Steve
Penultimate Amazing
When obfuscating careful wording is required.
The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened
- Thread starter Vixen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ms estonia
- Status
When obfuscating careful wording is required.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
He's still wrong, for the reasons given. You seem to think Amdahl is the only person on Earth qualified to evaluate damage to structures. If he wants to be taken seriously, let him publish his findings for peer review. I've given you several posts, from another expert perspective, showing why his claims -- as presented -- are at best incomplete and at worst just completely wrong. You haven't addressed hardly any of them, probably because you realize you're not even remotely qualified to do so. But you cling to Prof. Amdahl's staged presentation like a drowning person to a life buoy. It's pure faith -- nothing more. Science is not on his side here.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Interesting thing about experts - they can sometimes be wrong.
Interesting thing about laypersons on technical topics - they can occasionally be right.
Interesting thing about laypersons on technical topics - they can occasionally be right.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
And? If the Russians thought it was plausible, affordable, and for some reason necessary to raise or salvage the MS Estonia they could've done so. Instead they were one of 8 nations to sign a treaty to designate the wreck as a gravesite and ban even approaching it. Because SOME company SAID they could salvage the wreck does not mean it was plausible.
I'll ask, if Bildt is the bad guy and he did Russia dirty why would Russia not want to expose him?
ETA: and the Russians did not recover all of the bodies. After it was clear the entire crew was dead their primary motivations were to find the cause of the accident and recover secret material/documents.
Last edited:
And when you slip up with the wording, resort to "It was tongue-in-cheek" or "I was being ironic".
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Individual experts are wrong all the time. This is why experts tend to work in teams with some form of peer review. As it happens, I am not layman when it comes to engineering.
Last edited:
Is there a link to this? Your force/velocity claims are as confused/confusing as ever. Do you know the equation f=ma? Can you point out where velocity features in that?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That is true, but careful wording is required even when being honest. Forensic engineers learn not to suggest causation or liability if the evidence does not conclude it. Often the best you can say is that evidence is consistent with one hypothesis or another, but does little to distinguish from among all such compatible hypotheses.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Perhaps I worded my post poorly. To be clear, the layman I was referring to is not you.
And yes, our layman is relying an awful lot on the cherry picked statements of individual experts.
That is outstanding.
You know - a life-size, 3D replica of a hole could really be anywhere, though... Like right here in this empty room. You have to conceptualize it.
Explosions ≠ Explosives led to massive comprehension problems for the 9/11 Truth people.
Braidenwood did not manage them. He reviewed the footage and the lab reports.
The report on the dive that brought up the samples is below.
https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/chapter02/2-0.html
Axxman300
Philosopher
What bugs me is there are two separate issues:
The sinking of Estonia, and Sweden being jerks about it.
The cause of Estonia's sinking is mostly clear with the bow cover getting knocked off allowing the lower decks to floor with water, combined with an inept crew and command.
A new investigation will provide new details which would fill in most of the gaps but I doubt the story changes too much in the big picture.
Sweden smuggling Russian technology on other ferries, their asserting control of the wreck, and the investigation, and refusal of outside assistance plus placing the wreck off-limits is a topic worth exploring. But whatever Sweden's motives were they do not alter the facts of the bow-cover failing.
By combining the two CTists cloud the issues with wild speculation, no matter how dumb (submarine). And then we are continually told "The Germans this and the German's that". Which Germans? Their government? The man on the street? I can't find anything about diplomatic problems between Sweden and Germany, nor official statement from the German government demanding the Swedes acquiesce to any demands in the past 10 years.
I should note that if you want to see a real fist-fight you should wander into a Titanic forum where the arguments get really heated.
The sinking of Estonia, and Sweden being jerks about it.
The cause of Estonia's sinking is mostly clear with the bow cover getting knocked off allowing the lower decks to floor with water, combined with an inept crew and command.
A new investigation will provide new details which would fill in most of the gaps but I doubt the story changes too much in the big picture.
Sweden smuggling Russian technology on other ferries, their asserting control of the wreck, and the investigation, and refusal of outside assistance plus placing the wreck off-limits is a topic worth exploring. But whatever Sweden's motives were they do not alter the facts of the bow-cover failing.
By combining the two CTists cloud the issues with wild speculation, no matter how dumb (submarine). And then we are continually told "The Germans this and the German's that". Which Germans? Their government? The man on the street? I can't find anything about diplomatic problems between Sweden and Germany, nor official statement from the German government demanding the Swedes acquiesce to any demands in the past 10 years.
I should note that if you want to see a real fist-fight you should wander into a Titanic forum where the arguments get really heated.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
MV Estonia was built in a German shipyard. It looks to me like what happened is that, in light of an official report that suggested the ship's construction failed in some way, the shipyard hired its own outside experts to produce an independent report hoping to place blame elsewhere.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Not only is this not the proper way for a physicist to characterize a force, it doesn't even make sense. What relevance does the 5000m/s speed even have (and unless they specify a direction, it's only a speed, not a velocity. That's pedantic, but we're supposedly dealing with technical pronouncements of experts, so I think it's appropriate to point out.) What was supposed to be moving at 5000 m/s a second?
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Did they ever submit a bid for the job, or even draft a proposal? It's easy to say: "We can do it" if you never actually have to write the proposal.
5000 m/s is a valid approximate value for the detonation rates of some high explosives. It's possible that the poster misinterpreted a statement of an explosives characteristics as an impact velocity.
MEKP (Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide) at 5200 m/s, or UN (Urea Nitrate) at 4700 m/s for example.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah I covered that upthread. It may have gotten lost. It's apparent from the magnitude of the numbers Vixen was quoting what actual physical property was intended. But the point is to hold Vixen accountable for the understanding that's insinuated. Or the lack of it, as the case may be. If you don't know what a quotation of velocity means in the context of an explosion and you mistake it for a force, you're probably just mindlessly regurgitating something. That becomes amusing when Vixen attempts to claim the skeptics here are ignorant and scientifically illiterate.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Okay. That's very helpful, thanks!
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Three specialist salvage companies were confident they could do it.
- Status