in

What Really Happened to the Cruise Ferry Estonia? Large Hole Found in Hull Which Was NOT Covered in Gov't Incident Report, Bow Visor Appears to Have Been Damaged By Explosives (www-fokus-se.translate.goog)

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 do you think?

33 Points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rosey
Rosey
27 days ago

What was the political landscape at the time? Was it private or gov owned? What would have been the govs culpability?

baldfacedtruth
baldfacedtruth
27 days ago
Reply to  flipthepyramid

Good analysis, it was no accident.

lenseoftruth
lenseoftruth
26 days ago

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

John
John
22 days ago

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.

Last edited 22 days ago by John