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

[LondonJohn]

My question was a rhetorical one to help enable GlennB consider how misconceived his view is that the heat of a mig welder of 6K° is equivalent to heating up steel to the same temperature.

It didn't "help" him one iota. Because it was fundamentally scientifically illiterate, and all kinds of wrong.

(And ironically - once again - we have a situation where you're announcing that someone's understanding of science is "misconceived", when in fact it's your understanding of science that is bereft - and with it, your laughably inept attempts to "correct" people)

 

[LondonJohn]

This is something you can look up for yourself on google.

smh

 

[Andy_Ross]

Whoa. Are you seriously claiming that a home DIY welding kit will lead to the same metal deformations as a detonation would?

Who is talking about a home welding kit?

Shipyards do not use home welding kits.

No one is talking about welding and deformation that looks like a 'detonation' the parts deformed and failed because they were over stressed.

Welding is only being discussed because of your claim that any signs of heat on the parts were due to a 'detonation'

 

[The Man]

"It depends". "Depending on". Without using the term 'depends' are you claiming a mig welding kit will achieve the same deformation on metal as a detonation?

Nope. Your questions were about crystalline micro structure in metals as it relates to welding. Specifically, if they could be caused by such and they can, among other things.

Are you saying the three laboratories Brian Braidwood sent his samples to were all lying when they said the deformation noted were indicative of a possible detonation of some force?

Nope. Such micro-crystalline structures are also indicative of the part having been welded and then ripped apart by simply non-detonation mechanical forces. Did those three laboratories Brian Braidwood sent his samples to conclude that those micro crystalline features must have been only the result of a "detonation of some force"?

 

[Vixen]

For it to be the same as deliberately sinking the Estonia the nerve agent would have to have been deliberately released over the city.

The original conversation was to do with the suggestion that 'Russia was sending a message to Sweden about Sweden smuggling its state secrets, after having warned the western agencies twice'. Axxman said why didn't they just load a truck with explosives and I opined that the Russians didn't operate like that, but were stealthy and precise. So when it sent two agents to Salisbury to bump off the defected ex-KGB agent, now working for M15/6 it didn't kust shoot him or stab him, they planned to leave a dab of Novochik on his door handle. Russia has never admitted it but it sent a clear message to all ex-spies turned counterspies a strong message. Let's face it no sovereign state likes a double agent, just look at Blunt and Philby.

The pair in Salisbury were obviously reckless as they left a perfume bottle in the street with enough Novochik in it to kill 5,000 people. Could have been picked up by kids or the bottle smashed. I am sure the police/politicians were exaggerating when it was reported in the press that up to 250K people were put at risk. However, it is nonsense to say Russia was not 'sending a message' not only to defected spies bit also to the sovereign nation giving them safe harbour.

 

[Vixen]

It wasn't 'treated in a lab' It was welded in a shipyard to melting point which is far higher than 700 degrees.

We are not talking about a freshly gleaming brand spanking new manufactured goods, i.e., the ship when built. We are talking about testing same after fourteen years service as to whether there had been a detonation applied to it. If the forensic metallurgy labs said it showed these signs, then what on earth does a home welding kit from B&Q have to do with it?

 

[LondonJohn]

The fact that the Estonia landed near a moraine clay bed rock doesn't mean the rocks nearby caused the breach in the hull. However, IMV it is good they are investigating it at last.

It wasn't the cause of the sinking - the position of the split in the hull (above the waterline, and along the side of the ship) and the fact that it matches with the rock outcrop on top of which the ship obviously landed when it sank, rule it out as anything to do with the sinking.

The thing is though: all of this information was in the public domain many weeks ago, and indeed many people (including me) have explicitly referred to it - and the inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it - within this very ISF thread. Yet you, even though you had just as much access to all this info as the rest of us, simply refused to attach any credence whatsoever to this narrative. In fact more than that, you continually attacked this narrative, insisting instead that the starboard hull damage was evidence of malevolent happenings at the surface which may have caused the sinking.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We are not talking about a freshly gleaming brand spanking new manufactured goods, i.e., the ship when built. We are talking about testing same after fourteen years service as to whether there had been a detonation applied to it. If the forensic metallurgy labs said it showed these signs, then what on earth does a home welding kit from B&Q have to do with it?

Why do you keep going on about home welding kits?

Changes in the metal from the cutting and welding of the parts would still be there when the parts failed though being over stressed.

All we are talking about is the evidence for exposure to heat.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. Your questions were about crystalline micro structure in metals as it relates to welding. Specifically, if they could be caused by such and they can, among other things.




Nope. Such micro-crystalline structures are also indicative of the part having been welded and then ripped apart by simply non-detonation mechanical forces. Did those three laboratories Brian Braidwood sent his samples to conclude that those micro crystalline features must have been only the result of a "detonation of some force"?

On the starboard side of the bow bulkhead was a 2m x 0.6m hole with a petal-shaped deformation which is often the sign of a detonation. On the port side was a linear damage pattern. Metal samples were taken at the point of the 2m x 0.6m hole, which Braidwood sent to three independent laboratories for examination and they tested positive for an 'explosive force', as they showed a structural damage which was consistent with a force above 1,000 metres per second, which is classed as an explosion; above 5,000m/s is classed as damage caused by a military explosion. The Estonia samples were in the 3,000 to 5,000 m/s range.

Obviously no science lab will say 'only' but just what is most probable.

 

[JayUtah]

Obviously no science lab will say 'only' but just what is most probable.

No. They will say what it is consistent with. An estimate of probability among various possible causes requires other evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

OK. Let's start again. A poster enquired why would Sweden want to cover up the Estonia 'accident' if it was carried out by Russia.

Imagine Person A runs a coach company and he or she smuggles dangerous goods belonging to Person B on a passenger coach on requestor an order from Person C. Person B exacts revenge when Person A refuses to desist and innocent passengers get hurt. Your loved one is one of those passengers and you want to sue. Do you consider Person B 100% liable or is Person A also vicariously liable?

Substitute 'Sweden' for Person A, 'Russia' for Person B and USA/CIA/KSI/MI6 for Person C.

Clear now?

Well if this is your scenario, and if (as you imply here) this is all predicated on Sweden trying to protect itself against getting sued....

...then guess what? Sweden, in this context*, would have no concerns whatsoever related to liability. The fact that (again, strictly in this context fantasy) Sweden "provoked" Russia into its act of state-sponsored killing would be neither here nor there. The only entity with legal liability would be Russia.


* I mean, this is all arrant nonsense: the Russians didn't engineer the sinking of the Estonia in order to "send a message" to Sweden (and your assortment of foreign intelligence services). The Russians had nothing whatsoever to do with the sinking. Nor did Sweden. Nor did any of the intelligence agencies you've roped into your fantasy. There are safe conclusions to be drawn from (credible, reliable) evidence: this ship sank because, and only because, the bow opening to the vehicle deck was hopelessly compromised owing to the stress-induced failure of various critical components.

 

[LondonJohn]

We are not talking about a freshly gleaming brand spanking new manufactured goods, i.e., the ship when built. We are talking about testing same after fourteen years service as to whether there had been a detonation applied to it. If the forensic metallurgy labs said it showed these signs, then what on earth does a home welding kit from B&Q have to do with it?

Do you think that microscopic crystalline changes in steel caused by heating.... somehow "clear up" progressively in the years following that heat exposure?

(From your post above, it appears that this is what you do think.....

 

[Mojo]

Sweden (Person A) is not Russia (Person B).

Sweden and Russia are totally independent of each other.

What did you mean by, “What if Person A happens to be your own government”?

Did you mean that the smugglers were the Russians, or that the saboteurs were the Swedes?

 

[Vixen]

It wasn't the cause of the sinking - the position of the split in the hull (above the waterline, and along the side of the ship) and the fact that it matches with the rock outcrop on top of which the ship obviously landed when it sank, rule it out as anything to do with the sinking.

The thing is though: all of this information was in the public domain many weeks ago, and indeed many people (including me) have explicitly referred to it - and the inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it - within this very ISF thread. Yet you, even though you had just as much access to all this info as the rest of us, simply refused to attach any credence whatsoever to this narrative. In fact more than that, you continually attacked this narrative, insisting instead that the starboard hull damage was evidence of malevolent happenings at the surface which may have caused the sinking.

It is absolute nonsense to say that because there is a rock nearby that it must have been the cause of the damage, when nobody has even done any calculations as of yet.

Breaches in the hull occur where they are expected to be found. For example, the SS Park Victory that hit rocks in 1947 in a severe blizzard, was found to have a breach exactly at the boiler room portion where it also hit a rock and you can see the curled metal.

With the Wilhelm Gustloff a Kraft durch Freude cruise ship being used to evacuate East Prussian Germans away from Danzig (now Gdansk), and loaded with about 10,000 fleeing refuges, wounded soldiers and nurses, it was sunk by a Soviet submarine the S-13 captained by Marinesco and torpedoed in three places: the bow, the stern and the auxiliary nurisng quarters ( a fourth failed to launch). The Wilhelm Gustloff was on the Zwangweg 58 ('Fairway 58') rather than running close to the shore and with just a small escort ship. It sank at just six fathoms or ten metres near the Stolpe Bank. Thus, we have a ship a similar length to the Estonia at 166m sinking in quite shallow water and with a rocky seabed.

When examined, the Wilhelm Gustloff was exactly damaged in the three places we expected to see it damaged.

The breach on the hull of the Estonia hasn't happened by chance. However, obviously, we want to rule this out.

 

[LondonJohn]

The original conversation was to do with the suggestion that 'Russia was sending a message to Sweden about Sweden smuggling its state secrets, after having warned the western agencies twice'. Axxman said why didn't they just load a truck with explosives and I opined that the Russians didn't operate like that, but were stealthy and precise. So when it sent two agents to Salisbury to bump off the defected ex-KGB agent, now working for M15/6 it didn't kust shoot him or stab him, they planned to leave a dab of Novochik on his door handle. Russia has never admitted it but it sent a clear message to all ex-spies turned counterspies a strong message. Let's face it no sovereign state likes a double agent, just look at Blunt and Philby.

The pair in Salisbury were obviously reckless as they left a perfume bottle in the street with enough Novochik in it to kill 5,000 people. Could have been picked up by kids or the bottle smashed. I am sure the police/politicians were exaggerating when it was reported in the press that up to 250K people were put at risk. However, it is nonsense to say Russia was not 'sending a message' not only to defected spies bit also to the sovereign nation giving them safe harbour.

They didn't "leave a perfume bottle in the street". They threw it away in a garbage bin behind a row of shops. A man with a self-professed habit of rummaging through public garbage bins found the bottle in the bin. He gave it (since it ostensibly contained women's perfume) to a woman he knew. She sprayed it on her wrists, and consequently fatally poisoned herself.


Really, can you not get anything right?

 

[Kid Eager]

On the starboard side of the bow bulkhead was a 2m x 0.6m hole with a petal-shaped deformation which is often the sign of a detonation. On the port side was a linear damage pattern. Metal samples were taken at the point of the 2m x 0.6m hole, which Braidwood sent to three independent laboratories for examination and they tested positive for an 'explosive force', as they showed a structural damage which was consistent with a force above 1,000 metres per second, which is classed as an explosion; above 5,000m/s is classed as damage caused by a military explosion. The Estonia samples were in the 3,000 to 5,000 m/s range.

Obviously no science lab will say 'only' but just what is most probable.

Specific reference for that exact claim?

 

[LondonJohn]

It is absolute nonsense to say that because there is a rock nearby that it must have been the cause of the damage, when nobody has even done any calculations as of yet.

Breaches in the hull occur where they are expected to be found. For example, the SS Park Victory that hit rocks in 1947 in a severe blizzard, was found to have a breach exactly at the boiler room portion where it also hit a rock and you can see the curled metal.

With the Wilhelm Gustloff a Kraft durch Freude cruise ship being used to evacuate East Prussian Germans away from Danzig (now Gdansk), and loaded with about 10,000 fleeing refuges, wounded soldiers and nurses, it was sunk by a Soviet submarine the S-13 captained by Marinesco and torpedoed in three places: the bow, the stern and the auxiliary nurisng quarters ( a fourth failed to launch). The Wilhelm Gustloff was on the Zwangweg 58 ('Fairway 58') rather than running close to the shore and with just a small escort ship. It sank at just six fathoms or ten metres near the Stolpe Bank. Thus, we have a ship a similar length to the Estonia at 166m sinking in quite shallow water and with a rocky seabed.

When examined, the Wilhelm Gustloff was exactly damaged in the three places we expected to see it damaged.

The breach on the hull of the Estonia hasn't happened by chance. However, obviously, we want to rule this out.

Most of this is stultifyingly irrelevant to any consideration of the damage to the Estonia's hull.

And you don't seem to realise that "we" have already ruled it (the damage to the hull) out as a contributor to the sinking. Owing to a large number of factors. Which have been set out in this thread many, many times by now.

 

[Vixen]

What did you mean by, “What if Person A happens to be your own government”?

Did you mean that the smugglers were the Russians, or that the saboteurs were the Swedes?

You know perfectly well it was Sweden doing the smuggling (and as confirmed by the rikstag in 2005). If the ship was sabotaged by the Russians, who secrets and materiel were being stolen, and it had warned Sweden twice (and as revealed some six years before Sweden admitted smuggling same) then the accident was likely labelled 'classified' to save the face of Sweden, seeing that it did use public passenger transport to carry dangerous armaments. The presumed sabotage resulted in the deaths of >500 Swedes.

C_S said why not just grab Person A the driver, but what if Person A is yoru own government. Where do you turn to for the truth if your government has now classified it as 'top secret'?

 

[JayUtah]

It is absolute nonsense to say that because there is a rock nearby that it must have been the cause of the damage, when nobody has even done any calculations as of yet.

It's far less nonsensical to say that than to postulate, say, submarines. You have no problem with entirely speculative causes when they mean a conspiracy. You have a problem with evident causes if they don't.

Breaches in the hull occur where they are expected to be found.

You cite as examples ships that were damaged on the surface from causes that were otherwise evident. No one saw Estonia hit the bottom, so no one can say where damage was expected from seabed impact. But it can be reasonably inferred from where it currently lies.

 

[Vixen]

Specific reference for that exact claim?

Braidwood, as quoted by author Drew Wilson.