The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII
- Thread starter Jack by the hedge
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ms estonia
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
Deleted: fat finger error
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Fat Fingers Sink Ships!
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
No, I did not confuse it with 'savvy'. If I said that is what the guy said then that is what he said. Shee-eesh!
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
That would have been a less irrelevant reply than the one I was asking you to explain: it does address, in part at least, my post. It doesn't, however, explain your response in post #5358.
To remind you - this was my post:
and this was your reply:
I am asking you to explain how your reply is in any way responsive to my post, because I cannot fathom a link.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,221
You're still trying to rehabilitate your AI's muddle, now pretending it was "an approximation" of the answer. No. It was not. To remind you, it purported to be a calculation for a 15,000 ton ship but did not include the weight of the ship in its musing. It's not an approximation when you calculate the wrong thing.
It was more like you set out to determine how long it would take a particular horse to run a race and came up with a formula which decided it was probably brown. Not an approximation.
Axxman300
Philosopher
That would be a first.
Has nothing to do with the bow visor being knocked off in a storm, and causing the Estonia to sink. So much for getting back on point.
Has nothing to do with the bow visor getting knocked off in a storm in which the Estonia was never designed to sail into.
Already discussed multiple times - in detail, including twice in this thread. I'll use small words. Bad things happen when a large ship sinks. The bigger the hole, the faster the water gets inside. You choose to ignore the storm, and the conditions the crew was fighting trying to make the distress calls.
My first though is: MOTHRA!
My second thought is, "Lol, Russians".
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
"Approximation" suggests that more data would give a better answer. The wrong kind of data doesn't support an approximation. Vixen doesn't seem to have a clue what the right data should be. "Approximation" suggests that refining or extending the method would give a better answer. A completely wrong method is not an approximation. Vixen's method is not just wrong, it's nonsensical.
I don't buy into the notion that a claim deserves respect simply because it states its assumptions. That doesn't stop the assumptions from being wildly wrong (especially in the face of contravening fact), or worse—evincing abject ignorance of the topic at hand.
I was going to say it's like trying to cure a headache by sawing off the patient's foot and then scolding neurologists for their purported dereliction. Stating one's assumption that sawing off a foot is a suitable approximation of brain surgery doesn't excuse you from the consequences of being patently ignorant of medicine. But yours is a lot better.
Axxman300
Philosopher
The whole MS Estonia Conspiracy - as stated in this thread by one person - ironically holds no water.
The fundamental CT is based on passenger statements about the loud banging, and a sudden shudder after which the ship began tilting to one side. To make this into a scenario where explosives were used there has to be evidence, and there is none. The one claimant told a ghost story, and the lab results presented were also consistent with metal fatigue, and stressing (not sure what you call it when metal parts heat up). The CT (as CTs do) then shifts to impact with another vessel based on the shudder, yet all the radar showed no ships in the area, and the wreck shows no signs of surface impact. And this branch of the CT fails to take into account that the size of the Estonia would certainly cause extensive damage to this phantom ship. No ship yards reported any severely damaged vessels in the aftermath of this event, and there isn't a second wreck on the sea floor in this area.
The CT fails at the basic level - no plausible counter thesis as to how the ship sank.
They recovered the visor, and recently they recovered the car ramp. There are high resolution photos of both. Neither shows evidence of a shape charge (which is what is required).
The expedition that led to the new investigation had a 50/50 of finding a hull breech as anyone who studies shipwrecks would know the odds are good. And they got lucky the hull had shifted in the years since the sinking, giving them access to the underside, and allowing them to claim a coverup because they original investigation didn't find the gash. The fact that side of the wreck was inaccessible doesn't matter to CT loons.
From the start the Estonia-CT has undertones of ant-western sentiment. The culprits are smugglers of stolen Russian equipment, obviously spies were behind this disaster. Agents from Sweden, MI-6, and of course the CIA are the reason the ship was sunk by a helpless FSB/Spetznaz team. If only the Soviet Union had held on, the Estonia would still be sailing today. No one can name the equipment the Russians would be willing to kill 800 people to protect, nor can they explain how sending this item to the bottom of the Baltic Sea counts as saving it. I am comfortable stating that there is only one item that the Russians, US, UK, and French would kill to recover, a nuclear warhead. But in this scenario the standard move would be to surround the Estonia with destroyers, and force it to sail to a Russian port.
The idea that the Estonia was sunk to protect stolen Russian technology is laughable.
Since the end of WWII, every civilian shipwreck ended up on the bottom after a chain of events, and bad decisions made by the front office. Corners are cut, maintenance deferred, financial incentives to meet schedules, max out tonnage, and upgrades are postponed. I can't be the only one who remembers the run of Panamanian-flagged tanker accidents of the late 70s. The Estonia sank because her owners put her into a position she was never designed to endure, and maintenance issues were ignored. Not a true conspiracy in that no one wanted the ship to sink. But poor management put her on the bottom.
End of story.
The fundamental CT is based on passenger statements about the loud banging, and a sudden shudder after which the ship began tilting to one side. To make this into a scenario where explosives were used there has to be evidence, and there is none. The one claimant told a ghost story, and the lab results presented were also consistent with metal fatigue, and stressing (not sure what you call it when metal parts heat up). The CT (as CTs do) then shifts to impact with another vessel based on the shudder, yet all the radar showed no ships in the area, and the wreck shows no signs of surface impact. And this branch of the CT fails to take into account that the size of the Estonia would certainly cause extensive damage to this phantom ship. No ship yards reported any severely damaged vessels in the aftermath of this event, and there isn't a second wreck on the sea floor in this area.
The CT fails at the basic level - no plausible counter thesis as to how the ship sank.
They recovered the visor, and recently they recovered the car ramp. There are high resolution photos of both. Neither shows evidence of a shape charge (which is what is required).
The expedition that led to the new investigation had a 50/50 of finding a hull breech as anyone who studies shipwrecks would know the odds are good. And they got lucky the hull had shifted in the years since the sinking, giving them access to the underside, and allowing them to claim a coverup because they original investigation didn't find the gash. The fact that side of the wreck was inaccessible doesn't matter to CT loons.
From the start the Estonia-CT has undertones of ant-western sentiment. The culprits are smugglers of stolen Russian equipment, obviously spies were behind this disaster. Agents from Sweden, MI-6, and of course the CIA are the reason the ship was sunk by a helpless FSB/Spetznaz team. If only the Soviet Union had held on, the Estonia would still be sailing today. No one can name the equipment the Russians would be willing to kill 800 people to protect, nor can they explain how sending this item to the bottom of the Baltic Sea counts as saving it. I am comfortable stating that there is only one item that the Russians, US, UK, and French would kill to recover, a nuclear warhead. But in this scenario the standard move would be to surround the Estonia with destroyers, and force it to sail to a Russian port.
The idea that the Estonia was sunk to protect stolen Russian technology is laughable.
Since the end of WWII, every civilian shipwreck ended up on the bottom after a chain of events, and bad decisions made by the front office. Corners are cut, maintenance deferred, financial incentives to meet schedules, max out tonnage, and upgrades are postponed. I can't be the only one who remembers the run of Panamanian-flagged tanker accidents of the late 70s. The Estonia sank because her owners put her into a position she was never designed to endure, and maintenance issues were ignored. Not a true conspiracy in that no one wanted the ship to sink. But poor management put her on the bottom.
End of story.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I explained this at the time. I mentioned the overlap play on words with 'savvy' long before you did.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You have missed the point. The point is, you are PM of Sweden. You know exactly what has been going on, including the threat from Russia to stop stealing their military/space secrets. You realise the implications given it is a passenger ferry on which this has been happening. Under instructions from your secret services you are told to keep schtum so you announce on Day One, the accident was due to a bow visor design. Bear in mind, PM of Estonia, Laur, was astonished as he thought it was possible sabotage. OK, sure, it might have been due to a 'design fault' but the point is you don't know that on day one. Bildt is not exactly stupid.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Well, former Head of the JAIC, Andi Meister - who had access to all information available, save state secrets - actually claims Einseln had a cobalt cargo, as per one witness statement, and in addition, that Treu and Linde were coached by Einseln in what to say. We are not talking about CT'-ers here, we are talking about government officials with primary sources.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You still haven't provided evidence of him making such an announcement on "Day One".
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,766
Pretty much sums it up
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, it's missing, for example, submarines leaving tracks on the seabed, the bow being eaten away by nuclear waste, the mafia pushing trucks off the ship in the middle of the night to avoid losing their cargo to Swedish customs officials, the doors being opened to let out cigarette smoke, Bill Clinton ordering the smuggling of Soviet-era military gear in order "to appear as 'Middle East Peacemaker' extraordinaire", helicopter winch men being given medals to keep them quiet about not being credited with rescues that they are actually credited with...
ETA: also, a bomb being used to blow the bow visor off and sink the ship, the evidence for this being that the bomb was seen in the wreck after it sank.
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,221
The fatal flaw in this is that as you point out Bildt is not exactly stupid. Even if he was aware that the Russians were upset about black market military stuff heading west, he's not daft enough to think the Russians would somehow contrive to sink a ferry in a storm because a car load of electronic stuff travelled from Estonia to Sweden by that route a couple of times in the past. That's nuts.
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
Ok - let's take a look at this. That is a correct quote from the site. But let's take a look at the actual notes from the interview.
The text in the notes is not in the form of questions/answers, nor is it direct quotes. It reads like notes made by a person present in the meeting.
The relevant part (enclusure 26) says:
Google translate/with my adjustments.
The German Group of Experts makes out as if this that it was Carl Bildt that was of the opinion that it was "obvious that the bow visor had opened". But when I read the original Swedish text, I read it as that was what they were told by the survivors.
This also matches how the Analysis group (led by Örn) summarizes it in their report.
Last edited: