• 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 VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
You're not a diver.



You're not a military historian.



You're not a political scientist.
Click to expand...

To add to this - let's look at what it is about.

  • Bureaucrats from two Swedish government agencies come to an agreement on how to act in a specific situation.
  • This agreement is shared with a third party.
  • That third party, who is a senior judge, writes a description of the agreement.
  • The description is written as a formal report to the Swedish Government.

After this, I (not an expert translator in any way) translate a sentence from Swedish to English, and post it here.

Finally, Vixen does some kind of analysis of this translated sentence, and pretends to be able to come to conclusions on who initially said it!
 
Vixen said:
  • On the stroke of midnight
  • mid-point of journey distance-wise
  • mid-point of journey time-wise
  • sunk withoout trace of debris or flotsam within 35mins
  • the only comparable times of sinking are ships destroyed by military attack
  • massive breach in the hull - not mentioned by JAIC - so 'classified'.
  • military vehicles seen loaded at last minute
  • Capt Andresson not at the stern
  • winchman received top military combat honours 'FOR OPERATIONS'.
  • British naval explosives experts Braidwood & Fellows recognised a hexacomposite device on the bow undetonated.
  • independent university academics cannot rule out explosive deformation of metal at the bow.
  • Prof Ida Westermann of Norway Uni of Technology could rule out 'normal friction' such as pounding of waves.
  • The fact the Swedish government demanded to have the vessel covered in concrete instead of bringing home the bodies.
Click to expand...

Do you actually read any of the replies to your nonsense?
 
The idea seems to be that we can tell it was a military attack from such clues as, for example, the ship sinking exactly halfway though its voyage.

Putting aside the minor point that it didn't, may we see the evidence that this is characteristic of a military attack? For example a list of similar historical military attacks on ships timed to occur halfway through their voyage in order to send a message.

No, I didn't think so.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I was just going to ignore this, but as you asked about it, I'll respond. "Double-headed hammer" is a colloquial term for bar shot, in which multiple projectiles are connected by one or more iron bars. This, along with the closely related chainshot, is known as dismantling shot, and was used mainly to attempt to damage enemy vessels' masts, sails, and rigging.

As for Nelson's always following a broadside of "cannon shot" (presumably Vixen means roundshot, or ball) with a broadside of dismantling shot, she just pulled that out of an orifice, as usual. First, Nelson never told his captains what type of ammunition to fire; each captain used his own judgment based on Royal Navy doctrine and the tactical situation. Second, dismantling shot was usually fired from a ship's lighter guns, as a 32lb bar or chainshot was unlikely to cause significantly more damage than a 12lb shot, as either one would have likely torn through any rope, sail, or spar encountered. But a 32lb ball striking the hull of an enemy vessel would have almost certainly caused far more damage than a 12lb ball.
Click to expand...

OK, yes I was familiar with chain shot. I have twice read the Aubrey-Maturin series after all, not to mention playing nearly every Pirates of the Caribbean style PC game ever made... if they used the term "double-headed hammer" I had forgotten it. And of course it wasn't a line-of-battle tactic to follow up round shot with chain or bar. They were used to slow down a fleeing ship. And also the relevance to any of this to our topic and had is negligible just tangent number 19903423249 that our illustrious OP CT'er has give us.

Vixen said:
Round shot, bar shot and tiered grapeshot. The point was to attack the beam, then the rigging and then the crew. So the claim that no way could there be more than one cause of the Estonia sinking is misconceived if the sinking was a military operation.

No way was it 'a few strong waves pounding the bow'.
Click to expand...

No, thats not true. Two man-o-war's having a close in cannon battle do not then load chain or bar. And again, age of sail tactics have nothing whatsoever to do with a RORO ferry sinking in the 1990's.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
  • On the stroke of midnight
  • mid-point of journey distance-wise
  • mid-point of journey time-wise
  • sunk withoout trace of debris or flotsam within 35mins
  • the only comparable times of sinking are ships destroyed by military attack
  • massive breach in the hull - not mentioned by JAIC - so 'classified'.
  • military vehicles seen loaded at last minute
  • Capt Andresson not at the stern
  • winchman received top military combat honours 'FOR OPERATIONS'.
  • British naval explosives experts Braidwood & Fellows recognised a hexacomposite device on the bow undetonated.
  • independent university academics cannot rule out explosive deformation of metal at the bow.
  • Prof Ida Westermann of Norway Uni of Technology could rule out 'normal friction' such as pounding of waves.
  • The fact the Swedish government demanded to have the vessel covered in concrete instead of bringing home the bodies.
Click to expand...

Most of that is completely made up. And we've been over sinking time before. Lots of ships have sunk in seconds with no military action being involved. Do I need to invoke the Edmund Fitzgerald again?

Why would Capt Andresson have been at the stern?!
 
Vixen said:
Hard to be fooled when it is called HIKIPEDIA and there is an 'hilarious' cartoon illustrating it. It is satire. Taking a serious current topic and trying to see a humorous side to it from a political POV.
Click to expand...
You did no such thing.

You weren't joking when you cited Hikipedia and you weren't making a joke either. You were trying to bolster your claims, and you made your usual mistake of not actually checking your sources, and embarrassing cited a satire website.

There was nothing in your posts to indicate that you knew it was satire or that you were merely trying to see the humorous side of the discussion.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Most of that is completely made up. And we've been over sinking time before. Lots of ships have sunk in seconds with no military action being involved. Do I need to invoke the Edmund Fitzgerald again?

Why would Capt Andresson have been at the stern?!
Click to expand...

Not like for like. The Edmund Fitzgerald was found sliced in two and on Lake Ontario.

It was Andresson's watch. Piht had just come off. Linde in his statement claims to have been climbing the stairs behind Andresson up to the bridge at circa 00:58 just as he was doing his watch and the next watch of captain and the mates (a team of three or four) came on duty.
 
Vixen said:
Actually, 117 nautical miles, or, 218 km. so 208 km to go. So 5km either side of the midway point.


Tallinn to Stockholm is 426 km.
Click to expand...

Does your source for this info also list previous acknowledged military attacks which match this 'halfway' profile, to indicate it is a clue suggesting military involvement?

I assume the answer is no.
 
Vixen said:
Actually, 117 nautical miles, or, 218 km. so 208 km to go. So 5km either side of the midway point.


Tallinn to Stockholm is 426 km.
Click to expand...

So, which is it Vixen... did this military operation plan to blow the ship at precisely midnight (for a timezone the ship wasn't in), or did they plan it for exactly halfway along the journey? Or did the escorting sub accidentally ram it. Or was it rammed on purpose?

Oh and if these mysterious military cargo trucks were loaded last minute, they'd be at the stern. Why is the gash on the Estonia near amidships? Why is it above the waterline. If it was the cargo that exploded the hole would be near the stern would it not? Why would a special forces team plant explosives there and not lower?

None of this makes any sense. None.

You have to put all your theories combined together for them to fit. And they are largely mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom