The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Architect]

[DERAIL] In view of Vixen's quote, I made the mistake of dipping back in to Heiwa's website on the Estonia and his wider "theories". Holy Cow.........
In many ways what is worse is his inability to actually present a structured, reasoned argument. Instead there is a Gish Gallop of unsubstantiated assertion interspersed with Argument from Incrdulity. Madness. Pure Madness.[/DERAIL]

 

[erwinl]

[DERAIL] In view of Vixen's quote, I made the mistake of dipping back in to Heiwa's website on the Estonia and his wider "theories". Holy Cow.........
In many ways what is worse is his inability to actually present a structured, reasoned argument. Instead there is a Gish Gallop of unsubstantiated assertion interspersed with Argument from Incrdulity. Madness. Pure Madness.[/DERAIL]

I liken Heiwa’s website to a park we once visited.
It’s next to the tiny hamlet of Bomarzo, about 50 km north of Rome (Italy of course). The park is called Parco dei Mostri (park of the monsters).
It was build in the sixteenth century and it is absolutely fascinating to walk through it and look at everything. It is a very clear view into the mind of it’s owner back then and into insanity, once you really take it in. Note that photographs alone do not do it justice. It is the entirety which makes it so amazing.

I see Heiwaco, the website, as the Parco dei Mostri of Heiwa.

 

[Vixen]

Those are your own words in post #328 of this thread.
Or are they not?

Here you clearly say the complete salvage would only take a few days. To be counted from the moment the videoing was complete.

Or did you not say it would take only a few days?

"Within days" means within days of the accident. 'Should have done it within days' has a different meaning from 'in a few days'.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly what you have been told all along, the ship was subject to stresses it was not designed for as it sank. It has been on the sea bed for over 20 years and has moved.

I am surprised it is still in one piece.

I think you misunderstood. They were giving a purely descriptive narrative. They haven't analysed their results yet. They haven't stated any conclusions. Of course they will have to work out how much is due to almost 30 years under the sea and what is beyond what could have been caused by factors such as hitting the seabed and turning. Hitting the seabed doesn't cancel out the damage done at the time. Arikas stated the damage caused was 'enormous'.

 

[Vixen]

Not knowing whether to be amused or embarrassed (on behalf of the forum), I'll just state that essentially *everything* Vixen has been claiming over the past several pages of this thread is all kinds of wrong.

I'll set aside (for now, at least) all the nonsensical - and (of course) entirely unsubstantiated & scientifically-illiterate - conspiracy theories about what caused the ship to sink. Instead, I'll point out the total wrongness of Vixen's claims re rescue/recovery/salvage. This ship sank to the sea bed, to a depth of around 80m. In the Baltic Sea, whose temperature at the sea bed almost never gets above 4C, and which is renowned for inclement (and quick-changing) weather conditions and deep currents. Oh and the ship sank below a confluence of several major (and very busy) sea lanes.

As I think some have already pointed out, merely the depth of the wreck means that it's far, far beyond the scope of "regular" scuba reconnaissance or exploration. It's well into the depth zone for what's known as technical diving. I've actually done tech diving training, and it's extremely challenging, even in calm and (relatively) warm waters. It necessitates a breathing gas mixture known as tri-mix, whose main constituent is helium* - and this in itself ramps up the danger factor further still.

For this sort of project, the only way that could even conceivably have been considered would have been to have a team of saturation divers, plus a highly-specialised** - and very expensive indeed - support ship. The dive team lives on-board in a pressurised capsule breathing tri-mix constantly, meaning they only have to decompress once (at the end of the trip). They remain tethered to the support ship throughout the dives, and they'd have to have hot water jackets in their dry suits to be able to cope with the extreme chilling power of 4C sea water at the bottom.

So each diver would need to be wearing very bulky dry suits, with (vital) umbilical cords to the surface. In pitch black. And any exploration of the wreck would necessarily involve gaining entry into the interior compartments/decks (very probably requiring the cutting of holes into the hull) and each diver then having to snake through the labyrinthine interior looking for bodies etc, trying to guard against snagging their vital umbilical lines in the process. And then, presumably, somehow extricating the bodies they discovered by manoeuvring those bodies back through the labyrinth to the entry/exit hole.

All while the support ship sits in the middle of busy shipping lanes, and while bad surface weather might very well develop while the divers were at the sea bed (with potentially disastrous consequences).

In short, there are several huge reasons why human divers could never (and will never) take part in any exploration/recovery operations wrt this ship. And ROVs could never - and very probably will never - be able to perform this sort of operation.

But hey-ho. If you don't understand any of this kind of stuff (or have the good sense to at least do some proper research), then I guess anything's possible, huh?


* I'd explain why tri-mix is mandatory at these depths, but i fear it might go right over *certain* people's heads

** I think that as of right now, there are something like 20 such ships in the world. They're typically booked up several months in advance, usually by oil exploration companies or where there are major problems in deep sea well machinery which can't be fixed by ROVs. There would have been far fewer of them around at the time of the Estonia's sinking.

If you watch this video - it has an 'age warning' but contains nothing alarming - you'll see that naval operators have already been down there and cut away two square sections on the body of the ship, plus the rails have been cut away. Whilst the German film crew's incursions were reported in the news, anything done by the military/government would not have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nncXBlfMqi4&t=610s

 

[Vixen]

I'll snip the rest of your comment.... Vixens reliance on an "experts" testimony that a hole in the bow of a ship that's big enough to drive a truck through couldn't possibly be big enough to sink the ship, while a smaller hole in the side could completely discounts him as a plausible expert. But, I'm sure she will say, the bow is above the waterline. OK look at the picture of the crack in the hull. Whats that I see? Lettering! Which is indeed painted above the waterline.

Then of course there are so many parties that would have to have been in on the conspiracy theory... the Estonian government, the Swedish government, the Finish government, the outfit contracted to investigate, the fact that no one in any of those groups has raised suspicions highly suggests that its not a conspiracy. Sweden(!) was smuggling Russian weapons for some purpose... give me a break.

It is not a small hole by any means. The recent crew led by Rene Arikas found it to be 22metres long at least - and extends into an unaccessible region in the seabed - by four metres. (72 feet x 13 feet.)

There are some images taken here:

https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008142230.html

Nothing to do with 'conspiracy theory' - an accident on public transport that causes the near immediate death of 852 people including children should be trasnparent and open. The original investigation did not allow the footage to be revealed and even Arikas of this week's expedition said it was no longer available. All there is is a report which took three years to write and seems to have been written within the confines of an armchair based on the assumption - which was concluded on virtually Day One - that it 'must have sank the same way as Herald of Free Enterprise' and shoehorned to tat effect. This meant a scenario of somehow tonnes of water entering the superstructure (so the bow visor and ramp has to fit into all of this) causing it to sink over 35 minutes. However, if it had met the criteria of Herald of Free Enterprise it should have capsized and floated turtled up. If it had sank in an ordinary way, it should have taken over an hour to do so. One wonders why they didn't salvage the wreck right from the start. The shipbuilders Meyer Werft offered to do so at their own expense, as it disputes there is a design fault with the bow visor bolts, the original JAIC's findings (for how else could they explain their theory 'it was like Herald of Free Enterprise?).

 

[Vixen]

I liken Heiwa’s website to a park we once visited.
It’s next to the tiny hamlet of Bomarzo, about 50 km north of Rome (Italy of course). The park is called Parco dei Mostri (park of the monsters).
It was build in the sixteenth century and it is absolutely fascinating to walk through it and look at everything. It is a very clear view into the mind of it’s owner back then and into insanity, once you really take it in. Note that photographs alone do not do it justice. It is the entirety which makes it so amazing.

I see Heiwaco, the website, as the Parco dei Mostri of Heiwa.

There are two types of people in the world: the majority who only believe something when they see it in a school text book (even if, like my old physics textbook, it is years out of date and simply wrong/incomplete on various 'laws', or like my history lessons, only telling of kings and queens and the British Empire, and maybe a small bit about Bismarck and the Black Hole of Calcutta), and then there are those who research the matter a bit further and understand the fuller picture, the people behind the ideas and how they arrived at their theories/conclusion. For example, how Alexander Fleming stumbled on penicillin or how mathematicians developed their proofs.

Anders Bjorkman's writing style might not be to your taste, with exclamation marks and heavily laden with sarcasm, but aside from that, he mostly writes sense. He is a naval architect and shipping surveyor, after all.

Just calling someone a 'nutcase' doesn't mean their theories are wrong. Isaac Newton seems to have been severely autistic, a complete loner, with no friends that anybody knew about.

 

[RolandRat]

Edgar Mitchell has a degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, was a United States Navy officer and aviator, test pilot, aeronautical engineer and astronaut. He claims we have been visited by aliens thousands of times and the US government have alien bodies they are studying. He is a nutcase too.

Being qualified doesn't make you immune from being a fruit loop.

 

[Vixen]

Edgar Mitchell has a degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, was a United States Navy officer and aviator, test pilot, aeronautical engineer and astronaut. He claims we have been visited by aliens thousands of times and the US government have alien bodies they are studying. He is a nutcase too.

Being qualified doesn't make you immune from being a fruit loop.

What is important is the content of their work. If you approach something objectively and are well-educated you can generally spot BS a mile off.

Take Sara Hedrenius, a survivor of the M/S Estonia who says she witnessed military vehicles boarding the vessel, as did several other witnesses. None of the survivors' eye witness accounts were taken into consideration by the original JAIC. Why not? These are upright respectable citizens with zero motive to lie. They are people with first hand accounts of what happened. If numerous passengers who were on the ship heard bangs, who are the JAIC to completely ignore it?

The JAIC only considered the accounts of the crew. However, think about it. If anyone is motivated to lie, or embellish events to paint themselves in a favourable light, it would be the crew, because of course, it is in human nature not to want to be seen in a bad light or lacking in duty or due diligence. One crew member whose account was taken into consideration subsequently received nine years jail for drug smuggling.

IOW suppose in an imaginary scenario there was an inside job - as is often the case in smuggling (cf Brinks Mat) - then it is likely some - one or more - members of the crew would facilitate it. All I am saying is that a passenger as an independent witness should also have been taken seriously by the JAIC as to what they saw and witnessed.

The fact there are nutcases in the world and fruit loops doesn't change the sequence of events. The sinking of the M/S Estonia is a factual incident that did happen, unless you are claiming it is tantamount to claiming to 'seeing aliens'.

It's your prerogative to shrug your shoulders when a disaster happens and it is the prerogative of the families of the dead and the survivors - who now suffer PTSD's - to understand what happened. To write them off as loonies is a sadly apathetic attitude IMV.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm done with this thread
It should be in conspiracy.

 

[Architect]

There are two types of people in the world: the majority who only believe something when they see it in a school text book (even if, like my old physics textbook, it is years out of date and simply wrong/incomplete on various 'laws', or like my history lessons, only telling of kings and queens and the British Empire, and maybe a small bit about Bismarck and the Black Hole of Calcutta), and then there are those who research the matter a bit further and understand the fuller picture, the people behind the ideas and how they arrived at their theories/conclusion. For example, how Alexander Fleming stumbled on penicillin or how mathematicians developed their proofs.

Anders Bjorkman's writing style might not be to your taste, with exclamation marks and heavily laden with sarcasm, but aside from that, he mostly writes sense. He is a naval architect and shipping surveyor, after all.

Just calling someone a 'nutcase' doesn't mean their theories are wrong. Isaac Newton seems to have been severely autistic, a complete loner, with no friends that anybody knew about.

The problem with Anders Bjorkman's writing is not his style. I am accredited in court as an expert witness and am well able to see beyond the method of delivery. Rather, it is his failure to produce structured and logical arguments which stand up to scrutiny.

As an example, let's look at this section of his text:

Personally I have concluded that the ship was sunk by sabotage using explosives, i.e. hull leakages from inside/out caused by bombs. Estonian extremists hating Russia smuggled and sold Russian military equipment and other Estonian extremists wanted a share of the profit ... and they didn't agree. The tragedy is a 100% Estonian affair that could have been avoided by paying a small ransom! An answer is expected 2021/2 or never ... . Probably never! Estonia has a problem with its history after 1917 that is better forgotten.

Now, setting to one side the hyperbole, what we need to see to determine the reasonableness of this proposition is:

- Evidence of explosives
- Detailed commentary on deformation patterns
- Evidence of Russian military equipment.

For the avoidance of doubt, a single witness saying he or she may have seen vehicles of a type associated with military use is not considered to be conclusive evidence. The principle of corroboration applies.

Heiwa is quite clear, however, that hull inspection information is not available sufficient to demonstrate this:

It is fairly easy to inspect the hull of a wreck at 70 meters depth. Underwater surveys of floating, upright ships (UWILDs to avoid dry docking) and offshore installations are routine since many years. I have done many. The only difference is the depth and that the wreck may be upside down at an angle at the bottom of the sea. In this case the complete hull is easily accessible! There is no current and visibility is good. The wreck has in fact already been filmed several times.

In either case the divers inspect all the sections of the hull structure for external damage by grounding, ice damage, collisions, cracks, etc. In the Estonia case the objective is to find hull damages due to explosives (inside/out) or collision from outside/in. The deck house does not need inspection. The hull sections must be marked for easy identification by buoys and lines that will also be used by the diver moving up/down.

It becomes apparent, on reading through the Heiwa site, that the comments on the failure of the bow visor are based on personal incredulity:

[SIZE=+1]Bow visors high above water do not fall off ferries without being noticed. The waves hitting against the bow visor in severe weather is normally just pushed aside by the flare of the visor. If the waves are big and the angle small and there are impacts, they produce high noise, sudden pressures and deformations that vibrate the structure that are heard and felt - and you slow down. Therefore it was impossible that the bow visor just fell off the M/S Estonia September 1994! [/SIZE]

Again, to address the validty of this claim we would need to know:

- Whether deck staff were in the car deck during sailing and would have seen the failure.
- Whether the electronic warning systems would detect this kind of failure.
- Whether there was a suitable video system

The problem, as before, is that Anders fails to provide this information in any sort of reasoned narrative. It is, as I said before, a Gish Gallop.

What concerns me is that you quick clearly have changed position and found upon Anders as the cornerstone of your concerns around the sinking. It may be that there is more to be found but at present there is simply insufficient evidence to support his wild theories. They do not merit the weight you apparently place upon them.

On balance I have to agree with Captain Swoop: this now ought to be in the conspiracy section.

 

[Vixen]

The problem with Anders Bjorkman's writing is not his style. I am accredited in court as an expert witness and am well able to see beyond the method of delivery. Rather, it is his failure to produce structured and logical arguments which stand up to scrutiny.

As an example, let's look at this section of his text:

Personally I have concluded that the ship was sunk by sabotage using explosives, i.e. hull leakages from inside/out caused by bombs. Estonian extremists hating Russia smuggled and sold Russian military equipment and other Estonian extremists wanted a share of the profit ... and they didn't agree. The tragedy is a 100% Estonian affair that could have been avoided by paying a small ransom! An answer is expected 2021/2 or never ... . Probably never! Estonia has a problem with its history after 1917 that is better forgotten.

Now, setting to one side the hyperbole, what we need to see to determine the reasonableness of this proposition is:

- Evidence of explosives
- Detailed commentary on deformation patterns
- Evidence of Russian military equipment.

For the avoidance of doubt, a single witness sayign he or she may have seen vehicles of a type associated with military use is not considered to be conclusive evidence. The principal of corroboration applies.

Heiwa is quite clear, however, that hull inspection information is not avaivailable sufficient to demonstrate this:

It is fairly easy to inspect the hull of a wreck at 70 meters depth. Underwater surveys of floating, upright ships (UWILDs to avoid dry docking) and offshore installations are routine since many years. I have done many. The only difference is the depth and that the wreck may be upside down at an angle at the bottom of the sea. In this case the complete hull is easily accessible! There is no current and visibility is good. The wreck has in fact already been filmed several times.

In either case the divers inspect all the sections of the hull structure for external damage by grounding, ice damage, collisions, cracks, etc. In the Estonia case the objective is to find hull damages due to explosives (inside/out) or collision from outside/in. The deck house does not need inspection. The hull sections must be marked for easy identification by buoys and lines that will also be used by the diver moving up/down.

It becomes apparent, on reading through the Heiwa site, that the comments on the failure of the bow visor are based on personal incredulity:

[SIZE=+1]Bow visors high above water do not fall off ferries without being noticed. The waves hitting against the bow visor in severe weather is normally just pushed aside by the flare of the visor. If the waves are big and the angle small and there are impacts, they produce high noise, sudden pressures and deformations that vibrate the structure that are heard and felt - and you slow down. Therefore it was impossible that the bow visor just fell off the M/S Estonia September 1994! [/SIZE]

Again, to address the validty of this claim we would need to know:

- Whether deck staff were in the car deck during sailing and would have seen the failure.
- Whether the electronic warning systems would detect this kind of failure.
- Whether there was a suitable video system

The problem, as before, is that Anders fails to provide this information in any sort of reasoned narrative. It is, as I said before, a Gish Gallop.

What concerns me is that you quick clearly have changed position and found upon Anders as the cornerstone of your concerns around the sinking. It may be that there is more to be found but at present there is simply insufficient evidence to support his wild theories. They do not merit the weight you apparently place upon them.

On balance I have to agree with Captain Swoop: this now ought to be in the conspiracy section.

He is just one person giving his opinion, as are you. So you are saying the Swedish-Estonian-Finnish governments are 'conspiracy theorists' for reinvestigating the matter? As I said, the Swedish government confirmed in the Rikstag - albeit TEN YEARS LATER - it did indeed convey ex-SOVIET armaments ON AN ESTONIAN PASSENGER FERRY. That is no 'theory' that is a fact.

Like yourself, I am perfectly able to assess the value of any one person's opinion. I have to say that whilst being hugely resistant to Anders Bjorkmann, nonetheless, having looked into the matter further from all angles, I found myself nodding my head with most of what he has to say, as a naval/shipping expert. It doesn't necessarily mean I agree with him (the Swedish navy removed the bow visor...hmmmmmmmm...really...?). I still maintain an objective position.

It's no good people saying 'Sweden never smuggled out a foreign power's armaments on an Estonian ferry' (joint owned by the Swedish government and a private Estonian firm) when the fact records that it did, as minuted in the Swedish version of Hansards.

The shipbuilder and designer, Meyer-Werft also stand by their insistence that there was no design fault with the bow visor or its bolts. A professor of maritime physics (the Norwegian, Jørgen Amdahl) and the former state prosecutor for Estonia, are not people idly discussing 'ideas' such as 'do aliens exist and have thy ever visited earth', they are talking concrete facts, as determined by hard tangible evidence. So what was the problem in bringing the bow visor bolts up to the surface if they are at the heart of the fault?

 

[Steve]

He is just one person giving his opinion, as are you. So you are saying the Swedish-Estonian-Finnish governments are 'conspiracy theorists' for reinvestigating the matter?

No, Architect did not say that. You inserted this ridiculous appendage to what he actually wrote.

As I said, the Swedish government confirmed in the Rikstag - albeit TEN YEARS LATER - it did indeed convey ex-SOVIET armaments ON AN ESTONIAN PASSENGER FERRY. That is no 'theory' that is a fact.

Is there evidence that this particular ferry conveyed ex-Soviet armaments on the day it sank?

Like yourself, I am perfectly able to assess the value of any one person's opinion. I have to say that whilst being hugely resistant to Anders Bjorkmann, having looked into the matter further from all angles, I found myself nodding my head with most of what he has to say, as a naval/shipping expert - it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with him (the Swedish navy removed the bow visor...hmmmmmmmm...really...?). I still maintain an objective position.

Your capability to assess the value of an opinion is notably limited as evidenced in the many incorrect things you have posted in this thread. Opinions not supported by evidence have no value.

It's no good people saying 'Sweden never smuggled out a foreign power's armaments on an Estonian ferry' (joint owned by the Swedish government and a private Estonian firm) when the fact records that it did.

Evidence that anyone here has said this? And why the word "smuggled"?

The shipbuilder and designer, Meyer-Werft also stand by their insistence that there was no design fault with the bow visor or its bolts.

Seems quite reasonable that they would insist that. An independent design review would confirm their opinion. Did the construction conform exactly to the design specifications in materials and workmanship? Did Meyer-Werft perform sufficient detailed inspections during construction to determine that their design was actually followed?

A professor of maritime physics (the Norwegian Amdahl) and the former state prosecutor for Estonia are not people idly discussing 'ideas' such as 'do aliens exist and have thy ever visited earth', they are talking concrete facts as determined by hard tangible evidence. So what was the problem bring the bow visor bolts up to the surface if they are at the heart of the fault?

Hyperbole aside, this actually does not appear to be the case.

 

[Vixen]

No, Architect did not say that. You inserted this ridiculous appendage to what he actually wrote.



Is there evidence that this particular ferry conveyed ex-Soviet armaments on the day it sank?



Your capability to assess the value of an opinion is notably limited as evidenced in the many incorrect things you have posted in this thread. Opinions not supported by evidence have no value.



Evidence that anyone here has said this? And why the word "smuggled"?



Seems quite reasonable that they would insist that. An independent design review would confirm their opinion. Did the construction conform exactly to the design specifications in materials and workmanship? Did Meyer-Werft perform sufficient detailed inspections during construction to determine that their design was actually followed?



Hyperbole aside, this actually does not appear to be the case.

Steve, sorry but that is the same sort of argument that runs, 'Was that German guy actually in control of the cockpit when he decided to make it crash? Where is the proof he was responsible for bringing the plane down?'

'It says so in the newspaper.'

'Ah that's all right then. Until it is in the newspaper I refuse to believe that this lone German guy deliberately brought down this aircraft, killing all on board including a party of 16-year-old schoolgirls'.

Wait until the new report comes out. Or, people who are really indignant it is being revisited, can always drop a line to the Swedish, Finnish and Estonian governments in protest.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Breaking news: politicians respond to public outcry with futile overtures, film at 11.

 

[theprestige]

He is just one person giving his opinion, as are you. So you are saying the Swedish-Estonian-Finnish governments are 'conspiracy theorists' for reinvestigating the matter?

He may not be, but I sure am. So far I've seen no reason to believe this is anything other than politicians pandering to conspiracy theories. I find your blind faith in governments disturbing.

 

[Steve]

Steve, sorry but that is the same sort of argument that runs, 'Was that German guy actually in control of the cockpit when he decided to make it crash? Where is the proof he was responsible for bringing the plane down?'

'It says so in the newspaper.'

'Ah that's all right then. Until it is in the newspaper I refuse to believe that this lone German guy deliberately brought down this aircraft, killing all on board including a party of 16-year-old schoolgirls'.

Wait until the new report comes out. Or, people who are really indignant it is being revisited, can always drop a line to the Swedish, Finnish and Estonian governments in protest.

Why did you quote me and then type a lot of drivel completely disconnected from the quote?

You have had ample opportunity here to make a coherent case related to your thinking on the topic. A case that does not include complete non sequiturs in response to the things you quote. I really am starting to think such a case will not be forthcoming.

I have no problem waiting for a report that will in all likelihood tell us the same things we already know. A report that will contain no evidence of a conspiracy to suppress evidence. Certainly no such evidence has been provided in the JAQ'ing in this thread.

 

[Vixen]

No, Architect did not say that. You inserted this ridiculous appendage to what he actually wrote.



Is there evidence that this particular ferry conveyed ex-Soviet armaments on the day it sank?



Your capability to assess the value of an opinion is notably limited as evidenced in the many incorrect things you have posted in this thread. Opinions not supported by evidence have no value.



Evidence that anyone here has said this? And why the word "smuggled"?



Seems quite reasonable that they would insist that. An independent design review would confirm their opinion. Did the construction conform exactly to the design specifications in materials and workmanship? Did Meyer-Werft perform sufficient detailed inspections during construction to determine that their design was actually followed?



Hyperbole aside, this actually does not appear to be the case.

If I were to come to your country as a foreigner and sneak out your country's top secret defence plans and strategies, you would surely call it 'espionage'.

 

[Vixen]

Why did you quote me and then type a lot of drivel completely disconnected from the quote?

You have had ample opportunity here to make a coherent case related to your thinking on the topic. A case that does not include complete non sequiturs in response to the things you quote. I really am starting to think such a case will not be forthcoming.

I have no problem waiting for a report that will in all likelihood tell us the same things we already know. A report that will contain no evidence of a conspiracy to suppress evidence. Certainly no such evidence has been provided in the JAQ'ing in this thread.

I struggle to understand why people are so dead set against the reinvestigation. Do people think the lives of >852 people don't matter? Passenger lives matter! Do you think the families of the victims should be left without compensation for the sudden unexpected death of their loved ones, who were in no way at fault for their fate? Don't you think any public inquiry into such an accident should be transparent and open? So that anyone who was involved in the accident should be allowed to be heard as a witness and not ignored/suppressed?

Your comment, "I have no problem waiting for a report that will in all likelihood tell us the same things we already know." sounds sadly cynical and with the jaundiced view that we can expect no more from our governments, yet when the Russians or the Chinese do it, it's because they control the media and censor / rewrite stuff to patronise their own people. Somehow, you set the state above the people but fail to explain why you believe this is the correct position in an advanced western democracy.

I get that the apathetic majority couldn't care less about what happened and whether the bolts fell off, or not. However, that shouldn't mean the apathetic should slap down a much needed re-investigation just because 'What's it got to do with me? It's all fine with me. [Even though I know little about it.]'

 

[Vixen]

An opinion in yesterday's 'Hufvudstadtbladet' HBL

Already someone is criticising the new investigation:

Are only Estonian divers handling Estonia? What would it be like to just publish the material and then let the public think for themselves?

An Estonian icebreaker and a Swedish research vessel have now spent just over a week above m / s Estonia, and all indications are that they will repeat the mistakes from the investigation in 2007. The responsible investigators do not seem to have understood the starting point, that there is a large societal suspicion of the authorities' work and that one should be sensitive, humble and above all open. Instead, you follow the usual bureaucratic principles.

The Estonian Accident Investigation Board has a short message on its website that new investigations have been launched. The Finnish Central has a similar and has been very careful to point out in the media that it is the "flag state" Estonia that leads the work, and that Finland has by no means a significant role in the work (although we have probably only helped a little). The Swedish Accident Investigation Board describes the investigation process on its website as follows: Initiated investigation - fact-finding - accident meeting - analysis phase - external referral - final report. So they did last time too; first investigated internally and then cast a piece of final report - which has been hewn for a quarter of a century.

Common to all authorities: No material is published, for example pictures. On the Swedish Commission's website there is a nice little blog, where they say a little bland yours and mine about today's work, but of course no substance comes into question.

On July 12, it was widely reported, including in HBL, that two new holes have been found in Estonia. On the other hand, it already became known last winter that the documentary filmmaker Henrik Evertsson and his entourage had found another hole a few meters long (Sjöfartstidningen 21.10 2020) in addition to the sensational vertical hole. Evertsson had shown this to the authorities before the film came out. He was later criticized for arbitrarily, on behalf of society, judging the other hole as irrelevant and thus not to be shown on television. So now there were two more holes. So are there four holes on Estonia's starboard side, or is the "new" hot news in fact partly the old news from last winter? In support of this, it has now emerged (news.err.ee 12.7) that the Swedish Accident Investigation Board already knew about these two "

After day two, the head of the Estonian accident investigation, Rene Arikas, announced that everything is going well (news.err.ee 12.7), among other things the bow is seen excellently and nothing surprising has been found there. A few days later (havkom.se day 6) comes the surprise of the times; the ramp (in the shoulder) is gone! You look straight into the hold! This after the Estonians had put in a third ship (DN 14.7)] and started the work that was not to be done until next year, which the Swedes again seem to have protested against.

On July 15, Arikas (news.err.ee) announces that both propellers and rudders are undamaged, this on the basis of sonar and ROV. This is a bold statement, because if the thick, hard metal in a propeller blade collides with, for example, the thin sheet metal in a bow visor, it is a question of shredding metal for the propeller part (small deformation), while it is a question of bending sheet metal for the other party's part (large deformation). It is not visible on a hammer either that you have bolted sheet metal. Propellers and rudders must be inspected manually, by divers, but it is already announced that no damage can be found there.

What is the problem? Are only Estonian divers handling Estonia? What would it be like to just publish the material and then let the public think for themselves? For the problem is, if it did not become clear already, that society has very, very difficult to swallow completely filtered, completely sorted and completely interpreted information when it comes to m / s Estonia.

There had been only one chance to do it right, with the help of systematics and openness. Should you miss that chance right away?

Tomas Gustafsson, engineer and computer programmer, Espoo
https://www.hbl.fi/artikel/estonia-utredningen-vacker-inte-fortroende/