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

[JayUtah]

Braidwood, as quoted by author Drew Wilson.

Can we read the actual lab reports?

 

[junkshop]

No we are talking about the temperature of the metal, you claimed that anything above 700 degrees would only be found in a lab.

Deformation is a separate matter.

Actually, what the Clausthal-Zellerfeld laboratory said was that 'as it [the sample provided by Braidwood] had not been treated in a laboratory to a temperature of 700 - 720 then...'.

In other words, it assumed no prior high heat treatment that would have caused the twinning deformation that was seen. It was stating its assumptions, which is quite conventional, that is all.

Vixen, please pay close attention.

1) You wrote (in post #2633) that:

To even get to temperatures above 700°C artificially you need to be in a laboratory.

2) GlennB and Captain Swoop refuted that claim, in posts #2638:

Mig welding reaches 1650°C and arc welding much higher.

#2645:

Plumbers' blowtorches burn hotter than the 700C you claimed and are entirely portable. Much more powerful/hotter devices are also portable.

And #2653:

Arc Welding produces around 6000-8000 degrees Celsius.
Oxy Acetylene gas welding produces temperatures around about 3,200 degrees Celsius.

Welding steel requires it to be heated above 1500 degrees to melt the parts or it won't work.

3) You responded (in post #2657) with the claim that you were:

quoting the Braidwood laboratory report from Clausthal-Zellerfeld,

4) Since then there has been a back-and-forth between you and various members (which I can't bs arsed to quote in full, as we all know how to scroll back), regarding the origin of the 'anything above 700 degrees would only be found in a lab' claim.

5) As I have previously stated I followed the link you gave. I read that report. That claim ('anything above 700 degrees would only be found in a lab') does not appear in that document. It only appears in your post, in which it is not presented as a quotation.

Please don't respond to this post with some blather about explosives, rogue Soviets, metallurgy, welding, or any other subjects. Please focus on these questions:

Do you accept that your claim that "To even get to temperatures above 700°C artificially you need to be in a laboratory." was wrong?

Do you accept that your claim that "To even get to temperatures above 700°C artificially you need to be in a laboratory." is a quotation from Braidwood's report for the GEG was untrue?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

This is gibberish and doesn't answer, or even address my question.


With getting you to support your arguments you mean?



I...what? What do you think the point of my analogy was? Do you even understand what an analogy is?

It wasn't to do with people who have degrees making claims about Finland, it was to do with people claiming to have relevant expertise(note: This does not mean being a expert).

You claimed you are a scientist. You have claimed that, in comparison to you or just in general people "obviously" don't know what they are talking about. Stop trying to weasel out of this. Your sematic games are laughable.
Seriously, no one is demanding to know what paper qualifications you had (We asked, which is not the same) and it certainly isn't to take the piss out of them. Your martyr complex is really going strong isn't it?

The point is that to make some of the claims you have been making shows a fundamental lack of understanding of various topics. When people ask you if you have ay relevant knowledge of say, physics, it isn't to make fun of you ut to ask why you feel that you can pontificate on matters you clearly do not understand.
Oh stop with the holier than thou attitude. It's irritating even when the person isn't a giant hypocrite but in your case it's simply ridiculous.


Which is, at least in part, your ability to analyse claims. What is the null hypothesis? I'm not going to stop asking you know, your obvious cowardice is plain to see.

Still not answered this then

 

[The Man]

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.

Exactly no science lab will say 'only' as there is no such thing as "tested positive for an 'explosive force'". I've read the report the estimates the speed you cite (force is measured in Newtons while Meters per Second are units of speed ) and again it is based simply on micro-crystalline structure in the samples, while lacking the micro fractures even they note they would expect to find. As such, they simply propose it is some other area of the damaged material (they evidently don't have) which might demonstrate that.

 

[Matthew Best]

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?

Finally, a question in this thread to which I know the correct answer!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Exactly.

Actually, the MPA provided their own English translation that made perfect sense in enclosure 4. It was whoever wrote the page Vixen linked to that mangled the syntax. Probably somebody whose name rhymes with Flanders Sporkman.

 

[Myriad]

Actually, the MPA provided their own English translation that made perfect sense in enclosure 4. It was whoever wrote the page Vixen linked to that mangled the syntax. Probably somebody whose name rhymes with Flanders Sporkman.

Regardless of who mangled the syntax, Vixen posted the claim with the mangled syntax without noticing that it was nonsensical in English. Had she attempted to understand the sciency-sounding words for herself, rather than just parroting them under the pretense of "reporting," she would have realized something was wrong. Actual reporters, even amateur ones, attempt to understand and explain rather than just copying and pasting.

 

[Mojo]

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'?

Person A is the Swedish government?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sorry, are you saying a nerve agent left in a public place didn't put people's lives at risk? That is a staggering claim.



Wiki

It's toe-curling how desperate you are to score some kind of point, even if it has to be here in a totally futile digression which you introduced. Plainly "no" is the answer to your latest straw man. It does bring to mind the observation that the conspiracist mindset is always about continuing the argument rather than approaching any conclusion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

.... So you did indeed liken Novochik* a highly toxic and dangerous nerve agent with 'a bit of poison ivy in my backyard', so who is 'dishonest and has poor reading comprehension'?





* wiki

That would be the person who either feigned failure or genuinely failed to grasp the concept of analogy. That would be you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Person A is the Swedish government?

I think this reenactment of "who's on first" is at an impasse, not because of confusion over who Person A is, but because of confusion over who "you" are in the oft-repeated question "what if Person A was your own government".

It's blundered on for so long that nobody can remember why that matters anyway.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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's a sad indicator of how this thread has proceeded that I see a phrase like "a moraine clay bed rock" and don't just pass on thinking I knew what the writer probably meant. Now I wonder if the writer has some other muddled concept in mind and is going to return to it later leading to several pages of fresh confusion.

 

[Mojo]

I think this reenactment of "who's on first" is at an impasse, not because of confusion over who Person A is, but because of confusion over who "you" are in the oft-repeated question "what if Person A was your own government".

It's blundered on for so long that nobody can remember why that matters anyway.

From the context, “you” is whoever is trying to stop the smuggling; the question "what if Person A was your own government" was a response to Captain Swoop asking, “why not just grab the person doing the carrying”, which is clearly a question about the options that the people trying to stop the smuggling had. It seems that Vixen is now saying that Person A is the Swedish government, in which case the saboteurs in this scenario would be the Swedes rather than the Russians.

 

[Vixen]

Person A is the Swedish government?

<sfx penny dropping>

 

[Vixen]

From the context, “you” is whoever is trying to stop the smuggling; the question "what if Person A was your own government" was a response to Captain Swoop asking, “why not just grab the person doing the carrying”, which is clearly a question about the options that the people trying to stop the smuggling had. It seems that Vixen is now saying that Person A is the Swedish government, in which case the saboteurs in this scenario would be the Swedes rather than the Russians.

Stop playing the fool. We were talking about the injured loved ones' relatives knowing which party to sue. It is all very well C_S saying 'grab the driver' but what if Person A (the driver being Sweden) was your own government.

Carry on Dogberry!

 

[Mojo]

<sfx penny dropping>

Who is “you” in the question, "what if Person A was your own government"?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Who is “you” in the question, "what if Person A was your own government"?

"You" appears to be a Swedish person who might sue their government for damages over the loss of a relative on the Estonia, based on the Swedish government having received smuggled stolen ex-Soviet military equipment but failing to realise that the Russians would eventually decide to destroy one consignment killing 1000 bystanders and make it look like an accident to send the unmistakable message "accidents happen".

That no Swede has so far sued is proof that something something.

 

[Mojo]

"You" appears to be a Swedish person who might sue their government for damages over the loss of a relative on the Estonia, based on the Swedish government having received smuggled stolen ex-Soviet military equipment but failing to realise that the Russians would eventually decide to destroy one consignment killing 1000 bystanders and make it look like an accident to send the unmistakable message "accidents happen".

That no Swede has so far sued is proof that something something.

Why would they want to “grab the driver”?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why would they want to “grab the driver”?

We don't know who they or the driver are yet.

If the Russians had grabbed the smugglers that would have made a kind of sense. That didn't happen.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The bottom line is that the Swedish government ought to have known that the Russians would overreact and kill a thousand bystanders, because that's what they always do. Every time an accident kills a thousand or so people, it's the Russians overreacting again and sending another clear message to somebody or other by making it look like an accident.

Obviously everyone knows this so all those Swedes who aren't suing their government have solid grounds. As solid as yoghurty moraine clay bed rock.