Welcome to a chapter of the e-book Disasterinvestigation.
Summary of Part 1 - Disinformation revealed
· A passenger ferry like the 'Estonia' floats in the water on its partly submerged hull as per the principle of Archimedes established 252 BC. The hull is subdivided to prevent sinking due to leakage, i.e. the hull floats, even if it is damaged. Increasing amounts of water inside a superstructure on top of the hull makes the hull (and the superstructure) list, until the hull (and the superstructure) capsizes, i.e. the hull (and the superstructure) turns upside down - and floats on the hull.
· Leakage of the hull as cause of accident was never investigated. It was covered up.
· The investigation was manipulated from the beginning with a false cause of accident - the visor.
· Secrecy during an accident investigation is not permitted but necessary for a cover-up.
· False information was immediately fed to the public as part of a planned disinformation campaign.
· A false wreck position was necessary to establish the false cause of accident.
· All false facts - lies - about the 'Estonia' accident were already established prior to the appointment of the Commission.
· New evidence changing the cause of accident and the sequence of events must be reviewed according to IMO resolutions and international law by a new investigation.
· None of the Estonian members of the Commission - the co-conspirators - were qualified to investigate the accident.
· A person with inside information about the accident was brought into the Commission to assist the cover-up.
· All members of the Commission had particular interests that the true accident cause was not made public, which is why they participated in the cover-up.
· The accident did not take place as reported in the media.
· The underwater picture (right) with
the visor at the bow has never been explained. The
analysis of dr. Nuorteva of sonar pictures taken 30
September 1994 should be re-done in 2001. · The decision not to salvage the dead
victims was only done to prevent outside experts to
examine the wreck and to prevent identification of
the bodies. · There were serious conflicts of
interest inside the Commission.
· The underwater picture (right) with the visor at the bow has never been explained. The analysis of dr. Nuorteva of sonar pictures taken 30 September 1994 should be re-done in 2001.
· The decision not to salvage the dead victims was only done to prevent outside experts to examine the wreck and to prevent identification of the bodies.
· There were serious conflicts of interest inside the Commission.
· It is very probable that the visor was not lost 'under way' and that the statement 17 October was false.
· The video films - the only evidence that the ramp at the forward end of the superstructure had been open - do not show that the ramp was open.
· The 'Estonia' should have capsized in one minute with 2 000 tons of water on the car deck in the superstructure. The Commission stated the opposite.
· The Commission falsified the sequence of events in figure 13.2 in the Final Report (5).
· Crew negligence as cause of accident has not been investigated.
· On 17 October the Commission thought that only partial opening of the ramp in the superstructure was sufficient to sink the ship - a mistake in the cover-up.
· All information given on 17 October 1994 was pure disinformation.
· There is no evidence that the visor was found in the alleged position 1 560 meters West of the wreck.
· Many experts attached to the Commission were fully aware in November 1994 that the official cause of accident and the alleged course of events were manipulations.
· All results of the dive expedition were manipulations.
· An accident must have a proximate cause - and the Commission chose the visor locks made 1979 - fifteen years before the accident. To suit this false allegation the Commission also decided that the ramp had been fully open during the accident.
· The whole Final report must be considered a purposeful manipulation.
· The'Estonia' was not seaworthy on the Baltic with incorrect certificates.
· The life saving equipment was incorrect.
· The safety plan was incorrect.
· The watertight subdivision of the hull was incorrect.
· No life boat alarm was given.
· Olof Forssberg stopped all efforts to make any proper stability calculations.
· Olof Forssberg made all German information secret and did not include any German information in the Final Report.
· Johan Franson prevented the Swedish NMA staff to discuss the stability of the 'Estonia'.
· There is no evidence for the course and speed of the 'Estonia' prior to the accident.
· The security routines for cargo and passengers are unclear.
· The Swedish expert Bengt Schanger was paid more than SEK 4 000 000:- by the Swedish government to 'edit' the testimonies, so they suited the 'cause of accident ' of the Commission.
· The Estonian NMA accepted lifesaving equipment, which was originally used for coastal trade Sweden-Finland. That equipment assumed that persons should jump into the water and swim to the life saving equipment or ashore. Such procedures were illegal at open seas.
· There were no valid or correct safety and load-line certificates.
· The life jackets did not work correctly. They were ripped off, when persons jumped into the water.
· The evacuation plan to abandon the 'Estonia' did not work. It was not realistic.
· Johan Franson gave misleading information to the government and the Ethical Advice group.
· Swedish Port State Control made many faults never stopping the 'Estonia' already 1993.
· The Analysis group did not make any recommendations 1999 how Swedish authorities could have prevented the accident with better safety at sea from the beginning.
· Welding work on the 'Estonia' during the night of accident has never been investigated, even if it was possible and probable.
· The cause of accident could have been an explosion due to welding work on a tank with explosive atmosphere. It has not been investigated.
· The whole engine crew survived. It might have been a coincidence but should have been investigated by the Commission. Only three engine crew members were interviewed. They have given untrue testimonies.
· The media has not reported correctly about the investigation.
· The Final report (5) is a shameful falsification.
· The Swedish Board of Psychologic Defence, SPF, 1996-2001, prevented an open discussion of the accident by proposing to all authorities to ignore the public debate.
· The SPF 'fact bank' 2002 should produce the final clarifications why the 'Estonia' sank.
· The 2003 SPF pre-study of how to explain the sinking is a falsification.