The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

None of this has anything to do with the Estonia sailing at flank speed into a storm resulting in the hood getting knocked off allowing the car deck to flood causing the ship to sink.

In 100 pages you have not been able to get around this simple chain of events.

How can it be a 'simple chain of events' if

1. There was significant damage to the starboard compatible with a collision
2. All fo the senior crew ere missing - the divers saw three bodies on the bridge and could have brought them up for ID, given a diver reporting a ptoential crime scene.
3. 34 out of the 79 passenger survivors describe bangs and sensations of collisions, as of the time of the accident.
4. At least two passengers indicate they noticed something seeming to glide away in the water (Reintaam; Barney.)

All of these issues could have been cleared up by the JAIC and then we wouldn't be having all of these frantic rumour mills.

 

[Vixen]

Where are the mines in the Baltic? Where are the torpedoes?
What does the history of warfare in the Baltic have to do with it?
By that measure the North Sea or English Channel are the 'deadliest seas in history in terms of warfare and bitter conflicts over sovereignty of their waters'.

What is important about an unidentified person on the bridge? It could be any member of the crew. We already went through this, the bridge would be a busy place in an emergency.

Given that the mines are certainly there, especially around the old so-called Baltic States governed by the Soviet Union, including East Germany (whose main port along the Baltic is Rostock) and Poland, it is something you might expect the JAIC to have ruled out?

How many sea mines are in the Baltic Sea?
The Baltic Sea also has the unique distinction of being home to between forty and fifty thousand sea mines still unaccounted for from the two world wars.3 Jul 2021

Is NATO Ready To Defend Its Baltic Coast From Russia?

 

[Vixen]

Which diver claimed this? Where is the evidence for this bullet in the head?
Why would another dead person on the bridge be the one that killed the captain?
Why, if he had just killed the captain would he have stayed on the bridge?
Why would he kill the captain in the first place?
Was this before or after the bombs went off and the ship was rammed?

Nobody knows because the JAIC never looked into it.

 

[Vixen]

No. LondonJohn (for that is my username, not "LoJo") said that:

1) the person - who was not Barney - who made the DfT FOI request was not addressing the correct UK Govt department*, which was true;

2) the person - who was not Barney - who made that request obviously didn't understand that the place for the information was the Foreign Office**, which was true; and

3) if Barney thinks a) that there ought to have been some special Parliamentary vote on the UK's accession to this treaty, and b) that the absence of evidence of such a vote is itself evidence of shady goings-on.... then Barney (and Vixen) doesn't understand the situation properly (no such vote was ever required).


Stop misrepresenting other posters' positions. OK?


* The correct UK Govt department to contact re the UK accession to the treaty was the Foreign Office, as I said. And then it transpired that a prior request had been made to the Foreign Office, which had answered the question directly with a link to the relevant text about the UK's accession. The Foreign Office then helpfully pointed out that if the person in question wanted to find out anything related to the ongoing management and maintenance of the UK's position, he/she could check with the DfT. But the question about the manner of the UK's accession had already been answered at that point.

** Because the person obviously didn't realise that the Foreign Office had already answered the question.... and then went on to ask the wrong question to the DfT.

Paul Barney said he contacted the relevant department to enquire the reasons for the UK signing the Estonia Gravesite Treaty and had no reply. That is why he thinks MI6 is involved as it appears to be classified information. Graham Phillips appears to have followed Barney's lead, having interviewed him for his film yet doesn't seem to have had better luck.

Nothing to do with 'brightness'.

 

[Vixen]

It's not your speculation that the unidentified body was some kind of hijacker?

Whose speculation was it? Specifics please.

edit: for reference, here is the quote from Vixen where she first suggested the possibility of the bridge having been hijacked. (bolding mine)

Vixen, if this isn't your speculation about the bridge being hijacked, then please give a reference for where you got it from and who it was that actually speculated it.

If we take it in good faith the diver/s did indeed see all of this in their examination of the wreck then hijacking becomes a possibility as it seems unlikely the crew would shoot the captain unless there was some kind of mutiny (which they would have to answer for). With smuggling going on - including suspicions of people smuggling - who knows what gangsters were on board.

Nobody even knows if the passenger list was complete as a passenger list was not kept.

 

[Vixen]

Also, if the Estonia was sank by a mine laid by a submarine that was there so specifically lay a mine to sink the Estonia on that particular night, then why is the history of what mines may have been previously been laid in that sea relevant?

Or is the claim now that the Estonia was sank by a mine, not laid by a Russian minisub on the night the Estonia sank, but by a pre-existing mine laid decades previously due to previous conflict in the area?

It indicates some kind of expertise in that field does it not?

 

[Vixen]

The (current) claim - or "I'm just the messenger, reporting others' claims" as it's now known - seems to be along the lines of "there's been lots of warfare activity in the Baltic, there's lots of unexploded ordnance remaining in the Baltic after all this conflict, so maybe some of this ended up exploding and causing the Estonia to sink".

Despite the fact - a fact which would be glaringly obvious to anyone who has any kind of understanding about such matters - that had the Estonia truly been sunk in this manner, there would have been easily-identifiable structural, metallurgical and chemical evidence on the wreck.

Can't rule it out? In the Al-Quaeda terrorist attack on USS Cole in 2000 a small boat did exactly that: ram into the side of the vessel with a load of explosives:

On the morning of Thursday, 12 October 2000, Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, docked in Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 9:30 and began refueling at 10:30.

Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small fiberglass boat carrying C4 explosives and two suicide bombers approached the port side of the destroyer and exploded,[5] creating a 40-by-60-foot (12 by 18 m) gash in the ship's port side, according to the memorial plate to those who lost their lives. Former CIA intelligence officer Robert Finke said the blast appeared to be caused by C4 explosives molded into a shaped charge against the hull of the boat.[6] Around 400 to 700 pounds (180 to 320 kg) of explosive were used.[7]

Much of the blast entered a mechanical space below the ship's galley, violently pushing up the deck, thereby killing crew members who were lining up for lunch.[8] The crew fought flooding in the engineering spaces and had the damage under control after three days. Divers inspected the hull and determined that the keel had not been damaged.

wiki

Interestingly, USS Cole did not sink. Obviously the damage to the USS Cole is far greater than that seen on the Estonia.

 

[Vixen]

A limpet on the hull above the waterline would have been visible to everyone.

And it would have been in Estonian sovereign waters.

 

[Vixen]

How would they know who to pick up and who to leave?
Who reported this?
Why would it be unusual for a helicopter in particular not to pick up all the survivors?

The first official helicopter didn't arrive for quite a while. This survivor was talking about almost straight away iirc.

The thing supposedly 'picking up survivors but not all of them' was a small black ship that appeared out of nowhere likewise. (Claims a survivor.)

 

[Vixen]

You made the thread at least partly about the allegedly callous behavior of your critics, so yes, you have the time to provide evidence for that claim when asked for it. Many posters have expressed dissatisfaction at your willingness to just make stuff up about them.

 

[JayUtah]

[etc.]

What a surprise: no substantive response.

 

[JesseCuster]

If we take it in good faith the diver/s did indeed see all of this in their examination of the wreck then hijacking becomes a possibility as it seems unlikely the crew would shoot the captain unless there was some kind of mutiny (which they would have to answer for). With smuggling going on - including suspicions of people smuggling - who knows what gangsters were on board.

You said that the speculation about hijackers wasn't yours. I asked you whose speculation it was then.

This response of yours in no way addresses my question at all.

So I'll ask again:

If it isn't YOUR speculation that the bridge might have been hijacked, then WHOSE speculation is it that you're repeating?

 

[junkshop]

Strangely enough, some survivors claim to have seen a helicopter and a small ship passing by picking up some survivors but not others, in the immediate aftermath of the sinking.

I don't suppose you could give us some sort of a link or citation for this?

 

[JesseCuster]

Also, if the Estonia was sank by a mine laid by a submarine that was there so specifically lay a mine to sink the Estonia on that particular night, then why is the history of what mines may have been previously been laid in that sea relevant?

Or is the claim now that the Estonia was sank by a mine, not laid by a Russian minisub on the night the Estonia sank, but by a pre-existing mine laid decades previously due to previous conflict in the area?

It indicates some kind of expertise in that field does it not?

What? I can't relate that response to my post at all.

 

[Vixen]

You said that the speculation about hijackers wasn't yours. I asked you whose speculation it was then.

This response of yours in no way addresses my question at all.

So I'll ask again:

If it isn't YOUR speculation that the bridge might have been hijacked, then WHOSE speculation is it that you're repeating?

Andi Meister, former Head of JAIC.

 

[Vixen]

What? I can't relate that response to my post at all.

If this was sabotage, then it is likely tp have been a war between rival intelligence agencies and their defence forces, given how efficiently the boat sank within half an hour or so; the Channel 16 May Day communications channel cut off and continuous signal interference and the entire phone network down for the duration, then we can expect it to show military and naval finesse, so why not weapons available at their fingertips, including mines.

 

[phiwum]

The first official helicopter didn't arrive for quite a while. This survivor was talking about almost straight away iirc.

The thing supposedly 'picking up survivors but not all of them' was a small black ship that appeared out of nowhere likewise. (Claims a survivor.)

You really must give citations when you say things like this. Else, how do we know it's true?

Moreover, we've already seen you report earlier that several witnesses reported hearing explosions, but that turned out to be very misleading. They reported bangs, but not explicitly explosions. Thus, a citation to your actual source is really needed for this and many of your other claims.

 

[phiwum]

Andi Meister, former Head of JAIC.

Citation?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is from a book by former-JAIC Head, Andi Meister, who resigned as he believed the Swedes were withholding information. He wrote the following book although I don't know whether it is available in English. Mayday Estonia Unknown Binding – 1 Jan. 1995
by Heino Levald (Author), Andi Meister (Author)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mayday-Estonia-Heino-Levald/dp/9985883012

Curious. If that book was really published on 1st January 1995 then that's only 3 months after the sinking and barely 3 weeks after the diving survey report was submitted to the investigators.

Do you actually have a copy of the book, to confirm it was actually published on that date, or are you indirectly referencing it from elsewhere?

 

[lobosrul5]

Can't rule it out? In the Al-Quaeda terrorist attack on USS Cole in 2000 a small boat did exactly that: ram into the side of the vessel with a load of explosives:

wiki

Interestingly, USS Cole did not sink. Obviously the damage to the USS Cole is far greater than that seen on the Estonia.

Some "minor differences" (sarcasm) between MV Estonia and USS Cole:

The Cole was not underway, and not in heavy seas. Please consider whether a small craft in heavy seas would be able to attach an explosive devices in force 7 conditions.

It was a suicide attack, not something Russian agents are known for. Certainly not in the 1990's.

The explosion lifted the ship and immediately caused casualties. We have no witness testimony from the Estonia corroborating anything like this.

The Cole did not sink. Being a military ship, she has far superior damage control equipment, compartmentalization, and training than a commercial ferry. This fact has been noted, repeatedly by ex Royal Navy sailors in this thread.

Look at the damage the Cole received:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing#/media/File:INTEL-COGNITIVE-Cole.jpg

Now, compare it to the hull damage you've noted on the MV Estonia. Does it actually look remotely similar to you? Please be honest.