Welcome to a chapter of the e-book Disaster Investigation.
1.32 The impossible Sequence of the Sinking made possible
The Final report (5) page 176 states that water flowed into the deck house of the 'Estonia' through the broken starboard windows, first on deck 4 aft and later on deck 5, so that she sank 3.12. In reality there are no openings in the horizontal deck 4 aft on the starboard side (except the ventilators to the car deck on the open aft deck and flooding through these opening probably contributed to the 'Estonia' sinking due to hull leakage). Water can therefore not flow down to the car deck 2 in the superstructure through deck 4 (see figure 1E in 2.16). Deck 4 is the roof of the car deck and the superstructure and is of steel and gas tight and fire insulated to highest standard. There are then no openings in the car deck no. 2 - the floor of the garage - so that water can flow down and fill the 14 watertight compartments below the car deck in the hull. There are openings - but they are behind the sliding doors in the stairwell at the centre line and they are always above any water on the car deck, when the ship heels.
The course of sinking and flooding events of the Final report are therefore not possible.
The 'Estonia' should have tipped upside down
Professor Anders Ulfvarson of the Chalmers University of Technology concluded the same thing in an article of the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet 23 September 1998, which the Commission never commented upon. What would happen with water on the car deck in the superstructure and inside the deck house is naturally that the ship turns upside down and floats on the 18 000 m3 of air and material inside the 14 watertight compartments below the car deck 2.16 in the hull. The Final report cannot explain why the 'Estonia' did not turn upside down before she sank. Why did she sink?
A great number of survivors came from deck 1, (21 passengers/crew and 3 crew watch keepers) and probably many more managed to leave deck 1 and reach deck 7 after the list occurred but drowned later. The survivors from deck 1 have stated that there was water on deck 1 before 01.00 hrs, before the listing occurred, and a fair number has stated that the water flowed up from below. You do not have to be very intelligent to conclude that the 'Estonia' was leaking, if water flowed up from below on deck 1, which was just below the waterline. The summaries of testimonies of the Final report (5) (chapter 6) do not copy these statements. Instead the report says that passengers running up from deck 1 saw (a few litres of) water leaking into the stairwell at deck 2 (the car deck). These testimonies are not very clear - apparently created by leading questions or just falsified - and show that the Commission also manipulated the testimonies to suit its alleged conclusions. The Commission is quite clever - there are no names of survivors or references to any questioning reports, when it comes to the alleged survivors, which are supposed to have seen water (a few litres) flowing into the stairwell at deck 2. Anyway - nobody saw any water flowing down the stairs at the centre line. So when and where did the water fill the 14 watertight compartments from above? The Final report has no answer. Of course it leaked in - from below into the hull on deck 0 and spread through open watertight doors.
The statement by the Commission, that the 'Estonia' sank due to water on the car deck in the superstructure above the waterline, is false.