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

[Andy_Ross]

"Tell me why my lock broke but only look for fatigue and corrosion."

 

[JayUtah]

"Brian Braidwood, a diving and blasting expert..."

I accept Braidwood as an expert in diving and explosives. I do not accept you as an an expert in either.

Rabe says she has received confirmation from several research laboratories that the explosives remain in the samples." - HS

I do not accept Rabe as an expert in explosives. But if you can provide the original laboratory reports, I will be happy to review them for the thread. How is it that Westermann found no such evidence?

You posited a scenario involving the placement of explosives such that no residue or physical effects would be found on any of the examined pieces, yet it would have caused the ship to sink. I want to know why we should trust you to have done this with anything more than a fertile imagination unfettered by knowledge.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't twist my words.

Your words aren't being twisted. You've spent the last few pages arguing that Hoffmeister's report cannot be considered preclusive evidence against the presence of explosives. This is because you raised the issue in connection with Braidwood's claim. Now that your incompetence in forensic engineering is being trotted out for all to see, you're trying to change the subject.

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.

I'm not talking about what someone else did. I asked you for evidence of sabotage. The insinuation on the table was that others had concluded or suggested sabotage, not just you. You pointed me to the Hoffmeister report and to nothing else. When I pointed out that Hoffmeister did not conclude it was sabotage, you apparently forgot the point and agreed that Hoffmeister did not investigate sabotage explicitly, nor did he conclude that any had occurred, despite this being ostensibly the reason you cited him. And then after that, you have tried so very hard to show that Hoffmeister would have ignored (or failed to search for) evidence of explosives had they been present. Now you're trying to rush back to the failure sequence. I already talked about that. Apparently it wasn't very interesting to you until your explosives debate started to go poorly.

Are you claiming to be Hoffmeister's superior and deign to advise him his report is defective?

I am at least Hoffmeister's peer. As such, I am perfectly qualified to comment on his methods, findings, and any deficiency therein. And peer review is common -- sometimes even required -- in our industry. Despite your huffing and puffing, I did provide my commentary when you first brought up Hoffmeister, yet for some reason you don't seem to have read it.

 

[Steve]

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.

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.

All the facts posted by Vixen are referenced and verified. Vixen herself has assured us of this.

 

[abaddon]

I accept Braidwood as an expert in diving and explosives. I do not accept you as an an expert in either.



I do not accept Rabe as an expert in explosives. But if you can provide the original laboratory reports, I will be happy to review them for the thread. How is it that Westermann found no such evidence?

You posited a scenario involving the placement of explosives such that no residue or physical effects would be found on any of the examined pieces, yet it would have caused the ship to sink. I want to know why we should trust you to have done this with anything more than a fertile imagination unfettered by knowledge.

Apparently, 5 years of physics.

Back in the day, from the age of twelve to seventeen, I studied physics. I would not claim that as any expertise in physics, but some, it seems, would. When I rocked into uni, it was apparent that I knew nothing. Shock to the system, I knew, But my point is that by the time I was 17 I had five years of physics education if one wishes to paint it in that way. But that would be a dishonest way for me or anyone to paint it because OMG when one gets into the reality one finds how much you don't know. Nevertheless, at age 17, I could honestly claim to have had five years of physics under my belt.

How odd. It's marketing. This is not the first time that a claim has been made to imaginary expertise. That's how religions happen.

 

[JayUtah]

When I rocked into uni, it was apparent that I knew nothing.

Physics is taught entirely differently at the college level, and then entirely differently altogether again for physics majors. That said, the physics underlying the topics we're discussing here can be understood well enough using pre-college physics. Here it's not the case that 5 years of physics was insufficient. It's the case that no appreciable portion of that 5 years of pre-college physics seems to have persisted into the latter days.

 

[JayUtah]

All the facts posted by Vixen are referenced and verified. Vixen herself has assured us of this.

Yes, she has. I missed the part where explosively "loosening the bolts" of a welded construction has any meaning.

 

[abaddon]

Physics is taught entirely differently at the college level, and then entirely differently altogether again for physics majors. That said, the physics underlying the topics we're discussing here can be understood well enough using pre-college physics. Here it's not the case that 5 years of physics was insufficient. It's the case that no appreciable portion of that 5 years of pre-college physics seems to have persisted into the latter days.

Well, my question is unanswered so far. Why do most ships sink by the bow? That merely takes pragmatism at best. Call that physics if you wish. I suppose it is in the end.

The imputation that ones high school physics trumps everything is frankly irritating. I know for a fact that I have done way more than that, and I also know that you have done way more than me.

I also know that both you and I have encountered elsewhere and the weird physics that cranks make up.


I don't care that you are far better. Neither of us is stupid.

Nonetheless, the cranks will claim that we know nothing at all and have been indoctrinated into something. They can't say what.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, my question is unanswered so far. Why do most ships sink by the bow?

Already answered, they don't.

 

[Axxman300]

Thanks. What about these pictures Braidwood spotted on the Rockwater videos?

They don't resemble explosive devices. That's rope, not det-cord.

Considering the violence of the bow visor coming off, ripping the ramp open amidst stormy seas, and high winds it is doubtful they were there when the ship was on the surface. Even had they been charges, they should have been torn away and washed into the sea, or deeper into the car deck. And yet, there they are.

And this assumes the divers are complete idiots.

In short, Braidwood is wrong.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They don't resemble explosive devices. That's rope, not det-cord.

Considering the violence of the bow visor coming off, ripping the ramp open amidst stormy seas, and high winds it is doubtful they were there when the ship was on the surface. Even had they been charges, they should have been torn away and washed into the sea, or deeper into the car deck. And yet, there they are.

And this assumes the divers are complete idiots.

In short, Braidwood is wrong.

Plus if they are still there they obviously didn't work.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Never insult an expert specialist by asking him or her to have a look at your tonsils whilst they are at it.

Never insult an expert specialist by assuming that when he reports a structure exhibits stress fractures and corrosion that the only defects he is capable of recognising are stress fractures and corrosion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

What is this obsessive straw man crap about superstructure? The JAIC do not say the ship would have continued to float on its side if the upper deck windows had not failed. They say it only speeded the rate of flooding. So what point do you imagine you are making?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Nope.

Can you expand on this in any way? What is your specific disagreement with what the JAIC concluded, and please quote rather than paraphrase them.

 

[JayUtah]

Never insult an expert specialist by assuming that when he reports a structure exhibits stress fractures and corrosion that the only defects he is capable of recognising are stress fractures and corrosion.

Or that that's all a conscientious execution of his duty binds him to notice.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This is what the JAIC claim.

Then quote them claiming "a ship will float on its superstructure ".

 

[Vixen]

Your under water ninja only looked at some pictures, he never examined the holes.

Where did she receive confirmation "from several research laboratories that the explosives remain in the samples."

Did you make that up yourself?

It's all in Braidwood's report here.

 

[Vixen]

Then you haven't looked at many.

Most sinkings are caused by flooding when a sea pipe breaks and the machinery space floods.
That's one of the weak points in all ships designs, you have to have lots of holes below the waterline to allow water to be pumped in to the ship to cool the engines, generators and air conditioning, supply the fresh water makers and plumbing and also the fire main.
If a through-hull fitting or pipe fails then a lot of water can come in very quickly in to the largest space below deck.

Machinery spaces are big, flooding them removes a lot of buoyancy from a ship. It also stops the machinery which means the pumps no longer work and the flooding can't be countered.

The JAIC claimed the flooding happened from smashed windows on Deck 4, yet it never provided any proof, evidence, calculations or analysis of the type of glass these windows had, bearing in mind they have to withstand strong winds, waves, gales, hailstones, drunk passengers falling into them.

In 2002 the Swedish bods came up with a new theory, that of water ingressing the ventilation pipes. However, you saw how long it took for that type of flooding to topple Oceanos: 18 hours. Truth is, the JAIC never investigated the pipes!!!


Think about that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's all in Braidwood's report here.

Where does it mention the explosives being in the steel?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC claimed the flooding happened from smashed windows on Deck 4, yet it never provided any proof, evidence, calculations or analysis of the type of glass these windows had, bearing in mind they have to withstand strong winds, waves, gales, hailstones, drunk passengers falling into them.

In 2002 the Swedish bods came up with a new theory, that of water ingressing the ventilation pipes. However, you saw how long it took for that type of flooding to topple Oceanos: 18 hours. Truth is, the JAIC never investigated the pipes!!!


Think about that.

The windows were designed for a hip that was upright and sailing, not one heeling on to it's side in a storm. I posted a video of a windows breaking because of storm action.

Oceanos flooded through a ruptured sea pipe, not through ventilators.

there are no 'ventilation pipes' below water level, the pipes are for taking in sea water for cooling, domestic use and the fire main.

Ventilators are by their nature above the waterline and a lot larger than 'pipes'.

You don't have a clue.