If we assume a fantastical conspiracy theory actually happened then we can change the real numbers to make them look a bit more suspicious and support our conspiracy theory.
Circular argument is circular.
However if you wish us to regard it as suspicious that ship's crew disproportionately survived (even excluding the fantasy nine) are you now suggesting the whole crew were 'in on it'?
Are you saying the whole ship's company decided to sink themselves at night in a storm to get revenge on people transporting pinched black market Soviet electronic parts in a Volvo estate car who happened to use their ferry for part of the journey?
No, I was simply refuting a poster who scoffed at the idea that sabotage, if that was what it was, could have been an inside job. As we saw, the crew had little problem in fleeing the sinking ship, even those on deck 0 Engine Room. A saboteur would have had a massive head start and away before you could say, bow visor.
It would not necessarily have anything to do with the ship's company other than that it consented to let Sweden customs wave through smuggled ex-Soviet stuff on a passenger ferry. When we say 'ferry' we are not talking about a cargo-style boat that easily overturns, we are talking about a proper passenger cruise ship.
The bow visor is a red herring. You can see pictures of these passenger ferries cruising into port with their visors up for the whole journey. The two car decks are well above sea level /water level and whilst it is not nice to have one's vehicle drenched with sea water, the decks are designed so that any water is drained away by scuppers, of which MV Estonia's car deck had plenty of scuppers. All ships can expect to have their decks splashed with foamy brine without sinking. After the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, ti became mandatory to ensure the bow visor was down (the Herald of Free Enterpise did not have a bow visor system). The Atlantic lock at the bottom is merely an accessory to ensure the thing is locked. The true locks are via the bushings at the side of the bow visor. In addition, it was mandated that the car ramp should be viewable from the bridge and engine room (as ti was, together with cctv at the centre of the car deck) and that a lights system should tell the bridge whether or not it was locked, with an alert if it was 'red'. So whilst everyone is fixating on the bow visor, the JAIC cleverly overlooked the issues of cargo, communications problems and smuggling.
One of the JAIC's main witnesses, whom it quotes at length in its report, is a convicted drug smuggler. Criminals involved in serious organised crime are not renowned for being transparent and truthful. Silver Linde claims he asked the girl on reception on Deck 5 to do this and that and that he himself was here and there helping the passengers, yet a witness saw him sitting in a bar instead of doing his watch.
If you want to know how ugly serious organised crime smuggling can become between rival gangs (or even rival states?) just cast your eye over to Mexico, Columbia or El Salvador. Pity any innocent bystander who comes between their mafia-style warfare.
The Swedish prosecutor opened a book yet he shut down his enquiries. Why? No-one has been brought to justice. Or have they?
Why are the public not being given the full facts but instead an anodyne story of a bow visor that fell off because of a few strong waves?
