The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

Using dead people's memories to throw barbs is a disgusting, lowlife move.

Almost as low as using unresolved grief to bilk funds out of people and institutions.

I don't understand why you are opposed to the relatives of the deceased wanting to understand why their loved ones died. Simply labelling it 'classified' is just not good enough.

 

[Kid Eager]

Jutta Berg claims she has seen the evidence the FSU military stuff was for Israel.

“A friend of a friend heard that….”

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't understand why you are opposed to the relatives of the deceased wanting to understand why their loved ones died. Simply labelling it 'classified' is just not good enough.

Maybe I'm opposed to it for reasons having nothing to do with your insulting presumption of my motives.

Why must you resort to blatant emotional manipulation as a crutch for your having no credibility?

ETA: have you polled the 900 families to get a real understanding of how much they support this or are you just putting on a sanctimonious display?

 

[Vixen]

Maybe I'm opposed to it for reasons having nothing to do with your insulting presumption of my motives.

Why must you resort to blatant emotional manipulation as a crutch for your having no credibility?

ETA: have you polled the 900 families to get a real understanding of how much they support this or are you just putting on a sanctimonious display?

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.

 

[Kid Eager]

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.

Reporting is not a synonym for commenting on, nor interpreting. Do try to use words properly.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I reported a current news item. [Hililte]The relatives of the deceased[/hilite] 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.

All relatives of all 900 deceased? Because that's the moral impetus you're attempting to damn and slander me with. Shove it. Sideways, if you please.

There have been innumerable good-faith responses and explanations to your inconsistent claims and near-total ignorance of the disciplines and fields relevant to the issues you bring up. They go ignored, or your retorts amount to nothing more than foot stamping and, like what's pissing me off right now, impugning motives and emotional sophistry.

 

[Axxman300]

I don't understand why you are opposed to the relatives of the deceased wanting to understand why their loved ones died. Simply labelling it 'classified' is just not good enough.

I will say it again:

Nobody here is against the new investigation into the sinking.

Nobody.

What we're against is blatantly wild speculation and obvious counter theories put forth by "German Experts" who are working hard to deflect liability for the sinking away from the ship builder (who I doubt is liable anyway).

Nobody has defended the Swedes or the official investigation's problems. We assert that the bottom line was the hood failure and inept actions by the crew and ship's command caused the massive loss of life. We believe this due to the many facts available to the public on this tragedy.

It was moved from current affairs to the Conspiracy forum by your actions.

 

[phiwum]

You know what I like about Vixen's discussion?

A simple thinker would see one guy saying there were explosives and another guy saying there was a collision with a sub and figger that he had to choose one theory or the other. It takes a bit of imagination to try and make both of them true.

And then, why not toss in the CIA and the Palestinians? In for a penny... and the more the merrier too.

The icing on the cake, however, is making the sub both Swedish and Russian.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I will say it again:

Nobody here is against the new investigation into the sinking.

Nobody.

What we're against is blatantly wild speculation and obvious counter theories put forth by "German Experts" who are working hard to deflect liability for the sinking away from the ship builder (who I doubt is liable anyway).

Nobody has defended the Swedes or the official investigation's problems. We assert that the bottom line was the hood failure and inept actions by the crew and ship's command caused the massive loss of life. We believe this due to the many facts available to the public on this tragedy.

It was moved from current affairs to the Conspiracy forum by your actions.

An important part of the motte-and-bailey tactic is to pretend that everybody's attacking the bailey.

 

[Axxman300]

The icing on the cake, however, is making the sub both Swedish and Russian.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Swussian?

Wredish?

 

[Vixen]

All relatives of all 900 deceased? Because that's the moral impetus you're attempting to damn and slander me with. Shove it. Sideways, if you please.

There have been innumerable good-faith responses and explanations to your inconsistent claims and near-total ignorance of the disciplines and fields relevant to the issues you bring up. They go ignored, or your retorts amount to nothing more than foot stamping and, like what's pissing me off right now, impugning motives and emotional sophistry.

Charming, I'm sure.

 

[Vixen]

I will say it again:

Nobody here is against the new investigation into the sinking.

Nobody.

What we're against is blatantly wild speculation and obvious counter theories put forth by "German Experts" who are working hard to deflect liability for the sinking away from the ship builder (who I doubt is liable anyway).

Nobody has defended the Swedes or the official investigation's problems. We assert that the bottom line was the hood failure and inept actions by the crew and ship's command caused the massive loss of life. We believe this due to the many facts available to the public on this tragedy.

It was moved from current affairs to the Conspiracy forum by your actions.

The bow visor fell off. It doesn't mean it was the cause of the accident, if a collision and/or explosion/s happened first.

The vanishingly few survivors time these events at or around 1:00am EET.

The JAIC time given for the thing falling off is fifteen minutes later.

Omission is as good as lying.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They report that is when they started to hear the noises.

How would something ramming them above the waterline cause the bow visor to fall off?
Did the explosions last for all that time?

Also, make your mind up, was it a ramming or bombs?

 

[Vixen]

You know what I like about Vixen's discussion?

A simple thinker would see one guy saying there were explosives and another guy saying there was a collision with a sub and figger that he had to choose one theory or the other. It takes a bit of imagination to try and make both of them true.

And then, why not toss in the CIA and the Palestinians? In for a penny... and the more the merrier too.

The icing on the cake, however, is making the sub both Swedish and Russian.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

A good detective puts himself in the mind of the criminal. Think about it, phiwum. 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.

Given the likely motivation for the above scenario, of course you have to look at the world's political situation. It would surely be no coincidence that the smuggling of FSU defence and space secrets happened at the fall of the Soviet Union. So as terrorism is essentially a political act, of course you need to examine the world at war as of the time of the outrage. In 1994 we had the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with massive US involvement, with Clinton keen to be seen as 'peacemaker' and still keeping a beady weary eye on the Kremlin, with its support of the baddie Iranians (caught redhanded selling them a submarine the same year).

John Major would have been the prime minister in the UK signing off the Estonia Gravesite Treaty together with the Baltic nations barring Germany.

Why won't the UK government let Paul Barney et al have the document setting out the decision to undersign, as per the Freedom of Information Act, decisions made by the democratic government being a matter of in the public domain for UK citizens? It will have been discussed. Major can't just sign off a sovereign legal document unilaterally without going through the proper channels of passing a White Paper and then a Bill through the House.

So yes, if the Estonia sinking was an act of sabotage then yes the political landscape of the day becomes salient and that landscape includes the Swedes on behalf of the USA smuggling Russian state secrets via public passenger transport, which ergo means the public has a right to know.

 

[Vixen]

They report that is when they started to hear the noises.

How would something ramming them above the waterline cause the bow visor to fall off?
Did the explosions last for all that time?

Also, make your mind up, was it a ramming or bombs?

They reported independently of each other as of the time of the accident when no-one had had a chance to put a spin on things or revise history, of hearing 'bangs' - most often two or three in rapid succession - and of having a sensation of colliding, i.e., thrown violently forward or to the floor. That is not the same as your hearing your neighbours banging away on DIY next door or phiwum's screen door slamming shut in the wind. As they say in Yorkshire: 'Shut gob, pin back lug'oles and put brain in gear'.

 

[Vixen]

The UK process for signing Treaties:

Practice and procedures for new treaties
The responsibility for concluding treaties involving the UK lies with the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. This remains the case even when the negotiation of the treaty is led by another government department.

The FCDO’s Legal Advisers and Treaty Section:

must be given the opportunity to comment on the drafts of all treaties under negotiation
will advise on the form and substance of the treaty, though not substance which is technical and of which the other government department is the expert
will advise on related matters such as the production of Full Powers and instruments of ratification
will produce original signature copies of treaties and advise on the treaty signing ceremony
will arrange for the treaty to be published and laid before Parliamentare responsible for the registration of these treaties with the UN, allowing their subsequent publication in the United Nations Treaty Series, and
will transfer treaties to The National Archives for preservation
Our specific guidance on practice and procedure provides further information, including the procedures for ratification under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRaG Act) 2010.

UK.Gov

Therefore, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, why is there no response when UK citizens enquire as to the reasons for the UK signing the Estonia Treaty of 1995*?

*pdf here.


Freedom of Information Act aims:

What are the principles behind the Freedom of Information Act?
The main principle behind freedom of information legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to. This is sometimes described as a presumption or assumption in favour of disclosure. The Act is also sometimes described as purpose and applicant blind.

This means that:

everybody has a right to access official information. Disclosure of information should be the default – in other words, information should be kept private only when there is a good reason and it is permitted by the Act;
an applicant (requester) does not need to give you a reason for wanting the information. On the contrary, you must justify refusing them information;
you must treat all requests for information equally, except under some circumstances relating to vexatious requests and personal data (see When can we refuse a request? for details on these). The information someone can get under the Act should not be affected by who they are. You should treat all requesters equally, whether they are journalists, local residents, public authority employees, or foreign researchers; and
because you should treat all requesters equally, you should only disclose information under the Act if you would disclose it to anyone else who asked. In other words, you should consider any information you release under the Act as if it were being released to the world at large.

ICO Org


A public body can refuse on these following grounds but it does clearly say a reason should be given for the refusal.

You can automatically withhold information because an exemption applies only if the exemption is ‘absolute’. This may be, for example, information you receive from the security services, which is covered by an absolute exemption. However, most exemptions are not absolute but require you to apply a public interest test. This means you must consider the public interest arguments before deciding whether to disclose the information. So you may have to disclose information in spite of an exemption, where it is in the public interest to do so.

If you are refusing all or any part of a request, you must send the requester a written refusal notice. You will need to issue a refusal notice if you are either refusing to say whether you hold information at all, or confirming that information is held but refusing to release it.

ICO

So, why cannot a survivor of the accident get a response to a perfectly reasonable request?

 

[phiwum]

A good detective puts himself in the mind of the criminal. Think about it, phiwum. 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.

Given the likely motivation for the above scenario, of course you have to look at the world's political situation. It would surely be no coincidence that the smuggling of FSU defence and space secrets happened at the fall of the Soviet Union. So as terrorism is essentially a political act, of course you need to examine the world at war as of the time of the outrage. In 1994 we had the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with massive US involvement, with Clinton keen to be seen as 'peacemaker' and still keeping a beady weary eye on the Kremlin, with its support of the baddie Iranians (caught redhanded selling them a submarine the same year).

John Major would have been the prime minister in the UK signing off the Estonia Gravesite Treaty together with the Baltic nations barring Germany.

Why won't the UK government let Paul Barney et al have the document setting out the decision to undersign, as per the Freedom of Information Act, decisions made by the democratic government being a matter of in the public domain for UK citizens? It will have been discussed. Major can't just sign off a sovereign legal document unilaterally without going through the proper channels of passing a White Paper and then a Bill through the House.

So yes, if the Estonia sinking was an act of sabotage then yes the political landscape of the day becomes salient and that landscape includes the Swedes on behalf of the USA smuggling Russian state secrets via public passenger transport, which ergo means the public has a right to know.

Your expertise in physics is rivaled only by your keen grasp of international intrigue.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[whoanellie]

A good detective puts himself in the mind of the criminal. Think about it, phiwum. Imagine if you were part of the Russian mafia or even a speznaz ........

Cool story. It would make a great paperback novel or even a movie. You might want to clarify whether the bad guys are the Russian mafia or Russian Special Forces? Or the Swedes?

What a good detective should not do is invent a phantasmagorical scenario and then force the available evidence to fit their pet theory.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

 

[JayUtah]

A good detective puts himself in the mind of the criminal.

You are not detective, nor do you know what detectives -- good or bad -- actually do or how they work.

 

[JayUtah]

They reported independently of each other as of the time of the accident when no-one had had a chance to put a spin on things or revise history...

...but it's not a conspiracy theory.

...and of having a sensation of colliding, i.e., thrown violently forward or to the floor.

But no actual eyewitnesses to a collision. And what happened to the "explosions?" You spend pages trying to convince that the witnesses reported that bombs were going off. Now I guess we're not talking about that anymore. Did the witnesses hear bombs? Or did they hear the ship colliding with something? 90 pages hence, can we finally please get some clarity on what exactly you're claiming?

As they say in Yorkshire: 'Shut gob, pin back lug'oles and put brain in gear'.

Or as they say in my neck of the woods, "All hat and no cattle." You didn't address the key element of the rebuttal. Shortly after one o'clock the witnesses start hearing repetitive percussive noises, which would be consistent with the bow visor starting to come loose and being battered by waves. Then at 01:15, the reconstructed timeline shows the visor falling completely free. How is this inconsistent?