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

[Vixen]

But you claim the ship was sabotaged in one of several different ways plus in one version you have the command crew being assassinated by the Russians.

Are you now saying it wasn't Russia that did it?

I suppose you could revert back to your original claim that the ship was accidentally rammed by an escorting submarine.

I have presented the views of various people who are respected in their professions. I am only a reporter.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

This much has been clear with regard to literally every single thing that Vixen has brought up.

Vixen, do you still consider yourself to be a scientist?

Do you still think Anders Bjorkman is a reliable source?

Do you think you are capable to assess the work of Hoffmeister?

 

[JayUtah]

It wouldn't matter anyway. if a side lock failed first it wouldn't mean the bottom lock didn't fail, in fact it would contribute to the failure of the bottom lock.

Also true.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Citation please that Swedish intelligence officers are allowed to break Swedish law.

(Or did you make that one up as well?)

Well, apparently there's a Swedish law that says they are allowed to break the law. I suppose that means that Swedish Intelligence officers can't break the law.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have presented the views of various people who are respected in their professions. I am only a reporter.

No, you've presented snippets of things some people have said who could not reliably study what they were commenting on, or lunatics like Bjorkman. Indeed, when you do quote someone who is an actual expert, you frequently misunderstand or, let's be honest, lie about what they say to fit the conclusion you want to get. So, do you claim that Bjorkman is a respected professional?

 

[JayUtah]

I have presented the views of various people who are respected in their professions.

Some are and some aren't. You continue, for example, to rely on Anders Björkman, even though he is completely discredited.

But more egregiously, you think you know what these other professionals are saying, and you think you know how to extend their remarks to situations which are really just you making up stuff. That you fail to understand what qualified people say, and that you attribute your own nonsense to them, does not absolve you of responsibility.

I am only a reporter.

No. You are also an interpreter and an advocate. Your "connect the dots" interpretations are nonsensical. Your advocacy is ill-informed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The poor business methods - quick turnaround ASAP - poor maintenance and care, overloading passengers, lazy ill-disciplined crew, with a 'not my job' attitude, all of this was listed and revealed to the public.

Looks like the Eastonia.

Where there is no transparency, for example 'The vessel was seaworthy when it left Tallinn and had no outstanding issues' then it is corrupt.

Once again, JAIC for obvious reasons did not inspect the ship, they were relying on it's existing certification which did appear to say it was seaworthy with no outstanding issues.
Swedish and Finnish law allowed ships that didn't meet SOLAS requirements to go to sea and be classed as seaworthy.

It details in the report how the ship did not conform to certification and what the problems were.

Have you actually read the report?

 

[LondonJohn]

So if a ship sinks tonight nearby you and you are the Coast Guard in charge, your attitude will be, 'I don't see any reason to assume anyone is responsible'. <shrug>

WHATTTT???

For a coastguard in that position, his thoughts will have had nothing whatsoever to do with who (if anyone) is to blame.

His thoughts will instead have been highly focussed upon conducting the best possible rescue mission, in the fastest and safest manner.

Any thoughts on blame are not only inappropriate and irrelevant for the coastguard at that time - they're also way out of his pay grade even in the aftermath of the rescue operation. Which is why public inquiries get set up.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They had been warned and ignored it...?

Total speculation. Let's just assume for a moment that lunacy was true. The Russians said "if you Swedes buy any more of our knocked-off gear, we'll sink the Estonian's ferry". Let's pretend.

So then Bildt hears the ferry issued a Mayday. Oh, no, he thinks. I need to get rid of all of the ship's officers because... because nothing. I know, I'll tell an anti-submarine helicopter to go and pluck those particular people out of the sea because that's totally a possible thing.

It's mind-bogglingly stupid, Vixen. It's your explanation of what happened and it's mind-bogglingly stupid.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There are elite 'trident' teams of frogmen who are trained to do exactly all of that stuff, you know.

What is your evidence for this?

How are they trained?

How do they find an individual in the middle of the night in a raging storm in a sea full of bodies, survivors, life rafts and wreckage?

How do they identify the captain and bring just him on to a helicopter?

 

[LondonJohn]

Citation please. Helsingin Sanomat reported Avo Piht alive and Arvo Andresson drowned. Reuters reported Bengt Stenmark, transport and waterways minister as saying Piht had been interviewed.

Citation please of the correction and the new information.

Stop regurgitating the Bjorkman playbook, please and thankyou

 

[Vixen]

How? You want to question the officers on the ship, obviously. You want whoever finds them to alert you, obviously.

So you give one helicopter crew a secret mission to magically find them before anyone else, with no way to tell who they're going to find, and tell them to spirit these men away instead of just presenting them to the authorities in the obvious manner.

That's nuts.

They'll be the guys in the posh life boat, warm clothes and survival suits. It's not difficult.

The captain and his senior officers of Oceanos immediately took to a life boat as soon as they knew there was a problem, leaving behind all of the passengers as the vessel slowly sank over eighteen hours. The Captain was arrested (hello!!!) and his story was that he thought the rescue would be better served if he was directing it from the shore. He was brought to justice.

So tell me, why is it nuts for the Swedish Defence Forces to go after Estonia's senior crew during the rescue, in your view?

 

[Andy_Ross]

...is the view of idiots and conspiracy theorists*

If anyone is responsible for this disaster, it's the shipyard which designed and built the not-fit-for-purpose bow visor mechanism & locks, and probably also the ship's owners/operators for operating the bow visor locks improperly.

Hmmm.....I wonder why the shipyard has set up its own, umm, "Group of Experts"? Surely the aim of that operation couldn't be to come up with some way of absolving the shipyard from any culpability? Surely not??


* And is not the view of anyone who knows anything about the subject, and who possesses the required level of expertise, experience and research/deduction skills...

To be fair, at the time there were no established standards or testing for bow visors.
SOLAS requirements would have limited ships so fitted to coastal work and calm conditions.
Sweden and Finland had domestic legislation that exempted ferries with bow visors from inspection or certification as it would have restricted their operation.

Things were tightened up but the ferries built at the time of the Estonia were never upgraded and were exempt from subsequent legislation.

There's plenty of blame to go round in a general way as detailed in the report conclusions.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have presented the views of various people who are respected in their professions. I am only a reporter.

Hahahaha

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There are elite 'trident' teams of frogmen who are trained to do exactly all of that stuff, you know.

They have special officer-seeking radar to spot captains in the sea at night even among a couple of hundred other people. Specially trained. They go through any number of captains in training, but by the end, they're the elite. No hat with a bit of brass on evades their frog-like senses. The merest sniff of an epaulet.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They'll be the guys in the posh life boat, warm clothes and survival suits. It's not difficult.

The captain and his senior officers of Oceanos immediately took to a life boat as soon as they knew there was a problem, leaving behind all of the passengers as the vessel slowly sank over eighteen hours. The Captain was arrested (hello!!!) and his story was that he thought the rescue would be better served if he was directing it from the shore. He was brought to justice.

So tell me, why is it nuts for the Swedish Defence Forces to go after Estonia's senior crew during the rescue, in your view?

Which 'posh lifeboat' would that be?
What is a 'posh lifeboat'?
How do you tell it from any of the other lifeboats?

remember it's dark, a raging storm and the sea is full of boats, life rafts, survivors, bodies and wreckage.

Yes it would be 'nuts' to waste resources searching for a posh lifeboat to rescue the captain and his officers that you didn't know were in a lifeboat in the first place.

Or is it now your claim that the 'powers that be' knew the captain and command team were already off the ship and in a 'posh lifeboat'?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is the penny dropping...?

No. Straight question.

Those other ships' officers were questioned. The Estonia's were "disappeared", you claim. Why?

 

[Vixen]

Nope. Will yours be to take aside one rescuer and give them secret orders to find, kidnap and "disappear" the captain?

How will you tell them to do that? Do they have to throw back anyone they rescue who isn't the captain?

The Defence Forces work on a 'need to know' basis so if you tell 'Agent Y64' to bring in the senior crew, that is all he needs to know. It will not be for him to know anything about other plans, such as prosecution, classification or disappearance. The fact Svensson openly chatted to reporters at Berga, shows he would not have known what was planned for the people he rescued.

 

[Vixen]

Who had been been warned and what had been ignored?

How does that justify an act of war in sinking a foreign ship and murdering over 1000 people?

Why would Sweden or Finland or Estonia cover something like that up?

Why do you lay everything at Sweden when Finland and Estonia are also involved?

The Commission consisted of three members from each state and was chaired by an Estonian.

The report was published by Estonia.

Why would Estonia cover up that the Russians had sunk one of their ships?

The Estonia side of the JAIC claim it is a cover up. Finland goes along with Sweden.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Defence Forces work on a 'need to know' basis so if you tell 'Agent Y64' to bring in the senior crew, that is all he needs to know. It will not be for him to know anything about other plans, such as prosecution, classification or disappearance. The fact Svensson openly chatted to reporters at Berga, shows he would not have known what was planned for the people he rescued.

How would he find the 'senior crew'?

How would he know they were even there to find and not at the bottom of the sea?