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

[LondonJohn]

A false premise gives rise to one of the most common forms of logical fallacies.

Your false premise was that the atlantic lock had been thoroughly examined and that 'there was visible damage to it'. In fact I am being polite, as most people would just call it a whopper of a lie.

Tell us all exactly how/why you hold the belief that the bottom lock mechanism wasn't properly examined. Evidence please.

(And maybe do a little research into the correct meaning - and list - of logical fallacies while you're at it....)

 

[JayUtah]

A false premise gives rise to one of the most common forms of logical fallacies.

A false premise does not give rise to a formal fallacy if the underlying syllogism is of validating form. A false premise means the conclusion is unsound, not that the reasoning is fallacious.

In fact I am being polite, as most people would just call it a whopper of a lie.

Do most people agree that you speak for them?

 

[LondonJohn]

You had better let Sweden know it erred when it amended the law to enable the starboard hull hole to be investigated.

After all, you from your keyboard could have told them it was caused by rocks, with your unique and special insight that trumps any of their legal experts.

Why/where am I suggesting that Sweden "erred in law"?

Seriously: please think comments like this through before posting them.


(Oh and since it appears you failed to notice, it was not I who originated the claim that the damage to the starboard hull was caused by the original impact with an area of the seabed where there was a matching rock outcrop. Nor was it anyone on ISF. Nor was it anyone who's a conspiracy theorist. Probably best you do some research to find out who it was.)

 

[JayUtah]

You had better let Sweden know it erred when it amended the law to enable the starboard hull hole to be investigated.

Egregious straw man. None of that addresses any of the points raised. There is still value in examining in the wreck even if the damage now being inspected happened after the ship departed the surface.

After all, you from your keyboard could have told them it was caused by rocks, with your unique and special insight that trumps any of their legal experts.

It's not "unique and special insight" to note that new damage is created as wrecks shift. It's a well-known, inevitable phenomenon. You're the one relying heavily on things you apparently just know.

 

[Vixen]

Because..... it wasn't the bolt that failed. The bolt was still in one piece. It was the lugs (attached to the hull) through which the bolt passed (in order to lock down the bow visor) which had failed.

Perhaps this will help you to understand: Make an "o" shape with the thumb and index finger of your left hand. This represents a lug. Now point the index finger of your right hand. This represents a bolt.

Now pass your pointing right index finger through the hole you've created with your left hand. This represents the bolt passing through the lug, locking the bow visor down.

Now, while your right index finger is still poking through the "o" you've made with your left hand, separate your left thumb and index finger to break the "o" shape. This represents a lug breaking.

And congratulations: you've just modelled the failure mode on the Estonia's bottom lock. You'll also realise why there's effectively nothing to analyse wrt your right index finger: the linkage failed because the "o" of your left hand broke.

Once again another false premise as the lug was not of an 'o' shape but an ellipse due to earlier modifications (which the JAIC mistakenly believed was due to the accident).

You need to stop your habit of waffling improvisation and stick to the known facts.

 

[LondonJohn]

Once again another false premise as the lug was not of an 'o' shape but an ellipse due to earlier modifications (which the JAIC mistakenly believed was due to the accident).

You need to stop your habit of waffling improvisation and stick to the known facts.

LOL! So because the lugs on the ship were not precisely the same internal profile shape as the "o" formed by a thumb and index finger...... this automatically causes the comparison to break down???

My my my.


ETA: Anyhow, enough "waffling" from me for the time being: this interesting PBS documentary won't watch itself work won't do itself.

 

[JayUtah]

Look up Kurm's official report for yourself.

What experience did Kurm have in forensic engineering examination and recovery? Why is his opinion on what should be retained more informed than, say, mine?

Ask why Meyer Werft had to do a mock-up of the Atlantic lock.

And Meyer Werft's answer is?

 

[JayUtah]

Once again another false premise as the lug was not of an 'o' shape but an ellipse due to earlier modifications (which the JAIC mistakenly believed was due to the accident).

Utterly irrelevant.

You need to stop your habit of waffling improvisation and stick to the known facts.

The known facts are that the lugs failed, regardless of their shape. You need to stop your habit of ignoring the elephant to focus on the gnat.

 

[Vixen]

What experience did Kurm have in forensic engineering examination and recovery? Why is his opinion on what should be retained more informed than, say, mine?



And Meyer Werft's answer is?

He's the legal brains - he was one of the youngest chief prosecutors to take that office, whilst his team of expert engineers, police interrogators, forensics, etc -and his determination to bring the truth out, as he has seen how flawed the JAIC investigation was first-hand. You don't go on a €800,000 expedition unless you are confident you will be able to prove what you know to be true.

 

[JayUtah]

He's...

That's a roundabout way of admitting he was unqualified to do a forensic engineering investigation.

You don't go on a €800,000 expedition...

How many €800,000 expeditions have you participated in or headed up?

 

[Vixen]

Utterly irrelevant.



The known facts are that the lugs failed, regardless of their shape. You need to stop your habit if ignoring the elephant to focus on the gnat.

Lugs don't just fail on their own. Have you ever considered someone sabotaged them?

 

[JayUtah]

Lugs don't just fail on their own.

Because you say so? Because your vast experience in engineering provides the basis for you to just claim that with no further evidence?

Have you ever considered someone sabotaged them?

Yes, I considered it. The evidence doesn't support that as a credible alternative.

 

[Disbelief]

Lugs don't just fail on their own.

Ever? No lugs have ever failed on their own?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Once again another false premise as the lug was not of an 'o' shape but an ellipse due to earlier modifications (which the JAIC mistakenly believed was due to the accident).

You need to stop your habit of waffling improvisation and stick to the known facts.

I think you're inventing some "facts" there. The story you told us earlier described (unauthorised) modification to the lugs on the lock which were attached directly to the ship and not the lug on the visor. Those modifications were of course removed and the whole thing replaced by competent engineers.

The lug which was measured and found to have become oval was the one on the visor. Not the ones on the lock attached directly to the ship; those had failed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Lugs don't just fail on their own. Have you ever considered someone sabotaged them?

THey fail if they are over stressed or not correctly constructed.
We know they had work done on them previously Andrew had to hammer the bolts home.
I would put money on the welds being defective.

 

[Vixen]

I think you're inventing some "facts" there. The story you told us earlier described (unauthorised) modification to the lugs on the lock which were attached directly to the ship and not the lug on the visor. Those modifications were of course removed and the whole thing replaced by competent engineers.
The lug which was measured and found to have become oval was the one on the visor. Not the ones on the lock attached directly to the ship; those had failed.

Citation, please?

 

[Vixen]

What experience did Kurm have in forensic engineering examination and recovery? Why is his opinion on what should be retained more informed than, say, mine?



And Meyer Werft's answer is?

Their answer via their lawyer Peter Holtappels is:

"German Yard inquiry finds lock system was altered MEYER WERFT HITS BACK ON 'ESTONIA' An investigation into the loss of the Baltic ferry 'Estonia' by the German yard which built her is set to counter Swedish press claims that a weak lock was responsible for the disaster. Meyer Werft, which is due to publish its first findings early next week, will claim that safety indicators had been tampered with and that the 'Estonia' was operating on a route where she would not have been. Lawyer and former shipowner Peter Holtappels, who heads the commission, said the findings would shed "a very different light" on the tragic accident than the impression given by parts of the report of the international commission published by the Swedish media. The preliminary German report claims that the safety indicators on the bridge showing whether the bow visor was locked had been tampered with to display permanent "green". It also alleges that the sensors on the major device, the Atlantic lock, had been removed. Dr. Holtappels declined to comment further on the claims but insisted that "the ship set sail from Tallinn in an unseaworthy condition"

EFD

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Citation, please?

My apologies. I misremembered the story you posted.

EFD

In the presence of Luttunen and motorman Göran Lindström Koivisto cut off the upper part of the lugs of the Atlantic lock and took off the bushings. Thereafter he welded extended parts on the lug remains and the holes in the lugs now looked like an ellipse, the bushings did not fit any more and were left out as still the bolt would not go smoothly through the visor lug, which was extending apparently too much aft or too much forward. In any event Koivisto cut something off the inside of the visor lug, whereby Luttunen is of the opinion that it was from the forward part.
After the repairs were completed they realised at once that it was impossible and decided to contact the inspector ashore. The poor modification was inspected and about one week later Swedish speaking people came from the company von Tell AB, cut off completely all 3 lugs of the Atlantic lock and welded new ones to the A-deck with bushings inserted.
He believes also that it was then realised that there was something wrong with the hydraulic, which was adjusted. The visor lug remained - as far as he remembers - unchanged, i.e. should still be the original.
When the repairs were completed the von Tell people expressly prohibited Koivisto or anybody else on board to ever manipulate the Atlantic lock again.

That does indeed say that the visor lug was cut during the bodged attempt to repair the lock, and that Luttunen thinks that part was not changed during the proper repair.

I suppose they would need to go back to the firm which rectified the bodged repair to know for sure if that was the case. They replaced the other lugs Koivisto hacked around, so they must have considered whether or not they needed to replace the visor lug too. But I concede I misremembered the tale.

 

[JayUtah]

Their answer via their lawyer Peter Holtappels is...

An affirmative claim in the alternative on their part, requiring different evidence. That's why they mocked it up, not because of what some other investigation did. If they have a different hypothesis, it's their responsibility to collect and develop the evidence they need to support it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

My apologies. I misremembered the story you posted.



That does indeed say that the visor lug was cut during the bodged attempt to repair the lock, and that Luttunen thinks that part was not changed during the proper repair.

I suppose they would need to go back to the firm which rectified the bodged repair to know for sure if that was the case. They replaced the other lugs Koivisto hacked around, so they must have considered whether or not they needed to replace the visor lug too. But I concede I misremembered the tale.

Maybe they should have replaced it as it seems to be the welds that finally gave out.
I would hope they had their own welding suitable tested after it was complete.