Thanks for translation and this vid. Incredible how the man Tavi Rabaa must have been pressured. He was one of the few handpicked survivors and crew member after the disappearance of 8 other surviving crew members or partner like the Kikas couple.
Well, I'm not conviced of the disappearence of the 8 crew members. And how come that the third engineerd, sea man, trainee second officer and other crew members did not "disappear"? They had vital positions onboard.
@@Estoniaveckan There was the list made by the hospital. How would they imagine these names? How did they come up with real names? In an Emergency were all is hasty and people incoming? My mother is a nurse, so I knew how hospitals operate in such cases. As 1000 km southwards from here a chemical factory exploded. The survivors were brought here by helicopters, just as the survivors of the Estonia. Nobody in a hospital would dare to state someone survived if that is not checked 3x. Before you are sure you make question marks. My mother worked since 40 years. Such mistakes are unheard of, never happened. And here it happened over 8 times? Why was there a press statement in TV that Avo Piht met Carl Bildt? Why was he seen by other people? Do you believe that the survivors, the press, the spokesperson of Carl Bildt and the Swedish hospitals conspired together and what for? There are many different sources who state the same that he survived, multiple times, you can ask his second wife. Why did they handpicked just 9 persons as witnesses? This so called commission worked for 3 years. You might think in 3 years you are able to here all 137 survivors. They lied in 1994 concerning the wreck position? How can you trust just one finding of them? It is quite ridiculous how they pressured the people to make it fit. For example the Gustloff had 3 underwater holes through torpedos, each big as a house. It was stormy weather, too. But the Gustloff needed 50 minutes whereas the Estonia needed 35 minutes and there was allegedly just the ramp open? 2m over waterline? The ramp is over the waterline to avoid water coming in during on and off boarding. And If the ramp was over water pulled open in this violent matter. then it has to slize through the steely C-Deck, which was pretty in sight of the bridge crew. How can you declare that just two bangs about 1:00 was heard, than the visor whipped in complete silence obviously, it must have silenced whipping as nobody heard further bangs from the loosening visor. Then after 15 minuter still whipping - the visor was lost and thereby the ramp was pulled open. To make this happening the hinges must have ripped through the c-deck, because their is their housing. Why was this not heard by anyone? Slizing through a deck is not heard, but just two bangs from a loosening visor which got miraculously stilled the next minutes in the stormy rolling ship movement.
That were a lot of questions, I'm not able to answere them all, but I that claim you make that Carl Bildt talked to Avo Piht. I've never heard about it I think. Do you have a source for that? I'm not sure what you mean with "just 9 witnesses". The commission questioned 5 people several times. Those were people with key positions. That could have made important observations. But the commission read and summerized all the police statements from all survivors. But I agree, they could have questioned all of the surviving passangers. Several people heard 2-3 lound bangs and before that a bunch of differnt sounds. I think that some people heard that the hydraulic actuators were pulled through the deck.
@@Estoniaveckan 1.) Thanks for acknowledging how deficient it was that the JAIC was not hearing all survivors or the main survivors in the 3 years. In no crime investigation on earth you are allowed to handpick your witnesses as you like. It is very suspicious 2.) There was the list made by the hospital. How would they imagine these names? How did they come up with real names? That you have forgotten to answer. 3.) On the 30.09.1994 sonar pictures of the wreck was given to the press were the visor was near the ship and not under it or kilometers away. If he was completely lost before sinking. How can a sonar picture show him laying on the wreck? Later it was said, that this should have been a triangular metal plate. In a telefax 9.10.1994 from Kari Lehtola [Finnish Accident Investigation Board] to Olof Forssberg [Swedish Accident Investigation Board] Kari Lehtola sent the following message [translated from Swedish]: "Good morning! Due to the weather the search for the visor has been canceled during the complete day, but now Nuorteva has analysed the pictures further more. On the location on the seabed, where ESTONIA on basis of the subjects [on the bottom] have capsized, there is a 10 meters long and 5 - 7 meters wide object on the seabed. It is most likely of metal. The form is well corresponding with the visor. The depth is 70 meters. The seabed is solid. Karppinen, Aarnio and the ROV-group embarks TURSAS in Nagu at 11.00 finish time and the work begin at around 13.00. They will video film the "large object". Enclosed a SONAR-picture and an enlargement of the picture. Regards Kari" Then that fits the sonar picture which was given to the press on 30.09.1994 where you can see the visor next to the ship and NOT over 1500 meters in a distance. 4.) 2-3 bangs were heard short before or at 1:00. JAIC said it came from the loosening visor whipping onto the bulb. Just 2 times and then just silence? Really? For all the time til it fell without leads on the hull and sound? 5.) Why was there no sounds of the visor between 1:00 and 1:15. At 1:15 the visor was lost according to JAIC. No one heard the loosened visor further hitting against the bulb why? Was he muted? By what? 6.) Why heard nobody the slicing through the c deck? It is not just hydraulic sound it has to have slicing through massive ship steel. 7.) Why did nobody saw the ramp pulling their housing on the open c-deck to the front open. You can see the open c-deck and the housing from the bridge. 8.) Why does the listing progress fabricated by the JAIC contradict the recorded mayday call from 1:24 on? Why was the data from the mayday call completely ignored? What kind of evidence can be better than the mayday call? You have concrete data like position time line etc.? Lehtola lied concerning the wreck position? He said after mayday call they were over 2 kilometers drifted. They lied even to rockwater. That was why the could find the wreck just after protesting not be able to find it at the given position. It is no coincidence that the wreck was found near the mayday call position, so nothing with drifting kilometers from there as said by JAIC which obviously lied. So obviously the mayday call is more correct than everything from the JAIC. Why ignore it then? So you can assume they lied at first concerning the wreck position, then they lie until today about the listing progress. If the listing were heavier he had not said 20-30 degrees in mayday call. Who could better tell you how much the ship was listing than the bridge officer himself. And the best is, that this mayday call could not be pressured and compromised as other evidence. 9.) Why was the port side of the visor looks less damaged than the starboard side? On this night the waves and storm came from the port side... So the pressure on the visor came from the port side. 10.) Why did they lie about intact hull? 11.) Why must we learn from the press (Hendrik Evertsson) that there is hull breach of 4m length and 1.2 m width? Would it not have been a task for the JAIC to analyse this hole? 12.) Why can we nothing read about in the report of the JAIC? It lies deeper than the ramp opening which is over 2m over the waterline and therefore should be considered more relevant.
1. Those "hand-picked" witnesess were people that was on duty at the time for the accident. They were in the ECR or the bridge and knew the ship well. Their answeres and knowledge of the ship were of course important. It is fully understandable that the JAIC had more focus on them than on a passanger that was asleep in his cabin for example. 2. I don't know. But there were several persons that was either alive or dead during the first days after the accident. How do you think an "abduction" would have taken place? 3. Do you have a picture that is showing the visor near the wreck? Thats is clearly dated? I know that there is a picture which seems to show a visor on top of the ship. It is still unclear when that was taken. I know about the articles about the object and it would be nice to know what that was. 4/5. The visor was probably lost shortly after 01. The JAIC timeline is wrong in that aspect most likely. 6. Are you sure no one heard that? 7. No you couldn't. The deck obscured it. 8. I don't know what you mean here. Are JAIC lying about the list? 9. Which locks are you refeering to? 10. They did not examine the hull completely unfortenatly. In the report they say that no other damages had been observed except for the fore ship. Of course they should have filmed the whole wreck. But Rabe did not see the holes that now has been discovered. However it is not totaly clear where she did look. It is possible that those damages weren't there in 1994 or 2000/2001 11. Se above. 12. Se above Hope you are satisfied with my answeres! Have a great weekend! You had a lot of questions ;)
Förhör nummer två skulle vara intressant att läsa i dialogform, eller åtminstone med "förhörsledarens" frågor inkluderat. Det känns som att Raaba får många följdfrågor om tullkontroll och förekomsten av smuggling och knappt några följdfrågor om olycksförloppet. Det i sig skulle väl kunna tyda på att GGE ligger bakom förhöret?
Väldigt intressant faktiskt tycker jag faktiskt och dom skulle inte åkt så fort utan långsammare tycker jag faktiskt 🌹🌹
Intressant 👍
Ja, vittnesmålen är intresseranta! Tack för att du tittar!
Thanks for translation and this vid. Incredible how the man Tavi Rabaa must have been pressured. He was one of the few handpicked survivors and crew member after the disappearance of 8 other surviving crew members or partner like the Kikas couple.
Well, I'm not conviced of the disappearence of the 8 crew members. And how come that the third engineerd, sea man, trainee second officer and other crew members did not "disappear"? They had vital positions onboard.
@@Estoniaveckan There was the list made by the hospital. How would they imagine these names? How did they come up with real names? In an Emergency were all is hasty and people incoming? My mother is a nurse, so I knew how hospitals operate in such cases. As 1000 km southwards from here a chemical factory exploded. The survivors were brought here by helicopters, just as the survivors of the Estonia. Nobody in a hospital would dare to state someone survived if that is not checked 3x. Before you are sure you make question marks. My mother worked since 40 years. Such mistakes are unheard of, never happened. And here it happened over 8 times?
Why was there a press statement in TV that Avo Piht met Carl Bildt? Why was he seen by other people?
Do you believe that the survivors, the press, the spokesperson of Carl Bildt and the Swedish hospitals conspired together and what for?
There are many different sources who state the same that he survived, multiple times, you can ask his second wife.
Why did they handpicked just 9 persons as witnesses? This so called commission worked for 3 years. You might think in 3 years you are able to here all 137 survivors.
They lied in 1994 concerning the wreck position? How can you trust just one finding of them?
It is quite ridiculous how they pressured the people to make it fit.
For example the Gustloff had 3 underwater holes through torpedos, each big as a house. It was stormy weather, too. But the Gustloff needed 50 minutes whereas the Estonia needed 35 minutes and there was allegedly just the ramp open? 2m over waterline? The ramp is over the waterline to avoid water coming in during on and off boarding.
And If the ramp was over water pulled open in this violent matter. then it has to slize through the steely C-Deck, which was pretty in sight of the bridge crew.
How can you declare that just two bangs about 1:00 was heard, than the visor whipped in complete silence obviously, it must have silenced whipping as nobody heard further bangs from the loosening visor.
Then after 15 minuter still whipping - the visor was lost and thereby the ramp was pulled open.
To make this happening the hinges must have ripped through the c-deck, because their is their housing.
Why was this not heard by anyone? Slizing through a deck is not heard, but just two bangs from a loosening visor which got miraculously stilled the next minutes in the stormy rolling ship movement.
That were a lot of questions, I'm not able to answere them all, but I that claim you make that Carl Bildt talked to Avo Piht. I've never heard about it I think. Do you have a source for that?
I'm not sure what you mean with "just 9 witnesses". The commission questioned 5 people several times. Those were people with key positions. That could have made important observations.
But the commission read and summerized all the police statements from all survivors. But I agree, they could have questioned all of the surviving passangers.
Several people heard 2-3 lound bangs and before that a bunch of differnt sounds. I think that some people heard that the hydraulic actuators were pulled through the deck.
@@Estoniaveckan 1.) Thanks for acknowledging how deficient it was that the JAIC was not hearing all survivors or the main survivors in the 3 years. In no crime investigation on earth you are allowed to handpick your witnesses as you like. It is very suspicious
2.) There was the list made by the hospital. How would they imagine these names? How did they come up with real names?
That you have forgotten to answer.
3.) On the 30.09.1994 sonar pictures of the wreck was given to the press were the visor was near the ship and not under it or kilometers away. If he was completely lost before sinking. How can a sonar picture show him laying on the wreck? Later it was said, that this should have been a triangular metal plate.
In a telefax 9.10.1994 from Kari Lehtola [Finnish Accident Investigation Board] to Olof Forssberg [Swedish Accident Investigation Board] Kari Lehtola sent the following message [translated from Swedish]:
"Good morning! Due to the weather the search for the visor has been canceled during the complete day, but now Nuorteva has analysed the pictures further more. On the location on the seabed, where ESTONIA on basis of the subjects [on the bottom] have capsized, there is a 10 meters long and 5 - 7 meters wide object on the seabed. It is most likely of metal. The form is well corresponding with the visor. The depth is 70 meters. The seabed is solid.
Karppinen, Aarnio and the ROV-group embarks TURSAS in Nagu at 11.00 finish time and the work begin at around 13.00. They will video film the "large object". Enclosed a SONAR-picture and an enlargement of the picture.
Regards Kari"
Then that fits the sonar picture which was given to the press on 30.09.1994 where you can see the visor next to the ship and NOT over 1500 meters in a distance.
4.) 2-3 bangs were heard short before or at 1:00. JAIC said it came from the loosening visor whipping onto the bulb.
Just 2 times and then just silence? Really? For all the time til it fell without leads on the hull and sound?
5.) Why was there no sounds of the visor between 1:00 and 1:15. At 1:15 the visor was lost according to JAIC.
No one heard the loosened visor further hitting against the bulb why? Was he muted? By what?
6.) Why heard nobody the slicing through the c deck?
It is not just hydraulic sound it has to have slicing through massive ship steel.
7.) Why did nobody saw the ramp pulling their housing on the open c-deck to the front open.
You can see the open c-deck and the housing from the bridge.
8.) Why does the listing progress fabricated by the JAIC contradict the recorded mayday call from 1:24 on? Why was the data from the mayday call completely ignored?
What kind of evidence can be better than the mayday call? You have concrete data like position time line etc.?
Lehtola lied concerning the wreck position? He said after mayday call they were over 2 kilometers drifted.
They lied even to rockwater. That was why the could find the wreck just after protesting not be able to find it at the given position.
It is no coincidence that the wreck was found near the mayday call position, so nothing with drifting kilometers from there as said by JAIC which obviously lied.
So obviously the mayday call is more correct than everything from the JAIC. Why ignore it then?
So you can assume they lied at first concerning the wreck position, then they lie until today about the listing progress.
If the listing were heavier he had not said 20-30 degrees in mayday call. Who could better tell you how much the ship was listing than the bridge officer himself. And the best is, that this mayday call could not be pressured and compromised as other evidence.
9.) Why was the port side of the visor looks less damaged than the starboard side?
On this night the waves and storm came from the port side...
So the pressure on the visor came from the port side.
10.) Why did they lie about intact hull?
11.) Why must we learn from the press (Hendrik Evertsson) that there is hull breach of 4m length and 1.2 m width? Would it not have been a task for the JAIC to analyse this hole?
12.) Why can we nothing read about in the report of the JAIC?
It lies deeper than the ramp opening which is over 2m over the waterline and therefore should be considered more relevant.
1. Those "hand-picked" witnesess were people that was on duty at the time for the accident. They were in the ECR or the bridge and knew the ship well. Their answeres and knowledge of the ship were of course important. It is fully understandable that the JAIC had more focus on them than on a passanger that was asleep in his cabin for example.
2. I don't know. But there were several persons that was either alive or dead during the first days after the accident. How do you think an "abduction" would have taken place?
3. Do you have a picture that is showing the visor near the wreck? Thats is clearly dated? I know that there is a picture which seems to show a visor on top of the ship. It is still unclear when that was taken. I know about the articles about the object and it would be nice to know what that was.
4/5. The visor was probably lost shortly after 01. The JAIC timeline is wrong in that aspect most likely.
6. Are you sure no one heard that?
7. No you couldn't. The deck obscured it.
8. I don't know what you mean here. Are JAIC lying about the list?
9. Which locks are you refeering to?
10. They did not examine the hull completely unfortenatly. In the report they say that no other damages had been observed except for the fore ship. Of course they should have filmed the whole wreck. But Rabe did not see the holes that now has been discovered. However it is not totaly clear where she did look. It is possible that those damages weren't there in 1994 or 2000/2001
11. Se above.
12. Se above
Hope you are satisfied with my answeres! Have a great weekend! You had a lot of questions ;)
Im so glad of translation. My swedish is not so good.
Det var en intressant video om alla vittnesmål den natten.
Förhör nummer två skulle vara intressant att läsa i dialogform, eller åtminstone med "förhörsledarens" frågor inkluderat. Det känns som att Raaba får många följdfrågor om tullkontroll och förekomsten av smuggling och knappt några följdfrågor om olycksförloppet. Det i sig skulle väl kunna tyda på att GGE ligger bakom förhöret?
Precis min tanke också. Det är nog GGE. Deras märks på formuleringarna.
👍 👍 👍!!!
Hur kan det komma sig att det ska vara 25 kommentarer i kommentarfältet men där är bara 6 inklusive svar??? 😕
Verkar vara en bugg, men sortera kommentarerna efter "nyaste först" då borde alla dyka upp. Så brukar jag gör om inte alla syns.
VEM HAR BESTÄLLT - Estoniakatastrofen - och vad heter Ni som talar ?
Hej, jag har gjort en video om vem jag är. Du kan kolla på den här.
ua-cam.com/video/7eA33dm91as/v-deo.html
Varför så upprörd??Något att dölja??
ni vill dölja massmordet på 852 människor...se på -Fokus Estonia- istället och sluta förolämpa förb idiot