• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The samples of metal from the bow were microscopically analysed by Ida Westermann, and associate professor in Materials Science in Norway. I think she knows a deformation consistent with a detonation when she sees one.
Click to expand...
Can you quote the part where she uses the word "detonation"?

I find it rather disgraceful that you are insinuating that she is acting without integrity or objectivity
Click to expand...

The person who's being criticised for lacking objectivity is you.

I note that you chose not to mention the part of the atricle imediately after the bit where Westermann says she does not want to speculate further;

"Strandberg added that in order to draw correct conclusions from the damages caused by heat, information is needed about if and how many times the bow area of the ferry, which was completed in Germany in 1980, has been repaired.

"If electric or gas-based heating had to be used to restore or repair its shape, this data is essential for drawing correct conclusions," he said.

Westermann said that her study only concerned a small detail of the entire bow visor. Two years ago, the scientist studied samples brought from the MS Estonia wreck by German journalist Jutta Rabe in 2000 but could not draw any conclusions based on the samples.

The details recovered by Rabe were also studied by the German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing under the leadership of professor Dietmar Klingbeil. The institute concluded as a result of tests conducted with various types of explosives that an explosion would change the microstructure of the entire cross section of the metal plate used in the ferry visor. However, the institute only discovered damages within the depth of 0.4 millimeters below the surface of the plate, and thus ruled out the possibility of an explosion."

With regard to repairs you did of course post a story about the entire bottom lock having being amateurishly cut and welded by some crewman, then cut away and replaced entirely. So it would not astonish me if there were indications of high heat having been applied to parts in the past.
 
Last edited:
Using gas torches to cut old parts away and an arc welder to add new components would certainly produce some heat.

Not forgetting that the whole of the ship was welded together.
 
If the visor fell off because nuclear waste weakened its fastenings maybe we should alert the scientists examining those sample parts before they all die of radiation poisoning.
 
Vixen said:
It is rather interesting, is it not, that whilst all the senior officers died, those actually down below - for example in the engine room - wasted no time in getting their body warmers and survival suits on.
Click to expand...

What makes it interesting? How much time should the crew have wasted?
 
Vixen said:
The issue of nuclear waste was a quote from Hikipedia not me. So you need to go back to the quote in Hikipedia and see whether the author has provided a source for his observation.
Click to expand...
You quoted Hikipedia as your source, so presumably you have checked out the citations and references already for that source. Why should it be up to others to check your sources for you?

Also, Hikipedia is a satire humour website. Why did you link to it as a source and why would you expect it to contain any useful sources or references for it's satirical content? :confused:

Why do you call it an "observation"? You assume that the author of an article on a website full of over-the-top absurd satire has based the reference on "his observation" that the bow door was compromised because nuclear material caused part of it to dissolve? :confused:
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Because that's what is required of someone who claims to be a scientist, as you have claimed.



What, specifically, are they? You mentioned work you had done in college, and you mentioned a baccalaureate in an unspecified field. That is not enough to establish you as a scientist as the term is commonly used.



You cannot demonstrate basic competence in scientific concepts. Examples were provided. I conclude therefore that you are not a scientist. Therefore claims you have made on the basis of your alleged scientific expertise, and upon no other evidence, are rejected.



My interest is in testing your claims. Insofar as your claims are founded only upon your say-so, the basis of that alleged knowledge is relevant. You proposed to say what scientists meant when they used certain formulaic phrases. It doesn't comport with my experience, so it bears further elaboration. You habitually claim expertise you do not have, and make arguments solely upon that basis. Therefore that is the appropriate -- in fact, the only -- avenue by which your argument can be rebutted.

It is not my fault that you make claims you either cannot or will not back up.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It is you and 'Mark Corrigan' who brought up the idea that one has to be a scientist to discuss this topic.

I have never said I had a baccalaureate. I have a bachelor of science honours degree. I am also a fully-qualified professional chartered accountant (equivalent to CPA in the US).
 
Vixen said:
I have made no claims of expertise.
Click to expand...

You claimed to be a scientist.

Also please quote the post or posts where I or JayUtah stated that one had to be a scientist to discuss this topic.

Stop attempting to run away from your claim and for once support it.

You do realise that no one is buying this right?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
There's a big difference between "You don't know what you're talking about and are clearly not a scientist" and "You're an uneducated moron".

I'm not a scientist. I don't know much about metallurgy, and what little I do know is stuff I've picked up on my own. I wouldn't dare claim to be an expert in metallurgy, and if there was a conversation which involved the finer points of the subject I would likely be lost unless it was explained to me. That doesn't mean I'm an uneducated moron.

Contrawise, if JayUtah didn't know the finer points of the Yom Kippur War (he might, I don't know, just using it as an example) in a discussion on the thing then I, as someone who DOES know a lot about it, would not consider him an uneducated moron for his lack of knowledge on the subject.

The problem with you Vixen is that you ARE claiming to be an expert on these things. You've done so repeatedly, from your attempts to discuss metallurgy, to your hamfisted attempts to discuss the KGB, all the way to your recent claim to be a scientist. The problem is not that you're an uneducated moron, the problem is you are invoking or trying to claim expertise in fields where you clearly have none. You have done this so often in the past on such a wide variety of topics that we no longer accept that you have expertise in an area just based on your say so. We want details now, and if you can provide them we may well accept that you have some measure of expertise. Provide the subject of your degree (mine was International Relations) and explain how said degree or your other works after your degree makes you a scientist and we will accept that you are a scientist.

Alternatively keep deflecting and we will, with justification, take it as a tacit admission that you aren't a scientist at all and just threw that out there to make yourself seem more important and knowledgeable than you really are.

It's ok to not know things. I don't know how to compute rocket science calculations, as my pitiful failures on Kerbal Space Program can attest to. That's no problem at all. It becomes a problem however if I then try to argue with people who DO know how to compute rocket science calculations and claim expertise and tell those who do have said expertise that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Stop telling lies, 'Mark Corrigan'. I have never claimed to be an expert in metallurgy or the KGB. I have never claimed expertise in any field to do with this topic. All in your mind.
 
Vixen said:
Tell that to Jay Utah and 'Mark Corrigan' as they are the ones who keep insisting it is relevant.
Click to expand...

Because you brought it up as an attempt to claim some level of credibility.

Stop trying to pretend that your unambiguous statement that you are a scientist was anything other than an attempt to claim expertise to silence dissent.

Who do you think is buying your pathetic little games here Vixen?
 
JesseCuster said:
Earlier in this thread you claimed to have studied physics for 5 years. Then when you were asked for further details, it turned out that you'd studied physics at school.

So there's a history of you embiggening rather worthless claims to sound much more impressive than they really are. You even tried to embiggen your rather silly claim about physics studies by talking about how you were teacher's pet and how the teacher called you "the creme de la creme".

Hey, I've got 5 years of physics studies by the same logic. I'd never be so self-deluded to make the claim that I "studied physics for 5 years" because people are going to rightly think that means studies at third level, not the kind of school level physics I've done.

So it's perfectly reasonable, given your previous claims to scientific authority, to ask you what exactly you mean by "I am a scientist".
Click to expand...

Wrong, JesseCuster. Jay Utah insisted in knowing what level of physics I had studied and thus, I honestly and straightforwardly told him the truth: that I studied it as a topic on its own at grammar school. He insisted on bringing up the subject, not me. In addition, it is untrue that 'everybody studies it' as the majority of pupils study it as a joint science, or 'double science' and not as a discrete topic in its own right. So stop inventing things in your head.

Jay Utah kept bringing up the subject of whether I had any background in physics, not me. Clear now?
 
Vixen said:
Stop telling lies, 'Mark Corrigan'. I have never claimed to be an expert in metallurgy or the KGB. I have never claimed expertise in any field to do with this topic. All in your mind.
Click to expand...

Again, you do realise that people can just go back and read old posts in the thread right? I know you do because at some point you started deleting your own posts in a transparent attempt to hide what you had stated.

You have claimed knowledge of both metallurgy and the KGB in this thread. You've made statements that certain things match the KGB/replacement services actions and you therefore suspect that they might be involved. You've made claims regarding the KGB leadership which were utterly, utterly out of touch with reality.

If you didn't want your interlocutors to scrutinise your statements on subjects and demand that you show competence in them, stop making pronouncements about things to indicate knowledge in them!

Again to go back to my deliberately absurd hypothetical, imagine if I started a thread on Finland and said that something or other was suspicious because the Finns spoke Flemish. I imagine that you would rightly criticise my evident lack of knowledge in the Finnish people, and if I had made this as a pronouncement criticise my attempting to claim expert knowledge in Finland when I clearly had none.

No one is saying that you have to be a polymath to deal with this subject, but when you MAKE A CLAIM, you should have the relevant knowledge to be able to SUPPORT THAT CLAIM. This isn't difficult, nor is it especially onerous.

Stop attempting to gaslight people. Stop throwing hissy fits because your bluff has been called. Stop trying to use emotional arguments to try to get out of the corner you have painted yourself into. Answer the damn questions.
 
Vixen said:
Wrong, JesseCuster. Jay Utah insisted in knowing what level of physics I had studied and thus, I honestly and straightforwardly told him the truth: that I studied it as a topic on its own at grammar school. He insisted on bringing up the subject, not me. In addition, it is untrue that 'everybody studies it' as the majority of pupils study it as a joint science, or 'double science' and not as a discrete topic in its own right. So stop inventing things in your head.

Jay Utah kept bringing up the subject of whether I had any background in physics, not me. Clear now?
Click to expand...
Because you were making pronouncements that you understood the physics behind the topic at hand, thus asking what relevant expertise you have is perfectly reasonable. Stop trying to pretend this is mean and unfair.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Can you quote the part where she uses the word "detonation"?



The person who's being criticised for lacking objectivity is you.

I note that you chose not to mention the part of the atricle imediately after the bit where Westermann says she does not want to speculate further;

"Strandberg added that in order to draw correct conclusions from the damages caused by heat, information is needed about if and how many times the bow area of the ferry, which was completed in Germany in 1980, has been repaired.

"If electric or gas-based heating had to be used to restore or repair its shape, this data is essential for drawing correct conclusions," he said.

Westermann said that her study only concerned a small detail of the entire bow visor. Two years ago, the scientist studied samples brought from the MS Estonia wreck by German journalist Jutta Rabe in 2000 but could not draw any conclusions based on the samples.

The details recovered by Rabe were also studied by the German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing under the leadership of professor Dietmar Klingbeil. The institute concluded as a result of tests conducted with various types of explosives that an explosion would change the microstructure of the entire cross section of the metal plate used in the ferry visor. However, the institute only discovered damages within the depth of 0.4 millimeters below the surface of the plate, and thus ruled out the possibility of an explosion."

With regard to repairs you did of course post a story about the entire bottom lock having being amateurishly cut and welded by some crewman, then cut away and replaced entirely. So it would not astonish me if there were indications of high heat having been applied to parts in the past.
Click to expand...


I didn't mention the stuff that is old stuff as they were already dealt with int his thread, for example, Helsinki Uni not having recorded any seismic event on that night and all the other historical stuff such as the details of the accident and how many victims, as we are already familiar with the background.

We also already discussed in great detail in this thread Brian Braidwood's findings and he criticisms of the BAM institute, together with shot blasting, etcetera, etcetera.

In this current affairs topic I was relating the lastest news, which is that Ida Westermann the day before yesterday confirmed the deformations she could see microscopically indicated that caused by temperatures of 1200°C or more and that it was unlikely to have been caused by mechanical knocks on the bulbous bow area as it supposedly banged against the waves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom