yes, it is now on Swedish military base

no it did not there evidence that says shows Estonia's locks broken and there were no submarines close to Estonia during the report.

@@springlockfanatic Are you sure about that? There may be far more to this story than meets the eye. Military hard wear wad being smuggled out of the forner USSR both on that route along the Baltic and on that vessle. Further, a big fuck off hole on the starboard side of the hull waa found by later dive crews to the wreck thus substantuating why that vessle sank so quickly. Why was body retreval and the recovery of the ship (quite an easy task in 85 meters of depth) banned and the wreck covered (or an attempt) in stones and concrete? That bow visor may indeed have come off, but it is very possible that another series of events and an alternative narrative needs to be considered.

@@garryharriman7349 well there was a submarine during there but it was 2 miles away facing away from estonia , also no wrecks found of submarine there and also the submarine was sending messages back home in USSR and after the soviet was over the case file of that was the location of submarine just entering the gulf of bothnia,after estonia sinking.and estonia sink so fast because theres a reason why let me tell you why,you think watertight doors can hold the ship even from capsizing well the glass could not hold the water and it broke making water pour in and it capsized because there was more cars on starboard.

No

no because if it was the bow visor will break depending where the hull was and the torpedo will do more damage then that because it has explosives so no

I thought so too for a long time. But wrecks break when they hit the bottom, this is normal. And the sequence of events described in video above is sufficient explanation, sadly. What changed my mind was checking up past accidents with ferries that have open car deck. There have been several similar accidents before. Where ferries with open car deck sink very quickly. For example, Herald of Free Enterprise and the Heraklion.

@@martinan22 the waters not that deep for it to punch holes in the side also it landed on soft clay all the rocks around it and over it were put thier post sinking by the governments invlovled to cover it upby the time the stern hit the bottom the bow was still on the suface thats how shollow the water is thier yes thier other accidents similar to this where the bow doors fallen off or left open but this was sinking from below the car decks and to much just for the water to coming down from the car decks and flooding the lower decks something big punched a huge hole in her side and it could not have been caused by the bow door as the ferry carried on after it fell off

@@alastairminter2018 Punctuation is your friend if you want to be understood. The visor falling off and pulling the ramp open explains the capsizing. As I said, several accidents like that before, and it happened very rapidly. As poorly as Estonia was managed it is likely that we will find internal doors open on car deck. Or other such deficiencies. Did JAIC investigation behave badly and corruptly? Yes, this is a proven fact. However, this can have many explanations. Did the governments, especially Swedish government, behave very strangely? Yes, but also this can have many explanations. Not least of their culpability in ignoring safety regulations. Is it bad that the investigation missed these holes in the side? For sure it is. But I believe the real reason for this was that the cause of the accident was so obvious. And they were more concerned with covering up for the people who had been skirting their responsibilities. For example by falsifying the report of the investigation that had been made of Estonia just before she left port.

@@martinan22 i dont use punctuation when i speak if you read it as if were being said it makes sense how do explain the huge holes punched in the side of the ship if it was as you claim only the bow visor falling off how do you explain that they when divers did go down to the ship when it first sank and they reported these holes punched into the ship they were immeadiately recalled and not allowed to recover the poor soles who lost thier lives in this tragic accident made worse by the government covering up and dont forget it was a known route for smuggling out soviet arms and military equipment and had been going for some time so was thier a more sinister resaons for example explosives that made the visor fail those huge holes were not caused by the impact of the ship with the bottom of the sea im sorry if my education was not as good as yours but do not for one moment think im stupid or thick i see more and know more than i ever let on blame the 1970s education system you know the one i mean where if you werent in the top 5% percent of the class you were ignored to the point half the time they didnt even notice if you were thier not and the rest of time ignored you when you were thier but back to the estonia my possible explanation for the holes punched into the ship is it collided with the conning tower of a sub eith by accident or worse it was deliberatly rammed and yes a conning tower can be sealed off from the rest of the sub so the sub would not be lost and those holes were punched inwards so could not be caused by someone planting a bomb on board because if that were case the steel would be torn outwards not inwards as for the visor wouldnt take much explosive charge at the hinge points to seperate it if the estonia had managed to come to a complete stop once the visor seperated it could have been saved even with the moderately rough sea conditions that night

@@alastairminter2018 "i dont use punctuation when i speak if you read it as if were being said it makes sense how do.." The only thing you accomplish by not using punctuation is to appear a lunatic. Bye.

This is original

@@idkwhatmyname7495 ur right

@@justinian536 the copy made 2009 while this made 2007

Please evaluate

Not true, by the official report they all stated that they saw water entering the car deck at huge volume

@@ndmz903 Well in the documentary they said that the ramp was on and only a little bit water came in from the front.

@@Kert69 Yeah the visor fell off and then the ramp opened ajar slightly, if it had opened fully the ship wouldve probably capsized in like 2 minutes.

@@ndmz903 The ramp was closed not slightly open. Water only splashed in, that's what they told.

@@Kert69 through where did the water splash in?

You know that after bow visor there is the vertical raised locked squarish car ramp.

Latches, hydraulic arms and other structures supporting the ramp were broken by the visor. So the ramp was moved quite loosely by water and gravity. The ship sunk upside down, you know. And there isn't any actual footage left from the camera on the car deck. In the statement the men at the engine room were saying that in the end there was so much water on the car deck that the picture started to blur.. So the ramp must have been quite much open for some time. It just bothers me that that people are either so stupid or mentally lazy that they cannot read and understand the report which has been public for twenty years. Then they rather believe these UFO, KGB, and CIA theories. Basic knowledge of natural sciences and engineering and ability of logical thinking is surprisingly rare nowadays which also explains popularity of these conspiracy theories.

@@tapiorissanen7652 Agreed! I'm still confused over how water came rushing down below car deck, since she didn't capsize and remained floating upside down. Shouldn't the doors on car deck be massive and sealed? Ironically, the fact that she did take in water under car deck gave people time to evacuate..

@@tapiorissanen7652 Well, the official reports were a bit dodgy and changed multiple times. Especially at first, when asked "what's that all about", the governments just basically told everyone to fck off. And still does. Which is rude. So they basically made a medium for conspiracies and then acted all surprised about them. The sinking was a tragedy, but another one followed regarding the whole handling of the situation.

@@tapiorissanen7652 The official report was put together by the delegates of *Sweden*, *Estonia* and Finland. It wasn't a "neutral" commission, which could have, and most likely was orientated by the Swedish and Estonian goverments. It was a suspicion and a conspiracy theory a long time ago that Estonia and Sweden were smuggeling weapons on the ship, which was later confirmed, however at first denied by the goverments of Estonia and Sweden. When going by the Russian submarine theory, it would make sense that Estonia and Sweden manipulated the report and the commission to avoid anyone getting know of the illegal smuggeling. This theory is also supported by the completely unexplained covering of the ship with cement (possibly to cover the holes created by the submarines?). The official report also completely ignores the laws of physics. How did the ship manage to sink from the stern and not even tilt any degree towards the bow? Maybe because (most) of the water didn't enter from the bow, but instead the starboard side of the ship? Also, if there wasn't any damage on the sides, how did the water enter the closed airpockets, which could have kept the ship floating upsidedown for hours if not days? For me the official report makes no sense at all.

I always thought it was a deliberate act..

Metal fatigue which is accelerated by cold conditions and the effects it has on the steels crystalline structure over periods of time. This along with constant straining and even possible corrosion induced fatigue. It had happened to one of her sister ship not long before the loss but checks are said not to have been made. Frequent panting maintenance can hide cracking from inspection teams. Sadly, it is all very plausible.

She had only being cross baltic for two years. Before that she was going in much more protected waters between Åland and Finland. According to one report I read she had only seen sea this hard for 20 hours before that terrible night.

Estonia's sister also experienced this during a storm.

The USN, Royal Navy, and dozens of ferry lines have operated hundreds of safely designed ships with bow doors for over 80 years. There is nothing inherently wrong with bow doors from an engineering perspective. Design and redundancy are critical.

Yeah maybe that could have enabled them to ask for help earlier and saved lives.

Honestly its outright pathetic how some of you are unwilling to believe the actual facts/truth, especially considering there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER about any sabotage PLUS there had been NUMEROUS cases where the front visor of ships had either caused close call situations or actual sinking of ships before Estonia....so the visor breaking like that was NOT unheard of, it had happened before and Estonia (formerly Viking Sally) was never designed to be on that more open sea/rough weather route anyway, when its original purpose was to serve between Turku-Marienhamn-Stockholm route in which she never had to face such rough waves/conditions.

With all do respect,I might be wrong about dumping something,but there was an explosion,all of the survivors talk about it And you can do some research on this topic,you will see that alot of the things involving this accident are "strange"

@@dolbonat Dude, NONE of the survivors talk about explosions, but only about loud banging which was caused by first the locks/hinges of the visors failing and then as it slammed against the hull as it hung by its upper hinges. Thats what caused all those loud bangs the passangers heared. If it was explosion, there would have been one big bang, not multiple and the survivors clearly talk about loud "METALLIC" noises, not about explosions. So with all due respect, this whole disaster had natural causes behind it, not sabotage. Ive read the stories of survivors and the official accident report, there is honestly NOTHING there that suggest any kind of shady things going on. Its just very unfortunate accident that could have been prevented with safer visor design and/or having water tight doors behind the visor/car ramp and also clear view to the visor from the bridge....the latter thing is also so bizarre thing for me, why the bridge was designed the way it was, why it was fo far back that you couldnt see the front of the ship from there when pretty much ALL other such ferries had their command bridge at the very front. Anyhow all these people telling about sabotage and cover up just want attention and fame for themselves, thats how its always been and not just with Estonia's case....I dont know how many idotic things Ive read about 9-11 and from Holocaust deniers as well...

@@Balnazzardi Have you watched the latest investigation show,on their native language talking about it? There's more to it than just the explosion,how politicians started to resign from their duties,and the later on cover ups,to the shaman woman hupnotising people to not remember the horrible accident,,look it up,seriously. By this day,we use the same fairies,with that same visor,you would've think that something would change after that incident,nope.

@@dolbonat Well I bet many people would resign considering it was within their responsibility to make sure these kind of accidents would not happen... Anyhow lot of things WERE changed after Estonia...right after the visors of the ships (even ones that had doors open to the sideways) had them welded shut until safety improvements like stronger locks, water detection systems and water tight doors behind the visors could be installed to them. So even though there are still some ships with the same visor design operating, they ALL had their locks/hinges checked/strenghtened if necessary and ALL have those water tight doors nowdays behind the visors, some even multiple of them. So again its false to claim nothing would have changed.

The Baltic sea is no ocean

Does it really sound like robot?