M/S Estonia | 25 years 

Did you hear any weird thing before the ship is sinking

Thats sick!!

Estonia doesn't have sisterships.

Not that unreasonable fear. Since in reality Diana II had the exact same bow visor failure. Only it was in 1993 (so even before Estonia) and in it's case it was partial one. one sides lock managed to held on while bending, while other side completely failed same as in Estonia. Thus leading only the visor cracking open little bit instead of completely ripping open and taking the bow car ramp with it. Thus it only leaked, instead of pouring the whole sea in the car deck. The ship limped to port, was inspected and ordered to be repaired. However as I understand by 1996, you in the end would have been safe. As I remember after Estonia, Diana II and other sister/ similar design ships had their bow visors permanently welded shut to be permanent part of bow hull in retrofit at dry dock, since as was revealed by MULTIPLE visor failures, the design was defective and unsafe. Thus the retro fit and the ferries continued operation by using only their rear ramp.

@@ainomayranpaa7023 yes it does

@@abina5900 nope

Oof! Evil work!

so true! Rockwater divers said it was more traumatising for them to be leaving victims there instead of taking them up, they described that on their dive to Estonia in 1994 they could have recover more than 100 victims and in their opinion Estonia was salvageable at the time - I personally believe she still is! Her wreck would provide answers, thank God for people like Henrik Evertsson for making documentary and dive that has proven there is indeed huge hole and all survivors who kindly shred their terrifying story 💔 I do believe true will come out, justice will be served and most importantly Families of those who lost their life's will finally receive some sort of comfort after years of being treated in such an disgraceful way. RIP ESTONIA - your story will never be forgotten 💔🖤

Submarines and their activities are often classified and top secret.

@Kopsu If that is true, that answers only one question. Why were the bodies not recovered, and why was a proper investigation not made? It is in shallow waters and both could have occured. I am no 'conspiracy' person. I only ask obvious questions.

@Kopsu Jutta Rabe found parts showing that explosives were used.

@Kopsu Divers wanted to help up bodies, they said it would be easy and quick job but they were told that don´t start doing it!

To add to what Kopsu already said, there were some ideas about covering the wreckage with either concrete or sand, but notihing came of it. The Swedish government (or governments since there was an election and "change of guards" that very Autumn) were quite indecisive about what to do, and changed their minds several times. That may be seen as incompetent, but it has nothing in common with what a real cover up or conspiracy most likely would look like. I haven't listened much to the current argument going on about so called new findings, but what little I have heard is not a bit convincing; it would require to re-write so many other things that are clearly accessible, such as other ships logs, observations from both survivors and rescuers at the scene etc. As for Jutta Rabe, I'm not even going to comment on any of her research and that film she made, it's just stuff on the kind of level Alex Jones would never touch for lacking in credibility.

I'm not a conspiracy theorists either, however I do agree with you. Again not a theorist but I also agree with the submarine theory

In Meyer papenburg there where much cruise ships built

*fateful

uh not all of passangers died about 100 or more escaped

@@Puika387 Wrong. my parents saw it on the tv since M/S estonia is estonian and i'm estonian. :)

@Jason My parents are estonian and they saw the news that day and it literally said 852 for us. Don't be a bitch.

@@s2v10r4 and, there were two murders on board that ship when she sailed as Viking Sally. So, 854 people died on that ship.

@@jerrossclarito6119 Yes.

I 100% believe that she was blown up, there's enough evidence to prove it. I made this video according on the final report of Sweden, Finland and Estonia. I just don't want to receive any hate here, but just as I said I really believe she was blown up.

good!!

me too

And Finland

Its just the name of the ship.. its not fully estonian

Is Camping Roblox gamer lol

skylineXpert Kiel-Oslo? She was designed for Turku-Stockholm.

Terrible maritime order in those days.

Jep

I like Viking Line more. More nostalgia for me.

the visor damaged the ramp, and when it fell off, it pulled the ramp open

And it still feels like yesterday...

Ship was steering to Portside and maybe this is what made ship to lean, Estonia is actually very small ship, smaller than Mariella

but not really sure

Wait, Nvm footage tricked me

@@ArZer that's okay

MS Estoninisnt smaller than the Mariella MS Estonia is their flagship and the biggest MSFinnjet was the fastest Get your facts in order .MS Estonia was massive and jumboized in around 1991

Sleeping Sun - Nightwish

Jā protams

There is a theory that the lockers got blown up by some reason but I never really mention it in my videos so I don't get any hate.

But maybe when they were loading the cars, one of the trucks damaged all of the lockers... What do you think?

@@shinkreytpuylap it's possible but we may never know as it's a crime to investigate anything about this ship.

Well I mean do you mean the lockers of the visor or the ramp? The locks/hinges of the visor failed because they could not withstand the force of the waves and thats simply poor engineering, the locks were not made strong enough to be safe in those kind of conditions. As you know, the ship was not originally planned to be operated on more open sea, but for 12 years before traveling Tallin-Stockholm route it traveled on routes that didnt see as rough conditions. Anyhow as for the ramp behind the visor, the visor tore it down as it fell. The design there was also such that unfortunately it made it possible for the visor to tore the ramp down with it as it fell to the sea. And ofc there werent any water proof/tight doors behind the ramp, so then water had free access to the entire length of the ship/cardeck. Now ppl want still to this very day question this official explanation about the accients, but I see no reason to doubt it. Bad engineering/design has been the result of so many other disasters in the past, why it should be any different with Estonia, especially without any clear proof that would say otherwise?

@@theshipaddict7865 Why is it a crime to investigate the ship

Yes.

@@theshipaddict7865 i knew it

Why is it so cold. Isn’t june supposd to be the hot season in finland

Korjaan vuosiluvun ja päivämäärän 6.12.1990 silloin oli -35 pakkasta ei ollut kesäkuu 😂@@A.mortaz_

Yes, I am aware of that. I was trying to find a good quality simulation and this is the only one that I could possibly find.

It was never upside down before sinking. Where did you get that from?

if it was bottom upp it would have stayed more then 45 min before sinking

LOL

Not true

Not true

Suomalainen legenda

Wasa Kingillä tuli matkustettua, mutta enpä nyt taida silti ikävöidä. Surullinen kohtalo Estonialla todellakin.

I think it sank becuse of the poorly maintenanced bow door, but i think that the ship should have been floating for much longer. The hole in the hull made the ship sink faster than it it should have, thus more people could have been saved if it wasn't for the hole in the hull.

@@robins4209 you definitely got a point with the hole in the hull making it sink faster. But I believe the hole came first and cause of that major blow when the *cough* submarine *cough* hit the ship, the bow door loosened. Maybe. But anyway if this did not happen, at least a security camera showed that the car ramp wasn't down so there actually didn't come in that much water. Anyway, I obviously know nothing other than what I saw in the M/S Estonia documentary (which I btw recommend you watch 100%, if you haven't already). I just don't think it was an accident after seeing it and also how incredibly secretive the Swedish government has been about it, makes me think there is more to the story. I hope will get some more answers soon though.

@@molly7078 I actually wantched the documentary and obvoiusly the swedish government has something to hide, i'm swedish myself and i'm very disappionted on how the government handled this "accident". I don't belive its a submarine though, since i think it would be "scrathces" after the submarine if it were to hit a ship like estonia. (I presume that estonia were in motion all the way to the point of the sinking)

@@robins4209 yeah ikr! It's so creepy that a civilized country keeps things like this secret. They should be open about it what happened, and especially if it was just an accident. Ohhh, then you probably know a lot more about this than me. But then again, your government hasn't exactly told you much... Hmm, but what else could it have been? With the background story with the military equipment and the smuggling, I would think it was rather "obvious". As we saw in the documentary it would have had to be something with great force. And the ground is all clay. But do you think that even after watching the documentary, that the ship sank cause of simply an accident? I'm just really confused tbh...

Clay is actually very hard to hit. I think the visor cut up the hole and that the buckling is from hitting the bottom. It could also be from the water pressure if there was a pressure tight enclosure behind it. Water pressure at these depths is around 800kPa so a formidable force on a big surface.

Estline*

@@That1Guineapig. lol

Sea*

WTH! TITANICIZATION!

The Finnish Titanic

I struggled a lot with the choice of the song and from other channels I saw that many people use this one and it goes well with the video.

Ok fair enough but honestly its used in sinking vids too much

Gla DoS Yes I agree. Just ran out of ideas, you know.

No, it was ripped open. The reason it is closed now is that the ship has rotated so that the ramp has closed again since it is heavier than water.

@@Rubensgardens.Skogsmuseum that's not how hydraulics works

@@egonkukk5863 A shop can't sink under 1h with out a Hole

Joel Verdugo its cuz shops dont sink

And now we have pictures of it too

@@egonkukk5863 Um. No. Investigate more before writing. It DROPPED not went up

I also believe that her visor was blown up but on RU-vid there are many people that might disagree and get mad, so this is the official version of the sinking which I don’t believe.

@@theshipaddict7865 Well again unless proven otherwise I dont see any reason to believe why the most logical and official reason for the disaster could not be true....Now I dont get mad at ppl who want to believe in conspiracy theories, but I also cant understand why its so hard for people to accept/believe that the locks/hinges of the visor were not strong enough to withstand the force of the waves and broke....why is this so hard for some people to believe? The faulty engineering/design has been the reason for so many disasters/accidents throughout history, so why cant people believe that in Estonia's case? If we were talking about normal conditions at the sea that night, then sure I would say it would be very fishy to believe that the visor failed due to natural reasons, but in this case the conditions were anything but normal and Estonia was not originally designed to be going between the route it went from 1993 onwards on more open sea, as you well know and where the conditions during storm can be much more rough than on the route it used to travel between 1980-1992.

Balnazzardi Yes, M/S Estonia wasn’t built to sail rough waves so the accident could have been avoided. There are many different theories. It’s a fact that Estonia had many technical issues and wasn’t fit to sail until Estline got her fixed. It’s just very suspicious that many survivors said that they heard booming sounds from the visor that sounded very metallic but that’s not what waves usually sound like. There are so many things that the governments are hiding... it’s hard to believe the official version if there are so many holes in the story. What were the secret military trucks transporting, why water came in first under the car deck, not the car deck where the visor is attached to? How could a ship sink in only ~30 minutes? If the official version was true then Estonia could have stayed above the water surface for days if not weeks... Yes, everyone has the rights for their own opinion.. or it’s just my way of thinking.

@@theshipaddict7865 Well because lot of those things can be explained with logical reasons....first of all the loud metallic bangs were simply caused when the visor first of all had its inner locks/hinges broken and then the visor was only hanging on by its upper locks/hinges (on the bow of the ship), slamming against the hull as it lower part was lose andbefore the upper locks/ gave in and the visor fell completely off, tearing the car ramp down with it. Secondly in ALL reports the water WAS spotted coming from the sides of the car ramp when it was still up, so Idk from what source you have read that it would have been first spotted on the lower car deck... Thirdly again very logical reason why the ship sunk as fast as it did and did not stay floating on its side/upside down is that if you actually read the accient repot, the waves (and again these were not some small waves, but storm waves) broke the windows on the right side of the ship, starting from the rear which allowed water in to the upper decks and why the ship sunk rear/stern first Honestly no offense, but this is not rocket science and if you actually read the accident report and really studied the subject, there is NO indication whatsoever that would suggest that the ship was sabotaged and sunk on purpose. Also no, the ship was NOT repaired/modified obviously safely enough to its new course/purpose. For sure they had installed better "stabilizers" or whatever they are called to it, but again obviously they missed the most critical part of the ship, the visor and did not strenghten it or installed water tight doors behind the car ramp, which would have also prevented the disaster from happening. Anyhow I really strongly suggest any conspiracy theorists to first look at the facts and reports instead of believing all the stories out there. Facts over fiction and only after that make your own conclusions.

@@Balnazzardi I mostly believe the explosion cause the ship was super late on departing.

What do you smoke? i want some

@syntikkamies well it might not be radioactive. But I do believe it exploded. Why did the ship wait for one exact truck at the port? And even was late to depart

@@EchaOmega Because you can't just leave a truck behind... that's pretty selfish. Also, it was well known they smuggled military stuff.

@@supertrinigamer well too late cause there's a series for the event. They found another hole. It was a submarine. And I think it was a russian submarine a random one but my mom always thinks it's the kursk idk why tho. Lol

@@EchaOmega if its an sub that sub would have been found during that search it just wont damage the ship it would damage the whole front if the submarine causing it to not go under water since water pressure would act up on that damage and could possibly causing an hole on that sub its not an sub it would just be mother nature ;)

It sinked

Estonia bow visor was a turn to deaths of 852