The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Steve]

A 'mini sub' planted it on the hull.

During a storm.

 

[Kid Eager]

To recap the story so far….

….So, yes - there was a mini sub moving at high speed on the surface in a storm, flying under multiple flags at the same time, that first hit the Estonia, then attached a mine, before fleeing into the night undamaged whilst shaped charges planted by foreign agents were detonated to blow off the bow cap, then shortly thereafter those same agents went to the bridge and shot some people…

 

[GlennB]

To recap the story so far….

Ah, cheers. That's cleared up my confusion.

 

[lobosrul5]

To recap the story so far….

Or maybe it was a fishing boat.

 

[Kid Eager]

Or maybe it was a fishing boat.

No, impossible. They don't carry mines.

 

[Axxman300]

A 'mini sub' planted it on the hull.

Because that's much more sexy than planting a Limpet on te hull while the ship is in port...like everybody else would. No, get out there in your mini-sub whose max speed is ten knots slower than the Estonia so you can sail up alongside in 3-meter waves to plant it.

 

[Axxman300]

To recap the story so far….

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

 

[Kid Eager]

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

The lack of eyewitness reports of this confirms that testimony has been hidden in order to arrive at the foregone conclusion. More than one of those banging noises were limpet-like…

 

[Andy_Ross]

Never mind limpets on the hull, explosive charges all over the bow visor mechanism would have been obvious to the crew operating the visor and ramp.

Maybe that's why the saboteurs had to be aboard when the ship sailed, to place the explosives and set them off!

 

[Andy_Ross]

duplicate

 

[phiwum]

Never mind limpets on the hull, explosive charges all over the bow visor mechanism would have been obvious to the crew operating the visor and ramp.

Maybe that's why the saboteurs had to be aboard when the ship sailed, to place the explosives and set them off!

Not bad. That explains a lot.

Right after the bombs were placed, one fella turns to the other and asks, "Okay, so how do we get off this tub?" The other looks ashen at the question.

Hell, they figger, it's not safe to be 'round here, so they decide to hijack the ferry, have the crew drop them off and then continue on their journey. They start by shooting the captain in the head, as one does, but to little effect since he's not on the bridge. They proceed to the bridge but they have used their only bullet and are easily put down.

These events cannot be reported to the authorities, of course, because the Pan Pan channel is being blocked.

Now, just to be clear, Vixen, I'm not mocking the survivors. I'm mocking your theories.

 

[Vixen]

Must have been! Sailors never get tattoos.

That fact has not gone unacknowledged. However, the relatives of the passengers on the ferry have given the authorities a detailed description of their loved ones and identifying features - tattoos being a key identifying feature [yet criminals love them!] - but nobody had described someone fitting this chap's description as being missing.

 

[Vixen]

You keep bringing up this claim about one diver who thought the captain's body had a gunshot wound in the head and that another body on the bridge had a tattoo on their hand that wasn't recognised. It would be really great if one time you would cite your source for this, as requested weeks ago.

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

 

[Vixen]

I wonder if the hijackers knew that they were on a ship rigged with bombs and that a submarine was sent to collide with it. Very selfless hijackers if they knew and carried on with their mission anyway. Personally, I would have found somewhere else to be.

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.

 

[Vixen]

No, I don't find it odd considering the the shape of the bow and the hull. They reference 50 images but only 4 have this anomaly. That tells me the other 46 images have a clearer view of the bow showing nothing.

That plus they would have had to move the bow in secret with all of the other ships nearby, and that was and is impossible.

Where do you get '4 out of 50' from?

Interestingly:

The search for the bow visor - 10.10.1994 - (at around noon) eight days before the visor officially was found

The 10th of October Tuomo Karppinen answers from the ship TURSAS on location explaining that they went to sea already on Sunday [the day before] and then videofilmed the visor and the ramp again after having found it with the SONAR. He also says that they first could not find the visor with the ROV (remote operated vehicle with camera).

This information is very interesting as it clearly shows that they were not on location at the shipwreck filming the Estonia as the ship was found many days before and would not cause any trouble to find it with the ROV. The SONAR however scans large areas of the seabed making it easy to find singular large objects like the visor.

http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb576311/factgroup/est/visorfind.html


If you recall, Lehtola claimed the visor had been found, in his memo of 8 October 1994 and then retracted it 9 October 1994, saying it hadn't been found and was still missing.

Well, the Finnish boat Tursas claimed to have video-filmed it after having seen the Sonar on 10 October 1994. If you recall, the bow visor was not 'found' until 18 October 1994 according to the JAIC.

The explanation given is that the Finns had mistakenly referred to the car ramp as the 'visori'. (This does have a faint ring of truth as Finnish is nothing like other languages and they will take a foreign word and simply Finnish-ify it by adding an 'i'. For example, a senior becomes a 'seniori' or a pub a 'pubbi'.)

 

[Vixen]

Says the person who literally accused me of trolling.

It's like you're unaware that your posts are still viewable.

So, are you going to post examples of "callous jokes" that your interlocutors have been making in this thread? That was your claim.

If I have time. The thread is about a serious current affairs incident and not about navel gazing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

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?

 

[Vixen]

You passed Bigfoot 70 pages ago.

You have divided your time on this thread between touting the testimony of the survivors as gospel and dismissing the survivor testimony you disagree with as either conspiracy or confusing.

Some of the survivors climbed down the back of the open bow ramp to reach the water. They couldn't have done that if the visor was intact.

You can't have it both way, at least not in the real world.

If these two guys who claimed to have climbed down the car deck ramp (in a roaring storm) when they could have simply jumped into the water, did indeed climb down the car ramp, then the car ramp must have been firmly shut in order for them to do so.

If the bow visor supposedly pulled the car ramp wide open then there is no way anyone could climb down the ramp. Indeed the Rockwater divers reveal that the ramp was closed when they dived down (circa 2 October 1994) apart from a 40cm gap at the top which was too narrow for a diver to pass through or access the car deck. (The latest Arikas expedition - July 2021 - has found the car ramp wide open hanging on one hinge.)

 

[JayUtah]

If I have time. The thread is about a serious current affairs incident and not about navel gazing.

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.