The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[GlennB]

Anders Björkman, qualified ship architect.

Nope. Either you have a terrible memory or you just like lying. He is/was a loss adjuster in the marine insurance business.

eta: And total nutcase.

 

[EHocking]

As I recall engineer Sillaste said communication from the engine room to the bridge was via monitors

Your recall is, as per usual, incorrect.
And of course 1. misrepresents Henrik Sillaste's role onboard, 2. completely misquotes Sillaste's account and 3. misrepresents communications aboard the vessel.

1. he was not an engineer, he was merely a mechanic "responsible for the sanitary system". Commonly referred to as a motorman.
2. he did not communicate with the bridge "via monitors" - hint, a monitor is a device for displaying images, not talking through.)
And in the case of the monitor Sillaste was looking at aboard the Estonia, it was the one in the (ECR) and it displayed the control video cameras' views of the interior of the vessel.. In the case of his testimony, he observed via the monitor, the inflow of water around bow ramp.
Here's an excerpt from an interview of him in July 1996

"...Then I moved to the ECR. When I arrived I asked Margus [Treu]: "What happene?" Margus repolied" "Look to the moitor"... On the monitor I could see water penetrating."​

3. The communication between the ECR and the bridge was via the an intercomm system (sometimes referred to as a "phone system" because it is hard wired and not reliant on radio waves) and is separate to the public address system, e.g.,

"We had no walkie-talkie, but in the control room there was in the mid a button to be pressed and then you could taslk to the bridge where was the same system"​

but whilst walking around deck they communicated by old style walkie-talkies.

"unofficial" ones, at that according to the reports I can find. Also, they'd seem to be only VHF as they are (nearly always) described as being about to monitor (that word again) Channel 16, which is VHF. As to "old style", i have no idea what you're implying. This was 1994, of course they are not going to be as advanced as current ones.
That said, they probably would not have been sufficiently powerful to be able to contact a radio land-base or even another boat due to (probable) limited range

 

[Vixen]

Nope. Either you have a terrible memory or you just like lying. He is/was a loss adjuster in the marine insurance business.

eta: And total nutcase.

He self-describes as M.Sc. Naval Architect. His qualifications and his vocation can of course be two different things.

 

[GlennB]

He self-describes as M.Sc. Naval Architect. His qualifications and his vocation can of course be two different things.

Yep

 

[JayUtah]

He self-describes as M.Sc. Naval Architect. His qualifications and his vocation can of course be two different things.

He lied.

I have tested his engineering proficiency personally and directly. You have not. I am qualified to do so. You are not. Anders Björkmann is in no way an expert on what makes ships float or sink.

 

[zooterkin]

He self-describes as M.Sc. Naval Architect. His qualifications and his vocation can of course be two different things.

He also says: "Atomic bombs do not work. Human beings cannot travel to the Moon. Estonia didn't lose its bow visor and skyscrapers do not collapse from top down."

 

[EHocking]

You have been told it is in Andi Meister's book.

What. The book written in Estonian that you haven't read yet? That book.
Also, Meister is a CT crank who quit the enquiry in a pompous fit of pique because the final report was going to expose just how incompetent and negligent the Estonian owners, operators and captain was.
He invented a story that the Swedish contingent witheld documents/videos that (he says) exonerated the Estonians.

 

[Dabop]

What. The book written in Estonian that you haven't read yet? That book.
Also, Meister is a CT crank who quit the enquiry in a pompous fit of pique because the final report was going to expose just how incompetent and negligent the Estonian owners, operators and captain was.
He invented a story that the Swedish contingent witheld documents/videos that (he says) exonerated the Estonians.

So, the usual 'quality' Vixen source.....

 

[Vixen]

But the part you cling to is not the audio itself, it's some commenter's belief they were specifically searching for Voronin's brief case. Just confirmation bias. If they were searching for it, they would know what his name was. They obviously did not, because they made such a hash of reading the Russian script. And they would then have made a point of bringing the case up immediately as the mission was accomplished. Right?

No, this is not evidence they were searching for that brief case.

Voronin in Russian = Воронин; Piht = Пихт

Of course they knew what his name was. They needed confirmation. They needed to be sure.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course they knew what his name was. They needed confirmation. They needed to be sure.

A notion solidly contradicted by "Let's see if it rings a bell."

 

[MarkCorrigan]

He self-describes as M.Sc. Naval Architect. His qualifications and his vocation can of course be two different things.

He's a liar. A self aggrandising nutter.

 

[Vixen]

What. The book written in Estonian that you haven't read yet? That book.
Also, Meister is a CT crank who quit the enquiry in a pompous fit of pique because the final report was going to expose just how incompetent and negligent the Estonian owners, operators and captain was.
He invented a story that the Swedish contingent witheld documents/videos that (he says) exonerated the Estonians.

I've been told it's in the post. Meister looked towards Estonia's inerests, just as Sweden looked to theirs. (cf. Stenström throwing away the Atlantic lock, which he knew to be key evidence.) Why willfully throw evidence away unless you are motivated to?

 

[Vixen]

A notion solidly contradicted by "Let's see if it rings a bell."

British understatement.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

British understatement.

Absolute gibberish. Anything that fits your conspiracy theory is to be taken as verbatim, anything that contradicts it is warped so it too fits. Classic conspiracy theorist thinking.

Because that's what you are.

 

[JayUtah]

British understatement.

Or not.

 

[Vixen]

Absolute gibberish. Anything that fits your conspiracy theory is to be taken as verbatim, anything that contradicts it is warped so it too fits. Classic conspiracy theorist thinking.

Because that's what you are.

Absolute rubbish. Just because you cannot understand how anyone can be interested in this topic. It indicates that you believe people can only be interested in what you're interested in, or they are, 'nutters' or 'idiots'. That doesn't reflect on you as you believe it does.

 

[zooterkin]

British understatement.

Nope. If he'd said, "That rings a vague bell", you might have a point, but the 'if' in the statement removes that possibility.

 

[EHocking]

Exactly. The guy wouldn't be going into cabin 6230 unless it was on the agenda in the first place. Plus being made to keep reading the tag until they were sure of the name was part of a preplanned task to find and identify that attaché case. Why? Because Captain Avo Piht was a key personnel. .

Pure speculation.

It certainly is.
Vixen claims that the divers were being directed by the Swedish criminal police.
Quoting her favourite CT (c)sites she/they claim the main aim of the search was to find Piht's luggage - BUT.

A more likely reason for the divers being directed to where they first went, was that cabin 6132

"... had been occupied by a member of the Stockholm Police ST-Section,"​

and when unsuccessful​

"The diver subsequently broke open or tried to break open the cabins in the vicinity of cabin 6230, all of which had been occupied by members of the ST-Section of the Stockholm Police. "​

If I was to speculate on the agenda of the divers being directed to the cabins in the vicinity of cabin 6230, my best bet would be that the Stockholm Police directing the search may have wanted to locate and identify their colleagues who were on board at the time of the disaster.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Many a true word spoken in jest! You should write spy fiction as you are good at this. But seriously, does anyone really believe the diver is simply strolling around the cabin like a tourist and it was a case of, 'Oh look! I've found a briefcase here...amongst a load of other suitcases and bags!" Controller: 'Oh wow. That is so amazing!' Diver, 'Wait, there's a name tag on it!' Controller: 'No! That's fantastic! What does it say?' Diver: 'It's fricking forrin!' Controller: 'Spell it, then.' 'Alpha, romeo, november, india' "OMG! This is so exciting! Spell it again, Sam!" <fx diver repeats various spellings> "Just let me see if that name rings a bell - " Diver: 'There's a babushka here as well, which I'll film so as to show he's a Russian". Controller, 'That's super! Is there anything else that grabs your attention?' We-eeelll!

What the hell are you talking about?

We aren't faced with your "does anyone seriously believe" scenario. We can literally play it back on YouTube and listen to what they said as often as we like. We all know what happened and what did not happen. What did not happen was a diver finding a briefcase and getting excited thinking it might be Piht's. What did not happen was the supervisor asking him if there were any more briefcases there or if he was sure that wasn't just a makers label or stuff like that. Face facts please. The story of divers sent to find Piht's briefcase is fantasy.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Absolute rubbish. Just because you cannot understand how anyone can be interested in this topic. It indicates that you believe people can only be interested in what you're interested in, or they are, 'nutters' or 'idiots'. That doesn't reflect on you as you believe it does.

More gibberish. Quote me saying that anyone interested in the Estonia is a nutter or idiot, or indeed quote me saying I am not interested in it. That's the two things you have directly accused me of in this post so for once in your life pony up.