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

[Steve]

I'm confused. All this talk of it being the last official day for Bildt is just supposed to mean that this was the day of a party celebrating his tenure? He still served as PM for over a week?

So, this day was absolutely insignificant in terms of his political power, right? It wasn't his last day in any sense at all. He wasn't handing over power at midnight, it wasn't the day of the election, nothing like that. In fact, midnight itself was an insignificant time in an insignificant day, contrary to all you've said up 'til now, right?

Bildt's election was planned specifically so his end-of-term party could be held on the day of the sinking. It is significant, and our investigative expert Vixen knows exactly why.

 

[lobosrul5]

Bildt's election was planned specifically so his end-of-term party could be held on the day of the sinking. It is significant, and our investigative expert Vixen knows exactly why.

I'm sure she's frantically searching for reasons why it supports her CT. I mean this is like: 911 was an inside job because Dubya was out of town lunacy taken to another level.

 

[quadraginta]

Then what left the Submarine Tracks, eh Mr Clever Clogs??11!

D)

Submarine Tracking Devices.

...

...

...

Duh.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Reports at the times say Bildt was called out of a leaving party to be imparted information. He has always refused to say when he first heard of the incident. Yet the Estonian PM and the Finnish one remember it vivdly: they received a phone call in the middle of the night at 4:00 am.

So, your source is "reports at the times"? Really? And you insinuate there was something fishy about how early Bildt was informed even though you don't know when Bildt was informed. And when asked when it was you instead insinuate there's something fishy about the fact that you don't know when Bildt was informed.

I assume similarly you cannot back up your claim to know who told Bildt.

https://news.postimees.ee/7073877/head-of-expert-committee-coverup-without-end

This is your submarine source is is? A conspiracy theorist who doesn't explain what his imaginary submarine was meant to do in its job of "escorting" the ferry but contends it hit the ferry and holed it below the waterline. Except we know the hole in the ferry's side punches through into the car deck which is above the waterline. Did you forget? We know that hole did not sink the ferry. You know this hole did not sink the ferry. Why do you cling to this crazy conspiracy crap in the light of facts that clearly show it's garbage?

 

[junkshop]

She's already claimed that they aren't available. If she can't provide a source, we can reasonably assume that she made them up.

No.

No, I don't agree that that is a reasonable assumption.

Vixen posted two images in the post that I quoted. I want to know the origin of those images.

I don't believe that Vixen created these images, or rather, I don't believe that Vixen created the documents reproduced in these images.

I am not (as yet) addressing the content of the images, I wish to know the origin of the images.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect posters on this forum to provide attribution for material posted that is not their own work. Indeed, I believe this and related issues may have been the subject of some discussion (and censure) recently.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

At that time, none of the Swedish subs could have kept pace with the Estonia unless it was on the surface.
In the weather conditions at the time it would not have been able to keep up even on the surface.

Vixen, in the light of this information are you going to keep recycling the conspiracy theory that a Swedish submarine was escorting the Estonia, or are you finally going to recognise it's just a fantasy?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Er, there is actually a copy of the newspaper report.

Junkshop quite reasonably would like to know the source of the material you seem to think is "a copy of the newspaper report" but which appears to be both edited and translated by someone.

Why should we accept that rewritten stuff, whatever it is, as an accurate representation of what you claim it to be? Is it because of your hard-earned reputation as an irreproachably reliable provider of dependable facts? I think not.

 

[Vixen]

I'm confused. All this talk of it being the last official day for Bildt is just supposed to mean that this was the day of a party celebrating his tenure? He still served as PM for over a week?

So, this day was absolutely insignificant in terms of his political power, right? It wasn't his last day in any sense at all. He wasn't handing over power at midnight, it wasn't the day of the election, nothing like that. In fact, midnight itself was an insignificant time in an insignificant day, contrary to all you've said up 'til now, right?

It was a simple statement of fact. Your leaving do is when you clear your desk.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It was a simple statement of fact. Your leaving do is when you clear your desk.

Except when it isn't. As in this case it appears.

You have a list of coincidences you wish us to accept as evidence of something nefarious going on. When items on your list turn out to be wrong, does it make you pause and reflect, even for a moment?

 

[Vixen]

So, your source is "reports at the times"? Really? And you insinuate there was something fishy about how early Bildt was informed even though you don't know when Bildt was informed. And when asked when it was you instead insinuate there's something fishy about the fact that you don't know when Bildt was informed.

I assume similarly you cannot back up your claim to know who told Bildt.


This is your submarine source is is? A conspiracy theorist who doesn't explain what his imaginary submarine was meant to do in its job of "escorting" the ferry but contends it hit the ferry and holed it below the waterline. Except we know the hole in the ferry's side punches through into the car deck which is above the waterline. Did you forget? We know that hole did not sink the ferry. You know this hole did not sink the ferry. Why do you cling to this crazy conspiracy crap in the light of facts that clearly show it's garbage?

We have documentary evidence:

During the evening of 27 to 28 September 1994 the Bildt Government was celebrating the farewell party in the Prime Minister’s office at Rosenbad** together with their political civil servants. Bildt and some others were just about to leave when Bildt got the message*** that a Finland ferry was in trouble. He does not remember from whom. He turned around and went back to his office and subsequently made several phone calls during the night, among others with the prime ministers of Estonia and Finland.

<snip>

(2) Jonas Hafström, Security Adviser to the Prime Minister up to 07.10.94 – Interview II/23. He left the farewell party at Rosenbad at about 23.30 hours and went home where he was phoned at 02.00/03.00 hours by his sister and informed of the catastrophe.
https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/chapter21/21-0.html

It is not just state prosecutor Margus Kurm who thinks the hole may have been caused by a submarine, a Norwegain Professor said the computer modelled 3-D reconsttuction of the hole was consistent with a submarine assuming speeds

The Defence Forces Chief, Eml Svensson had already formulated the cause of the disaster by the very next morning:

(3) Commander Emil Svensson (Interview No. III/9) - Military adviser to Carl Bildt until 07.10.94 – thereafter for also some time for the new Government.

He was a member of the security analysis group in the office of the Prime Minister and head of the Swedish delegation during the submarine discussions with Russia, furthermore he had to analyse the military situation in the Baltic.
He was on the flight to Turku (he says to Helsinki), asked many times “how and why could it happen?” and did report about the danger of the “free surface effect”*. It was his assumption that by whatever means a lot of water must have penetrated on to the car deck and subsequently the free surface effect reduced the stability of the ferry to such an extent that she capsized. “And one hour on this side for this vessel increased the effect additionally.” A few decimetres only created an incredible effect on a large area (such as the car deck).

<snip>

The interviewer: “How was it found out that the bow door (visor) had influenced or even had been the cause of the accident?”

Svensson: “As far as I remember, not at all, but it was simply an alternative, how so much water could have penetrated the car deck so quickly that free surfaces were created very rapidly. The other alternative was, of course, that there was a rather big hole.”

ibid

So there you are, within a few hours that was the story of how the accident happened and that is the story the JAIC had to provide as a conclusion.

It's almost as if he had an eye witness.

 

[Vixen]

Except when it isn't. As in this case it appears.

You have a list of coincidences you wish us to accept as evidence of something nefarious going on. When items on your list turn out to be wrong, does it make you pause and reflect, even for a moment?

Maybe now he was out of power it was his last delivery, as it were.

 

[ferd burfle]

<snip for brevity>Why do you cling to this crazy conspiracy crap in the light of facts that clearly show it's garbage?

Well, you know the old saying, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity attention.”

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Maybe now he was out of power it was his last delivery, as it were.

That maybe is doing a LOT of heavy lifting in that sentence.

So do you have any evidence that there was a delivery on that day at all?

Your assumptions and supposition is not evidence.

 

[phiwum]

It was a simple statement of fact. Your leaving do is when you clear your desk.

What silliness. If his farewell party came before he left office, it does not imply that he wasn't still an active and working PM. Of course, after the election, there would be a limit to what large initiatives he could reasonably pursue, but that has **** all to do with the timing of a stupid party.

 

[phiwum]

Maybe now he was out of power it was his last delivery, as it were.

He was still in office. The mighty coincidence you previously reported was that the accident occurred exactly at the time his term ended. Instead, it turns out that it was the night of a farewell party, over a week before his term ended, and midnight didn't mean a damned thing.

 

[JayUtah]

So there you are, within a few hours that was the story of how the accident happened and that is the story the JAIC had to provide as a conclusion.

Well, see, if you knew anything about ships, how they're built and operated, and what makes them sink, you'd know that this was a perfectly valid speculation to make at the time. Ro-ro ferries have this vulnerability. Open-deck ferries are vulnerable to the free surface effect. These are things you know if you have the appropriate expertise. You don't.

The JAIC didn't assume that's what happened. They accepted it (and other things) as hypotheses and tested each according to the evidence. Lo and behold, the most probable thing a priori was shown by evidence to still have been the most likely cause out of all the other possibilities.

No matter how much yarn you want waste on your murder board, the JAIC findings are still the most plausible explanation for the accident.

 

[Axxman300]

We have documentary evidence:

Take it from me, a ghost hunter. BS is not documentary evidence. Sad but true, this.

It is not just state prosecutor Margus Kurm who thinks the hole may have been caused by a submarine,

And her experience with submarines is what? Does she have any maritime knowledge? How many ship accidents had this person worked?

a Norwegain Professor said the computer modelled 3-D reconsttuction of the hole was consistent with a submarine assuming speeds

What if I told you it was eels? They may have mistaken the Estonia for a hovercraft.

Definitely equally as credible as this "professor" and his 3D model. See, the problem is there is not a long list of submarine collisions with commercial shipping for anyone's data to be "consistent" with a submarine collision. And we've covered this line of crap before. There were zero reports of a submarine putting into port for emergency drydock time. No navy can hide that sort of thing.

The submarine thing is one of the more pathetic BS stories you'd deposited in these threads
.

The Defence Forces Chief, Eml Svensson had already formulated the cause of the disaster by the very next morning:

So there you are, within a few hours that was the story of how the accident happened and that is the story the JAIC had to provide as a conclusion

Weird, almost as if he consulted with naval authorities, who pointed out that Ro-Ro ferries have a history of this kind of thing. And then heard reports from survivors who used the open bow ramp to climb down into the sea. Like the man had the capacity to put 2+2 together to reach a conclusion.

And you ignore the fact that Sweden had spent ten years complaining about foreign submarines sneaking around their coastline before this. The fact they didn't blame a sub for this one should tell you all you need to know.

It's almost as if he had an eye witness.

The guy who climbed down the open boat ramp, and the engineer who fled his post when he saw the car deck flooding on his TV monitors. When you complain that the survivors were not properly questioned you can't turn around and ignore the survivor's statements when they undermine your weak points.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wasn't it supposed to be a Russian sub that sank the Estonia as revenge for nicking old radios?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Carl Bildt's leaving party was on 28 September 1994, the night of the disaster.

So what? Lots of people have farewell parties before the last day on the job, or after. People have Christmas parties in January, too. Doesn't mean that's when Christmas happens. I'm sure he had lots of farewell parties/events.

 

[JayUtah]

It is not just state prosecutor Margus Kurm who thinks the hole may have been caused by a submarine...

Not an expert in submarines.

...a Norwegain Professor said the computer modelled 3-D reconsttuction of the hole was consistent with a submarine assuming speeds

No it isn't. I showed the errors in your professor's assumptions, but you don't have the brains to understand them. And yes, I'm smarter than your professor.