The M/S Estonia Accident investigation
The biggest Fraud in Maritime History
The Visor was removed from the Wreck of the 'Estonia' under Water
explained by Anders Björkman, M.Sc

Home

About us

Services

Contact info

News

Order books

Assbook


'The vessel was on the starboard side, i.e. the heel was about 90°, at about 01.30 hours (several witnesses) and continued to heel to starboard until she was, probably at about 01.40 hours, completely upside down with the stern deep down and the bow rising higher and higher. It has to be assumed that the visor fell off by gravity once the vessel had turned far enough, probably to 130°/140°, when the forepeak deck sticking in the visor bottom and also the bow ramp did not support the visor anymore. It has to be assumed that the foundation of the fully extended starboard actuator broke when becoming exposed to the full weight of the visor.'

UPDATE to the INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE CAPSIZING ON 28 SEPTEMBER 1994 IN THE BALTIC SEA OF THE RO-RO PASSENGER VESSEL MV E S T O N I A by the German 'Group of Experts' dated May 2000 and available in the Internet under www.estoniaferrydisaster.net since that time. THIS UPDATE COVERS THE TIME FROM JUNE 2000 - DECEMBER 2006

 

The M/S "Estonia" sank in the Baltic on 28 September 1994 under mysterious circumstances. At least 852 persons died. The ferry had frequently carried ex USSR military material from Tallinn to Stockholm, some of it on behalf of the Swedish Armed Forces. Immediately, without any evidence, the authorities stated that the bow visor had caused the accident. However it seems that the visor had nothing to do with the accident but was simply removed from the wreck under water by the Swedish Armed Forces after the accident - so you could blame the accident on the visor. It explains all lies and official false information about the sinking presented 1994-2005. To support the official lies many surviving Estonian crewmembers were kidnapped by the authorities later on the day of the event. Other crewmembers were forced to lie about what happened. All information was then falsified to support the official story.

Many persons interested in the 'Estonia' sinking 1994 wonder why Heiwa Co suggests that the visor fitted to the superstructure was removed under water after the sinking. Secret Swedish divings to the wreck took place a few days after the accident and a few days later the visor was removed! This page explains how then the investigation was manipulated.

The JAIC alleges, e.g.

that the visor locks and hinges in the superstructure of the 'Estonia were broken due to ship motions and wave forces, when the ship was doing 14-15 knots, and

that the then lose visor ripped open the bow ramp, and

that the visor sank to the bottom, and

that water allegedly entered the superstructure of the ship, which therefore listed at 01.15 hrs, and

that the ship turned 180° back towards Tallinn, and

that the ship sank about 35 minutes later 1 560 meters East of the visor after 01.50 hrs, when four crewmembers in the water observed

that the visor was missing.

 

Heiwa Co has already concluded that the above alleged sequence of events of the sinking is false.

Heiwa Co now concludes, based of the fact that the Commission lied about the sinking, that the visor was attached to the 'Estonia' superstructure, when she sank and that the visor was removed under water after the accident using explosives and pulling the visor arms from the deck hinges.

The evidence and the facts of this conclusion of Heiwa Co, that the visor was attached to the superstructure, when the ship sank and was later removed under water, are shown in the book Disaster Investigation but a summary for easy reference of 21 events is given below:

No.

JAIC allegation

Comments and references

1.

The visor Atlantic lock were broken by a wave impact on the superstructure (at 00.55 hrs heard by Linde).

Not proven - the Atlantic lock was probably damaged before the accident and not in use - 3.7.

2.

The visor side locks were broken by another wave impact (at 01.05 hrs).

Not proven - 3.8. Probably damaged later.

3.

The visor lifting hydraulics were broken by a further wave impact (unknown time).

Not proven - 3.9. Probably damaged later.

4.

The visor hinges were broken by wave loads and ship/visor motions. The visor became lose. Ten minutes of metallic noise followed.

Not proven or described - 3.9. Starboard hinge probably broken under water. Nobody heard the 55 tons heavy visor being lose! Wave loads acting aft and upwards cannot pull a visor hinge apart forward.

5.

The visor hinge arm lugs were cutting open the upper deck of the superstructure.

Not proven - 3.10. There are no scrape marks on the lugs or on the underside of the visor arms.

6.

 

The visor hydraulic pistons were cutting open the front bulkhead of the superstructure.

Not proven - 3.10. The very big starboard front bulkhead damages cannot have been caused by the piston - rather by explosives - probably below water - and are not even mentioned by the JAIC.

7.

The ramp was closed and locked before the accident, so that no water could enter the superstructure. 

Not proven - the ramp locks are undamaged, 3.10 - and the Gemans suggest that the ramp could not be locked (it was twisted) in port and that it was secured by ropes - 3.17 - that could not be torn apart. The ramp was never open. Attempts have been made to open the ramp under water. The visor (55 tons) could not jump over a closed ramp.

8.

The visor pulled open the ramp. Two visor locking hooks broken and four side locks ripped apart.

Not possible, not proven - 3.10. Neither hooks nor locks seem damaged.

9.

The ship was doing 14-15 knots.

Not proven. The radar plot of the ship has disappeared.

10.

The visor sank to the bottom.

Not proven - 3.11. The position of the visor 1 560 meters West of the wreck cannot be correct and is not proven.

11.

Water entered the superstructure (car deck).

Not proven - would have caused immediate capsize - 1.9.

12.

The ship listed at 01.15 hrs.

Survivors say it was at 01.02 hrs and that the ship uprighted after the list - 2.1.

13.

The ship turned 180°.

Not proven - no evidence exists - 1.9.

14.

The ship sank 1 560 meters East of the visor.

Not physically possible - 1.9 and a lie! The plot 'proving' the statement is a falsification.

15.

 

Crew members saw visor missing, when the ship sank.

The same crew members lied about their escapes from the ship - 1.48 - and cannot be trusted. They also testified that the ramp was closed at 01.30 hrs, when they were in the water.

.

Observations and facts of Heiwa Co

.

16.

The visor was at the wreck on sonar pictures on 30 September. The wreck was probably visited by Swedish divers the same day.

1.4. Sonar pictures are not explained by the Commission. The Swedish divers could probably access the superstructure via the open starboard pilot door - 1.16.

17.

The visor was filmed at the wreck on 2 and 9 October.

1.14. From the video films of 2 October it is clear that the ROV-camera made a seven minutes trip to what is assumed to have been the visor (hanging on the starboard side), but the sequence has been edited away from the publicly available copy.

18.

The finding and position of the visor on 18 October are not proven.

1.14. No logbook extract from the finding ship is available. The visor position is false.

19.

The position of salvage of the visor mid-November is not proven.

1.14. The salvage operation was secret and took probably place at the wreck.

20.

The official plot of the sequence of accident between the loss of the visor and the wreck position is a falsification.

1.9. The plot is in fact based on the movements of an undamaged ship with some arbitrary and false information added - angles of list at various times, etc.

21.

Every essential fact of the JAIC is false

Read Disaster Investigation!


The best evidence that the visor was never ripped off the ship, when it was underway, is evidently the visor itself.

Just look at the scrape marks (there are none) below the visor hinge arms, on the visor lifting lugs below the arms and inside the visor housing and it is clear that no marks on the visor indicate that it fell off as alleged by the JAIC. There are also damages (rounded indents) on the visor that must have been caused by explosives (applied some distance away).

Had the visor fallen off and ripped open the ramp as alleged by the JAIC (when the ferry was under way to Stockholm), the vessel would have capsized after one minute. The JAIC falsified all stability calculations to this effect. The simple conclusion is that the visor was thus attached to the ship, when it sank.

The visor was probably lose and fell off sideways over the ramp, when the ship had >110 degrees starboard list ,when it sank. The visor then hanged on to the superstructure by help of the starboard hinge and lifting hydraulics. To support the false suggestion that the visor had fallen off before the accident, the JAIC simply arranged that the visor was removed from the wreck under water. A false position of the wreck was announced and marked by a blue buoy to keep curious parties away.

The Swedish and Finnish divers doing that job apparently used explosives to remove the visor from the superstructure and caused various damages to the wreck and left one unexploded explosive device on the port side of the ramp, where it was filmed on 9 October 1994. When these damages could not be hidden on the underwater films taken of the wreck, rumours were spread that these damages had been caused before the accident in an attempt to stop the ship. Evidently by blowing off the visor under way you would not have sunk the ship. The visor was just a 'decoration' at the forward end of the superstructure. The weather tightness of the superstructure was ensured by the ramp, which was never open.

To support the false allegation that the visor caused the accident the Commission then spread the false information that roro-passenger ferries with intact underwater hull sink (sic) due to free water loaded in the superstructure on the large open roro deck.

All information about intact and damage stability of roro-passenger ferries was shamefully falsified. The standard procedure was using an 'expert', e.g. Mr Hans Wermelin stating that roro-passenger ships were inherently unsafe mixing them up with roro-cargo ships. Mr Wermelin was later paid handsomely writing chapter 10 in the Final report.

That a roro-passenger ferry has a substantial freeboard and reserve buoyancy inside a subdivided hull was not mentioned. Instead it was suggested that roro-passenger ships were built like roro-cargo ships, which have minimum freeboard and no reserve buoyancy or subdivision in the hull at all. And the International Maritime Organization agreed silently.

Both the official Commission and the German Group of experts used the same Finnish 'stability' expert Veli-Matti Junnila of Ship Consulting Ltd. to provide false stability calculations - e.g. 3.12.

The 'Estonia' never sank due to the visor - she simply sank due to normal leakage of the hull below the waterline. The ship was simply unseaworthy without correct lifesaving equipment and with watertight doors that could not be closed, etc. And this the JAIC and the Swedish Maritime Administration decided to cover up by blaming the accident on the visor (and the German shipyard)!

In order to blame the accident on the visor it simply had to be removed from the wreck under water.

The visor could not and had not fallen off the ferry under way. It was a lye from day one convincingly presented to the public by the media. However, it was not easy to write an investigation report based on that lye, so every essential fact in the Final report had to be falsified too. The three governments of Estonia, Finland and Sweden cooperated nicely with this dirty job.

It is an unprecedented scandal in the history of marine accident investigations. Why did the Commission lye and write a totally false Final report for more than three years? How could the International Maritime Organization believe it? And it is very sad that serious mariners and naval architects have not protested during seven years to have the matter corrected. 

Back to 'Disaster Investigation'
Back to 'Lies and Truths about the M/V Estonia accident'
Back to Heiwa Co home page
To more info in English about the Estonia investigation