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

[Vixen]

Mr. Piht, he dead.

He never left the ship.



That is your malfunction. There were many partially filled life-rafts, which speaks to the chaos on the decks as the ship rolled. The captain, if he was any good, would have been trying to solve the problem, not looking for an escape, and the captain would have certainly escaped.

He did not.



No, but I remember the headline: Dewey Wins! I also remember the special edition of the SF Chronicle printed after the 1989 Loma Prieta Quake which predicted tens of thousands dead on the collapsed Nimitz Freeway. I also remember the Miami Herald reporting that Private Jessica Lynch had been taken prisoner in Iraq after fighting off dozens of attackers single-handedly. Newspapers make mistakes, and Piht was a big one.



And?



And?



Really, they prosecute dead people in Europe?



And?

It was a big ship. What would the bartender know?



Why?

Why would the CIA want any of these people? Even if they had been smuggling something on the night the ship sank, they would not have done more than make quiet phone calls, and back-channel stuff to see if there was any way they could send divers into the wreck to get their goodies. The CIA would never grab anybody, certainly not non-criminal European nationals for no reason. When a mission goes wrong the CIA keeps a low profile, they don't go charging in grabbing people. They don't even do that now.

Just because you have some deep-seeded need to have the CIA be the root of all evil in your worldview doesn't make it so.



1. It was Russians who were selling the stuff.
2. Sinking a ship is not espionage.
3. If they had the capability to sink the Estonia then a couple of trucks should have been a piece of cake to stop.
4. If the CIA, the Swedes, Mossad, or MI6 was smuggling something out of Estonia, the Estonians wouldn't have known about it. Give them a little credit.




Why would the senior crew be put on trial for anything other than sailing the ship too fast in heavy seas?

Why would the senior crew know about smuggling?




I agree, explaining a stupid story would be difficult. Luckily the bow visor fell off.



Which isn't true, and has been debunked numerous times...



Three years? Almost as if they did a thorough investigation or something. Those monsters.



The bow visor was knocked off by rough seas. The only person that could be put on trial would be God, or Poseidon (depending on how specific you want to be). Technically it would have been the captain, for being reckless, but he went down with the ship. So...



And yet there is a new investigation that is not classified.



You just said the CIA and Estonia was behind it. Doesn't matter. The bow-visor was knocked off in rough seas. The KSI had nothing to do with that.



Bless your heart.



Why would the crew know about espionage? And if they did, they would have said something by now, and that hasn't happened.



You mean the same guy who didn't send a damage-control party to investigate the report of water rushing into the car-deck? That guy?



Okay, but why would the CIA grab them? Russians actually had this capability in 1994, and are good at grabbing people. And yes, I'm jealous. But the Russians wouldn't have sunk the ship. They're good at a lot of sneaky things, getting their stolen gear back would have been done brutally quiet.




The whole point of smuggling is secrecy. Nobody on MS Estonia would have known. Certainly none of the crew would have been privy to a clandestine operation. They'd assume their customs agents had done their jobs.

Bottom line: The Estonia sank due to mechanical failure brought about by reckless sailing speeds in conditions for which it was never designed. The command crew failed to respond to the report of water at the bow section of the car deck.

That's it.

Citation, please that 'Mr Piht he dead'.

 

[Vixen]

The CIA didn't "demand" anything. They made a request through diplomatic channels and Sweden approved.

This is a request that the CIA would not have made prior to 9-11, and certainly not a request Sweden would have granted prior to 9-11-2001. The attacks by Muslim extremists in Europe since 2001 suggest that Sweden might have had a good reason to be suspicious of these two men enough to allow the CIA to take them.

Nonsense. It was just a case of asking the police to hand them over. Plane waiting.

 

[Steve]

Citation, please that 'Mr Piht he dead'.

Definitely pinin' for the fjords.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, let me complete that classic Buffalo Springfield verse for you.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid...

Heh, almost cut my hair...


It's not me that's afraid. It is those people who are terrified of saying that they are not 100% satisfied with the conclusions of the JAIC report, as if odium and opprobium will be heaped on their heads and they will become socials pariahs.


That might happen here but why would you let that dictate what you dare to think or say?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Definitely pinin' for the fjords.

Close, but not quite. This is an Evil Plot, remember?

He was pining for the fnords.

 

[Vixen]

Are you claiming that Colin Anderson writing for the London Evening Standard saw Piht alive? Of course not. A London newspaper passing on someone else's misinformation is not evidence that Piht survived.


I recall that they went looking for Piht's effects and found Voronin's. I don't recall your establishing that the Voronin family shared a cabin with Piht, only that you have kept repeating the assumption as if that will eventually turn it into a fact. Can you show that they shared a cabin?


The dive transcript indicates that the diver and surface controller were unfamiliar with the name Voronin.



I do wish you would drop this crap about Bildt. Your much-repeated claim he declared to the press within hours what had caused the disaster has been very thoroughly debunked and it's just embarrassing to see you return to it like a dog to its vomit.

Do you have the citation where the Evening Standard or Helsingin Sanomat et all, retracted their comments and issued a correction and or/explanation for saying Piht had survived and was to be/had been interviewed?

As for Bildt, as you know he flew into Turku and with Kaar (Estonia) and Aho (Finland) flew to Helsinki the same day after the accident 29.9.1994 and appointed the JAIC with Kari Lehtola as spokesman.

In an interview PM Kaar said the insistence it was the bow visor falling off was Bildt's idea which he pushed strongly, even though Kaar himself was not so sure and thought sabotage (not unreasonably!) could be a factor.

 

[Marras]

Citation, please that 'Mr Piht he dead'.

You have given at least four mutually contradictory versions on how Piht survived.

At least three of them must be wrong.

I see no reason to assume that the fourth one is correct, either.

 

[junkshop]

Vixen,

What do you think OP means?

 

[Marras]

Do you have the citation where the Evening Standard or Helsingin Sanomat et all, retracted their comments and issued a correction and or/explanation for saying Piht had survived and was to be/had been interviewed?

For Helsingin Sanomat: https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003371032.html

You know this article already very well. You have quoted it yourself.

 

[Vixen]

Don't forget the secret dive controller.

As for the cabins they searched the ones they could get access to.

Many a true word said in jest. Bearing in mind they were able to confirm Andresson dead. If the old boy born 1917 and grossly obese Voronin and his family had no problems getting to a life raft, there is a strong chance the still fit senior officers also did, and indeed were listed as survivors. As you know, 138 were found alive (this final figure excluding the above). 252 were dead in their rafts or in the sea and were recovered. Among these was Third Officer Tammes - who made the famed Mayday call on a hand held device - who obviously had managed to escape the bridge even at about circa 0125.

So if the senior officers including Piht didn't survive after all and for some mysterious reason were registered as survivors, where are the bodies? Where are the dead bodies of these officers who presumably died of hypothermia instead, or at least one or two of them? None, did you say? Okaaaaaay.

Bearing in mind the divers checked the upper deck cabins and could easily have verified things.

 

[Vixen]

Who should have been arrested?

What offenses should they have been charged with?

Under whose legal authority should the arrests and charges have been made?

What should the just sentences have been for those offenses?

You're paying no more attention to this "elephant" than anyone else if you can't or won't answer those questions.

It is pretty standard for someone to be made accountable, even if it is only the shipowners left to answer for it. The Captain and the owners of The Herald of Free Enterprise were dragged before the courts to answer manslaughter and negligence charges. Despite the most appalling working practices and shocking lack of any safety whatsoever, the soft-hearted judge decided they had suffered enough and acquitted them.

However, they were brought to justice! It is not unusual or rare. Concordia and Oceanos were considered a disgrace for deserting the ship ahead of the passengers and punished accordingly.

Amazing people think this is quite unreasonable.

 

[zooterkin]

Do you have the citation where the Evening Standard or Helsingin Sanomat et all, retracted their comments and issued a correction and or/explanation for saying Piht had survived and was to be/had been interviewed?

Do you understand how newspapers work?

 

[Vixen]

For Helsingin Sanomat: https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003371032.html

You know this article already very well. You have quoted it yourself.

That is dated 1 October 1994, some three days after the accident. Let's wind back to the article of 29 Sept 1994, a Thursday, when Lehtola had only just been appointed the day before and his comments thus, relates to the Wednesday afternoon, the same day as the accident, albeit about sixteen hours later (but still day one!!!)

Water likely reached the car deck from the bow Scientists wade in a flood of rumours and data chips

Tukkimäki Paavo 29.9.1994 2:00

Investigators on the Estonian crash of the passenger ship consider it highly likely that water from the bow gate reached the ship's car deck. Henrik Sillaste, an Estonian machineman who worked in the control room of the ship's engine room, saw on his TV monitor how water sprayed in from the seams of the gate. On Wednesday evening, the investigators of the accident planned to start working with the ship's drawings to investigate the matter. Kari Lehtola, chairman of the Major Accident Investigation Planning Board, who is leading the investigation with interim powers, did not want to comment on Sillaste's report. [He had been interviewed by the Prime Ministers~ V]. On the Estonian side, however, the machineman's report is considered a probable key to investigating the cause. It's a complete mystery why the water got through the gate. Inspectors from the Swedish Maritime Board had visited the port of Tallinn on Tuesday and found that not all the seals in the bow hatch were in perfect condition. Superintendent Åke Sjöblom and marine engineer Gunnar Zahlée saw the deficiency as just a small detail - it could not have been the cause of (affected) the resulting accident.

HS

Vettä pääsi autokannelle todennäköisesti keulasta Tutkijat kahlaavat huhujen ja tiedonsirujen tulvassa


Tukkimäki Paavo

29.9.1994 2:00

Why are you so keen to cover this up? Was the newspaper somehow psychic and could foresee the bow visor theory or do you think Lehtola, who at that stage had interviewed nobody and had got all of his information from the three PM's dominated by Bildt?

What is your theory about the bow visor being blamed ON DAY ONE even though Superintendent Åke Sjöblom and marine engineer Gunnar Zahlée saw the deficiency as just a small detail - it could not have been the cause of (affected) the resulting accident?


Why are you so keen to have the bow visor as the cause of the accident when you must know there is no way anyone could come to a conclusion ON DAY ONE?

ETA: your article doesn't actually confirm Piht was dead nor does it provide any explanation for his being named as a survivor.

 

[Vixen]

Do you understand how newspapers work?

Oh please. Newspaper headline: Queen arrives in Melbourne.


If she did not, the next day, which would you expect to see:

1. "The Queen does not exist, our story came from nowhere.'
2. Correction: the Queen was not in Melbourne as reported. Sorry about that.

 

[Marras]

Why are you so keen to cover this up? Was the newspaper somehow psychic and could foresee the bow visor theory or do you think Lehtola, who at that stage had interviewed nobody and had got all of his information from the three PM's dominated by Bildt?

Don't you remember that MTV3 interviewed Henrik Sillaste and Hannes Kadak and showed it in the 19:00 news broadcast? The two men who said that the water got in through the bow gate? Then YLE reported on the interview at their main broadcast.

Do you think that reporters writing for the next day's paper didn't watch the TV news to see that interview? Do you think that Lehtola didn't watch the news broadcasts?

The news broadcast is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_4TYz1MRbM

[Edited to add: Lehtola explicitly referred to Sillaste as the source of the information that water got in from the front in his first interview to the press.]

 

[Steve]

Do you understand how newspapers work?

Hmmmm....

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The captains and/or crew/ and/or shipowners of The Herald of Free Enterprise, Bow Belle, Oceanos, Concordia and, more recently, Karin Høj, were all charged with either negligence or corporate manslaughter.

Those relatives of the Estonia dead must be crazy to expect anyone to come to justice unless they are conspiracy theorists, seems to be your attitude.

Nonsequitur. Nothing I wrote there implies anyone would be crazy to expect justice.

Let me ask you again: who would you like to have seen charged, with what offence and based upon what evidence, please?

 

[Stamuel]

That is dated 1 October 1994, some three days after the accident. Let's wind back to the article of 29 Sept 1994, a Thursday, when Lehtola had only just been appointed the day before and his comments thus, relates to the Wednesday afternoon, the same day as the accident, albeit about sixteen hours later (but still day one!!!)

HS




Why are you so keen to cover this up? Was the newspaper somehow psychic and could foresee the bow visor theory or do you think Lehtola, who at that stage had interviewed nobody and had got all of his information from the three PM's dominated by Bildt?

What is your theory about the bow visor being blamed ON DAY ONE even though Superintendent Åke Sjöblom and marine engineer Gunnar Zahlée saw the deficiency as just a small detail - it could not have been the cause of (affected) the resulting accident?


Why are you so keen to have the bow visor as the cause of the accident when you must know there is no way anyone could come to a conclusion ON DAY ONE?

ETA: your article doesn't actually confirm Piht was dead nor does it provide any explanation for his being named as a survivor.

Is this post a joke? The HS quote you posted tells you the source for water coming in at the bow: Sillaste. It also specifically says that Lehtola did not comment on the matter. So there is no mystery about where the idea of water through the bow came from, and there is no day one declaration that the bow visor was the cause.

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but if you're asking why every remotely credible source completely contradicts your theories, that is also easy to answer: your theories are obviously wrong.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do you have the citation where the Evening Standard or Helsingin Sanomat et all, retracted their comments and issued a correction and or/explanation for saying Piht had survived and was to be/had been interviewed?

No I don't. Is it your claim that those two newspapers still believe Piht is alive and your "proof" is that I don't know whether they ever issued a correction?

As for Bildt, as you know he flew into Turku and with Kaar (Estonia) and Aho (Finland) flew to Helsinki the same day after the accident 29.9.1994 and appointed the JAIC with Kari Lehtola as spokesman.

In an interview PM Kaar said the insistence it was the bow visor falling off was Bildt's idea which he pushed strongly, even though Kaar himself was not so sure and thought sabotage (not unreasonably!) could be a factor.

I note that the Kaar interview you refer to was his recollection of the incident later and was not conducted on 29.9.1994. Heaven forefend you should accidentally mislead anyone into thinking that.

Bildt did not, contrary to your repeated claim, tell the press on day 1 that the bow visor had caused the disaster.

 

[Myriad]

It is pretty standard for someone to be made accountable, even if it is only the shipowners left to answer for it. The Captain and the owners of The Herald of Free Enterprise were dragged before the courts to answer manslaughter and negligence charges. Despite the most appalling working practices and shocking lack of any safety whatsoever, the soft-hearted judge decided they had suffered enough and acquitted them.

However, they were brought to justice! It is not unusual or rare. Concordia and Oceanos were considered a disgrace for deserting the ship ahead of the passengers and punished accordingly.

Amazing people think this is quite unreasonable.

Thank you for sharing your opinion on the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. However, that's not what I asked.

Regarding the topic of this thread, the sinking of Estonia:

Who should have been arrested?

What offenses should they have been charged with?

Under whose legal authority should the arrests and charges have been made?

What should the just sentences have been for those offenses?

You're paying no more attention to this "elephant" than anyone else if you can't or won't answer those questions.