Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
No. That's not what you were doing at all. You were placing your own (bogus) extrapolation onto their conclusions (conclusions which are of hugely-questionable relevance in any case, given the various benign mechanisms that will cause metals to exhibit this sort of temperature exposure.
It was you who created the false equivalence between "high heat" and "(aka) a detonation".
As I said, if there were signs of detonation, it is just as likely caused by the Swedish Navy divers (cf Rockwater video showing what appears to be an explosive device on the bow bulkhead in one shot then 'mysteriously' vanishing in the next).
There were no signs of detonation*. And that'll be because.... there was no detonation.
* Once again, you're failing to take on board that explosive detonations in close proximity to metal surfaces will produce tell-tale physical and chemical evidence on those surfaces - evidence which goes well above & beyond mere signs of heat exposure....
Latest news is expert underwater photographer, Linus Andersson, who was on both Henrik Evertsson's and Margus Kurm's most recent expedtions to the wreck site, has announced he was wrong about there not being bedrock in the region of the damaged hull - he had expressed the opinion it was soft clay in the past - but actually there is an outcrop of hard rock.
The wreck lies 120° face down on a 30°gradient of hard rock on the north side and soft clay - of a yoghurt-type constituency several metres deep - on the south. The bow lies almost eastwards - in a southeasterly direction, hence, the starboard is towards the north.
Look. Water boils at 100°C. If you have a gas stove, then the flame you are using is anything up to 600°C in intensity. Yet it takes at least 4 - 6 minutes to boil 1 pint of water.
How long do you have to point your arc welding cutter at a piece of thick reinforced steel to get it to melt? It certainly doesn't happen instantly.
To recap, three laboratories indicated the deformation seen on the metal samples from the bulkhead bow were compatible with a detonation. A further laboratory BAM did its own tests from scratch with its own panels to see whether the same result could be obtained by alternative methods and claimed that shot blasting might also do it.
Signs of detonation:
"A general characteristic for a detonation is the destruction of the shell type build-up of the perlite. In the pictures made by SEM it is apparent that the cementite of the perlite did not coagulate, which would have indicated the influence of heat alone, but the lamellar structure was changed beyond recognition by mechanical strain. Internal cracks which are also characteristic of shocks from strain by detonations could not be proved by the topographic examinations performed.
Also the increase of hardness indicates a hardening of the material which also appears during detonations.
The results obtained do allow the conclusion that the positions most affected by the detonation was in another area of the damaged material. In the following all the examination results are outlined again, which, according to our experience, do occur when there has been a detonation:
• the appearance of parallel shear bands (Neumann bands)
• changes respectively destruction of the cementite lamellas in the perlite
• hardness increase
• plastic deformation in the micro area (wavy arrangement of the structure parts)
The characteristics, determined during the examinations, which are consistent with the effects of a detonation, allow the conclusion, that the deformation velocity in the material must also have been in the detonation range. It is not possible to state the actual speed because it depends on a number of unknown influence factors, as e.g. the extent of transmission losses. Its lower limit in the case of a detonation should be about 1000 m/sec."
Obviously we are referring to the fact the above effects won't be occurring outwith a laboratory or equivalent.
To claim 'metal fatigue', 'shot blasting' or 'mig welding' puts one in mind of the dead parrot sketch. It is refusing to accept the obvious by trying to dream up silly alternatives.
We were all quite aware that there would be 'wear and tear' due to shifting and possible geological impact. That doesn't cancel out what occurred before the vessel sunk. Getting the obvious issues out of the way, will hopefully now lead to a proper investigation of what happened, rather than the guess work we have been provided with by the JAIC.
1. Academic qualifications are just one of the ways that a claim to being scientifically literate can be shown. You've claimed to be a SCIETIST. That involves working in science in some capacity which you do not. You are however utterly scientifically illiterate.
2. Are you not the one who claimed you were a scientist because you did science modules at university? So which is it, do your module or modules at uni qualify you as a scientist or should we ignore academic qualifications?
You have less scientific literacy than my 8 year old niece. This whole thread should be humiliating for you ad yet you claim you are winning. Why is that?
Come on then, put your money where your mouth is for once. Prove me wrong. Show me how you are a scientist and explain in your own words what the null hypothesis is and how it works. Should be easy for you.
OK, here are the posts again. The second one quotes and replies to the first one, the third one quotes and responds to the second. Nothing has been changed:
That clearly implies action taken by agents of the government doing the smuggling, and that this was the reason for sinking the ship rather than grabbing the person doing the carrying.
You were previously claiming that the Russians sank the Estonia to “send a message” to the people doing the smuggling. Why would they (or any other government) need to sink a ship to send a message to themselves? If it was the Russian government that did all this, why would the Swedish government want to cover it up?
Excerpt from the Clausthal-Zellerfeld (Germany) report:
[Areas of the metal] have been heated up to 700°-720° during cracking (deformation)...As the deformation of the investigated samples has not been created in a testing laboratory, we have to proceed that the cracking of the material was induced by a detonation or some projectile."
• the appearance of parallel shear bands (Neumann bands)
• changes respectively destruction of the cementite lamellas in the perlite
• hardness increase
• plastic deformation in the micro area (wavy arrangement of the structure parts)
You were talking about action being taken to prevent “Person A” from “carrying stolen military equipment of a foreign state”. When it was suggested that this could be done without injuring or killing many innocent bystanders, you replied, “What if Person A happens to be your own government?”
Your position so far has been that the Russians sank the Estonia to “send a message”, and the Swedes covered it up. Neither of these makes any sense if it was the Russians’ “own government” that was transporting the stolen equipment.
We were all quite aware that there would be 'wear and tear' due to shifting and possible geological impact. That doesn't cancel out what occurred before the vessel sunk. Getting the obvious issues out of the way, will hopefully now lead to a proper investigation of what happened, rather than the guess work we have been provided with by the JAIC.
Still refusing to face the facts*, huh? And still apparently operating on the presumption that the official investigation and report a) was neither rigorous nor supported by evidence ("guesswork"..... sheesh), and b) was most likely part of some form of cover-up by national governments to protect state secrets. Straight out of the conspiracy-theory playbook, in other words.
(Oh, and I recall you flatly contradicting - more than once - the claim that the deformation/damage to the starboard hull was in fact caused by the initial (ie when the ship actually sank and hit the seabed) impact of the Estonia on that rock outcrop and surrounding seabed.)
* And I'm afraid it speaks very poorly to the "expertise", judgement and credibility of Andersson that he was prepared to offer a firm opinion on a matter which - demonstrably, now - was not borne out by any actual evidence. Why do you (Vixen) think that he was prepared to give such a misleading and factually-incorrect opinion as little as 9 months ago?
You were talking about action being taken to prevent “Person A” from “carrying stolen military equipment of a foreign state”. When it was suggested that this could be done without injuring or killing many innocent bystanders, you replied, “What if Person A happens to be your own government?”
Your position so far has been that the Russians sank the Estonia to “send a message”, and the Swedes covered it up. Neither of these makes any sense if it was the Russians’ “own government” that was transporting the stolen equipment.
• the appearance of parallel shear bands (Neumann bands)
• changes respectively destruction of the cementite lamellas in the perlite
• hardness increase
• plastic deformation in the micro area (wavy arrangement of the structure parts)
This is not an answer. Stop deflecting. What is the null hypothesis?
1. Academic qualifications are just one of the ways that a claim to being scientifically literate can be shown. You've claimed to be a SCIETIST. That involves working in science in some capacity which you do not. You are however utterly scientifically illiterate.
2. Are you not the one who claimed you were a scientist because you did science modules at university? So which is it, do your module or modules at uni qualify you as a scientist or should we ignore academic qualifications?
You have less scientific literacy than my 8 year old niece. This whole thread should be humiliating for you ad yet you claim you are winning. Why is that?
Come on then, put your money where your mouth is for once. Prove me wrong. Show me how you are a scientist and explain in your own words what the null hypothesis is and how it works. Should be easy for you.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
