The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

Cool story bro.

You said it was probably a British or Swedish submarine escorting the Estonia which accidentally crashed into it causing the sinking.

Are you going back on that story?

Don't call me 'bro'. The Swedish KSI and the MI6 likely were involved, correct.

 

[Vixen]

A good detective doesn't beg the question. He doesn't start trying to understand the criminal until he's sure a crime has been committed.

A *bad* detective, imagines every possible crime and every possible criminal, assume one of them must be the one, and tries to figure out which of his many imaginary narratives is the most plausible. He's basically playing with dolls in a dollhouse and saying he's detected something every time he creates a scene he likes. "Here's Barbie hosting a tea party. That could happen, right? Detection!"

You're playing Bad Detective, Vixen.

There is nothing imaginary here. A ship carrying a thousand people sank within half an hour. Immediate cover up by Sweden. Criminology was invented by the Italians and their method of solving a crime was to put forward and answer the question, 'Cui bono?'

So, 'Cui bono?' from immediately classifying the 'accident' a matter of national security. The Swedes haven't exactly overturned every stone to find out if it was sabotage and instead, we were presented with an anodyne conclusion from day one. In fact, within sixteen hours of the incident.

 

[Vixen]

No.

A good detective works backward from the crime scene/accident scene. In this case you have the ship on the sea floor missing its hood. The bolts and hinges which held it in place show metal fatigue and failure from containing the weight of the hood after the bow lock broke.

Everything else is secondary.

A memo was signed off by Kari Lehotola that an object the exact shape and dimensions of the bow visor had been picked up on a sonar image of the wreck in early October. It was lying several metres below the bulbous bow. Mysteriously, days later he said the navy was 'still searching for the bow visor' (they did not 'find' it until mid-October). If it came up on sonar, what made Lehtola say they had found it, but then say they had not after all? At that stage, they had no idea it was supposed to be missing! (Other than Carl Bildt's announcement shortly after the event.) Nor had the wreck been examined further.


You explain to me what happened there.

 

[phiwum]

It's pretty local to me. I believe the survivors because they had no motive to embellish their stories as of the time they were rescued and having almost immediately being interviewed without seeing the news or being influenced by the media.

No one here said the survivors lied.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

There are many things that can feel like a collision. I already mentioned the earth tremor I felt in Wales. I doubt 34 passenger survivors would have equated a slamming [screen]door or neighbours banging a hammer with the sensation of having been collided with. No Iraqis in the mix although there is one theory it was a bunch of Libyans paid to do it.

Interesting.

First, you just said you believe the survivors. But no one thinks the survivors lied in this group, though most don't think a collision is likely at all. They may have felt something that they attributed to a collision, but wasn't.

Here, you agree. So, I see no difference in the amount of respect given the survivors. You're only posing when you say that you believe the survivors (and imply that others here do not).

Second, man, you sure do like just plumb lying. You know ******* well that I never said the survivors literally heard a door banging (screen or otherwise) and that's what they were reporting. Oh, it could be that you're just plain ignorant, except this point has been made several times. The only reason I brought up the sound of a screen door was to point out that "bang" does not imply "explosion" in plain English.

I'm sorry to hear that you can't get the Iraqis involved. To be fair, I was thinking Al Qaeda or some such rather than Iraqis. I guess that Libyans will do, but doesn't seem quite as scary as suicide bombers at the helm of a minisub. I do hope you'll reconsider that one.

 

[JayUtah]

It's pretty local to me. I believe the survivors because they had no motive to embellish their stories as of the time they were rescued and having almost immediately being interviewed without seeing the news or being influenced by the media.

So you're an advocate, not just a messenger? Thanks for clearing that up. It's perfectly all right -- both with me, I think, and in general -- if you want to be an advocate for some party or cause on this issue. Just own it. If you're going to be an advocate (the motte argument), then don't fall back to "I'm just a messenger" (the bailey argument) when your advocacy meets with resistance.

We covered eyewitness testimony at length.

 

[phiwum]

A memo was signed off by Kari Lehotola that an object the exact shape and dimensions of the bow visor had been picked up on a sonar image of the wreck in early October. It was lying several metres below the bulbous bow. Mysteriously, days later he said the navy was 'still searching for the bow visor' (they did not 'find' it until mid-October). If it came up on sonar, what made Lehtola say they had found it, but then say they had not after all? At that stage, they had no idea it was supposed to be missing! (Other than Carl Bildt's announcement shortly after the event.) Nor had the wreck been examined further.


You explain to me what happened there.

Perhaps the initial report of a sonar image of the bow visor was mistaken? I'd guess that the interpretation of sonar results still allows for errors, but someone who actually knows something about sonar could convince me otherwise. Anyone here with some knowledge about sonar?

 

[JesseCuster]

The Swedish KSI and the MI6 likely were involved, correct.

That's not what I asked you. Given your recent hypothesis about Russian mine-laying mini-subs (!), I asked you if you were reneging on your claim that the collision was probably caused by a submarine that was British or Swedish.

Do you think the most likely explanation for the sinking of the Estonia is a British or Swedish submarine? It's a simple question.

 

[LondonJohn]

Did you not understand that Henrik Evertsson's documentary has brought about the amendment in the Treaty?

Estonian World

Given survivors' narratives mention 'bangs' and a 'collision' it becomes clear that this aspect should have been looked at ATT. Or, it probably was but was labelled 'classified' by the PTB at the time: Bildt, Clinton, Major. (Lots seem to have been 'classified' under Clinton. Just sayin'.)

Or..... it happened as the wreck shifted on the sea floor, months (or even years) after the report's investigation.

*bangs head against desk*

 

[JesseCuster]

Imagine if you were part of the Russian mafia or even a speznaz as of the era of FSU and not only were you resentful of perceived hostile foreign powers (Sweden, Estonia, the USA) smuggling out the state secrets of your beloved fatherland and you become aware that this is being done on a public passenger ferry; you have fired off at least two warnings to the western states concerned but it is still going on. So, you have the military and maritime knowhow to take action to put a stop to it. The fact of a thousand members of public and crew are on board is - you reason - something the western powers should have thought about, not your problem - so you move heaven and earth to stop the latest smuggling which you have been tipped off about. So you make darn sure that ship goes nowhere. You wait until it gets into international waters and then on the stroke of Swedish midnight - (Sweden, do you get the message?) - a series of three explosions go off at the bow side locks - did the one at the atlantic lock at the bottom fail? - but you don't know that the car ramp will also come off, do you? So you attach a mine via a mini submarine to the side or accidentally crash the submarine you had tracking the vessel. Job done.

I think it's funny that you bend over backwards to tell us that you're not promoting a conspiracy theory at all, just posting about current news events, and then post the above with a straight face.

 

[LondonJohn]

I reported a current news item. The relatives of the deceased are not satisfied with the JAIC report, together with the shipbuilders, the claims assessors, German and Swedish investigative reporters completely independently of each other, the one British survivor who cannot get a reply to his FOI request and all people can do is try to attack the messenger.

The thing that this British survivor *thinks* is a valid FOI request.... is not a valid FOI request.

I've told you before: the UK has a long-standing tradition of treating as gravesites all those ships sunk with the possibility of dead remaining within the ships. And to treat - in principle, and in practice where possible - the unauthorised disturbance of such ships via human (diver or RoV) intervention as a crime.

And as part of that, the UK is in the habit of co-operating with any formal attempts to prevent access to such submerged shipwrecks. The UK also has more recreational, professional and technical divers than any other country outside the US, and therefore feels an additional responsibility to be able to bring to justice any of its own nationals who perform unauthorised dives on these sorts of wrecks. Especially within Europe (for obvious geographic - and, to an extent, regional-political - reasons).

That's it. Nothing sinister. Nothing being hidden. Nothing being denied. No conspiracy.

 

[phiwum]

That's not what I asked you. Given your recent hypothesis about Russian mine-laying mini-subs (!), I asked you if you were reneging on your claim that the collision was probably caused by a submarine that was British or Swedish.

Do you think the most likely explanation for the sinking of the Estonia is a British or Swedish submarine? It's a simple question.

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse [1]. You are a man of little imagination and skills of deduction.

Why must it only be one or the other? There were bombs planted. There was a Russian minisub that planted a mine and collided with the Estonia for good measure.

But Estonia was a big boat. Who's to say that there were no subs colliding on the port side? Look, just hear me out: The minisub planted a mine, collided with the Estonia and blew up the mine (which separated the sub into little teeny bits that have not been found). But this force also served to jostle Estonia to port (Law of Physics!), where it collided with the Swedish sub on the side. Which probably hit the British sub on the way down or something.

I mean, you don't have to buy this story obviously, but if not then you don't give a damn about the survivors and also you're a **** detective.


[1] Jesse is actually my name, so a bit weird to type that.

 

[GlennB]

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse [1]. You are a man of little imagination and skills of deduction.

Why must it only be one or the other? There were bombs planted. There was a Russian minisub that planted a mine and collided with the Estonia for good measure.

But Estonia was a big boat. Who's to say that there were no subs colliding on the port side? Look, just hear me out: The minisub planted a mine, collided with the Estonia and blew up the mine (which separated the sub into little teeny bits that have not been found). But this force also served to jostle Estonia to port (Law of Physics!), where it collided with the Swedish sub on the side. Which probably hit the British sub on the way down or something.

Now I'm hugely confused.

I thought the Russian sub was there to collect the secret Russian military documents that their agents had liberated on the ship? But it all went a bit wrong and the mini-sub hit the ferry, which sank?

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps the initial report of a sonar image of the bow visor was mistaken? I'd guess that the interpretation of sonar results still allows for errors, but someone who actually knows something about sonar could convince me otherwise. Anyone here with some knowledge about sonar?

The memo is signed and dated and shows a clear triangular-shaped form in the sonar image right at the bulbous bow end.

 

[Vixen]

That's not what I asked you. Given your recent hypothesis about Russian mine-laying mini-subs (!), I asked you if you were reneging on your claim that the collision was probably caused by a submarine that was British or Swedish.

Do you think the most likely explanation for the sinking of the Estonia is a British or Swedish submarine? It's a simple question.

Margus Krum, ex-chief prosecutor for Estonia believes it was a Swedish submarine. I have no idea whether the submarine that collided or scraped it - if it was in a collision with a submarine - was Swedish, British or Russian.

 

[JayUtah]

Margus Krum, ex-chief prosecutor for Estonia believes it was a Swedish submarine.

What do you believe, and why?

 

[Vixen]

Or..... it happened as the wreck shifted on the sea floor, months (or even years) after the report's investigation.

*bangs head against desk*

The report came out in December 1997. It was reported in a Finnish newspaper Kaleva - in 1997 - that there was a massive hole in the side of the vessel. It is not mentioned anywhere in the report. Banging your head against your desk is a pretty dumb thing to do, especially when you are actually wrong.

The newspaper Kaleva reports that it reported on the rupture of the Estonian side already in 1997.
“In the video recordings received by the shipyard, a rather large rupture was found on the right side of the Estonian wreck. on the zero deck with sauna and pool. Above the level was first the deck with its cabs and then the car deck, ”

Ilta-Sanomat

 

[Vixen]

The thing that this British survivor *thinks* is a valid FOI request.... is not a valid FOI request.

I've told you before: the UK has a long-standing tradition of treating as gravesites all those ships sunk with the possibility of dead remaining within the ships. And to treat - in principle, and in practice where possible - the unauthorised disturbance of such ships via human (diver or RoV) intervention as a crime.

And as part of that, the UK is in the habit of co-operating with any formal attempts to prevent access to such submerged shipwrecks. The UK also has more recreational, professional and technical divers than any other country outside the US, and therefore feels an additional responsibility to be able to bring to justice any of its own nationals who perform unauthorised dives on these sorts of wrecks. Especially within Europe (for obvious geographic - and, to an extent, regional-political - reasons).

That's it. Nothing sinister. Nothing being hidden. Nothing being denied. No conspiracy.

WRONG! The UK has a WAR graves Treaty policy but only when it directly affects the UK. It is not a Baltic nation and therefore does not logically have any need to have signed the Treaty or been invited to. Norway is not included, for example, and it is a lot nearer to the Baltic than the UK. Nor the Netherlands. Nor even Germany.

Stop making things up and please reference sources properly instead of talking off the top of your head.

 

[Vixen]

What do you believe, and why?

I believe, based on evidence - early newspaper reports, for example, that of course the authorities knew about the huge hole on the starboard side but preferred not to mention it.

IOW lying by omission.

 

[JayUtah]

I believe, based on evidence - early newspaper reports, for example, that of course the authorities knew about the huge hole on the starboard side but preferred not to mention it.

IOW lying by omission.

Thank you. I was hoping for something specifically related to the part I quoted. Do you believe Margus Kurm, that a submarine caused the starboard-side damage? If not, what in your opinion makes his claim non-credible?