Swedish goverment was "smuggling" soviet military equipment with MS Estonia, they used vans that where not allowed to be searched by the swedish customs. The workers got orders from their higher up which got their order from what it's believed to be MUST (Military Intelligence and Security Service). It's believed military equipment was onboard when it sank. During the sinking ther was a NATO navy exercise in the baltic sea which Sweden was involved with. This new hole they found that where caused below the waterline is believed to be caused by a submarine. American divers wanted to investigate the wreckage but Sweden strictly denied it and used grave rest as an argument. Survivors claimed thay heard multiple bangs/explosion. Some people claim this was a deliberate explosion, which they allege was concealed by the Swedish, British, and Russian governments to cover up an intelligence operation smuggling military hardware
Same question as why this ship was declared as gravesite? Why not Britannic, Lusitania, Titanic, etc? There also people died and bodies stayed within the ship. And they are watching over this shipwreck like its area 51.
yes it was a very tragic accident my deepest respect to the families of the bereaved how ever while the bow door was a major factor thier holes punched into the side which would have been impossible for the bow door to cause as it ripped away from the ship and sank something else caused those holes thiers been a big cover up by the the swedish estonian and finish goverments when a ship sinks in such relative shallow waters it is customery to recover the bodies of those lost but as soon as the initial dive teams discovered the holes and reported they ordered to stop the dives and thousands of tons of stone ballast was dropped covering the ship which over times and tides have shifted revealing the holes yet again what caused those holes my personel educated guess is a submarine from one the countries involved in the cover up accidently ran into the estonia while at periscope depth which is why no one saw it if that happened it would have been better to have admitted it at the time appologise to the families of the bereaved and recover those that were lost in this tragic accident instead of lying and making thier tragic losses all the more painfull
But it would be possible in a stormy Baltic after the visor fell, or the visor fell off sort of like, I don't know the proper expression that will translate well. The visor may have slammed against the side in a wave. It didn't come off in one wave. It was rattling around and probably hanging on by some mechanism even as the deck filled. That seems most likely. Collisions or munitions look different. The collision would've made a much, much larger hole. Submarines collide with terrain or get damaged in Port all the time. It happens more than once a year . I think the visor itself was dangling and slammed against the hull as it broke. It would explain the noises heard. But we won't know
Isn't there a new book about the aspects of this damage? Couldn't this have been caused by the violence of the sinking itself? If the vessel landed on its starboard side the starboard side of the hull would be in tension - so maybe it broke at that point when the hull hit the seabed?
it is pure soft clay there. Thats why ship keeps changing its position a bit. As it was full of water when it went down and it hadnt lot time to go. (The ship is longer than the dive to the sea) then no, not likely. It wasnt titanics type of tentsion drowning. If you take account how it went down and original version aka water coming in from front... nooo there had to be hole somewhere for what ever reason to let water in below waterline.
@@mrsmerily I think this question MUST now be investigated and answered FULLY. Sweden owes this much to the memories of the lost and the suffering of those left behind.
This definitely lends support to the claims that the ferry struck a submarine. Given the scope of the damage I would have to say that the striking submarine would have to be in the Russian Victor or Akula class size range. A hit of this magnitude would almost certainly be death to a Kilo class. I argue that it couldn’t be a NATO submarine as someone would have seen a sub returning to port with probably extensive damage. Someone suggested to me the USS Alabama a Los Angelus class sub was a possible contender but I countered that that degree of damage wouldn’t allow it to stay at sea for the several weeks after the impact when Alabama was seen in port with minor damage. The other reason I suspect a Russian /ex Soviet nuclear boat is that many of them had reinforced sails and titanium hulls for punching through ice. This would allow such a vessel to survive an impact of that magnitude and let it crawl away. If anyone has any freedom of information act or non classified Russian port surveillance photos that show a damaged Russian sub in port within 3 to 7 days I think we might have ourselves a very likely suspect. If anyone out there can ID a significantly damaged sub coming into an “ unusual port “ ( like one that typically does not see submarine activity) or recalls any NATO sub within 3 to 7 days of the incident showing up damage. Then the plot thickens, what we’ve got here is a mountain of circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun on this very cold case
This area is monitored extensively, the countries bordering the sea would know. Same goes with Nord Stream. They just don't want to tell the truth in both cases.
In this documentary they went over the possibilities, and how much force would need to be exceeded to create the damage on the hull. For the visor to be able to cause this much damage, it would've had to weight 55 times its actual weight.
You think under water over time a steel ship will decay in just the right way that the thick hull of the starboard side will bend inward with what just happens to _look_ like a puncture mark?
So strange...why would you dump thousands of heavy stones on a ship that is resting on the bottom of the sea. They definitely have something to hide .
To prevent looters from coming inside the wreck. Read a bit about the fate of other famous Baltic wrecks - Wilhelm Gustloff and Jan Heweliusz.
Swedish goverment was "smuggling" soviet military equipment with MS Estonia, they used vans that where not allowed to be searched by the swedish customs. The workers got orders from their higher up which got their order from what it's believed to be MUST (Military Intelligence and Security Service). It's believed military equipment was onboard when it sank. During the sinking ther was a NATO navy exercise in the baltic sea which Sweden was involved with. This new hole they found that where caused below the waterline is believed to be caused by a submarine. American divers wanted to investigate the wreckage but Sweden strictly denied it and used grave rest as an argument. Survivors claimed thay heard multiple bangs/explosion. Some people claim this was a deliberate explosion, which they allege was concealed by the Swedish, British, and Russian governments to cover up an intelligence operation smuggling military hardware
Same question as why this ship was declared as gravesite? Why not Britannic, Lusitania, Titanic, etc? There also people died and bodies stayed within the ship. And they are watching over this shipwreck like its area 51.
What about the disappeared crewmembers that survived? The names were on 11 different lists. Days after they survived, they vannished.
yes it was a very tragic accident my deepest respect to the families of the bereaved how ever while the bow door was a major factor thier holes punched into the side which would have been impossible for the bow door to cause as it ripped away from the ship and sank something else caused those holes thiers been a big cover up by the the swedish estonian and finish goverments when a ship sinks in such relative shallow waters it is customery to recover the bodies of those lost but as soon as the initial dive teams discovered the holes and reported they ordered to stop the dives and thousands of tons of stone ballast was dropped covering the ship which over times and tides have shifted revealing the holes yet again what caused those holes my personel educated guess is a submarine from one the countries involved in the cover up accidently ran into the estonia while at periscope depth which is why no one saw it if that happened it would have been better to have admitted it at the time appologise to the families of the bereaved and recover those that were lost in this tragic accident instead of lying and making thier tragic losses all the more painfull
But it would be possible in a stormy Baltic after the visor fell, or the visor fell off sort of like, I don't know the proper expression that will translate well.
The visor may have slammed against the side in a wave. It didn't come off in one wave. It was rattling around and probably hanging on by some mechanism even as the deck filled. That seems most likely.
Collisions or munitions look different. The collision would've made a much, much larger hole.
Submarines collide with terrain or get damaged in Port all the time. It happens more than once a year . I think the visor itself was dangling and slammed against the hull as it broke. It would explain the noises heard.
But we won't know
What happened to your video of Avo Piht? It was removed, by you or someone else?
Isn't there a new book about the aspects of this damage?
Couldn't this have been caused by the violence of the sinking itself? If the vessel landed on its starboard side the starboard side of the hull would be in tension - so maybe it broke at that point when the hull hit the seabed?
it is pure soft clay there. Thats why ship keeps changing its position a bit. As it was full of water when it went down and it hadnt lot time to go. (The ship is longer than the dive to the sea) then no, not likely. It wasnt titanics type of tentsion drowning. If you take account how it went down and original version aka water coming in from front... nooo there had to be hole somewhere for what ever reason to let water in below waterline.
@@mrsmerily I think this question MUST now be investigated and answered FULLY. Sweden owes this much to the memories of the lost and the suffering of those left behind.
How does one get the full version of this?
ruclips.net/video/BDNGoaSDYqk/видео.html
What about an anchor from one of the rock ships piercing that hole ?
Probably not because this is the underside of the boat if you look from the surface
Med detta så borde färjan tas upp och granskas!
This definitely lends support to the claims that the ferry struck a submarine. Given the scope of the damage I would have to say that the striking submarine would have to be in the Russian Victor or Akula class size range. A hit of this magnitude would almost certainly be death to a Kilo class. I argue that it couldn’t be a NATO submarine as someone would have seen a sub returning to port with probably extensive damage. Someone suggested to me the USS Alabama a Los Angelus class sub was a possible contender but I countered that that degree of damage wouldn’t allow it to stay at sea for the several weeks after the impact when Alabama was seen in port with minor damage. The other reason I suspect a Russian /ex Soviet nuclear boat is that many of them had reinforced sails and titanium hulls for punching through ice. This would allow such a vessel to survive an impact of that magnitude and let it crawl away. If anyone has any freedom of information act or non classified Russian port surveillance photos that show a damaged Russian sub in port within 3 to 7 days I think we might have ourselves a very likely suspect. If anyone out there can ID a significantly damaged sub coming into an “ unusual port “ ( like one that typically does not see submarine activity) or recalls any NATO sub within 3 to 7 days of the incident showing up damage. Then the plot thickens, what we’ve got here is a mountain of circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun on this very cold case
This area is monitored extensively, the countries bordering the sea would know. Same goes with Nord Stream. They just don't want to tell the truth in both cases.
Kolla på denna, Estonia dive by rockwater, rampen e kvar där
Could this damage not been done when the visor broke off the bow and the heavy waves pushed it against the hull when the ship past over the visor
In this documentary they went over the possibilities, and how much force would need to be exceeded to create the damage on the hull. For the visor to be able to cause this much damage, it would've had to weight 55 times its actual weight.
Does no body believe that a sunken ship will be eaten away over time under water?
You think under water over time a steel ship will decay in just the right way that the thick hull of the starboard side will bend inward with what just happens to _look_ like a puncture mark?
Another of the worlds cover ups. end of the day it's about apportioning blame and $$$$$ GREED.
Estline is so nice ship
estline is a company