'm not holding my breath.....
Click to expand...

You must have faith, and patience. Vixen has assured us that she posts only properly sourced, referenced, and linked facts. This reference will undoubtedly soon be provided, and with absolutely no irrelevant explanatory material or other excuses.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes. And in addition to all of the above, we can add in the fact that the Oceanos was only taking on water at a very low rate, compared with the Estonia.

Incidentally - and as others have already alluded to recently - once the Oceanos lost sufficient buoyancy and stability, it capsized onto its side. This capsize was the death knell for the ship. Just as it was for the Estonia. I'd suggest it's pretty likely that the Estonia and the Oceanos exhibited similar modes and times of sinking, once that 90-degree capsize had happened.

The overall time difference (from the problem first being found, to the moment the ship disappeared below the surface) between the two sinkings is bound to be nearly entirely due to the very different manner and rate of water ingress into the two ships.
Click to expand...

A rational person would look at the history of Ro-Ro ferries and note they tend to have problems with their bow visors from time to time. And they'd note that safety has improved since the sinking of MS Estonia thanks to the JAIC's recommendations.

I'm not an expert on Marine Engineering, but I can read an accident report. Since I am a layman, I've learned to start at the end of any accident report where the conclusions and recommendations for changes are made, and work my way back to the chapters where I feel I need more details.

The JAIC is straightforward, they say the Bow Visor locks were not well designed, and were certainly not up for the conditions the Estonia was sailing that night. The thing I find interesting is they said the Estonia was not designed for open ocean transit, but for coastal sailing.

The implication from the JAIC was that the Estonia's luck had run out that night, and the crew had responded poorly to the situation.

Vixen has presented nothing to draw these conclusions into question.
 
Axxman300 said:
Watertight bulkheads only work if...*checks notes*... all of the watertight doors/hatches are sealed.
Click to expand...

Plus, most are not watertight from above.
Even a compartment with the hatches closed can leak.

A common theme in damage control reports is that pipe and cable glands through bulkheads leak and hatches don't always seal completely.
 
Axxman300 said:
Watertight bulkheads only work if...*checks notes*... all of the watertight doors/hatches are sealed.
Click to expand...


And watertight bulkheads in large ships are solely & specifically designed to work if the ship's hull has been breached below the waterline.

So if, for example, the ship scrapes against a rock in shallow waters, or hits the quay wall when coming into the harbour, and if those sorts of incidents are sufficiently powerful as to open a hole in the hull below the waterline....

...the bulkheads are designed to contain the consequent flooding to the compartment where that hole has been made (the bulkheads will/should mean that every other compartment stays watertight.

However, if a ship is taking on water from above onto an open deck, and the water is finding multiple routes down through the ship, then watertight bulkheads are of little or no use - for reasons which should be obvious.
 
From everything I've read on the accident, there was never any mention of watertight compartments being sealed, nor orders from the bridge to do so.

I'm baffled as to why anyone would think the open bow ramp in rough seas was not enough to sink the ship.
 
Axxman300 said:
A rational person would look at the history of Ro-Ro ferries and note they tend to have problems with their bow visors from time to time. And they'd note that safety has improved since the sinking of MS Estonia thanks to the JAIC's recommendations.

I'm not an expert on Marine Engineering, but I can read an accident report. Since I am a layman, I've learned to start at the end of any accident report where the conclusions and recommendations for changes are made, and work my way back to the chapters where I feel I need more details.

The JAIC is straightforward, they say the Bow Visor locks were not well designed, and were certainly not up for the conditions the Estonia was sailing that night. The thing I find interesting is they said the Estonia was not designed for open ocean transit, but for coastal sailing.

The implication from the JAIC was that the Estonia's luck had run out that night, and the crew had responded poorly to the situation.

Vixen has presented nothing to draw these conclusions into question.
Click to expand...

There is an entire chapter on Baltic ferry bow visor accidents in the report

Chapter 11
https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt10.html

Plus an entire chapter on why Swedish and Finnish ships weren't compliant with SOLAS requirements

Chapter 18
https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt18.html
 
LondonJohn said:
And watertight bulkheads in large ships are solely & specifically designed to work if the ship's hull has been breached below the waterline.

So if, for example, the ship scrapes against a rock in shallow waters, or hits the quay wall when coming into the harbour, and if those sorts of incidents are sufficiently powerful as to open a hole in the hull below the waterline....

...the bulkheads are designed to contain the consequent flooding to the compartment where that hole has been made (the bulkheads will/should mean that every other compartment stays watertight.

However, if a ship is taking on water from above onto an open deck, and the water is finding multiple routes down through the ship, then watertight bulkheads are of little or no use - for reasons which should be obvious.
Click to expand...

Which is why the later stage of a sinking after a ship has rolled on to it's side is faster than the earlier stages.
 
Axxman300 said:
From everything I've read on the accident, there was never any mention of watertight compartments being sealed, nor orders from the bridge to do so.

I'm baffled as to why anyone would think the open bow ramp in rough seas was not enough to sink the ship.
Click to expand...

In practice a lot of the watertight openings on older commercial ships are not all that watertight even when they are closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom