The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[llwyd]

The reason for the "re-investigation" is this decades long conspiracy mongering that has created political pressure in both Estonia and Sweden (the Finnish government has been distinctly unenthusiastic about the idea, but refers in this matter to the countries most concerned). Both governments are pretty weak at the moment and so threw this bone to the gutter media and the increasingly fanatic and numerous conspiracy nuts.

This "sensational" and "unexpected" (meaning not sensational nor unexpected) discovery of new damage to the hull was the last straw that influenced those spineless politicians. A total waste of money and effort.

 

[RolandRat]

You have no evidence for this

Seems to come from this guy https://news.postimees.ee/7096784/n...-knew-ms-estonia-was-carrying-weapons-systems

"Journalist Stephen Davis claims based on sources in the British intelligence that the ferry MS Estonia was used to transport weapons systems as a joint operation of the Estonian, Swedish and UK intelligence services. Russia, upon learning of the operation, issued repeated warnings against it through diplomatic sources but was ignored.

“I have talked at length with MI6 (officially the Secret Intelligence Service – ed.) about this. Several sources have told me that Russian military electronics was moved west in a joint operation of British, Swedish and Estonian secret services. There was a very close relationship between MI6 and the Estonian intelligence services at the time,” Davis told Postimees.

One of Davis’ sources is Richard Tomlinson who spent over four years working for MI6 in the 1990s and has fought his former employer in court and been embroiled in several scandals since then. Davis refuses to name his second source. “They would imprison that person if I told you their name,” he explained."

"Stephen Davis has covered the Estonia disaster in his book from last year “Truthteller. An investigative reporter’s journey through the world of truth prevention, fake news and conspiracy theories.”

 

[Andy_Ross]

So just the usual conspiracy ******

What is he proposing? that the Russians sank the ship?

Bombs? torpedo? Ramming?

This is just WTC 7 dressed up in a James Bond costume.

 

[RolandRat]

I think he is alluding to the Russians doing it. I haven't read the book so don't know if he goes into more detail but in the article I linked above he says:

"The journalist’s information suggests that the Russians delivered a new warning in 1994, a month before the sinking of MS Estonia, directly to the MI6 this time. “The Russians said don’t do it or else, without specifying what that meant. The warning was ignored once more. If you are using a passenger ferry with over 900 people on board, you can think of them as a guarantee or a human shield for that shipment,” Davis said.

He maintains that MS Estonia was carrying a shipment of military equipment the night it sank."

It's all he said, she said, ifs, buts, maybes and anonymous sources.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A load of bollocks is what it is.

 

[Vixen]

As has been pointed out, it is in the public domain the Swedish government used the Estonia passenger ferry to move military equipment. This is no mystery. It comes from the Swedish government itself, and as already stated, it is mentioned in the accident report. The skill in being a sceptic is having the ability to separate fact from fiction instead of heckling from the back that everything is rubbish.

Published fredag 21 januari 2005 kl 16.57
An investigation confirmed Friday that the Swedish military had used the Estonia passenger ferry to transport military technology, but not on the night it sank on September 28, 1994, killing 852 people.

The report, requested by Prime Minister Göran Persson outlined the military’s use of the ferry, which made daily runs from Tallinn, Estonia to Stockholm.

According to the report, the two military shipments made in September contained non-explosive electronic equipment used for military purposes but ”without any connection to weapon systems.”

Johan Hirschfeldt, president of the Svea Court of Appeals, prepared the report. He declined to elaborate on the exact nature of the equipment shipped on Estonia, calling the information classified. He also did not say how the Swedish military came into possession of the Russian equipment, saying it was outside the scope of his investigation.

The ship, en route from Tallinn to Stockholm, sank in 45 minutes after waves as high as nearly 8 meters ripped off the Estonia’s 56-ton bow door, letting water gush into the car deck. Only 137 people survived.

Our journalism is based on credibility and impartiality. Swedish Radio is independent and not affiliated to any political, religious, financial, public or private interests.

Swedish Radio


Imagine Saddiq Khan allowing the British Army to stack the ammunition of a foreign power onto the tube. If there was an accident shortly after, people would understandably be very upset.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bear in mind that these boats sail literally every day and are perfectly used to stormy weather. When I was a kid we used to travel five days on a ship called the Baltica. Across the North Sea, it gets extremely rough, you are literally thrown from one side to the other, with your dinner plate following shortly after. Just because there is a violent lilt, that isn't necessarily cause for anyone to stop brushing their teeth and panic. These shipbuilders know their terrain and design their ships accordingly. When the M/S Estonia was known as Wasa King in its third reincarnation with Silja Lines, it was regarded as the most reliable ship in a storm, according to wiki, when it sailed regularly between Vaasa and Umeå....

They don't use modern stabilizers? Do the vehicles get lashed down? And would a list like you describe stay in one direction?

 

[Vixen]

They don't use modern stabilizers? Do the vehicles get lashed down? And would a list like you describe stay in one direction?

When I was a kid, we didn't even have mobile phones. Ships in rough weather just tossed about in the waves.

In the modern RORO's things are done properly. I have usually gone as a foot passenger so haven't really noticed.

 

[theprestige]

As has been pointed out, it is in the public domain the Swedish government used the Estonia passenger ferry to move military equipment. This is no mystery. It comes from the Swedish government itself, and as already stated, it is mentioned in the accident report. The skill in being a sceptic is having the ability to separate fact from fiction instead of heckling from the back that everything is rubbish.

Swedish Radio


Imagine Saddiq Khan allowing the British Army to stack the ammunition of a foreign power onto the tube. If there was an accident shortly after, people would understandably be very upset.

It's a ferry. The militaries of the world use commercial carriers to transport stuff all the time.

And no, people would not be understandably upset. Only idiots would make a connection between ammunition transported one week, and a tube accident the next.

And it's a pants-on-head retarded analogy anyway, since subways are very different from oceangoing ferries, and ammunition is very different from electronics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When I was a kid, we didn't even have mobile phones. Ships in rough weather just tossed about in the waves.

In the modern RORO's things are done properly. I have usually gone as a foot passenger so haven't really noticed.

You didn't answer the question about the vehicles. There's no way you could have a ferry bouncing around like that unless all the vehicles were lashed down in some way.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Interesting article about the current views of sole Brit survivor, Englishman Paul Barney. He once believed the report but now he says he wants to discover the truth. He cannot understand why Britain is a signatory with the Baltic countries barring the approach of the sunken ship. He is convinced, that in the absence of any explanation from the government as to what Britain's interest in the M/S Estonia is - with just two British citizens on board - together with the admission of the Swedish Security Forces that it was engaged in smuggling out Russian military equipment out of Estonia via the M/S Estonia - that there was MI6 involvement. The surveillnace cameras definitely captured military trucks being loaded late onto the boat, which was delayed one hour, and witnesses in Stockholm said the port was inundated with armed Swedish police ready to intercept the expected boat, presumably because they arrived at the scheduled time. Others claim there was cobalt on one of the trucks, a useful ingredient for nuclear weapons.

SUN


I trust Paul Barney. He comes across as a very decent chap, level-headed and not given to hyperbole.

I had no idea until reading this that Great Britain was a signatory to this 'must not disturb' treaty. Germany is not.

Why?

People involved in trauma often latch onto explanations that provide some kind of outlet for their frustrations because "it was a sad, senseless tragedy" is harder to process and makes one feel small and the grieving futile.

I'm sure he's a "nice chap," but also perhaps not so objective about it.

Er, you would be satisfied with an explanation, 'A gust of wind blew the wing of the aeroplane off'?

Well, there are plenty of people with zero sense of inquistiveness. Some might spin it as a big plus.

I doubt anyone would be satisfied with that explanation and when it comes to commercial accidents, it is never one stray variable. Usually something more like "extraordinary turbulence, inadequate maintenance, and insufficient pilot training to detect and diagnose the problem quickly enough to avoid the disaster..."

You see yourself as the arbiter of what people who were actually there and survived the ordeal and have studied if for years, such as Paul Barney, are allowed to conclude?

One is a considered hands-on expert of the findings, the other concluding on a whim based on a hunch.

Challenging an assertion is not declaring what another person is "allowed" to do.

You've got some great consistency with merely characterizing other people's motives with a lot of charged rhetoric.

Can we move on to real evidence on the topic now?

If not, go on spreading shame all you like. It's what people do when they want to silence their opposition without actually adding anything useful

 

[Vixen]

You didn't answer the question about the vehicles. There's no way you could have a ferry bouncing around like that unless all the vehicles were lashed down in some way.

From the report into the accident:

Draft Version 24.10.94:
"12. The stabilizer fins were according to witness observation in extended position during the sinking, despite they seem to be in retracted position in the wreck."
Final Version 28.10.94:
"12. The stabilizer fins were according to witness observation in extended position during the sinking. The port side one seems to be in retracted position in the wreck, this could possibly be explained by the fin having retracted by gravity after failure of the hydraulic system."

So all modern European commercial vessels at least would ensure stability by this means.

 

[Vixen]

People involved in trauma often latch onto explanations that provide some kind of outlet for their frustrations because "it was a sad, senseless tragedy" is harder to process and makes one feel small and the grieving futile.

I'm sure he's a "nice chap," but also perhaps not so objective about it.



I doubt anyone would be satisfied with that explanation and when it comes to commercial accidents, it is never one stray variable. Usually something more like "extraordinary turbulence, inadequate maintenance, and insufficient pilot training to detect and diagnose the problem quickly enough to avoid the disaster..."



Challenging an assertion is not declaring what another person is "allowed" to do.

You've got some great consistency with merely characterizing other people's motives with a lot of charged rhetoric.

Can we move on to real evidence on the topic now?

If not, go on spreading shame all you like. It's what people do when they want to silence their opposition without actually adding anything useful

I was merely reporting on the latest news and giving some background to the case. Don't have a go at me just because it is controversial. I am just the messenger.

Paul Barney is an unassuming guy, He was roaming around northern Europe looking for various types of plants, as some kind of botanist or horticulturalist. If you watch the Graham Philips video in Post #1, you can see for yourself he is very down to earth and not given to dramatics. He clearly has changed his mind over the years because when there is a disaster of this type, usually the investigators fall over themselves to get to the bottom of the cause. For example, when a plane comes down in the ocean, there is no hesitation in retrieving what's left of the craft and recovering the bodies. OK, so an Airbus is a lot smaller than this 55,000 giant but the depth at which it is sunk is only half of its width, so leverage shouldn't be a problem.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/DE_estonia_comparison.png

As has been pointed out, it was a stormy night but no more than usual at that time of the year. That a bow visor with three different locking systems - including an Atlantic lock - can just fall off and the ship sink so rapidly giving people almost zero chance to escape rightly raises questions that people are entitled to have answers for. The Atlantic lock bolt, however, a most important piece of evidence in the JAIC's chain of argumentation, was brought to the surface but, much to the surprise of the outside world, thrown back into the sea by Stenström (an investigator). From the report, virtually within a few days of the accident, it was decided the bow visor was to blame for the accident - even before it had been found - and as any scientist knows, coming to a conclusion too early can give your results a 'halo effect', i.e., proving one's own pet theory.

1. The bow door (visor) has separated from the ship as a result of failure of all three locking mechanisms. According to the observations made by members of the crew this happened at about 01.15 when water was simultaneously observed on the TV-monitor, entering the car deck from openings along the vertical sides of the forward ramp. The failures have taken place, in case of the two side locks in the welding of the locking eye plates to the bow visor and in case of the centre lock (as previously shown) by failure of the lugs carrying the locking plunger unit."

From the report

Why people should get scathing about the scene of the accident being revisited indicates a closed rather than open mind, surely the antithesis of reasoned debate.

 

[Vixen]

It's a ferry. The militaries of the world use commercial carriers to transport stuff all the time.

And no, people would not be understandably upset. Only idiots would make a connection between ammunition transported one week, and a tube accident the next.

And it's a pants-on-head retarded analogy anyway, since subways are very different from oceangoing ferries, and ammunition is very different from electronics.

Er, the Swedish government was using an Estonian passenger ferry to smuggle out Russian armaments. What could possibly go wrong when the Russians realise their defence secrets are being conveyed to foreign powers. Look up Carl Bildt, who was in office at the time. Wikileaks exposed that he was a CIA agent. You can scoff, but in this case, truth really is stranger than fiction. Would you or your family want to travel on such a passenger ship? And if you did, you would want answers once you found out, should there have been a rather sudden and violent accident, whilst you or your family were on it.

Remember, Sweden has admitted it did do this.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I was merely reporting on the latest news and giving some background to the case. Don't have a go at me just because it is controversial. I am just the messenger.

Backpedal detected.

You wrote your own words. You own them.

Paul Barney is an unassuming guy, He was roaming around northern Europe looking for various types of plants, as some kind of botanist or horticulturalist. If you watch the Graham Philips video in Post #1, you can see for yourself he is very down to earth and not given to dramatics. He clearly has changed his mind over the years because when there is a disaster of this type, usually the investigators fall over themselves to get to the bottom of the cause.

I'm sure he's a wonderful fellow.

What does that have to do with the cause of the incident?

Is likeability now a form of valid technical credentials?

For example, when a plane comes down in the ocean, there is no hesitation in retrieving what's left of the craft and recovering the bodies. OK, so an Airbus is a lot smaller than this 55,000 giant but the depth at which it is sunk is only half of its width, so leverage shouldn't be a problem.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/DE_estonia_comparison.png

They retrieve black boxes and sometimes engine parts or other airframe pieces that are relevant. Swissair 111 is about the only ocean crash I recall where the plane was basically hoovered off the ocean floor.

As has been pointed out, it was a stormy night but no more than usual at that time of the year. That a bow visor with three different locking systems - including an Atlantic lock - can just fall off and the ship sink so rapidly giving people almost zero chance to escape rightly raises questions that people are entitled to have answers for. The Atlantic lock bolt, however, a most important piece of evidence in the JAIC's chain of argumentation, was brought to the surface but, much to the surprise of the outside world, thrown back into the sea by Stenström (an investigator). From the report, virtually within a few days of the accident, it was decided the bow visor was to blame for the accident - even before it had been found - and as any scientist knows, coming to a conclusion too early can give your results a 'halo effect', i.e., proving one's own pet theory.

Who said it "just" fell off?

Was it rapid or was the evacuation botched? This is where "multiple failures contributed to the accident."

You're the one fixating on a single point.

From the report

Why people should get scathing about the scene of the accident being revisited indicates a closed rather than open mind, surely the antithesis of reasoned debate.

Am I doing that.

As I said. Spend more time discussing evidence and less time characterizing the qualities of your detractors.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the report into the accident:

So all modern European commercial vessels at least would ensure stability by this means.

So one would think a significant list should alarm people enough they wouldn't stop to brush their teeth.

However, I am well aware that some people do things they would do by rote in emergencies. There was a documentary on survivors and I recall one woman who made it out of a burning jet by climbing over the seat backs to the emergency escape because people in the aisle were getting their carry on out of the bins. Only a few people made it out of the plane.

I'm the kind of person who would have climbed over the seat backs. And I bet a lot of people would be the same if they were educated about not stopping to do rote things.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As has been pointed out, it is in the public domain the Swedish government used the Estonia passenger ferry to move military equipment. This is no mystery. It comes from the Swedish government itself, and as already stated, it is mentioned in the accident report. The skill in being a sceptic is having the ability to separate fact from fiction instead of heckling from the back that everything is rubbish.

Swedish Radio


Imagine Saddiq Khan allowing the British Army to stack the ammunition of a foreign power onto the tube. If there was an accident shortly after, people would understandably be very upset.

There was no ammunition or Russian secret electronics mentioned anywhere.

It's fantasy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

When I was a kid, we didn't even have mobile phones. Ships in rough weather just tossed about in the waves.

You are just making stuff up as you go along.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From the report into the accident:



So all modern European commercial vessels at least would ensure stability by this means.

Stabilisers will not stop a ship capsizing, they are to steady it when under way for passenger comfort.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Er, the Swedish government was using an Estonian passenger ferry to smuggle out Russian armaments. What could possibly go wrong when the Russians realise their defence secrets are being conveyed to foreign powers. Look up Carl Bildt, who was in office at the time. Wikileaks exposed that he was a CIA agent. You can scoff, but in this case, truth really is stranger than fiction. Would you or your family want to travel on such a passenger ship? And if you did, you would want answers once you found out, should there have been a rather sudden and violent accident, whilst you or your family were on it.

Remember, Sweden has admitted it did do this.

Sweden has not admitted anything of the sort.
This is fantasy.