Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[phiwum]

Source?

Are you saying that on a sinking ship with 1,000 people, half of them Swedish citizens, no-one managed to pick up the phone and tell Stockholm. Of course they were desperately trying to communicate but communications were mysteriously blocked.

Ah! That's a golden oldie! How come the ferry's landline wasn't working?

It's a mystery, that is.

 

[phiwum]

The captain of Mariella managed to ring the Turku Coastguard on their landline after many attempts to get through.

You do realize, I hope, that while the Coast Guard has a landline, the Mariella did not.

 

[Axxman300]

I can guarantee it will have been one of his intelligence (defence forces) guys.

Are you seriously suggesting the US President was watching it unfold on tv like the rest of us..?

At that point, yes.

Everyone at Langley turned on a TV set, everyone at FBI, who wasn't in NYC turned on a TV set. Everyone at NEADs was watching CNN on the giant screen in the Ops center.

Why? The cameras were right there in NYC with live footage. Incoming information was conflicting, confusing, and most wrong.

In the case of the Estonia, the ship presents a large target for side-scan sonar, and even with the quality of that time, it was clear the visor was gone. And they had been told by survivors that the bow ramp was open.

None of this is rocket science. And your version of how intelligence agencies work needs improvement.

 

[Axxman300]

If it was a Swedish submarine that collided with the ship, as former State Prosecutor for Estonia, Margus Kurm, believes, then that tells you (a) the escort would have been arranged and known pf in advance and (b) the collision would be relayed to the defence forces pronto, and (c) the first to know would not be the coastguard, or the TT News Agency but... Commander Svensson who would surely have imparted the news pronto to who he reports to.

Okay, but you're quoting an idiot.

Submarines are hunters, not escorts. Ships on the surface are tracked with radar, something a Swedish Navy vessel would have, and escort is something surface ships do, from time to time. And submarines use passive sonar to track ships, and they don't need to be close.

Since you brought this ridiculous submarine theory up, I have to ask what, exactly is a submarine going to do if Estonia was intercepted by a Russian warship? Have you thought that part through? A surface ship gives you options but a submarine is limited to torpedos, and missiles. You're implying Sweden was willing to sink a Russian ship in the commission of a crime (smuggling "stolen" Russian military secrets)?Sweden was not part of NATO, how do you think that would have gone over? Do you really believe Sweden would start a war, unilaterally, with Russia?

Again, there is no evidence of explosives nor a collision. You have no longer have any room to argue.

 

[Axxman300]

I can believe that, actually.

How do you not know this?

 

[Axxman300]

Even so, surely US Defence Forces must have noted a breach of its airspace. But anyway, given it was Dubya...I am sure they were able to handle it to the best of their ability.

There was no breach of US airspace on 9-11-2001. The planes all took off from the eastern US. The hijackers were already inside the country. Hence the whole global war on terror thing.

How do you not know this? How can anyone take you seriously? 9-11 happened on a sunny morning with hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, and hundreds of video and still cameras recording the events. Meanwhile, Estonia sank on a dark night, in a raging storm, with few survivors. If you can't get basic facts of 9-11 correct, how can anyone take you seriously about the Estonia?

 

[JayUtah]

Since you brought this ridiculous submarine theory up...

Oh no, it's a Very Serious Theory from an actual prosecutor—who can't be bothered to look up what the top speed of a submerged Swedish submarine is, among other massive failures in basic research. So that's why now it has to be a secret Swedish submarine that no one else has seen or heard of. But it's not a conspiracy theory!

 

[Here_to_learn]

Turku Coastguard* and Helsinki via Finland Radio were unable to get through to Stockholm until 1:54. Stockholm put rescue into action at 02:02 EET as per their logs.

*It couldn't even get through to Aland until the ship had completely vanished beneath the waves.

What is your source that they "were unable to get through to Stockholm"? According to public reports there is no information that the Finnish stations even tried before that time.

However, the reports do describe why the Finnish stations did not answer/react in time, and that was because there was only one person on duty in each of the places. They were overloaded with communicating, escalating, and trying to coordinate the rescue.

 

[Here_to_learn]

So Here_to_learn is saying Carl Bildt was paged by a news agency. Question: who informed the news agency?

No, public reports are saying that. I'm just quoting.

The timings look like this (hope I can get the TZ right this time).

SE times.

00:23 Mayday call from Estonia
00.52 Mariehamns Sea Rescue Sub-central calls Stockholm Rescue Central
around 1:00 Britt-Marie Seibold (Night Editor at TT) calls the Swedish Sea Rescue Central to ask about a fishing boat in trouble outside Öland. While on that call, she gets informed about Estonia.
01:31 TT puts out their first flash message. This also reaches pagers at several key persons in the government as previously quoted in this thread.

Further down in that arcticle from TT, they mention that there are government officials calling TT during the night to get updates.

 

[Blue Mountain]

No. That is how a naval base communicates with a submarine. If you knew anything about submarines and ELF comms, you'd know they work only from land out to the submarine. Submarines cannot transmit via ELF. They can only receive.

True. Submarines communicate via Diminished Wavelength Alpha Radio Frequency, or DWARF.


... I'll see myself out.

 

[Blue Mountain]

The submarine that jumped out of the water and holed the Estonia above the waterline then vanished without a trace?!

Yes; it was one of the super-secret modern Porpoise class submarines.

 

[Vixen]

How would the Swedish Sea Rescue Central get it if not by phone? We already went through that in a previous iteration of the thread. The VHF signal does not propagate far enough to reach the Swedish stations.

You can see the regular coverage of the VHF base stations at https://stockholmradio.se/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/VHF-kartan_Norden_2023-09-02_Eng.jpg

To the distances above you add the height of the VHF antenna on the ship. A simple calculator can be found for example on https://www.qsl.net/w4sat/horizon.htm

And the Finnish rescue stations didn't call the Swedish ones until 01:52. The main reason being that there was only one person on duty in each of the Finnish rescue stations, and they were overloaded.


And that is exactly the question. And we know the reason - because the Finnish rescue centrals were busy and delayed the call to the Swedish ones, thereby delaying how quickly Sweden could send help.

It's all in the report.

No, that wasn't the case. The communications were down.

This is what the Mariella Captain Jan-Tore had to say:

Another matter is, I believe, worth mentioning and which should be remembered by you, who are investigating this here, it concerns the alerting. After they had called out the emergency messages it was only EUROPA and we who confirmed to them, and we really had big problems establishing contact with the coastal stations. It is not as they told the media that they picked up the emergency messages. They did not do that. They did not do that before we called them over mobile phone. EUROPA phoned Turku by mobile phone and we phoned Helsinki by mobile phone. After they had sent out the emergency messages it was just EUROPA and we who replied to them.

A: Does this mean that the Rescue Services ashore never confirmed the receipt?

T: They never confirmed anything.

A: Not the receipt of the messages?

T: No, they never did so before we stirred them up by mobile phone. At first we didn't even know whom to call.

We tried at once after he had received the information from ESTONIA about her position and so on, and after the contact was interrupted we both tried, we and EUROPA, to contact MRCC and Helsinki Radio, Mariehamn radio. At first over VHF Channel 16, the emergency channel. No reaction at all. Nobody was listening in and not even in Stockholm. So we changed over to 2182, which covers the whole Baltic Sea, and were calling and calling. No contact whatsoever. The only thing we heard was somebody else calling. He spoke to EUROPA thereafter. He heard that we were calling and we heard that he was calling, but there was no reaction from ashore.

A: That means in summary that ESTONIA was sending a Mayday which was immediately only received by MARIELLA and EUROPA. It was just you two confirming receipt?

T: Yes, that was, in any event, what we heard.

A: You then tried to contact the Rescue Services?

T: Yes.

A: Both in Finland and in Sweden.

T: Yes.

A: And you did not get any reply?

T: No.

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/chapter22.htm

In addition, the location given by the Estonia was eight minutes East out.

In the message diary of the Turku Maritime Rescue Centre, Mayday is recorded as having arrived at 1.24 a.m. There can be a throw of two or three minutes in one direction or another, because the entries are made afterwards. Six minutes after Mayday, Estonia fell silent.
At the last moment, Silja Europa tried to find out the location of the ship. However, the last words are so unclear that it has not been possible to interpret them. Europa heard readings of east latitude as 48 minutes, while the correct figure was 40.
40 minutes is two nautical miles, or less than four kilometers, from the right place, 48 minutes is five nautical miles.

HS


The Estonian Radio stations did not get any message, nor did an Estonian ship nearby get the call.

Helsinki Radio finally got the location of the Estonia and Finland Radio sent out a PAN-PAN (= usually means man overboard with no threat to the ship) in error instead of a Mayday proper. JAIC blames the lapse in communication on the pan-pan but by then 01:52 the Estonia had long since sunk (01:31-ish). It disregards the signal interference.

 

[Vixen]

What is your source that they "were unable to get through to Stockholm"? According to public reports there is no information that the Finnish stations even tried before that time.

However, the reports do describe why the Finnish stations did not answer/react in time, and that was because there was only one person on duty in each of the places. They were overloaded with communicating, escalating, and trying to coordinate the rescue.

The Captain of Mariella:

We tried at once after he had received the information from ESTONIA about her position and so on, and after the contact was interrupted we both tried, we and EUROPA, to contact MRCC and Helsinki Radio, Mariehamn radio. At first over VHF Channel 16, the emergency channel. No reaction at all. Nobody was listening in and not even in Stockholm. So we changed over to 2182, which covers the whole Baltic Sea, and were calling and calling. No contact whatsoever. The only thing we heard was somebody else calling. He spoke to EUROPA thereafter.

The Commander of the Finnish Coastguards said there was signal interference from a Russian antenna blocking out signals and that it had happened before.

As you know, the EPIRB's had also been switched off so no satellite link of location there, either.

 

[Vixen]

This reasoning doesn't make much sense.

It seems to me that your reasoning is the following:

(1) If Bildt knew about the disaster early, then this is evidence that he or his people were monitoring the ferry even before the disaster.

(2) If they were monitoring the ferry before the disaster, then there is more to the disaster than the official story.

So far so good, but you also claim that

(3) It is ridiculous to think that Bildt learned about the disaster from the media.

When asked why, you point out

(4) If the ferry was being escorted by a sub, then Bildt or his people would be monitoring it.

But we're not assuming that it was being escorted. Heck, if we believed that, then there would be no point to talk about whether or not Bildt learned about the disaster early. Just being escorted by a sub would be odd enough to cast doubt on the official story.

So your reason for claiming that Bildt didn't learn about the disaster from the media is roughly, "Let's assume that it was being escorted by a sub. Then of course he'd be following the details already."

It is a mighty twisted bit of, oh, let's call it reasoning.

If Bildt and Svensson knew all along there was a submarine collision (as claimed by Kurm) it explains why the 'Theory of the Bow Visor' was circulated t the world's press at the earliest stages and that this was what JAIC were tasked to narrate as being the cause.

Adviser to the foreign minister Mart Luik said during the government press conference on Monday that the ferry could have hit a rock as it sank.
That is either ignorance or wishful thinking. Firstly, the side of the ferry with the hole in it has never touched the seabed. MS Estonia does not lie on its side but is rather resting on its head or one ear so to speak. The position of the hull was recorded during the dive in 1994 and if we put it on paper, everyone can see that this part of the hull and the car deck are not touching the bottom. This fact also overturns the theory according to which this part was not accessible before. It was fully accessible. The entire area of the tear was accessible, visible and filmable in 1994.
So, the claim made at the government press conference according to which the hole was not visible before, while the ferry has moved since then is wrong?
We can say that, yes. While the hull has lifted a little, it basically still landed on its head so to speak. Nevertheless, the bottom of the ferry was always fully visible.

Postimees

As you know, there is a massive rip across and down one side of the hull. How is it possible that the JAIC knew nothing about this huge breach and doesn't mention it at all. Yet a couple of investigative journalists independently of each other, Jutta Rabe and Henrik Evertsson had no problems in seeing it, with zero engineering, diving or naval training.

Do people seriously believe the Swedish naval divers and the subcontracted British Rockwater divers failed to spot the 21m gash along the side?

Now we are supposed to believe they have 'only just seen it now' because the wreck 'has moved' to make it visible and that 'it must have been a rocky outcrop what dunnit'.

Tell me Phiwum, how come the JAIC do not mention this breach in the hull at all.

So obviously, their entire report has to be predicated on false premises.

 

[Mojo]

As you know, the EPIRB's had also been switched off so no satellite link of location there, either.

As you know, they were manually activated so being "switched off" would have been their normal status.

 

[Vixen]

It would have been quicker to just say you had no sources or direct quotes.

Helsingin Sanomat is classed as a quality paper and it was a direct quote.

 

[Vixen]

Just in case it is...

The source is clearly marked: Sven-Anders Eriksson, Aftonbladet 28.9.1994.

 

[Vixen]

You do realize, I hope, that while the Coast Guard has a landline, the Mariella did not.

That is why I said: "The captain of Mariella managed to ring the Turku Coastguard on their landline after many attempts to get through."

 

[Mojo]

Helsingin Sanomat is classed as a quality paper and it was a direct quote.

I see that you have yet again forgotten what we are talking about. To remind you, here it is again:

Bildt saying it was the bow visor was in all the papers the very same afternoon as the accident.

Sources and direct quotations, with context, please.

This is a Finnish paper that normally has a print run before the early hours so 29.8.1994 was the first day it reported on the disaster:

Against the gate theory of Sillaste, water could have come out of the ramps," Lehtola points out. Henrik Sillaste, the ship's Estonian engineer, said on Wednesday that the bow gate of the ferry was not completely closed and before the accident water flowed from the bow gate onto the car deck. Sillaste said he saw this on a surveillance camera monitor in engineering.

HS

Sources and direct quotations, with context, to support your claim that "Bildt saying it was the bow visor was in all the papers the very same afternoon as the accident", please.

Lehtola, the newly appointed chair of the JAIC was reporting from the same press conference as Bildt and the Estonian PM. This took place on the late morning of 28.9.1994. It would have been in AFTONBLADET, which means...the EVENING NEWSPAPER. HS is a morning one. Aftonbladet being a tabloid doesn't have a decent library of back copies. But this was the story Bildt was keen to press on the Finns and the Estonians, using Sillaste as inspiration.

It would have been quicker to just say you had no sources or direct quotes.

Your "direct quote" (which wasn't actually visible when I followed the link you provided, by the way) doesn't support your claim.

 

[Vixen]

At that point, yes.

Everyone at Langley turned on a TV set, everyone at FBI, who wasn't in NYC turned on a TV set. Everyone at NEADs was watching CNN on the giant screen in the Ops center.

Why? The cameras were right there in NYC with live footage. Incoming information was conflicting, confusing, and most wrong.

In the case of the Estonia, the ship presents a large target for side-scan sonar, and even with the quality of that time, it was clear the visor was gone. And they had been told by survivors that the bow ramp was open.

None of this is rocket science. And your version of how intelligence agencies work needs improvement.

From early sonar imaging, 14.10.1994:

They now also have the Coast Guard tape at their disposal. Tuomo Karppinen, a member of the Research Commission, said on Thursday that estonia's bow ramp is less open than initially thought. Based on the first pictures, it was said that the ramp was about three feet open from above. Now it looks like there's about half a meter of gap. The ramp is not twisted, but it shows damage apparently caused by the detached bow visor.

HS

As for the US defences, they didn't pick up on the terrorist threat at all - obviously things must have been very wrong if a bunch of semi-literate Egyptians just out of elementary Flying School could spring such a surprise.


However, they were quick to seek retribution and it is likely the Swedes had the same attitude towards those it saw as the culprits.