The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

Do you mean it caused you to suffer an involuntary bowel movement....?

I meant the other end of the artillery bombardment, but also yes. Rocket launches and engine tests are the same sort of thing. Unless you've experienced it in person you can't accurately describe it. Also jets flying low on afterburner. It doesn't matter how many times you've seen it in a video, the in-person experience is quite different. Someone hearing it for the first time under ambiguous circumstances would be expected to mischaracterize it.

 

[JayUtah]

It is nothing to do with me, I am just the reporter.

You're clearing advocating for Braidwood.

JayUtah is saying Brian Braidwood is dishonest.

I've presented evidence of the insufficiency of his examination. I am not accusing him of being dishonest.

If the Estonia was seaworthy, how come such severe deformations existed...

And once again you reveal to the world that you have no clue what cyclic deformation is. Stop trying to pretend to be some sort of expert. You're not.

...and it can be shrugged off as 'not caused by an explosive force'?

I'm not shrugging off anything. If anything, Braidwood is shrugging off the most common causes of the effects he notes. He present himself as an explosives expert. Surprise, surprise, he found "evidence" of explosives. But inasmuch as he is not an engineer, he missed the other causes that someone more qualified than he in forensic investigation would have considered. You need to get it through your head that the people you're presenting as experts are not necessarily giving you incontrovertible narratives. You can fetishize them all you want, but it doesn't establish truth.

 

[LondonJohn]

I meant the other end of the artillery bombardment, but also yes. Rocket launches and engine tests are the same sort of thing. Unless you've experienced it in person you can't accurately describe it. Also jets flying low on afterburner. It doesn't matter how many times you've seen it in a video, the in-person experience is quite different. Someone hearing it for the first time under ambiguous circumstances would be expected to mischaracterize it.

Absolutely. In addition to my limited experience of ordnance and explosions (as I said in another post, the car bomb explosion I was near was a wholly-extraordinary set of sensations), my father was a fast jet pilot in the RAF, so I grew up from the year dot on RAF flying stations around the World. As you say, the sensation of being close to a fast jet taking off (or, erm, buzzing the control tower ) on afterburner is something that's difficult to describe accurately until/unless you've been there yourself.

Though in fact the most visceral engine sounds I remember from RAF days was from an aircraft whose engines didn't use reheat: the AVRO Vulcan (which was never based at the same stations we were at, since my father was in fast jets, but which often used our stations for logistics or operational reasons). The four RR Bristol engines at full thrust on a Vulcan at short takeoff make a breathtaking air-ripping noise that truly does sound like the start of the Apocalypse.....

 

[LondonJohn]

You're clearing advocating for Braidwood.

I've presented evidence of the insufficiency of his examination. I am not accusing him of being dishonest.

While I too cannot question Braidwood's integrity or honesty, I do think it's germane and relevant to point out that he was (and is?) working directly for the "German Group of Experts", which in turn was set up and funded by the shipyard which built the Estonia.

And, uhmmmm, it's not too difficult (IMO) to conceive of the notion that the shipyard might be rather keen to have its "group of experts" conclude that something other than the failure of the bow visor and bow ramp was the thing that caused the ship to sink (hint: think "multi-million-dollar lawsuits against the shipyard for improper design and/or improper workmanship").

Interested observers may find the above information useful when they are trying to decide what might or might not have influenced the "expert opinion" of Braidwood in light of a) the identity of his employer wrt his work on the Estonia sinking, and b) his employer's motives and wishes......

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Ah!
But according to Einsteins theory of Relativity, you can also see it as the house slamming into the screen door.
And as the house is orders of magnitude heavier than the screen door, the resulting noise should be deafening.

But the house is securely mounted on the Earth, so the entire Earth is slamming into the screen door! For God's sake fit a soft close mechanism on your screen door before it deafens us all!!!

 

[Steve]

But the house is securely mounted on the Earth, so the entire Earth is slamming into the screen door! For God's sake fit a soft close mechanism on your screen door before it deafens us all!!!

Was that an explosion I just heard!? I am quite sure it caused the earth to come to a sudden stop!

 

[JayUtah]

While I too cannot question Braidwood's integrity or honesty, I do think it's germane and relevant to point out that he was (and is?) working directly for the "German Group of Experts", which in turn was set up and funded by the shipyard which built the Estonia.

Indeed we have to consider it partisan work. But we have to be careful not to infer in the wrong direction. It's just as invalid to say, "It's partisan work and therefore defective," as it is to say, "It's government work and therefore defective." The horse properly put before the cart says that we have to discover defects first. If we discover defects, then we can look to likely sources of bias, such as a shipyard wanting to propose other possible causes besides the failure of its product.

 

[phiwum]

Was that an explosion I just heard!? I am quite sure it caused the earth to come to a sudden stop!

Damn. I thought the screen door was a good example that not every "bang" involves an explosion. I admit I was mistaken.

 

[Vixen]

There were no explosives.

And you know that, how?

 

[Vixen]

The deformations did not exist until the sinking.
They have nothing to do with it's seaworthiness previous to that point.

Seawater does not cause that type of deformation. And in any case, should not the JAIC have noted it?

 

[Vixen]

You have said many things. Yes, you were vague in the above quote, that's true, but you also said the following:



Now, if you want to admit that you do not really know that some survivors claimed to have heard explosions, fine. Then we will drop that from the current list of dubious claims. But please don't pretend you never said it. You did.



I am focused on what they said they experienced. They reported a number of things. I have no evidence at all that they reported hearing explosions.

Now, you say I'm denying what they said. You show me where anyone said they heard or otherwise experienced explosions (with Hakanpää's comment already noted) or else you're just full of crap. I'm not denying what they said, I'm referring to what they said. You, on the other hand, put words in their mouths.

As far as the fact that we're using summaries of translations, it's not ideal. But if you have more information than I do, some actual evidence that they reported explosions rather than bangs and whatnot, then do present it.

Fundamentally, I can't know what they actually said, but I can know that you've presented not a bit of evidence that several people reported explosions. If you have other evidence, by all means show it.

You requested a citation which I referred you to and then you barely tried to even look it up. So I kindly compiled a list of the survivors' quotes for you but instead of thanking me and admitting, thanks, that is really useful, I never knew the survivors had claimed to have experienced all of that, you just tried to play on semantics instead, so I don't believe your query was in good faith. It is obvious the summing up in my original post was in my own words and as I don't generally use slang such as 'bangs' I used my normal speech and used the correct term for a 'bang', as conveyed by the survivors.

It seems churlish to me that all you can do is sneer at the survivors accounts and deny that they experienced what they have recounted they experienced.

No wonder so many criminals get away with their crimes when defence lawyers come along and claim the victim didn't really experience their experiences.

 

[Vixen]

Right.

If, for instance, the single best explanation for loud bangs was explosions, then the bangs would be some evidence for explosions -- even if the word "explosion" was never uttered by the witnesses.

But that's not the case. Loud bangs are easily explained and consistent with the visor theory, so serve as no evidence for explosions at all.

Loud bangs do not cause shaking and vibrations. The survivors went to great pains to describe exceptionally loud bangs in quick succession.


'Oh it's OK, Honey, it was just the bow visor.'

 

[Vixen]

Where did I claim to support them? False dilemma.



No, I said the findings of the laboratory were also consistent with cyclic deformation. Straw man.



That's a meaninglessly vague statement as far as engineering goes. Straw man.



I'm saying, given the whole picture of evidence that Braidwood largely ignores in his rush to judgment, the more likely explanation for the metallurgical condition of the equipment is cyclic deformation, not explosives.



Sure. It's just the same old straw-man tactics you can't seem to let go of. You have a real problem remembering and dealing with what people actually say rather than what you seem to think they should have said.

Cyclic deformation seems to be a fancy way of saying, 'metal fatigue'. However, the JAIC plainly states the vessel was seaworthy. In any case, I am rather sceptical that a deformation caused by an explosive or explosives would look exactly the same as 'metal fatigue' on a ship deemed as 'seaworthy'.

Braidwood watched hours of Rockwater footage and arranged for the metal samples to be independently tested at three different laboratories, one in Texas, the other two in Germany, one of which also did forensic reports for the police. I daresay Braidwood was commissioned by Meyer Werft to prepare his expert witness statement. However, I don't think it is kind to claim that he was incompetent or didn't know his stuff, just because you refuse to believe there was any explosion.

 

[Mojo]

Seawater does not cause that type of deformation.

Cool strawman.

 

[Vixen]

You're clearing advocating for Braidwood.



I've presented evidence of the insufficiency of his examination. I am not accusing him of being dishonest.



And once again you reveal to the world that you have no clue what cyclic deformation is. Stop trying to pretend to be some sort of expert. You're not.



I'm not shrugging off anything. If anything, Braidwood is shrugging off the most common causes of the effects he notes. He present himself as an explosives expert. Surprise, surprise, he found "evidence" of explosives. But inasmuch as he is not an engineer, he missed the other causes that someone more qualified than he in forensic investigation would have considered. You need to get it through your head that the people you're presenting as experts are not necessarily giving you incontrovertible narratives. You can fetishize them all you want, but it doesn't establish truth.

I am not advocating for Braidwood at all, I am strictly neutral. He adopted the null hypothesis and sent them to three independent laboratories which rejected the null hypothesis that there had not been an intense detonation within the vicinity of the metal pieces he submitted.

Given the characteristic twinning that was recognised by these laboratories you cannot rule out detonation/s. The BAM institute in Germany did present an alternative theory based on shot blasting, albeit they used their own piece of metal to find out other ways to recreate a similar effect.

 

[JayUtah]

Cyclic deformation seems to be a fancy way of saying, 'metal fatigue'.

No.

However, the JAIC plainly states the vessel was seaworthy.

Asked and answered.

In any case, I am rather sceptical that a deformation caused by an explosive or explosives would look exactly the same as 'metal fatigue' on a ship deemed as 'seaworthy'.

Straw man. That is not the claim.

However, I don't think it is kind to claim that he was incompetent or didn't know his stuff...

Straw man. His qualifications were limited. He made findings consistent with the expertise he did have, but not consistent with the expertise that would be necessary to determine the ultimate cause. I have pointed out the flaws in Braidwood's reasoning. If you cannot address those, then I don't care whether you think it's "kind" to review his work.

...just because you refuse to believe there was any explosion.

Cart before the horse. I don't believe explosives were used on MS Estonia because the evidence in favor of that is scant and contradictory.

 

[Vixen]

While I too cannot question Braidwood's integrity or honesty, I do think it's germane and relevant to point out that he was (and is?) working directly for the "German Group of Experts", which in turn was set up and funded by the shipyard which built the Estonia.

And, uhmmmm, it's not too difficult (IMO) to conceive of the notion that the shipyard might be rather keen to have its "group of experts" conclude that something other than the failure of the bow visor and bow ramp was the thing that caused the ship to sink (hint: think "multi-million-dollar lawsuits against the shipyard for improper design and/or improper workmanship").

Interested observers may find the above information useful when they are trying to decide what might or might not have influenced the "expert opinion" of Braidwood in light of a) the identity of his employer wrt his work on the Estonia sinking, and b) his employer's motives and wishes......

No, not really, as it was already deemed that Werft had no liability as the thing had been designed before the regulations came into effect. Werft were challenging the JAIC as a matter of principle. It already had on its side the poor record of maintenance. By all accounts, the car ramp door was often simply tied up with a hawser on the front of deck capstan and it was known to be leaky. However, the JAIC said it was purely the design of the visor bolts that were at fault, Since it had been designed way back in 1980 for trips between Finland and Sweden, I hardly think Werft wouldn't have had a strong case that 12 hours of open sea wasn't what the ferry was designed for. Their expert claims assessor, Werner Hummel, pursued a defence as a matter of ethics and principle.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not advocating for Braidwood at all...

You clearly are. You're trying to shame people away from finding flaws in his work.

Given the characteristic twinning...

The twinning is not characteristic.

 

[Axxman300]

Seawater does not cause that type of deformation. And in any case, should not the JAIC have noted it?

How would they note something they couldn't see in 1994?

The Estonia sailed with a list into a storm at her flank speed. The ferries that came to the rescue were sailing at slower speeds.

Safe to say that sea water is responsible for 100% of shipwrecks, either by tearing the ship apart, or just getting into the other side of the hull. Then again I'm not scientist, could be sea monsters.

 

[JayUtah]

Their exert claims assessor, Werner Hummel, pursued a defence as a matter of ethics and principle.

How do you know that was their motive?