Estonia would have been even more horrifying than Titanic disaster. They didn't have time to start the evacuation, because the situation developed so fast. They only had less than 10 minutes for the evacuation before it would have been impossible. Plus the crew didn't had proper training for the situation. Lifeboats were useless because of the ship's angle, also getting to deck was nearly impossible and people got trapped in their cabins.
In terms of % of survival though, Estonia was far worse than Titanic... Titanic: 706 survivors out of 2200ish = 32.09% of those onboard survived. Estonia: 137 survivors out of 989 onboard = 13.85% of survivors. To simplify, roughly one out of three people survived on Titanic, but only a little more than one out of ten survived on Estonia...
I’d tend to agree, simply because everyone was on the same playing field here, and were not segregated by class. Titanic had a slight list, and dint even get at a super high angle till the final few minutes. A full on list where your only exit essentially becomes a ceiling is horrifying to think about. To desperately try to jump and grab, only to realize your efforts are in vain, the only thing left to do is to sit there and accept it. Truly terrifying.
i was one of the rescue that night, I will never forget the dark gray sea and the upturned rescue inflatables that were gray underneath (orange when they float as they supposed to, but most had capsized ... we could hardly see them. I visit the memorial in Stockholm every year. I pray that i could have done more. God bless you all.
You gave your part, there is nothing that you can do now, and there was too little time, its nobodys fault, it always surprises me, I live in here and half of my family lives in stockholm and half in Estonia, I have traveled this route since I was a little child, and I know how rough the waves can get in the baltic sea but it always amazes me how it was possible that these waves were that strong that they broke off the visor, ships are usually built for surviving these waves , God bless you for helping these people
@@kragary Its not deep. Most windows should be intact even when ship reached bottom. It must have been many and large aripockets lasting for hours. Its a horrible thought.
The only reason so many people died on TITANIC was because there weren’t enough lifeboats for everyone. That and crew members blocking second and third class passengers from using stairs and hallways “reserved” for first class passengers. Had there been enough lifeboats, and some stairs and passageways had not been blocked, all could have survived because there was plenty enough time. In the case of the ESTONIA (a very different kind of vessel with built-in inherent dangers), most passengers never had a chance. It began capsizing very quickly. Too fast for an orderly evacuation. ESTONIA was actually a much worse disaster than Titanic, in terms of the actual sequence of events and the short amount of time they transpired in.
@@steffe8103 realisticly though people inside Estonia had only 20-25 minutes to get out. After that it would have already been pretty much impossible and thats why most of ppl never even made it out of the ship
The worst part that people often fail to acknowledge, is the panic. There were many reports of people stealing life vests off other passengers due to not having one themselves. There were a few looters that took chains and jewelry off passengers. Usually the victims were women as they couldn't defend themselves and are simply too weak to fight someone off. And since most were trying to surive they simply didn't care. This is also partially the reason that 97% of all female passengers died, most never got a life vest, some didn't get help and often couldn't make it on a lifeboat or raft because the men simply beat them to it. Some simply didn't have the strength anymore to climb up the massive angle, and fell. I'm not saying they should've gotten help, but when it's everyone for themselves the ladies have no chance.... They will never make it first on a lifeboat or raft because they don't have the strength. It's really sad to think about how so many people died in the ship because they couldn't get out or simply had no chance with all the people climbing over them. I heard a story of a young girl that died on this ship, supposedly she managed to make it out onto the deck, but there was no help for her and her life vest was supposedly taken from her. She died together with the 800+ others. Imagine how many similar stories happened.
Just one thing: nobody of the crew looked at the car deck from the monitors. The panel on the bridge said, that the front was closed, and in comparison to other ships like the Estonia, they couldn't see the ship bow from the bridge. So they saw no reason to watch the sequences from the security cameras on the monitors.
Tammes from MV Estonia was that guy His last audio was the location of the ship which he provided to MS Silja Europa I think who were the first responders to the MAYDAY calls
My mother's old crush died in that boat with his newly married. I wouldn't want that to happen even to my old crushes. If Titanic was scary enough, they had hours to prepare for survival, but these didn't even have that... No wonder my mom was so tough hearted. She didn't want to dig in the misery of a thought.
Being trapped in the main lobby area, or in a hall not being able to get out because the stairs are upside down, but also because the power is gone, and you're now in the darkest black environment you've ver seen, all you can hear is the roaring metal of the ship as the engines are of and a deaeing static sound o water sloshing everywhere until you hear people around you start screaming as you hear the water rushing towards you as you're being VIOLENTLY thrown about in the dark, praying they all got KO'd beore the end...
I hope that there's movie made on this like Titanic. But the problem would be how to show the sinking while keeping the movie length long enough. This ship sank really fast, the movie on it would be an hour long at best..
I was as the same sea when this happened but a different ship and I remember I had a hard time sleeping thx to waves it was realy bad weather. But what I remember the most was waking up and prepare to leave the ship I was on and watching the TV monitors during breakfast and they showed swedish tv4 channel all about Estonia and I remember the feeling. The same thing when we drive of the ship and started to se the newspaperstands every single newspaper said the same thing.
I know some here said that builders weren't at fault, but they alone aren't responsible for the result: they do as they're told. The reports have mentioned a design flaw a few times which the front visor might have been.
The ship had been in service for over thirty years…at this point, MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT are more at fault than design. It was made according to specs…car ferries are inherently dangerous.
@@mamavswild Also, The Estonia was not made for crossing open waters like it did on the Tallin - Stockholm line. It was made to cross between Stockholm and Mariehamn where most of the journey is close to land except for a few hours.
@@mamavswild It was built in 1980, so it had been in service for nowhere near thirty years. Also, the yard that manufactured the ship, have themselves said that the bow visor and ramp weren't dimensioned for the kind of weather that's in the Baltic sea
Hunter Richard i would love the idea except for all the truther tinfoil hat theories they’d probably try to drag in. I saw an old old movie Poseidon adventure which had an idea of when you’re capsized how everything becomes hard and deadly. It doesn’t meet the timeframe of this, or the angle. But it makes you realize how that list would create havoc. Hope you’re not going on a cruise soon :)
Hunter Richard they really should! In Estonia is running a tv show “I survived an Estonia accident” and all you see is people crying and being heartbroken and it would really be a great movie!
Very well done, except that many passengers have stated that as they were in the water, they saw Estonia rise with the front pointed toward the sky "like a church steeple", which would indicate the pointy end of the bow; meaning that the front end of the ship must have rose several hundred feet in the air before the whole thing went down.
It's only 80 m deep where she sank and the ship was about 150 m long. The front couldn't have risen too high without the rear hitting bottom of the sea. Max 45 degrees or so.
Note that the time of the Bow visor detaching is believed to be ~01:10 at night. Estonia disappeared from radar at 1:50. Meaning that it stayed afloat for 40 minutes (not even rolling over until the very end) with a gigantic hole at sealevel. Not even the animator found that believable enough to animate and doesn't show a single wave entering the ship, heading straight into waves as high as the Estonias draught it would've instantly flooded and turned over, much like the MS Herald of Free Enterprise that capsized in 90 seconds. Survivors from below the car deck testifying about water leaking up from decks beneath them also raises red flags about the whole thing.
@@DonFelixGallardo Sabotage, the Russians knew Estonia and Sweden used her to smuggle soviet era tech into the hands of the UK and US. All I know is there is no way the bow visor came off and ripped the car ramp down as the official story says. They found one of the arms that are supposed to hold the bow visor to the ship. They tossed it back into the ocean for some reason. Other vessels simular to Estonia who have capsized without a massive hole in them have stayed afloat upside down for days.
I personally believe the visor broke off, Stayed afloat riding down the staurbord side long enough for the ship to impale itself with it's own visor. Strange and outlandish I know , But that is a possibility of how the huge whole on the side came from.
This has been proven to be impossible as the impact damage required at least 2000 - 4000 tonnes to be able punch into the metal frame of the ship and result in the damage found by Henrik Evertson. The bow visor was only 50 tonnes and could not have caused that hole, which has now been shown in the new investigation to be even 20x larger in length than first discovered.
@@EricBlair-jg2ux I haven't seen the new investigation. But to me If the ship was riding up and down in the storm the force of the ship coming down could cause the 4k metric ton force to break the plating.
Now an explanation for the huge holes in the side of the wreck, and one for why Sweden doesn't want anybody taking a closer look at the wreck, and then I would be satisfied.
Hull of ship bents, rips and get crushed when on end of the ship crash against sea bottom before other end. Hull of ship is not desing to endure laying in agle against solid surface
No watertight/splashtight compartments on the car deck at all. Nothing to stop water from moving around. Plus, no way to see from the bridge, is bow is gone. 2 HUGE design mistakes, that make ZERO sense to me
Tell me. how the ares below car deck got water inside it if the boat actually got in water like this. tell me how it didn't just float aroubd with massive airpockets in the lower decks like all other similar incidents? There was a massive hole in the boat
The video even tells how the water flooded there and you still ask this question... I'd also imagine a huge open bow door will let that air out pretty quickly especially since the ship started to sink by the stern after capsizing. The ship also had many missing safety structures that other ships had that contributed to the fast sinking.
@@jjansgi Where? Where does the video say the how the water flooded under car deck? First of all. The bow DID break. but not the car port. even if it did and it flooded the car deck. the water would not have gotten any farther down. meaning every level below car deck would be "dry" when the ship turns upside down. Now. it is impossible for a boat to sink like estonia did by only letting in water through car deck. it needs to have a hole. and OH what's this? Therr is a hole in the side of Estonia that has been documented since 2000 and now again 2020?? Wich would indicate that Estonia actually sank BECAUSE of this hole on the side reaching from Car deck and below. So. Again. Tell me hiw Estonia did not just float around for hours/days before it sank to the bottom of the sea if no hole and only water through car deck happened
@@Saii158 Flooded to decks 0/1 (decks below car deck) via ventilation and openings from the car deck. And the hole was known already in 1997 which was determined coming when the ship hit the sea floor. And the car ramp had buckled partly which indicates that the bow doors ramp housing pulled it downwards. Just because you think it's impossible doesn't mean it is. Many things have been thought to be impossible to happen and yet still happened.
@@jjansgi Nonono dude that's not how it works. "through the vents" the lower decks are not built like that. anyway. Yes it was a THEORY that it bent open. but then magicly shut itself when it landed? yea sure. and the hole was NOT proven from ANYTHING to have appeared when hitting the ground. The metal had been twined wich indicate some sort of explosion and has metal sticking out of the side. Furthermore the swedish Government are cpvering up plenty of things making it even more suspect
@@UWfalcin Isolated air pockets are NOT enough to make the ship float upside down/sideways if enough water gets in to all decks...and so it happened here, so ofc it was gonna sink and sink fast.
@Balnazzardi Well that is a big quesiton people ask about the Estonia sinking.. That is what happened to Jan Heweliuz the year before f.e. It laid upside down for a week or similar until it finally sunk. Edit: it* sunk.
Carl Eric Reintamm did arrive the promenade deck 1 till 2 minutes after the loud 2 or 3 bangs that happened between ca. kl. 01.02 or 01.05. According to JAIC the bow visor fell of the ship around kl. 01.16. So the 2-3 big bangs, water on deck 1, and the following starboard listing did happen ca. 10-15 minutes before the separation of the bow visor! That is pretty strange, because that means that the sekvens of happenings did indeed start approximum 12-15 minutes before the car ramp could have let all the water inn on the car deck. That brings the questions on why the water came in on deck 1, and why the ship listed before the ramp fell down and the visor separated from the ship !? Reintamm did see something in the water that left the ship backwards to the left app. 10 minutes before the separation of the bow visor. Assuming that Reintamm looked backwards to the left from starboard promenade deck point of view, the thing in the water most likely could have hit the starboard side of the ship before the separation of the visor, and the opening of the ramp. If Reintamm speaks truth it clearly proves without any shadow of a doubt that the specific time of the the 2-3 loud bangs, the inlet of the water on deck 1, followed by the with 30 degrees starboard listing a few minutes later, that this sekvens of events clearly happened before the separation of the visor and the downfall of the ramp........
What is puzzling to me is, if there was water on deck 1, then why did the ship turn upside down... if there is water on the bottom then there is no reason for the ship to turn like that as the mass is on the bottom. The turning around is only, as far as I can think of, possible if there is air in the bottom which is lighter and messing up the center of gravity which turns the ship around.
@@jurgenkoks9142 That is correct my friend, air on deck 1 and 0 would act as an turning buoyancy when the list becomes large enough. Estonias way of sinking suggest water inlet on deck 0 and 1 because she laid stabil and sank to fast.....
Perhaps the bow hit the fender after falling off? And the fender should be located! and both fender and the bow, be examined. I feel like air crash investigators are better then the boat investigators.
That was my thinking too, 15 knots according to report. Which is 27.78km/h, 27,78 meters per second, and the damage to the hull was found about 2/3rds down the length of the ship? Yeah, I'm calling bull too.
That hole is definitely not big enough to explain a submarine collision. Modern subs from the 90s are larger than 4 meters. A Finnish expert in maritime engineering believes it came from the bow visor hooks which would connect to the locking mechanism. It helps explain why some surviving passengers reported a grinding sound off the side of the ferry before it listed. The hole was likely covered by the seabed which is why it wasn’t reported initially. Even the crew from the documentary said the hull must have shifted over the years
Well its hinged so it can be lifted up to let cargo and vehicles onboard. Who knows, maybe neglect, mishandling, faulty maintanance, maybe someone pressed the wrong button, maybe a lorry came loose and rammed into it in a bad way, some even suggest it was black ops weapon delivery that somehow got sabotaged or blew up.
@@Vivungisport På den sista bilden i videon ser man hur båten ligger. Men haverikommissionen hade inget hål i sina beräkningar, vid själva förlisningen. Hålet måste ha varit synligt! Håkan hade hittat ett annat hål vid bogen. Jag pratar om hålet på styrbord sida.
@@Vivungisport Jo men tänk på att officiellt finns inga hål och lastrampen är öppen det är vad Sveriges regering har bestämt åt oss Båten borde lyftas upp på land och alla kroppar bärgas
Honestly, that theory doesn’t hold up as much as the other conspiracies out there. If a submarine has collided with a ferry, then there would be a lost submarine too. Good luck trying to cover that up. Either way, ferry’s like this are vulnerable to rapid sinking if water enters the cargo deck. If the Swedes are trying to cover up anything, its probably their involvement with approving the ships license to sail in the Baltic Sea. Better to downplay responsibility
@@thedesertrat_9514 If submarine collided with ship it would be cut in half or lost some of its parts and sunk nearby. MS Estonia was bigger than destroyer "Statny" that collided with USSR submarine in 1956, wich made submarine sank. And all that happened because submarine commander was replacing someone else and really had no experience with that type of submarines and even when destroyer tryed to maneuver it still didnt help. I cant understand why people think that some underwater "dildo" can hit a big ship and just swim further without any damages? Some idiots even claim that it was Russian submarine which is even more absurd, why would Sweden&Britain&Finland try to cover up Russia? Like seriously, man? hahaah Especially when Sweden wanted to put concrete over ms Estonia remains, even when there are still bodies there and ship is like 75metres under the water, which is not really that deep.
@@asaromsonarenpajas8199 Folk har varit skeptiska till utredning ända från början, troligtvis är allt mörklagt och någonting stämmer inte. Nu när dom hittat hålet hoppas vi på att sanningen äntligen kommer fram
It was moveable so vehicles like cars and trucks could easily be put on the ship when it was on port. But I agree, the moveable bow was a design choice that ultimately caused the deaths of so many people.
@@adrichiii839 the moveable bow is one point for insult that I dont belong in. When it's open it looked like a military vessel. I know that robust construction can manipulate age old tricks. In other videos some have what appears to be a large impact hole in the side at the waterline in others the hole isnt there. One account says that hole was made by a collision which blew the bow open but the ramp stayed shut so I think it was more like a landing craft on steroids with ferocity of opponents...
But what is the real reason of ship damage? Cant see some one who is talking about this. Nothing can cause a damage like this, only underwater mountain , but in Baltic sea is nothing like this. How could this even happen ??
the bow visor was too weak to withstand the powerful waves caused by the bad weather, which is why it broke off and let water in. the flooding was what caused the ship to tilt. (vet inte om du är svensk, men med andra ord: bogvisirets gångjärn och låsanordningar var för svaga för att klara av kraften av vågorna i det dåliga vädret, vilket är varför visiret ramlade av och släppte in vatten i skeppet. de stora strömmarna av vatten fick skeppet att luta, varpå vatten kunde tränga in genom flera ställen.)
@@edvinberg2403 Those might have been caused by plunderers and looters, who wanted to get their hands on the rumored Soviet tech aboard the vessel. The wreck is located in the international waters and is very vulnerable to such activities.
@@georgedash8293 nope, the hole was speculated to be at the exact position it was discovered at - decades before the discovery. The hole occurred moments before the sinking of estonia, confirming the reason as to why water was coming from below the car deck
This aged like milk. But if this particular investigation showed the ship hit the mud with the roof first and the waterline never impacted the bottom at all, one could conclude that no rock could have punched that 4m hole in the side. Hopefully the new findings will make some heads roll.
Its possible for a ship to capsize easily with car deck flooding, but there are more than two decks worth of air underneath on decks 0 and 1, that air should keep the ship semi-buoyant and floating upside-down for atleast a few hours. How did the air escape from the watertight lower decks has never been explained. The ventilation system could not evacuate all the air and replace it with water in 30min, the stairwells were sealed at the car deck level, and once the ship reached more than 120deg list, the stairwells would have been pressure locked from venting air out quick enough through upper decks for a half-hour sinking scenario. It might have easily been an technical disaster with no conspiratory crimes commited, but how that technical disaster unfolded has never been completely explained, and because of that there is a real risk of these problems still being unfixed and a risk of it happening again. When the ship turned left (port), with the intention that waves help push the ship upright, for some reason the ship started to flood even quicker. My bets would be on an car carrying explosives detonating accidentally/purposefully on the right (starboard) side destroying the car deck floor and wall and flooding the car deck and lower decks, or the stabilizer fin breaking during the storm due to a bad retrofit, making a leak/hole below sealevel. The visor was in a so-so condition and prob. leaked water in, because of the storm it had a higher than usual/toleratable ammount of water in it (with only minor ammounts getting past the visor), it broke off as a secondary reaction during sinking/listing stress becuse of the water weighing it down (the ship sank aft first, raising the bow out of the water).
The stabiliser fin is an interesting idea, but I have no idea if it would be capable of actually causing enough damage. It's known that they had problems with the fins, so it's entirely within the realm of possible. Regarding the site of a possible explosion - the prime suspect is in the sauna/swimming pool area. They -for no logical reason - filled it with sand, and it's not possible now to examine it. It would have been easy to place something there for whatever reason, especially as the area would have been closed in those weather conditions. It's well documented that Estonia was never secure in Tallinn when docked, so it's not beyond the realm of impossible.
the stabiliser fin breaking off occured on another ship, the Samina Express, so it's not an impossible theory, although the Samina hit a rock and that is what caused that event to happen
I saw it in live in the small town of Hanko / Hango in Finland! I was there with the swedish military 1 year after and we didnt see all of it, it was covered by plastic! Now its not existing anymore! Still very sad thing what has happend!
Nope, there were two watertight decks below the vehicle deck. Estonia would have floated for hours. Water came from below fast and damaged critical systems before the crew knew what was happening.
@@supertrinigamer I’ve heard that too. But as an old sailor I don’t see that happening. I think the visor went straight to the bottom once it became detached. Floating long enough to stab the vessel halfway down the length of the vessel at the waterline is very hard to imagine.
@@supertrinigamer no it did not. It would need to generate a force of a thousand tonnes, while only weighing around 55. It would need a force of around 20 visors to create the hole, making it debunked
Simulation is wrong though, very very wrong. Survivors talk about the ships stern raising straight into the air and then sink. It most likely capsized and then sunk stern first. By the time the captain and officers gave the last signals to leave the bridge was already under water. Most likely also the reason why Mariella couldn't reach Estonia only seconds after Silja Europa had spoken with it. In the Mayday call you can also hear a loud metallic sound in the background. Most likely the ship completely capsizing. The stern and first compartments most likely got flooded from the massive amount of water entering. Weather was very bad at the time. Engine technicians exited through the chimney emergency doors, at that time the waterline went to the chimney.
And now, year 2020. Everybody knows the answer. The visor is still intact. There's a huge hole in the bottom of Estonia. Four m long and about 1,5m wide. I think everybody has seen the new documentary. Something hit the ship (submarin?) just before it sank. The tradegy is just as great...
Submarines are much larger than 4 meters. It most likely came from the bow visor hooks that connect the locking mechanism. It matches up in photos, plus the visor is like 80 tons. Also explains why some passengers reported a grinding sound on the starboard side before the ship started to list
In this simulation the bug flap is still a bit open at 1:06. Because of the explosion? This video (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gPx1bA4Y9XY.html) says, there were explosion tracks at the right side of the bug and a not detonated explosive device at the left side (6:10). Even in the laboratory they could see (18:19) explosion tracks.
If the official theory of the sinking is correct, how come she didn´t turn around like other ships like her in similar situations? Check out m/s Jan Hevelius.
M/S Jan Heweliusz is actually what makes Estonia so illogical. The situation was comparable, yet the Jan Heweliusz stayed afloat for two days after capsizing.
Well Etonia DID indeed turn, but that's not included in vid. The captain turned to one side (can't remember which) and this was catastrophal, on top of the catastrophe that already had happened. The shpi's turning to one side caused the free floating water to gater in one side of the ship, it tilted more and more, rapodly, and sunk. There.s no really mystery with the Estonia.
I was on my way to help but I then got a call from superman asking for help taking down general zod. He managed without my help and i think about not helping everyday now.
hahaha, the investigation was a sham! every survivor involved said it was bullshit, and stated so many times publicly. recently they found a great hole in the starboard hull, under or near the waterline, and their where two technicians in the engine room who had visual contact with the ramp, all the way until estonia had 90 degree list, and they escaped through the chimney(!) and they vehemently stated that the ramp that the front visir covers *was closed* because they saw it on a monitor.
A real disaster and Sweden's right-wing government between the years 1991-94 and the Western Alliance is to blame for the catastrophe after smuggling military equipment out from Russia after the end of the Cold War.
By all means, try to prove IT without a doubt that some other scenario would have been more likely...so far nothing proves to be More likely than the visors locks breakes by the storm and the visor taking down the ramp with it as it fell off
@Silvia Weng Are You sure about that? The loading ramp has bin open and closed again down there They had to cut the side fence to close it On Jan Heweliusz lorries are missing
No. Estonia collided with a submarine head on wich ripped off the visor. The submarine scraped the port side and detached the stabilizer fin which caused a hole, and that hole caused the loss of Estonia.
@Rinaldo Kiissa , there was a military exercise taking place that night. The submarine was either taking part of the exercise or observing it from a distance. This was not a regular car crash where you stop to help.
a second, much more dangerous wreck (weapons, reactor, whatnot) buried under the Estonia would explain covering it in gravel and calling it off limits...Where did you get this from? Any evidence? A missing submarine would be noticed, no?
