years have passed since M/S Estonia sank due to hull leakage
below waterline 28 September 1994 probably due to sabotage.
The ship carried military cargo protected by Swedish police
and military aboard. The ship was not seaworthy at departure
due to lack of correct lifesaving equipment and watertight
hull subdivision. A false cause of incident was invented; a
weak bow visor that dropped off. The cover-up of the
incident is a success.
852 persons drowned and
died. We are told!
Immediately, without any
evidence, the Estonian, Finnish and Swedish authorities
concerned announced that the defective bow visor had
caused the accident. Waves had knocked off the visor at sea
and had pulled open a ramp so that sea water had flooded the
superstructure 2.5 meters above waterline and the crew had
heard nothing. As a result the ship capsized ... and
The bow visor was
a forward moving part of the ship superstructure high
above waterline to keep the ferry looking nice. The ferry
could have sailed around without bow visor but with
closed ramp and nothing would happen.
But the Estonian, Finnish
and Swedish authorities told the world that the accident was
caused by the bow visor! Big waves had ripped apart
the visor locks and the visor had fallen off the ship.
Nobody heard anything.
I have tested with my own
ferries what happens if you impact a big wave in severe
weather. Every impact against the fore ship is extremely
loud (>130 dB) and the whole ship vibrates afterwards and
everybody is awake and wonders what is going on. You have to
slow down! The impact is due to compressed air trapped
between ship and wave. The impact force itself is nominal
and of very short duration. The responsible parties just
made up a false story. Like the
RMS Titanic 1912 sinking explained
It seems that the bow
visor had nothing to do with the accident, as it was
wreck under water a few daysafter the
sinking by Swedish naval forces supported by the Finns - so
you could blame the accident on the bow
It explains all official
lies and false information about the sinking presented
1994-2013. To support the official lies many rescued
Estonian crew members were kidnapped
and reported as dead by the Finnish authorities in charge.
Other Estonian crew members were forced to
what happened. Later it was established that the Swedish
government used the vessel to carry ex USSR arms from
Estonia to Sweden to be forwarded elsewhere.
All information was then
falsified 1994-1997 to support the official story about the
visor. One reason was to hide the simple basic fact that the
ferry M/S "Estonia" was unseaworthy, with incorrect hull
subdivision against sinking, with too many open,
watertight doors, with incorrect life saving equipment based
on the fact that 50% of all aboard was assumed to jump into
the water (!), consequently no evacuation drills were never
done, false certificates were issued, etc., etc.
And had the ship
really capsized due to water loaded in the
superstructure, it would have been floating upside
down ... and not had sunk. The ship sank due to
leakage below waterline.
investigations continued 2006 - one Estonian
government commission and one Estonian parlamentary
commission were reviewing old false information and
new proven facts provided by, i.a. the writer and
reportet end 2006 and early 2009;
two international research
were investigation how the M/S Estonia actually
sank based on all now available information, i.a.
this writer's - here,
- May 2008; the Swedish Criminal Analysis
Laboratory at Linköping, Sweden, investigated
whether original underwater films have been
tampered with and reported
and finally a number of independent researchers
continue their serious work and report regularly,
e.g. on the Internet.
None of these bodies are
considered as 'conspiracy theorists' as previously
announced by the Swedish authorities. It should be quite
clear that all doubts about the official visor announcements
1994-1997 are today well founded ... but not politically
correct. It is a mystery. Why support a false cause of
accident? Strangely enough public media do not follow up.
Latest news 2014 are found here!
1.1 The 'Estonia'
1.2 The Departure September 27, 1994
1.3 The Accident and the Investigation
1.4 The Commission
1.5 Changes to the Commission
1.6 Conflicts of Interest
1.7 The Meeting October 17, 1994, (Part I)
1.8 The Visor was not lost Underway
1.9 Water did not enter at the forward Ramp
1.10 The Meeting October 17, 1994, (Part II)
1.11 'One of the most probable Causes'
1.12 How the IMO was misinformed
1.13 The Visor
1.14 The Diving Survey December 3 and 4, 1994
1.15 The Meeting December 15; 1994
1.16 Strength Investigation of the Visor Locks
1.17 The Part-Report April, 1995
1.18 Resignations from the Commission
1.19 Modified Testimonies
1.20 The Final Report
1.21 Statement by Kari Lehtola, December 3,
1.22 Two Versions about who were on the Bridge
1.23 The Video Films
1.24 Conclusions of Chapter 1
2.1 Events based on
2.2 Sequence of Events September 28, 1994
2.3 The Cause of the Loss of Stability
2.4 How to prevent the Accident
2.5 Could more Passengers have survived?
2.6 Could the Crew have saved the Ship?
2.7 The Master's and the senior Officers'
2.8 The Bow visor Separation
2.9 The Safety Rules in Force on the
2.10 The Visor Locks
2.11 The Position of the Visor
2.12 About Water flowing down to Deck no.
2.13 About Sailing without
2.14 About Breaking the Visor Outfit
2.15 About impactive Loads on the Bow
2.16 Stability Assumptions
2.17 Elementary Stability
2.18 What caused the Leaking?
2.19 Water in the Garage?
2.20 Water on Deck no. 1!
2.21 Inner Ramp Damages
2.22 Safety in the Future
2.23 Plot of 'Estonia's last 60 Minutes
3.1 Visor Design
3.2 External Loads acting on the Visor
3.3 The Function of the Visor
3.4 The Bow Ramp
3.5 The Control Panel
3.6 The Visor in Service
3.7 The JAIC Assumptions - the Atlantic Lock
3.8 The JAIC Assumptions - the Side Locks
3.9 The JAIC Assumptions - the Deck
3.10 The JAIC Assumptions - the
3.11 The JAIC Assumptions - Ramp Opening
3.12 The JAIC Assumptions - Loss of the Vessel
3.13 The German Group of Experts
3.14 The actual Condition of the Visor
3.15 The actual Condition of the Ramp
3.16 The German Allegations - the Visor
3.17 The German Allegations - Water on Car Deck
3.18 The Sauna and no. 1 Deck was
4.1 The Final
4.2 The Accident according to the JAIC
4.3 Ownership and Operating History
4.4 The Vessel and its Stability
4.5 Operations on Board
4.6 The Circumstances of the
4.7 Summary of Testimonies by Survivors
4.8 Limitations of the Diving Survey
4.9 Destruction of Evidence
4.10 Visor was stricken off Sideways
4.11 Ramp Damages
4.12 The Visor Bottom Lock
4.13 The Visor side Locks
4.14 Diving Inspection - the
Garage not inspected?
4.15 International Co-operation
4.16 The 'Herald of Free Enterprise'
4.17 Forces and Moments acting on the Visor
4.18 Simulation of Flooding /Sinking of the
4.19 Water Inflow Simulations
4.20 Development of the List and the Sinking
4.21 The Sinking - Water on the Car Deck
4.22 Personal Reflections
4.23 Failure Sequence of Bow Visor and Ramp
4.24 The Findings
4.25 Improved Safety after the Accident
Price :- SEK 100:- GBP 10:- , Hard copies
available from (€10:- incl. postage):-
Björkman, 6, rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil,
Imprimé par MultiPrint - Monaco,