Steve
Penultimate Amazing
The conspiracy theories on this forum have been concocted by a Bjorkman sycophant.It counters the erroneous belief that 'it is a conspiracy theory concocted by Anders Bjorkman'.
The conspiracy theories on this forum have been concocted by a Bjorkman sycophant.It counters the erroneous belief that 'it is a conspiracy theory concocted by Anders Bjorkman'.
It's a ludicrous argument. Not dissimilar to the one that runs, a couple of wave load impacts caused the bow visor to fall off.
So said the Illuminati submariner from CIA / Mossad / David Ickeeeeek etc.Wake Up Sheeple! It goes deeper than you think!
Can't be done. Those claims are flippant. And anyone can do flippancy.OK. You claim that the JAIC said that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", or even "was functioning on a 90° list". Please quote the passage or passages where they said this, and provide precise citations for them. You have so far failed to do this.
Yes, someone on a chat list knows better than someone who was Head of the JAIC with access to primary sources and a member of the Estonian Government Working Party and visited the site in person. Got it.
You wouldn't recognize one if it slapped you upside the head with a dead fish.I can see we can't expect any intellectual debate here.
So said the Illuminati submariner from CIA / Mossad / David Ickeeeeek etc.
Gish gallop of repeatedly debunked claims.
It's merely an overwhelming probability that they did.
You’re still just a conspiracy theorist.Wait. It is not me that called for the reinvestigation.
You’re already making plans to reject it if it doesn’t say what you want.I will see what they say about the outcome and if they are happy with it, then so am I.
And anyone can do flippancy.
... I am Team Estonia. I will see what they say about the outcome
The voices in someone's head?What who say about the outcome?

The documents you referred to did not support your claim, even when you quoted one of them deceptively by omitting the second relevant paragraph.The documents I referred you to earlier (1994, 1995). What do you think the JAIC was referring to?
You have claimed that the Estonian military were in on the smuggling operation.Wait. It is not me that called for the reinvestigation. I am Team Estonia.
Bjorkman, Bollyn, and the comments section of the Daily Mail.What who say about the outcome?
How well do you think it was functioning during those 35 minutes?From the moment the bow visor came loose to when the Estonia went off the radar/sonar it was a mere 35 MINUTES.
A sinking with clear military precision:
- communications down from 12:59 to 01:54
- ship just reached international waters
- Swedish midnight
- Survivors feeling or hearing bangs and shudders
- violent listing that failed to right it self after a couple of attempts
- Third Captain having to use a hand held device to call MAYDAY (where was the Captain?), thanks to communications being down
- EPIRBS failed to initiate
- Swedish coastguards got their first information from a truck driver
- Tammes' last MAYDAY 01:22 EET
- Sillaste, Linde and True on a life raft - fully kitted out - before then
- Sillaste and the two Estonian athletes confirm the bow ramp was closed
- Treu and Sillaste confirm they were 'up to their knees in water' in the Engine Room deck 0.
- Linde was seen skiving in the Empire Bar yet claimed he saw Capt Andresson going to the bridge.
- From the moment the bow visor came loose to when the Estonia went off the radar/sonar it was a mere 35 MINUTES.
- Communications resumed circa 12:54 Swedish end, when Helsinki Radio came through..
- M/V Mariela and M/V Europa arrived at the scene to find nothing there.
- The senior Estonian crew including Captain Piht mysteriously vanished.
- US firm Rockwater went searching Piht's room for...a briefcase belonging to an Estonian/Russian arms dealer.
No, just every account from ALL THE SURVIVORS. But other than that.Even if it was pitching, and there is no evidence it was, it is still only conjecture.
When you have over 200 people with a wide variety of expertise say one thing, and a handful of cranks claiming it was something else - it's a conspiracy theory.Speaking generically, calling something you don't understand or are not interested in, a 'conspiracy theory' is the lazy man's excuse to avoid thinking. It's far more honest to say, 'Sorry, not interested' or 'Sorry I don't understand the argument'.