Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Vixen]

Maybe the Estonia did a bit of trawling on the side?
Got to find those fish.

I haven't got enough ribs.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Citation, please of where it is confirmed they died in the sinking. Helsingin Sanomat confirmed that Captain Andresson went down with his ship and a diver claimed to have seen a bullet through his head, so that is one.

Where is the confirmation that the others did not survive after all, after having been listed as survivors?

Show us where any of the divers identified Andresson.

Why should we take a newspaper report as the authority on this?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I haven't got enough ribs.

So tell us what sonar has to do with the sinking.
What would a ferry use one for apart from when navigating a narrow channel when entering or leaving harbour for example?

 

[Andy_Ross]

FSU. As well as the Felix Report, two Russian newspapers reported that the Estonia was carrying 240kg of heroin and 40 tonnes of cobalt IIRC for nucleur fuel rods. They claimed Captain Andresson was forced by a Mafia to open the bow visor and car ramp to dispose of it as the Swedish customs had been tipped off. Whether true or not, the stern ramp had been opened slightly when the divers went down to have a look and a diving intern Harri Ruotsalainen claims he saw sonar images of trucks on the seabed at the time.

And certainly, the Swedes seemed completely unsurprised by the disaster, immediately handwaving it away as 'design fault in the bow visor locks'. A wave and all that.

Make your mind up. you just told us it was sabotage with explosives and ramming by a submarine.

Nuclear fuel rods? that's a new claim.

 

[junkshop]

Margus Kurm state prosecutor for Estonia at the time believes it was a submarine. I think he knows better than you about what was going on.

Why do you think that? Please explain.

As I understand it...

comment redacted

if the car deck infrastructure, such as its floor, was breached, then, yes water would flood in...

..or maybe it's door? You know, the one that opens onto the sea?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I never did understand what enjoyment people get heckling from the back of the hall. Maybe you think it is clever.

Royal Navy military explosives expert Brian Braidwood and Fellowes of the Naval Academy concluded there was almost certainly some plastic explosive devices placed at strategic positions along the sides near the locks.

Prof. Ida Westermann of Norway, concludes that the metal sample she took from the bow visor shows signs of deformation consistent with extreme conditions.

Where is this evidence of explosive devices?

What evidence does this ex navy bloke have that we haven't seen?

Not the cardboard boxes again?

If they are still there to be seen how did they blow anything up?

 

[Vixen]

Are you now claiming no passengers made it off the ship and no lifeboats were launched?

ETA: please list these 101 reasons the visor may have broken off.

The statistics are these:

Official number of survivors: 137 No. Crew: 43 (23% of total passengers 31% of survivors) Passengers: 94 Male Survivors 111 (81%) Female Survivors 26 (19%) Male:female total passengers 40:60
Number dead recovered: 94
Total: 231
Estimated Number of total passengers/crew: 989 (Shipping co. has 1,049)
Crew: 191
Passengers: 798
Missing: 758
Missing Males: 343 Missing Females: 415 (M:F 45:55)

Number of lifeboats known to have been launched either by design or by breaking off: 2

So you see, had you been a passenger, you would have had a near 90% chance of not surviving. No child under the age of 12 survived and no woman over the age of 60. The average survivor was a male circa 35 - 40 with two young children.

It is claimed the life boats could not be launched because the violent list and angle gave the crew no time to do this safely. We know at least two did launch or break off accidentally, because people were clinging onto them. There might well be a couple of life boats we don't know about.

There were life rafts which automatically inflated when hitting the water, and had various supplies, of which some were found to be missing. There were many life rafts but few were able to sustain life and survivors for much longer than six hours or so.


One hundred and one reasons the bow visor might have fallen off

Explosive devices
Arc-acetyline cutting equipment
Blowtorches
Collision with rock
Collison with boat
Collision with debris
Collision with a pallet
Collison with a submarine
Mine (Estonia lies in a minefield)
Torpedo
90 variations of the above theme.

 

[Andy_Ross]

MRCC Turku in the police witness statements says they could not capture Estonia's image n the sonar except very vaguely once in a left hand corner (which could have been anything).

Mariella and Europa both said they could not see Estonia on their radar or had trouble doing so.

There is a transcript and that transcript tells a sorry story of desperate communication problems with the young officers papping their pants and begging to know whether help was coming.

Both Mariella and Europa had to use their own NMT handheld mobile phones to ring up MRCC Turku on its land line.

You know better of course.

They couldn't see it on the radar because it was a storm and the ship sank.

Storms reduce radar range dramatically. Rain reduces range, pitching of the ship and height of the waves produces a lot of clutter and a ship on it's side and low in the water will have a much reduces return.
They would be lucky to get more than a couple of miles range on a commercial navigation set in that era.
When it has sunk of course it will not be visible at all.

Their transmission was heard and replied to, we have a transcript of it. The ship lost power and turned on it's side, all they had to work with were hand held, low power radio sets, they were lucky to be heard at all. They should have put out a Pan message as soon as they felt there was something wrong and a Mayday much sooner while they still had some control of the situation and some power to the main set.

 

[Vixen]

Six months ago:


That's quite the turnabout you've done since the beginning of this thread Vixen!

At first it was only trolls who suggested submarines causing the sinking, now you're fully onboard with the idea of a submarine ramming the Estonia.

Open-minded, that's me.

 

[Vixen]

I bet if I took the trouble to go back to the early days of this CT thread (part 1), we'd see Vixen making submarine claims. Although maybe that was only after the fishing boat story was so thoroughly debunked that she gave up?

Debunked? Where?

 

[Vixen]

I was rather hoping for remixes by some trendy young producer in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.

Your wish is my command.

 

[Axxman300]

Margus Kurm state prosecutor for Estonia at the time believes it was a submarine. I think he knows better than you about what was going on.

Clearly not.

 

[Vixen]

The hole is above the waterline. We can see it is above the waterline. It opens on to the car deck.

Why would the engineer have to open and close watertight doors? which ones do you think he had to open and close to get to the engineering control room? He was working in the machinery space, guess where the control room is?

What do you think operating the bilge pumps involves? they are either pumping or they are not.

The doors were alarmed in that the bridge officers could see a light come on, and I dare say there was some kind buzzing noise or light when the door was in an ajar position, to warn that it needed to be shut properly.

Note the tiny number of passengers who survived, included quite a few from Deck 1 who made it to the upper deck before the rest. Why? Because they heard everything loudly and saw the rising water.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The statistics are these:

Official number of survivors: 137 No. Crew: 43 (23% of total passengers 31% of survivors) Passengers: 94 Male Survivors 111 (81%) Female Survivors 26 (19%) Male:female total passengers 40:60
Number dead recovered: 94
Total: 231
Estimated Number of total passengers/crew: 989 (Shipping co. has 1,049)
Crew: 191
Passengers: 798
Missing: 758
Missing Males: 343 Missing Females: 415 (M:F 45:55)

Number of lifeboats known to have been launched either by design or by breaking off: 2

So you see, had you been a passenger, you would have had a near 90% chance of not surviving. No child under the age of 12 survived and no woman over the age of 60. The average survivor was a male circa 35 - 40 with two young children.

It is claimed the life boats could not be launched because the violent list and angle gave the crew no time to do this safely. We know at least two did launch or break off accidentally, because people were clinging onto them. There might well be a couple of life boats we don't know about.

There were life rafts which automatically inflated when hitting the water, and had various supplies, of which some were found to be missing. There were many life rafts but few were able to sustain life and survivors for much longer than six hours or so.

Liferafts have to be launched, a good number were launched by the crew.
Current SOLAS requirements for coastal liferents do not specify anything other than Bailer, pump, knife, instructions, Paddles, Repair kit, Rescue ring, torch, Sponge and a whistle.
At the time of the Estonia sinking not even all of these were required. rescue from a raft in coastal or enclosed waters like the Baltic is expected within 6 to 12 hours so no food or water is required.

One hundred and one reasons the bow visor might have fallen off

Explosive devices
Arc-acetyline cutting equipment
Blowtorches
Collision with rock
Collison with boat
Collision with debris
Collision with a pallet
Collison with a submarine
Mine (Estonia lies in a minefield)
Torpedo
90 variations of the above theme.

A rock? really?
A pallet? really?

Anyway explosives, cutting torches, rocks, boats, debris, pallets, submarines, mines, torpedoes or anything else you can imagine would have left damage that would have been evident.

Estonia does not lie in a minefield.

 

[junkshop]

Hiya Vixen

I have a question, if I may be so bold. You have recently returned to arguments and theories that you were proposing in the early days of this thread. A 'reset', if you will. In doing so, however, you have left a number of questions that other posters had put to you unanswered.

My question, then, is this:

do you intend to answer these questions, or are you running away from them?​

I would appreciate an honest and forthright answer, as it would help me decide my approach, or indeed whether it is even worthwhile continuing, in this thread.

Ta, j

 

[Andy_Ross]

The doors were alarmed in that the bridge officers could see a light come on, and I dare say there was some kind buzzing noise or light when the door was in an ajar position, to warn that it needed to be shut properly.

Note the tiny number of passengers who survived, included quite a few from Deck 1 who made it to the upper deck before the rest. Why? Because they heard everything loudly and saw the rising water.

Which doors needed to be opened though? you haven't told us. Why do you think they were open?
We know water was rising, the ship was flooding through the missing bow and down through the various ventilators, exhausts and intakes to the machinery spaces.
Ships are not watertight from above, ships superstructures are not watertight.

 

[Vixen]

You have not understood it for at least 6 months from the very first time you posted it here, despite having your misunderstanding explained in detail numerous times.

The rest of your post below is irrelevant to my question, but I had fun reading it anyway.



I have hilighted the vagueness and waffling in your post. Your speculation is much less than convincing.

The bilge pumps cannot be operated "frantically" as per your hyperbole . They are electric. You turn them on with a switch and they operate. Do you visualize a crew cranking levers up and down working hand pumps?

Are you now abandoning your "bomb on the bow door" claim and sticking with your intentional submarine collision fantasy?

No more attempted hijacking, or shooting on the bridge?

No more mines attached to the hull?

C-S did post a video a few times of guys in an engine room running around like crazy with water jetting out all over the place. That is where the 'frantic' comes from.

As I said IMV the persons responsible were determined the vessel's journey would terminate there and then. If you recall the abortive USS Cole terrorist attempt, with jihadist strapped to the gills in suicide vests and a boat loaded with 700kg of explosives: all they managed was a large hole in the side. Whoever brought down that ship, planned it meticulously, had know how to make dang sure it would sink, with no chance of rescue or evacuation.

People resist this idea because they think, no-one could be so wicked, so they comfort themselves that it was an accident because it feels better. But that does not replace the truth.

 

[Axxman300]

Citation please of where it is confirmed the so-called missing crew are still on the ship.

I'm trying to cut back on my gif use, but I'd insert a Sherlock Holmes gif right here.

I'll splain it for you: If they're not on land, and not in a coffin, they're on the ship (or bottom of the sea).

Yes, it is that simple.

As for the command crew not seeing the bow, it had a green light which showed when the hydraulic sensor for the Atlantic lock was in place. The stuff of not seeing the bow is just JAIC trivial detail.

Why are the key details always trivial to you?

They ignored the report of water rushing into the car deck instead of deploying a damage-control party to inspect it. The morons just went with their indicator lights even though they could have sent someone down to the bow for a look.

The captain and crew failed basic seamanship, and sank the ship.

What do you mean command waited too long to abandon ship? The crew had regular drills.

Obviously never took them seriously, and we have no idea how proficient they might have been because there was no alarm to man the lifeboats...because the command failed to react.

How can you evacuate a ship with a thousand people if it is stricken by determined saboteurs, no signals, change of watch, series of explosions...?

None of that happened.

On-Scene-Commmander Captain Esa Mäkela stated that the storm was no worse than any September storm in the Baltic.

Which means it was pretty bad, especially for the Estonia, which was not designed for open-ocean travel.

I'm sure there were a few pub fights in Dublin this past weekend which were no worse than any other pub brawl in January.

Yes, Day One. Read the early newspapers. Day One.

We did.

 

[Vixen]

Which doors needed to be opened though? you haven't told us. Why do you think they were open?
We know water was rising, the ship was flooding through the missing bow and down through the various ventilators, exhausts and intakes to the machinery spaces.
Ships are not watertight from above, ships superstructures are not watertight.

There were fifteen water-tight bulkheads on Deck 0.

All that was down there was the swimming pool, sauna, toilets and engine control room. All with sealed doors and gaskets. The ECR was alarmed for safety.

 

[Vixen]

From the report Chapter 13 Development of the Accident
Section 13.4 Advance indications and alarms from the bow area

There was also a hydraulic sensor when the Atlantic lock was in place.