DISASTER INVESTIGATIONAll about the M/V Estonia disaster 1994 A contribution to better ferry safety at sea Anders Bjrkman, 2001 (and updated later), 2009 This book is dedicated to my beloved friend Elke Masczyk 14 August 1951 - 9 March 2002"... je refuse la guerre et tout ce qu'il y a dedans... Je ne la dplore pas moi... Je ne me rsigne pas moi... Je ne pleurniche pas dessus moi... Je la refuse tout net, avec tous les hommes qu'elle contient, je ne veux rien avoir faire avec eux, avec elle... c'est eux qui ont tort... c'est moi qui ai raison, parce que je suis le seul savoir ce que je veux: je ne veux plus mourir." L-F Cline

CONTENTDISASTER INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Preamble 2009 to the English Edition of Katastrofutredning ........................................................................... 24 Serious Errors in the SSPA Reports ............................................................................................................... 25 Full Scale........................................................................................................................................................ 25 Model Scale ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Condition for immediate Sinking .................................................................................................................. 27 Fullscale Computer Simulations .................................................................................................................... 28 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 Preamble 2005 to the English Edition of Katastrofutredning ........................................................................... 29 Preamble 2001 to the English Edition of Katastrofutredning ........................................................................... 31 Keep it confidential, i.e. you can state what you like.................................................................................... 31 The Visor and the part open Ramp - 17 October 1994 ................................................................................. 31 A modified Scenario 15 December 1994 - and some proven Lies................................................................. 32 The impossible Sequence of Events .............................................................................................................. 33 Cover up the Wreck and the Bodies.............................................................................................................. 34 Three years of Lies ........................................................................................................................................ 34 All essential Facts are false ........................................................................................................................... 35 The Conspirators and the hidden Agenda..................................................................................................... 35 The 'respectable' Conspirators...................................................................................................................... 35 Ms Mona Sahlin - the Spider in the Net ........................................................................................................ 37 Three Journalists fired ................................................................................................................................... 37 The IMO was fooled 1995 ............................................................................................................................. 37 How Democracy died .................................................................................................................................... 38 No Reliability - No Validity - No Disclosure - No Significance ........................................................................ 39 Thank you ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................... 41 Cause and Event ............................................................................................................................................ 41 2

Events and Causes ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Several Errors of Form and Procedure were made during the official 'Estonia' Investigation 1994-1997 ... 42 Factual Faults of Events................................................................................................................................. 43 Seaworthiness ............................................................................................................................................... 44 Watertight Subdivision.................................................................................................................................. 44 Life Saving Equipment ................................................................................................................................... 44 The Swedish National Maritime Administration - Sjfartsverket ................................................................. 45 The Visor and the Wave Loads ...................................................................................................................... 45 The Bow Ramp .............................................................................................................................................. 46 Speed and Course ......................................................................................................................................... 46 Water Inflow ................................................................................................................................................. 46 Stability ......................................................................................................................................................... 46 Sinking ........................................................................................................................................................... 47 The Plot of the Accident - A Falsification ...................................................................................................... 47 Testimonies ................................................................................................................................................... 47 Unreported Damages .................................................................................................................................... 48 Destruction of Evidence ................................................................................................................................ 48 Major Hull Modification Work was done 8 Months before the Accident ..................................................... 48 The Swimming Pool ....................................................................................................................................... 48 The Sequence of Events ................................................................................................................................ 49 Leakage ......................................................................................................................................................... 49 The German Investigation ............................................................................................................................. 50 Stability after the Accident............................................................................................................................ 50 Insurance Fraud............................................................................................................................................. 50 What 'actually' happened to the 'Estonia' will probably never be answered ............................................... 51 Tourist Attraction .......................................................................................................................................... 52 Proven Facts .................................................................................................................................................. 52 The Re-opening 1998 of the 'Derbyshire' Accident 1980 .............................................................................. 52 Press Voices ....................................................................................................................................................... 56

3

When Wool Socks grow on Trees...................................................................................................................... 61 The Principle of Archimedes does not apply ................................................................................................. 62 We cannot establish the TRUTH... ................................................................................................................ 63 "Wool socks do not grow on trees!" ............................................................................................................. 63 Part 1. How Survivors and Relatives were misinformed 1994-1998 ..................................................................... 64 1.1 A prime Example of Falsification of History ................................................................................................ 64 Only one Cause of Accident announced and investigated ............................................................................ 64 Missing Information - the Ship was unseaworthy ......................................................................................... 66 The open Starboard Pilot Door ..................................................................................................................... 68 Classic Example - the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' .......................................................................................... 68 Disinformation about the 'Herald of Free Enterprise'................................................................................... 68 The Falsification of History started on the same Day of the Accident .......................................................... 69 The defective watertight Door System contributed to the Accident ............................................................ 71 1.2 The secret Commission appointed on 28 September 1994 ........................................................................ 72 The International Maritime Organisation ..................................................................................................... 72 1.3 The false Position of the Wreck is announced ............................................................................................ 74 The strange Story of Sillaste .......................................................................................................................... 75 The Bow Ramp is closed ................................................................................................................................ 75 The Bilge Pumps ............................................................................................................................................ 76 Panic among the Passengers - Calm in the ECR ............................................................................................ 77 Why Sillaste was called down ....................................................................................................................... 77 Speculations - Falsification of History ........................................................................................................... 77 Wermelin and the Visor 28 September 1994 ................................................................................................ 78 Strange Meetings .......................................................................................................................................... 79 The false Wreck Position ............................................................................................................................... 80 Wreck isolated - a false Position announced ................................................................................................ 80 Swedish Rescue Service - Rddningsverket - dives on the Wreck 1 October 1994....................................... 81 Rumours in the Media ................................................................................................................................... 81 Water on Deck 1............................................................................................................................................ 81

4

Wermelin again ............................................................................................................................................. 82 1.4 The first false Cause of Accident 4 October 1994 ....................................................................................... 85 Evidence of Divers visiting the Vessel on 1 October 1994 ............................................................................ 86 The Starboard Pilot Door filmed 1 October 1994 ......................................................................................... 86 Reduced Speed.............................................................................................................................................. 86 The Visor at the Bow ..................................................................................................................................... 86 How to start an Investigation ........................................................................................................................ 87 The first, false Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 88 What happened on Deck 0 (the Tank Top) at 00.30-01.00 Hours? ............................................................... 90 Watertight Doors .......................................................................................................................................... 90 The second Filming of the Wreck .................................................................................................................. 91 Offer to salvage Bodies declined ................................................................................................................... 91 Nobody in Estonia or Sweden replied to the offer........................................................................................ 91 The first Swedish NMA Report ...................................................................................................................... 92 1.5 The Conspirators of the Commission appointed 10 October 1994 ............................................................. 95 Experts and Observers .................................................................................................................................. 96 No Directives ................................................................................................................................................. 96 Ethical Principles ........................................................................................................................................... 97 1.6 Changes in the Commission ........................................................................................................................ 99 1.7 The obvious Conflicts of Interest............................................................................................................... 100 1.8 An early Mistake - the Ramp was closed when the 'Estonia' sank ............................................................ 102 1.9 The alleged Sinking .................................................................................................................................... 104 The strange Visor Position .......................................................................................................................... 104 Evident Falsifications ................................................................................................................................... 105 An unproven Turn 2 400 meters West of the Wreck .................................................................................. 105 The Sinking continues ................................................................................................................................. 106 Basic Particulars and Assumptions - Hull - Bilge Pumps - Superstructure - Scuppers - Deck House ........... 106 The False Sequence of Events ..................................................................................................................... 107 The Ferry starts to heel at 01.15 hrs ........................................................................................................... 108

5

The Ferry turns at 01.16 hrs ........................................................................................................................ 108 The strange Event at 01.20 hrs - why doesnt the Ferry upright? ............................................................... 108 The Engines stops at 01.24 hrs .................................................................................................................... 109 Fragments on the Seabed ........................................................................................................................... 109 Objects fall off when the List is 30 Degrees .................................................... 501 The Sound insulated Control Room ............................................................................................................ 501 The Ramp was fully open ............................................................................................................................ 502 The Engine Crew remains in the Control Room and lies about the Events ................................................. 503 Expert Huss explains the Matter ................................................................................................................. 503 The 'independent' Experts support the Commission .................................................................................. 504 3.12 The Accident according to the Commission - the Ship sinks. Equilibrium with 14 000 tons Water in the Deckhouse ....................................................................................................................................................... 505 No Capsize!.................................................................................................................................................. 505 Deckhouse flooded ..................................................................................................................................... 505 Windows are smashed ................................................................................................................................ 505 Ship floats on the watertight Deckhouse .................................................................................................... 506 The Authors' of the false Stability Calculations ........................................................................................... 507 She floated on the Deckhouse .................................................................................................................... 507 The Sinking .................................................................................................................................................. 509 No Vent Trunks............................................................................................................................................ 509 Incorrect Calculations.................................................................................................................................. 509 The Deckhouse is filled with 125 tons/second - but only for two minutes ................................................. 510 The 'Estonia' should have capsized and floated upside down .................................................................... 510 The German Group of Experts .................................................................................................................... 511 3.13 The German Group of Experts ................................................................................................................ 512

20

The big Error of the Germans - no Stability Calculations ............................................................................ 512 3.14 The actual Condition of the Visor - damaged .......................................................................................... 513 3.15 The actual Condition of the Bow Ramp - not tight! ................................................................................ 514 3.16 The Accident according to the Germans - the Visor ............................................................................... 515 No German Stability Calculations ................................................................................................................ 515 No German Plot of the Accident ................................................................................................................. 516 Visor lost after the Listing ........................................................................................................................... 516 Unrealistic Suggestions - Explosions before Sinking ................................................................................... 516 3.17 The Accident according to the Germans - Water on the Car Deck ......................................................... 518 The Germans and the Commission used the same 'Stability Expert' .......................................................... 518 3.18 The Accident according to the Germans - the Sauna was flooded ......................................................... 520 No German Observations investigated ....................................................................................................... 520 The stable Condition ................................................................................................................................... 521 The Swimming Pool flooded - the Ship was leaking .................................................................................... 521 Speed reduced before the Accident - Crew aware of Problems - no Alarm ............................................... 523 The 'Estonia' sank at 01.35 hrs .................................................................................................................... 523 Of course - the Ship should have capsized .................................................................................................. 524 New Findings never investigated ................................................................................................................ 524 The German Final Report - vital Information missing - no Logic ................................................................. 525 3.19 Summary and Conclusions. Full Speed towards Disaster! The Report of Lies ........................................ 528 Two Stories about the 'Accident' ................................................................................................................ 528 Many Parties of the Cover-up ..................................................................................................................... 530 3.20 Why did the Underwriters pay? .............................................................................................................. 532 The Underwriters never investigated the Accident .................................................................................... 532 3.21 Shipping Companies pay billions! The Stockholm Agreement. Fast Rescue Boats are required 1995 but not considered 'means of rescue' 2004 .......................................................................................................... 534 The Stockholm Agreement .......................................................................................................................... 535 Fast Rescue Boats are killing Seamen 1995-2001 ....................................................................................... 539 The IMO stops the Use of Fast Rescue Boats 2001 ..................................................................................... 540 The IMO starts to prevent fast Rescue Boats 2004 ..................................................................................... 541 21

3.22 Personal Summary of the Accident Investigation. Save yourself - if you can! ........................................ 543 ... wasn't it a wonderful cover-up of the ACCIDENT... ................................................................................ 547 Summary of Part 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 550 Part 4. The 'Estonia' in the Future - 1999-2001. Conspiracy? ............................................................................. 551 4.1 Explosive Devices on the 'Estonia' and why .............................................................................................. 551 A false Position of the Visor advised ........................................................................................................... 554 Visor and Ramp filmed on 9 October .......................................................................................................... 554 The Visor was removed under Water ......................................................................................................... 555 4.2 New Information by the Finnish Delegation of the Commission September 1999................................... 558 4.3 Questions without Answers. Where was the Visor found? ...................................................................... 561 Wreck found 30 September and filmed 2 October - large Object at the Bow ............................................ 561 The false Wreck Position ............................................................................................................................. 561 Renewed filming 9 October - no Visor, no exploded Hole in the 'Estonia' ................................................. 562 Visor found 18 October ............................................................................................................................... 562 Fragments and Objects found but not filmed ............................................................................................. 562 Visor salvaged by Swedish navy - at unknown position .............................................................................. 563 The Wreck had disappeared ....................................................................................................................... 563 Debris 100-350 m West of the Wreck ......................................................................................................... 564 Finnish denials - Kari Lehtola explains the Video Footage and why it is not edited and the Search of and the Position of the Bow Visor ............................................................................................................................ 565 4.4 Disaster Investigation ............................................................................................................................... 568 Leakage of the Hull reported by Dagens Nyheter 7 October 1994 ............................................................. 569 Modified Statements - the Time and Events change .................................................................................. 569 Early Evacuation .......................................................................................................................................... 571 The false Visor Position ............................................................................................................................... 571 Key Witnesses lied about everything on 28 September ............................................................................. 572 The early Birds of the Swedish Government ............................................................................................... 573 Design Fault ................................................................................................................................................. 574 No Information of Stability and the Principle of Archimedes ..................................................................... 575 Disaster Manipulations ............................................................................................................................... 576 22

Lehtola announced a false Wreck Position! ................................................................................................ 577 The perfect Condition of the Ship - a Myth................................................................................................. 579 Crew Members know what happened ........................................................................................................ 580 Who had reason to totally manipulate the course of events already on the 28th? ................................... 581 4.5 Epilogue. Who wrote the Final Report? .................................................................................................... 586 No Knowledge about Stability ..................................................................................................................... 587 Early Falsifications ....................................................................................................................................... 587 Who invented the original false Story? ....................................................................................................... 589 Who wrote the Final Report? ...................................................................................................................... 594 Part 5. References ........................................................................................................................................... 597 Appendix 1 - "SOME OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE M/S ESTONIA" ............................................... 599 Appendix 2 - Model Tests with M/S Estonia (Supplement No. 410) ............................................................... 609 Appendix 3 - Question in the Swedish Parliament by Helena Bargholtz (fp) to minister Mona Sahlin about a new Estonia investigation ............................................................................................................................... 617 Appendix 4 - Dr. Michael Huss, FRINA, and Karppinen make incorrect Water Inflow Calculations ............... 620 Appendix 5 - About the Damage in the Side, which Lehtola denies is there .................................................. 624 Appendix 6 - THE FINNISH GROUP OF THE FORMER JOINT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION ......... 634 Appendix 7 - Extract from questioning of the N&T superintendent Ulf Hobro .............................................. 636 Appendix 8 - Two different Estonian versions of the course of events .......................................................... 639 Appendix 9 - The German Final Report (June 2000) 3.18 .............................................................................. 641

23

PREAMBLE 2009 TO THE ENGLISH EDITION OF KATASTROFUTREDNINGIt is with great pleasure this book is put on the Internet in PDF format 2009. The MV Estonia sinking is still not explained 2009! Even worse more false info is spread! According two research establishments, Chalmers University/SSPA/Safety at Sea, Ltd., at Gothenburg/Glasgow and HSVA at Hamburg 2008, the capsized but still floating M/S Estonia sank on 28 September, 1994! They were 2006-2008 paid >SEK 12 millions by the Swedish government/Vinnova to explain why. How did she sink? No details or calculations (!) are available in any reports about the capsized floating condition at 01.30 hrs and why/how it changed in the next 20 minutes permitting sinking! As seen in below (simple) figures the M/S 3 3 3 Estonia, prior capsize, floated normally on/displaced 11 930 m buoyancy in the hull (10 666 m air, 1 264 m 3 solids, permeability 0.894, in 14 watertight compartments) according Archimedes with 6 886 m volume above 3 3 waterline but below the watertight main deck (6 156 m air and 730 m solids, permeability 0.894) reserve 3 buoyancy. Total hull volume is 18.816 m . Everybody agrees to that.

Above main deck in the superstructure and deck house were another 3 906 m of solids. According above research establishments Estonia loaded 1 000's of tons of water in the superstructure >2 m above waterline, which resulted in the vessel capsizing and floating upside down at 01.30 hrs. Evidently the water in the superstructure doesn't affect buoyancy after capsize! Upside down, after capsize, Estonia thus still floats, now with 3 191 m of hull above waterline. About 5 012 m of water is then inside the 14 watertight hull compartments compressing the air there. The vessel displacement 3 3 3 is still 11 930 m : the displacement consists of two parts; 8.024 m compressed air/solids in the hull + 3.906 m solids in the superstructure/deck house. So the buoyancy of the capsized ship consists 67% of compressed air in the hull and 33% of submerged solids! It seems everybody also agrees to that.3 3

3

24

No air can escape from the 14 hull compartments in this condition, so the vessel cannot sink. In model scale 1/40 and tests the model evidently floats higher after capsize, as the air pressure inside the model hull is less. But neither ship nor model can sink after capsize! Archimedes looks after that! Any undergraduate student using a calculator can conclude that a capsized, floating ship cannot sink. But according above research establishments and Chalmers University it can! Dr. Dracos Vassalos of Safety at Sea, Ltd., has refused to assist in explaining the alleged loss of buoyancy of MV Estonias 14 watertight compartments between 01.30 and 01.52 hrs. Vassalos is not interested to resolve the confusion he is causing. And he lectures stability at the University of Strathclyde. Poor undergraduates. Strangely enough the Safety at Sea Ltd 's partner SSPA, Gothenburg, part of Chalmers University, makes exactly the same unexplained error, when calculating buoyancy in 14 watertight compartments and floating after capsize and performing model tests of the sinking (SSPA report no. 4006 4100-4). None of the research establishments seem to know that capsized ships also float on solid material buoyancy that was above waterline prior capsize! In order to sink the model, SSPA releases air from the capsized hull via two hidden valves in the bottom! This is unscientific, improper cheating! SSPA is part of Chalmers University of Technology and has been informed about the manipulations. According the President of Chalmers, Ms Karin Markides, the Chalmers opinion is that the process has been open and well meets the demands put on a complex process such as this (letter Ref. No.: C2008/627 of 25 August 2008). This is nonsense. The errors have been pointed out to the scientists, which have ignored them! The Swedish Government states in its Proposition Ett lyft fr forskning och innovation (A step up for research and innovation) (prop. 2008/09:50) that the importance of public confidence remains and is reinforced, when handling questions of suspected manipulations of research at Swedish universities. The university is responsible to investigate suspicions about manipulations of research as per Chapter 1, 16 of the Rules for Higher Education Institutions (hgskolefrordningen) (1993:100). The university, as employer, must also take actions against employees when manipulations of research have been observed. In the latest Proposition above the Government suggests that the responsibility of the university remains to investigate suspected manipulations of research, but that also an external investigation of suspected manipulations of research by experts outside the university may in certain cases contribute to the confidence of any investigation. In this case Chalmers University, SSPA and Ms Karin Markides are breaking the law.

SERIOUS ERRORS IN THE SSPA REPORTSThe SSPA report no. 4006 4100-4 - Foundering tests - contains serious errors. The errors concern what happens when M/S Estonia in full scale and model scale capsizes and floats upside down on the compressed air enclosed or trapped in the hull. Evidently the pressure on the enclosed air differs in full scale and model scale as explained with the below figures 1-4. When the scale is 1/40 the water pressure on the air inside a capsized hull is abt. 50 times smaller than in full-scale. But the vessel does not only float on compressed air upside 3 down. The total volume of the ship's superstructure and deck house below water is then about 59 190 m and it contains a fair amount of buoyancy. With an average permeability of 0.934 (space full of water) there is still 3 3.906 m of material (incl. cargo) in the superstructure and deck house that provides buoyancy.

FULL SCALEIn fig 1. below Estonia (full scale) floats in the water. Her displacement, i.e. the volume of water below water 3 3 3 line pushed aside by the hull, is abt. 11 930 m (10 666 m air, 1 264 m solids in 14 watertight compartments) 3 3 3 and she has abt. 6 886 m (6 156 m air, 730 m solids) reserve buoyancy between waterline (WL) and main 25

deck (UD). Her draught is abt. 5.2 metres. The vessel floats due to this displacement/buoyancy; compare 3 Archimedes! The total volume in the hull (displacement + reserve buoyancy) is then abt. 18 816 m of which 16 3 3 822 m is air and 1 994 m is solid material. Above the hull is the car deck superstructure and the deck house but they do not contain any air providing buoyancy. However, the superstructure and deck house, below water after capsize, contain material that occupies volume which in turn provides buoyancy; e.g. if there is 3 910 tons of steel (specific gravity 7.82) in 3 3 the superstructure and deck house below water, it occupies 500 m and thus provides 500 m extra buoyancy or, if there were 5 000 tons of other objects in the superstructure and deck house with specific gravity 1.47 3 3 (wall and ceiling panels, carpets, furniture, cargo, etc), it occupies 3 406 m and provides another 3 406 m extra buoyancy. Note that this extra non-air buoyancy is not subject to compression. Thus Estonia probably 3 had about 3 906 m of buoyancy in superstructure and deck house that would assist her floating upside down after capsize. When Estonia has capsized, fig. 2, she floats upside down due to buoyancy of solid material now below water + air trapped inside the hull. The air in the hull is compressed due to external water pressure at a new equilibrium. The bottom of the compressed air bubble in every watertight compartment is say 5 metres below 3 waterline and the air has been compressed to abt. 11 215 m at abt. 1.5 bar. As you still need 11 930 m buoyancy to float on and you have 3 906 m in superstructure and deckhouse + 3 3 11.215 m compressed air at 1.5 bar in the hull, there is abt. 3 191 m volume of the hull that remains above waterline. That's where the reserve buoyancy ended up. Estonia thus floats upside down with >2 metres of the 3 hull above waterline, WL. 5 607 m of original air volume in the hull is replaced by sea water.3 3

MODEL SCALEIn model scale, say 1/40 used by SSPA, the total volume of the hull is only 18816/64000 = 0.294 m or say 294 litres of which 186 litres is buoyancy (the model weighs 186 kgs and displaces abt. 13 cms) and you have 108 litres of reserve buoyancy - see fig. 3. The model also has an unknown amount of buoyancy in the 263

superstructure/deck house which should correspond to 61 litres of air. When the model turns upside down, it floats on 61 litres of solid material below water and 125 litres of compressed air inside the model hull. But then the outside water pressure on the air is only about 10 cms of water or 1.01 bar, so the volume of compressed air inside the model is only reduced by abt. 3 litres! As the model requires 186 litres buoyancy to float, there remains 105 litres reserve buoyancy in the hull above WL after model capsize - see fig. 4. Thus the model will float with about 10 cms of hull (4 metres full scale) above WL! Reason is simply that the pressure to compress air in the hull is abt. 50 times smaller in scale 1/40. To adjust that height to full scale you have to allow abt. 55 3 litres (3 529 m full scale) of air to escape from the model. The model will then still float with the remaining 50 litres of 3 air (3 191 m full scale) above WL. If Estonia full scale would have floated upside down, Estonia model scale would have floated upside down. No sinking. Apparently it was not the case as in the model tests the model sinks slowly (after air in the hull is slowly being released).

Fig. 5 - SSPA model of Estonia floats after capsize!

How does SSPA describe this in its report?"A number of tests were carried out where the model capsized, trapped air and remained floating upside down. 3 The volume of this trapped air was measured, and a mean value was found to be around 40 litres (2 560 m fullscale) . Also the pressure of the trapped air was measured. The scaling laws give for the present situation that about 20% of the trapped air should be evacuated to give a proper remaining amount of trapped air in the model, 3 see Appendix 1. In this case around 8 litres (512 m full-scale) could be let out in order to fulfil the scale laws. The 3 two valves in the bottom of the model were calibrated giving a flow of 6.7 litres (429 m full-scale) each per minute at the actual pressure. This means that one valve could be held open a little more than 1 minute during the test."

Not very scientific or convincing and not in accordance with real full scale and model scale situations. There is no mentioning that there are 14 watertight compartments in the hull. SSPA ignores completely the extra, permanent buoyancy provided by the superstructure and deck house that are now below water. That buoyancy 3 3 is around 3.906 m full-scale or 61 litres model scale. 105 litres air model scale is 3 529 m full scale and maybe this what Estonia had above waterline after capsize. There are about 125 litres air and 61 litres of solids below 3 waterline to float on. 6.7 litres model scale is 429 m full scale! Why let that out per minute? SSPA knows that the full scale ferry could not have sunk at all after capsize. The SSPA report does not include any descriptions and calculations of buoyancy of solid material in hull, superstructure and deck house and (compressed) air in the hull of Estonia full scale and in model scale and available buoyancy after capsize. It is very serious. How can you explain sinking, if you do not calculate available buoyancy at every instance?

CONDITION FOR IMMEDIATE SINKINGIt should be noted that, if Estonia full scale did not have 6 886 m reserve buoyancy in the hull as assumed in 3 figure 1 above, but only 4 000 m reserve buoyancy and much less buoyancy in the superstructure and deck house, she would have sunk immediately after capsize. The total air volume in the hull then would have been 3 compressed to 1.5 bar, and the remaining buoyancy provided by compressed air would be too small to allow floating. The ferry, upside down then, sinks at once and the air in the hull is compressed more and more - to say 6-7 bar when it touches bottom at 80 metres. The volume of the air in the hull is then compressed to less 3 than 3 000 m . 273

In model scale, the model will float with equivalent of 7 056 m reserve buoyancy, i.e. 105 litres, and you have to remove these 105 litres of air, at once, to allow the model to sink. If you only remove 6.7 litres each minute 3 (429 m /min full scale) it takes the model 16-17 minutes to sink ... as shown in model tests videos but it has nothing to do with reality. You must evidently remove all the excess air ... at once! And that's where the model test goes wrong! Apart from ignoring constant buoyancy in the hull, superstructure and deck house due to solid volumes there being submerged.

3

FULLSCALE COMPUTER SIMULATIONSThe full scale computer simulations done by Safety at Sea, Ltd., Glasgow, strangely also copy the slow, 16-17 minutes, sinking as per SSPA model tests. But in full scale the air is compressed at once after capsize and the ship should sink immediately, if that were the case ... so why does the computer animation exactly copy the model sinking? Air being let out? It is not possible! There are 14 watertight compartments with plenty of compressed air! The Glasgow company Safety at Sea Ltd's (associated with Strathclyde University) computer simulation is full scale and there is no need to let out any air. The computer simulations are also faked! One moment the simulated ship is seen floating upside down with bottom/keel high above waterline, the next is sinks ... slowly. But there is no way the air inside the 14 hull compartments can escape ... slowly. The authors of the simulation, Dracos Vassalos and Andrzej Jasionowski, suggest that water flows up from below?? But where does the air go? It is quite serious when scientists of a university starts to fake their work! Because that is what they are doing. Actually the work is done by underpaid students that are forced to manipulate the input to achieve the desired result of their teachers!

SUMMARYThe model tests and theoretical calculations 2008 by Vinnova/SSPA of Estonia capsizing do not compare with or reflect full scale or reality. As Estonia, full scale, would have floated after capsize, the model would also have floated, albeit much higher, and never sunk regardless if some adjustments were done by allowing trapped air to escape. If Estonia full scale, would not have floated after capsize, she would have sunk immediately. To show this in model scale, you have to allow, say 105 litres of trapped air, to escape at once. To play around with one valve letting out only 6.7 litres each minute, first aft and later fwd, delays the sinking 16-17 minutes, actually seen in the model tests videos. But it has nothing to with reality. The computer simulations of the same thing by Safety at Sea, Glasgow, are also faked! This is very serious and has nothing to do with real safety at sea. Anders Bjrkman, 2009

28

'Thorough and unbiased marine casualty investigations are the most effective way of establishing the circumstances and causes of a casualty.' IMO Res. A.849 (20) - 5.1.1 "All this was inspired by the principle that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the (public) more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to largescale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation:" Adolf Hitler / Mein Kampf "All truth passes through three stages; First - it is ridiculed .... Second - it is violently opposed.... Third - it is accepted as being self evident." Arthur Schopenhauer "A half truth presented as a whole truth becomes, in the end, a total lie." Robert Ardrey

PREAMBLE 2005 TO THE ENGLISH EDITION OF KATASTROFUTREDNINGThis book was first published in Swedish on the Internet 2000 and in English 2001 as a contribution to better safety at sea. After a slow start there were sometimes >3 000 visitors per month. In September 2003 the web site was closed by the ISP without explanation, which however arrived a little later as a letter in the mail. A lawyer warned to sue the author/investigator for defamation, etc, due to certain published facts without further explanations or evidence. The advantage of an Internet book is that it is very easy to correct and improve it. The author therefore decided to verify and update all information on the site. Much has happened since 2000 but the Swedish government and authorities still refuse to review all new proven facts that the complete Estonia accident investigation 1994-1997 was misinformation and manipulation from day one by a small group of persons at the request of the Swedish government at the time. The author hopes that any future Swedish government decides according to international and national law to review the new proven facts so that the correct cause of the 'Estonia' accident 1994 can be established. According to Professor Mati un of the Estonian defence ministry the 'Estonia' transported military material on the voyage 27-28 September 1994 (announced at the Estonia symposium at Tallinn 27 September 2005). The material in two trucks was escorted to the ship by the Estonian defence forces and handed over to 15 Swedish persons (passengers) on the 'Estonia' that probably were employed by the Swedish Intelligence agency, MUST. The trucks were secured just behind the forward ramp of the ferry. The purpose of the Swedish presence on the 'Estonia' at Tallinn was probably to supervise the military cargo during the voyage. During the voyage the 'Estonia' experienced two sharp noisy impacts around 01.00 hrs followed by heavy listing a few minutes later. It seems that the 'Estonia' had collided with something - maybe a submarine! The collision damaged the underwater hull of the 'Estonia', several watertight compartments were flooded and initial stability was lost and the 'Estonia' rolled >30-40 but soon found a new equilibrium at 500 Swedes died on the 'Estonia' on 28 September 1994. Follow the British example. Order a Swedish court to clarify the 19 technical questions given in the beginning of this Foreword.

Anders Bjrkman naval architect, M.Sc Beausoleil, France - Freiberg, Saxony, Germany - Heliopolis, Egypt 1999-2001, 2004 --1

Marine Accident Investigators International Forum http://www.maiif.net for its rules and members. The MAIIF is generally not interested in the 'Estonia' accident and its investigation in spite of the fact the MAIIF members participated in the investigation and signed the Final report.

References with a number are shown in part 5. A reference with a letter followed by a number is an act in the archive of the Swedish Board of Accident Investigation, SHK, Stockholm, Sweden.3

2

The opinion of the author is simple - if the explanations of the Commission are trustworthy, the Commission and the NMA have nothing to hide and should explain the outstanding questions. By refusing to do so neither the Commission nor the Final Report can be considered trustworthy.

55

"Hkan Bergmark, 41, from Stockholm was one of the first who dived down to the "Estonia". He says that he saw and filmed a big hole in the side of the ship. He did not consider it much at the time. 'It wasn't my task to find the cause of accident. But when the Final Report of the Commission was issued many years later I was very surprised', says Bergmark, who today would like to forget all about the "Estonia". Two of the four other divers, who were down together with Bergmark, do not want to comment on the "Estonia" at all." Fredrik Engstrm, Swedish daily Expressen 22 August 2000 "When I 1998 started to dig into the sinking I was told by relatives to victims, that the Commission member Olof Forssberg (former director general of the Board of Accident Investigation) had admitted that there was a hole in the ships starboard side. Somebody put the question at a meeting with relatives autumn 1994. Yes, said Forssberg immediately." Knut Carlqvist - Swedish daily Finanstidningen 12 January 2000 "Der finnische Leiter der offiziellen Untersuchungskommission, Kari Lehtola, sagte, die Kommission habe kein Loch in der Fhre entdeckt. Selbst wenn es ein solches Loch gebe, htte dies nicht zu der Katastrophe fhren knnen." (Or in English - "The Finnish leader of the official accident investigation, Kari Lehtola, said that the commission has not discovered any damage hole in the ferry. And even if such damage existed, it could not have caused the disaster"). Der Spiegel, 2 September 2000

PRESS VOICESA very good review of the media reporting is found at Kenneth Rasmusson's home page. The culture editor, Knut Carlqvist, of the Swedish daily FinansTidningen has the past years opened his pages for a constructive debate about the 'Estonia' investigation and on the day five years after the accident 990928 he wrote the following: How the 'Estonia' became political

At four o'clock in the morning captain Esa Mkel on the 'Silja Europa' sailed towards the accident site. Everywhere life rafts were seen, some empty, some with weak or life less persons, often water filled. The ferry was doing only a few knots and at one questioning he explains why: "I was all the time afraid that she floated, bottom up. I was very afraid to ram her. I wasn't sure that she had sunk, I thought only she had capsized. It was not until the morning, when I didn't see anything that I was certain." How could the 'Estonia' sink in half an hour? Already the 'Titanic' had watertight bulkheads and the safety at sea has improved since then. Nevertheless Anders Hellberg of the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter on 29 September 1994 reported that water on the car deck was the probable cause of accident. The article was written already on the evening of the accident and at this early time had "several experts" their opinions ready. The bow visor was of an old type and it had fallen off in the heavy weather. The sources of Hellberg were probably from the Swedish National Maritime Administration, NMA. The evening papers repeated the suggestion and a guess - even if based on earlier incidents - became an established fact. Prime minister Carl Bildt flew on the day of accident to Turku to discuss with his Finnish and Estonian colleagues. No effort should be spared to investigate the cause, it was stated. An investigation commission was formed with the Estonian transport minister Andi Meister as chairman, which already on the same day sat down to question three key witnesses of the crew. But the questioning had hardly started when Meister announced that a charter plane was waiting and that they should fly back to home to Tallinn. The story was published in the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet on 2 October. The decision was "to say the least strange" according to the Swedish investigators and the sources of the paper - certainly members of the commission - thought that Meister was incompetent. But after that loss of temper the lid was put on, probably by order from the top. The kidnapping of the key witnesses must be connected with another incidence. Two days after the accident the Estonian secret police made a raid at the Estline office at Tallinn and collected all documents concerning the 'Estonia' (SvD 4.10). To

56

secure evidence or to destroy them? It remains to find out. On 30 September the wreck was found at 70 meters depth by echo sounder and the sonar pictures were sent for analysis. The Estonian director of the shipping company Estline refutes in the Finnish daily Hufvudstadsbladet the theory of an open bow visor and ramp. A ship of 12 000 tons does not sink so fast, even if trucks on the car deck get lose, the engines stop and water leaks through the bow visor. "It is only child's talk." He believes the 'Estonia' had hit a mine. But from the rafts survivors had seen that the visor was missing, when the ship sank. Therefore the matter was settled. The probability to hit a mine at the same time when the visor fell off is probably zero (no mine could have ripped off the visor high above the waterline). In some mysterious way the water must have flowed down below the car deck, in spite of it being watertight and in spite of it being 17000 cubic meters air as buoyancy below it. Otherwise she should have capsized and floated upside down. Sunday 2 October doctor Nuorteva announced the result of the echo sounding: "At the bow is a large object that either has been ripped off or hangs from the wreck. The object could according Nuorteva be the damaged visor or a part of the visor" (DN 3.10). The SvD adds that the object was of the same size as the visor and that it was seen on all four pictures. At the same time the ship was filmed by an ROV and two days later the first pictures of the wreck were available. Some journalist should have asked what was at the bow, but all attention was given to the wreck itself. We are told that the bow ramp had a one meter opening at the top, i.e. it was almost closed. Hellberg writes: "It has been enough to enable so much water to enter the car deck so that the ship became unstable, listed to starboard and capsized." From the video films of 2 October it is clear that the ROV-camera made a seven minutes trip to what is assumed to have 4 been the visor, but the sequence has been edited away from the publicly available copy. Not a word about the matter in the Final report. The reason is of course that the visor could not be situated at the bow if the scenario should fit. If it had fallen off under way, it should be found at a distance from the wreck. Internally the members discuss at this time the damages on the starboard hull side - also below the waterline. "There are pictures of these damages that we have got from the new films taken by the underwater camera", says the observer Sten Anderson to Anders Hellberg (DN 18.10). Did the visor cause them? In such case it must have been hanging on the protruding ramp, when the ship was still listing. In such case the bow ramp could not have been ripped open and then water on the car deck could not have caused the accident. A good guess is that the patrol ship the 'Tursas' was sent geese hunting east of the wreck a few weeks while the parties 5 discussed what to agree. Then they decided to "find" the visor a nautical mile west of the wreck. The pictures that Sten Anderson talks about have been edited away from the copy of the video film and the damages are not mentioned in the Final report. But the 'Tursas' found other things along the course of the 'Estonia'. "We have found scrap but it is probably from other parts of the ship", says Kari Lehtola to SvD (9.10). Two days later he explains that the 'Tursas' has found a large metal object, unfortunately not the visor, but "only a steel plate". All these objects were found east of the site of the wreck. The visor is then "found" west of the wreck. What was the origin of the scrap? And the steel plate? The 'Estonia' was allegedly in good condition, when the visor fell off. Not a line about6

57

scrap and steel plates in the Final report. Nobody knew what had happened the first days, the involved parties were quite open. They include also surviving crewmembers telling Estonian secret police one thing and journalists another. The watchman Silver Linde is an example: in questioning on 3 October he states that the mate told him before the accident to check the 'big bang' on the car deck. To Bo G Andersson he had said two days earlier at Turku: "Somebody, we do not know whom, it may have been a passenger, alarmed about something happening down in the ship." Linde when down and met several passengers in the stairwell 'who screamed that water had entered the interior of the cabins below the car deck" (DN 2.10). That version was later repeated in front of Mert Kubu of the DN at Tallinn. An alarm came to the bridge about water below the car deck. "They awoke when water started to enter the cabins" (DN 7.10). This is what several survivors from deck 1 testify and not that water flowed down in the stairwells from above. The ship was not yet listing, when they awoke. So what was the origin of the water? Bosse Brink reports in SvD (7.10) about the "strong political influences" of the investigation in Estonia. But if there were political influences in Estonia, there are also political influences here. The Swedes had to choose to play with or to confront the Estonians. They chose not to confront them. The German experts think that they can prove damages caused by explosives at the bow of the 'Estonia'. That the group is bluffing is improbable, considering upcoming legal processes. The suggestion can be combined with the theory that the ship was subject to sabotage. There is damage at the bow on the starboard side, big enough to allow the ROV-camera to easily swim into the car deck in December 1994. A hanging visor or an explosive device may have ripped open the shell plate, but on the inside there are 12 inch frames spaced 60 cms apart. The frames must have been cut away by divers. It is not mentioned in the papers. The Commission on the contrary denies that divers were inside on the car deck, even if anybody can see with own eyes on the video copies that divers are on the car deck We know and they know that we know. Apparently very strong interests are at stake.

The accident investigation was incomplete due to political reason. The responsible parties do not want to produce the Truth. Editor Knut Carlqvist does not approve the Final report. His method is to investigate and analyse and compare all early statements in the media with what was later produced by the Estonia commission. Carlqvist fights on Appendix 5. Also the Swedish daily Gteborgsposten, GP, disapproved the Final report on the day five years after the accident. 990928 wrote Anders Kilner, co-writer of editorials of the GP, the following article: Not the last Word of the 'Estonia' Today is five years since the 'Estonia' sank during a voyage from Tallinn to Stockholm with almost one thousand persons onboard. When the ship sank on 28 September 1994 852 human beings died. 137 were saved. It was the largest disaster in the Nordic countries since the war. How did it happen? Many are convinced that the Swedish-Finnish-Estonian accident commission has not clarified the real causes The Commission has even been criticised for not wanting to produce complete clarity. In addition many parties has presented suspicions that the truth has been hidden, which is an enormously serious accusation. In February this year the government produced its final statement not to modify the agreement of graveyard peace signed by Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Denmark. The bodies shall not be salvaged. A week ago the government announced its 7 decision that a new accident investigation shall not be appointed. Now the time to prosecute any crime has expired. The Majority of survivors are unhappy with the conclusions of the commission about the causes of the accident. They have good

58

reasons for that. ... The picture of causes that has emerged at the side of the Final report is that a rather old and badly maintained ship, which in addition was incorrectly loaded, was driven too hard, that some of the officers lacked qualifications and that the lifesaving equipment and the safety procedures were absolutely deficient. It was a disastrous combination: on the one hand many irresponsible parties, on the other hand no possibility to pinpoint a responsible party for the accident ... Safety cannot ever be complete, but it can be improved. Therefore it is important that the criticised report of the Commission about the 'Estonia' does not become the last word. There are too many question marks. Why not permit an international commission, independent of the directly concerned parties and governments and interests take over? It is not too late for such a decision. Not even five years after the disaster.

Yes, why not? The request is still valid today almost seven years after the accident. A new independent commission has a lot of proven facts to review. And a crime like murder can, and should be, investigated for 25 years. In the GP 000115 Anders Kilner proposes that the readers Go home and study history! Then he writes:" A historic description in a day-for-day perspective does not become less interesting, when you know what happened ... When much of modern history does not cover more than personal memory, there is always a risk that our judgement of cause and effect is failing. The falsification of history and the manipulation of facts ... is a dangerous combination ... there is a flow of denials and excuses of what was historically necessary. They are lies. The democratic system of government, which has made the foundation of our fast welfare development and which is base for peace must be defended with knowledge against the forces, which want otherwise."

This author has grave doubt about the democratic system of government in Sweden. The rule of law seems to be abandoned. The rule of law has been replaced by the opposite - un-law (ortt (Swedish), Unrecht (German)). The government and its spokesperson, the SPF 1.49, ignore international resolutions and laws how to investigate marine accidents and produce rubbish reports and stupid statements. They lie straight into the face of relatives, survivors and the public with false empathy. "Yes, we feel sorry with you and the terrible accident. Yes, it is terrible that a visor can cause these things. No, this Bjorkman from Egypt is unintelligent, unscientific and unreasonable, he doesn't know anything". The public feel that they are manipulated but cannot formulate their doubts. The question is too complicated - it is easy to lie about individual facts and the public are blinded by these lies. The author has a unique position to cover the drama. He is an outsider with perfect knowledge of the Swedish language and ferry operations. This book is a contribution to revealing all the official lies about the 'Estonia' and to find out what really happened. Cross-references are included for easy navigation between the chapters. Part 1 is a day-to-day repetition of the investigation and how the Commission manipulated all relevant information to the public. Part 2 is information what actually could have happened. Part 3 is a technical review - correct information compared with the manipulations of the Commission. Part 4 shows that the end of the story is nowhere in sight. The author hopes (but has his doubts) that the Press and the Media will use this book, when they make their voices heard then. They have been fed incorrect information too long now in order to support the lies of the Commission. --4

See further 1.4 that 16 hours of film was made. The visor probably hanged from the starboard side. The visor was officially not found until 18 October 1994 1.14.

5

59

At Glasgow on 27 October 1999 Karppinen stated that the 'fragments' were west of the wreck 1.14, 2.26 and 4.4 about different statements of the positions of the fragments. The fragments were first found on 5 October 1994.7

6

Year 2000 the investigation of the sinking of the 'Marchioness' 1989 in England was re-opened by the vice Prime Minister John Prescott. At that accident 51 persons drowned after a collision with a tug, the master of which probably was drunk. Prescott thinks that the responsible persons should go to jail.

60

'We cannot establish the truth, instead we can establish clarifications, better structure of the available information. The truth of past times is always difficult to establish and it requires that you have complete background information about all matters and such complete information does not exist'. Bjrn Krlof, director general of the Swedish Board of Psychological Defence, SPF, 23 April 2001 (in Swedish Radio) after having been ordered by the Swedish government to create a 'fact bank' of 'Estonia' information not included in the Final report (5). Mr Krlof retired from the SPF 11 November 2001 'It is felt deeply worrying that three amateurs should be able to overthrow the government of an independent state. Behind this (the demand for a new 'Estonia' investigation - the author's note) is primarily shipbuilding engineer Bjrkman and ... They are unbelievably aggressive in their points of view but completely unable to do a proper analysis of cause and event.' Kari Lehtola, head of the Finnish delegation of the 'Estonia' Commission, 15 March 2001 (on Swedish Television SVT)

WHEN WOOL SOCKS GROW ON TREESChapter dedicated to Ms Vendela Dobson-Andersson of the (Swedish) Board of Psychological Defence - Styrelsen fr Psykologiskt Frsvar - SPF 21 October 2001 and Ms Mona Sahlin, deputy minister of commerce and responsible for 'Estonia' affairs and Mr Ingvar Carlsson, prime minister of Sweden who ordered the cover-up in 1994.

Trofim D. Lyssenko was born at Karlowka outside Poltava on 30 December 1898. He did not get a very good education - two years in the village school and then three years training in a gardening school. By 1925 he got appointed to the plant research station at Gandsha in the Caucasus. His first step to fame came on 7 August 1927, when the Soviet daily Pravda, reported that young Lyssenko had developed plants - wine - that could grow in the winter. It was the early times of cross fertilisation and gene manipulations and Lyssenko had jumped on the band wagon. Everything was possible. Lyssenko stated that it was even possible to cross fertilise, e.g. trees with sheep, so that wool socks would grow straight on the branches. The nature was fantastic. Work and money were not necessary. Let nature do the work! Lyssenko's society (a state governed by terror) needed disinformation like that. When Lyssenko further developed his ideas at the '2 Union Congress of the Shock Workers of the Collective Farms' at the Grand Hall of the Kremlin on 11 to 17 February 1935 no less than comrade J.V Stalin himself interrupted Lyssenko in the middle of his speech with a'Bravo, comrade Lyssenko, bravo'nd

and encouraged the 1436 delegates to give him a long standing ovation. J.V Stalin no doubt knew that the scientific base of the Lyssenko theories was total rubbish, but that unscientific and manipulated scientific theories can be used for political ends - to cover up mistakes ... and crimes. To support Lyssenko Stalin arranged that all true biology scientists in the USSR, even foreigners, were executed or deported - the remaining 'scientists' evidently wholeheartedly supported Lyssenko. Lyssenko was elected to the Academy of Sciences, etc. and rose to the top. On 31 July to 7 August 1948 Lyssenko confirmed all his findings and announced amazing progress confirming the politics of the day and the past at the meeting of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the USSR in his famous speech about 'The Positions of Biologic Science'.

61

Evidently there were no real biology scientists left in Russia at that time and there was no real scientific biologic progress in Russia at all since 1917. All Lyssenko said was fantasy. Lyssenko reached the summit of his career circa 1950-1951. The difficulties started when the USSR wanted to export its biologic, scientific findings, etc. to more knowledgeable and advanced countries, which it had occupied after the Second World War, e.g. Germany! The German scientists quietly told the new German dictator Ulbricht that Lyssenko was a charlatan and that all his biologic theories were 'Scheisse' - all of them! Ulbricht then had a choice. He could of course do what Stalin had done supporting Lyssenko, but in a very unusual move Ulbricht permitted young biology students to write papers questioning the Lyssenko ideas. Wool socks or knickers could not grow straight on trees, etc. In the end of 1965 the German Communist dictatorship formally put all Lyssenko theories where they belonged - on the rubbish heap. Of course Ulbricht had until then officially supported Lyssenko. And six years later Ulbricht was himself disposed of.

THE PRINCIPLE OF ARCHIMEDES DOES NOT APPLY

The scientific treatment of the 'Estonia' investigation 19942001 is very similar to the Lyssenko affaire 1927-1965 to cover up political or social mistakes and crimes of any kind. You invent some new scientific theories - in this case, e.g: "a ship does not float in water on its hull any longer as per the principle of buoyancy of Archimedes established circa 252 BC but on the deck house in the air, etc." - and then you gain support for the idea by using manipulated 'scientists' and bureaucrats - mostly the latter - and an 'understanding' media - very important. That this performance Figure W1 -The 'Estonia' floats on the deckhouse? was possible 1994-2004 in Sweden (and not 1927-1965 in the USSR) is not so surprising. The political game is the same - stupid scientist (read Huss and Karppinen) are always available (particularly in Sweden and Finland) to produce false reports - and so are numerous bureaucrats (read Franson, Eksborg, Lehtola & Co) ready to support them - encouraged by, e.g. minister Mona Sahlin. It seems that the civil servants in Sweden and Finland are programmed to spread disinformation to support the objectives of their Masters. The media is what it is. It has never heard of Archimedes. And the Swedes and Finns that should know dare not say anything. It was Sweden that mainly produced the now infamous Estonia Final report (5), so naturally the Swedish government and its bureaucrats strongly support it, particularly after the government appointed new, pure charlatans to direct the Board of Accident Investigations (BAI/SHK), the National Maritime administration and its Board of Ship Safety Inspections and appointed the past head of the BAI/SHK as appeal court judge. The allies Finland and Estonia are naturally giving moral support. The similarities with Lyssenko are striking exchange biology with safety at sea and you have the 'Estonia' affaire in a nut shell. And it is interesting to note that, when exporting the shit (5), it is, again, Germany that starts the process to have it reversed. The German group of experts appointed by the shipyard started the process but did not dare to point out the Lyssenkoist manipulations of the laws of physics and principle of Archimedes by the Commission. Other Germans are following up by new divings on the wreck. But the situation is slightly different today. Ulbricht could reverse the Lyssenko developments 1950-1965 and nobody actually cared. Lyssenko was a pure product of a dictatorship and an inhuman ideology. What shall Sweden do about the false Estonia Final report and the Stockholm agreement? Where is the honourable way out? Nobody except some Swedish charlatans is today prepared to stand up to defend the Final report (5) and the Stockholm agreement - the other responsible parties are silent. Ms Mona Sahlin has decided 19 April 2001 that the (Swedish) Board of Psychological Defence - Styrelsen fr psykologiskt frsvar SPF shall collect all missing information in a 'fact bank' and establish how 62

and why the 'Estonia' actually sank, i.e. how the hull was filled with water between 01.30-01.52 hrs on 28 September 1994. This author has of course told Ms Vendela Dobson-Andersson of the SPF - what to do (see Dnr E8/01 in the SPF archive). It is very simple. But Ms Dobson-Andersson has declined the solution, so that Ms Mona Sahlin can rest comfortably in her office. Maybe because she will lose her job - to spread disinformation about the 'Estonia' - in the process?

WE CANNOT ESTABLISH THE TRUTH...But - come on Vendela! - there are always other jobs for bureaucrats. Your boss, Bjrn, has obviously stated that the 'truth cannot be established' (see above - so what is the 'fact bank' for?) - it is his job - but it does not mean that you have to propagate that the principle of Archimedes does not apply in Sweden. It applies in Sweden today, it applied, when the 'Estonia' sank on 28 September 1994, and it applied before Archimedes formulated it at 252 BC regardless what some charlatans stated in the Commission 1994 and in Sweden today and it applies to all ships. Apply it - it is very simple.

"WOOL SOCKS DO NOT GROW ON TREES!"But even more serious, Vendela. Haven't you understood that your job is not a joke? It cannot be written in your job description that you shall sit and protect lying civil servants and politicians and in the process lie to worried relatives and survivors about what is going on and maybe hiding a crime in the process. But this is what you have been doing for exactly five years according to the plan. Shame on you, comrade DobsonAndersson. How can you do such stupid, boring and unproductive work every day? In Germany (and the United States) other principles apply. The German physicist and Nobel price candidate Jan Hendrik Schn was 2000 suspected of falsifying measured data to confirm his own fantastic theories of nano-physics and micro-electronics. In July 2003 an investigating commission found that an intentional manipulation of basic measured data to support theoretical conclusions could not be eliminated. Evidently the scientific reputation of Dr. Schn was destroyed. Likewise it is very easy to verify the intentional manipulations of all scientific 'evidence' of the Estonia accident investigation. Permit a small investigation commission to check a sample of Estonia data - it will find that every essential piece of 'evidence' is false. Including the latest master piece - the 2003 SPF Pre-study to prove the sinking of the Estonia. Here Vendela is really caught with her wool knickers down! And there is no end to the manipulations. In March 2004 the SPF announced that they were going to produce a video animation of sinking based on the false Pre-study.

63

'The situation, that somebody will not accept the results of the investigation, does not mean that the investigation must be done again.' Johan Franson, Swedish director of safety at sea, to Ms Mona Sahlin (s), deputy minister of transport, 990218

PART 1. HOW SURVIVORS AND RELATIVES WERE MISINFORMED 1994-1998 1.1 A PRIME EXAMPLE OF FALSIFICATION OF HISTORYThis is an enlarged and up-dated edition of the book 'Lies and Truths about the M/V Estonia accident' that was published hard-copy in February 1998 (1) and which demonstrated that the 'Estonia' sank due to leakage below the waterline. The book described clearly that the cause of accident of the Commission was impossible. The information of the book was told to the Commission 1995-7, but it saw no reason to consider it 3.19 - as it should as per UN resolution IMO A.849 (20). The book got good reviews by several newspapers and technical magazines and nobody has shown that the content is incorrect. That was 1998. The objective is to publish a more comprehensive analysis, based on proven facts, about the 'Estonia' accident and particularly about its investigation. One purpose is to start a factual and constructive discussion about what the Commission thought happened aboard the 'Estonia' on 28 September1994 in order to improve safety at sea in general and safety on ferries in particular. The investigation, conclusions and the Final Report itself 8 by the Commission are wrong from A - Z. The work for safety at sea suffers. The Swedish government and its national maritime administration have decided - so far successfully - to cover up the Truth in a well-planned disinformation campaign. Nobody wants to factually discuss the 'Estonia' sinking in Sweden today. It is the author's hope that this book can be used teaching naval architects and master mariners an example to learn from accidents, even if - in this case - a completely false Final Report (5) was issued in 1997 which prevented serious discussion for several years. Evidently this book shall be used by students of risk analysis and safety management, when analyzing the 'Estonia' accident. These students will face an interesting task - to compare the official Final Report (5) with the observations in this book.

ONLY ONE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT ANNOUNCED AND INVESTIGATEDThe Commission confirmed its sequence of events of the accident and its most probable (only) cause, already announced on 4 October, on 17 October 1994, only nineteen days after the accident and one day before they, reportedly, had found the visor 1 570 meters west of the wreck 1.11 and before they had investigated the wreck by divers. No 'less probable' causes were ever investigated. Never has the cause of a big maritime accident been confirmed in such a short time. And no evidence was ever produced - then or later - for the alleged cause and its consequences. It was quite cleverly done immediately after the accident the public was presented by TV and media numerous emotional stories about the accident including the visor story. In such a way the visor story was etched into the minds of the people as "truth" without giving them a chance to query it in a rational manner. The Estonian chairman of the Commission, first Mr Andi Meister, later Captain Uno Laur, repeated the same story several times, i.e. that the crucial event which caused the accident on 28 September 1994 was that the 14 years old locks of the bow visor of the ferry were incorrectly designed and manufactured in 1979. It had led to seven initial events leading to the sinking (the eighth event) on 28 September 1994 shown below.

64

It will be demonstrated in this book that there is no evidence for any of the events (i)-(viii) and that the ship probably sank earlier than stated.

False - invented - Events

Real Events

(i) the badly designed and manufactured visor locks in the The visor bottom (Atlantic) lock was probably damaged superstructure had first been damaged by big external wave earlier and not in use at this accident as judged from its loads in the severe weather at 00.55-01.05 hrs, damages. The side locks broke, when the ship sank or later. (ii) the visor at the forward end of the superstructure had then There is no evidence that the visor was lose for ten minutes between 01.02/5-01.12/5 hrs, thus for 10 minutes moved up and it is a fact that the vessel suddenly listed - and up and down and hit against the fore peak deck on top of the hull righted - already at 01.02/5 hrs. (which had not been damaged) and then the visor hinges on the deck broke, deck plating and a very strong deck beam in the superstructure were cut by the lifting lugs below the hinge arms and the visor pushed forward against the ramp, (iii) the six locks of the ramp (the ramp was closed and locked The ramp was never locked but apparently held in place by a prior to this) protecting the superstructure were broken or rope around its top. The rope was secured on the open deck ripped apart and the ramp was pulled fully open (and hit aft of the visor. The ramp locks are not even damaged on the against the fore peak deck, in spite of the facts that neither wreck! the ramp nor the fore peak deck showed any impact damages), (iv) the visor, after having pulled the ramp fully open, fell off The ramp was never pulled open and the visor never fell of the ship at about 01.14/5 hrs, while the ferry was on a the ship, when it was upright or floating. The visor hanged westerly course from Tallinn to Sderarm (course and speed on to the wreck, when it sank! were unchanged and maintained prior to this and for another two minutes later), (v) a large amount of water entered into the superstructure Only small amounts of water leaked in at the closed, but 9 of the car deck >two meters above the waterline at 01.15 non-tight, ramp. hrs, while the speed and course were unchanged, as stated, during two minutes, (vi) the garage (the car deck space inside the superstructure) With only (sic) 2 000 tons of water in the superstructure, the was filled with > 6 000 tons of water (the total time for this ferry would have turned upside down and floated upside event is unclear), and down. If less water came in before the vessel stopped, all water would flow out by itself. (vii) the ship started to heel and the watertight (sic) deck The 'Estonia' would immediately have turned upside down, house (on top of the superstructure) was later filled with when the angle of list was 40 degrees, when the righting arm water, the ship was on the side - 90 degrees list at 01.30 hrs - (GZ) was zero! which led to the final, eight event that (viii) the ship sank 22 minutes later at 01.52 hrs - the ship The ship sank already 01.36 hrs judged from the clock on the floated on the deck house for 22 minutes. Finally, two bridge. conditions for these events were that: 10 (ix) the crew could not be criticised (i.e. it did everything The crew is lying! according to the emergency plans, etc.) and that (x) the ship was also in perfect condition (i.e. all life saving The ship was unseaworthy on departure Tallinn. equipment, certificates, etc. were perfect).

The commission has produced a video MS Windows MediaPlayer v.7 CIF 352x288, 256 Kbps, 6,9 Mt of (i - viii) above. There is no evidence for any essential statements in the video. Normal waves do not even lift the visor! That the port side lock failed first is not proven. That the visor can pull open the ramp is not proven - the ramp is locked. But if the visor is lost and the ramp is down and the speed is forward, water evidently enters the superstructure - it is well shown. Then the 'Estonia' should have capsized, turned upside down and floated. Not sink as shown in the video. The Commission met for the last - 20th - time at Helsinki on 12 March 1997 and agreed a 228 pages Final Report in English (5), which then was published on 3 December 1997, i.e. 38 months after the accident. The Swedish edition of the same report was issued in December 1998, one year later, 50 months after the accident.

65

All essential facts in the Final report are false and cannot be proven. All the presented evidences are false or falsified! The Final report (5) investigates only one cause for the sudden listing - water on top of the car deck inside the superstructure - and states erroneously that the 'Estonia' then sinks slowly during 30 minutes instead of capsizes immediately, when the angle of list is 40 degrees to float upside down, 1.9 and 1.15, on the undamaged, watertight hull - fig. 1.1.1. The Final report (5) therefore cannot explain why the ship sank without capsizing after the alleged 'accident' due to the visor locks. The evidence for the 'accident' - the lost visor - is very poor and does not convince an intelligent observer. There is in fact no evidence that the visor fell off the ship prior to sinking!

Figure 1.1.1 Capsized, floating ferry

MISSING INFORMATION - THE SHIP WAS UNSEAWORTHYThe Final Report (5) does neither mention nor describe the availability of bilge pumps aboard 1.24 nor the watertight doors/bulkheads inside the hull, which shall be closed at sea 1.23 to prevent sinking due to hull leakage and flooding one compartment. That the 'Estonia' could only have sunk due to leakage of the hull below the waterline and flooding of several compartments is not mentioned and is thus not investigated. Ships normally sink due to leakage - leakage of the 'Estonia' was never investigated 1994-1997 - and the responsible parties will not investigate leakage today. The Final Report does not mention that the life saving (rafts) equipment under davits were lacking 1.33 at the deck house- and that it meant that the so called approved evacuation plan required that 1 196 persons aboard had to jump overboard (sic) and to swim ashore or to a raft thrown into the water to survive 1.34, which naturally was not an approved method of evacuation in 1994 on an open, often ice cold sea. The result was 11 that many drowned or froze to death. The 'Estonia' was evidently never seaworthy on the Baltic (31). The Final Report (5) is only a badly written report about an alleged faulty visor on the 'Estonia' and faulty visors on other ferries. The Commission refused categorically during 38 months to discuss its invented theory about water on top of the car deck in the superstructure as no honest naval architect would support it. The investigation was completely secret from September 1994 to December 1997 (some reports were even secret until March 1998) and the Commission refused to answer any questions from outside expe