'Even if the government has made its decision (not to salvage the 'Estonia'), much work remains to clarify the causes of the accident. The safety at sea must be improved ... '
Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson (s) at the Parliament 15 December 1994
'Unterdrückung
der Öffentlichkeit stellt eines der konstitutiven
Kennzeichen der Diktatur dar. Dagegen bedeutet Information
über die eigene Angelegenheiten die erste und
wichtigste Voraussetzung für ein funktionierendes
Gemeinwesen'.
(or in English - 'the suppression of
insight into public affairs is one of the basic signs of a
dictatorship. On the other hand information about
your own concerns is the first and most important condition
of a correctly working society').
Stefan Wolle in 'Die heile Welt der Diktatur' ('The holy World of a Dictatorship') (ISBN 3-612-26650-0)
4.5 Epilogue. Who wrote the Final Report?
The 'Estonia' accident investigation is the biggest fraud in maritime history.
All started with a lie on 28 September 1994 - the bow visor at the forward end of the superstructure - to hide a crime. All essential official information that followed was pure disinformation. The biggest maritime fraud in History started. What had actually happened - leakage of the hull below the waterline for unknown reasons - could officially not have happened. Something else should or could have happened. The guilty persons and those who knew were in a strong position 1994. The public was then only told that the 'Estonia' had capsized and sunk and that more than 850 persons had died but not why. By quickly - almost the same day - shamelessly blaming the accident on a 'design fault' of the bow visor in the superstructure, the persons in control - the conspirators - managed to mislead the public and survivors and relatives of victim and seamen and safety at sea experts. The persons in control then appointed a group of investigators in October 1994 to confirm the alleged cause of accident - the 'design fault'. The investigators did what they were told during three years and two months of secret meetings - one lie became a flood of lies. A united and unanimous Commission presented its Final Report in December 1997 but it was not the original Commission.
Many of the original Commission members had resigned or died.
The 'design fault' of the visor of the superstructure was the proximate cause of the accident - the ship, the hull and the crew were otherwise perfect. You should blame the yard that had manufactured the lock and the classification society that should have checked it. Today nobody can have any confidence in these investigators.
|
Many original Investigators retired In December 1997 only five of the original investigators 1.5 remained - the Estonian Laur, the three Finns and the Swede Rosengren. Do you ask these investigators to explain all ambiguities in the Final Report apart from the 'unanimous' conclusions, the only answer you get, if you get a reply at all, is that they no longer work with the investigation, all is explained, or, that they only worked with other aspects of the accident and cannot explain the unclear parts, but in all event, all is correct because the Commission was unanimous and the person asking must be wrong. If you continue to ask they accuse you to be unintelligent, unscientific, unreasonable, conspiratorial, trying to undermine democratic governments, etc. What a circus. But it is rather clever - and stupid. The original objective of the Commission was throughout only to investigate a 'design fault' and that you could not criticise the crew and that the ship was in perfect condition. Accordingly the Commission had to simply manipulate all testimonies and statements of facts that contradicted the original theory (read lie). It was quite easy, as long as the investigation and the evidence material were secret. The public had no chance to query the material. The manipulated course of events of Rosengren and Huss based on false stability calculations and water inflows, 1.9, 1.44 and Appendix 4, are clear examples of shameless manipulations. Huss became technical director at the Swedish Maritime Administration as a result of the falsifications. |
Kari Lehtola about Björkman |
|
No Knowledge about Stability Nobody in the Commission had correct knowledge about ship stability with water on the car deck 2.16 inside the superstructure on top of a watertight hull- and that ships like the 'Estonia' capsize and float upside down on the hull with 1.500-2.000 tons of water on top of the superstructure car deck. Therefore they manipulated the time of the water inflow (2.000 tons) - 6 minutes, 28 minutes, 1,5 minute, 8 minutes - first through a partly open ramp and later through a fully open ramp, without showing that the ramp had been open. The Commission was ignorant of the fact that the physical relationship between the weight of the water on the car deck in the superstructure and the angle of heel could not be manipulated. |
Figure 45.1 Result of capsize |
The easiest way to reveal the falsifications is to ask international recognised stability experts to verify the stability statements of the Commission. It is interesting to note that the German 'experts' carefully avoided to verifying the stability calculations of the Commission.
Early Falsifications
One condition of the big manipulation was the falsifications and editions of the video films and the dive examinations of the wreck by, i.a. Tuomo Karppinen and Johan Franson, 1.16 and 1.43. That the visor very likely was still attached to the superstructure of the wreck on 2 October 1994 and then was removed by explosives by Swedish navy divers, resulting in a big hole in the starboard front bulkhead 3.10, could evidently not be announced in 1994. The films made on 2 and 9 October of the wreck and in the middle of November of the visor and at the dive expedition 2-4 December 1994 had to be censored and edited. The salvage of the visor below the wreck had to be done by a secret Swedish navy operation instead of by civilian experts after a public request for their services. Then it was easy to announce the alleged, but false, visor position 1 560 meters West of the wreck.
It should be very easy to verify that the original video films of the wreck have been manipulated later.
The Deaths of Key Experts
Börje Stenström, the Swedish member of the Commission, with an M.Sc. from the Royal Institute of Technology at Stockholm followed by 12 years service with the Swedish Navy Engineering Corps, knew that he misled the public - he knew for sure, based on the findings of the Germans, that the condition and maintenance of the 'Estonia' were bad, which contributed to the accident, and he knew where the visor had been found. He was also aware of the statements by the writer about lifesaving equipment and stability. Stenström died 1997 by a cancer during the investigation.
Captain Simo Arnio, the Finnish expert, apparently also knew that the visor was found at the wreck and that false information was fed to the media. He also died during the investigation1996.
The Swedish vice prime minister during the investigation, Odd Engström, must also have been aware that the investigation was manipulated. He too died during the investigation, after having resigned from the government 1.35.
Resignations
Olof Forssberg finalized the investigation in March 1997 and allowed himself to be dismissed from the Commission by the Swedish government (a nice way of distancing himself from the lies), so that he did not have to sign the Final Report (5). Ann-Louise Eksborg succeeded Forssberg and she signed the Final Report without hesitation in December 1997. She then became the spokeswoman of the Swedish delegation - a few months before she had never dealt with the 'Estonia' - suddenly she was an expert on all matters about the 'Estonia'. When Ms Eksborg is in doubt she asks dr. Huss for advice, who repeatedly states that ferries like the 'Estonia' always sink slowly due to water on the car deck in the superstructure, etc, while they are stable, etc, so they do not capsize, etc, as they float on the deck house, etc, but even if they float on the deck house, they sink. How the watertight hull is filled with water, neither Eksborg nor Huss can explain. Two months earlier the expert Bengt Schager had resigned from the Commission - in the Swedish local daily Hallands Tidning he accused the Estonians for lying, footnote in 1.20, a weak attempt to protect himself. Schager had previously ensured that all testimonies fitted the scenario of the Commission. Why all these persons were prepared to participate in the falsification of the Final Report is a mystery. Or is it? They were very handsomely paid for the job - Schager was, e.g. paid >SEK 4.000.000:-. Franson is paid SEK 800.000:- per year to ensure that the Swedish NMA staffs keep quiet.
No new Circumstances
In spite of all these resignations, deaths and criticisms of the Final Report and money being spent generously the Swedish government (Mona Sahlin) has repeatedly 1999 Appendix 3, 2000 and 2001 stated that no new facts have been presented, which would require a new investigation. In a letter to the writer 19 April 2001 Ms Sahlin, after the information in this book had been reviewed by seven Swedish authorities, schools or companies, states:
"The joint investigation commission of Estonia, Finland and Sweden handed over its Final Report in December 1997. After that no new circumstances have been presented, which show that the course of events of the accident in any essential manners differs from that described in the Final Report. Therefore there is not any reason to take any steps with the aim of a new accident investigation".
Four days later the official press release to the same effect was issued, front page of this book. How long the Swedish government can maintain this ultimate lie? Why is Mona Sahlin 2001 protecting an accident investigation 1994-1997 and a report 1997, where all essential statements and information are false? The members of the Commission were informed about the essential facts in this book already 1995/6. The writer talked to Ann-Louise Eksborg on 22 February 2000 at Stockholm: she informed that (i) that the investigation had been done properly as per the requirements, and (ii) that after the investigation is finished neither she nor the Swedish Board of Accident Investigation, SHK, has any duty to explain any ambiguities in the investigation and (iii) that the IMO resolution A.849(20) foreword was not applicable and cannot be applied, even if the United Kingdom re-opens more than 20 years old investigations as per the law. A Swedish bureaucrat has talked. She is evidently breaking Swedish law (1990:712) but nobody cares.
Estonian Doubts September 2000 - Final Report written for Experts
"Some 80 percent of Estonians polled said they don't believe official conclusions about why the ferry 'Estonia' sank six years ago this month in one of Europe's worst maritime disasters, local media reported on September 2. Investigators said the Sept. 28, 1994 tragedy, which killed 852, occurred when fierce waves broke badly made locks in the bow door, causing it to fall off and for water to flood the ship. They also said the crew reacted too slowly. Critics said the investigation was sloppy and conspiracy theories, including that a bomb blast may have crippled the vessel, have abounded. Some relatives of the mostly Swedish and Estonian victims have called for a new investigation. Of 400 Estonians questioned by ES Market Research, 78 percent said they didn't accept the 1997 findings of official Estonian, Finnish and Swedish investigators, reported the Eesti Paevaleht daily, which ordered the survey. Sixty-seven percent also said they backed last week's controversial dive of American Gregg Bemis to the Baltic Sea site of the shipwrecked ferry, which area governments opposed as a desecration of an officially declared gravesite. The poll, which had a margin of error of 4 percent, was conducted just before the dives got underway. Bemis said on September 1 that he may have found a previously undiscovered hole in the ship's hull, though he said it required further study.In an editorial, Eesti Paevaleht said Swedes were more likely to believe the official conclusion, though it didn't cite poll results. It said Estonia's past under Soviet totalitarian rule made it more sceptical of official findings. Jaan Metsaveer+, one of the investigators, adamantly defended the official explanation, arguing that laymen sought simplistic answers because they couldn't understand the technical accounts in the commission's lengthy final report. "It was a document that was written for experts, not for the general public," he was quoted as saying. He said some relatively minor details about the accident remain unknown, but that the general conclusions still stood. Estonia's government also dismissed suggestions that the dives led by Gregg Bemis last week may have made significant enough discoveries to justify a new investigation. "From the government's point of view, we've seen nothing new," government spokesman Priit Poiklik said. "We don't believe a new investigation is warranted.""(Baltic News Services September 2000)
A Swedish Question?
The mystery around the 'Estonia' is perhaps a wholly Swedish question? Say that mess was initiated by the so called 'non-compliance' agency (the Swedish NMA!), which with four persons at Tallinn in January 1993 and later at four or five Port State Controls at Stockholm 1993/94 approved the ship 'Estonia' for passenger traffic on Sweden with a great number of unreported safety items of non compliance, i.e. no modifications were required by safety director Stenmark. One reason was that the person responsible for maintenance and safety on board was Ulf Hobro, 1.43, 1.46 and Appendix 7, a former employee at the NMA, and that the NMA wanted to 'help' him. Hobro had apparently been told to save money for maintenance and upgrading, i.a. the crew had to do the jobs previously done by yards and no new equipment could be bought. It meant that the Bureau Veritas - ship surveyors Anders Wirstam and his boss Hans Olsson (both Swedes with good connections to the Swedish NMA) - on behalf of the Estonian administration did not ask for any improvements of the safety at 1993. It was otherwise very simple to bring the 'Estonia' in order so that she complied with the SOLAS requirement (life rafts under davits, closed watertight doors, proper life jackets, all instructions in the Estonian language, permanently welding the swimmingpool in the double bottom watertight, etc) making the 'Estonia' unsinkable and very safe. Most of the faults/defects of the 'Estonia' were of course old faults/defects introduced, when the ship was 12 years under Finnish flag trading on Sweden - and which then had gone un-detected (sic). Bad maintenance then completed the disaster.
The two Swedish ship inspectors from Malmö, who made the last inspection just eight hours before the accident, were not informed about this silent agreement and/or the old defects, so they made a correct job the day before the accident (or tried to?) - later totally censored by the Commission. The Independent Fact Group has described it in detail (31). The Commission falsified a Port State Control inspection report of 27 September 1994 to the effect that the ship had no defects, while in reality the PSC report listed numerous defects. Later the Commission suggested that the PSC inspection was an exercise - of no importance. But it is a fact that the PSC report was falsified.
Who invented the original false Story?
It can be that it was Sten Anderson 1.5 of the NMA with the help of Hans Wermelin who invented the story about the visor and water on the car deck in the superstructure to cover up the sins of his 'non-compliance' agency 1980-1994 - the lack of lifesaving equipment in the deckhouse, the defective watertight doors, etc. 1.33, 1.34 and 1.23. Then the divers of Johan Fransons 1.16 could confirm that the ramp of the superstructure had been pulled fully open by the visor, etc. Forssberg and Stenström and the Swedish navy had already removed the visor (but failed to open the ramp). In the early confusion after the accident these person forgot that ferries capsize and floats upside down with water inside the superstructure.
What caused the leakage of the hull is still not known. A simple accident? Probably the pool compartment and the sewage tanks were extremely rusty and the stabilizer installation was faulty. The leakage started there! Then it spread through open watertight doors. The crew messed things up.
The Germans have described that the crew had big problems with both the visor and the ramp and that the crew tried to secure them at sea - the ramp was not locked in port and held back by mooring ropes and the visor was not properly secured (probably damaged before the accident). But then maybe the foundation of the starboard stabilizer fin broke with a big bang, when it was activated at 00.15-00.30 hrs. There are a few testimonies to the effect that the stabilizers were activated at that time and that the ship changed course at the same time (towards Söderarm! but it could as well be Sandhamn - according to the Fact Group (31)). We know that Sillaste was called up at 00.30 hrs about 'problems' (he says it was the vacuum toilet system, but who knows).
Let's assume that the proximate cause of accident was a leakage in the hull - water flowed in, one compartment filled up with water and started to spill up 3 meters higher up on deck 1. Watch man Linde may have raised the crew alarm at 00.45 hrs and the Master went to the bridge 3.18. Attempts were made to isolate the leakage, but later watertight doors were opened (by mistake?), the water now spread, first into the generator room, then the engine room and there was a sudden list. The two bangs just before the listing were the result of either the opening of the watertight doors or something done to stop the water inflow - or it was just rusty structure breaking. Often there is a combination of two or more different events that cause a disaster, in this case severe leakage (the proximate cause) and badly arranged watertight doors and an incompetent crew and a generally substandard and unseaworthy ship (consequent causes).
It seems that the crew was already occupied with another problem - the lose visor and the leaking ramp - when the ship sprang a leak.
All this might be guess work of the writer. If the ship had started to leak at 00.30 hrs, you would have expected a normal crew to steer against shallow waters - to run the ship aground, if necessary. It is not a stupid idea to run a ship aground if it leaks - it will not sink. But in this case it seems that the crew on the 'Estonia' actually steered towards deeper waters - South - where the ship sank and at least 852 persons drowned.
The Plot must disappear
The reason why the Utö-plot disappeared is maybe that it showed that the 'Estonia' changed course towards Sandhamn at 00.00 - 00.30 hrs and that the Commission could not explain this very strange course during the last 30-60 minutes. Or the ship actually changed course towards Sandhamn at 00.00 hrs and then at 00.45 changed course again, towards shallow waters. We do not know, as the famous Utö plot has disappeared. That plot evidently showed something else: a plot showing that a vessel slows down and/or changes course before it starts to list (and sink) is an indication that something was wrong at that early time. And this the Commission would not admit. The plot had to disappear.
It is of course possible that the 'Estonia' collided with a submerged, floating object - many survivors have testified about noise from a collision - and that the outer bottom was ripped open followed by the inner bottom splitting open - a severe hull leakage. The official video films of the underwater hull has been edited (and cut), so that it is impossible to identify any locations on the films. The private divers 2000 and 2001 have reportedly made a casual inspection of the underwater hull and have not found any hull damage. The hull damage may not be easy to find - a long, narrow fracture in the hull plate. A 0,2-0,4 m² large hull opening, when one plate is elastically pushed in by water pressure, was only required to sink the ship. Later it can be difficult to find the damage, when the plate is back in position.
No Safety Plans worked
Survivors have testified that the ship suddenly listed >30 degrees to starboard. Then no emergency safety plans worked onboard. All became a big mess. Later, after the accident, the crew was simply requested to lye by Sten Anderson and with the assistance of Enn Neidre, who both were at Åbo/Turku, in order to hide the errors of the Swedish NMA - and the poor crew.
The Swedish NMA had permitted the 'Estonia' to sail with open watertight doors and without correct lifesaving equipment since 1980 and there was not a chance to evacuate all onboard in a dry and safe condition. "Please, jump into the water in case of an accident" seems to have been the standing order 1.34 since 1980. The order to blame the accident on the visor thus did not come from Estonia but Sweden, and it made it easy for the Estonian crew to cooperate. Sweden did not want that the real cause of accident became known. The Swedes did not speak Estonian, so the Estonian captain Enn Neidre was asked to convey to the crew what to say at the questionings. The Swedish government assisted by stopping the Stolt-Comex offer to salvage all victims. Had all victims been salvaged, it would have later been impossible to refuse the request for a complete examination of the wreck and the hull.
Five Swedish divers visited the wreck soon after the accident, probably under the leadership of Mr Gustav Hanuliak. Who ordered the expedition(s) is not known, nor what they actually did down at the wreck. It is highly likely that they removed the visor using small explosive devices (anti-mine explosives). The divers were apparently trained to remove and destroy mines under water. But the visor hinges were very strong so you had to pull off the visor so that the hinges were torn apart.
Then - much later in 1998 - stupid rumours started to be spread (by the Germans) - the visor and ramp in the superstructure had been damaged by explosives before the sinking, when the ship was still afloat! Evidently such explosions would never have caused the ship to sink, but the rumours were actually good for the Swedish NMA and the Commission - to divert the attention away from the errors of the NMA and the manipulations of the Commission. And the persons stating such things could be written of as conspiracy freaks! So the Germans never accused the whole Commission of incompetence 3.18.
Cui Bono?
Who benefits of the cover up? The answer to the 'Estonia' riddle may be found in Sweden! But the Swedes will not talk. The government - Mona Sahlin - has decided 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 that "there is not any reason to take any steps with the aim of a new accident investigation". Ms Sahlin is evidently only protecting her friends at the Swedish NMA - Selén, Franson, Huss, etc. and of course the real culprits.
In Estonia the chairman of the Commission, transport minister Andi Meister resigned in 1996 and his colleagues captain Enn Neidre and secret police chief Priit Männik were kicked out of the Commission by the Estonian government or the president. In Estonia only the old and retired captain Uno Laur remained in the Commission from start to end, at the end as chairman and first signatory of the Final Report in December 1997. As a reward for his shameful work he was given a medal by the Estonian president Lennart Meri in February 1999. Laur know naturally the full truth of the Estonia accident - and he got a medal not to tell it. And he is an old man.
That is typical of dictatorships - suppress the Truth, so that the public does not know what is going on. But there are many young surviving Estonian crewmembers who know what happened. Why they do not talk is easy to explain - they are afraid and have been threatened.
The eternal Sound of the Waves
On the first anniversary of the accident 1995 president Lennart Meri had asked his countrymen always to remember
"those whose memory always is returned to us by the eternal sound of the waves of the sea".
Meri also asked that the Estonian people should forgive what the sea had done.
"The sea has treated us badly", (Meri said solemnly), "but we are a nation of seafarers and we cannot live without the sea. We must be at peace with the sea".
|
|
In spite of theses words president Meri does not
want today that Estonia follows the IMO resolutions
to find out why the sea treated the 'Estonia' and
Estonia so badly. The other Estonian members of the
investigation are shadow figures without talents,
which have never officially explained the document
they de facto signed. Year 2000 Mart Laar, then 38
years old, was again prime minister, as he was when
the accident took place 1994. Mart Laar, the leader
of the Pro Patria-party, has also during six years
ensured that Estonia does not follow the laws of
the United Nations about marine accident
investigations. The proposal of captain Erich Moik
1999 (see The 'Estonia' accident and the disaster investigation thus took place during the reign of the Estonian president Lennart Meri and he has consistently refused to support a new investigation 1997-2001. The presidency of Meri ends in the autumn 2001 and hopefully his successor might show a greater interest in the Truth and safety at sea and might support the demand for a new investigation.++ Sometimes Sweden is looked upon as an island - with Kattegatt in the West, the Baltic in the South and East and the Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean in the North and Northwest with Norway in between. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Estonia is also looked upon as an island with the Bay of Finland to the North, the Baltic in the West, the Bay of Riga in the South and the lake Peipus in the East. Islanders should be interested in safety at sea. The Estonians know well the seas and lakes around them and have many words for the winds sweeping across these waters and the resulting waves caused by the winds. One of Estonia's greatest cultural personalities, the language researcher Andrus Saareste, has noted over 100 different Estonian words to describe the waves on seas, lakes and water. Why does the Estonian language have so many different words for a wave? To help the poets rime, or to live and survive in Estonia? The words of Lennart Meri about waves and "those whose memory always is returned to us by the eternal sound of the waves of the sea" |
|
Finnish Excuses
The Finnish members of the Commission Lehtola, Iivonen and Karppinen stayed on from beginning to end. They steadfastly support the Final Report with any arguments Foreword), e.g. accusing the writer by name on television to try to overthrow (sic) the Finnish government and similar nonsense. And they have full support of the former Finnish foreign minister and present president - Ms Tarja Halonen - who in February 2000 wrote to the writer (30) and stated that the Finnish
"government has reviewed the (final) report and considers the result of the investigation of the Commission as reliable. In the recent debate about possible causes for the accident no new facts have been presented changing this opinion. The Finnish government thus sees no reason to take any action to re-open the accident investigation."
The situation 2001 is thus that the three governments, which in 1994 decided that the Estonia accident should be wholly examined in a secret investigation, today consider that the investigation is final and that all facts have been reviewed and that the rules of the United Nations and the IMO are not applicable (or respective national laws), when new proven facts are presented later. It gives a false signal to the public; it prolongs and makes worse the sufferings of the relatives of the victims and the survivors and it is an insult of Democracy. The work for safety at sea suffers. You cannot develop better safety at sea, unless you know why an accident happened.
German Police Investigation
The results of the Gregg Bemis' dive expedition in August 2000 2.24 were announced in Germany in the beginning of November 2000 - parts of the forward superstructure had been subject to explosive damages! The damage - the opening in the front bulkhead - is described in 3.10. This damage has never been reported, examined and explained by the Commission. It is not mentioned in the Final Report (5). As five German citizens died in the accident the public prosecutor at Hamburg was asked to investigate, if these persons were in fact murdered. The murder investigation is done by Oberstaatsaanwalt Rüdiger Bagger at the Hamburger Staatsanwaltschaft and has number 7101 UJs 33/01 in Sachen 'Estonia'. In 2002 the affaire was classified without further investigation.
The Visor
It was very simple for the German police to prove the Commission wrong. Study the visor at Södertälje, Sweden. The damages, particularly the scrape marks below the visor arms, clearly show that the visor did not fall off as alleged by the Commission. It is quite easy to see that the visor arm hinges were torn apart under water after the accident. But the Germans did nothing.
Swedish Parliament is censored
In October 2000 four Swedish Members of Parliament handed in three different motions to the Parliament with the same request - to investigate all new proven facts of the 'Estonia' presented after the publication of the Final Report (5). These motions were supposed to be reviewed by a parliamentary (traffic) committee in February 2001 to be voted upon by the Parliament during the spring 2001. However, very strangely, the motions have been put aside. Another two motions to the same effect were handed in autumn 2001. They have also been put aside. The Swedish Parliament is silenced by manipulations. When the motions were finally heard on 13 December 2001 it was in connection with Swedish transport policy - another manipulation.
The present politicians in power are responsible for the unsatisfactory situation and the shameless falsification of History. In Sweden the government has appointed a number of charlatans in top positions to prevent studying the new proven facts and to prevent implementing correct safety at sea. It is evidently unacceptable that big 'commissions' under secrecy negotiate a 'cause of accident' based on badly manipulated and falsified technical reports, model tests and edited testimonies, to 'suit' the fantasies of the Commission. It must not be repeated.
The Truth can be painful for the few persons responsible for the accident. There was no reason to ask other persons - in a Commission - to support those responsible persons with a false investigation. Naturally the Truth will be found by a new, independent investigation. It can produce strong feelings among the relatives of the victims and survivors, but reconciliation is possible. The persons that manipulated the investigation did not cause the accident. They were also stupid victims of the accident. The real culprits of the accident are still at large. And insurance underwriters have paid a false claim.
Who wrote the Final Report?
The Final report (5) was officially agreed on the 20th meeting of the Commission in March 1997 but not published until December 1997 1.21. The Commission never officially met after March 1997. There are rumours of informal meetings checking proofs of the manuscript in English but nothing is documented. However, it should be clear that the Final report is so bad that it can hardly have been written by the nine fairly intelligent members in the Commission. So who wrote the Final report in the end? The manuscript of the report of
|
March 1997 does not exist. It has been suggested that the Final report was in the end written, or edited, by a professional, outside, third party. The Commission had in fact given up the job to produce a falsified Final report and suggested that the party giving the orders did the final job itself. It was evidently not easy to produce a convincing report, when all the evidence - films, divings, testimonies, etc., had been systematically manipulated 1994-1996. The result is known - a glossy Final report (5) that seems in order after a casual study but where every essential fact is proven false after in depth research. It is obvious that such a report could never have been agreed by the Commission. So who wrote it? |
|
Remember the 'Estonia' - but why not ask Huss to assist?
We must both forget and remember the 'Estonia'. To forget and remember are different fruits on the tree of Knowledge. We must remember those who died - let them rest in peace wherever they are - and those who fought and still fight for the Truth of the accident. We shall later forget all those who misled the public by producing a false Final Report and whom the writer has named in this book. The writer wants to forget the 'Estonia', but not before all new proven facts have been reviewed, so that real improvements of safety at sea can be done and that not another 'Estonia' accident occurs. No more innocent persons shall end up at the bottom of the sea. A book like Disaster Investigation must not be written again.
A very good way to remember the 'Estonia' is to re-open the investigation according to IMO resolution A.849(20) Annex point 13 - new evidence changing circumstances must be investigated. The writer suggests that the figure 13.2 in the Final report (5) is a falsification 1.9. Figure 13.2 is stated to show the sequence of events, but is in fact only a plot of a completely undamaged ship, which turns and drift aided by a very strong current. All stability and floatability calculations of which figure 13.2 are based are also falsifications. Evidently the complete Final report (5) is evidence of modified circumstances, but why not start with this major plot?
Of course it is a pity for Dr. Michael Huss who falsified the impossible sinking in figure 13.2 and all calculations. Huss didn't suspect in November 1994 that he was appointed to 'prove' the myth of the conspirators. Huss then naturally didn't know that Finns and Swedes had found the wreck with the visor attached to the superstructure on 30 September 1994 and that divers had been sent out to remove the visor under water using explosives (and to open the ramp) assisted by the Swedish and Finnish navies on the surface. A false position of the wreck was announced by Mr Kari Lehtola to keep curious parties away. The first attempt on 1 October with an explosive device between visor and ramp resulted into the visor hanging on to the starboard side while the ramp was deformed aft and pushed hard into the frame, but a Finnish ROV that filmed the wreck on 2 October could nevertheless show pictures of a lost visor at the port side of the superstructure and some damaged parts. The foundation of the myth was built. A few days later 4-5 October the divers returned to finally remove the visor with explosives, so that it sank to the bottom below the wreck, but then they caused a big hole in the front bulkhead of the superstructure. New Finnish ROV-films taken on 9 October showed this, but the Commission (Lehtola) called the visor a 'steel plate' on the bottom, etc. that was edited away from the film. And the hole in the superstructure? - it disappeared completely - the bulkhead was officially undamaged! Naturally the visor could not remain on the sea floor below the wreck. It must first be 'found' in another location, which was done by the Finnish coast guard vessel the 'Tursas' that 'found' the visor on 18 October - a mile West of the wreck (the false wreck position)! It was a little messy with all false positions, so when the visor then was salvaged no positions could be announced at all. Then the Swede Johan Franson & Co. could investigate the wreck by divers in peace and quiet on 2-4 December 1994. If Franson knew that divers had removed the visor by explosives in October is unclear, but the job of Franson was clear already then. He should recommend that neither wreck nor victims could be salvaged. His divers told clear lies - the ramp locks were broken indicating that the visor had ripped open the ramp. But the ramp locks were undamaged!
At the same time Huss was appointed expert to the Commission to do a particular task - to simulate the sequence of events - to fit the false positions. Huss was very proud, but the task was not easy, i.e. rather impossible. Huss had nobody to talk to - the other members of the Commission were arrogant and uncommitted at the big dinners that always were part of the meetings. Huss stopped attending the dinners - but made a falsified simulation/plot of the accident - and remained as expert. Matters were not improved when the Commission further modified/falsified the plot of Huss but Huss silently accepted it. Forssberg decided to resign and Ann-Louise Eksborg must sign the Final report. If Eksborg understood that the Final report was false from A to Z is unclear, but she always defends her report - often with assistance by Huss. Exactly as Mona Sahlin. All three are persons without their own critical thinking and lack of moral fibre - they operate in a society where falsified truth is common and is paid with a little 'prestige' and pocket money. Eksborg as Director General of a new government Board to counter threats against Sweden in peace, Huss as technical director of the Swedish Maritime Administration (appointed by Franson). And Mona Sahlin as 'politician'. And the Parliament applauds - 252-60 (in Swedish only).
This barbaric society will continue to sink deeper, as long as the citizens are not prepared to accept responsibility for individual actions and the country they live in. All three (four) are parasites on a sick body. Unfortunately they are not alone. The false 'Estonia' accident investigation report is definitely a product of Sweden. And maybe Huss could finally change his mind and admit that he produced a false plot in figure 13.2? Send him a mail at michael.huss@sjofartsverket.se - it might work.
|
Diesen Rat will ich dir geben: Weißt wohl wieder mal geläufig, Ist die Walze wieder dran, Laß doch deine Neuigkeiten! War dein Plan nicht: irgendwie Ja, die Bösen und Beschränkten Erich Kästner
Jedes Wort im Gesicht weiß etwas vom Teufelskreis und sagt es nicht
|
+ Jan Metsaveer became a full member of the Commission after one of the original or replaced Estonian members had resigned. Mestaveer prides himself to be a professor of structural design at the Tallinn University.
+ + In September 2001 Estonia elected a new president - a past Communist leader from the Soviet time. You can hardly expect this person to assist in clarifying the Estonia accident.
To Part 5 - References Back to index