I've said this in another video that claimed a sub sank the Estonia but it would be highly implausible that this happened. The night the Estonia sank the the seas were 13-20 feet and high winds of 35-45 mph. No submarine would be on the surface in those conditions unless it was in distress and had no choice but to surface or sink. And given the fact that submarines ride relatively low in the water if such a situation had occurred the Estonia would have just ridden right over the top of the submarine or the bulbous bow on the Estonia would have just bashed it out of the way.
Such a collision would either badly damage or sink a submarine. If it was sunk, then some navy would have been missing a submarine, with crew, and that would have been noticed. If it was simply badly damaged, then it would have turned up somewhere with major damage, which also didn't happen.
If the Estonia struck an obstacle like a sub with enough force to damage or tear off the bow door I think the crew would have noticed and reported a collision. How fast did the ship go down? This scenario seems unlikely.
My history teacher showed us a video regarding the Estonia disaster 2 years ago and in it the OFFICIAL Swedish commission showed "explosive" damage to metal parts.
Swedish filmmaker Henrik Evertsson dived into the wreck of Estonia with a submarine robot and discovered an unspecified injury on the hull of the ship. The published footage shows a large dent on the side of Estonia and a hole that is four metres high and 1.2 metres wide. AFTONBLADET
Torpedo and sub, Maybe. The lorry with stuff on car deck was real reason as said. Some Day we know, must be people's out there who's have much to say.. Some few's already opened case little bit. It's no secret anymore that Estonia ship had many time's "secret military cargo" on board going to Sweden and then last link was to USA using plane. I know, this is difficult thing many ways. But murder on The same ship is going to judge at this year.. Sally became just one Hell boat of death.. i wait when that case became "Hot", now is just accident and closed. At 90's some people's say IT must burry by cement or asphalt.. grazy idea if it "just go to bottom of sea".. was there soviet niclear stuff? If I remember right, they have missing some 48 nukes, different types. who knows where those are, nobody.
@@RealDrSex What a powerful fantasy the amateur debunker has. Estonia has never changed its position, there is a lot of underwater filming for all the time it rests on the bottom. The bottom in this place is absolutely flat, the ship has nowhere to slip. On what pro-government website did you read this nonsense about a cliff?
The makers of videos like this seem to miss the detail that the lights are off on the command bridge when driving at nighttime. Having full lights on = outside vision is severly impaired.
@@angieroxy7550 Which would seem to imply that the makers don't know much about driving a ship at night time, but as it is in reality kept very dark on the command bridge it would be difficult to visualize what is going on on the bridge in a simulation or a film. I've worked 15 years (1980-95) for the Viking Line ferry company that operated Estonia earlier 1980-90 as "Viking Sally", I''ve also been on her command bridge and could notice the awkward fact that she was built so that you could not see the ships "nose" with the visir from the command bridge . My father was a captain for the same company until his retirement in 1983. So it is very well known: no lights on the command bridge at night time. It's a practical question of visiblity.
@@olzyolzmobile You have absolutely right sir! I'm interested to ask you which vessels where you on duty? and in what period on these vessels? Greetings from a maritime student in Norway!
I'm pretty sure it went down with the stern first, the bow rose up in the sky a bit, stern hit the bottom, and the rest sunk down. It's crazy to think that the ship is almost twice the lenght of the depth she is laying on.
There was NATO training near the accident and there could have been a submarine that sunk Estonia, and this explains why England signed that they weren't inspecting or lifting up the ship from the water when they aren't even a part of the nordic countries, because England is a part of NATO and they could have been the reason why Estonia sunk.
Can't agree with this because it would be stupid on UK's part if they had part in this disaster to sign something so far off their shores. They just showed solidarity. More likely it was a Russian sub because Estonia did carry, old Soviet arms disguised as civil trucks (which they did several times already and they were warned by the Russians that they know what they are doing). The now open vehicle ramp proves it that Sweden tried to hide the real truth. Let's be real. Why would anyone need to bury a shipwreck if they didn't have something to hide?
@@MrKimas oh yes, the Russians are always to blame for everything. Did the Russians impose a moratorium on diving and filming in Estonia? If it were a Russian submarine, they would have been shouting about it all over the world
@@mikeycrackson Because Sweden bought Soviet military tech that was left in Estonia after their independance. Sweden and Estonia were warned by the now Russians that they know what's going on. All the countries that signed the agreement besides maybe UK didn't want the public to know that around 900 people died because of a military purchase.
Theories like this only exist because people refuse to believe that such a small series of mistakes could result in such a catastrophe. Fact of the matter is that most disasters are the result of small things.
A cruise ship is like a christmas tree, and there are lookouts on the sub if it travels surfaced, but at that night the heavy seas would have made the sub roll so much that the crew would have all been seasick. Perhaps in the Hollywood World this could happen as in the video, but not in the real world. Sub sonar hears everything, and in the surface, both Estonia and sub would have seen each other in their radar screens and radars would have alerted of collision. All the sub crew sleeping, and the boat in autopilot? Not likely. Sure enough, if just surfacing, there could be a blind moment for both, it has happened before. The hole in the hull is still puzzling; if the visor did not sink right away, but was thrown by a wave against the hull, that could cause the hole. If the damage is clearly from outside in, something heavy and sharp could cause it, not smooth-sided sub. The front diving plane may or may not be sturdy enough to rip the hull enough. Let us hope the real thruth will come to light...
@@Haldei Wow, you are a genius Da, let us ram a multi billion dollar submarine into a ferry that has slightly pissed us off by moving obsolete soviet arms. Yup that makes perfect sense
@@AKQJIO1978 You are wrong. The visire was subjected to high heat. Over 1200 C, it has been confirmed. They dont know but it points to an explsosiotn.....
I think it was an explosion from the inside. Explains the deformation of the visor plate and the burn marks as well the hole on the hull pointing outwards
Finnish newspapers Iltalehti and Ilta~sanomat reports that the wreck of Estonia has been breached and that the ramp to the vehicle deck is completely open and torn away from the wrecks bow.
@@elefteriosmouratidis There is no problem. Just more unaswered questions to what originally happened and what was transported aboard Estonias vehicle deck during Estonias final voyage.
@@rikuhytti No it wasnt completly cloesed. It never was completly closed. We have to understand the ramp was damaged and after 20+ yeasrs gravity does its thing. Noone removed the ramp. And why should they? To do what? Go in to the car deck? To find what? Everything is a mess in there. You cant find anything
The problem with this theory is that there's no way in hell that sub didnt know it was on a collision course with another vessel. Even in peacetime, modern submarines always utilize passive sonar, which should've easily detected the propeller revolutions. And when surfaced, subs typically deploy their ESM mast which would make detection of a ship even easier. Given the alignment of the two vessels in your animation, the Estonia wasnt in the subs baffles and so should've been spotted. Most glaring of all, no sub would be travelling on the surface during a storm. Subs hardly ever travel on the surface to begin with, and doing so in a storm would make no sense as it would slow their speed and cause the sub to roll even more than a surface vessel would
I don’t think alternative theories like a submarine collision or top-secret military cargo exploding caused the accident. If you ask me everything points towards the visor. Here are some factors to consider: 1. The visor was found far away from the main wreckage, meaning it broke free before Estonia capsized. 2. Footage taken weeks before the accident shows a visor that is in bad shape and poorly maintained. 3. The hole that was discovered on Estonia shows the force that created it came from inside the ship, not outside. 4. The hole was probably created by explosive decompression. Similar thing happened when the MV Derbyshire sank. It’s caused by air escaping under intense water pressure when a ship sinks.
@@The_Duggler25 Isn't it literally the opposite? Subs are built for naval warfare and Estonia was a civil ship in rough shape. A sub would completely trash Estonia?
@@henriksandbacka9442 subs while strong in there own right, are also fragile especially if hit in the side like that. That ship has far more mass and weight and with that bow, would cut right though the sub.
Someone mentioned about a sub not going on the surface in bad stormy weather, even I know that...then this is inaccurate, in that case it was a yellow submarine
thats only true for big submarines (they tend to dive below the storm) but the small ones used in the Baltic sea sometimes surface during storms for safety reasons but the Estonia did not hit a sub
Oh, come on people Skip the damm UBoat story for once The damage is across the Fender OVER the waterline Also…. That UBoat from your animation would have been cut in half and immediately sunk if that was what happened
Submarine? c´mon! she was in heavy waves, probably hade fatigue issues in her construction, hit a vawe hard, tore of the visor, and then the door couldn´t handle the impact forces from the vawes...the damages on the hull was of course made from rocks when impacting the sea bed! End of story.
But if you watched the documentry they found no rocks. But like they said they were smuggling military equipment which the government denied but then admitted to it lol. Somethings suspicious about the whole thing regardless but we'll never know
@@AF-nc2fc She never sunk bow first. She listed on the right and sunk stern first. This channel also made an animation about it, some days ago. You're ignorant
This still wouldn’t explain the massive hole divers found in her hull. My personal theory is it was an old WW2 sea mine that hadn’t been disposed of properly, since we know that this is true for the Baltic. Nobody bothered to properly screen it for the mines.
this was on a well used shipping route it unlikly a mine would be left un discovered there.. and i dont think any mines was deployed in the region at all during ww2. surviving testimony talk about a explosion but a mine would be discribed more distinkly. why lie about a ww2 mine?
Was just away to post exact same thing. In one if the world wars i cant remember which they apparently laid just under 200,000 sea mines in the baltic sea. It could be posdible that a small one struck the side of the ship causing the mystery hole and in the process the shockwave that went through the hull jolted the visor hinges and damaged them to the point they coukd no longer take the pressure from the waves.
Ive heard rumours that the following day of Estonian disaster, near port of Sweden a Submarine with a injury was brought to fix..Same day when Estonia sank there were Nato training in that sea, with multiple submarines.
The submarine (if did acually hit the estonia) was at full speed when it happened. It smashed into the bow visor causing the loud bang. Then still being at full speed smashed into the right side again opening the large hole(s) and then the rest is history
If this was the case Estonia would float for a couple days instead of sinking in under an hour as it did because water can’t go from the car deck and under because of a water tight barrier the boat would hav rotated 180 degrees and stay afloat upside down for a couple days and they have found holes under car deck.
The problem with big ships is that with the size, pressure on trapped air increases. The weight of the ship structure compresses the air, and volume of air reduces along with reduced floating capability. With only 1 bar pressure, air volume is reduced twice.
The sub probsbly hit further back, the ship sank si quickly because of the water that was pouring in the cabin area under the car deck, if the water only came pouring in through the bow and overfilled the car deck, it would have stayed afloat upside down for days as u say, but since it sank at once, the deck under the car deck had to be filled with seawater wich it did so if it really was a submarine that made the hole it makes sense that it sunk at once
The bow doors didnt just fell of so quickly actually. Once they did water rushed in the cargo area. There were no watertight barriers. Just one huge space for wheeled cargo.Also roro carriers were designed differently back then. Nowadays they dont have such curved hulls, but they are wider for added stability. Waves were also bigger as shown in animation, weather was awful that night.
Or pressed on half of original volume and weight is same. 1000 Litres = 1Kg @ sea level. 10.000 L Air under 10m of water weight 5kg, over 5Kg when water is salty. That's is then more heavy when It's sinkin and more water goes in and air squeezes, If I'am right about that.
If this is what happened then what happened to the sub? Given the disparity in size between it and the Estonia it would likely have suffered severe damage. Subs have been sunk in the past by such collisions, even if it survived it would need several years in dock to be repaired. It’s presence would be difficult to conceal and it would be off its navy’s active strength for that length of time. I’m not saying the scenario is incorrect, the cause of the hole in the Estonia’s side needs to be determined, but this is the thing that occurs to me on seeing this.
Dunno, when chasing enemy submarines under water, collisions could easily occur. Therefore a submarine needs to be build tough, to not being sunk by "accident". They possibly have hardened stern to be able to ram a submarine. Due to the torpedo outlets possibly not practicable.
This is unrealistic, it hardly seems to me that the front sash was torn off and the bulb was not even injured. The sash was torn off, because of the large area, it slowed down in the water and the ship tore through the skin on it. Moreover, the submarines have a rubber noise-absorbing skin, its traces were not found on the found ferry sash. This version is fantastic, nothing more. --- If Estonia crashed into a submarine, it would be the same as flying into a vertical wall by car. Most of the submarine is under water, and the submerged body will be very difficult to deploy such a ferry as shown in the video. Estonia would have to overcome the water resistance preventing the U-turn of the submarine. Estonia would have reared up.
I finally got around to watch the 2nd season of the Estonia documentary, it came out really late as it does. How did you react when you saw YOUR clips there?
@@JohnAnderssonTV Vadå förklara, när den ena idioten efter den andra kommer med påståenden som är rena fantasierna så är det nog inte jag som ska förklara mig. Hur kan man ens tänka tanken att en u-båt körde på och sänkte Estonia. det skulle aldrig kunna tystas ner och det skulle även ha inneburit att den u-båten sjönk. Bara för att någon har varit duktig och gjort en animerad filmsnutt betyder inte det att personen ifråga vet ett skit om Estonia. Det är en ren fantasi
Why not? The Titanic hit an iceberg in the middle of the ocean, why can’t the Estonia have hit a submarine? Just because something is improbable, doesn’t make it impossible.
@@pspsport6505 Tänkte mer på ögonvittnet på Estonio som direkt efter smällen sprang upp däck och såg något i vattnet. Så omöjligt är det absolut inte. Teorin är att den var rysk och dem är faktiskt en nationsstat som historiskt sett vart bra på att tysta ner saker
Another theory is that there where russians if i remember and they had a drove a truck onboard the ship and they blowed the ships visor and thats the reason why it sank but ofc thats just a theory but in inmages you can see places where you can see a places where something exploded
Yes it is. And you saying it is not just proves that. Don't know why, but that's how it works. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an unexpected Ufo encounter at noon.
Maybe just speculation: but on ship was some military or secret russian stuff * stolen* from them, to ship to sweden, later on Usa. Thats why it was important to stop it. Also hole in ship maybe blown out later underwater to take stuff out?
This is completely wrong. the bow visor was removed by the Swedish authorities after the ship had sunk. That the bow visor had come loose is something Carl Bildt stated before someone had examined the ship. A ship does not sink because the bow visor comes loose, and a ship does not sink in 10-15 minutes, regardless of whether water leaks in from the bow visor. It is the ramp that seals up there and not the bow visor!
No, that is wrong. The bow visor separated from the ship before the sinking and it was found 1,5 kilometers west from the wreck itself. The wreck was found lying on the seabed at 120 degrees angle and the bow ramp was at closed position. The visor, however, wasn't there. Only but two of the hinges, that keep the bow ramp in place was broken and there was additional structural damage to the ramp beside the broken hinges. 2021 investigation has concluded that the ramp has now been separated from the ship and is lying there next to the bow. The car deck is now completely open. The wreck has been moving since 1994 due to the water flow and is now in 132 degrees angle (almost upside down) and has gone few meters deeper. It is likely that the movement and the change in the angle of the wreck has broken the two ramp hinges that were left.
If there was a sub and they were both on the surface and experiencing heavy waves. The sub could have caused more damege on the back because of the heavy waves and with out of control
Hmm, are you saying that "LA" was watching that Estonian's cargo project and ewerything went wrong? I think you don't mean that "LA" put holes to Estonia and sink it? Tell more or url, thanks. 1 second ago
A title like this made me wonder if Estonia's faith is Christianity or paganism 😅 leaving the grammar nazism aside, that animation is full high quality there. Doesn't matter if it actually happened like this or not, your work is superb!
What you don’t realise subs aren’t invisible. That sub would’ve been demolished, not to mention I could easily figure out a way to sink the Estonia with out leaving a a scrap of a clue for investigators
Not to mention you'd feel if you hit something. The Titanic was a massive ship and only grazed the side of an iceberg, yet practically the whole ship felt the impact. A smaller ship like Estonia hitting a submarine head on would have caused enormous ruckus.
she is in amazing condition and can be raised. for some reason the estonian and swedish government decided to not raise it. if they raise it they can recover the bodies with ease, repair the ship and possibly use the boat again.
@@martinsv9183 No, sorry but you are wrong. Nothing is in the end impossible. But it's extremely complicated, extremely expensive and with new technology you can investigste the wreck in a way not possible in the 90ts and likely find needed facts
Wenn es so gewesen sein sollte müsste man überall auf Werften nachforschen nach irgendwelche U-Boote wegen Beschädigungen repariert worden sind . Denn bei so einen Aufprall müsste das U-Boot auch stark beschädigt
@@proactiveomnipresentvessel6569 Estonia had huge problems before her voyage. Bow visors are 99.9% safe and very useful! (You can get where that 0.1% went..)
now im no conspiracy theorist but i do think high seas were not the reason the estonia sank. every survivor said they heard a loud bang before it sank and they wouldnt have reacted if this loud bang kept on being heard. also the divers were strictly regulated on where to go and after a dive that proved nothing in a investigation the government declared the wreck a marine grave and prevented diving or exploring the wreck for answers despite the requests of many families of the dead people onboard. also the ships bow visor broke up but it sunk stern first, now the free surface effect could be an explanation for it though. i think it might have transported drugs because some ocean liners do/did that and then estline had a emergency scuttle thing in case drugs were found and the rest is as we know it. now again i am no conspiracy theorist and if you have counterarguments for these claims then i do want to hear them and i would much appreciate it if you replyed with them with respect.
Sorry that this is totally inaccurate. There was no sub. There would have been obvious signs of destruction from an impact on the front hatch had this occurred.
Estonia sank very fast. That is a main problem with the investigationreport. Im not sure there are any other passengerships in modern times that have sunk as fast as Estonia without being hit by a missile or such.
Her bow was basically open to the sea and her RORO design allowed the free surface effect to take place, which gave the water free access to the full length of the ship. Couple this with high swells and the failure to notice the problem early on, and it's no surprise the ship sank as fast as it did.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to say how she sunk so fast. Her bow visor broke off while heading into heavy seas at 14 knots and a deck without watertight integrity that runs the entire length of the ship was directly behind it.
@@maltimulti1919 nej stämmer inte. Man har alltid sagt att en ubåt träffade visiret. Det är först nu efter Dplay dokumentären några tomtar påstår att en ubåt träffat estonia på sidan
@@Jonathan07ta Actually yes. There were divers in the shipwreck after the disaster that could have easily brought the bodies up (their words). But instead they got orders not to.
@@Boypogikami132 The divers were there way before the law even existed. The government stopped them from bringing bodies up for some unexplainable reason. They were told exactly where to go, and where not to. If it was against the law, they would not be in or even near the ship at all.
There is a much bigger wreck in the baltic sea and where many more People lost their life but sadly no one talks about it. Its name is Wilhelm Gustloff
no the literal idea of Estline (owners of Estonia) was to make trips form estonia to sweden and got paid a f ton to do it. the estonia was never meant to be on shores. the onlyt time that ever really happened was with Wasa line.
@@caljucotcas "its unbreakable" Omg. An *unbreakable* sub?? Please sign up for any military shipyard because they'll pay you a fortune if you can design an unbreakable sub. You're a genius. Listen. No sub is anywhere near unbreakable. Even the most advanced nuclear subs have imploded at merely 400 meters of depth. Seriously, what kind of an answer is "its unbreakable" ?? How old are you? 14? What are your qualifications? Are you an engineer which works with ship building? What makes you a self-appointed expert in such matters?
Im from finland and i know alot of people that lost their friends and family in that tragedy leave like for the people who lost their lived in that tragedy
Yes, but if you look at the documentation and investigations by Henrik Evertsson, who reported that it was very unlikely that the explosives were the reason for the 4m hole in the bow, as well as the reports of an important eyewitness who claimed a white, large object Having seen it only opens up more options as to why the ship sank. But we all firmly believe in one thing: It wasn't an accident. So my condolences to all relatives. So that the truth will come up soon.
Maybe......... Estonia just sunk…? Alien’s Submarine? “Bomb”? Maybe just an accident, happen before... Do you think that when Estonia hit the bottom, damage to the hull is impossible?
I'm not an expert but based on the descriptions of the newly discovered hole, it doesn't seem to be from the ship potentially landing at an angle. There would have possibly been several more much like on other wrecks. The hole looks more like a collision since it is at a very localized area and half of it is pushed in. Also, a collision theory isn't necessarily as insane as aliens. Considering there have been many weird measures to not recover the remains of the passengers and no measures taken to resurface the ship. In addition, a very unheard-of plan was made to basically bury the ship, which could make sense if there was no option to recover remains or the ship. Considering how the very first divers even said that recovery could have easily done, this might imply that certain politicians did not want to face the political turmoil this would have brought. I just want to say that I'm no Swede or Estonian, I'm just a Greek who has grown up in Illinois. I don't know the politics behind this event or how different political parties are treating it. I basically just learned of this horrible tragedy and have seen a few documentaries about it. You potential could be right about the hole and the collision theory could be wrong. I honestly do not know, but what I do know is that I hope the local governments put an effort to go recover the people that were lost that day. It is truly a tragedy that families could not properly bury their loved ones. In addition, I hope that doing this it will allow for better exploration of the Estonia which will bring a better understanding of the tragedy and there will be no need for theories. If you have read all this thank you and I welcome a response as I am curious about what you think!
Well, Subarines are built of thick but soft flexible steel to withstand pressure, Estonia was 16000-ton ice class 1A meaning she was built in hardened steel for bouncing of ice. Estonia would have sank the U-boat in seconds, while Estonia would not have suffered much damage. But you can forget the speculation. Uboats never surface in a super trafficed area in the middle of the night in picth black (if the commander don´t want to commit suicide). Adding to that a subarine would never have surfaced in the kind of weather that was during that night.
@@KarlReimerGodtThat was the case with older submarines, today the ballast tanks are more integrated. However, yes a collision with a submarine and Estonia would in 90% ended with a sunken submarine. But you can just forget the whole idea as there are so many factors making a collision with a submarine unlikely.
dont you think that the sub wouldve been spotted by at least one person as it dragged across the ship? I mean, be reasonable here, no subs were reported missing that day, so its highly unlikely.
if it collided then yes people did saw it. theres actually a high chance that a survivor saw it and has talked aobut it multiple times. its just not sure if it was a sub
I've said this in another video that claimed a sub sank the Estonia but it would be highly implausible that this happened. The night the Estonia sank the the seas were 13-20 feet and high winds of 35-45 mph. No submarine would be on the surface in those conditions unless it was in distress and had no choice but to surface or sink. And given the fact that submarines ride relatively low in the water if such a situation had occurred the Estonia would have just ridden right over the top of the submarine or the bulbous bow on the Estonia would have just bashed it out of the way.
And if a sub collided with Estonia, where's that sub?
@@Vs-py2ey How do you tow a sunken submarine?
There is no proof of this and no radars before the sinking of the Estonia showed any surfaces submarine.
A collision with a surfaced sub is highly unlikely to have happened, if a sub was involves, it would have been a sub attacking the Estonia...
problem with the sub theory is that the front of the bow is not dented in any fashion. which automatically debunks the idea.
Such a collision would either badly damage or sink a submarine. If it was sunk, then some navy would have been missing a submarine, with crew, and that would have been noticed. If it was simply badly damaged, then it would have turned up somewhere with major damage, which also didn't happen.
I loved how you put the Viking Mariella and Silja Europa
thanks :)
GTS Finnjet should of been there too :)
@@DjMokkis and Silja Symphony and Isabella (now Isabelle)
If the Estonia struck an obstacle like a sub with enough force to damage or tear off the bow door I think the crew would have noticed and reported a collision. How fast did the ship go down? This scenario seems unlikely.
@X-MarcosTitanic2 or should i said 1000 seconds?
@X-MarcosTitanic2 The ship went down in 40-50 minutes, bro.
Olha cara a cabine não tinha visão da proa
@@momoy9159 More like 30 minutes
My history teacher showed us a video regarding the Estonia disaster 2 years ago and in it the OFFICIAL Swedish commission showed "explosive" damage to metal parts.
Swedish filmmaker Henrik Evertsson dived into the wreck of Estonia with a submarine robot and discovered an unspecified injury on the hull of the ship. The published footage shows a large dent on the side of Estonia and a hole that is four metres high and 1.2 metres wide.
AFTONBLADET
so, its a sub?
Torpedo and sub, Maybe. The lorry with stuff on car deck was real reason as said. Some Day we know, must be people's out there who's have much to say..
Some few's already opened case little bit. It's no secret anymore that Estonia ship had many time's "secret military cargo" on board going to Sweden and then last link was to USA using plane.
I know, this is difficult thing many ways. But murder on The same ship is going to judge at this year.. Sally became just one Hell boat of death.. i wait when that case became "Hot", now is just accident and closed. At 90's some people's say IT must burry by cement or asphalt.. grazy idea if it "just go to bottom of sea".. was there soviet niclear stuff? If I remember right, they have missing some 48 nukes, different types. who knows where those are, nobody.
@@jannejohansson3383 Torpedo? what the fuck are you talking about?
@@jannejohansson3383 Okei
@@RealDrSex What a powerful fantasy the amateur debunker has. Estonia has never changed its position, there is a lot of underwater filming for all the time it rests on the bottom. The bottom in this place is absolutely flat, the ship has nowhere to slip. On what pro-government website did you read this nonsense about a cliff?
The makers of videos like this seem to miss the detail that the lights are off on the command bridge when driving at nighttime. Having full lights on = outside vision is severly impaired.
I know yes, i had to change textures, but it was too much work at this time 😄
Exactly.
Some of the Titanic Simulations that I've seen have always shown the Bridge Lights to be on.
@@angieroxy7550 Which would seem to imply that the makers don't know much about driving a ship at night time, but as it is in reality kept very dark on the command bridge it would be difficult to visualize what is going on on the bridge in a simulation or a film. I've worked 15 years (1980-95) for the Viking Line ferry company that operated Estonia earlier 1980-90 as "Viking Sally", I''ve also been on her command bridge and could notice the awkward fact that she was built so that you could not see the ships "nose" with the visir from the command bridge . My father was a captain for the same company until his retirement in 1983. So it is very well known: no lights on the command bridge at night time. It's a practical question of visiblity.
@@olzyolzmobile You have absolutely right sir! I'm interested to ask you which vessels where you on duty? and in what period on these vessels?
Greetings from a maritime student in Norway!
The screams of terror give me chills
same...
I like hearing them
@@mihkelerikliis8269 excuse me *WHAT*
@@avocadokid2090 i psychopath
@@mihkelerikliis8269 Dumb kids shouldn't be fooling around here.
This is very well done, it's the best I've seen in a long time
Thanks Edwin 😊
@@caljucotcas I believe more in this video than what the investigators say. They'm probably lying about the cause
@@edwineriksson2882 i agree!
Bruh
Why would they lie?
I'm pretty sure it went down with the stern first, the bow rose up in the sky a bit, stern hit the bottom, and the rest sunk down. It's crazy to think that the ship is almost twice the lenght of the depth she is laying on.
*Cough, Cough* It's not ''Faith of Motor Ship Estonia'', It's ''FATE of Motor Ship Estonia''.
This is so well made holy crap nice job!
OkayChamp
They found 2 new holes in the wreck yesterday
Source?
@@weltvonoben SVT play
@@weltvonoben its official.
Mayday Mayday
Or its just fading away
You can literally find pictures on the internet of the salvaged bow visor. There is no deformation on it indicating of a collision what so ever.
Yes, on it's right side it has quite a beating.
Ironically looking up "Estonia salvaged bow visor" uses those exact pictures to prove the opposite. Looking forward to (edited)
There was NATO training near the accident and there could have been a submarine that sunk Estonia, and this explains why England signed that they weren't inspecting or lifting up the ship from the water when they aren't even a part of the nordic countries, because England is a part of NATO and they could have been the reason why Estonia sunk.
Can't agree with this because it would be stupid on UK's part if they had part in this disaster to sign something so far off their shores. They just showed solidarity. More likely it was a Russian sub because Estonia did carry, old Soviet arms disguised as civil trucks (which they did several times already and they were warned by the Russians that they know what they are doing). The now open vehicle ramp proves it that Sweden tried to hide the real truth. Let's be real. Why would anyone need to bury a shipwreck if they didn't have something to hide?
@@MrKimas true the flag looked like a russian navy flag i agree
@@MrKimas oh yes, the Russians are always to blame for everything. Did the Russians impose a moratorium on diving and filming in Estonia? If it were a Russian submarine, they would have been shouting about it all over the world
@@mikeycrackson Because Sweden bought Soviet military tech that was left in Estonia after their independance. Sweden and Estonia were warned by the now Russians that they know what's going on. All the countries that signed the agreement besides maybe UK didn't want the public to know that around 900 people died because of a military purchase.
@@MrKimas ok ye this makes more sense
The sister ships bow doors also broke off in heavy seas. It was a design fault not nonsense about a submarine collision.
Have you seen the document "Estonia Mullistava löytö"
Exactly. Shoddy construction, captain's mistakes and risks taken, the storm. That was all that was needed. Case closed.
Theories like this only exist because people refuse to believe that such a small series of mistakes could result in such a catastrophe. Fact of the matter is that most disasters are the result of small things.
Diana II (retired) have that faulty bow visor that she almost sank
A cruise ship is like a christmas tree, and there are lookouts on the sub if it travels surfaced, but at that night the heavy seas would have made the sub roll so much that the crew would have all been seasick. Perhaps in the Hollywood World this could happen as in the video, but not in the real world. Sub sonar hears everything, and in the surface, both Estonia and sub would have seen each other in their radar screens and radars would have alerted of collision. All the sub crew sleeping, and the boat in autopilot? Not likely. Sure enough, if just surfacing, there could be a blind moment for both, it has happened before.
The hole in the hull is still puzzling; if the visor did not sink right away, but was thrown by a wave against the hull, that could cause the hole. If the damage is clearly from outside in, something heavy and sharp could cause it, not smooth-sided sub. The front diving plane may or may not be sturdy enough to rip the hull enough. Let us hope the real thruth will come to light...
It has been already confirmed that the visor isnt heavy enough to cause that kind of damage to the ship.
They rammed it on purpose
Yes, this would not be they it happened. It would more have been a raming i the side of the ship... but how knows...
Sen objektin pitäisi painaa ainakin 100 000kiloa jos oikein muistan ja siinä keulassa olisi varmasti merkkejä niin isosta törmäyksestä
@@Haldei Wow, you are a genius
Da, let us ram a multi billion dollar submarine into a ferry that has slightly pissed us off by moving obsolete soviet arms.
Yup that makes perfect sense
Quote by Fox Mulder: “The truth is out there.”
I hope the real reason of this horrific case are gonna be revealed ASAP... with the radical examination. As always, awesome video! 😄❤️
So what is the real reason?
it was bad weather and the bow visire came off bc it was poorly designed. end of story.
@@AKQJIO1978 You are wrong. The visire was subjected to high heat. Over 1200 C, it has been confirmed. They dont know but it points to an explsosiotn.....
@@elefteriosmouratidis can you please link this information.
@@elefteriosmouratidis "it has been confirmed". By who? What's your source?
I think it was an explosion from the inside. Explains the deformation of the visor plate and the burn marks as well the hole on the hull pointing outwards
it was the severity of the waves and storm that caused the visor ti detach and the ramp to fall
Finnish newspapers Iltalehti and Ilta~sanomat reports that the wreck of Estonia has been breached and that the ramp to the vehicle deck is completely open and torn away from the wrecks bow.
And the problem is??
@@elefteriosmouratidis There is no problem. Just more unaswered questions to what originally happened and what was transported aboard Estonias vehicle deck during Estonias final voyage.
@@rikuhytti But its not strange taht the ramp is torn away after so many years at the botton and alomst upside down
@@elefteriosmouratidis That is the weird thing because during the last investigative dive in 2019 the ramp was completely closed.
@@rikuhytti No it wasnt completly cloesed. It never was completly closed. We have to understand the ramp was damaged and after 20+ yeasrs gravity does its thing. Noone removed the ramp. And why should they? To do what? Go in to the car deck? To find what? Everything is a mess in there. You cant find anything
The problem with this theory is that there's no way in hell that sub didnt know it was on a collision course with another vessel. Even in peacetime, modern submarines always utilize passive sonar, which should've easily detected the propeller revolutions. And when surfaced, subs typically deploy their ESM mast which would make detection of a ship even easier. Given the alignment of the two vessels in your animation, the Estonia wasnt in the subs baffles and so should've been spotted. Most glaring of all, no sub would be travelling on the surface during a storm. Subs hardly ever travel on the surface to begin with, and doing so in a storm would make no sense as it would slow their speed and cause the sub to roll even more than a surface vessel would
@@maltimulti1919 the sub theory is not needed and there are little evidence.. planted bombs are more likely
@@maltimulti1919 there is no main theory that Russia sent a submarine. Thats is bullshit. Soviet didnt exist in 1994...
@@maltimulti1919 they would send cargo ship for that operation
@@vipvip-tf9rw The Estonia did previously ship weapons too before the disaster.
What about hole to the right side?
And how about the side what no one can see?? Much indrestig guestion.
@@jannejohansson3383 and how about the fact is cant have just "appeared"?
An truck in Estonia did it
what are the chances a submarine hits a ship
Very small
Exactly. Or maybe the aliens attacked the ship.
I don’t think alternative theories like a submarine collision or top-secret military cargo exploding caused the accident. If you ask me everything points towards the visor.
Here are some factors to consider:
1. The visor was found far away from the main wreckage, meaning it broke free before Estonia capsized.
2. Footage taken weeks before the accident shows a visor that is in bad shape and poorly maintained.
3. The hole that was discovered on Estonia shows the force that created it came from inside the ship, not outside.
4. The hole was probably created by explosive decompression. Similar thing happened when the MV Derbyshire sank. It’s caused by air escaping under intense water pressure when a ship sinks.
You are wrong, swedish goverment are responsible for all this horrible
@@plixnite3960 proof ?
@@normalperson-x7o everything points at the Swedish goverment. this is discusting.
Probably the best video I've seen on the Estonia.
I still think the ships bow door broke off in the rough sea. It was like 30 foot seas with 40mph winds.
If the sub sank the Estonia, wouldn't there be a wreck of a sub too?
Probably not, a submarine is very strong. I think it would survive a crash like this. But I'm not sure.
@@natureboyy3 ya you might like to think that but a ship like that would cut a sub in 2 and not even notice it.
@@The_Duggler25 Isn't it literally the opposite? Subs are built for naval warfare and Estonia was a civil ship in rough shape. A sub would completely trash Estonia?
@@henriksandbacka9442 subs while strong in there own right, are also fragile especially if hit in the side like that. That ship has far more mass and weight and with that bow, would cut right though the sub.
@@henriksandbacka9442 Estonia weighed thousands of tons and was going ahead at full speed. It would have smashed a sub into pieces.
Someone mentioned about a sub not going on the surface in bad stormy weather, even I know that...then this is inaccurate, in that case it was a yellow submarine
Some one tell me that bottom of vessel goes under that sea surface.
If we want fugg a fly, sub's arent white too, usually.
Argh!
@@jannejohansson3383 det är lättare på svenska eller hur :)
That's not true
thats only true for big submarines (they tend to dive below the storm) but the small ones used in the Baltic sea sometimes surface during storms for safety reasons
but the Estonia did not hit a sub
@@harrie205 we willl see. They are looking into it why the ship sank again.
Oh, come on people
Skip the damm UBoat story for once
The damage is across the Fender OVER the waterline
Also…. That UBoat from your animation would have been cut in half and immediately sunk if that was what happened
Thats not a U-boat man, i dont know wich submarine it is, but trust me it isnt a u boat, and the modern submarines are way stronger than the ww2 ones
Was this submarine of Styrofoam? Any submarine that size would have caused much devastating damages in case of direct collision.
No wonder why they can't see a submarine visual when M/S Estonia's bridge is in full light!
Dude wtf did you expect
How is Helge Ingstad ?
@Christopher Wyman if the submarine thing is true why didn’t the sub crew come forward?
They do HAVE radars....
There are over 100 sailors onboard a submarine. There is no way that they all would stay quiet about what happened. We would know by now.
Better design is necessary. If the ship's bow is damaged or falls off, water should not be able to enter the ship
Submarine? c´mon! she was in heavy waves, probably hade fatigue issues in her construction, hit a vawe hard, tore of the visor, and then the door couldn´t handle the impact forces from the vawes...the damages on the hull was of course made from rocks when impacting the sea bed! End of story.
But if you watched the documentry they found no rocks. But like they said they were smuggling military equipment which the government denied but then admitted to it lol. Somethings suspicious about the whole thing regardless but we'll never know
This video isn't accurate. According to the survivors, when she sank she swung upright ("like a church tower"), then she plunged.
Jesus are you critic or what?
@@jakubzn1143 Yes.
@@AF-nc2fc Estonia never sunk upright!
She listed to her side and sunk, stern first
@@panzerivausfg4062 No. She sank bow first. Bleeding Christ.
@@AF-nc2fc She never sunk bow first. She listed on the right and sunk stern first. This channel also made an animation about it, some days ago. You're ignorant
Best ship animator
🥰
This still wouldn’t explain the massive hole divers found in her hull.
My personal theory is it was an old WW2 sea mine that hadn’t been disposed of properly, since we know that this is true for the Baltic. Nobody bothered to properly screen it for the mines.
this was on a well used shipping route it unlikly a mine would be left un discovered there.. and i dont think any mines was deployed in the region at all during ww2. surviving testimony talk about a explosion but a mine would be discribed more distinkly. why lie about a ww2 mine?
Was just away to post exact same thing. In one if the world wars i cant remember which they apparently laid just under 200,000 sea mines in the baltic sea. It could be posdible that a small one struck the side of the ship causing the mystery hole and in the process the shockwave that went through the hull jolted the visor hinges and damaged them to the point they coukd no longer take the pressure from the waves.
@@supersquats hålet skapdes av att Estonia träffade botten. Inga minor här inte
Ive heard rumours that the following day of Estonian disaster, near port of Sweden a Submarine with a injury was brought to fix..Same day when Estonia sank there were Nato training in that sea, with multiple submarines.
Seems legit, but how does it explain the large hole on the side? In what way must the submarine have shredded the Hull open? So much force?
Probably the propeller hitting the hull after the sub turned away
The submarine (if did acually hit the estonia) was at full speed when it happened. It smashed into the bow visor causing the loud bang. Then still being at full speed smashed into the right side again opening the large hole(s) and then the rest is history
An truck in Estonia did it
@@idk66613 Haha :) If it exploded maybe.. Just running a truck into the metal of a ship will just crash the truck.
If this was the case Estonia would float for a couple days instead of sinking in under an hour as it did because water can’t go from the car deck and under because of a water tight barrier the boat would hav rotated 180 degrees and stay afloat upside down for a couple days and they have found holes under car deck.
The problem with big ships is that with the size, pressure on trapped air increases. The weight of the ship structure compresses the air, and volume of air reduces along with reduced floating capability. With only 1 bar pressure, air volume is reduced twice.
The sub probsbly hit further back, the ship sank si quickly because of the water that was pouring in the cabin area under the car deck, if the water only came pouring in through the bow and overfilled the car deck, it would have stayed afloat upside down for days as u say, but since it sank at once, the deck under the car deck had to be filled with seawater wich it did so if it really was a submarine that made the hole it makes sense that it sunk at once
The bow doors didnt just fell of so quickly actually. Once they did water rushed in the cargo area. There were no watertight barriers. Just one huge space for wheeled cargo.Also roro carriers were designed differently back then. Nowadays they dont have such curved hulls, but they are wider for added stability. Waves were also bigger as shown in animation, weather was awful that night.
Or pressed on half of original volume and weight is same. 1000 Litres = 1Kg @ sea level. 10.000 L Air under 10m of water weight 5kg, over 5Kg when water is salty. That's is then more heavy when It's sinkin and more water goes in and air squeezes, If I'am right about that.
@@callmeadmin How do you get pressure on air? Please explain with calculations in this case?
If this is what happened then what happened to the sub? Given the disparity in size between it and the Estonia it would likely have suffered severe damage. Subs have been sunk in the past by such collisions, even if it survived it would need several years in dock to be repaired. It’s presence would be difficult to conceal and it would be off its navy’s active strength for that length of time.
I’m not saying the scenario is incorrect, the cause of the hole in the Estonia’s side needs to be determined, but this is the thing that occurs to me on seeing this.
Dunno,
when chasing enemy submarines
under water, collisions could easily
occur.
Therefore a submarine needs to be
build tough, to not being sunk by "accident".
They possibly have hardened stern
to be able to ram a submarine.
Due to the torpedo outlets possibly
not practicable.
In fact, that submarine was found in a NATO port a few days later with HORRIBLE damage, being repaired.
@@aslavdogg you know the name?
@@aslavdogg no that is bullshit. Had nothing to do with Estonia
@@KarlReimerGodt there is no way a sub would survive if it got hit by Estonia
This is unrealistic, it hardly seems to me that the front sash was torn off and the bulb was not even injured. The sash was torn off, because of the large area, it slowed down in the water and the ship tore through the skin on it. Moreover, the submarines have a rubber noise-absorbing skin, its traces were not found on the found ferry sash.
This version is fantastic, nothing more.
---
If Estonia crashed into a submarine, it would be the same as flying into a vertical wall by car.
Most of the submarine is under water, and the submerged body will be very difficult to deploy such a ferry as shown in the video. Estonia would have to overcome the water resistance preventing the U-turn of the submarine. Estonia would have reared up.
There are lot of kinds of ideas about how the accident happened but no one knows it 100% And there will never be a answer
I finally got around to watch the 2nd season of the Estonia documentary, it came out really late as it does. How did you react when you saw YOUR clips there?
If you think that Estonia collided with a submarine, you live in a fantasy world, it is impossible
Then please explain the massive impact injury on that side of the ship
@@JohnAnderssonTV Vadå förklara, när den ena idioten efter den andra kommer med påståenden som är rena fantasierna så är det nog inte jag som ska förklara mig. Hur kan man ens tänka tanken att en u-båt körde på och sänkte Estonia. det skulle aldrig kunna tystas ner och det skulle även ha inneburit att den u-båten sjönk. Bara för att någon har varit duktig och gjort en animerad filmsnutt betyder inte det att personen ifråga vet ett skit om Estonia. Det är en ren fantasi
Mayday mayday SiljaEuropa VikingMariella.....
Why not? The Titanic hit an iceberg in the middle of the ocean, why can’t the Estonia have hit a submarine? Just because something is improbable, doesn’t make it impossible.
@@pspsport6505 Tänkte mer på ögonvittnet på Estonio som direkt efter smällen sprang upp däck och såg något i vattnet. Så omöjligt är det absolut inte. Teorin är att den var rysk och dem är faktiskt en nationsstat som historiskt sett vart bra på att tysta ner saker
Another theory is that there where russians if i remember and they had a drove a truck onboard the ship and they blowed the ships visor and thats the reason why it sank but ofc thats just a theory but in inmages you can see places where you can see a places where something exploded
Awesome animation !!
thanks!
This so sad :(
So hard to believe that rough seas over stressed the bow door causing a failure? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Yes it is. And you saying it is not just proves that. Don't know why, but that's how it works. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an unexpected Ufo encounter at noon.
Maybe just speculation: but on ship was some military or secret russian stuff * stolen* from them, to ship to sweden, later on Usa. Thats why it was important to stop it. Also hole in ship maybe blown out later underwater to take stuff out?
They are diving there right now
why did i do this 😂 i sayid "hello. i am under the water! pliz help me. ooohhooho"
the problem is, that all the known military submarines are of dark grey color.
xD
No. There are submarines partly white.
@@tytmoothare But No submarine Would me on the surface during a stormy weather
True
@@marko1216 thats not true especially in the baltic sea
This is completely wrong. the bow visor was removed by the Swedish authorities after the ship had sunk. That the bow visor had come loose is something Carl Bildt stated before someone had examined the ship. A ship does not sink because the bow visor comes loose, and a ship does not sink in 10-15 minutes, regardless of whether water leaks in from the bow visor. It is the ramp that seals up there and not the bow visor!
No, that is wrong. The bow visor separated from the ship before the sinking and it was found 1,5 kilometers west from the wreck itself. The wreck was found lying on the seabed at 120 degrees angle and the bow ramp was at closed position. The visor, however, wasn't there. Only but two of the hinges, that keep the bow ramp in place was broken and there was additional structural damage to the ramp beside the broken hinges. 2021 investigation has concluded that the ramp has now been separated from the ship and is lying there next to the bow. The car deck is now completely open. The wreck has been moving since 1994 due to the water flow and is now in 132 degrees angle (almost upside down) and has gone few meters deeper. It is likely that the movement and the change in the angle of the wreck has broken the two ramp hinges that were left.
This is not what happened. It was because of the storm this tragic accident occured. The ferry never should not have left the port that night.
The shipvsank because pf the water heights and the shipvbow didnt tolerate the high waves so it broke off
If there was a sub and they were both on the surface and experiencing heavy waves. The sub could have caused more damege on the back because of the heavy waves and with out of control
Wasn’t a Russian kilo it was a US Los Angleles class. It went into Faslane sub base and had a complete replacement crew waiting for it.
Hmm, are you saying that "LA" was watching that Estonian's cargo project and ewerything went wrong? I think you don't mean that "LA" put holes to Estonia and sink it? Tell more or url, thanks.
1 second ago
A title like this made me wonder if Estonia's faith is Christianity or paganism 😅 leaving the grammar nazism aside, that animation is full high quality there. Doesn't matter if it actually happened like this or not, your work is superb!
What you don’t realise subs aren’t invisible. That sub would’ve been demolished, not to mention I could easily figure out a way to sink the Estonia with out leaving a a scrap of a clue for investigators
There was a huge hole found in. The wreck
@@lennox_nzl4607 the wrecks been there for along time and it would move around on the sea bed twisting and bending forming these wholes
@@lennox_nzl4607 hålet kom till när Estonia träffade botten..
Not to mention you'd feel if you hit something. The Titanic was a massive ship and only grazed the side of an iceberg, yet practically the whole ship felt the impact. A smaller ship like Estonia hitting a submarine head on would have caused enormous ruckus.
@@Omega4Productions literally yes!
sub: WATCH OUT BRO estonia: IM TRYING
she is in amazing condition and can be raised. for some reason the estonian and swedish government decided to not raise it. if they raise it they can recover the bodies with ease, repair the ship and possibly use the boat again.
No, she is absloutely not in good shape, raising the ship would be extremely complicated and expensive and forget any thought of her sailing again....
What's left of the bodies at this time?
That would likely require several special riggs.
Kursk was cut in halves, before hauled to surface.
@@joakimwohlfeil Not more complicated than what has been done before.
@@martinsv9183 No, sorry but you are wrong. Nothing is in the end impossible. But it's extremely complicated, extremely expensive and with new technology you can investigste the wreck in a way not possible in the 90ts and likely find needed facts
Давным давно уже понятно, что его взорвали, чтобы скрыть контрабанду.
Wenn es so gewesen sein sollte müsste man überall auf Werften nachforschen nach irgendwelche U-Boote wegen Beschädigungen repariert worden sind . Denn bei so einen Aufprall müsste das U-Boot auch stark beschädigt
Auf russischen Werften....
I don’t think so actually
No, there were no marks of collision in the bow vizor or bulb. Why is it so hard to accept the report of the accident?
What we learn from these Estonia animations: the bow visor is very fragile
Honestly whoever thought that “bow visors” were a good long term concept anyway?
@@proactiveomnipresentvessel6569 Estonia had huge problems before her voyage. Bow visors are 99.9% safe and very useful! (You can get where that 0.1% went..)
now im no conspiracy theorist but i do think high seas were not the reason the estonia sank. every survivor said they heard a loud bang before it sank and they wouldnt have reacted if this loud bang kept on being heard. also the divers were strictly regulated on where to go and after a dive that proved nothing in a investigation the government declared the wreck a marine grave and prevented diving or exploring the wreck for answers despite the requests of many families of the dead people onboard. also the ships bow visor broke up but it sunk stern first, now the free surface effect could be an explanation for it though. i think it might have transported drugs because some ocean liners do/did that and then estline had a emergency scuttle thing in case drugs were found and the rest is as we know it. now again i am no conspiracy theorist and if you have counterarguments for these claims then i do want to hear them and i would much appreciate it if you replyed with them with respect.
Sorry that this is totally inaccurate. There was no sub. There would have been obvious signs of destruction from an impact on the front hatch had this occurred.
What happened to Captain Avo Pith ? 🚢🕵️♀️
Estonia sank very fast. That is a main problem with the investigationreport. Im not sure there are any other passengerships in modern times that have sunk as fast as Estonia without being hit by a missile or such.
Her bow was basically open to the sea and her RORO design allowed the free surface effect to take place, which gave the water free access to the full length of the ship. Couple this with high swells and the failure to notice the problem early on, and it's no surprise the ship sank as fast as it did.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to say how she sunk so fast. Her bow visor broke off while heading into heavy seas at 14 knots and a deck without watertight integrity that runs the entire length of the ship was directly behind it.
Herald of Free Enterprise.
@@mrh2o465 Some similarities with Estonia. But appearently people had time to get out of the ship. On Estonia there was almost no time to get out.
Väegade loogiline animatsioon.
Muidu, poleks see laevukene, nii kiiresti uppunud.
Tja, det borde ligga en u-båt på botten i närheten av var bogvisiret bärgades i så fall.
@@maltimulti1919 nej stämmer inte. Man har alltid sagt att en ubåt träffade visiret.
Det är först nu efter Dplay dokumentären några tomtar påstår att en ubåt träffat estonia på sidan
@@maltimulti1919 Jag lutar mer på att det är botten som orsakade hålet. Ubåt, torped Visir sånt är inte möjligt
Them screams how disturbing. They should of recovered the body's at least give them some dignity.
Yeah because thats gona be easy
@@Jonathan07ta Actually yes. There were divers in the shipwreck after the disaster that could have easily brought the bodies up (their words). But instead they got orders not to.
@@Oliver0504 because it would be against law to leave the ship (and its contents) to be left alone because it turned into a grave
@@Boypogikami132 The divers were there way before the law even existed. The government stopped them from bringing bodies up for some unexplainable reason. They were told exactly where to go, and where not to. If it was against the law, they would not be in or even near the ship at all.
Our democratic governments could not fool us like that...could they???
Это уже ближе к истине,похоже на правду! Если и была подводная лодка,то мы никогда не узнаем. И никто из стран не возьмёт на себя ответственность...
Скорее всего мы никогда не узнаем всей правды про эту катастрофу. Правда погребена слишком глубоко.
There is a much bigger wreck in the baltic sea and where many more People lost their life but sadly no one talks about it. Its name is Wilhelm Gustloff
Yes, i have video of it also
@@caljucotcas yeah i think I watched it a while ago
The ocean is to blame. The MS Estonia was meant to sail near shore not in the ocean
Baltic sea is not a ocean
@@caljucotcas it’s a sea then?
@@natalialabun4066 like name says, Baltic Sea
no the literal idea of Estline (owners of Estonia) was to make trips form estonia to sweden and got paid a f ton to do it. the estonia was never meant to be on shores. the onlyt time that ever really happened was with Wasa line.
If Estonia colided with russian submarine then Ask russians and then they should say "what submarine there was no submarine"
Yes
well, there should be a missing submarine resting at the bottom somewhere too then?
its unbreakable
The conning tower on a submarine is made to break through ice so it could easily survive such an impact
It wouldn't surprise me if there is.
This kind of crash isn't a problem for submarine due to its structure. It would survive easily without serious damage.
@@caljucotcas "its unbreakable" Omg. An *unbreakable* sub?? Please sign up for any military shipyard because they'll pay you a fortune if you can design an unbreakable sub. You're a genius. Listen. No sub is anywhere near unbreakable. Even the most advanced nuclear subs have imploded at merely 400 meters of depth.
Seriously, what kind of an answer is "its unbreakable" ?? How old are you? 14? What are your qualifications? Are you an engineer which works with ship building? What makes you a self-appointed expert in such matters?
Im from finland and i know alot of people that lost their friends and family in that tragedy leave like for the people who lost their lived in that tragedy
bruh what, you want likes cause someone died?
It be like that sometimes…
Yes, but its not real, they shoot them by torpedo! Russian shoot because they graber them very important tehnolodgy
Wait where is the 4 meter long hole?
I really love your content ❤️ #subscribed
Thank You soo much ❤
You are kidding. For me the investigation of Jutta Rabe and others are the most plausible scenario.
Yes, but if you look at the documentation and investigations by Henrik Evertsson, who reported that it was very unlikely that the explosives were the reason for the 4m hole in the bow, as well as the reports of an important eyewitness who claimed a white, large object Having seen it only opens up more options as to why the ship sank. But we all firmly believe in one thing: It wasn't an accident. So my condolences to all relatives. So that the truth will come up soon.
@@swaghettiyolonaise900 Yeah, it was no accident and Sweden needs to hide something.
Maybe......... Estonia just sunk…?
Alien’s
Submarine?
“Bomb”?
Maybe just an accident, happen before...
Do you think that when Estonia hit the bottom, damage to the hull is impossible?
I'm not an expert but based on the descriptions of the newly discovered hole, it doesn't seem to be from the ship potentially landing at an angle. There would have possibly been several more much like on other wrecks. The hole looks more like a collision since it is at a very localized area and half of it is pushed in.
Also, a collision theory isn't necessarily as insane as aliens. Considering there have been many weird measures to not recover the remains of the passengers and no measures taken to resurface the ship. In addition, a very unheard-of plan was made to basically bury the ship, which could make sense if there was no option to recover remains or the ship. Considering how the very first divers even said that recovery could have easily done, this might imply that certain politicians did not want to face the political turmoil this would have brought.
I just want to say that I'm no Swede or Estonian, I'm just a Greek who has grown up in Illinois. I don't know the politics behind this event or how different political parties are treating it. I basically just learned of this horrible tragedy and have seen a few documentaries about it. You potential could be right about the hole and the collision theory could be wrong. I honestly do not know, but what I do know is that I hope the local governments put an effort to go recover the people that were lost that day. It is truly a tragedy that families could not properly bury their loved ones. In addition, I hope that doing this it will allow for better exploration of the Estonia which will bring a better understanding of the tragedy and there will be no need for theories.
If you have read all this thank you and I welcome a response as I am curious about what you think!
Tak mogło to wyglądać 🤔
Od początku rząd mógł wiedzieć o tym wszystkim
Ciekawe czy prawda wyjdzie na jaw
Very nice video I like it
You made a longer one to be sure but uhh I meant significantly longer...still good though
Oh no my Kosatka sunk in GTA V 😬
Good video! Anyone knows how thick metal u-boats are made of? Would this kind of crash leave big damage to u-boat? Just wondering this mystery...
Well, Subarines are built of thick but soft flexible steel to withstand pressure, Estonia was 16000-ton ice class 1A meaning she was built in hardened steel for bouncing of ice. Estonia would have sank the U-boat in seconds, while Estonia would not have suffered much damage. But you can forget the speculation. Uboats never surface in a super trafficed area in the middle of the night in picth black (if the commander don´t want to commit suicide). Adding to that a subarine would never have surfaced in the kind of weather that was during that night.
Well, the water/air tanks are usually in the sides.
If holes in the tank, would an Uboat sink then ?
@@KarlReimerGodtThat was the case with older submarines, today the ballast tanks are more integrated. However, yes a collision with a submarine and Estonia would in 90% ended with a sunken submarine. But you can just forget the whole idea as there are so many factors making a collision with a submarine unlikely.
Amazing animation...!
thanks!
Avenger accidentally used is laser beam eyes , the visor came off and Thor had guilt about it , that is why he was fat awhile.
dont you think that the sub wouldve been spotted by at least one person as it dragged across the ship? I mean, be reasonable here, no subs were reported missing that day, so its highly unlikely.
if it collided then yes people did saw it. theres actually a high chance that a survivor saw it and has talked aobut it multiple times. its just not sure if it was a sub
awesome!
If you ever release a Estonia video game, I'll be sure to play it.
Why they haven't found the wreck of the submarine. Underwater surveys were extensive during the search of bow visor.
Why couldn't the hole have been caused by impact with the ocean bed?
The bow shield failed to protect from water and started flooding the car deck with water