Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[JayUtah]

See it for what it plainly says.

What it "plainly" says in that one sentence is not what the report later goes on to tell us, and is not something an investigative body can determine. Your simplistic reading is one that we can know is wrong. And if that weren't the case, you have people familiar with this process and its language telling you that you're reading it wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

Read Braidwood's and Fellows' report and you will see they have no doubt what the laboratory results show. What they cannot do is apportion blame. That is not within their remit.

"They have no doubt"? LOLOLOLOL

So you're claiming that Braidwood and Fellows had "no doubt" that the samples they examined had been subjected to an explosive detonation?

 

[JayUtah]

Read Braidwood's and Fellows' report and you will see they have no doubt what the laboratory results show. What they cannot do is apportion blame. That is not within their remit.

I don't care what two non-scientists believe. I would like to read the lab reports myself. Unfortunately I cannot. I can only read what these authors tell me the lab results said. Since these authors are by no means objective reporters, we're at quite a distance from the actual evidence.

But from what evidence they do report, the lab results are consistent with a number of things. Your authors simply pick the thing they want to believe. That they firmly believe it doesn't suddenly make the evidence itself conclusive.

 

[LondonJohn]

No it doesn't. It states very plainly that the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure.

It doesn't qualify it as you claim.

I see. And if we are to accept your (bogus) interpretation..... tell us exactly how, and upon what basis, the JAIC determined that "the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure".


(By the way: you've used that slightly unusual phrasing "the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure" more than once now. Is this yet another phrase you've absorbed from your CT website of choice?)

 

[LondonJohn]

An official accident investigation committee has no mandatory compulsion to state that soemthign was seaowrhty or road worthy just because the owner/s are in possession of a sea/roadworthy certificate.

the whole point of an investigation is to ascertain the actual state of the vessel/vehicle as of the time of the accident. There is no compulsion that states they are not allowed to, as you and Captain Swoop keep claiming.

Again, Vixen: pray tell us all precisely how (in your world) the JAIC would have been able to determine "the actual state of the vessel as of the time of the accident". Was there an official on-board that night, who managed to survey the ship just prior to the sinking? Did the JAIC have magic equipment that was able to examine the wreck on the sea bed, and determine the level of seaworthiness of the ship prior to its sinking?

How, Vixen? How?


(The answer to that is, of course, that there's no answer. You don't know what you're talking about)

 

[Agatha]

This thread must get back on topic (which is, in case anyone has forgotten, the sinking of the MS Estonia and the investigations into that). Some drift in topic is allowed - such as analogies to aid understanding, and related matters where appropriate - but that does not mean that any and every subject about which members have previously made posts can be raised in this thread.

Stop the name-calling and the accusations of gaslighting/bad-faith posting.

If you want to discuss attacks in London or alleged railway accidents in Leeds, open threads to do so.

Concentrate on the topic, remain civil and refrain from personalising your posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[LondonJohn]

As I said, that was an example of what such a consultant would not say, as you were demanding they should.

Who the hell was "demanding" that the consultants said a certain thing? Ridiculous.

Let's make this simple, Vixen:

If Braidwood, for example, had been presented with a piece of the bow visor, and if he had noted deformation, pitting and metallurgical changes which could only have occurred if the sample had been in close proximity to an explosive detonation...

...he would, categorically, have stated something unequivocal along the lines of "in my opinion, there was an explosive detonation in close proximity to that sample"

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for civility

 

[LondonJohn]

Mistaking MV Lehti for MTV is not a sign of anything sinister.

Agreed. It's purely a sign of incompetence and slapdash "fact-checking".

(Who mentioned "sinister"?)

 

[JayUtah]

I see. And if we are to accept your (bogus) interpretation..... tell us exactly how, and upon what basis, the JAIC determined that "the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure".


(By the way: you've used that slightly unusual phrasing "the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure" more than once now. Is this yet another phrase you've absorbed from your CT website of choice?)

It's a paraphrase of section 5.2 from the JAIC report, which is fairly standard boilerplate language. The particular phrasing, of course, comes from estoniaferrydisaster.net, which is one of Vixen's principal sources. "Was seaworthy" is qualified in the very next sentence by saying there were no outstanding maintenance or repair issues that, under the rules of seaworthiness certification, would have prevented the ship from sailing, or for which a waiver might have been granted.

These are not practical determinations. They're legal determinations. With passenger-carrying vehicles, the certifications of safety come with protocols to be followed when certain defects or conditions are found, and other protocols to inspect and certify remedial action. The vehicle is not allowed to operate normally in such a condition, and if it is operated, the operator faces hefty disciplinary action even if that operation concludes without incident. A vehicle might be perfectly capable of carrying passengers successfully despite the failure. But the relevant regulatory bodies consider it unacceptable to do so, as is their responsibility. All the report is saying, in fairly standard language, is that the ship was certified to set sail. It is by no means whatsoever an expression of the ship's present state of safety in any practical sense.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No. It does not qualify its statement. It states:



See it for what it plainly says.

Which has to be read as part of the overall report
There are entire sections dedicated to the condition of the ship and it's certification.

 

[JesseCuster]

It is my belief Moik was subject to workplace problems.

Interesting choice of words. Your initial claim was that he was fired, specifically because of he said he saw Piht on TV, not that he was "subject to workplace problems." You've now made your claim rather vaguer, and you still haven't presented any evidence.

I will let you know when I find the source.

I predict that will never happen.

Without evidence, the can be safely ignored.

 

[JesseCuster]

It should be obvious that that referred to factual issues.

Yes, factual issues like Moik's firing because he said he saw Piht on TV or the Atlantic lock only being installed in order to make people feel safer.

Factual issues that you haven't provided any sources, citations or proper references for, and which you can't even remember where you got those ideas from, despite your claim earlier in the thread about how your posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced.

 

[Vixen]

"They have no doubt"? LOLOLOLOL

So you're claiming that Braidwood and Fellows had "no doubt" that the samples they examined had been subjected to an explosive detonation?

Absolutely, they had no doubt.

CONCLUSIONS
From the Clausthal-Zellerfeld report, I conclude that beyond reasonable doubt –
The massive structural deformation visible in Specimen G02 2 from
Area 3 in Sample 1 was caused by an explosion.

2. The clear indication of a very high degree of structural deformation found in Sample 2 was caused by an explosion.

3. Overall, the findings of this technical report are further evidence that there was an explosion in the ESTONIA, in the vicinity of the starboard forward bulkhead from which Sample 1 and Sample 2 were taken.

BHL Braidwood, MBIM, MIExpE DIVING AND EXPLOSIVES CONSULTANT 98 Buxton Road, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 9PS Telephone 01305-782957

 

[Vixen]

I don't care what two non-scientists believe. I would like to read the lab reports myself. Unfortunately I cannot. I can only read what these authors tell me the lab results said. Since these authors are by no means objective reporters, we're at quite a distance from the actual evidence.

But from what evidence they do report, the lab results are consistent with a number of things. Your authors simply pick the thing they want to believe. That they firmly believe it doesn't suddenly make the evidence itself conclusive.

I have the reports. They are several pages long, so cannot reproduce them here.

 

[Vixen]

I see. And if we are to accept your (bogus) interpretation..... tell us exactly how, and upon what basis, the JAIC determined that "the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure".


(By the way: you've used that slightly unusual phrasing "the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure" more than once now. Is this yet another phrase you've absorbed from your CT website of choice?)

They are 100% my words.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have the reports. They are several pages long, so cannot reproduce them here.

Link to them, or if they are published then give the correct citation, I'm sure Jay has access to PubMed or similar.

 

[Vixen]

Again, Vixen: pray tell us all precisely how (in your world) the JAIC would have been able to determine "the actual state of the vessel as of the time of the accident". Was there an official on-board that night, who managed to survey the ship just prior to the sinking? Did the JAIC have magic equipment that was able to examine the wreck on the sea bed, and determine the level of seaworthiness of the ship prior to its sinking?

How, Vixen? How?


(The answer to that is, of course, that there's no answer. You don't know what you're talking about)

It was never the JAIC's job to discover the real cause of the accident. All they were tasked with doing was bringing out a plausible report that upheld the ludicrous 'strong wave caused the bow visor to fall off due to a design fault in the bolts'.

No more, no less.


Sweden even set up a Ministry of Information to browbeat its citizens into accepting the findings.

 

[Vixen]

Who the hell was "demanding" that the consultants said a certain thing? Ridiculous.

Let's make this simple, Vixen:

If Braidwood, for example, had been presented with a piece of the bow visor, and if he had noted deformation, pitting and metallurgical changes which could only have occurred if the sample had been in close proximity to an explosive detonation...

...he would, categorically, have stated something unequivocal along the lines of "in my opinion, there was an explosive detonation in close proximity to that sample"

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to match quoted post

As I have said, Braidwood did indeed say that.

 

[Vixen]

It's a paraphrase of section 5.2 from the JAIC report, which is fairly standard boilerplate language. The particular phrasing, of course, comes from estoniaferrydisaster.net, which is one of Vixen's principal sources. "Was seaworthy" is qualified in the very next sentence by saying there were no outstanding maintenance or repair issues that, under the rules of seaworthiness certification, would have prevented the ship from sailing, or for which a waiver might have been granted.

These are not practical determinations. They're legal determinations. With passenger-carrying vehicles, the certifications of safety come with protocols to be followed when certain defects or conditions are found, and other protocols to inspect and certify remedial action. The vehicle is not allowed to operate normally in such a condition, and if it is operated, the operator faces hefty disciplinary action even if that operation concludes without incident. A vehicle might be perfectly capable of carrying passengers successfully despite the failure. But the relevant regulatory bodies consider it unacceptable to do so, as is their responsibility. All the report is saying, in fairly standard language, is that the ship was certified to set sail. It is by no means whatsoever an expression of the ship's present state of safety in any practical sense.

No, it does not come from estonia ferry disaster net. Wrong again.


The quote comes from:

https://www.multi.fi/estonia/estorap.html

 

[JesseCuster]

I have the reports. They are several pages long, so cannot reproduce them here.

So where's the proper reference for the quote above?

Your claim that your factual claims in your posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced is laughable when you hardly ever do that, and when you do, it's only after being nagged for it, regularly after you deflect by answering a different question than is being asked or link to something that doesn't contain any evidence of the thing being asked about.