flipthepyramid
The (September 28th, 1994) sinking of the cruise ferry Estonia – which killed over 800 people – was near instantly deemed have been caused by harsh sea conditions overwhelming the (supposedly) poorly maintained bow visor of the ferry causing the ferry’s car deck to flood which caused the vessel to capsize and then sink.
Right from the start, there were many question marks, inconsistencies and things that did not add up about the official narrative. For one, the government of Sweden somehow “knew” within minutes both that it was an accident and also what caused the supposed accident. How could that even be possible?
A glaring flaw in the official narrative is the fact that the ferry sunk in about 45 minutes when such a vessel is designed to stay afloat for hours after having the car deck flooded. This was never explained.
A little more than a week after the supposed accident, Sweden got a new PM (Social Democrat Ingvar Carlsson, who succeeded Neolib/Neocon and arch-Globalist [Trilateral Commission member] Carl Bildt) and he promptly announced that that the wreck would be salvaged (which is very possible as the wreck sits at just 20m depth) but this was then abandoned and then the government instead took the position that the wreck should be covered up with concrete “to protect the remains of the victims.” This never materialized but there was an agreement implemented between the affected countries to make it a crime for private persons to dive down to the wreck.
In 2021, a private research expedition defied this law and dove down to investigate the wreck. They found a large hole in the hull which is not mentioned, in any way, in the official report. An independent expert, a professor in ship design, has stated that the hole looks like it originated from within the ship. The metal is clearly bent outwards, indicating it was blown open from within.
Why would the government want to hide a hole in the hull? What other explanation could there be for that cover up other than government culpability? If it was an attack by some hostile party, why would the government need or want to cover that up? And this hole STILL does not explain the rapid progression of the sinking.
The bow visor, which was supposedly at fault for the sinking, was later salvaged and investigated by third parties. One investigation showed that parts of the latching mechanism was still intact and locked meaning that the visor could not have been ripped off, as the official narrative states. Furthermore, it was found that the visor shows signs of heat damage – the kind of damage that’s caused by an explosion.
What was the political landscape at the time? Was it private or gov owned? What would have been the govs culpability?
At the time, Sweden’s government was Neolib/Neocon, headed by the extremely pro-Globalist PM Carl Bildt. Bildt was just about to leave office when the “accident” occurred and was succeeded by Social Democrat Ingvar Carlsson a mere 9 days later (who was the one who announced that the ship would be salvaged.) Soon after, Bildt was given prestigious Globalist assignments, like mediating in the Yugoslavian conflict starting in 1995. Bildt is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, unsure if he was before the “accident” or was admitted afterwards.
The prior decade had been very tumultuous.
In 1986, Sweden’s then-PM Olof Palme was assassinated. The assassination had similarities with the JFK one, such as investigators quickly naming a lone wolf madman patsy as the perpetrator, with little evidence and the fact that both were thorns in the side of the Globalists.
In the early 90s, the Globalists caused a massive economic crisis through crashing Sweden’s currency and by creating and then popping a huge housing loan bubble.
Olof Palme was no Masonic puppet leader, as he was staunchly anti-imperialist and anti-war. The government at the time also opposed Swedish EU membership. The assassination and economic ruin paved the way for EU-membership. The economic destruction inflicted on Sweden showed opponents that resistance was futile and would only lead to severe punishment. The Social Democratic government which preceded the Bildt government continued to be a nuisance for the Globalists as they implemented a complete halt to international refugee immigration. This ban was reverted promptly by the Bildt government when they took office in 1991.
My guess would be that the sinking of the Estonia was a mass human sacrifice by the Swedish government to prove that they were onboard with the Globalist NWO agenda and could be trusted to carry out their parts of it.
There also could have been secondary economic reasons, like to harm the Baltic Sea cruise ferry industry so that the Globalists could consolidate control of it, which did happen in the following decades. There was a large downturn in cruise ferry travel, causing losses for the shipping companies, and the largest one, Silja Line, was sold to international parties soon after. Another reason for this downturn in the industry was that the EU membership meant that tax free sales on the cruise ships was abolished. This happened around the same time as the “accident,” creating a powerful one-two blow to the industry which killed off several operators.
Good analysis, it was no accident.
22 yrs ago I made friends with a man who’s father was head of the Estionian Cost guard. He was called out and immediately things weren’t right. He said that it very much had been explosives, but not only that, when they went to investigate the wreckage the Sweeds were already on their way to cover the hole with concrete. He told me that his father suspected someone on board who had been someone important on that ferry and furthermore, quickly Estionian Cost Guard responded and then later were then met with a stand off on the ocean with military. But whatever or whoever was on that boat was Important enough to go to war with Estonia. The Estonian Coast Guard stood down.
This is an old story. I’m sorry I can’t remember much. If I can remember anything else I will post it here
Terrorism. The government couldn’t admit it lost terribly so they decided to make it look like it was an accident. The truth would have done more damage and instability than the sinking itself like exposing incompetence and lax security. Still, they had no right to cover it up.