How did the M/S Estonia heel 1994? No answers 2009 ... and nobody knows 2016!
Anders Björkman explains:


Home

About us

Services

Contact info

News

Order books

Assbook


How did the M/S Estonia heel at the incident 1994?

"It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game."

H. Michael Sweeney

There were 2009 four different, official versions according the Estonian government special commission 16 February 2009 how the Estonia heeled at the incident on 28 September 1994 - see figure below. The Estonian government link does not work any longer so you cannot read the report yourself - maybe you should look here instead?

According JAIC (the official report 1998) the heel started to develop at 01.14 hrs and was 40° at 01.23 hrs, 60° at 01.30 hrs and 180° (upside down) around 01.47 hrs, which means the heel increased about 5°/min . At 01.52 hrs the Estonia sank, i.e. the bow disappeared.

How the Estonia sank and how the buoyancy was lost, when floating upside down, the JAIC could not explain 1998. It was thus decided to explain the sinking.

The Swedish government decided 2006 that the sinking, loss of buoyancy, should be scientifically explained based the JAIC time table and data by two groups of experts: SSPA/Chalmers/Strathclyde/MARIN (S3) and HSVA (S6) were 2007 appointed to do the job.

SSPA (S3) and HSVA (S6) informed in May 2008 that heeling incident started earlier (!), at about 01.05 hrs, and that, apart from JAIC being wrong with the time, quickly - two, three minutes (!) later - the angle of heel was 40°, due to large amounts of water inside the superstructure loaded through the open bow ramp. Then the Estonia floated on the deck house (sic), so that heel was almost constant for 20 minutes (S3) or much less (S6). The deck house was flooded through some broken windows and after a certain time, at 01.15 (S6) or 01.30 (S3) hrs, the Estonia floated and drifted upside down to sink at 01.52 hrs!

According JAIC the Estonia did not float on the deck house. How the upside down floating vessel sank was not explained, except that the buoyancy disappeared somewhere - air in the hull was compressed!

SSPA/Chalmers have also done model tests and computer simulations; heel 40° develops quickly and after 20 minutes, the time to flood the deck house (!), the model floats upside down to sink after another 18-20 minutes, when air inside the model is let out through hidden valves in the bottom. These model tests evidently are faked. Open a valve in the bottom to sink the ship is ... not scientific!

90° heel (port side is horizontal) occurs at four different times according above; at 01.13 hrs (S6), 01.24 hrs (S3), 01.30 hrs (SSPA model test) and 01.37 hrs (JAIC). It is at this time two survivors (!!), that the Estonian commission have met, walk on the port superstructure side that is horizontal, high above water, up to the bow ... and climb down on the closed bow ramp as per below figure (S3)! And then they climb up again ... to jump into the water to swim to a raft floating by. They say that the visor was missing! Can we trust these survivors?

The four, different sequences do not tally with information about heel angle that the Estonia advices in its 'Mayday' emergency call between 01.23 och 01.30 hrs. Then angle of heel is only 20-30°.

No ship can float like this! According Strathclyde University it can in faked, criminal animations! Antti Arak and Ain-Alar Juhanson are the two persons on the bow of M/S Estonia.

They say they climbed down on a closed ramp, while the visor was not there!


Nor do they tally with the survivors statements; a majority of survivors suggests that sudden loss of stability with heel >30° occurred already at 01.02 hrs, and that the heel then was reduced, so that ill organized evacuation from inner decks nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to open deck no. 7 port was possible during 10-15 minutes. According all international experience evacuation is only possible, when angle of heel is <18°! A majority of survivors jumped into the sea at 01.30 hrs, when the ferry was on the side, heel 90°, and states that the ferry disappeared, sank, soon after.

Heiwa Co considers the statements of the survivors and the info of the Mayday as reliable.

It is the reason why Heiwa Co considers that the sudden loss of stability and heeling was caused by hull leakage below waterline (starboard side), that the heeling was reduced temporarily, when more water entered the hull and that the vessel simply sank due to this leakage and flooding associated hull compartments. Water that entered also flooded other compartments through open doors in the watertight bulkheads. Bilge pumps were started but could not save the vessel. The visor had nothing to do with the incident!

Organizations of relatives and survivors were planning a seminary at Stockholm at the memorial ceremony on 28 September 2009; 15 years after the incident. It was suggested that further investigation of the Estonia accident should be done to improve future safety at sea. The proposal was ignored.

So 2016 we still don't know when Estonia lost its stability, why it lost its stability and how Estonia sank 28 September 1994. The only thing we know is that water in the superstructure makes Estonia and any ship capsize to float upside down. Two groups of experts SSPA/Chalmers/Strathclyde/MARIN (S3) and HSVA (S6) have confirmed it. And that after floating upside down ... the ship sank! But how? Nobody knows 2016!

Maybe the ship never floated upside down? And just sank due to hull leakage. But the visor? Visor. It never fell off. Please do create conspiracy theories that visors fall off and ships sink.

 

Heiwa Co start page

Heiwa Co English Estonia page

Heiwa Co Swedish Estoniasida