The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[P.J. Denyer]

Only when it's gale-force air.

Just keep it away from my windows.

 

[catsmate]

First the Marchioness, then the Estonia? This thing is bigger than we could have imagined!

And Tower bridge.

 

[EHocking]

Shouldn't that be 'Air Quotes'?

I second this minute correction. Quite a feet.

 

[JesseCuster]

... or aboard the dredger Bowbelle.

(Does it have an alibi for the Estonia sinking?)

Or as Vixen called it (or the other vessel, hard to know which one of the vessels involved in the disaster she was referring to, as she got the Marchioness's name wrong and mashed both vessel names together), the "Marquess of Bow Belle"

 

[zooterkin]

Or as Vixen called it, the "Marquess of Bow Belle riverboat disaster"

Vixen won't believe you if you don't provide an actual reference. So, here it is.

We were talking about timeliness of evacuation and rescue. Most survivors after their terrible ordeal of having to jump 20 feet into a raging sea in the pitch black of night, some fatally wounded as they hit the side or a propeller, sinking right down and then struggling to resurface, swimming like crazy, too weak to climb the high sides of the life raft, reliant on others to pull them up (in the Wilhelm Gustloff and the Marquess of Bow Belle riverboat disaster, men were trampling over women, in the former, they had to be shot to stop them getting into the boats ahead of women and children, there were mass brawls in the life boats as those inside, resented anyone else embarking in case they capsized all together, people were shooting each other), after all that, having to wait hours for rescue as huge waves lapped over them every few minutes throwing them out. Sole Brit Paul Barney was rescued some six hours later. He had one of the lowest body temperatures the hospitals had ever seen. (Hypothermia). Saving just 79 passengers was tragic. No small feat but not a particularly successful one either, thanks to all the signal blockages, rapidity of sinking and zero evacuation.

I never make anything up. All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Likewise, Brian Braidwood was a Royal Navy explosives expert. Thus, one finds the treatment of these two fine gentlemen as scoundrels and blackguards peddling conspiracy theories utterly distasteful. AFIAIAC they are persons acting with integrity and professionalism and know what bomb damage and incendiary devices and their components look like.

And, yet again, we're back to the BS where everyone who you believe supports your conspiracy theories/guilter fantasies is an honorable, competent, unbiased professional of the highest integrity (even when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise), but everyone who criticizes those theories/fantasies is bent, paid off, incompetent, biased, pontificating, etc.

As for the hilited, as noted, no one said anything like that, this is yet another in the interminable series of your gross mischaracterizations of (or lies about, to put it bluntly) other posters' arguments. But it's also another page from the conspiracists' playbook: Attempting to shame your critics into accepting the testimony of a CT-supporting witness at face value. And, yet again, most of us have seen it many times before, and it doesn't work on us. To paraphrase what Jay said, we evaluate arguments on their merits, and not on the basis of the arguer's decorations or diplomas.

As you know, the preliminary report from a few years ago, on completion of the latest survey, stated some of the hull damage was compatible with the vessel hitting a rocky outcrop or moving against same, being some ten metres away from where it initially landed. Be that as it may. It is to be expected.

You don't believe it for one reason, and one reason only: It doesn't fit your CT narrative. So you have to pretend there's some kind of coverup going on.

However, the Arikas team said the next step would be to forensically examine the bow visor itself and this is what it seems to have been doing in the intervening three or four years. When the final report is presented, I am fully confident . . .

Of course you are.

. . . it will uphold Braidwood's, Fellows' and Westermann's objective and scientific findings that there are, indeed, signs of an explosion having taken place.

"You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

In Braidwood's estimate, up to three of them, and at vulnerable locations along the side of the locking mechanisms and accentuating arms. with only one accentuating arm being ripped off as a result; the other likely giving way due to the sheer weight of the other successful damage.

So many unwarranted assumptions and begged questions.

 

[The Common Potato]

But only if you're born within the sound of Bow Bells.

It's apt that this thread is about Bow Locks.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's apt that this thread is about Bow Locks.

You'd probably prefer to hear the bells clanging than the visor.

 

[zooterkin]

You'd probably prefer to hear the bells clanging than the visor.

If you could, then you wouldn't be all at sea, as at least one participant in the thread is.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen won't believe you if you don't provide an actual reference. So, here it is.

By Dec 2021, it was corrected:

British ship rams Danish vessel - Two Detained​

This seems on the face of it remarkably similar to the Marchioness/Bow Belle* river boat tragedy. Bow Belle 'didn't see' the Marchioness due to aggregate weight and having rammed her from behind, it then turned abeam and sailed right over her midships, causing her to capsize and sink within 3

 

[Vixen]

Laudee laudee laudee! What an...interesting post. So you're now committing yourself to the belief that the bow visor was blown off with carefully-placed explosive charges, eh?

Oh and what are "accentuating arms"? Do you mean actuators? Or were there other arms - that we have not yet heard about - whose job was to accentuate (the positive)?

I am so happy I made your day!

https://www.tiktok.com/video/6817296634792234245

 

[Vixen]

Are you willfully ignorant, or do you just pretend to be it?

Jaic: chapter 7.2.2

and in 7.4.1


Table 7.2 shows all the stations that received the mayday calls.

Since we can listen to the recorded VHF traffic, we know that there is ongoing communication between the ships in the vicinity. You do not stop that traffic and tell everybody to shut up while you try multiple times to reach the MRCC. Instead of you use all communication methods you have available to try to reach them. That is exactly what we can hear. Silja and Viking saying that the cannot reach MRCC, and switching to NMT to get to them.


Regarding using a phone. I have the Swedish JRCC (Joint RCC) on speed dial. I do SAR missions for the Swedish Sea Rescue Society, and it's not uncommon to use the phone for some communications, and VHF for others. If for some reason I wouldn't get a response over VHF I call in using a phone. There are many situations where VHF communications might be limited.

As I said, the JAIC didn't consider the lack of communication particularly important, despite Third Officer Tammes emphaisising at least twice, 'We have a blackout'. He was not just talking about the emergency generator going down, he was talking about the bridge, which should have continued on battery power. Also, here, once again (NOTA BENE!) is the sworn testimony of the senior officer of the Mariella:

Viking Line ferry MARIELLA the mate Ingmar Hans-Göran Eklund

After we had heard the 'Mayday' call we saw the lights of ESTONIA. While I was taking care of the navigation, the master was trying to get in contact with Helsinki Radio, first over VHF and then on MF 2182 kHz, both of which failed. He finally managed to get in contact with the shore by mobile phone.«

Even the JAIC states:

Helsinki Radio had mentioned a strange wave of interference, which prevented the officers of ships near Estonia from contacting mainland Finland and Sweden. The last radio contact with Estonia took place on September 28, 1994 at 1.31 am and ended with the words: "How far are you? Really bad, really bad now looks like yes here. "#

In addition, Cospas-Sarsat ordered its base in Norway to carry out a fine-tooth comb audit of why no signal had automatically come through via the mandatory EPIRB's (as the SOLAS-certified WERE fitted and inspected as certified by the in situ technicians), as it was absolutely baffled.

Why are people so fact-blind?

 

[Vixen]

Also chapter 17.2

Once again, sworn testimony:

The captain of the Stockholm Maritime Rescue Center, Sea Captain Lennart Johansson, confirms that the information about the sinking of Estonia came via Mariehamn at 1.55. The distress message broadcast on Estonian VHF radio was not part of Stockholm's coastal radio.

As you know, Mariehamn is in the Ålands, about midway between Finland and Sweden. But oh, yeah, it's quite normal for the messaging to go via the long way round instead of directly.

 

[Vixen]

Or as Vixen called it (or the other vessel, hard to know which one of the vessels involved in the disaster she was referring to, as she got the Marchioness's name wrong and mashed both vessel names together), the "Marquess of Bow Belle"

I am very flattered you have to keep going back years trying to discover my 'mistakes'.

 

[Vixen]

"Accentuating Arms" is what we used to call what you less intelligent people call "Air Quotes", when I was growing up in Cockney Rhyming School in Middlesex in the 70s.


View attachment 66761

Very droll. Back in the day, the Bow Bells, with a westerly wind, could be heard as far west as Holborn.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As I said, the JAIC didn't consider the lack of communication particularly important

How did you reach that judgement?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...Third Officer Tammes emphaisising at least twice, 'We have a blackout'. He was not just talking about the emergency generator going down, he was talking about the bridge, which should have continued on battery power.

When was the battery system last tested? Was it poorly maintained?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Cospas-Sarsat ordered its base in Norway to carry out a fine-tooth comb audit of why no signal had automatically come through via the mandatory EPIRB's (as the SOLAS-certified WERE fitted and inspected as certified by the in situ technicians), as it was absolutely baffled.

Can you quote them saying they were absolutely baffled?

Can you confirm that their bafflement ended when the EPIRBs were found, discovered to be switched off, and then worked perfectly when tested?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Very droll. Back in the day, the Bow Bells, with a westerly wind, could be heard as far west as Holborn.

Easterly.

 

[Vixen]

And, yet again, we're back to the BS where everyone who you believe supports your conspiracy theories/guilter fantasies is an honorable, competent, unbiased professional of the highest integrity (even when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise), but everyone who criticizes those theories/fantasies is bent, paid off, incompetent, biased, pontificating, etc.

As for the hilited, as noted, no one said anything like that, this is yet another in the interminable series of your gross mischaracterizations of (or lies about, to put it bluntly) other posters' arguments. But it's also another page from the conspiracists' playbook: Attempting to shame your critics into accepting the testimony of a CT-supporting witness at face value. And, yet again, most of us have seen it many times before, and it doesn't work on us. To paraphrase what Jay said, we evaluate arguments on their merits, and not on the basis of the arguer's decorations or diplomas.


You don't believe it for one reason, and one reason only: It doesn't fit your CT narrative. So you have to pretend there's some kind of coverup going on.


Of course you are.


"You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."


So many unwarranted assumptions and begged questions.

I think this post in a nutshell illustrate how you and I differ in our reasoning skills.

1. By referring to yourself as 'we', this indicates you like to see yourself as being part of some kind of clique or 'mafia' that controls the narrative, regardless of right or wrong. Whereas I evaluate the evidence from all available objective facts and known tesitmonies, you simply want to be one of the crowd. I want to be fair and objective; you just want to be 'right', even when faced with facts. (For example, you yourself confirmed the SOLAS regulations re hydrostatically automatic EPIRBs requirement, and also, were shown a footprint, in another case, that was OBVIOULSY that of one of the accused, but you decided you preferred to be right and crowd-pleasing so you deny the evidence of your own eyes. Reminds me of the football team I have supported since a kid. Whilst they are generally rubbish albeit with the odd 'glory' moment, I have never felt the urge to move onto supporting Man United, as the glory hunters do, thinking its glory will rub off on them, as in 'We won the cup': an archetypal Vonnegutian Granfalloon logical fallacy.
2. Your opinion is based on grudges. So, because you disagree with me in one thread, you carry it forward to all other threads. Another logical fail.
3. You believe that denying the evidence of your own eyes means it no longer exists, rather like the Piagetian infant who thinks if Mummy hides the toy, that toy no longer is or if they hide their face, the other person no longer sees them, or even more sadly (in an adult) that if they deny something vehemently enough, reality changes! Truth, reality and facts can be changed, in your world view.

None of these is good nor bad but simply illustrates why there is a massive communication gap.