Agree with it or not, there's a lot of valuable information in the form of crew testimony as well as complete deckplans. There's also some slightly obscure interior photos; good for trying to get a sense of what the survivors had to do to get up to 7 Deck.
I myself don't go for the conspiracy theories, but the "gravel/sand pile" photos and "wax paper package" photos do raise a bit of doubt.
>>but the "gravel/sand pile" photos and "wax paper package" photos do raise a bit of doubt.<<
That or the authorities with the jurisdiction and the parties with the vested interests are loath to admit that their ship was killed by a simple design flaw or defects due to improper maintainance. It's not like this would be the first time something like that happened. No need to look for the remarkable when the culprit is the mundane.
Right, in the end, the obvious conclusion is that a lack of seaworthiness sunk the ship. Granted, it's been said one of the countries involved had exempted the Estonia from some SOLAS requirements, but I don't know the specifics of it. Motivation, I suppose, for the more mundane conspiracy theorists.
Anyway, here's some links that I probably should have linked to before:
I would explain it as the usual confusion that happens in the wake of such events. Much the same happened with Titanic as the authorities tried to compile a list of those who survived as opposed to those who were lost, and inaccurate reporting based on rumours, innuendo, claims from imposters, and outright lies didn't help the situation. More of the same thing happened in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. (Anyone remember the hysterical stories that the government had supposedly blown up the Pentegon with a truck bomb? These stories conveniently left out information on how aircraft behave when they crash!)
That article offers a lot of insinuations, but really, what's new about that? Some of the claims may be factully correct in and of themselves, but do they tell the whole story? I wouldn't count on it. Conspiracy theories find a fertile breeding ground among people who suspect the worst and who are given only part of the story while other rather awkward facts are left out.
Sorry Tom, but there's nothing new here. Just more of the same old thing.
I am guessing this is about the Discovery Channels feature about the last attempt to dive on the wreck. It did seem odd that the authorities tried to prevent an independant research team from sending down a film crew. Plus the underwater pictures showing explosion damage on the hull. Combined with the fact that the Goverment tried to bury the entire ship in sand and gravel. The Bow door coming off story sure sounds like a good cover story. But much like the Kennedy assasination, the truth will probably never be known.
Only when did the hull take this damage? At the time she sank, or was there a later attempt to demolish the hull? This assumes that the assessment of explosion damage is correct. Hardly a given. David, the "truth" (There's a slippery term for you!) whatever that is, may never be known, but I don't subscribe to grand conspiracy theories. They seldom hold up well under close examination.
If the authorities are trying to cover anything up, my bet would be on a design defect with that door. It's entirely plausible considering what's known to happen when thousands of tons of water suddenly makes it's way into the vehicle deck. Instablity sets in, boyancy goes to hell in a handbasket, goodbye cruel world, hello Davy Jones Locker! (Remarkable and all too predictable sequence of cause and effect there since it had happened befor!
An encore performance of The Harald of Free Enterprise accident wasn't the sort of thing that was supposed to happen, yet the Estonia was compelling evidence that it did. If somebody didn't take the lesson to heart, they would scarcely be eager to advertise the fact, would they??? Not with Ghengis Attorney and Attila the Lawyer ready and waiting in the wings to hit them with a lawsuit that would put the line in bankruptcy court.