• 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.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Look. The JAIC report concluded the root cause of the disaster was a design fault in the bow visors locks and structure. It presented a sequence of events that held that the Atlantic lock was first to fail, leading to a sequential failure of the side locks.

What Hoffmeister was tasked to do was to look at these exact same nuts and bolts to see what conclusions he came to about the order of play. Rightly IMV - as the Atlantic lock is merely an accessory and the bulk of the tension is borne by the side locks - he found that it was likely the starboard side lock would have failed first, then the port lock and then the Atlantic lock.

This is important.

I am sure the thought of testing for explosives is terribly more exciting that testing for common or seawater rust but it is extremely compelling that it does not agree with the JAIC.
Click to expand...

It was not 'merely an accessory' Where has anyone but you said this?
Why is it important that he thought a different lock may have failed first?

Why do you keep saying 'nuts and bolts' do you think he just looked at nuts and bolts and not the rest of the locking mechanisms?

He would not be 'testing for explosives' He would be examining the parts in very fine detail and could not fail to see any damage.

What does not agree with JAIC?
 
Vixen said:
Answer the very simple question: how long did it float on its superstructure?
Click to expand...

It did not 'float on it's superstructure' It floated on the hull and superstructure because both were sealed.
It was a capsize test not a sinking test.
 
Vixen said:
The superstructure of the Estonia comprises Decks 2 - 8 and the bridge.

We know ships float on their hull, or even upside down but how does it float on its side?
Click to expand...

It floats on it's side until the hull fills with enough water to make it sink.
 
JayUtah said:
You say this from your vast experience in forensic engineering? Again, what part of "I've done this for living for 30 years" escapes you?



She was asked to perform a full metallurgical examination, which she did. She was looking for all evidence that might be discovered by such methods, not looking for specific causes and effects that would dictate perhaps different methods. She did not find evidence of explosives, and declined to opine as much when prompted. She found evidence of high temperatures consistent with welding.

Evidence of explosives is a naked-eye determination in part, and a microscopic evaluation in part. The microscopic evaluation provides additional information about explosive effects, but the determination simply that explosives were used is the naked-eye part.

You're wrongly assuming that the analysis Westermann was asked to do and the analysis that Hoffmeister was asked to do are directly comparable. They are not, inasmuch as they had different goals and necessarily used different methods. That's because you aren't properly qualified in this field and have no business trying to say how it was or should have been practiced, or trying to interpret its findings.



Hoffmeister was looking for anything that would affect the strength of the materials whose failure he was asked to analyze using finite-element methods. Corrosion makes that portion of a component weaker, and that must be accounted for in the parameters of the finite-element model. Fractures make that portion of a component weaker, and that must be accounted for in the parameters of the finite-element model. Anything that affects the material strength locally must be considered. And that includes effects of explosives. Had evidence of explosives been present, he would have needed to note it and account for it in his model. He didn't find any, and so didn't need to account for it. The omission is dispositive.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all this time.
 
Vixen said:
No, the superstructure is NOT water tight, unlike the watertight compartments in the hull. However, OTOH a vessel doesn't float on the superstructure, either. It is not designed to.
Click to expand...
"Float on its superstructure" seems to be grossly ignorant of what it means to float. A ship will float in any orientation that the laws of stability dictate, and will remain floating for as long as the laws of buoyancy dictate. There aren't any "magic" portions of a ship that have different buoyancy characteristics. As you can expect, we don't consider you an expert in ship design.
 
Vixen said:
Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all this time.
Click to expand...
You're the one trying to compare them. You're claiming Hoffmeister should have used the same procedure as Westermann in order to find evidence of explosives, and since he didn't, he wouldn't have found them. You're wrong on both counts. Westermann's techniques are not required to see evidence of explosives. Hoffmeister's inspection was proper and sufficient to discover evidence of explosives. He didn't find any.
 
JayUtah said:
I addressed this already.



Then you should have responded to where I addressed it.



No, you don't get to flee back to the bailey of "the JAIC is still somehow wrong anyway." You were asked for evidence that MS Estonia was sabotaged. You cited the Hoffmeister findings in conjunction with the Braidwood claims pertaining to the alleged use of explosives.

There is nothing in the Hoffmeister report that provides evidence for explosives. Since Hoffmeister omitted from his description of strength-altering factors any mention of explosive effects, the omission is not merely an accident or the product of limited "remit."

You were asked to provide evidence of sabotage. Either provide it or concede the point.
Click to expand...

Don't twist my words. We were discussing the Atlantic lock, when a poster came along and sneered, 'How does that prove sabotage?' apropos of nothing. Don't put someone else's words in my mouth.

Please keep to the context, which is the bow visor locks.

Are you claiming to be Hoffmeister's superior and deign to advise him his report is defective?
 
JayUtah said:
And you say this from your vast experience in the use of explosives in engineered systems and materials? Now you're just imagining evidence, not providing it.
Click to expand...

"Brian Braidwood, a diving and blasting expert who worked for the British Navy and was advised by the research team, considers the holes to be caused by the explosions, and the same view is shared by Michael Fellows, a blasting expert with a military background . In August 2000, the team of the German journalist Jutta Rabe photographed and took metal samples from one such hole in the hull, defying the diving ban imposed on the wreck. Rabe says she has received confirmation from several research laboratories that the explosives remain in the samples." - HS
 
Vixen said:
Not necessarily. If the explosives, which Braidwood explains can be a small amount (1kg) are placed behind the plate on the for'ard bulkhead that takes the brunt of the bang whilst the screws and bolts are loosened. I dare say, were you to examine these hardware materials there may well be evidence of key explosion deformation.
Click to expand...

How would an explosive behind a bulkhead loosen 'screws and bolts'?
How would that blow the bow off?

Where does Braidwood say a small amount (1kg) placed behind the plate on the 'for'ard' bulkhead that takes the brunt of the bang will loosen the screws an bolts?

What is a 'for'ard'?
 
Vixen said:
I am sure the thought of testing for explosives is terribly more exciting that testing for common or seawater rust but it is extremely compelling that it does not agree with the JAIC.
Click to expand...
That is telling. Could it be that your motivation is merely the thrill of it all? Not the truth?
 
Vixen said:
Whilst Tammes did say the list was 30°, by the time of getting through his Mayday call, it was probably more like 70° at that stage
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this? If it was not 30 why would he say it was?

Truth is, the only thing that stopped it from capsizing completely (turning over) is the fact that its hull was bottom heavy with water coming in via a probable breach
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this?

(and the three engineers were all in the Engine Room, Deck0 busy doing something_.
It sank stern first.
Click to expand...

What do you think engineers would be doing in an engine room?
Their jobs maybe?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It did not 'float on it's superstructure' It floated on the hull and superstructure because both were sealed.
It was a capsize test not a sinking test.
Click to expand...

But you said:


"It did not 'float on it's superstructure' It was still flooding in the hull.
After it capsized it took just 9 minutes to sink. How is that 'floating' on anything."


How do you reconcile your two statements?
 
Vixen said:
So you concur a ship does not float on its superstructure and it is only an illusion it does before its final rapid death throes under the water?

This is like trying to extract crap from a rocking horse.
Click to expand...

You are the only one claiming a ship will 'float on it's superstructure'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom