ILL-FATED ESTONIA FERRY USED FOR WEAPONS TRANSFERS Part IThe day after the Baltic ferry Estonia sank on September 28, 1994, Swedish newspapers reported that a "monster wave" was the likely cause of the ferry's sinking. Since then, the official explanations for Europe's worst maritime disaster since World War II have only gotten "curiouser and curiouser." The Baltic ferry Estonia, en route from Tallinn to Stockholm with some 1,000 passengers and crew on board, sank on September 28, 1994. Shortly after midnight, two concussions rocked the ship. The ferry quickly listed to starboard and sank into the frigid Baltic Sea in less than 45 minutes under circumstances which can only be described as mysterious. Although more than 500 Swedes were among the 852 reported dead, the Swedish government has blocked every effort to recover the bodies from the wreck. Even an early offer by a Norwegian diving company to retrieve the bodies at cost was rejected. Despite repeated promises from two consecutive Swedish prime ministers that the bodies would be retrieved and the wreck would be salvaged, three months after Estonia sank the Swedish government announced that there would be no recovery operation whatsoever. Instead of retrieving the bodies, the government of Sweden hired a Dutch marine salvage firm, Smit Tak BV, that specializes in neutralizing underwater nuclear waste, spending $350 million in a failed attempt to cover the ship in concrete. The wreck lies in soft mud at a depth of between 60-80 meters. MILITARY SHIPMENTS CONFIRMED Recent revelations in the Swedish mass media that the ferry was being used to smuggle Soviet military technology have confirmed long-held suspicions that the unexplained sinking of Estonia may have been connected to a secret space weapons cargo it was carrying. Immediately before Estonia left Tallinn on its final voyage, Carl Övberg, a survivor and frequent passenger who had arrived at the last minute, reported that the harbor had been sealed off and that a military convoy had escorted two large trucks to the waiting ferry. As soon as the trucks were loaded, the ship's car ramp and bow visor were closed and the delayed ferry sailed for Stockholm. Swedish state television (SVT 1) broadcast an investigative journalism program called Uppdrag Granskning on November 30, 2004, in which the former chief of customs in Stockholm confessed that Estonia had indeed been used to transport Soviet military technology to the West in September 1994. According to former customs chief Lennart Henriksson, on two occasions shortly before Estonia sank, vehicles carrying Soviet military technology had been allowed to enter Sweden without any inspection. "I have been walking around thinking about what happened for ten years," Lennart Henriksson, Stockholm's former customs chief said. "Each timeEstonia's name came up I've thought the little I know should be brought into the light of day. I want to clear my conscience." Henriksson had been ordered to allow certain vehicles carrying Soviet military contraband to pass Swedish customs without inspection on September 14 and 20, 1994, but was not working the day Estonia sank because he was on vacation. Henriksson's confession sheds new light on the sinking of Estonia. The ferry was a joint venture between a private Swedish company, Nordström & Thulin, and Estline, a company owned by the Estonian government. Prior to the SVT 1 exposé, reports of Soviet military technology being smuggled on the ferry had been dismissed as "conspiracy theories." Henriksson revealed that a secret agreement existed to allow military contraband cargo to enter Sweden without being inspected by customs. This arrangement was between Owe Wictorin, then supreme commander of Sweden's military and Ulf Larsson, then general director of Swedish customs. The arrangement was known at the highest level of the government as well as at the defense department. Normally, Swedish customs searched every vehicle coming from Estonia. That a vehicle was to pass without inspection was something Henriksson had never seen in 38 years of service. When the ferry arrived on Sept. 14, 1994, Henriksson spoke to the driver of the expected vehicle, a Volvo 745 station wagon driven by a Frank Larsson, a false identity. When Henriksson told "Larsson" that customs was carrying out inspections, he "gave me a look, but I said the search would be faked," Henriksson said. "We opened a few boxes and as far as I could see it was military electronics in them." The customs slip showed the car belonging to a non-existent company called "Ericsson Access AB," a fictitious subsidiary of AB LM Ericsson Finance. No address was given. Henriksson discovered later that the vehicle was a rental car. There is no evidence that Ericsson was actually involved in the smuggling. Although the Swedish military authorized the smuggling, the final destination of the Soviet technology is not known. A week later, on September 20, 1994, a much larger shipment of contraband technology arrived and was allowed to pass without inspection. This time it was a van and, once again, Henriksson merely glanced into the boxes. "What were you thinking this second time?" reporter Lars Borgnäs asked. "I thought it was a strange procedure," Henriksson said. "But orders are orders and you don't reflect too much on why." On December 2, 2004, two days after the SVT 1 exposé, the Swedish military confirmed on Ekot radio that this secret agreement existed and is still in effect. The following day, Sweden's Prime Minister Göran Persson appointed Johan Hirschfeldt, presiding judge of the high court of Svea District, to investigate the secret smuggling arrangement between the military and customs. Hirschfeldt's report did not allow enough time for a proper investigation, Gregg Bemis, a member of the Marine Forensics Panel, a subgroup of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, is an American who conducted a dive to the wreck with German journalist and Estonia researcher Jutta Rabe. Bemis also owns the wreck of Lusitania. "I certainly hope that Judge Hirschfeldt will realize that he has been given an opportunity to make a substantive contribution to the families of the victims," Bemis said. "It is an opportunity to determine whether or not these activities contributed to the tragic sinking of Estonia. Since it is well established that the JAIC [official] report was full of errors, Hirschfeldt should take this chance to obtain a proper forensic examination of the whole crime scene." Independent sea safety expert and naval architect Anders Björkman, author of several books on the Estonia catastrophe, calls the seriously flawed JAIC report "the biggest fraud in maritime history" adding that "every essential piece of information in the final report is false or misleading." Immediately after the accident – before it was even admitted that the wreck had been found – Swedish authorities and media seized on one theory for the sinking. The blame was put on ship's bow visor and car ramp construction, which they said had opened due to the force of the waves. This had allowed seawater to flood the car deck, they said, causing the vessel to capsize and sink. No other causes were ever investigated. "There is no evidence that this allegation is true," Björkman says. "The vessel never capsized. It sank without capsizing. "The public was told that underwater filming of the wreck had confirmed that the visor was missing," he said, and that this had caused the ferry to sink. "There is no way that waves of 4 meters could have knocked off Estonia'svisor," Björkman wrote. "This is the central lie of the whole cover-up. "The visor had nothing to do with the accident," Björkman, who was a naval engineer with the Swedish navy says, "but was simply removed from the wreck under water by the Swedish navy after the accident - so the sinking could be blamed on the visor." For a week after Estonia sank, Swedish authorities said they could not locate the wreck, although extensive rescue operations had been conducted at the site. Later it was learned that the only ships at the correct wreck position at that time were from the Swedish navy. A blue buoy meant to indicate the wreck's position was intentionally misplaced to mislead the media and others. Unfortunately, "a proper forensic investigation" from Hirschfeldt was not what the Swedish government had in mind. Hirschfeldt was given an extremely limited assignment, in both scope and time. He had but a few working weeks until January 21, 2005, to complete his investigation, which was restricted to consideration of military transfers on Estonia during the month of September 1994, and whether the military shipments were explosive. The question of whether the contraband was explosive seems designed to protect the military from criticism that these military shipments put Estoniaand its passengers at risk. Hirschfeldt's report sheds no light on what was being transported. He writes that such covert transports are usually carried out with very little documentation and that because the transfers he was asked to investigate occurred more than ten years ago, the relevant documents have been destroyed – according to regulations. Furthermore, Hirschfeldt reports that defense material imports and intelligence activities are protected by secrecy laws for up to seventy years. There is also a law that prohibits and punishes any discussion of such covert activities by those who have information. Hirschfeldt claims this law even prevents him from revealing what he has learned about the transfers. "A masterpiece," Björkman said about Hirschfeldt's report. "Defense material? What was it? How much? Volume? Weight? Origin? Value? Owner? Stolen goods? How was it declared? How did it pass Estonian customs? What vehicle was used? Was the captain and ship owner informed? "We know nothing," Björkman said. THE PENTAGON'S "SHOPPING LIST" In Die Estonia, Rabe's book on the catastrophe, she suggests that on its final voyage, Estonia carried specimens of Soviet space technology. Although Rabe does not speculate about what was being transported, she points to a "shopping list" of found in a New York Times article by William J. Broad from Nov. 4, 1991. Broad described the technology Pentagon officials were interested in obtaining from the Soviet space program. Russell Seitz from the Olin Center for Strategic Studies at Harvard University called it "the yard sale at the end of history." The Pentagon had announced its intention in 1991 to spend $12 million to buy an advanced Soviet nuclear reactor for generating power in space. Leonard Caveny, deputy director of innovative science and technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) program at the Pentagon, traveled to Soviet space labs near Moscow, where a team of experts tested a tiny space engine that uses magnetic fields instead of fuel to move a spacecraft. This amazing device, necessary for space-based programs fit in the palm of a hand and was available for less than $1 million. "It's very moderately priced," Caveny told a reporter before his visit to Russia. The price included all associated flight hardware. "This kind of engine has been kicking around on paper in this country for 30 years, but never in space," Richard Verga, from SDIO said. "The Soviets are actually flying these things." The Soviets had plutonium-238 and heat-resistant alloys completely unknown in the West, including one made of palladium and osmium able to withstand temperatures to 3,600 degrees Celsius. The Air Force was interested in the RD-170, reportedly the best liquid-fuel rocket engine in the world. "The shopping spree, begun by the military" soon attracted a number of federal agencies who visited the Soviet Union in the early '90s "to evaluate a host of high technologies," Broad wrote. In 1993, a retired U.S. Army colonel named Aleksander Einseln, came out of retirement to take command of the military forces in his native Estonia, which had regained independence in 1991. Einseln reported to NATO command from his position in the former Soviet republic until early 1995. On the very day Estonia sank, NATO's 10-day "Baltic Sea naval exercises"began with the militaries of 10 NATO allies and 10 Partnership for Peace nations, including Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic states. 14 of the 20 nations involved provided ships and aircraft for the "Cooperative Venture" exercise, which was a "peacekeeping, humanitarian and search and rescue operation" exercise reportedly centered at the western mouth of the Baltic Sea near Denmark's Skagerrak area. There has been, however, no discussion of NATO's role in or lack of response to the sinking of Estonia. While Einseln probably knew about the technology shipment on Estonia and apparently provided troops to escort it to the harbor, Rabe said she does not think he was the author of the ill-fated transfer operation. A high-ranking military attaché from the German Bundesmarine told Rabe that he visited Einseln in his office in Tallinn on the day of the disaster. "That was an attack against us," Einseln said. Later, Einseln, denied having been in Tallinn on Sept. 28 and told reporters, including Germany's Spiegel TV, that he had been in the United States. Johannes Johanson, chief of Estline, co-owner of ferry said, "Estonia was sunk by assault." Rabe explains how divers hired by the Swedish government spent hours breaking into cabins frantically searching for a black attaché case carried by a Russian space technology dealer, Aleksandr Voronin. Voronin owned a company in Tallinn called "Kosmos Association" while his brother, Valeri, had a similar company in Moscow that traded weapons and space technology. The official divers worked for Rockwater, a subsidiary of Brown & Root Energy Services (BRES), and had signed lifetime contracts obliging them to remain silent. BRES is a subsidiary of Halliburton, formerly directed by Vice President Dick Cheney since 1995. Rabe said that Rockwater was not the lowest bidder but had been awarded the contract by Johan Franson, head of the Swedish Maritime Administration. Secrecy was of paramount importance, Rabe said. According to Rabe, video footage from the official dive, taken during the first four days of December 1994, shows divers frantically searching the cabins looking for a black leather case. Finally, the case was found in Cabin No. 6130, a cabin usually used by Captain Avo Piht. The diver read from the case: "It says Aleksandr Voronin. Does that ring any bells up there?" Rabe points to a group of Russian nationalists from the Soviet intelligence agencies being behind the sinking of Estonia. According to Rabe's sources, the so-called Felix Group included Vladimir Putin and Igor Ivanov, who were strongly opposed to the wholesale looting of the Soviet arsenal. The window of easy access to Soviet military secrets slammed shut in July 1998 when Putin was appointed director of Russia's Federal Security Service. The Voronin company was liquidated and the U.S. firms that dealt with them went out of business. According to Rabe, the sinking of Estonia is summed up one sentence: "It was the perfect coup, which could have only been carried out by secret services or groups which include former members of the secret services as members, like the networks of terrorists, regardless of their origin or motivation." Hirschfeldt's 7-page report provides no answers about what was being transported. The details are classified and likely to remain Swedish state secrets for 70 years, Hirschfeldt wrote. "So our expectations came true," Bertil Calamnius, chairman of AgnEf, an organization of Estonia relatives, said. "This is but one further example of Swedish officialdom plugging leaks in the Estonia story." DISAPPEARED ESTONIANS The mystery of the sinking of Estonia, however, has affected some more than others. While survivors recovered and the relatives and friends of those lost at sea mourned, a third group was left completely in limbo, where it is to this day. To this third group belong a dozen, or more, Estonian crew members who were originally reported as having been rescued, only to have mysteriously disappeared in the days following the disaster. The disappearance of these 12 Estonia crew members points to a high-level cover-up of an international intrigue. Recent revelations in the Swedish press of "enforced disappearances" of two Egyptian "terror suspects" carried out in Sweden in 2001 may shed light on the fate of missing Estonia survivors. It was recently reported in the Swedish media that a private Gulfstream 5 executive jet, registered in the United States, played a role in the "extraordinary rendition" of two Egyptian "terror suspects" from Sweden in 2001. According to Swedish journalist Sven Anér, enforced disappearances from Sweden are nothing new. There is a body of evidence that similar abductions occurred in Sweden in the days following the Estonia ferry disaster. Shortly after Estonia sank, a dozen Estonian crewmembers, all evidently survivors of the catastrophe – disappeared without a trace. Documents indicate that U.S. registered private jets were used in both the 1994 and 2001 disappearance cases. Anér has documents from Sweden's civil aviation administration concerning two specific aircraft suspected of being involved in the abduction of the missing Estonians. Enforced disappearance, according to the Rome Statute of 1998, "means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time." Enforced disappearance, a form of kidnapping, is considered a "crime against humanity," according to the Rome Statute, which Sweden ratified in June 2001. As many as 12 Estonian crew members, which official survivor lists show having survived the sinking, disappeared in what appears to be a government-organized abduction and enforced disappearance. While the original survivor lists contain the names of 146 individuals, the names of a dozen crew members who had been listed as survivors, were deleted without explanation from the lists maintained by the Swedish and Finnish authorities in the days following the disaster. Anér has found 15 different original lists of survivors, all of which include the names of 11 Estonian crew members whose names were later deleted. In order for a name to appear on the list, a survivor was required to give his name, date of birth, status and nationality. There is evidence that some surviving crewmembers were abducted and taken to Stockholm's Arlanda airport whence they were flown out of Sweden on two private aircraft. The abductions removed key witnesses who would have been able to testify about the condition of the ship, the cargo, and the cause of the sinking. Chief among them were one of the ship's captains, Avo Piht, who was on board but not on duty that night, and Chief Engineer Lembit Leiger. It is thought that the others were crewmembers who had shared the same life raft or been rescued with Piht and Leiger in the same helicopter: Y-64. THE KIDNAPPED CAPTAIN In the days after the sinking, it was widely reported that Captain Avo Piht had survived. The Swedish television news program Aktuellt, for example, in the evening of Sept. 28, 1994, reported that Ronald Bergman, director of Nordström & Thulin, the Swedish shipping firm that co-owned the vessel, had informed the media that the ship's captain had survived and was being treated in a hospital in Finland. Bengt-Erik Stenmark, security chief at the Swedish Maritime Administration told Reuters that the international investigation committee had even interviewed Captain Avo Piht. Neither Stenmark nor Reuters has ever retracted this statement. The German television network ZDF broadcast a video clip on September 28 of Avo Piht and other survivors arriving at Turku University Hospital in Finland. This video was later confiscated by German intelligence agents, according to Rabe. Leiger's wife, Kairi, received a call from relatives in Sweden who told her that a Swedish police superintendent named Hans Strindlund had informed them that her husband had survived. Lembit Leiger was reportedly treated in Stockholm's Huddinge Hospital and released on September 29, 24 hours after being admitted. The next day, Mrs. Leiger spoke to Strindlund herself. Strindlund informed her of the exact flight details for the plane on which Leiger was supposed to be returning to Tallinn – but he never arrived. Along with Piht and Leiger, there are at least seven other "disappeared" crew members, whose names remained on survivor lists for days: The ship's doctor, Dr. Viktor Bogdanov, Kalev Vahtras, Kaimar Kikas, Agur Targama, Tiina Müür, and the twin sisters, Hannely and Hanka-Hannika Veide. To be continued in Part II
| |
ILL-FATED ESTONIA FERRY USED FOR WEAPONS TRANSFERS Part IIA STRANGE DISAPPEARANCE In Tallinn, at noon on Sept. 28, 1994, the names of survivors, provided by the Estonian Department of Transportation, were read over the radio. Kalev Vahtras, the ship's quartermaster, was one of them. Silver Linde, a surviving seaman, told Rabe that he had shared a room at Turku University Hospital with Vahtras. Vahtras and Linde were friends and the two had been able to talk in the hospital. Vahtras had no noticeable injuries, although his body temperature was low and he was wrapped in blankets, Linde said. Linde went to visit other survivors and left Kalev alone in the room. When Linde returned with another crewmember, they discovered that Vahtras was gone. His entire bed had vanished. Linde asked a nurse about Vahtras and was told he had been transferred to another hospital. A list of survivors from Turku hospital shows Vahtras' name and body temperature. Vahtras' wife went to Turku and was told her husband had been sent to a hospital in Sweden. Eventually an unrecognizable and disfigured corpse said to be Vahtras was returned to the Vahtras family with a death certificate which read: "Drowned in the Baltic Sea." Linde is currently serving a 9-year prison sentence in Finland, the apparent victim of being framed on drug trafficking charges. THE CENSORED RESCUE Aftonbladet, the Swedish daily, reported on the day of the sinking that rescue worker Kenneth Svensson, on a rescue trip with Swedish Navy helicopter Y-64, rescued 9 people at about 3:30 a.m. on Sept. 28. Half an hour later, Aftonbladet reported, the helicopter took the rescued to Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm, arriving at 4:30 a.m., with nine persons, one of whom was dead. There is, however, no available information as to who these 9 people were. Kenneth Svensson's multiple rescues, however, were censored from the final report (JAIC) published three years later. According to the JAIC report, Y-64 only rescued one person at 5:10 a.m. Svensson received a medal for heroic service from Owe Wictorin and was requested not to discuss the matter. As mentioned above, Wictorin had authorized the smuggling of Soviet weapons technology on Estonia in the first place. Jan Lindqvist, information chief for Sweden's civil aviation administration, provided Anér with documentation of two private planes that left Stockholm's Arlanda airport carrying a total of 9 unregistered passengers on the 28th and 29th of September. The first plane, a Boeing 727-200, then registered VR-CLM, belonged to Larmag Aviation Cayman Ltd., a Bermuda-based company owned by Lars-Erik Magnusson, a Swedish casino owner and real estate mogul who invested heavily in an oil and gas scheme in Turkmenistan in 1994 with funds taken from another firm, Fermenta. The 161-seat Larmag 727 arrived from Amsterdam on the evening of Sept. 27 at 18:41 without passengers or cargo and left at 19:54 on Sept. 28 with 4 unregistered passengers headed for Amsterdam. The second plane, a Gulfstream 4, registered N971L, belongs to International Lease Finance Corp. (ILFC) of Los Angeles, California. ILFC, an aircraft leasing company, was founded by Leslie Gonda, born Lazlo Goldschmied in Hungary. Today, Maurice R. Greenberg's American International Group (AIG) owns ILFC and Greenberg sits on the board of directors with Gonda. The ILFC Gulfstream arrived at 21:56 on the 28th without passengers or cargo from Amsterdam and left at 17:13 on the 29th with 5 unregistered passengers bound for Bangor, Maine, USA. ILFC refuses to reveal who was operating the plane in September 1994. April Rotondi in the executive office of ILFC wrote that "no one" at the company can provide any information and hung up when asked on the phone. Anér said there was an understanding at Arlanda that invoices for the ILFC Gulfstream were to be sent to the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm. In Mayday, his book about the Estonia catastrophe, Anér wrote, "I am convinced that both these ghost planes are connected to the Estonia catastrophe." Asked about Anér's information, Lindqvist said, "I trust the information I gave Sven Anér." Regarding the Swedish television report that a Gulfstream 5, registered to phony front companies in the U.S., was involved in the "enforced disappearance" of two Egyptians in 2001, Lindqvist said: "Through my internal sources, I know that everything in the program is correct." SWEDISH RESISTANCE To this day no one has been found responsible for the huge loss of life in theEstonia catastrophe. "The government of Sweden knows the truth behind the catastrophe and is taking desperate measures to prevent the facts from coming out," Rabe said. Uno Laur, chairman of the Swedish dominated JAIC investigation, openly stated that the official investigation was not looking to find the responsible parties for the wreck. "Nobody will be blamed," Laur said. More than 1,200 Estonia relatives and survivors from 14 countries, seeking to find the cause of the sinking and those responsible for the death of the 852 victims, are plaintiffs in a lawsuit in a French court. This "Paris process" has lingered in a legal quagmire since it began in September 1996 due to considerable resistance and obstacles. The essence of the case has not yet been heard. When the case opened in France, the Swedish government announced its intention to use its diplomatic influence to prevent any independent investigation of the sinking for the case in the French court. The Swedish Maritime Administration was one of the defendants until the Swedish government was granted immunity in the Paris process. Although the wreck lies in international waters, Sweden has issued a ban on diving to the wreck and actively lobbied other countries to join the ban. Sweden has also issued warrants for the arrest for Bemis and Rabe, for collecting evidence during their dive in 2001, charging them with disturbing the "peace of the grave." On February 8, 2002 the Swedish supreme court announced that no legal case concerning the sinking of Estonia will ever be heard in a Swedish court. "I feel a big disappointment that it would end like this," said Mats Wikner, a lawyer reporting for Svenska Dagbladet. "It seems like noboby wants to find the truth and now they are trying to seal it for good." **************************************************************************************************
DISASTER INVESTIGATION
A contribution to better ferry safety at sea
News 2009© Anders Björkman
This book is dedicated to my beloved friendElke Masczyk
14 August 1951 - 9 March 2002"... je refuse la guerre et tout ce qu'il y a dedans... Je ne la déplore pas moi... Je ne me résigne pas moi... Je ne pleurniche pas dessus moi... Je la refuse tout net, avec tous les hommes qu'elle contient, je ne veux rien avoir à faire avec eux, avec elle... c'est eux qui ont tort... c'est moi qui ai raison, parce que je suis le seul à savoir ce que je veux: je ne veux plus mourir."
L-F Céline |
Download whole book as pdf here! |
Heiwa Co start page
Heiwa Co English Estonia page
Heiwa Co Swedish Estoniasida
Summary of Part 1 - Disinformation revealed· A passenger ferry like the 'Estonia' floats in the water on its partly submerged hull as per the principle of Archimedes established 252 BC. The hull is subdivided to prevent sinking due to leakage, i.e. the hull floats, even if it is damaged. Increasing amounts of water inside a superstructure on top of the hull makes the hull (and the superstructure) list, until the hull (and the superstructure) capsizes, i.e. the hull (and the superstructure) turns upside down - and floats on thehull.
· Leakage of the hull as cause of accident was never investigated. It was covered up.
· The investigation was manipulated from the beginning with a false cause of accident - the visor.
· Secrecy during an accident investigation is not permitted but necessary for a cover-up.
· False information was immediately fed to the public as part of a planned disinformation campaign.
· A false wreck position was necessary to establish the false cause of accident.
· All false facts - lies - about the 'Estonia' accident were already established prior to the appointment of the Commission.
· New evidence changing the cause of accident and the sequence of events must be reviewed according to IMO resolutions and international law by a new investigation.
· None of the Estonian members of the Commission - the co-conspirators - were qualified to investigate the accident.
· A person with inside information about the accident was brought into the Commission to assist the cover-up!
· All members of the Commission had particular interests that the true accident cause was not made public, which is why they participated in the cover-up!
· The accident did not take place as reported in the media!
· The underwater picture (right) with the visor at the bow has never been explained. The analysis of dr. Nuorteva of sonar pictures taken 30 September 1994 should be re-done in 2001!
· The decision not to salvage the dead victims was only done to prevent outside experts to examine the wreck and to prevent identification of the bodies.
· There were serious conflicts of interest inside the Commission. | |
· It is very probable that the visor was not lost 'under way' and that the statement 17 October was false.
· The video films - the only evidence that the ramp at the forward end of the superstructure had been open - do not show that the ramp was open.
· The 'Estonia' should have capsized in one minute with 2 000 tons of water on the car deck in the superstructure. The Commission stated the opposite.
· The Commission falsified the sequence of events in figure 13.2 in the Final Report (5).
· Crew negligence as cause of accident has not been investigated.
· On 17 October the Commission thought that only partial opening of the ramp in the superstructure was sufficient to sink the ship - a mistake in the cover-up.
· All information given on 17 October 1994 was pure disinformation.
· There is no evidence that the visor was found in the alleged position 1 560 meters West of the wreck.
· Many experts attached to the Commission were fully aware in November 1994 that the official cause of accident and the alleged course of events were manipulations.
· All results of the dive expedition were manipulations.
· An accident must have a proximate cause - and the Commission chose the visor locks made 1979 - fifteen years before the accident. To suit this false allegation the Commission also decided that the ramp had been fully open during the accident.
· The whole Final report must be considered a purposeful manipulation.
· The'Estonia' was not seaworthy on the Baltic with incorrect certificates.
· The life saving equipment was incorrect.
· The safety plan was incorrect.
· The watertight subdivision of the hull was incorrect.
· No life boat alarm was given.
· Olof Forssberg stopped all efforts to make any proper stability calculations.
· Olof Forssberg made all German information secret and did not include any German information in the Final Report.
· Johan Franson prevented the Swedish NMA staff to discuss the stability of the 'Estonia'.
· There is no evidence for the course and speed of the 'Estonia' prior to the accident.
· The security routines for cargo and passengers are unclear.
· The Swedish expert Bengt Schanger was paid more than SEK 4 000 000:- by the Swedish government to 'edit' the testimonies, so they suited the 'cause of accident ' of the Commission.
· The Estonian NMA accepted lifesaving equipment, which was originally used for coastal trade Sweden-Finland. That equipment assumed that persons should jump into the water and swim to the life saving equipment or ashore. Such procedures were illegal at open seas.
· There were no valid or correct safety and load-line certificates.
· The life jackets did not work correctly. They were ripped off, when persons jumped into the water.
· The evacuation plan to abandon the 'Estonia' did not work. It was not realistic.
· Johan Franson gave misleading information to the government and the Ethical Advice group.
· Swedish Port State Control made many faults never stopping the 'Estonia' already 1993.
· The Analysis group did not make any recommendations 1999 how Swedish authorities could have prevented the accident with better safety at sea from the beginning.
· Welding work on the 'Estonia' during the night of accident has never been investigated, even if it was possible and probable.
· The cause of accident could have been an explosion due to welding work on a tank with explosive atmosphere. It has not been investigated.
· The whole engine crew survived. It might have been a coincidence but should have been investigated by the Commission. Only three engine crew members were interviewed. They have given untrue testimonies.
· The media has not reported correctly about the investigation.
· The Final report (5) is a shameful falsification.
· The Swedish Board of Psychologic Defence, SPF, 1996-2001, prevented an open discussion of the accident by proposing to all authorities to ignore the public debate.
· The SPF 'fact bank' 2002 should produce the final clarifications why the 'Estonia' sank.
· The 2003 SPF pre-study of how to explain the sinking is a falsification.
Summary of Part 2· The survivors' testimonies about the course of events are trustworthier than the alleged sequence of events of the Final Report (5) based on four crewmembers' testimonies.
· The reason, why the 'Estonia' first heeled and later sank, is leakage of the hull below the waterline and water spreading through open watertight doors. This cause of leakage has not been investigated. The leakage was probably caused in a collision.
· The visor fell off after the list occurred. The ramp protecting the superstructure was never open. A big damage in the starboard collision bulkhead is not reported or explained by the Commission.
· The crew simply lied about what happened aboard before and after the sudden list. The Final Report (5) does not consider if the crew lied.
· The description of the stability of the 'Estonia' with water on the car deck in the superstructure is wrong. No roro-passenger ship sinks slowly due to water in the superstructure. It always capsizes and floats upside down on the hull.
· The accident could have been prevented, if the watertight doors in the 'Estonia' hull were always closed at sea, if the bilgepumps were working and if bilge alarms had been fitted. Fewer persons had lost their lives, if the lifesaving equipment had been in order.
· Survivors and relatives have never been told the truth. The Swedish government carries a great responsibility for this.
· The sequence of events in figure 13.2 in (5) is impossible!
· Only a new accident investigation can establish the Truth.
· We cannot compromise about safety at sea, as all of us want the highest safety at sea.
· Means for improved safety at sea shall be realistic, safe and economical.
· Extreme interests of particular groups do not help anybody and do not contribute to the safety at sea.
· It is possible to establish an alternative course of events, where the list occurred before the visor was detached.
---
Summary of Part 3
· The description of the visor and ramp and their functions and damages by the Commission are wrong.
· There are no correct drawings in the Final Report.
· The German descriptions of the visor and ramp and their functions and damages are also wrong.
· The Germans have given another explanation of the accident, which is not mentioned in the Final Report. A complete investigation report shall examine all information.
· A ferry does not sink, if the visor falls off and pulls open the ramp protecting the superstructure. The Final Report (5) states the opposite without any evidence. This is one reason, why the Commission refuses to discuss its 'findings'.
· Luckily there is clear evidence that the ramp was never pulled open. The forepeak deck is undamaged, the ramp locks are undamaged, etc.
· Videofilms from October 1994 show a closed ramp, while videofilms from December 1994 show a partly open ramp, i.e. the divers tried to pull open the ramp. And then the videofilms show that the ramp locks are undamaged.
· The videofilms from October and December 1994 do not show the starboard front bulkhead of the superstructure, where there is a big unreported damage. The videofilms do not show the starboard side in way of the sauna/pool compartment, where another damage is supposed to be.
· The 'Estonia' probably sank due leakage below the waterline, which the crew did not control. The writer believes that the manipulated control- and indication-panel of the watertight doors on the bridge played a critical role in the accident. Inspector G. Zahlér has testified that you could remotely open the watertight doors from the bridge, which is not permitted. The indication was also confusing. The Final Report has censored all information about the watertight doors.
· The Germans think that the 'Estonia' was subject to sabotage.
· The Germans think that the 'Estonia' was not seaworthy, i.e. did not comply with requirements and rules for a safe voyage, which caused the accident. That leakage below waterline was another contributing cause should be clear.
· Ann-Louise Eksborg does not only refuse to answer questions about the accident. When she speaks to the media she presents clear disinformation about the Final Report and the findings of the investigation. The SHK is not interested in the Truth about the accident.
· A new investigation should simply review all facts to the effect that the 'Estonia' was leaking.
· Many international safety at sea rules were changed after the accident based on false information about the 'Estonia' accident and much money has been wasted to fulfil the new requirements. It costs much less to review the new facts about the 'Estonia' and then correct the latest rules.
|
---
'Even if the government has made its decision (not to salvage the 'Estonia'), much work remains to clarify the causes of the accident. The safety at sea must be improved ... '
Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson (s) at the Parliament 15 December 1994
'Unterdrückung der Öffentlichkeit stellt eines der konstitutiven Kennzeichen der Diktatur dar. Dagegen bedeutet Information über die eigene Angelegenheiten die erste und wichtigste Voraussetzung für ein funktionierendes Gemeinwesen'.(or in English - 'the suppression of insight into public affairs is one of the basic signs of a dictatorship. On the other hand information about your own concerns is the first and most important condition of a correctly working society').
Stefan Wolle in 'Die heile Welt der Diktatur' ('The holy World of a Dictatorship') (ISBN 3-612-26650-0)
4.5 Epilogue. Who wrote the Final Report?The 'Estonia' accident investigation is the biggest fraud in maritime history.
All started with a lie on 28 September 1994 - the bow visor at the forward end of the superstructure - to hide a crime. All essential official information that followed was pure disinformation. The biggest maritime fraud in History started. What had actually happened - leakage of the hull below the waterline for unknown reasons - could officially not have happened. Something else should or could have happened. The guilty persons and those who knew were in a strong position 1994. The public was then only told that the 'Estonia' had capsized and sunk and that more than 850 persons had died but not why. By quickly - almost the same day - shamelessly blaming the accident on a 'design fault' of the bow visor in the superstructure, the persons in control - the conspirators - managed to mislead the public and survivors and relatives of victim and seamen and safety at sea experts. The persons in control then appointed a group of investigators in October 1994 to confirm the alleged cause of accident - the 'design fault'. The investigators did what they were told during three years and two months of secret meetings - one lie became a flood of lies. A united and unanimous Commission presented its Final Report in December 1997 but it was not the original Commission.
Many of the original Commission members had resigned or died.
The 'design fault' of the visor of the superstructure was the proximate cause of the accident - the ship, the hull and the crew were otherwise perfect. You should blame the yard that had manufactured the lock and the classification society that should have checked it. Today nobody can have any confidence in these investigators.
Many original Investigators retired
In December 1997 only five of the original investigators 1.5 remained - the Estonian Laur, the three Finns and the Swede Rosengren.
Do you ask these investigators to explain all ambiguities in the Final Report apart from the 'unanimous' conclusions, the only answer you get, if you get a reply at all, is that they no longer work with the investigation, all is explained, or, that they only worked with other aspects of the accident and cannot explain the unclear parts, but in all event, all is correct because the Commission was unanimous and the person asking must be wrong. If you continue to ask they accuse you to be unintelligent, unscientific, unreasonable, conspiratorial, trying to undermine democratic governments, etc. What a circus.
But it is rather clever - and stupid. The original objective of the Commission was throughout only to investigate a 'design fault'and that you could not criticise the crew and that the ship was in perfect condition. Accordingly the Commission had to simply manipulate all testimonies and statements of facts that contradicted the original theory (read lye). It was quite easy, as long as the investigation and the evidence material were secret. The public had no chance to query the material. The manipulated course of events of Rosengren and Huss based on false stability calculations and water inflows, 1.9, 1.44 and Appendix 4, are clear examples of shameless manipulations.
Huss became technical director at the Swedish Maritime Administration as a result of the falsifications.
No Knowledge about Stability
Nobody in the Commission had correct knowledge about ship stability with water on the car deck 2.16 inside thesuperstructure on top of a watertight hull- and that ships like the 'Estonia' capsize and float upside down on the hull with 1 500-2.000 tons of water on top of the superstructure car deck. Therefore they manipulated the time of the water inflow (2.000 tons) - 6 minutes, 28 minutes, 1,5 minute, 8 minutes - first through a partly open ramp and later through a fully open ramp, without showing that the ramp had been open. The Commission was ignorant of the fact that the physical relationship between the weight of the water on the car deck in the superstructure and the angle of heel could not be manipulated. |  Figure 45.1 Result of capsize |
Then they decided that the 'Estonia' slowly sank due to water in the deck house (!) - in spite of the fact that the 'Estonia' should have floated upside down on the intact watertight subdivision in the hull below the car deck/superstructure, when the deck house was flooded. Totally false stability calculations were produced - and published 3.12!
The easiest way to reveal the falsifications is to ask international recognised stability experts to verify the stability statements of the Commission. It is interesting to note that the German 'experts' carefully avoided to verifying the stability calculations of the Commission.
Early Falsifications
One condition of the big manipulation was the falsifications and editions of the video films and the dive examinations of the wreck by, i.a. Tuomo Karppinen and Johan Franson, 1.16 and 1.43. That the visor very likely was still attached to thesuperstructure of the wreck on 2 October 1994 and then was removed by explosives by Swedish navy divers, resulting in a big hole in the starboard front bulkhead 3.10, could evidently not be announced in 1994. The films made on 2 and 9 October of the wreck and in the middle of November of the visor and at the dive expedition 2-4 December 1994 had to be censored and edited. The salvage of the visor below the wreck had to be done by a secret Swedish navy operation instead of by civilian experts after a public request for their services. Then it was easy to announce the alleged, but false, visor position 1 560 meters West of the wreck.
It should be very easy to verify that the original video films of the wreck have been manipulated later.
The Deaths of Key Experts
Börje Stenström, the Swedish member of the Commission, with an M.Sc. from the Royal Institute of Technology at Stockholm followed by 12 years service with the Swedish Navy Engineering Corps, knew that he misled the public - he knew for sure, based on the findings of the Germans, that the condition and maintenance of the 'Estonia' were bad, which contributed to the accident, and he knew where the visor had been found. He was also aware of the statements by the writer about lifesaving equipment and stability. Stenström died 1997 by a cancer during the investigation.
Captain Simo Arnio, the Finnish expert, apparently also knew that the visor was found at the wreck and that false information was fed to the media. He also died during the investigation1996.
The Swedish vice prime minister during the investigation, Odd Engström, must also have been aware that the investigation was manipulated. He too died during the investigation, after having resigned from the government 1.35.
Resignations
Olof Forssberg finalized the investigation in March 1997 and allowed himself to be dismissed from the Commission by the Swedish government (a nice way of distancing himself from the lies), so that he did not have to sign the Final Report (5). Ann-Louise Eksborg succeeded Forssberg and she signed the Final Report without hesitation in December 1997. She then became the spokeswoman of the Swedish delegation - a few months before she had never dealt with the 'Estonia' - suddenly she was an expert on all matters about the 'Estonia'. When Ms Eksborg is in doubt she asks dr. Huss for advice, who repeatedly states that ferries like the 'Estonia' always sink slowly due to water on the car deck in the superstructure, etc, while they are stable, etc, so they do not capsize, etc, as they float on the deck house, etc, but even if they float on the deck house, they sink. How the watertight hull is filled with water, neither Eksborg nor Huss can explain. Two months earlier the expert Bengt Schagerhad resigned from the Commission - in the Swedish local daily Hallands Tidning he accused the Estonians for lying, footnote in 1.20, a weak attempt to protect himself. Schager had previously ensured that all testimonies fitted the scenario of the Commission. Why all these persons were prepared to participate in the falsification of the Final Report is a mystery. Or is it? They were very handsomely paid for the job - Schager was, e.g. paid >SEK 4.000.000:-. Franson is paid SEK 800.000:- per year to ensure that the Swedish NMA staffs keep quiet.
No new Circumstances
In spite of all these resignations, deaths and criticisms of the Final Report and money being spent generously the Swedish government (Mona Sahlin) has repeatedly 1999 Appendix 3, 2000 and 2001 stated that no new facts have been presented, which would require a new investigation. In a letter to the writer 19 April 2001 Ms Sahlin, after the information in this book had been reviewed by seven Swedish authorities, schools or companies, states:
"The joint investigation commission of Estonia, Finland and Sweden handed over its Final Report in December 1997. After that no new circumstances have been presented, which show that the course of events of the accident in any essential manners differs from that described in the Final Report. Therefore there is not any reason to take any steps with the aim of a new accident investigation". Four days later the official press release to the same effect was issued, front page of this book. How long the Swedish government can maintain this ultimate lie? Why is Mona Sahlin 2001 protecting an accident investigation 1994-1997 and a report 1997, where all essential statements and information are false? The members of the Commission were informed about the essential facts in this book already 1995/6. The writer talked to Ann-Louise Eksborg on 22 February 2000 at Stockholm: she informed that (i) that the investigation had been done properly as per the requirements, and (ii) that after the investigation is finished neither she nor the Swedish Board of Accident Investigation, SHK, has any duty to explain any ambiguities in the investigation and (iii) that the IMO resolution A.849(20) foreword was not applicable and cannot be applied, even if the United Kingdom re-opens more than 20 years old investigations as per the law. A Swedish bureaucrat has talked. She is evidently breaking Swedish law (1990:712) but nobody cares.
Estonian Doubts September 2000 - Final Report written for Experts
"Some 80 percent of Estonians polled said they don't believe official conclusions about why the ferry 'Estonia' sank six years ago this month in one of Europe's worst maritime disasters, local media reported on September 2. Investigators said the Sept. 28, 1994 tragedy, which killed 852, occurred when fierce waves broke badly made locks in the bow door, causing it to fall off and for water to flood the ship. They also said the crew reacted too slowly. Critics said the investigation was sloppy and conspiracy theories, including that a bomb blast may have crippled the vessel, have abounded. Some relatives of the mostly Swedish and Estonian victims have called for a new investigation. Of 400 Estonians questioned by ES Market Research, 78 percent said they didn't accept the 1997 findings of official Estonian, Finnish and Swedish investigators, reported the Eesti Paevaleht daily, which ordered the survey. Sixty-seven percent also said they backed last week's controversial dive of American Gregg Bemis to the Baltic Sea site of the shipwrecked ferry, which area governments opposed as a desecration of an officially declared gravesite. The poll, which had a margin of error of 4 percent, was conducted just before the dives got underway. Bemis said on September 1 that he may have found a previously undiscovered hole in the ship's hull, though he said it required further study.In an editorial, Eesti Paevaleht said Swedes were more likely to believe the official conclusion, though it didn't cite poll results. It said Estonia's past under Soviet totalitarian rule made it more sceptical of official findings. Jaan Metsaveer+, one of the investigators, adamantly defended the official explanation, arguing that laymen sought simplistic answers because they couldn't understand the technical accounts in the commission's lengthy final report. "It was a document that was written for experts, not for the general public," he was quoted as saying. He said some relatively minor details about the accident remain unknown, but that the general conclusions still stood. Estonia's government also dismissed suggestions that the dives led by Gregg Bemis last week may have made significant enough discoveries to justify a new investigation. "From the government's point of view, we've seen nothing new," government spokesman Priit Poiklik said. "We don't believe a new investigation is warranted.""(Baltic News Services September 2000) A Swedish Question?
The mystery around the 'Estonia' is perhaps a wholly Swedish question? Say that mess was initiated by the so called 'non-compliance' agency (the Swedish NMA!), which with four persons at Tallinn in January 1993 and later at four or five Port State Controls at Stockholm 1993/94 approved the ship 'Estonia' for passenger traffic on Sweden with a great number of unreported safety items of non compliance, i.e. no modifications were required by safety director Stenmark. One reason was that the person responsible for maintenance and safety on board was Ulf Hobro, 1.43, 1.46 and Appendix 7, a former employee at the NMA, and that the NMA wanted to 'help' him. Hobro had apparently been told to save money for maintenance and upgrading, i.a. the crew had to do the jobs previously done by yards and no new equipment could be bought. It meant that the Bureau Veritas - ship surveyors Anders Wirstam and his boss Hans Olsson (both Swedes with good connections to the Swedish NMA) - on behalf of the Estonian administration did not ask for any improvements of the safety at 1993. It was otherwise very simple to bring the 'Estonia' in order so that she complied with the SOLAS requirement (life rafts under davits, closed watertight doors, proper life jackets, all instructions in the Estonian language, permanently welding the swimmingpool in the double bottom watertight, etc) making the 'Estonia' unsinkable and very safe. Most of the faults/defects of the 'Estonia' were of course old faults/defects introduced, when the ship was 12 years under Finnish flag trading on Sweden - and which then had gone un-detected (sic). Bad maintenance then completed the disaster.
The two Swedish ship inspectors from Malmö, who made the last inspection just eight hours before the accident, were not informed about this silent agreement and/or the old defects, so they made a correct job the day before the accident (or tried to?) - later totally censored by the Commission. The Independent Fact Group has described it in detail (31). The Commission falsified a Port State Control inspection report of 27 September 1994 to the effect that the ship had no defects, while in reality the PSC report listed numerous defects. Later the Commission suggested that the PSC inspection was an exercise - of no importance. But it is a fact that the PSC report was falsified.
Who invented the original false Story?
It can be that it was Sten Anderson 1.5 of the NMA with the help of Hans Wermelin who invented the story about the visor and water on the car deck in the superstructure to cover up the sins of his 'non-compliance' agency 1980-1994 - the lack of lifesaving equipment in the deckhouse, the defective watertight doors, etc. 1.33, 1.34 and 1.23. Then the divers of Johan Fransons 1.16 could confirm that the ramp of the superstructure had been pulled fully open by the visor, etc. Forssberg and Stenström and the Swedish navy had already removed the visor (but failed to open the ramp). In the early confusion after the accident these person forgot that ferries capsize and floats upside down with water inside the superstructure.
What caused the leakage of the hull is still not known. A simple accident? Probably the pool compartment and the sewage tanks were extremely rusty and the stabilizer installation was faulty. The leakage started there! Then it spread through open watertight doors. The crew messed things up.
The Germans have described that the crew had big problems with both the visor and the ramp and that the crew tried to secure them at sea - the ramp was not locked in port and held back by mooring ropes and the visor was not properly secured (probably damaged before the accident). But then maybe the foundation of the starboard stabilizer fin broke with a big bang, when it was activated at 00.15-00.30 hrs. There are a few testimonies to the effect that the stabilizers were activated at that time and that the ship changed course at the same time (towards Söderarm! but it could as well be Sandhamn - according to the Fact Group (31)). We know that Sillaste was called up at 00.30 hrs about 'problems' (he says it was the vacuum toilet system, but who knows).
Let's assume that the proximate cause of accident was a leakage in the hull - water flowed in, one compartment filled up with water and started to spill up 3 meters higher up on deck 1. Watch man Linde may have raised the crew alarm at 00.45 hrs and the Master went to the bridge 3.18. Attempts were made to isolate the leakage, but later watertight doors were opened (by mistake?), the water now spread, first into the generator room, then the engine room and there was a sudden list. The two bangs just before the listing were the result of either the opening of the watertight doors or something done to stop the water inflow - or it was just rusty structure breaking. Often there is a combination of two or more different events that cause a disaster, in this case severe leakage (the proximate cause) and badly arranged watertight doors and an incompetent crew and a generally substandard and unseaworthy ship (consequent causes).
It seems that the crew was already occupied with another problem - the lose visor and the leaking ramp - when the ship sprang a leak.
All this might be guess work of the writer. If the ship had started to leak at 00.30 hrs, you would have expected a normal crew to steer against shallow waters - to run the ship aground, if necessary. It is not a stupid idea to run a ship aground if it leaks - it will not sink. But in this case it seems that the crew on the 'Estonia' actually steered towards deeper waters - South - where the ship sank and at least 852 persons drowned.
The Plot must disappear
The reason why the Utö-plot disappeared is maybe that it showed that the 'Estonia' changed course towards Sandhamn at 00.00 - 00.30 hrs and that the Commission could not explain this very strange course during the last 30-60 minutes. Or the ship actually changed course towards Sandhamn at 00.00 hrs and then at 00.45 changed course again, towards shallow waters. We do not know, as the famous Utö plot has disappeared. That plot evidently showed something else: a plot showing that a vessel slows down and/or changes course before it starts to list (and sink) is an indication that something was wrong at that early time. And this the Commission would not admit. The plot had to disappear.
It is of course possible that the 'Estonia' collided with a submerged, floating object - many survivors have testified about noise from a collision - and that the outer bottom was ripped open followed by the inner bottom splitting open - a severe hull leakage. The official video films of the underwater hull has been edited (and cut), so that it is impossible to identify any locations on the films. The private divers 2000 and 2001 have reportedly made a casual inspection of the underwater hull and have not found any hull damage. The hull damage may not be easy to find - a long, narrow fracture in the hull plate. A 0,2-0,4 m² large hull opening, when one plate is elastically pushed in by water pressure, was only required to sink the ship. Later it can be difficult to find the damage, when the plate is back in position.
No Safety Plans worked
Survivors have testified that the ship suddenly listed >30 degrees to starboard. Then no emergency safety plans worked onboard. All became a big mess. Later, after the accident, the crew was simply requested to lye by Sten Anderson and with the assistance of Enn Neidre, who both were at Åbo/Turku, in order to hide the errors of the Swedish NMA - and the poor crew.
The Swedish NMA had permitted the 'Estonia' to sail with open watertight doors and without correct lifesaving equipment since 1980 and there was not a chance to evacuate all onboard in a dry and safe condition. "Please, jump into the water in case of an accident" seems to have been the standing order 1.34 since 1980. The order to blame the accident on the visor thus did not come from Estonia but Sweden, and it made it easy for the Estonian crew to cooperate. Sweden did not want that the real cause of accident became known. The Swedes did not speak Estonian, so the Estonian captain Enn Neidre was asked to convey to the crew what to say at the questionings. The Swedish government assisted by stopping the Stolt-Comex offer to salvage all victims. Had all victims been salvaged, it would have later been impossible to refuse the request for a complete examination of the wreck and the hull.
Five Swedish divers visited the wreck soon after the accident, probably under the leadership of Mr Gustav Hanuliak. Who ordered the expedition(s) is not known, nor what they actually did down at the wreck. It is highly likely that they removed the visor using small explosive devices (anti-mine explosives). The divers were apparently trained to remove and destroy mines under water. But the visor hinges were very strong so you had to pull off the visor so that the hinges were torn apart.
Then - much later in 1998 - stupid rumours started to be spread (by the Germans) - the visor and ramp in the superstructure had been damaged by explosives before the sinking, when the ship was still afloat! Evidently such explosions would never have caused the ship to sink, but the rumours were actually good for the Swedish NMA and the Commission - to divert the attention away from the errors of the NMA and the manipulations of the Commission. And the persons stating such things could be written of as conspiracy freaks! So the Germans never accused the whole Commission of incompetence 3.18.
Cui Bono?
Who benefits of the cover up? The answer to the 'Estonia' riddle may be found in Sweden! But the Swedes will not talk. The government - Mona Sahlin - has decided 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 that "there is not any reason to take any steps with the aim of a new accident investigation". Ms Sahlin is evidently only protecting her friends at the Swedish NMA - Selén, Franson, Huss, etc. and of course the real culprits.
In Estonia the chairman of the Commission, transport minister Andi Meister resigned in 1996 and his colleagues captain Enn Neidre and secret police chief Priit Männik were kicked out of the Commission by the Estonian government or the president. In Estonia only the old and retired captain Uno Laur remained in the Commission from start to end, at the end as chairman and first signatory of the Final Report in December 1997. As a reward for his shameful work he was given a medal by the Estonian president Lennart Meri in February 1999. Laur know naturally the full truth of the Estonia accident - and he got a medal not to tell it. And he is an old man.
That is typical of dictatorships - suppress the Truth, so that the public does not know what is going on. But there are many young surviving Estonian crewmembers who know what happened. Why they do not talk is easy to explain - they are afraid and have been threatened.
The eternal Sound of the Waves
On the first anniversary of the accident 1995 president Lennart Meri had asked his countrymen always to remember
"those whose memory always is returned to us by the eternal sound of the waves of the sea". Meri also asked that the Estonian people should forgive what the sea had done.
"The sea has treated us badly", (Meri said solemnly), "but we are a nation of seafarers and we cannot live without the sea. We must be at peace with the sea".
   | In spite of theses words president Meri does not want today that Estonia follows the IMO resolutions to find out why the sea treated the 'Estonia' and Estonia so badly. The other Estonian members of the investigation are shadow figures without talents, which have never officially explained the document they de facto signed. Year 2000 Mart Laar, then 38 years old, was again prime minister, as he was when the accident took place 1994. Mart Laar, the leader of the Pro Patria-party, has also during six years ensured that Estonia does not follow the laws of the United Nations about marine accident investigations. The proposal of captain Erich Moik 1999 (see  1.46) about bad maintenance and insurance fraud have not been examined. And captain Moik lost his job at Estline.
The 'Estonia' accident and the disaster investigation thus took place during the reign of the Estonian president Lennart Meri and he has consistently refused to support a new investigation 1997-2001. The presidency of Meri ends in the autumn 2001 and hopefully his successor might show a greater interest in the Truth and safety at sea and might support the demand for a new investigation.++ Sometimes Sweden is looked upon as an island - with Kattegatt in the West, the Baltic in the South and East and the Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean in the North and Northwest with Norway in between. | 
 |
  |  | 
 |
 | Estonia is also looked upon as an island with the Bay of Finland to the North, the Baltic in the West, the Bay of Riga in the South and the lake Peipus in the East. Islanders should be interested in safety at sea. The Estonians know well the seas and lakes around them and have many words for the winds sweeping across these waters and the resulting waves caused by the winds. One of Estonia's greatest cultural personalities, the language researcher Andrus Saareste, has noted over 100 different Estonian words to describe the waves on seas, lakes and water. Why does the Estonian language have so many different words for a wave? To help the poets rime, or to live and survive in Estonia? The words of Lennart Meri about waves and
"those whose memory always is returned to us by the eternal sound of the waves of the sea" | 
 |
- do not sound true, because the Estonia accident investigation 1994-1997 is a shame for Estonia and Lennart Meri is personally responsible for this. Meri should listen more to the waves from the Baltic, where 852 persons died on the ship of shame, the 'Estonia', 1994. These waves will always reach the shores of Estonia, as long as all new facts and questions about the accident remain unanswered. But Meri's dreams to be remembered as an Estonian statesman who liberated Estonia from the USSR will go down the drains with such admittance - so he is silent. Tragic!
Finnish Excuses
The Finnish members of the Commission Lehtola, Iivonen and Karppinen stayed on from beginning to end. They steadfastly support the Final Report with any arguments Foreword), e.g. accusing the writer by name on television to try to overthrow (sic) the Finnish government and similar nonsense. And they have full support of the former Finnish foreign minister and present president - Ms Tarja Halonen - who in February 2000 wrote to the writer (30) and stated that the Finnish
"government has reviewed the (final) report and considers the result of the investigation of the Commission as reliable. In the recent debate about possible causes for the accident no new facts have been presented changing this opinion. The Finnish government thus sees no reason to take any action to re-open the accident investigation." The situation 2001 is thus that the three governments, which in 1994 decided that the Estonia accident should be wholly examined in a secret investigation, today consider that the investigation is final and that all facts have been reviewed and that the rules of the United Nations and the IMO are not applicable (or respective national laws), when new proven facts are presented later. It gives a false signal to the public; it prolongs and makes worse the sufferings of the relatives of the victims and the survivors and it is an insult of Democracy. The work for safety at sea suffers. You cannot develop better safety at sea, unless you know why an accident happened.
German Police Investigation
The results of the Gregg Bemis' dive expedition in August 2000 2.24 were announced in Germany in the beginning of November 2000 - parts of the forward superstructure had been subject to explosive damages! The damage - the opening in the front bulkhead - is described in 3.10. This damage has never been reported, examined and explained by the Commission. It is not mentioned in the Final Report (5). As five German citizens died in the accident the public prosecutor at Hamburg was asked to investigate, if these persons were in fact murdered. The murder investigation is done by Oberstaatsaanwalt Rüdiger Bagger at the Hamburger Staatsanwaltschaft and has number 7101 UJs 33/01 in Sachen 'Estonia'. In 2002 the affaire was classified without further investigation.
The Visor
It was very simple for the German police to prove the Commission wrong. Study the visor at Södertälje, Sweden. The damages, particularly the scrape marks below the visor arms, clearly show that the visor did not fall off as alleged by the Commission. It is quite easy to see that the visor arm hinges were torn apart under water after the accident. But the Germans did nothing.
Swedish Parliament is censored
In October 2000 four Swedish Members of Parliament handed in three different motions to the Parliament with the same request - to investigate all new proven facts of the 'Estonia' presented after the publication of the Final Report (5). These motions were supposed to be reviewed by a parliamentary (traffic) committee in February 2001 to be voted upon by the Parliament during the spring 2001. However, very strangely, the motions have been put aside. Another two motions to the same effect were handed in autumn 2001. They have also been put aside. The Swedish Parliament is silenced by manipulations. When the motions were finally heard on 13 December 2001 it was in connection with Swedish transport policy - another manipulation.
The present politicians in power are responsible for the unsatisfactory situation and the shameless falsification of History. In Sweden the government has appointed a number of charlatans in top positions to prevent studying the new proven facts and to prevent implementing correct safety at sea. It is evidently unacceptable that big 'commissions' under secrecy negotiate a 'cause of accident' based on badly manipulated and falsified technical reports, model tests and edited testimonies, to 'suit' the fantasies of the Commission. It must not be repeated.
The Truth can be painful for the few persons responsible for the accident. There was no reason to ask other persons - in a Commission - to support those responsible persons with a false investigation. Naturally the Truth will be found by a new, independent investigation. It can produce strong feelings among the relatives of the victims and survivors, but reconciliation is possible. The persons that manipulated the investigation did not cause the accident. They were also stupid victims of the accident. The real culprits of the accident are still at large. And insurance underwriters have paid a false claim.
Who wrote the Final Report?
The Final report (5) was officially agreed on the 20th meeting of the Commission in March 1997 but not published until December 1997 1.21. The Commission never officially met after March 1997. There are rumours of informal meetings checking proofs of the manuscript in English but nothing is documented. However, it should be clear that the Final report is so bad that it can hardly have been written by the nine fairly intelligent members in the Commission. So who wrote the Final report in the end? The manuscript of the report of
| March 1997 does not exist. It has been suggested that the Final report was in the end written, or edited, by a professional, outside, third party. The Commission had in fact given up the job to produce a falsified Final report and suggested that the party giving the orders did the final job itself. It was evidently not easy to produce a convincing report, when all the evidence - films, divings, testimonies, etc., had been systematically manipulated 1994-1996. The result is known - a glossy Final report (5) that seems in order after a casual study but where every essential fact is proven false after in depth research. It is obvious that such a report could never have been agreed by the Commission. So who wrote it? |  |
Remember the 'Estonia' - but why not ask Huss to assist?
We must both forget and remember the 'Estonia'. To forget and remember are different fruits on the tree of Knowledge. We must remember those who died - let them rest in peace wherever they are - and those who fought and still fight for the Truth of the accident. We shall later forget all those who misled the public by producing a false Final Report and whom the writer has named in this book. The writer wants to forget the 'Estonia', but not before all new proven facts have been reviewed, so that real improvements of safety at sea can be done and that not another 'Estonia' accident occurs. No more innocent persons shall end up at the bottom of the sea. A book like Disaster Investigation must not be written again.
A very good way to remember the 'Estonia' is to re-open the investigation according to IMO resolution A.849(20) Annex point 13 - new evidence changing circumstances must be investigated. The writer suggests that the figure 13.2 in the Final report (5) is a falsification 1.9. Figure 13.2 is stated to show the sequence of events, but is in fact only a plot of a completely undamaged ship, which turns and drift aided by a very strong current. All stability and floatability calculations of which figure 13.2 are based are also falsifications. Evidently the complete Final report (5) is evidence of modified circumstances, but why not start with this major plot?
Of course it is a pity for Dr. Michael Huss who falsified the impossible sinking in figure 13.2 and all calculations. Huss didn't suspect in November 1994 that he was appointed to 'prove' the myth of the conspirators. Huss then naturally didn't know that Finns and Swedes had found the wreck with the visor attached to the superstructure on 30 September 1994 and that divers had been sent out to remove the visor under water using explosives (and to open the ramp) assisted by the Swedish and Finnish navies on the surface. A false position of the wreck was announced by Mr Kari Lehtola to keep curious parties away. The first attempt on 1 October with an explosive device between visor and ramp resulted into the visor hanging on to the starboard side while the ramp was deformed aft and pushed hard into the frame, but a Finnish ROV that filmed the wreck on 2 October could nevertheless show pictures of a lost visor at the port side of the superstructure and some damaged parts. The foundation of the myth was built. A few days later 4-5 October the divers returned to finally remove the visor with explosives, so that it sank to the bottom below the wreck, but then they caused a big hole in the front bulkhead of the superstructure. New Finnish ROV-films taken on 9 October showed this, but the Commission (Lehtola) called the visor a 'steel plate' on the bottom, etc. that was edited away from the film. And the hole in the superstructure? - it disappeared completely - the bulkhead was officially undamaged! Naturally the visor could not remain on the sea floor below the wreck. It must first be 'found' in another location, which was done by the Finnish coast guard vessel the 'Tursas' that 'found' the visor on 18 October - a mile West of the wreck (the false wreck position)! It was a little messy with all false positions, so when the visor then was salvaged no positions could be announced at all. Then the Swede Johan Franson & Co. could investigate the wreck by divers in peace and quiet on 2-4 December 1994. If Franson knew that divers had removed the visor by explosives in October is unclear, but the job of Franson was clear already then. He should recommend that neither wreck nor victims could be salvaged. His divers told clear lies - the ramp locks were broken indicating that the visor had ripped open the ramp. But the ramp locks were undamaged!
At the same time Huss was appointed expert to the Commission to do a particular task - to simulate the sequence of events - to fit the false positions. Huss was very proud, but the task was not easy, i.e. rather impossible. Huss had nobody to talk to - the other members of the Commission were arrogant and uncommitted at the big dinners that always were part of the meetings. Huss stopped attending the dinners - but made a falsified simulation/plot of the accident - and remained as expert. Matters were not improved when the Commission further modified/falsified the plot of Huss but Huss silently accepted it. Forssbergdecided to resign and Ann-Louise Eksborg must sign the Final report. If Eksborg understood that the Final report was false from A to Z is unclear, but she always defends her report - often with assistance by Huss. Exactly as Mona Sahlin. All three are persons without their own critical thinking and lack of moral fibre - they operate in a society where falsified truth is common and is paid with a little 'prestige' and pocket money. Eksborg as Director General of a new government Board to counter threats against Sweden in peace, Huss as technical director of the Swedish Maritime Administration (appointed by Franson). And Mona Sahlin as 'politician'. And the Parliament applauds - 252-60 (in Swedish only).
This barbaric society will continue to sink deeper, as long as the citizens are not prepared to accept responsibility for individual actions and the country they live in. All three (four) are parasites on a sick body. Unfortunately they are not alone. The false 'Estonia' accident investigation report is definitely a product of Sweden. And maybe Huss could finally change his mind and admit that he produced a false plot in figure 13.2? Send him a mail atmichael.huss@sjofartsverket.se - it might work.
***************************************
 2005.01.22 - Who Kidnapped Captain Avo Piht? |
| |
WERE KEY SURVIVORS FROM ESTONIA CATASTROPHE KIDNAPPED?
By Christopher Bollyn
Exclusive to American Free Press The recent revelations of "enforced disappearances" of two Egyptian "terror suspects" carried out in Sweden in 2001 may shed light on the fate of nine missing survivors from the Estonia catastrophe of 1994. Last week, in an article entitled "‘Ghost Planes’ Make Suspects Disappear," American Free Pressreported that a U.S. registered Gulfstream 5 executive jet played a role in the "extraordinary rendition" or “enforced disappearance” of two Egyptian "terror suspects" from Sweden in 2001. As reported, there is evidence that a similar abduction may have occurred in Sweden in the days following the Estonia ferry disaster of late September 1994. According to Swedish journalist Sven Anér, enforced disappearances from Sweden are nothing new. More than 10 years ago, on Sept. 28, 1994, nine Estonian crewmembers, who evidently survived the Estonia ferry disaster, disappeared without a trace.  Documents pertaining to the 1994 and 2001 disappearances from Sweden point to U.S. registered private jets being used in both cases. Anér has provided AFP with airport documents concerning the aircraft suspected of being involved in the abduction of the nine missing Estonians.Enforced disappearance, according to the Rome Statute of 1998, "means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time." Enforced disappearance, a form of kidnapping, is considered a "crime against humanity," according to the Rome Statute, which Sweden ratified in June 2001. DISAPPEARED ESTONIANS  Ten years ago, in the immediate aftermath of theEstonia ferry disaster, which took the lives of some 852 people on Sept. 28, 1994, at least nine Estonian crew members, which official survivor lists show having survived the sinking, later mysteriously disappeared in what appears to be a government-organized abduction and enforced disappearance.While the original survivor lists contain the names of 146 individuals, shortly thereafter the names of 11 crew members, who had been listed as survivors, were deleted without explanation from the lists maintained by the Swedish and Finnish authorities. Anér has found 15 different original lists of survivors, all of which include the names of 11 Estonian crew members whose names were later deleted. It should be noted that in order for a name to appear on the list, a survivor was required to give his name, date of birth, status and nationality. There is substantial evidence that at least 9 crewmembers survived the sinking ofEstonia and were later abducted and taken to Arlanda airport near Stockholm whence they were flown out of Sweden on two private aircraft. The abduction of these 9 crew members effectively removed key witnesses who would have been able to testify about the condition of the ship and the cause of the sinking. Chief among these were one of the ship's captains, Avo Piht, who was on-board but not on duty that night, and Chief Engineer Lembit Leiger. It is thought that the other seven were crewmembers who had shared the same life raft or been rescued with Piht and Leiger in the same helicopter, Y-64. In the first days after the sinking, it was widely reported that Avo Piht had survived. The Swedish television news program Aktuellt, for example, in the evening of Sept. 28, 1994, reported that Ronald Bergman, director of Nordström & Thulin, the Swedish firm that co-owned the vessel with the Estonian state, had called and informed them that the ship's captain had survived and was being treated in a hospital in Finland. Bengt-Erik Stenmark, security chief at the Swedish Maritime Administration told Reuters that the international investigation committee had interviewed Captain Avo Piht. Neither Stenmark nor Reuters has ever retracted this statement. The German television network ZDF showed a video clip on September 28 of Avo Piht and other survivors arriving at Turku University Hospital in Finland. This video was later confiscated by German intelligence agents, according to Estoniaresearcher Jutta Rabe. Leiger's wife, Kairi, received a call from a relative in Sweden who told her that a Swedish police superintendent named H. Strindlund had called to inform them that her husband had survived. Lembit Leiger had reportedly been treated in Stockholm's Huddinge Hospital and been released on September 29, 24 hours after having been admitted. The next day, Mrs. Leiger spoke to Strindlund herself. Strindlund informed her of the flight details for the plane on which Leiger would be returning to Tallinn – but he never came home. Along with Piht and Leiger, there are at least seven other "disappeared" crew members, whose names remained on survivor lists for days: The ship's doctor, Dr. Viktor Bogdanov, Kalev Vahtras, Kaimar Kikas, Agur Targama, Tiina Müür, and the twin sisters, Hannely and Hanka-Hannika Veide. A STRANGE DISAPPEARANCE In Tallinn, at noon on Sept. 28, 1994, the names of survivors provided by the Estonian Department of Transportation were read over the radio. Kalev Vahtras, the ship's quartermaster, was one of them. Silver Linde, a surviving seaman, told Jutta Rabe that he had shared a hospital room in Turku, Finland, with Vahtras. Vahtras and Linde were friends and the two spoke in the hospital. Vahtras had no noticeable injuries, although his body temperature was low and he was wrapped in blankets, Linde said. Linde went to visit other survivors and left Kalev alone in the room. When Linde returned with another crewmember, they discovered that Vahtras was gone. His entire bed had vanished. Linde asked a nurse about Vahtras and was told he had been transferred to another hospital. A survivor list from Turku hospital shows Vahtras' name and body temperature. Vahtras' wife went to Turku and was told her husband was in a hospital in Sweden. Eventually an unrecognizable and disfigured corpse said to be Vahtras was returned to Estonia with a death certificate which read: Drowned in the Baltic Sea. Linde is serving a 9-year prison sentence in Finland, the victim of a framed charge of drug trafficking. THE CENSORED RESCUE Aftonbladet, the Swedish daily, reported on the day of the sinking that rescue worker Kenneth Svensson, on a rescue trip with Swedish Navy helicopter Y-64, rescued 9 people at about 3 a.m. on Sept. 28. Half an hour later, according to Aftonbladet, the helicopter took the rescued to Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm, arriving at 4:30 a.m., with nine persons, one of whom was dead. There is, however, no information as to who these 9 people were. The early rescue by Kenneth Svensson, however, was completely censored from the final report (JAIC), published three years later. According to the final report, Y-64 only rescued one person at 5:10 a.m. Svensson received a medal for heroic service from Sweden's supreme commander Owe Victorin and was requested not to discuss the matter. As AFP reported earlier, it was Owe Victorin who authorized the smuggling of Soviet weapons technology on Estonia in the first place. There was an agreement between Victorin and the commissioner of customs, Ulf Larsson, for a specific senior customs officer to clear the contraband materials, without any inspection, on arrival in Stockholm. At least two shipments of Soviet weapons technology had been delivered on Estonia under this arrangement in September 1994. Jan Lindqvist, information chief for Sweden's civil aviation administration, provided Anér with documentation of two private planes that left Stockholm's Arlanda airport carrying a total of 9 unregistered passengers on the 28th and 29th of September. The first plane, a Boeing 727-200, then registered VR-CLM, belonged to Larmag Aviation Cayman Ltd., a Bermuda-based company owned by Lars-Erik Magnusson, a Swedish casino owner and real estate mogul who became invested heavily in an oil and gas scheme in Turkmenistan in 1994 with funds taken from another firm, Fermenta. The 161-seat Larmag 727 arrived from Amsterdam on the evening of Sept. 27 without passengers or cargo and left at 8:54 p.m. on Sept. 28 with 4 unregistered passengers headed for Amsterdam. The second plane, a Gulfstream 4, registered N971L, belongs to International Lease Finance Corp. (ILFC) of Los Angeles, California. ILFC, an aircraft leasing company, was founded by Leslie Gonda, born Lazlo Goldschmied in Hungary. Today, Maurice R. Greenberg's American International Group (AIG) owns ILFC and Greenberg sits on the board of directors with Gonda. The ILFC Gulfstream arrived at about 11 p.m. on the 28th without passengers from Amsterdam and left at 5:13 on the 29th with 5 unregistered passengers bound for Bangor, Maine. AFP inquired at ILFC about who was operating the plane at the time. April Rotondi wrote that "no one" at ILFC can help with this request and hung up when asked on the phone. Anér told AFP that there was an understanding at Arlanda that invoices for the ILFC Gulfstream were sent to the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm. In his book Mayday, about the Estonia catastrophe, Anér says, "I am convinced that both these ghost planes are connected to the Estonia catastrophe." AFP asked Lindqvist about Anér's information. "I trust the information I gave Sven Anér," Lindqvist said. Asked about the "Kalla Fakta" exposé that a Gulfstream 5, registered to phony front companies in the U.S., was involved in the "enforced disappearance" of two Egyptians in 2001, Lindqvist said: "Through my internal sources, I know that everything in the program is correct." Finis Notes:The independent French-based Swedish sea-safety expert and naval architect Anders Björkman's website on the Estonia catastrophe is at: Mr. Björkman, who is a former Swedish Navy engineer, has posted a survivor list that contains the names of 12 missing Estonian crew members and shows when and how they were rescued: This list shows that Avo Piht, Kalev Vahtras, Hannely (Anne) and Hanka-Hannika Veide were picked up by Swedish Navy helicopter Y-64 from life raft X1 at about 3:30 a.m. (Sept. 28, 1994) and taken to Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm at 4:40 a.m. This is the rescue done by Kenneth Svensson. It should be noted that Hannely is listed with her nickname "Anne," which only she (or her sister) would have known and been able to provide. This list also shows that Kaimar Kikas, Merit Kikas, Tiit Meos, Agur Targama, and Ago Tomingas, from life raft X2, were also picked up by helicopter Y-64 and Kenneth Svensson at about 3:50 a.m. These nine rescued people were taken together to Huddinge Hospital, arriving at 4:40 a.m. on September 28, 1994. These people were seen, registered and spoken to by others including other crew members and hospital personnel. In Captain Avo Piht's case, he was even filmed and interviewed. Interpol, Europe's international police force, initiated a search for Avo Piht after Estonia sank. Police don't search for dead men. The relatives of these survivors were notified of their status and locations. By the next day, September 29, 1994, all of these Estonians had disappeared although their names remained on some lists for more than one week. The dozen missing Estonia crew members is one of the earliest and most egregious examples of "enforced disappearance." Who kidnapped Captain Avo Piht and where is he? |
|
|
|
|
|
Disaster Investigation 
The Hole in the Hull of Estonia
No comments:
Post a Comment