• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

MS Estonia

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
I'm surprised that this hasn't been discussed here, so in light of the most recent news, I thought I'd start a thread about it.

For the unaware, MS Estonia was a cruiseferry that sank in the Baltic Sea in 1994 when sailing from Tallinn to Stockholm. 852 lost their lives that night, and the official report claimed that the casualty was a result of the visor being torn off at sea. The front visor was connected directly to the bow doors, and the ferry was to have sank after the car deck was flooded. The shipbuilder was blamed for the disaster.

The official report however simply cannot be trusted. The alternative (and very detailed) report by the shipbuilder found numerous inconsistencies compared to the official report, and I really recommend reading the alternative report if you want to understand what actually happened that night. The update from 2006 also clearly points at some external event happening that was at least partially responsible for the casualty.

A few days ago, a documentary was broadcast in Sweden which revealed that a hole in fact does exist where the German shipbuilders speculated it would be. There's a very good interview with a former Estonian state prosecutor and head of a government commission on the topic. While conspiracy theories are always prevalent around disasters - in this case, the main two theories: that weapons were smuggled onboard MS Estonia and that the ship has a large hole in the hull have now both been confirmed beyond any doubt.

The haunting distress radio traffic that night is also worth a listen.

If anyone has any questions, I can do my best to answer them.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

CC 72100

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
3,777
@Cloud Strife - apologies for hijacking this...

I am on another forum with more of a ferry focus and did discuss this recently but I will do here as well - in terms of conspiracy theories, this is of course not the only ferry disaster from around that time that is shrouded in controversy. Even more question marks loom over the fire on the MS Scandinavian Star.

The official report (conveniently?) blamed a passenger (who died in the disaster) with a prior conviction for arson, but certain events (such as the numerous fires when the ship was supposedly empty) mean that many consider the disaster still unresolved.

There was recent 6-parter documentary shown on Scandinavian TV about the disaster, but I'm yet to find it in English anywhere. I did also find an online newspaper 'feature' on it a few months back with lots of images and a timestamped chain of events with location on a Norwegian news website (able to use google translate) but I can't find the link now.

Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Scandinavian_Star

YouTube video of the Seconds from Disaster Episode*:

*This is a little 'dated' and goes with the arsonist theory, which is now widely disbelieved.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
Yes, the Scandinavian Star story is equally strange. It's not the only one as well: there's also the very strange situation with the MS Zenobia in Larnaca in 1980 which simply didn't make any sense whatsoever, even by the standards of that time. With the Scandinavian Star in particular, I think it's been well established by now that the fires were started by members of the crew.

What I find so strange about the MS Estonia story is why Sweden appeared to be in such a hurry to cover the wreck up in some way. They wanted to bury it in concrete, then when the outrage stopped them from that, they dumped a considerable amount of sand and pebbles over it. The most significant part of this operation was to render parts of the ship inaccessible. In hindsight, this action is even stranger when it's considered that the now-inaccessible sauna/swimming pool on Deck 0 (at the bottom of the ship) was considered to be a target, and had been the focus of a training exercise previously.

The smoking gun with MS Estonia is that the collision or explosion theory (backed up by the findings of the German shipyard) pointed very firmly at a hole being located on the starboard side of the ship. The Germans have been adamant for a long time that the ship had to be examined there properly in order to establish what happened, and I find it impossible to believe that the Swedish Navy didn't conduct a thorough examination of the vessel in light of the findings of the German Group of Experts. For a hole to now be discovered in the exact area of interest is remarkable.

It should also be noted that the Polish ferry Jan Heweliusz capsized in terrible weather conditions a year early. Water got into the car deck, and the ferry behaved exactly how a RORO ferry should in these circumstances: it capsized and floated upside down.
 
Last edited:

CC 72100

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
3,777
What I find so strange about the MS Estonia story is why Sweden appeared to be in such a hurry to cover the wreck up in some way. They wanted to bury it in concrete, then when the outrage stopped them from that, they dumped a considerable amount of sand and pebbles over it. The most significant part of this operation was to render parts of the ship inaccessible. In hindsight, this action is even stranger when it's considered that the now-inaccessible sauna/swimming pool on Deck 0 (at the bottom of the ship) was considered to be a target, and had been the focus of a training exercise previously.

The smoking gun with MS Estonia is that the collision or explosion theory (backed up by the findings of the German shipyard) pointed very firmly at a hole being located on the starboard side of the ship. The Germans have been adamant for a long time that the ship had to be examined there properly in order to establish what happened, and I find it impossible to believe that the Swedish Navy didn't conduct a thorough examination of the vessel in light of the findings of the German Group of Experts. For a hole to now be discovered in the exact area of interest is remarkable.

That is seriously murky stuff. I must admit, apart from question marks about what else was being transported on the Estonia that night, I wasn't aware the theory about the hole in the ship. As you say, after "there was definitely no hole" with some covering up of where the non-existent hole would be, to then end up with a whole in that area is of significant interest.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
It was the fact the UK weighed in on the wreck and made it illegal to dive that always intrigued me.

I always thought the theory that the Russians nobbled the ship is probably the most likely, and that they nobbled it because of what it was being used for. But who knows now as the investigators don't think there was an explosion. I wonder what it hit, I see the theory is a submarine. Wonder if it was a British one?
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Does anyone know where the documentary can be watched online? Happy to pay, but I can't find it anywhere.

I always had a curious, macabre fascination with ferry disasters when I was a kid, so I'm quite interested in developments on this story now.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
A few days ago, a documentary was broadcast in Sweden which revealed that a hole in fact does exist where the German shipbuilders speculated it would be. There's a very good interview with a former Estonian state prosecutor and head of a government commission on the topic. While conspiracy theories are always prevalent around disasters - in this case, the main two theories: that weapons were smuggled onboard MS Estonia and that the ship has a large hole in the hull have now both been confirmed beyond any doubt.
My problem with this theory is how the visor door at the front came off, unless it stayed watertight afterwards and served as a convenient excuse to hide the weapons.
Speaking of weapons smuggled aboard, SAA flight 295 is worth a read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,787
Location
West Riding
It was the fact the UK weighed in on the wreck and made it illegal to dive that always intrigued me.

I always thought the theory that the Russians nobbled the ship is probably the most likely, and that they nobbled it because of what it was being used for. But who knows now as the investigators don't think there was an explosion. I wonder what it hit, I see the theory is a submarine. Wonder if it was a British one?

Is it possible it hit;

A) a submarine and nobody wanted to own up, so it got swept under the carpet
B) a mine left over from WWII, the area was extensively mined during the war
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
My problem with this theory is how the visor door at the front came off, unless it stayed watertight afterwards and served as a convenient excuse to hide the weapons.
Speaking of weapons smuggled aboard, SAA flight 295 is worth a read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295
As a avid investigator of all of these things I saw the Air Crash Investigation episode on this incident, you never know when you travel on these things what is being clandestinely transported, however I never knew about the Estonia but if it was down to an outside factor by a foreign nation be it friend or foe, it will go down with the likes of the Iran Air shootdown by the Uss Vincennes or the Tuskar Rock disaster which still to this day some relatives believe was shot down or collided with a drone.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
The leading theory now seems to be that it was carrying military equipment for Sweden (as well as probably some Russian stuff) and was thus being escorted by a Scandinavian sub (someone who used to work at Swedish border force said they were constantly told to let specific vehicles off unchecked). When the visor was torn off, they made a sudden course correction (presumably to head for land) and then collided with the unknown to the crew escorting sub, which then caused the sinking. This would be in line with the Swedes very quickly changing their tune from wanting to raise the wreck to wanting to bury it in concrete as one Swedish MP wanted. This also raises the question of whether they even dived to the site for the investigation, since it's a very hard to miss hole in a prominent location.
Here's a video explaining it in more detail
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
There was a documentary on a British TV channel - can't remember which, but more than 10 years ago - which laid the blame simply at excessive speed. Also it included an interesting analysis of the different ways people behaved when faced with a threat to life.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
would be in line with the Swedes very quickly changing their tune from wanting to raise the wreck to wanting to bury it in concrete as one Swedish MP wanted.

The biggest unanswered question I have is why the UK were a signatory to the treaty that made it illegal for nationals from those countries to dive to the wreck. It just seems very very strange, unless there was something in that wreck the UK didn't want people to know about.

Other than Channel Four, I remember the news channels losing interest in the Estonia very quickly.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
Could have well been a UK sub, don't they work in waters round there for NATO duties?
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
The biggest unanswered question I have is why the UK were a signatory to the treaty that made it illegal for nationals from those countries to dive to the wreck. It just seems very very strange, unless there was something in that wreck the UK didn't want people to know about.
Does seem strange, considering only 1 Brit died whilst 3 Lithuanians died and they didn't sign the treaty. The first paragraph of the alternative theories sub section on Wikipedia states this;
German journalist Jutta Rabe and the left-wing magazine New Statesman claim that laboratory tests on debris recovered illegally from Estonia's bow yielded trace evidence of a deliberate explosion, which they allege was concealed by the Swedish, British, and Russian governments to cover up an intelligence operation smuggling military hardware via the civilian ferry.
The next paragraph then goes on to state this;
In the autumn of 2004, a former Swedish customs officer claimed on Sveriges Television that Estonia had been used to transport military equipment in September 1994.[28] The Swedish and Estonian governments subsequently launched separate investigations, which both confirmed that non-explosive military equipment was aboard the ship on 14 and 20 September 1994. According to the Swedish Ministry of Defence, no such equipment was on board on the day of the disaster, and previous investigations by the Swedish Customs Service found no reports of any anomalous activity around the day of the disaster.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
That is seriously murky stuff. I must admit, apart from question marks about what else was being transported on the Estonia that night, I wasn't aware the theory about the hole in the ship. As you say, after "there was definitely no hole" with some covering up of where the non-existent hole would be, to then end up with a whole in that area is of significant interest.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, but something is seriously wrong with the whole Estonia story. It's not just the findings of the German Group of Experts, but also the whole way that Sweden behaved and continues to behave about the whole thing. For instance, while they finally admitted to previous military transports, there's strong evidence - https://estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/chapter17.htm - that two trucks were loaded on board and escorted by military personnel.

What I find curious is that there's no way that Sweden would go to all this effort if it was simply negligence on their part.

My problem with this theory is how the visor door at the front came off, unless it stayed watertight afterwards and served as a convenient excuse to hide the weapons.

There is somewhat strong evidence showing that the visor simply didn't come off in the way that is claimed. There are two possibilities, one being that the visor came off as the vessel sank, and the other is that the visor was blown off (hence the explosions issue) by unknown (state) actors after the sinking and moved away from the wreck. If the latter happened (and there is evidence showing that it is the case - https://estoniaferrydisaster.net/chapter03/3-0-0.html and the following three pages) - then it's clear that they were using the time for some other purpose. It wouldn't have been difficult to find Estonia, especially with sophisticated military sonars.

Does anyone know where the documentary can be watched online?

I've asked the producer: they plan to release it internationally, but they're waiting for the usual process of paperwork. It's not available in English right now, unfortunately.

This also raises the question of whether they even dived to the site for the investigation

Certainly, dives were carried out, but it's very clear that the video tapes from the dives were heavily cut. The Finns have all-but-admitted that they only have manipulated tapes, while the Estonians were kept in the dark. It all goes back to a question - why was Sweden going to so much effort to hide the true state of the wreck?
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
The Swedes wanted it concreted to the bed, was there a risk of nuclear material being transported? or just conventional weapons?
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
The Swedes wanted it concreted to the bed, was there a risk of nuclear material being transported? or just conventional weapons?

There was one guy in a Finnish prison who claimed that plutonium was being smuggled onboard, but I think it's pretty unlikely. Again though, the whole idea of covering the wreck in concrete is so absurd and surreal that it had to have been motivated by something. Either way, if something radioactive was being carried on board, it had been removed by 2000.

It's only my very humble opinion, but everything about the Swedish behaviour after the casualty points at them trying to hide something. The overzealous protection of the wreck (which, it must be noted, was seemingly never carried out by the Estonians) really suggests that they didn't want that hole to be found.

If it turns out that a second hole exists in the area where the GGoE suggest it exists, then I think it will be confirmed that something very, very wrong has happened that night. There is a possibility that we will get a fairly independent investigation - the Estonian government has nothing much to lose by a proper investigation, and unlike in 1994, they have the money and capability of doing their own dives.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
There was one guy in a Finnish prison who claimed that plutonium was being smuggled onboard, but I think it's pretty unlikely. Again though, the whole idea of covering the wreck in concrete is so absurd and surreal that it had to have been motivated by something. Either way, if something radioactive was being carried on board, it had been removed by 2000.

It's only my very humble opinion, but everything about the Swedish behaviour after the casualty points at them trying to hide something. The overzealous protection of the wreck (which, it must be noted, was seemingly never carried out by the Estonians) really suggests that they didn't want that hole to be found.

If it turns out that a second hole exists in the area where the GGoE suggest it exists, then I think it will be confirmed that something very, very wrong has happened that night. There is a possibility that we will get a fairly independent investigation - the Estonian government has nothing much to lose by a proper investigation, and unlike in 1994, they have the money and capability of doing their own dives.

Issue with that is, they have the money now, they didn't in 94 or 2000 or anytime since and during that time clandestine dives could have taken place and any evidence removed.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
Issue with that is, they have the money now, they didn't in 94 or 2000 or anytime since and during that time clandestine dives could have taken place and any evidence removed.

Yes, well, I think any investigation hinges on finding evidence of the holes mentioned here: https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/chapter02/2-3-8-1_03.html

It won't be easy to disguise these holes, as with today's HD cameras and technology, it will be very easy to establish whether they actually exist or not.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Never come across any alternative theories about Ms Estonia, fscinating reading. I'm not usually one for this sort of thing but it really is interesting.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
Having now seen the Discovery 6 part documentary it kind of opens my eyes on this, if there was and is nothing to hide then why are the Swedes still declining to do anything about it. I admire the guy who did this series though, risking time in prison in order to find out the truth and then to present it to the survivors and some of those who lost loved ones.

Edit: One theory that was not put around was with all the talk of the Russians threatening them, the day of the sinking was the first day of a NATO exercise in rescue operations, not too far away called Cooperative Venture 94, from the documentary it is thought that a force of around 1000 tons caused the hole, it was not caused by the bow visor or it hitting a rock on the seabed (the seabed is clay with no large rocks there), could it be a russian sub or even a NATO sub, neither would want to admit colliding with a ship causing the loss of over 800 lives.
 
Last edited:

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
Could something have collided with it after the sinking, i.e. the reason for the sinking was true but something hit it later?
They had some geological data and it looks unlikely to have hit anything on the way down, the hole that has been found explains the list to starboard so quick, it also explains why they tried to cover the wreck with sand and stones to therefore cover the hole, from what I can gather from the documentary and some reading, sometime since the ship sank, there has been cutting work done to gain access to the vehicle bays, maybe to retrieve evidence or to get property back, there was also two holes made by a diving team which should have been covered up but from the ROV scan the latest dive did, one of them has either been reopened or come loose.

Other than that there is only this 4 metre by 1.5 metre hole in the ship. One of the survivors was straight up onto the deck after the bangs and saw a long white object in the rough location of where the hole is, and the waves were crashing over it, it wasn't an explosive force that caused the hole, but an impact force of something roughly 1000 tons.

Of course all of this is still theory, but there are still a lot of questions people with no connection to this tragedy want to hear, the people who have lost loved ones even moreso and the Swedes have not been forthcoming in the slightest.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
That of course, still doesn't rule out that it could've been carrying explosives or other military hardware at the time of the sinking.
Yes, the fact of the cuts in the railings around the vehicle bay for access and despite the Swedish authorities admitting later on that the Estonia was being used by the military to move hardware but adamant that there were no movements that day, there are at least 3 people on that ship that survived who have said on numerous occasions that the ship was delayed because a convoy of 2 or 3 military lorries with motorcycle outriders arrived late to board the vessel, when the lorries had been checked before (which they were not supposed to be but a customs official said he still did although we only have his word) it contained boxes of military electronics. Now they could have been quite innocuous but they could have been the latest missile guidance systems or for the latest military jets for all we know if that was the case.

The Soviet Union as someone said in the documentary did not want anyone else getting hold of their secrets and would more than likely do whatever they could to stop them falling into the wrong hands.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
This is very interesting. Don't know anything about this ship ( will look into it) but do know a bit about maritime legislation. In the UK the Government will designated certain wrecks as off limits under various bits of legislation. That is usually done because they are ships full of unexploded ordnance and/or are a war grave or are of historical importance.

An example of this is the SS Richard Montgomery which is designated as dangerous under section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 as it contains about 1400 tons of munitions that were destined for the Normandy battle. On 20 August 1944 she dragged her anchor and ran aground on the Nore sandbank off the Medway and then as the tide fell broke her bank and sank with the masts sticking out of the water. She is still there and very much of limits!

The other ship so designated is the SS Castilian which sank of Anglesey in 1943 after hitting rocks. That said the MV Braer which was the only other ship to be designated under s.2 due to contaminant ( she was an oil tanker that ran aground of Shetland in 1993 and broke up in a massive storm) but this wreck was removed from the S.2 designation list after the oil released as a result of the grounding & wrecking dispersed.

While this legislation does not apply to the MS Estonia is it a leap to suggest similar critieria may have been used to prevent diving on this wreck? It may be explosives, it may be contamination. It may also be to cover up an unfortunate collision with a submarine or a mine or some other sneaky activity. Somebody is hiding something that led to 852 people dying.
 
Last edited:

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
I came very close to the warning buoys of the Montgomery a good few years ago when out with the local river patrol so I looked it up, still a danger to this very day and a lot of people go about on the Isle of Sheppey and even parts of Essex unaware that it even exists.

The Estonia does have the legislation of being a gravesite and certain nationalities are banned from activities there Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Denmark, Russia and the United Kingdom are all part of the treaty which means that citizens of those nations are not allowed to approach the wreck, it has a Finnish coastguard presence around the wreck too The Documentary maker was a Swede and as a result of being on the dive boat risks 2 years in prison, there was also a Polish diver on board who was prevented from diving on the wreck some years ago however because the boat for the documentary was German flagged and technically in international waters, the Coastguard had to move and let them carry on, they didn't dive but used an Remote Operated Vehicle so I don't know whether that is covered as a dive as such.

It is on Discovery plus at the moment and a very interesting 6 part series.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
is it a leap to suggest similar critieria may have been used to prevent diving on this wreck?

The problematic part is the subsequent actions of the Swedish and Finnish naval forces to prevent anyone from even filming the outside of the wreck. I can understand restricting access to divers, but there are major questions over just why they've spent the best part of 30 years trying to prevent any and all attempts to survey the outside of the wreck.

Unfortunately (from the point of view of the victims, survivors and their families), one major issue is that Estonia has just had a change of government. The new government is much more Nordic-friendly, and the only party with anything to gain from this situation is now outside government, meaning that it seems rather unlikely that any real progress will be made. The new government are still talking about surveying the wreck, but I have my grave doubts as to whether they'll actually take concrete actions.

However, the Swedish courts have just acquitted the defendants from the Discovery documentary case. This is major, because it means that the wreck can now be examined by Swedish citizens without much fear. In particular, the hole that was found needs much more investigation, because the claim that the hole was made when the ship sank simply doesn't make any sense given that it's damaged inwards and not outwards.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but from a purely physics point of view, the disaster doesn't make sense. A great comparison is with MS Jan Heweliusz, which sank the year before in awful Baltic conditions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Jan_Heweliusz - due to the stern door failing at sea and the ship taking on water. What should be noted is that the Jan Heweliusz started to take on water about 4:10am, then capsized at 5:12, which is consistent with the time taken for the Estonia to overturn. What isn't consistent is the actual sinking, which in the case of the Jan Heweliusz took several days, while Estonia capsized and sank within an hour. This would be impossible unless the decks below the car decks were flooded, which is consistent with the testimony of survivors and of the actions of the crew.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top