• 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

Vixen said:
Because if you remember correctly, Swedish PM Carl Bildt decided on day one it was the bow visor. IMV there was a definite panic - rightly or wrongly - about possible cargo on board (given there had twice been CIA procured Russian secrets carried on the same ferry, earlier that same month). So yes, enter Dick Cheney in cohoots with US - Korea veteran Einseln and we see a massive classified operation put in place. Having successfully disappeared the rogue Estonian crew and second captain, that's where Cheney and Rumsfeld got their idea from of Rendition Campaigns and Guantanamo Bay to deal with post-9/11 panic.
Click to expand...
So why are ships no longer made with rising bow visor anywhere at all?

Also, is this the theory you are settling on now?
We can discard all the others?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yes, I have an ear for accents...
Click to expand...
Going by your posting history, you have a cloth ear for accents.

However, putting that aside for now, I can't help but notice that you've not yet answered the question I asked you a while* ago:
junkshop said:
...How do you explain your response in post #5358?
Click to expand...

* over nine hours ago
 
Vixen said:
Please refer to aforesaid technical part report JAIC 1995 and press release 1994. Which says it was functioning on a 90° list before going off the radar at 01:48.
Click to expand...
OK, I see from a post of yours on Sunday where you posted some, but not all, of what it says about the sequence of events leading up to the final sinking, that the part-report I found (titled "PART-REPORT covering technical issues on the capsizing on 28 September 1994 in the Baltic Sea of the ro-ro passenger vessel MV ESTONIA" of April 1995) was the one you are referring to. What it actually says about the sinking at section 1.3 is this:
The vessel continued to heel over and the accommodation decks started to take on water at about 0130 hrs. Flooding of the accommodation continued with considerable speed and the starboard side of the bridge was submerged at about 0135 hrs as indicated by the chart room clock which had stopped at this moment. The list was at this stage more than 90 degrees.

[paragraph about escape of survivors omitted]

The vessel made a port turn whilst the starboard list was developing. It has not been possible to to ascertain what action was taken on the bridge at this stage. The ship lost propulsion and drifted, lying across the seas, whilst flooding continued. It sank completely at 0148 hrs when the last visible indication disappeared from the radar screen of a Finnish radar station. The position at the sinking was N58°22'.9, E21°41'.0. The wreck had turned to a heading of 95 degrees as she went down.
Click to expand...

This does not support your claim that the JAIC said that the ship "was functioning on a 90° list" or "floated on a 90° list". There are only 15 minutes or so between the list becoming perpendicular and the final complete sinking, during which the ship was continuing to take on water and sinking. It does not say that the ship floated on a 90° list. Possibly the reference to a heading of 95 degrees made you think this was the list angle the ship floated at, similarly to the error you made regarding the heading that the HoFE ended up on?

I have only been able to find one 1994 press release by the JAIC, a release dated 15th December, saying that the JAIC had met that day, that "most of the work was still in progress and needs further substantiation before conclusions should be drawn and made public", and that the JAIC would meet again in late January. What it says about the events of the sinking is this:
Substantial amount of water was flooding into the car deck between 0115 and 0130 (Estonian time). The ship sank due to the accommodation being flooded and disappeared from radar screens at 0148. The clock at the radio station on the navigation bridge has stopped at 2335 UTC (0135 Estonian time).
Click to expand...

Again, this is not saying that the ship floated on a 90° list. Is this the press release you meant? If not, please give a precise reference to the press release you mean, and quote the passage that gave you the impression that they were saying that the ship floated on a 90° list.
 
Vixen said:
See the independent research uni graphic based objectively - we can assume - the JAIC Report.
Click to expand...
According to the original publication of it in a research study by Jasionowski and Vassalos it was "based on simulation by PROTEUS3".

Now, please can you cite JAIC saying that the Estonia floated on a 90° list?
 
Vixen said:
Because if you remember correctly, Swedish PM Carl Bildt decided on day one it was the bow visor. IMV there was a definite panic - rightly or wrongly - about possible cargo on board (given there had twice been CIA procured Russian secrets carried on the same ferry, earlier that same month). So yes, enter Dick Cheney in cohoots with US - Korea veteran Einseln and we see a massive classified operation put in place. Having successfully disappeared the rogue Estonian crew and second captain, that's where Cheney and Rumsfeld got their idea from of Rendition Campaigns and Guantanamo Bay to deal with post-9/11 panic.
Click to expand...

Yeah...this is totally ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ crazy. Though at least you've finally nailed your nutcase colours to the mast now.
 
On rhe point of the bow visor being locked in 3 places so it shouldn't have fallen off.

In the same storm that sank the 3 destroyers, USS Pittsburgh lost it's entire bow due to the pounding action of the waves.
Quick action by the Captain turning stern to the waves, hard work by damage control teams and the subdivision of a warship saved it.
A Cruiser bow is far more secure than the bow visor of the Estonia.

1763632054346.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
OK, I see from a post of yours on Sunday where you posted some, but not all, of what it says about the sequence of events leading up to the final sinking, that the part-report I found (titled "PART-REPORT covering technical issues on the capsizing on 28 September 1994 in the Baltic Sea of the ro-ro passenger vessel MV ESTONIA" of April 1995) was the one you are referring to. What it actually says about the sinking at section 1.3 is this:


This does not support your claim that the JAIC said that the ship "was functioning on a 90° list" or "floated on a 90° list". There are only 15 minutes or so between the list becoming perpendicular and the final complete sinking, during which the ship was continuing to take on water and sinking. It does not say that the ship floated on a 90° list. Possibly the reference to a heading of 95 degrees made you think this was the list angle the ship floated at, similarly to the error you made regarding the heading that the HoFE ended up on?

I have only been able to find one 1994 press release by the JAIC, a release dated 15th December, saying that the JAIC had met that day, that "most of the work was still in progress and needs further substantiation before conclusions should be drawn and made public", and that the JAIC would meet again in late January. What it says about the events of the sinking is this:


Again, this is not saying that the ship floated on a 90° list. Is this the press release you meant? If not, please give a precise reference to the press release you mean, and quote the passage that gave you the impression that they were saying that the ship floated on a 90° list.
Click to expand...
At last you are engaging with the topic instead of goofing around. The press release I quoted as in message #5065 reads as follows:


It seems the 1.15 refers to a press release given out by Meister, Lehtola and Forssberg after the Oct 17th meeting in 1994. which states:

After the vessel had turned over to almost 90° starboard list, which is estimated to have taken place in less than twenty minutes after the damage to the forward ramp [aka 'bow ramp'] it started to sink with the stern first. The ship vanished from the screen of a Finnish radar surveillance station at 01:48.
Click to expand...
And this is reiterated in the said chapter 1, part 3. in the technical part-report of 1995. Now do you remember what the issue was? Reminder: the JAIC present no calculations as to where it got this 90° figure from. (GoM, GZ) Why it carried on floating on its side instead of doing a Heweliusz.

1763632080573.jpeg


M/V Jan Heweliusz aftermath.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yeah...this is totally ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ crazy. Though at least you've finally nailed your nutcase colours to the mast now.
Click to expand...
You can say that but Andi Meister who was HEAD of the JAIC clearly believes Einseln went to some lengths to cover things up, srongly enough to spell it out in a book. OK so he might be a 'disgruntled ex-employee' but he was the one who resigned in disgust, not the other way round (fired)..
 
Vixen said:
At last you are engaging with the topic instead of goofing around. The press release I quoted as in message #5065 reads as follows:


It seems the 1.15 refers to a press release given out by Meister, Lehtola and Forssberg after the Oct 17th meeting in 1994. which states:
After the vessel had turned over to almost 90° starboard list, which is estimated to have taken place in less than twenty minutes after the damage to the forward ramp [aka 'bow ramp'] it started to sink with the stern first. The ship vanished from the screen of a Finnish radar surveillance station at 01:48.
Click to expand...


And this is reiterated in the said chapter 1, part 3. in the technical part-report of 1995. Now do you remember what the issue was? Reminder: the JAIC present no calculations as to where it got this 90° figure from. (GoM, GZ) Why it carried on floating on its side instead of doing a Heweliusz.

View attachment 66213


M/V Jan Heweliusz aftermath.
Click to expand...
Yes, they say that it listed to around 90 degrees and then sank. But your memory is letting you down again. The claim you are supposed to be supporting is that they said that it "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", or even "was functioning on a 90° list". In case you are confused on this point, floating and sinking are not synonymous.

Can you precisely cite, quote, and if possible link to, the JAIC saying that the Estonia floated on its superstructure, floated on a 90° list, or was "functioning on a 90° list", please?
 
Kemo Sabi is apparently distantly related to Gunga Din, but that's not important right now.

I have just asked Copilot "what did lord dorwin get wrong"? Briefly:
Lord Dorwin’s mistake was that he confused scholarship with actual discovery—he never did any real archaeology, only compared books and theories, which led him to empty conclusions.
Click to expand...
No fieldwork, only bookwork
  • Dorwin claimed to be an expert in galactic archaeology, but he never visited excavation sites or conducted original research. Instead, he simply read existing works, weighed their arguments, and added his own book to the library. This was a parody of stagnant academia—knowledge without practice.
Click to expand...

This is also not important right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom