|Date||28 September 1994|
A tragic accident, due to a combination of factors, including uneven loading of cargo, rough seas and ill advised behaviour (turning too fast) by the ship's captain.
“What has become increasingly clear is that the thousands of human lives carried on Estonia were considered as human shields for criminal gangs who were involved in transporting secret shipments of Soviet military technology and weaponry to the west. These criminal elements have used their ill-gotten wealth and power over their lackeys in the political and media elites to resist and prevent any further meaningful investigation of this unsolved crime.”
Helje Kaskel (September 27 2005) The Greeting of Helje Kaskel at the Symposium on the Sinking of Estonia 
Stephen Davis wrote in 2005 for the New Statesman that "this man, a retired MI6 officer whom I have known for many years, told me that the sinking of the Estonia was not an accident and that Britain and the Baltic nations had good reason to want the wreck buried" and that "tests at laboratories in the US and Germany showed signs of an explosion on the ferry's hull." A commission of experts appointed by the Meyer shipyard which constructed the Estonia concluded that the bow door was separated by two explosions below the waterline and that video footage showed unexploded charges on the wreck still in place. The commission took the stand that this was done to stop weapons delivery out of Russia. Later technical analysis which was published in Advanced Materials & Processes in 2009 concluded that the metal of the samples did not show wear and tear, but rather changes in the structure that are consistent with those caused by a high energy event, like an explosion.
Chris Bollyn has claimed that this was not an accident. He has observed that it happened the day after a remarkably similar terrorist drill the day before, and believes that this was a false flag attack.
The Swedish government at first promised to raise the wreck and to spare no cost in finding the cause of the disaster. But then it changed its mind, refusing all pleas from the bereaved relatives to bring the Estonia to the surface, although it sank in shallow waters. As a preliminary step, thousands of tons of pebbles were dropped on the site, but then, after protest from the survivor families, the idea was abandoned. The Estonia Agreement 1995, a treaty among Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Denmark, Russia and the United Kingdom, declared sanctity over the site, prohibiting their citizens from even approaching the wreck. The treaty is, however, only binding for citizens of the countries that are signatories. At least twice, the Swedish Navy has discovered diving operations at the wreck. The wreck is monitored by radar by the Finnish Navy.
|Document:Estonia: Sunk due to n-cargo?||Article||17 May 1996||Maarten Rabaey||A summary of an article from the Belgian reporter Maarten Rabaey in the De Morgen newspaper from 27 April 1996 about details of the sinking of the ship, the so-called 'Felix Report' and the reasoning behind the almost immediate sealing of the wreck in a sarcophagus. Archive of this article here and here|
- http://estonia.kajen.com/Failure_Analysis_of_the_Estonia_AMP_June_2009.pdf saved at Archive.org