See, Vixen: once again, you misunderstand and misrepresent the views of the majority of contributors to this thread. And I think it's pretty clear that the reason you do this is because it self-servingly shores up your own views - in other words, if you can (mis)characterise others' views as being motivated by improper reasoning or misplaced emotion, it gives you more comfort that your own contrary views are reasonable, well-founded and valid. Well: that categorically is not the case, I'm afraid.
The truth of the matter is this: for those of us who hold the view that the Estonia sank because its bow opening failed catastrophically (owing to poor design/maintenance and cumulative fatigue culminating in sequential failure of the locks and hinges of the bow visor), which resulted in huge volumes/mass of water ingress into the open vehicle deck (and from there, via gravity and internal openings, deeper down into the hull), causing such instability and loss of buoyancy as to result in capsize and sinking....
....we reach that conclusion not because of anything to do with any kind of conscious or subconscious refusal to believe that your suggested alternative is too heinous to consider. Nor because we've been lulled into a false conclusion by certain sections of the media. Nor, indeed, because we have any reason whatsoever to "want" to believe in the "bow visor" explanation or to disbelieve your whackjob "submarines and explosives" explanation.
No: we reach that conclusion because 1) that's where the evidence leads us; 2) the evidence in no way supports any other conclusion; 3) the conclusion is sound and robust in terms of the underlying physics; and 4) the logistical improbability of any kind of conspiracy-based explanation is beyond the realms of reasonable human experience.
