 
The victims (dead and relatives) and witnesses of the accident are left helpless at the wims of corrupt accident investigators and their respective governments.
Björn von der Esch in the Swedish Parliament 30 May 2002.The alleged loss of the visor having caused the accident is a well orchestrated myth and the Swedish media does not dare to inform the public about it. Three books by Heiwa Co provide new information to find the final answer what actually happened. Read
|
It is sad to conclude that every essential official information about the 'Estonia' accident 28 September 1994 announced between 1994 and 1997 is false. The following are, e.g. twenty proven facts (today), which are not mentioned in the official Final Report issued December 1997, but are described in the above books: 20 Facts prove the Commission wrong
No Fact 1 Salvage of the victims - all dead bodies could have been recovered during the first week. It was not done as the visor was still to be seen on the wreck 2 Stability - the 'Estonia' should have capsized immediately with 2 000 tons of water on the car deck in the superstructure. It was erroneously assumed that the deck house was watertight 3 Ramp - the bow ramp at the forward end of the superstructure was never open during the accident because the visor was still attached to the ship 4 Water inflow through an open ramp - the published figures are false (the visor never fell off) 5 Speed and course of the ship - the published figures are false 6 Visor - the visor was attached to the superstructure, when the ferry sank 7 Seaworthiness - the ferry was not seaworthy 8 Watertight subdivision - was not as per the SOLAS: too many - and open - watertight doors 9 Testimonies - survivors' testimonies have been changed and manipulated 10 Lifesaving equipment - was not as per the SOLAS: dry abandonement was not possible 11 Port State Control by Sweden - manipulated several times to hide unseaworthiness 12 Official dive investigation December 1994 - the official results were manipulated 13 Damage to starboard front/collision bulkhead - not reported by the Commission 14 Destroyed evidence - several objects salvaged December 1994 were thrown into the sea 15 Visor damaged before the accident - the visor was damaged before the accident 16 Major hull modification work was done 8 months before the accident - stabilizers were fitted 17 The swimming pool - was built into the double bottom: totally illegal 18 Leakage of the hull - not investigated - probably started at the stabilizers, the sewage tanks or the swimming pool and sank the ship 19
20
The dead bodies could and should have been recovered immediately after the accident. The French-Norwegian company Stolt-Comex offered its services at very low cost and had equipment and staff in place. The offer was refused. The only logical reason seems to have been to prevent outsiders from investigating the wreck in early October 1994 and to find the true cause of the accident. Probably the visor was then first attached to wreck itself, then detached underwater around 4-6 October, so it fell to the bottom below the wreck, and as the visor was not finally removed/salvaged until mid-November, no salvage of bodies could take place in early October. Later - all proposals for further investigation of the wreck to confirm new findings are refused with reference to the dead bodies - they shall rest in peace. So the refusal to salvage the bodies had two reasons - to prevent an early inspection of the wreck and to prevent any later inspections of the wreck.
The official sequence of events during and after the accident is not possible - see
The official Explanation - slow Sinking due to Water on the Car Deck in the Superstructure - not possible!
Heiwa Co quickly concluded 1994 that the official sequence of events was unlikely - unbelievable - and that the visor must have fallen off after the first sudden listing - see
New information about damages at the bow due to explosive devices is explained further down page.
Staff Changes at the National Maritime Administration
It is quite strange to note the following staff changes in the Swedish National Maritime Administration 2001 since the 'Estonia' accident 1994:
1. Mr. Jan-Olof Selén is Director General 2001. In 1994 he was legal counsel at the Ministry of Transportation to minister Ines Uusmann who decided not to or prevented the salvage of dead bodies. He is not a seafarer.
2. Mr.
3. Mr. Ulf Hobro is Chief Ship Inspector at Stockholm. In 1994 he was technical and safety superintendent of the Swedish owners of the 'Estonia' - N&T - and responsible for the safety of the 'Estonia'.
4. Mr. Åke Sjöblom is Chief Ship Inspector at Gothenburg. In 1994 he did the last safety control of the 'Estonia' at Tallinn 8 hours prior to the accident and found several defects that were not mentioned in the Final Report.
5. Mr. Per Nordström is deputy Director of Maritime Safety. In 1994 he was technical director of the Swedish Ship Owners Association of which the owners N&T of the 'Estonia' were leading members.
6. Dr.
7. Capt.
The seven top members of the Swedish NMA have all contributed to the misleading 'Estonia' accident investigation. The official position of the Swedish NMA is that the Final Report is complete and correct and that this web page does not include any new information.
Other new information is the below picture of the 'Estonia' wreck published in Sweden spring 2000. The left picture is a 'sonar picture' of the wreck officially made 1996 - two years after the accident - but probably made already 30 September, 1994 - the day the wreck was found. Actually the left picture is a hydrographical chart of the wreck area with a picture of the wreck sketched on top. By removing the 'wreck' you get the center picture showing a pyramide shaped object about 13x13 m on the bottom about 6-7 metres high - shaped like the visor (left picture) with the bottom up. The pictures suggest that the visor was in fact found at the bow of the ship, i.e. it could not have fallen off under way, before the sudden list occurred far away from the sinking position. There are more pictures of the
You can read more about the independent Heiwa Co investigations in the following books and reports written by Anders Björkman some of which are found on the Internet:
'Sonar picture' of sea floor and wreck released 2000 Same picture with the sketch of the 'wreck' removed showing only barimetric depth curves The visor after salvage - note the big buckle due to a collision
The Lessons learnt by the M/S Estonia Accident
Ship owners and ship safety experts have a lot to learn from the 'Estonia' accident. The deficiencies 1993 in design and arrangements were due to the fact that the 'Estonia' was never designed to sail on the open sea. She was designed 1979 forprotected coastal trading and the SOLAS requirements were never fully used or complied with in spite of certification to the contrary. Thus she was permitted by the Finnish and Swedish maritime administrations 1980 to have too many (open) watertight doors - total 22!, restricted number of life rafts under davits, no possibility to evacuate all persons aboard by life saving means under davits, a swimming pool on the the double bottom, etc.
Unfortunately, when the trade changed in 1993, the new Swedish/Estonian owners never bothered to up-grade the ship. The owners and the maritime administrations were one and the same. In retrospect it would have cost very little to have made the 'Estonia' safe and seaworthy as per the SOLAS in 1993.
The hull steel work performed in 1994 to install the fin stabilizers should have been better supervised and documented. Now the stabilizers were installed in a compartment that could only be accessed via watertight doors!Then the Estonia would never have sunk in 35 minutes as she did in 1994.
There are strange stories about an explosive device found at the bow - see
Read about the
Since 1999 many parties have requested the Swedish government to re-open the investigation as per IMO Resolution A.849(20) and to review the new proven facts and then inform other interested countries. Every time the Swedish government has refused with the weak argument - no new facts have been presented. In April 2001 the Swedish government in a press release referring to this web page stated that it did not contain any information to the effect that the official cause and sequence of accident were wrong! It is very sad - the writer of this web page started out trying to help and to improve safety at sea. Now he is being treated like a criminal by the Swedish and Finnish establishments.
Read the report of
Read the reports of
And what do you see on the picture right? It is a big hole found in the superstructure of the 'Estonia'. The hole is in an area, which the Commission states is 100% undamaged. The hole is certainly the result of an explosion from inside the superstructure as (i) the edges are bent outboard, (ii) material is missing from the centre inside of the hole and (iii) analysis of test pieces of the ruptured edges show that the material has been subject to high temperatures = explosion. See
The hole was probably blown open when the visor was removed from the wreck at the bottom of the sea after the accident.
Many persons ask why the authorities presented a 100% falsified explanation and report about the accident. The simple answer is that the Swedish government didn't want the public to know what really happened, so it decided to make up a totally false story - the lost visor. By parading 'experts' stating that ferries sink due to lost visors and by falsifying testimonies from some crew members the conspirators managed to create a fairly credible story among the ignorant public. Evidently, the visor was attached to the wreck, so the visor had to be removed by explosives in order to be salvaged, etc., etc. which had to be kept secret. And the technical explanations were never good enough - evidently a ferry does not sink due to a lost visor - the ferry would have capsized and floated upside down with water in the superstructure. So why was a falsified explanation ordered by the Swedish government? To protect the incompetents Swedish National Maritime Authority (Sjöfartsverket)? Or a more sinister cause - to protect, e.g. military interests using the 'Estonia' ferry to carry secret ordinance from the former Soviet Union to Sweden? Will we ever know? It is quite easy actually - ask the Swedish government to provide the missing information. The whole matter is presently handled by the
No comments:
Post a Comment