• 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.

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
A new survey of the wreck will begin in July.
According to the director of the Estonian Safety Investigation Centre, Rene Arikas, the first stage of the process will last from July 8 to July 18. «The plan is to make a 3D image of the seabed and the wreck via the technical investigation. In addition, we will use an underwater robot to pinpoint the location of the damage,» the official said.

The head of the Estonian Safety Investigation Centre explained that once all the investigation stages have been completed, a final report will be written. It is expected to be complete by early autumn 2022, ERR reports.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
It's worth coming back to this thread, I think.

Some interesting things have already come to light as a result of the Estonian investigation. It's been confirmed that the bow doors are fully open (as known, but not admitted), but that no explanation has emerged. There's also a substantial amount of damage that cannot easily be explained, as well as some news that metal retrieved from the area of the bow doors shows signs of damage at very high temperature.

IMO, this is all nothing new. We know that *someone* (and the only party with the capability were the Swedish Navy at that time) was repeatedly interfering with the wreck after the casualty, we know that the visor almost certainly didn't fall off but rather removed and placed somewhere else, and the only thing we don't know is exactly why the wreck was so interesting to the Swedish.

But the most important: https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/15...akers-face-new-trial-for-exploring-1994-wreck - the Swedish documentary makers will face a new trial.

==

Conspiracy theory territory: my gut feeling is that something was on that ship that shouldn't have been there. The submarine theory seems far fetched, but I'm finding myself more and more convinced by the explosion in the swimming pool/sauna area theory. It's the only one that explains how the ship sank so quickly, and it's not beyond the realms of possible that the explosion was done in order to stop the transport of whatever was being transported.
 

SynthD

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
1,137
Location
UK
Why are the two theories of a hole in the bow and weapons on board tied together? The first has been shown, I haven’t seen the documentary, to be true enough. The second shouldn’t sneak in behind like someone at the ticket barrier.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Why are the two theories of a hole in the bow and weapons on board tied together? The first has been shown, I haven’t seen the documentary, to be true enough. The second shouldn’t sneak in behind like someone at the ticket barrier.
I believe it is because of the weapons being carried that the hole came about. Whether it was accidental/malicious ramming by a sub or sabotage, is yet to be determined.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
One of the more plausable conspiracy theories brought forward at the time was the military weapons theory, witness reports say that the ship was held so that military vehicles could board (number plates were also given), the weapons were Russian or targeting systems for Russian weapons and were being smuggled out so that the Swedes and other European countries could study them. It wasn't the first time this had happened and these Military trucks were put onto the ship so if true either one of the weapons exploded and if not weapons, someone did not want the tech getting into Sweden's hands. Whichever way, it is scary and not many people on that ship will have known about it.

There was a wreck survey done where they searched individual cabins and found a suitcase belonging to a Russian citizen, the Russians also used diplomatic channels to ask those that be to stop their activities but all were ignored.
 
Last edited:

SynthD

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
1,137
Location
UK
Russian weapons and were being smuggled out so that the Swedes and other European countries could study them.

the Russians also used diplomatic channels to ask those that be to stop their activities but all were ignored.
Does that make sense with the list of countries who ban diving to the site? It doesn’t to me.
 

D821

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2021
Messages
624
Location
The Wirral
The most interesting part for me is that Russia is a signatory, one might expect that they wouldn't sign up to keep something that 'The West' might want to hush up.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
To be honest, if it was anything to do with the Russians, stopping anyone from diving and finding out what happened keeps them clear and adding their signature to the list makes them look innocent, this was at the time of Yeltsin who was trying to appease the West while his Prime Minister and soon to be President is the one and only Putin.

Also if you wanted to hide a dive, most of the newer submarines have the ability to put a small crew of special forces on board who can exit a submarine near undetected, as I said, this was one of the more plausable conspiracy theories put forward.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
Why are the two theories of a hole in the bow and weapons on board tied together? The first has been shown, I haven’t seen the documentary, to be true enough. The second shouldn’t sneak in behind like someone at the ticket barrier.

The general problem is that no-one has presented a satisfactory explanation as to how the ship went down so quickly. If you believe the official JAIC report, then we're supposed to believe that a 14 year old RoRo ferry went down in less than an hour. It just doesn't make any sense as to why it would, as the general design of RoRo ferries means that they can capsize quickly due to the free surface effect on the car decks - but then they float, because the hull is full of watertight compartments. Jan Heweliusz, a very poorly maintained Polish ship, managed to stay afloat for a lot longer in terrible weather conditions.

The plausible explanation for the disaster (borne out by eyewitness reports, physics and the actions of the Swedish government) is that the ship was holed for whatever reason in the sauna/swimming pool compartment. That took the ship down, as the hull was breached. The weapons transports may not be directly correlated, but again, the actions of the Swedish government and the sheer determination to find Alexander Voronin's suitcase is not normal behaviour. That's before you even take into account other strange incidents, like filling the swimming pool area with sand and the proposals to emtomb the wreck in concrete.

That leads to the question - why did Sweden do all these strange and illogical things?

One of the more plausable conspiracy theories brought forward at the time was the military weapons theory, witness reports say that the ship was held so that military vehicles could board (number plates were also given), the weapons were Russian or targeting systems for Russian weapons and were being smuggled out so that the Swedes and other European countries could study them. It wasn't the first time this had happened and these Military trucks were put onto the ship so if true either one of the weapons exploded and if not weapons, someone did not want the tech getting into Sweden's hands. Whichever way, it is scary and not many people on that ship will have known about it.

There was a wreck survey done where they searched individual cabins and found a suitcase belonging to a Russian citizen, the Russians also used diplomatic channels to ask those that be to stop their activities but all were ignored.

Yes, there are a lot of outlandish theories, such as that the captain ordered the bow doors to be opened at sea so that the weapons could be dumped, because they were going to get checked by Swedish Customs on arrival.

It is scary that weaponry was transported on a passenger ferry full stop, though. It shows the sheer recklessness of the Swedish government at the time, and their willingness to use civilians as human shields. The Tallinn-Stockholm route was well known to be a smuggling route, but this was really over and beyond normal smuggling.

One other major issue with the whole casualty is that *if* it was hit by a submarine, then it means that submarines were operating in the Baltic and going undetected by both Sweden and Finland. That in itself seems implausible, given how quick Sweden is to react to NATO forces that stray into Swedish waters and airspace.

The other thing to consider: Estonia in 1994 was really nothing like Estonia of today. It was a hotbed of Russian mafia influence, and it was well known as a place where deals were made. The German shipbuilders established beyond doubt that security in the Port of Tallinn left a lot to be desired, and that people could freely access the ship.
 

Dunnideer

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2022
Messages
132
Location
.
I’ve been fascinated with the MS ESTONIA disaster ever since it happened. I can recommend reading The Hole by Drew Wilson (ISBN 9781492778363) for some very interesting details of the night itself, the search of the wreck and the machinations of the Swedish and Estonian authorities afterwards, including the recovery of the bow visor and the attempted burial in concrete. It also gives a good bit of background information into what was going on as newly independent Estonia struggled to break free from the influence of the former USSR. There is no doubt that something pretty big, including literally the wreck itself, has been covered up. The apparent rescue and subsequent disappearance of various members of the crew, including the Master Arvo Andresson, is very suggestive.

There is (or perhaps was? I haven’t checked if it’s still there) also some very weird video on Youtube of a British diver from private firm Rockwater searching cabins for a briefcase belonging to a known weapons smuggler (Alexander Voronin mentioned above) very soon after the sinking. Intriguingly the case was actually found in the relief Master Avo Piht’s cabin, of course we’ll never find out what was in the case or how the authorities knew to look for it. The UK and United States intelligence agencies know very well what happened that night but I don’t think the public will ever get to hear the real truth.
 
Last edited:

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
One small correction - it's Avo Piht that went (allegedly) missing. The Interpol notice is here - https://members.tripod.com/~MV_Estonia/Ipol1.html

However, I personally believe that Piht went down with the ship. The German shipbuilders have highlighted that his disappearance needs to be explained, but I think it's highly likely that there was just a lot of confusion.

We have absolutely no idea what Arvo Andresson was doing that night, though there's at least one eyewitness that saw Piht helping passengers on the desk. One theory is that Andresson never made it to the bridge, which would explain the late mayday call. He was known to be a typical Soviet man, and the crew may not have been willing to make the Mayday call without his permission until it clear that the ship was lost. My view - he was simply not in any state to do it. He was known to have frozen and panicked in other situations, so I suspect the same happened again.

But again: it was never established *who* was on the deck. There were bodies, and it would have been possible to tell who they were from the uniforms after the disaster. Yet, it was either ignored by the various missions, or there was an order not to check.

Intriguingly the case was actually found in the relief Master Avo Piht’s cabin, of course we’ll never find out what was in the case or how the authorities knew to look for it.

This is one of the weirdest and strangest aspects of the whole disaster. There's a transcript here from the video when they're searching for it - http://www.internationalskeptics.co...9d18197003161b7635f&p=13668737&postcount=2968

Certainly Piht and Voronin had some business together, and they had been seen together previously. Yet, it may in itself not be that suspicious, as it's very possible that the authorities wanted to know what Voronin was involved with, especially if they suspected that the ship was sank as the result of sabotage. Piht was known to be a good and capable Master, although he was clearly outranked by Andresson. A simple explanation was that Voronin was smuggling things with the knowledge of Estonia and Sweden, and so he was sharing a cabin with Piht as a kind of insurance.
 

Dunnideer

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2022
Messages
132
Location
.
Of course you’re right, sorry. Too many Avo/Arvos involved. I think I read that the master of either MARIELLA or SILJA EUROPA claimed at one point to have seen or actually spoken with Piht after he had come aboard with other survivors then completely denied saying it later, but I’d have to reread the book to find it.
 

gabrielhj07

Member
Joined
5 May 2022
Messages
964
Location
Haywards Heath
Reading this thread, a few things stick out:

  1. It seems extremely unlikley, at least logically, for a submarine to have hit the Estonia, as doing so would have likely incurred very serious damage to the submarine, if it hadn't sunk.
  2. the captain ordered the bow doors to be opened at sea
    This theory seems to be rather far-fetched. Why would the captain open the bow doors while at sea, when much larger and more practical stern ramps were available? Opening the stern ramps would not subject the vessel to the same structural weaknesses that would be presented by raising the visor. Of course we must consider the practicality of this, especially given, as noted above, that 'military vehicles' delayed the ship and therefore would have been the last to be loaded on. If the ship had been loaded by the bow then the vehicles would have to be unloaded by the bow. Even so, it would have made sense for the ship to be turned away from the wind, to prevent waves from entering the vehicle deck with as much vigour as they would given a headwind (the wind during the sinking was on the port bow). In any case there are a number of logical inconsistencies in this theory of dumping the cargo overboard.
  3. Lastly, I do remember hearing/seeing somewhere that there had been some correspondance between the Russians and the Swedes, to the tune of "We know you're smuggling our military equimpent on the Estonia, stop it or there'll be consequences." It would follow therefore that the presence of 'secret' military equimpent on board, the suspicious circumstances of her sinking, and the strong reluctance of the Swedish government to permit access to the wreck result in a conspiracy in which deliberate sinking seems rather likely, either from sabotage on-board or from outside, although I have to say that the on-board theory seems to be more likely.

PS. If we wanted to stick with the 'accidental' sinking view, then we might consider Estonia's time in dry dock shortly before the sinking. Forgive me if this has been covered already in this thread. Between the 10th and 14th of January 1994, Estonia was fitted with folding stabiliser fins at Nantali, Finland. As the ship was not built new with them, they were retrofitted, which necessitated the cutting of openings into the hull, before the prefabricated fin assemblies could be welded to internal brackets and the hull sealed up.

The significance of this is not that the stabiliser compartments may have flooded, as the ship should have been able to retain stability with one or both of them flooded. Rather, it is that, to the best of my knowledge, the stabiliser rooms were situated immediatley forward of the generator rooms and immediatley aft of the heeling tanks. If the stabilisers had been poorly installed, they might have broken loose in the heavy weather and subsequently torn holes across the engine room and the heeling tanks. This would have been exacerbated if there were bilge strakes running across the outside of all three compartments, making it significantly easier to tear one hole across the three.

Further credibility for this theory is that had the three aforementioned compartments been flooded, she would have behaved in a manner more in keeping with the observations of her sinking. As stated previously in this thread, it is very unlikley that the free surface effect would have caused a complete sinking in the time that it did. Considering the effect of flooded compartments below the waterline, her behaiviour during the sinking is much better accounted for.

If anyone could confirm the presence or not of bilge strakes on this part of the hull, I would be very grateful.

It is also noted that, during the investigation of the Erika accident of December 1999, large hull repairs had taken place, the deficient execution of which was blamed for the accident. This somewhat sets a precedent for incorrectly carried-out large-scale hull repairs to cause sinking, so it may not be a surprise if this were to arise as another theory as to Estonia's loss.

Personally, I believe that the presently accepted theory of the bow door coming loose and breaking off has quite a bit of credibility, as the 'visor'-type doors have an inherent design flaw wherein the force of water, especially during heavy seas, pushing against the door will try to force it open. By contrast, the more commonplace 'clamshell'-type doors use the force of water against them to force them closed. It can't however be relied upon by itself to account for the sinking, as the well-documented free surface effect would be expected to produce a different outcome. Therefore I believe it is most likely that the bow-door theory is true, but is being relied upon as the cause to cover up some of the more dubious possible causes.
 
Last edited:

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,131
Location
Dunblane
Personally, I believe that the presently accepted theory of the bow door coming loose and breaking off has quite a bit of credibility, as the 'visor'-type doors have an inherent design flaw wherein the force of water, especially during heavy seas, pushing against the door will try to force it open. By contrast, the more commonplace 'clamshell'-type doors use the force of water against them to force them closed. It can't however be relied upon by itself to account for the sinking, as the well-documented free surface effect would be expected to produce a different outcome. Therefore I believe it is most likely that the bow-door theory is true, but is being relied upon as the cause to cover up some of the more dubious possible causes.
The GGOE on their website also have extensive accounts detailing the visor door on Estonia's poor condition. With bolts holding it shut often being unable to be properly secured. The visor was also apparently 'warped' from the heavy steaming in rough seas that Estonia insisted upon doing. I don't think the Visor door's failure is to be questioned at any rate.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
Reading this thread, a few things stick out:

  1. It seems extremely unlikley, at least logically, for a submarine to have hit the Estonia, as doing so would have likely incurred very serious damage to the submarine, if it hadn't sunk.

Yes, I really don't believe this theory at all. It seems very unlikely, and it seems to be very much in the realm of fantasy.


  1. This theory seems to be rather far-fetched. Why would the captain open the bow doors while at sea, when much larger and more practical stern ramps were available. Opening the stern ramps would not subject the vessel to the same structural weaknesses that would be presented by raising the visor. Of course we must consider the practicality of this, especially given, as noted above, that 'military vehicles' delayed the ship and therefore would have been the last to be loaded on. If the ship had been loaded by the bow then the vehicles would have to be unloaded by the bow. Even so, it would have made sense for the ship to be turned away from the wind, to prevent waves from entering the vehicle deck with as much vigour as they would given a headwind (the wind during the sinking was on the port bow). In any case there are a number of logical inconsistencies in this theory of dumping the cargo overboard.

I need to check this, because I might have mixed up bow and stern. I don't remember where I've read this conspiracy theory, but it's likely to have been the stern doors mentioned, not the bow doors. If I've got this right, Estonia would dock stern-first in Tallinn so the ship could sail straight into the Freihman terminal in Stockholm, which means that the two 'late' trucks in Tallinn would have been located next to the stern. It would also be much more realistic at sea for the stern doors to be opened, as you've said.

But either way, it is far too ridiculous and implausible for me. It seems that this whole theory came about as the result of the Master Andresson's whereabouts being unknown, but either way, it sounds decidedly like rubbish. If someone was organised enough to arrange for the ship to be loaded with military hardware, then they wouldn't have had to worry about Swedish customs. As we know, the Swedish customs officers were already previously ordered to ignore certain transports, so why would they be so worried about a couple of trucks?

edit: I was right originally - the bow doors were open in Tallinn, not the stern doors, according to the German Group of Experts. That might also explain the reports that Andresson had real problems berthing in Stockholm, as it would have been required to turn the ship around in the harbour. I've also re-found a video showing cars driving in through the stern doors in Stockholm, so that answers that one. The idea of the visor being lifted at sea and the bow doors opened seems to be ridiculous - with one caveat. Someone, I don't remember who, suggested that the reason why Mariella's log went missing was because it showed Estonia making strange movements at sea. But none of the eyewitnesses reported any strange movements, and I can't believe that it would be possible for the ship to make such a turn at sea without someone noticing.

in case anyone would like to see historical footage of the ship as MS Estonia.

  1. Lastly, I do remember hearing/seeing somewhere that there had been some correspondance between the Russians and the Swedes, to the tune of "We know you're smuggling our military equimpent on the Estonia, stop it or there'll be consequences." It would follow therefore that the presence of 'secret' military equimpent on board, the suspicious circumstances of her sinking, and the strong reluctance of the Swedish government to permit access to the wreck result in a conspiracy in which deliberate sinking seems rather likely, either from sabotage on-board or from outside, although I have to say that the on-board theory seems to be more likely.

Yes, this is my line of thinking too. I'm very open to plausible disaster scenarios, but there are simply way too many unexplained things going on with this casualty. The one thing that always jumps out at me is this, from the German Group of Experts: https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/21.3.htm - which explains that there was already water on Deck 1 and probably on Deck 0 (below the car deck). This doesn't make any sense unless the ship was already holed, as you'd expect water to come down the stairs from the car deck.

What occurred to me recently is that Russia may not have known exactly what was being smuggled. It may have been enough for them to know that there were orders to let certain transports through the ports in Tallinn and Stockholm without customs clearance, and combined with other intelligence, might have led them to believe that these transports were more significant than they really were. It does seem rather plausible that the smuggling wasn't anywhere near as interesting as we think, especially as it seems quite strange to entrust very valuable military cargo to a civilian ship known to be handled rather poorly.

PS. If we wanted to stick with the 'accidental' sinking view, then we might consider Estonia's time in dry dock shortly before the sinking. Forgive me if this has been covered already in this thread. Between the 10th and 14th of January 1994, Estonia was fitted with folding stabiliser fins at Nantali, Finland. As the ship was not built new with them, they were retrofitted, which necessitated the cutting of openings into the hull, before the prefabricated fin assemblies could be welded to internal brackets and the hull sealed up.

The significance of this is not that the stabiliser compartments may have flooded, as the ship should have been able to retain stability with one or both of them flooded. Rather, it is that, to the best of my knowledge, the stabiliser rooms were situated immediatley forward of the generator rooms and immediatley aft of the heeling tanks. If the stabilisers had been poorly installed, they might have broken loose in the heavy weather and subsequently torn holes across the engine room and the heeling tanks. This would have been exacerbated if there were bilge strakes running across the outside of all three compartments, making it significantly easier to tear one hole across the three.

Further credibility for this theory is that had the three aforementioned compartments been flooded, she would have behaved in a manner more in keeping with the observations of her sinking. As stated previously in this thread, it is very unlikley that the free surface effect would have caused a complete sinking in the time that it did. Considering the effect of flooded compartments below the waterline, her behaiviour during the sinking is much better accounted for.

If anyone could confirm the presence or not of bilge strakes on this part of the hull, I would be very grateful.

From what I understand, it's now confirmed that both stabilisers are present, except that the missing starboard one is deeper than it should be. The Discovery documentary established that, although it's possible that the starboard stabiliser was indeed damaged and inoperable as has been claimed by others. What I don't understand is what it means by the starboard one being deeper than it should be, although does this mean that the damage could have required the use of the pumps to try and get rid of the water from Deck 0?

(source: https://newsbeezer.com/swedeneng/the-mystery-of-the-stabilizer-of-the-m-s-estonia-is-solved/ )

I think the ship did have stabilisers originally, but that they were replaced for a different kind in Naantali. About the bilge strakes: I'm not sure, but I'll try and find out. Anders Björkman claims they were there, but it's very difficult with him to separate fact from fiction.

However, I think it is a very plausible scenario. It would explain why the starboard stabiliser is not where it should be, it explains the casualty scenario perfectly, and it also reconciles with the testimonies of people on Deck 1 at the time. It leaves open the question of why Sweden is behaving so strangely over the whole affair, but there's always the possibility that they simply don't know why the stabiliser behaved like that. I'm not good enough with naval architecture to comment, but is it possible that an explosion of some sort in the area of the starboard stabiliser (which was known to be in poor condition anyway) could have happened, with the intention of using the stabiliser as a cover story?

It is also noted that, during the investigation of the Erika accident of December 1999, large hull repairs had taken place, the deficient execution of which was blamed for the accident. This somewhat sets a precedent for incorrectly carried-out large-scale hull repairs to cause sinking, so it may not be a surprise if this arose as another theory as to Estonia's loss.

There's also the Jan Heweliusz, which had 30 tons of concrete used to repair a deck fire. That was one of the contributory factors of the casualty, as it turned the ship into a death trap.

Personally, I believe that the presently accepted theory of the bow door coming loose and breaking off has quite a bit of credibility, as the 'visor'-type doors have an inherent design flaw wherein the force of water, especially during heavy seas, pushing against the door will try to force it open. By contrast, the more commonplace 'clamshell'-type doors use the force of water against them to force them closed. It can't however be relied upon by itself to account for the sinking, as the well-documented free surface effect would be expected to produce a different outcome. Therefore I believe it is most likely that the bow-door theory is true, but is being relied upon as the cause to cover up some of the more dubious possible causes.

I think it is perfectly possible that the visor started to break off during the sinking scenario, as eyewitnesses have reported it moving up and down, as well as the fact that the visor was probably full of water at sea. What strikes me as odd about the visor is the way that they were very quick to proclaim that the visor broke off at sea, even though the vessel (allegedly) wasn't found for 3 days after the sinking.

The GGOE on their website also have extensive accounts detailing the visor door on Estonia's poor condition. With bolts holding it shut often being unable to be properly secured. The visor was also apparently 'warped' from the heavy steaming in rough seas that Estonia insisted upon doing. I don't think the Visor door's failure is to be questioned at any rate.

I think it's very fair to say that the visor was badly damaged, the only question is whether it was damaged enough to actually come off in the way that the JAIC claim. Given all the strange behaviour and alleged inability of the Swedish Navy to locate the visor (which is nonsense, we know they were interfering with the wreck quite quickly), it seems as if someone, probably Carl Bildt, had decided to run with the story of the visor being the cause of the casualty. Bildt is known for his strange behaviour internationally, and he'd just lost in elections a few days before.

For me, it's not so much the casualty scenario that interests me as the behaviour of the JAIC and particularly Sweden afterwards. If it had just been an ordinary accident, none of this would have happened.
 

gabrielhj07

Member
Joined
5 May 2022
Messages
964
Location
Haywards Heath
What occurred to me recently is that Russia may not have known exactly what was being smuggled.
This may be true, but whatever it was held enough significance to warrant going to extreme measures to prevent Western powers from getting hold of it, and the Russians would have known that for sure. And surely they must notice, if some large military hardware goes AWOL?

it seems quite strange to entrust very valuable military cargo to a civilian ship known to be handled rather poorly.
I think this was almost certainly deliberate. To organise special shipping for smuggled goods would be silly, they may as well advertise it. By placing it on a passenver vessel, especially a Ro-Pax ferry, there would seem nothing untoward about large vehicles rolling on and off regularly. I imagine that there would also have been a 'civilian shield' going on, which if true, didn't quite work.

it's possible that the starboard stabiliser was indeed damaged and inoperable as has been claimed by others.
I believe this to be true. As per
, we see that the starboard stabiliser was proving troublesome, and both the stabilisers had work completed at sea. It cannot be stressed enough how seemingly reckless the decision was to spend four days in dry dock, completing a major structural adjustment to the ship.

About the bilge strakes: I'm not sure, but I'll try and find out.
1652744136922.png
1652744282978.png
These images points to there being bilge strakes, however I am not sure if they would be running across the three compartments mentioned.


I think it's very fair to say that the visor was badly damaged
It certainly was. Of note however is that several of the marks and damages which appear on the raised 'wreck' visor, are also present when the ship is in service, seen in the below footage:


For me, it's not so much the casualty scenario that interests me as the behaviour of the JAIC and particularly Sweden afterwards. If it had just been an ordinary accident, none of this would have happened.
I agree. Very suspect behaiviour indeed, and the sort than lends itself to the belief that things are being covered up.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
This may be true, but whatever it was held enough significance to warrant going to extreme measures to prevent Western powers from getting hold of it, and the Russians would have known that for sure. And surely they must notice, if some large military hardware goes AWOL?

I think part of the problem is that we still don't know exactly what was transported on the two confirmed previous occasions. We know that it was some kind of electronics, as the Customs officer that blew the whistle said that he saw electronics in boxes when 'checking'.

In terms of Russia in those times, a lot of equipment was simply stolen without trace. It was a complete mess of a country, and everyone was trying to make money in any way possible. The GGOE also quote the Supreme Commander of the Estonian Forces, General Alexander Einseln, as saying that everything was for sale in those days as long as you could pay for it. It's why I think it's credible that Russia might not have known exactly what was being transported, because it was simply being stolen.

I do agree that it would have had to have been something very important to make it worthwhile committing an act like this, but if we assume that the bomb scenario is true, perhaps Russia was afraid that these small transports would start turning into larger and more important things?

I think this was almost certainly deliberate. To organise special shipping for smuggled goods would be silly, they may as well advertise it. By placing it on a passenver vessel, especially a Ro-Pax ferry, there would seem nothing untoward about large vehicles rolling on and off regularly. I imagine that there would also have been a 'civilian shield' going on, which if true, didn't quite work.

Yes, the human shield aspect was clearly intentional. It says a lot about the Swedish attitude towards the Baltics that they were willing to use passenger ferries for such transport. Yet, it's amazing that they were openly smuggling military equipment through city centre ports!

It cannot be stressed enough how seemingly reckless the decision was to spend four days in dry dock, completing a major structural adjustment to the ship.

This (among many other things) is what troubles me about the disaster. The ship was clearly not seaworthy, and the GGOE have made it clear that it should never have been used for that route in the first place. There are a lot of things that were denied (or ignored) by the JAIC, along with lies such as "the visor was never open in Stockholm" despite photographic evidence to the contrary. The vessel was clearly taking a beating when sailing under the Estonian flag, and it's known from eyewitnesses that the Estonians didn't really understand why it's better to slow down in bad weather from a financial point of view.

It also seems that the logbook of repairs was incomplete, which is testament to the really poor job done by the JAIC.

It certainly was. Of note however is that several of the marks and damages which appear on the raised 'wreck' visor, are also present when the ship is in service

Yes, this is the thing that points at the 'visor fell off at sea' being somewhat strange. You'd expect it to be in far worse condition if it had hit repeatedly against the ship and then fell off, yet the video shows clearly that it was (badly) damaged before.

I agree. Very suspect behaiviour indeed, and the sort than lends itself to the belief that things are being covered up.

What I find fascinating is the constant refusal by the Swedish side to even conduct an open investigation. They have never, to the best of my knowledge, accepted that the JAIC report is a piece of fantasy.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
There is apparently a pod cast coming on this topic soon in the same series as secret history of flight 149

The problem MS Estonia is that we have the questions, but there's simply no way of getting the answers. The GGOE have said straight out that there were explosions, but there's also the issue of a JAIC member, Professor Mihkel Kõrgesaar from TalTech - who has been stubbornly defending the official version of events, even when it's been pointed out that the official timeline is nonsense.

I've also read a bit more about the video tapes made by Rockwater, and it is really quite strange. Rockwater destroyed their copies, as would be expected, but the Swedish Maritime Administration say that they also received the video tapes in their already-altered condition. There's also this, by a Rockwater diver - https://newsbeezer.com/swedeneng/we-closed-the-holes-in-the-wreck/
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
It was interesting reading the files that on a couple of the salvage tapes (unsure if it was the rockwater ones) they found and there are pictures on the web of, an orange explosive pack.

The aft part of the visor lug looked to have been exposed to heat, even though it had been underwater and the explosive pack seen on tape was attached to part of the locking device for the visor which says that it hadn't gone off.

So had only one gone off and more been planned to go off?
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
It was interesting reading the files that on a couple of the salvage tapes (unsure if it was the rockwater ones) they found and there are pictures on the web of, an orange explosive pack.

The aft part of the visor lug looked to have been exposed to heat, even though it had been underwater and the explosive pack seen on tape was attached to part of the locking device for the visor which says that it hadn't gone off.

So had only one gone off and more been planned to go off?

From my understanding, the orange explosive pack could be one of two scenarios.

The first scenario is that (as the Germans think) the explosions forced the visor upwards violently. The visor then fell back down, the bow doors fell into the visor, the integrity of the hull was compromised and that led to the sinking. The other scenario is that the orange explosive pack was part of the removal of the visor, which makes the most sense to me. I'm not convinced by the German argument that there were explosions under the visor, and I do generally accept the idea that the damage was the result of moving the visor. I also find it quite impossible to believe that explosives could be hidden in such an area, especially given the amount of (pre-casualty) damage to the visor and the amount of work carried out on it at sea.

It does lead to the question: why was it so important for them to move the visor and to come up with the entire story about the visor falling off at sea? The Germans also pointed at additional inexplicable damage to the wreck, such as substantial damage to the underside of the port bridge wing.

Personally, I find the interference with the wreck to be more interesting than the sinking itself. The Germans caught countless examples of strange behaviour by all three sides, and it seems that they were also all keeping information from each other. One great example concerns the first inspection of the bridge, which was carried out while the Estonian member of the JAIC was sleeping. There are many more examples, although the general pattern appears to have been that the Estonians were kept intentionally in the dark and repeatedly lied.

Another update: https://news.err.ee/1608596224/investigation-into-ms-estonia-ferry-starts-next-week

I notice that the picture accompanying this article shows that the hull was cut by divers. Why would they need to cut a hole in the wreck if the bow doors were torn open by the visor falling off, as was claimed?
 
Last edited:

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
Yet another update:


The investigators of the Estonian Safety Investigation Bureau have discovered that the damage on the starboard side of the wreck of MS Estonia is considerably greater than previously estimated.

ERR, the Estonian national broaadcaster, also reports:


"Visibility is worse on the car deck, and there is debris. We need to find a different technological solution for mapping out the car deck," the expedition lead said.

He added that studying the car deck is crucial as it needs to be determined how cargo was secured, as well as the location of the tethering points and where they broke, in addition to the state of the car deck doors.

The tethering points are known to be rarely used, but again, we can see the issues caused by the assumption (deliberate or otherwise) that they were in use on that night.

I do wonder if they will release the full survey to the public to analyse for themselves. I don't believe it, personally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top