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

[Jack by the hedge]

It's been posted before. Just do a search and look it up.


If you are genuinely interested, that is.

LOL. You were asked for a reference to support your claim and provided a link which doesn't. Now you're falling back on do your own research.

No sale.

 

[abaddon]

<snip irrelevant junk post>

Try responding to what is posted instead of whatever you imagined was posted.

As an accredited engineer, I can spot the baloney a mile off. Jay is far more qualified than I. The good Captain served in the RN and knows his stuff. And so on.

In my case, my specialty was radio and telecommunications. ALL of your claims about radio/radar/sonar are utter bunk. Why should the wild claims of a random Finnish accountant override my professional education and experience? What exactly do you know about how such systems work? Why, exactly, do submarines not use radar while submerged? Have you any clue why that is?

 

[Axxman300]

Even if it was a commercial passenger ship, it doesn't mean the engineer guys were not fighting hard to stop the ingress of water into Deck 0 sometime before the bow visor detached at 0115, according to JAIC. The fact these guys wasted no time hopping into their survivors suits and onto a raft together, complete with passport, indicates they had an early sign the boat was doomed by sheer dint of their being together in the ECR fighting the inflood but omitting to inform the bridge.

Here's a concept:

Being engineers, when they saw how deep the water was on the car deck they knew the ship was screwed, and suited up to get the hell out of there. I don't know if they called the bridge, or if they assumed that since the bridge had the same closed-circuit feeds they did, that they already knew.

Either way, it speaks to the level of professionalism, or in the case, the lack thereof on MS Estonia.

 

[lobosrul5]

Here's a concept:

Being engineers, when they saw how deep the water was on the car deck they knew the ship was screwed, and suited up to get the hell out of there. I don't know if they called the bridge, or if they assumed that since the bridge had the same closed-circuit feeds they did, that they already knew.

Either way, it speaks to the level of professionalism, or in the case, the lack thereof on MS Estonia.

To add, I believe we already had a discussion, many many pages ago, about commercial ships not having anything like damage control parties as seen on warships. Their choices were probably leave, or drown. And even if they panicked and left their stations earlier than they rightly should have it proves... lets see here... absolutely nothing.

 

[abaddon]

Here's a concept:

Being engineers, when they saw how deep the water was on the car deck they knew the ship was screwed, and suited up to get the hell out of there. I don't know if they called the bridge, or if they assumed that since the bridge had the same closed-circuit feeds they did, that they already knew.

Either way, it speaks to the level of professionalism, or in the case, the lack thereof on MS Estonia.

A little unfair. In the event of an impending disaster, the first action of crew is to don their survival gear first. It's SOP. One has to be alive to help the passengers. It is much akin to the instructions given on airliners. Get your own mask on first then deal with your children's masks. Everyone would know that if they paid a blind bit of heed to the instructions given before flight. Of course everyone ignores both the instructions and the reasons for them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here's a concept:

Being engineers, when they saw how deep the water was on the car deck they knew the ship was screwed, and suited up to get the hell out of there. I don't know if they called the bridge, or if they assumed that since the bridge had the same closed-circuit feeds they did, that they already knew.

Either way, it speaks to the level of professionalism, or in the case, the lack thereof on MS Estonia.

With the volume of water entering the car deck and finding it's way below there is no way the pumps on a ferry would be able to keep up, the ship was doomed.
Once the ship listed and power was lost there was nothing else for the engineers to do.

I linked to the board of inquiry report in to the HMS Nottingham grounding.

Look at the efforts that were needed to stop it sinking and they had highly trained damage control teams, wooden beams, screw jacks and caulking materials, subdivisions designed to stop flooding, far more pumping available than a merchant ship plus extra portable pumps.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A little unfair. In the event of an impending disaster, the first action of crew is to don their survival gear first. It's SOP. One has to be alive to help the passengers. It is much akin to the instructions given on airliners. Get your own mask on first then deal with your children's masks. Everyone would know that if they paid a blind bit of heed to the instructions given before flight. Of course everyone ignores both the instructions and the reasons for them.

Quite right, I don't know why Vixen thinks it unusual that experienced ships crew wouldn't have been in survival suits when the ship sank.
It's not unusual for experienced crew to buy their own suits, the usual kit supplied by the ship are always SOLAS minimum standard. It doesn't cost a huge amount of money to get yourself a suit that is easier to put on, more robust and giving longer immersion time.

 

[Vixen]

Quite right, I don't know why Vixen thinks it unusual that experienced ships crew wouldn't have been in survival suits when the ship sank.
It's not unusual for experienced crew to buy their own suits, the usual kit supplied by the ship are always SOLAS minimum standard. It doesn't cost a huge amount of money to get yourself a suit that is easier to put on, more robust and giving longer immersion time.

Then you will appreciate how vanishingly unlikely it is for those senior officers to have all drowned. (Having first been listed as survivors and Piht confirmed as being interviewed.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Then you will appreciate how vanishingly unlikely it is for those senior officers to have all drowned. (Having first been listed as survivors and Piht confirmed as being interviewed.)

Why is it vanishingly unlikely?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

As I have said before, Bjorkman and Bollyn are nothing to do with me.

It doesn't matter what you say; as things stand now, they have a good deal to do with you, and will remain thus until you renounce their content altogether.

You brought both Bjorkman and Bollyn into the discussion by repeating their talking points. And they will remain in the discussion until you either retract those points or find other independent sources that support them.

When you find some other source claiming, for example, that Sweden committed enforced disappearance on the two Egyptians, you'll be able to drop Bollyn and use that other source instead.

Until then, your choices are: 1) retract the claim, or 2) live with the fact that you have aligned with Bollyn.

 

[Axxman300]

A little unfair. In the event of an impending disaster, the first action of crew is to don their survival gear first. It's SOP. One has to be alive to help the passengers. It is much akin to the instructions given on airliners. Get your own mask on first then deal with your children's masks. Everyone would know that if they paid a blind bit of heed to the instructions given before flight. Of course everyone ignores both the instructions and the reasons for them.

I suppose it's unfair, but this came after almost an hour of non-investigation of the report of water coming in at the bow on the car deck. I don't pretend to know how things are supposed to work on a ship, but my job requires that I monitor security cameras, and personally investigate any report of damage, no matter how trivial. My cameras are a thousand times better than the ones Estonia would have had in 1994, and I still can't rely on them alone to assess structural, plumbing, or other physical damage.

It's great they could get their survival suits on in the required time, and thankfully we have their testimony to shoot down conspiracy nonsense. I just don't understand why nobody physically went to the bow area of the car deck to look for themselves as soon as the report came in. Even if I'm not ordered to do so, if I'm on a ship then it's my butt too, so I'm going to take a look.

 

[Axxman300]

Then you will appreciate how vanishingly unlikely it is for those senior officers to have all drowned. (Having first been listed as survivors and Piht confirmed as being interviewed.)

No, he was never interviewed, and never listed as rescued. This has been covered twice now. It was only a rumor that was never confirm, but the media ran with it anyway as fact.

 

[Axxman300]

With the volume of water entering the car deck and finding it's way below there is no way the pumps on a ferry would be able to keep up, the ship was doomed.
Once the ship listed and power was lost there was nothing else for the engineers to do.

I linked to the board of inquiry report in to the HMS Nottingham grounding.

Look at the efforts that were needed to stop it sinking and they had highly trained damage control teams, wooden beams, screw jacks and caulking materials, subdivisions designed to stop flooding, far more pumping available than a merchant ship plus extra portable pumps.

Makes sense. My failed point is that had they known sooner they could have made smarter decisions.

 

[Marras]

The JAIC state that Turku Police visited the scene at Utö. (See JAIC Section 7.5.5 re Helicopter OH-HVF Super Puma time 15:35 where it says police investigators joined them).

JAIC is not Helsingin Sanomat.

You said that Helsingin Sanomat reported it.

You are yet again inventing sources for your statements. This is the reason why no one believes you when you say that some source say something.

Because you either misremember things or, as I believe, blatantly lie when speaking about who writes what.

Are you seriously claiming no effort was taken to identify and verify identity of the survivors, and having been added to a survivors list, they could then just be removed, with no press statement or government statement explaining how come?

I am saying that the source that you gave did not say what you claimed it said.

And this is true. At this point it is almost a universal truth that if you say that a source says something, it doesn't.


And, as you perfectly well know, Piht's name is only on one handwritten note taped to a window. And if I remember correctly, that note didn't have his birthday in it but right now I can't be bothered to dig the photo of the note again to see if it was there.

 

[Marras]

It's been posted before. Just do a search and look it up.


If you are genuinely interested, that is.

You are yet again sending someone to a wild goose chase trying to find your non-existent sources.

Just like you did with your Times spies in Stalingrad thing.

 

[Mojo]

It was something I read in the papers but I can't find it now so have retracted it.

No you haven’t. You have deleted it.

 

[Vixen]

Why is it vanishingly unlikely?

They were billeted adjacent to the Voronin family - it seems Piht might even have shared the same cabin - and an old sea captain b 1917. Plus they were near the life saving equipment. In addition, they were listed as survivors. Most of the people who got out safely were either crew or those on Deck 1 or the higher decks, such as the young adults sleeping outside the cafeteria on the promenade deck. Reuters confirmed Bengt Stenmark waterways transport minister stating Piht had been interviewed. The Evening Standard in London (Colin Andersson) and the Helsingin Sanomat reported that he had been rescued and that they were waiting to interview him, with the ES even claiming in the headline that jail may await the guilty.

Swedish and Danish newspapers reported that Piht had disappeared from a Helsinki Hospital.

There were rumours he was seen going or being taken to the German Embassy.

 

[Vixen]

It doesn't matter what you say; as things stand now, they have a good deal to do with you, and will remain thus until you renounce their content altogether.

You brought both Bjorkman and Bollyn into the discussion by repeating their talking points. And they will remain in the discussion until you either retract those points or find other independent sources that support them.

When you find some other source claiming, for example, that Sweden committed enforced disappearance on the two Egyptians, you'll be able to drop Bollyn and use that other source instead.

Until then, your choices are: 1) retract the claim, or 2) live with the fact that you have aligned with Bollyn.

Neither of them reflect my own views.

Stop trying to force other people's ideologies onto me.

 

[Vixen]

I suppose it's unfair, but this came after almost an hour of non-investigation of the report of water coming in at the bow on the car deck. I don't pretend to know how things are supposed to work on a ship, but my job requires that I monitor security cameras, and personally investigate any report of damage, no matter how trivial. My cameras are a thousand times better than the ones Estonia would have had in 1994, and I still can't rely on them alone to assess structural, plumbing, or other physical damage.

It's great they could get their survival suits on in the required time, and thankfully we have their testimony to shoot down conspiracy nonsense. I just don't understand why nobody physically went to the bow area of the car deck to look for themselves as soon as the report came in. Even if I'm not ordered to do so, if I'm on a ship then it's my butt too, so I'm going to take a look.

The fire watch man, Silve Linde claims he was on the car deck by the bow when he as almost knocked to his feet by a loud bang and an enormous pitch. In his initial interview with a newspaper, DN I believe, he never mentioned seeing water, just hearing a bang, and during the course of his seven interviews - changing his story all the time - the lound bang became a tiny noise that could only be heard from about five metres away of the bow visor and that he had gone to the information desk on Deck 5 to ask the lady to unlock the car deck (which was locked during the journey) when let's face it, he already had access and was probably going to ask her to announce an alarm.

He was in a life raft even before Ainsalu got his Mayday out. Hopw do we know? Because he claims he looked at his watch.

Truth is, there never was any great amount of water on the car deck that was not normal for that vessel in rainy weather, since the bow visor leaked.

Linde, True, Sillaste and Kadak got out because they knew the lower deck was being flooded.


The story the JAIC and the shipping company wanted to stick to (who had an interest on the JAIC) was the bow visor being the prime site of the accident, with everything else shipshape and Bristol fashion.

 

[Vixen]

No, he was never interviewed, and never listed as rescued. This has been covered twice now. It was only a rumor that was never confirm, but the media ran with it anyway as fact.

How do you know 'he was never interviewed'? He was at Turku Hospitial, where the three prime ministers met to interview Sillaste (who was seen in handcuffs).

The press and the government never withdrew their earlier claims he was alive.