• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I don't know why Kurm has that theory. Maybe he is trying to salvage the honour of Estonia, as it were, having perceived that it was the Estonians being blamed for the accident, wrongly in his view. But there is no mistaking a massive breach in the hull.
 
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?

Esa Makela OSC Captain of Silja Europa says the storm wasn't that bad but quite normal for a blustery September night. People have to conjure up a vision of a raging tempest complete with thunder and lightning in order to imagine how a 'few strong waves' could rip off an extremely heavy bow visor, which tells you how ludicrous a theory it is.
 
As you know, they were manually activated so being "switched off" would have been their normal status.

Correction of misinformation: the EPIRB's were HRU-activated free float automatic, and had been checked the week before by electricians. Rockwater divers confirm the EPRIB cages were empty and retrieved an HRU, indicating it triggered correctly when immersed.
 
Correction of misinformation: the EPIRB's were HRU-activated free float automatic, and had been checked the week before by electricians. Rockwater divers confirm the EPRIB cages were empty and retrieved an HRU, indicating it triggered correctly when immersed.

Why do you persist in repeating things you have been shown are false?
 
No, that wasn't the case. The communications were down.

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

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

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

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.
That does not adress the question i asked. What is your source that the Finnish coastal stations had any trouble calling the Swedish Rescue Central?

That there were trouble communicating via VHF has nothing to do with that.
 
Correction of misinformation: the EPIRB's were HRU-activated free float automatic, and had been checked the week before by electricians. Rockwater divers confirm the EPRIB cages were empty and retrieved an HRU, indicating it triggered correctly when immersed.


What does the "R" in HRU stand for?
 
The Captain of Mariella:







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.
The Russian station that was broadcasting a carrier wave om ch16 cannot interference with Swedish coastal radio VHF. That is not possible due to the curvature of earth. The signal cannot reach that far.

The simple answer is that they were too far away to reach the Swedish coastal stations.
 
From early sonar imaging, 14.10.1994:

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.

They weren't 'semi- literate'

They had commercial pilot licenses.
 
Correction of misinformation: the EPIRB's were HRU-activated free float automatic, and had been checked the week before by electricians. Rockwater divers confirm the EPRIB cages were empty and retrieved an HRU, indicating it triggered correctly when immersed.

No they weren't. It doesn't matter how many times you tell this lie it will never be true.

Both beacons were recovered. They were in good working order with full battery charge. When activated by pressing the switch they broadcast a full strength signal for the specified duration.
 
Last edited:
How did a sub collision result in a hole above the waterline?

How did a submerged diesel electric sub keep up with the ferry?

If a sub caused the damage why do you think there will be evidence of an explosion on the damaged section of the hull?
 
Two independent witnesses saw a military truck load the Estonia, one said he arrived late and all the roads were blocked by military to make way for this truck.


I'll repeat the question as you seem to have missed it the first time: whose military?
 
How did a sub collision result in a hole above the waterline?


See answer to next question.

How did a submerged diesel electric sub keep up with the ferry?


It travelled above the surface to reduce drag.

If a sub caused the damage why do you think there will be evidence of an explosion on the damaged section of the hull?


The explosion was necessary to cover up the evidence of trucks being pushed out of the bow door and the bows being eaten away by radioactive waste.
 
See answer to next question.




It travelled above the surface to reduce drag.




The explosion was necessary to cover up the evidence of trucks being pushed out of the bow door and the bows being eaten away by radioactive waste.

Was it the explosion or the falling trucks that took out the land line? Or maybe the submarine's propeller?
 
Why do you persist in repeating things you have been shown are false?

You have been told and have been shown that it was an IMO Chapter 3 regulation [1988] to have an automatic free float EPIRB.

Why do you persist in being obtuse in face of hard documentary evidence? Do you believe your word of the top off your head cancels an irrefutable fact?
 
No they weren't. It doesn't matter how many times you tell this lie it will never be true.

Both beacons were recovered. They were in good working order with full battery charge. When activated by pressing the switch they broadcast a full strength signal for the specified duration.

You haven't produced a single scrap of evidence to back up your claim. You are claiming your word tops that of IMO Chapter 3 regulations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom