• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
JesseCuster said:
So according to you, Russia was responsible for the sinking of the Estonia?

Earlier in this thread you wouldn't commit to saying they were responsible. Now you seem pretty sure.

You seem to vacillate on all sorts of claims, lots of them mutually exclusive, surrounding what happened to the Estonia. At first the sinking was probably caused by accident with an escorting friendly submarine, now you seem to be squarely blaming it on the Russians.
Click to expand...

I would not know, other than to say I suspect this whole matter is an issue between Russia and Sweden (acting for the West aka CIA).


As was the DC-3 1952 issue.

The battle over control of the Baltic has never gone away, over a thousand years. WWII was barely yesterday. Fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin wall, a minute ago in terms of modern history.
 
Vixen said:
I would not know, other than to say I suspect this whole matter is an issue between Russia and Sweden.
Click to expand...
So if you don't know that Russia was responsible, why did you say that Russia knows exactly what happened to the Estonia? :confused:
 
Just as an aside, I was trained as a combat engineer by the U. S. Army. So I have some experience with explosives.

The “typical pack” might be, if you’re referring to a shipping container of TNT or C-4. It certainly does not look like a typical emplacement for a demolition charge intended to cut through steel.

A solid block is inefficient and ineffective. Typical charges on a steel target would use a flat line or a flat triangular shape, or a shaped charge at the least (a line charge with a copper penetrating would be best). None of which is represented by the “box” seen in this thread.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You can see the machinery space extends over at least two decks even on that little diagram.

What do you think they were 'fighting hard' with?
Once the pumps are on there is nothing else to do.
I can bet that they were in the control room watching the controls. Once the ship went over far enough to make the generators stop the pumps would be useless, there was nothing else for them to do, they got out as they should.
What makes you think they hadn't told the bridge that there was flooding in the machinery spaces?
Click to expand...

Because none of them admitted any problems in their statements.
 
Vixen said:
I know, because I read beyond the JAIC report. As I recall, it was Makela himself who explained why he could 'see' Estonia and Mariella could not.

Yes, it does seem from what MRCC and the ships in the vicinity said, expressing a tone of surprise they could 'see' each other but 'Estonia' was ephemeral.

MRCC turned it up from 12 to 24.
Click to expand...

Estonia was sinking, it was on it's side and low in the water. It would produce a smaller return than a ship that was upright.
they had it on their radar then they lost it as they started to approach, that's because it sank!

Why do you think it would be 'ephemeral' or disappear? Do the Russians have Klingon cloaking device that they put on the Estonia?
 
Vixen said:
I know, because I read beyond the JAIC report. As I recall, it was Makela himself who explained why he could 'see' Estonia and Mariella could not.

Yes, it does seem from what MRCC and the ships in the vicinity said, expressing a tone of surprise they could 'see' each other but 'Estonia' was ephemeral.

MRCC turned it up from 12 to 24.
Click to expand...

MRCC turned what up to 24?
 
Vixen said:
The parameters of the radar, as MRCC Turku states here in the police witness statement.
Click to expand...

As already posted, at the range of the shore based radar the Estonia would be lost in the clutter.
 
Vixen said:
The parameters of the radar, as MRCC Turku states here in the police witness statement.
Click to expand...

So according to your linked article the Estonia was indeed able to make a radio mayday call? I thought you claimed radio was being blocked??? Also I haven't even the foggiest clue what this captain having to switch from 12 to 24 mile range is supposed to prove.
 
lobosrul5 said:
So according to your linked article the Estonia was indeed able to make a radio mayday call? I thought you claimed radio was being blocked??? Also I haven't even the foggiest clue what this captain having to switch from 12 to 24 mile range is supposed to prove.
Click to expand...

It got through ...when it was too late.

Helsinki Radio - the official conveyors of the mayday to the Marine Rescue Coordination Centres - didn't get the mayday alert on Estonia's behalf to MRCC Stockholm until 01:48, the same moment Estonia was completely sunk.

OK maybe you don't think a Mayday is particularly urgent...
 
JesseCuster said:
Where is Finland or Sweden mentioned in that?
Click to expand...

The CIA list has been posted here before.

Try the following: see for example, ”smugglers with radioactive Califonium 235 – arrested Germany and Finland – Nucleonics Week, 2 Sept 1993.

’28-kilogram lead container of Caesium-137 onto a ferry…’ Estonia Arrests Swedes who had Radioactive Material – Reuters 9 July 1993.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom