• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

I forgot to report back on my conversation with Ben the diver.

We didn't win the quiz by the way.

Anyway I showed him the images of the square object and the report.

In his opinion it could be anything but certainly doesn't look like any kind of charge or limpet mine he has ever seen, soviet or otherwise.

Also the report is speculation and ******** dressed up to look as though it means something.

He reckons the guy got paid to speculate on what kind of charge it could be if it was in fact a charge of some kind.

He calls bull on the whole thing.

Also he looked at pictures of the bow visor, ramp and hull and can't see any kind of explosive damage.

He thinks the easiest way to have sunk it is to plant charges in the machinery spaces.
If there was no access to the interior of the ship then magnetic charges adjacent to through hull fittings on the outside of the hull would be the way to go.
 
BazBear said:
I think most modern ones are powered by big marine diesels.
Click to expand...

Ahh, circling back to the "other" CT thread...

If you mean LNG ships by "most modern ones". No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_LNG_Engine#

A marine LNG engine is a dual fuel engine that uses natural gas and bunker fuel to convert chemical energy in to mechanical energy. Due to natural gas' cleaner burning properties, the use of natural gas in merchant ship propulsion plants is becoming an option for companies in order to comply with IMO and MARPOL environmental regulations. The natural gas is stored in liquid state (LNG) and the boil-off gas is routed to and burned in dual fuel engines.[1] Shipping companies have been cautious when choosing a propulsion system for their fleets. The steam turbine system has been the main choice as the prime mover on LNG carriers over the last several decades. The decades-old system on steam propelled LNG carriers uses BOG (boil-off gas). LNG carriers are heavily insulated to keep the LNG at around -160 °C – to keep it liquefied. Despite insulation, the LNG containment area is penetrated by heat which allows for naturally generated boil-off gas (BOG).

They have to do something with the BOG anyways... why not power the ship with it?

Most of them use steam powered turbines but MAN now has marine diesels than can use 95% BOG.

The MAN B&W ME-GI Engines have extremely flexible fuel modes that range from 95% natural gas to 100% HFO and anywhere in between. A minimum of 5% HFO for pilot oil is required as these are compression ignition engines and natural gas is not self-combustible.[4] Steam turbines are exclusively the primary moving source for LNG ships, even though 2-stroke diesel engines are more efficient. This is because the boil-off gas from LNG needs to be utilized.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Ahh, circling back to the "other" CT thread...

If you mean LNG ships by "most modern ones". No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_LNG_Engine#

A marine LNG engine is a dual fuel engine that uses natural gas and bunker fuel to convert chemical energy in to mechanical energy. Due to natural gas' cleaner burning properties, the use of natural gas in merchant ship propulsion plants is becoming an option for companies in order to comply with IMO and MARPOL environmental regulations. The natural gas is stored in liquid state (LNG) and the boil-off gas is routed to and burned in dual fuel engines.[1] Shipping companies have been cautious when choosing a propulsion system for their fleets. The steam turbine system has been the main choice as the prime mover on LNG carriers over the last several decades. The decades-old system on steam propelled LNG carriers uses BOG (boil-off gas). LNG carriers are heavily insulated to keep the LNG at around -160 °C – to keep it liquefied. Despite insulation, the LNG containment area is penetrated by heat which allows for naturally generated boil-off gas (BOG).

They have to do something with the BOG anyways... why not power the ship with it?

Most of them use steam powered turbines but MAN now has marine diesels than can use 95% BOG.

The MAN B&W ME-GI Engines have extremely flexible fuel modes that range from 95% natural gas to 100% HFO and anywhere in between. A minimum of 5% HFO for pilot oil is required as these are compression ignition engines and natural gas is not self-combustible.[4] Steam turbines are exclusively the primary moving source for LNG ships, even though 2-stroke diesel engines are more efficient. This is because the boil-off gas from LNG needs to be utilized.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.:thumbsup:
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Did you ever find that statement of Ovberg where he actually said he saw the trucks?

I asked you about it and you said you'd get back to me.
Click to expand...
It's in the same place as the source for the Atlantic lock only being installed to make people feel safer and how she knows the contents of the captain's contract.
 
The Swedish Prosecuting Authority have today decided not to reopen the old case, nor to start a new investigation regarding the sinking of M/S Estonia.

https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-pre...rlisningen-av-fartyget-estonia-har-avslutats/

Baserat på vad som framkommit genom utredningsmyndigheternas åtgärder finns det inget som tyder på att det skulle ha skett en kollision med ett fartyg eller ett flytande föremål och inte heller någon explosion i fören. Inte heller har något annat framkommit som ger anledning att anta att ett brott har begåtts. De ytterligare åtgärder som planeras av utredningsmyndigheterna förväntas inte påverka min bedömning. Därmed ska inte förundersökning inledas och ärendet avslutas, säger kammaråklagare Karolina Wieslander.
Click to expand...

Unofficial translation said:
Based on what has emerged through the [Estonian] investigative authorities' actions, there is nothing to indicate that there would have been a collision with a ship or a floating object, nor any explosion in the bow. Nor has anything else come to light that gives reason to assume that a crime has been committed. The further measures planned by the investigative authorities are not expected to affect my judgment. Thus, a preliminary investigation should not be initiated and the case closed, says Chamber prosecutor Karolina Wieslander.
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone proven the ship hadn't had an illegal backstreet conversion to electrical power? Or are they avoiding the subject? Huh? HUH?
 
Here_to_learn said:
The Swedish Prosecuting Authority have today decided not to reopen the old case, nor to start a new investigation regarding the sinking of M/S Estonia.

https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-pre...rlisningen-av-fartyget-estonia-har-avslutats/
Click to expand...

I saw that news which has just come through. It is surprising that the prosecutors have said they will not reopen the case as we have yet to receive the official report. One would hope that the scientific report (rocks, hardness, compatibility, etc) will be made public as a matter of transparency. Also no sign of Margus Kurm's report but perhaps he quietly ditched the project when he had problems with the camera platform and poor picture quality.

Also, I am not sure what this has to do with the Swedish prosecutor other than ruling out a crime investigation.

Sweden won't reopen an investigation into 1994 Baltic Sea ferry disaster
STOCKHOLM (AP) — Sweden won't reopen an investigation into a 1994 ferry sinking in the Baltic Sea that killed 852 people in one of Europe’s deadliest peacetime sea disasters, after investigators in Estonia, Finland and Sweden found no indication of a collision or an explosion, the prosecutor said Thursday.

Thursday, February 15, 2024
Click to expand...
https://www.thespec.com/news/world/...cle_253ba245-81ef-5a4a-b13c-3f6e2ecece74.html

But it wasn't a crime investigation that was expected. Disappointing but let's see if we ever get the scientific report.
 
Vixen said:
... I am not sure what this has to do with the Swedish prosecutor other than ruling out a crime investigation.
Click to expand...

Ruling out a criminal investigation appears to be the sole purpose of the prosecuter's announcement. I don't see them claiming to have any other professional interest in the matter, so I'm puzzled by your seeming to imply they might think they do.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Ruling out a criminal investigation appears to be the sole purpose of the prosecuter's announcement. I don't see them claiming to have any other professional interest in the matter, so I'm puzzled by your seeming to imply they might think they do.
Click to expand...

AIUI the police announcement is in response to someone who requested they investigate it Nov 2022, iirc. So in effect, it is just saying they have no cause to. Given that any suspect, such as the Captain and his crew are dead or 'missing'.

But the question is, if the Swedish-Estonian official investigation has been concluded, when will it be published?
 
Vixen said:
AIUI the police announcement is in response to someone who requested they investigate it Nov 2022, iirc. So in effect, it is just saying they have no cause to. Given that any suspect, such as the Captain and his crew are dead or 'missing'.
Click to expand...

Since you've included accusations of criminal activity among the many conspiracy theories you've propounded or endorsed in this thread, what effect does the announcement from the Swedish prosecutors have on your claims? When multiple investigations by accredited law enforcement officers fail to produce evidence of a crime, is it finally time for the armchair detectives to move on to their next tizzy?
 
JayUtah said:
Since you've included accusations of criminal activity among the many conspiracy theories you've propounded or endorsed in this thread, what effect does the announcement from the Swedish prosecutors have on your claims? When multiple investigations by accredited law enforcement officers fail to produce evidence of a crime, is it finally time for the armchair detectives to move on to their next tizzy?
Click to expand...

Please explain your post, together with citations of what on earth you are talking about.
 
Vixen said:
Please explain your post...
Click to expand...

The proper authorities seem to dispute your accusations of criminal activity, such as the murder of the ship's captain by gunshot. Reconcile the findings of proper authorities with your previous armchair detective work.

...together with citations of what on earth you are talking about.
Click to expand...

See this thread and its six previous chapters.
 
JayUtah said:
The proper authorities seem to dispute your accusations of criminal activity, such as the murder of the ship's captain by gunshot. Reconcile the findings of proper authorities with your previous armchair detective work.



See this thread and its six previous chapters.
Click to expand...

I am not going to get involved with frivolous questions.

However, you might want to ask yourself why the Captain's body was not recovered, as it was (a) in an easily accessible place and (b) diver reported seeing it.

Just because you do not care or have little interest in the case, doesn't mean that others should not, either.
 
Vixen said:
I am not going to get involved with frivolous questions.
Click to expand...

Which questions do you mean, and why do you think they're frivolous?

However, you might want to ask yourself why the Captain's body was not recovered, as it was (a) in an easily accessible place and (b) diver reported seeing it.
Click to expand...

Are you simply doubling down on your accusations of murder?

Just because you do not care or have little interest in the case, doesn't mean that others should not, either.
Click to expand...

If I weren't interested in the case I wouldn't have posted in this thread. Right now I'm interested in seeing how you reconcile your apparently ongoing accusations of criminal activity with the findings by properly authorized and qualified law enforcement agencies that no credible evidence of criminal activity has been found as the result of an investigation.
 
JayUtah said:
Which questions do you mean, and why do you think they're frivolous?



Are you simply doubling down on your accusations of murder?



If I weren't interested in the case I wouldn't have posted in this thread. Right now I'm interested in seeing how you reconcile your apparently ongoing accusations of criminal activity with the findings by properly authorized and qualified law enforcement agencies that no credible evidence of criminal activity has been found as the result of an investigation.
Click to expand...

The police wouldn't be in a position to investigate 'murder' (or suicide) without a body as they would need an autopsy as starting point number one. But Capt Andresson's body was never retrieved. So the starting point is, why not? Given in virtually every shipping incident the captain is hauled in for questioning. For example, Park Victory, Concordia, Herald of Free Enterprise, Bow Belle (all charged). You don't think there is anything unusual in not bothering to bring up the captain's body, to at least ascertain what he died of or whether he had a 'medical episode', given the ship was deemed to be out of control.
 
I'm just gonna leave this here:

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/no...on-ability-north-sea-during-storm-2023-12-21/

Seems that back in December a Norwegian cruise ship was sailing in rough seas when it was struck by a rogue wave that knocked out its navigation gear...on the roof... The ship, unlike the Estonia, was designed for rough seas yet had to limp back into port with escorts due to the damage. You can find videos of the events onboard if you really need to see more.

Point being, rogue waves are a thing in that area. And a rogue wave, combined with the poor response by the Estonia's crew sank the ferry, not a submarine, or explosives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom