The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

zooterkin said:
To return to this, prompted by a mention in another thread.


Re. the highlighted. This is the first post I can find on the forum that even uses the word 'hexacomposite'. Vixen, would you care to explain what it means and where Robin Braidwood said he recognised such a device?

I can find no mentions of 'hexacomposite' via google, either, apart from your posts on this forum, so it looks like something you have invented, but I'm sure you can explain.
Click to expand...

Well Vixen is a scientist. We know this because she told us so and Vixen would not lie. And scientists work in labs where achieving temperatures above 700 degrees is child's play. So 'hexacomposite' is obviously a product that she invented in her lab. She just has not had time to publish yet so the details are, as yet, known only to her. Be patient, man!
 
zooterkin said:
To return to this, prompted by a mention in another thread.


Re. the highlighted. This is the first post I can find on the forum that even uses the word 'hexacomposite'. Vixen, would you care to explain what it means and where Robin Braidwood said he recognised such a device?

I can find no mentions of 'hexacomposite' via google, either, apart from your posts on this forum, so it looks like something you have invented, but I'm sure you can explain.
Click to expand...

She made it up, the only use of the word is in her posts on this forum.

She tried to handwave and gave a link to a chemical with a similar sounding name.
I am guessing a short form of Hexanitrobenzene compounds. I can look it up for you if you like.
Click to expand...

Her link says
"HNB has the undesirable property of being moderately sensitive to light and therefore hard to utilize safely. It is not currently used in any production explosives applications"

I posted this in the other thread about the actual military explosive.


Vixen asks what the X in my post mentioning the actual stuff used is RDX

Can I ask what the 'X' signifies?
Click to expand...
My reply


RDX, Research Department eXplosive, named when it was first patented in Britain in 1921.
It's easier to say than Trimethylenetrinitramine hexolite.

All British shells and bombs have used a castable mixture of 60% RDX and 40% TNT since the late 30s. It gives around 30% more energy than plain TNT and a much 'faster' explosion (higher brisance)
Even more explosive is Torpex comprising 42% RDX, 40% TNT and 18% powdered aluminium.

RDX is the standard explosive component of 'plastic' explosive. It's a hard, white granular substance and is mixed with wax binders and plasticisers to make various grades of demolition charges. C4 being the best known.
Semtex is RDX mixed with PETN which is similar to nitroglycerin but more stable.

I still have some of my training notes somewhere, they cover safe handling and storage and the various size and effect of bursting charges for different ordnance.
__________________
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
To return to this, prompted by a mention in another thread.


Re. the highlighted. This is the first post I can find on the forum that even uses the word 'hexacomposite'. Vixen, would you care to explain what it means and where Robin Braidwood said he recognised such a device?

I can find no mentions of 'hexacomposite' via google, either, apart from your posts on this forum, so it looks like something you have invented, but I'm sure you can explain.
Click to expand...

As discussed in the past, Mr. Braidwood, who was an explosives expert for the Royal Navy for 45-years and served as Lt. Cdr. and also as a lecturer in bomb disposal and associated topics, together with being highly decorated (OBE, Medals for Gallantry), identified an object in a naval video of the underwater car ramp deck by the bow visor, as being a device roughly 100mm by 100mm and placed on what appeared to be a magnet 200mm by 200m as a typical detonating device, much used by the Soviet bloc and from his own naval experiences. He states all that is need is to mould the plastic explosive (such as Semtex) into shape, apply a timer (of up to 24 hours) so that the device doesn't go off in your presence and he recognised this item in the video. It would be grossly irresponsible for Braidwood to actually describe how to make up such a device but he says this could be a commercial one made up of a liquid or powder, such as Fixor (note the 'X')- which is the only chemical he specifically names - or ready manufactured, for example, the military. He points out here is ready availability and easy access to make such a device. In fact, he recognised the image immediately because it is very similar to what the Royal Navy use.
 
Vixen said:
As discussed in the past, Mr. Braidwood, who was an explosives expert for the Royal Navy for 45-years and served as Lt. Cdr. and also as a lecturer in bomb disposal and associated topics, together with being highly decorated (OBE, Medals for Gallantry), identified an object in a naval video of the underwater car ramp deck by the bow visor, as being a device roughly 100mm by 100mm and placed on what appeared to be a magnet 200mm by 200m as a typical detonating device, much used by the Soviet bloc and from his own naval experiences. He states all that is need is to mould the plastic explosive (such as Semtex) into shape, apply a timer (of up to 24 hours) so that the device doesn't go off in your presence and he recognised this item in the video. It would be grossly irresponsible for Braidwood to actually describe how to make up such a device but he says this could be a commercial one made up of a liquid or powder, such as Fixor (note the 'X')- which is the only chemical he specifically names - or ready manufactured, for example, the military. He points out here is ready availability and easy access to make such a device. In fact, he recognised the image immediately because it is very similar to what the Royal Navy use.
Click to expand...

He saw something small and square in a murky video.
He never inspected it or saw it for himself.
There's no way for him to tell anything about it apart from it's small and square.

What you posted doesn't explain where you got your 'hexacomposite' from.

The RN does not use 'Fixor' it's a liquid binary explosive mainly used for disrupting mines and UXBs.

Is it Fixor or is it Soviet Semtex?

It can't be Fixor it was still in development in 1998.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
He saw something small and square in a murky video.
He never inspected it or saw it for himself.
There's no way for him to tell anything about it apart from it's small and square.

What you posted doesn't explain where you got your 'hexacomposite' from.

The RN does not use 'Fixor' it's a liquid binary explosive mainly used for disrupting mines and UXBs.

Is it Fixor or is it Soviet Semtex?
Click to expand...

As stated, Braidwood names Fixor as a typical commercial brand. He didn't say it was what the navy used. They have their own manufacture.

From the image you can see it appear to be mounted on a magnet, no?


Are you saying Braidwood and Fellowes are dishonourable?

Ask yourself: how come Germany refused to sign the Estonia Treaty and how come Meyer-Werft deny the accident was anything to do with their design?
 
Vixen said:
As stated, Braidwood names Fixor as a typical commercial brand. He didn't say it was what the navy used. They have their own manufacture.

From the image you can see it appear to be mounted on a magnet, no?


Are you saying Braidwood and Fellowes are dishonourable?

Ask yourself: how come Germany refused to sign the Estonia Treaty and how come Meyer-Werft deny the accident was anything to do with their design?
Click to expand...

He was paid for an opinion on whether it's explosives.
He can't tell from that picture and posted some bollocks instead.

What explosive does the navy manufacture?

You are making things up again.
 
GlennB said:
Could be almost anything. As 'evidence' goes it's beyond pitiful.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, Braidwood and Fellows had samples of the bow visor independently inspected by three different forensic metallurgy companies, one on the USA and the other two, in Germany. Laboratories that the police themselves use.

The deformations were consistent with an explosion in two cases in the independent opinion of two of the labs, the other being non-determined.

The position was by the lock. This was a device that appears to have failed to have gone off. But if the aim was to blow off the bow visor, then it is reasonable to suppose that the saboteur - if that is who left it there - would have used more than one and, in fact, the area by the other lock shows classic petal shaped deformation: a hole with sharp edges and metallurgical signs of having been in a high-explosives region.

Shake your head. Deny it.


Are you saying decorated Brits who loyally served in the navy are lying?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Something square.
If it was supposed to have blown the bows off, why is it still there?

Does this mean you are abandoning the ramming by a submarine?
Click to expand...

The submarine collision is the considered theoretical opinion of Margus Kurm and Professor Amdahl, an eminent physicist and academic who modelled a 3-D cut out of the hole on the hull.
 
It's up to part four of the eight-part multi-million euro drama on Estonia. Verdict so far? As far as facts go, dreadful. Part 4, just released is all about the EPIRB's. Scene starts with a little boy with his dad in a fishing boat, speaking Estonian. Spots a buoy floating in the water. Dad recovers it. Dad takes it to the Estonian head of JAIC, who IIRC was Andi Msiester (replaced by Laur), but in the series, everybody has been given a fictionalised name. They meet on a road somewhere as Dad races along in his battered van along the Estonian coast line and then hurries off again.

So next we cut to the Finnish guy (the hero of the series) giving a talk on the EPIRB.

epirb buoy sarja 3 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

To cut a long story short, the Estonian head of JAIC is so outraged at the snooty Swedish head of JAIC seeming to blame everything on his fellow Estonians that after a hissy fit in the boardroom, he storms off. ('It wasn't switched on and the inspectors never noticed, or, rather, the superior Swedish inspectors did notice all sorts of failings, and even rang up headquarters in Sweden to say the ship was unfit to sail but those pesky Estonians insisted on sailing!!!)

As for the Finnish guy, handsome lead actor with boyish good looks, well, he's the clever guyy who knew from Episode 1 it was obviously the bow visor as he sits there chanting out calculations but is slapped down by the Estonian guy. Then we have the German shipmakers - the baddies! - who nefariously seem to know all about what the JAIC know.

The Estonian thinks there might have been a bomb and immediately the Swede and the Finn look at him with incredulity, 'Are you crazy?'

So the outcome of Episode 4, is that the EPIRBS's not working is all the Estonian crew's fault and the reason Andi Meister picked up his ball and went home was because they were blamed for the unseaworthiness and the EPIRB's not working.

The drama doesn't really work for me because it is conducted in FIVE different languages: Finnish, Swedish, Estonian, German and English, with subtitles coming up every time it was not Finnish (or you can select Swedish subtitles). In addition, the characters are so stereotyped, the superior Swede, the earnest serious clever Finn and the temperamental bitter Estonian.

There was one excellent rescue scene in Part 2, but the depictions, assumptions and conclusions are annoying me somewhat.
 
Vixen said:
As discussed in the past, Mr. Braidwood, who was an explosives expert for the Royal Navy for 45-years and served as Lt. Cdr. and also as a lecturer in bomb disposal and associated topics, together with being highly decorated (OBE, Medals for Gallantry), identified an object in a naval video of the underwater car ramp deck by the bow visor, as being a device roughly 100mm by 100mm and placed on what appeared to be a magnet 200mm by 200m as a typical detonating device, much used by the Soviet bloc and from his own naval experiences. He states all that is need is to mould the plastic explosive (such as Semtex) into shape, apply a timer (of up to 24 hours) so that the device doesn't go off in your presence and he recognised this item in the video. It would be grossly irresponsible for Braidwood to actually describe how to make up such a device but he says this could be a commercial one made up of a liquid or powder, such as Fixor (note the 'X')- which is the only chemical he specifically names - or ready manufactured, for example, the military. He points out here is ready availability and easy access to make such a device. In fact, he recognised the image immediately because it is very similar to what the Royal Navy use.
Click to expand...

Now how about answering the question I asked? What is 'hexacomposite'?
 
Vixen said:
From the image you can see it appear to be mounted on a magnet, no?
Click to expand...

From the image we can see what looks like a block on a plate. Could be solid steel and part of the ship. What makes you think it is a magnet? An accumulation of rusty fragments and metal debris which had stuck to it over the years might be a clue, but we rather obviously do not see that.

Again can you please tell us what your reference is for Braidwood identifying this as a Soviet type of explosive charge on a magnetic base?
 
Vixen said:
Here's the thing, Braidwood and Fellows had samples of the bow visor independently inspected by three different forensic metallurgy companies, one on the USA and the other two, in Germany. Laboratories that the police themselves use.

The deformations were consistent with an explosion in two cases in the independent opinion of two of the labs, the other being non-determined.

The position was by the lock. This was a device that appears to have failed to have gone off. But if the aim was to blow off the bow visor, then it is reasonable to suppose that the saboteur - if that is who left it there - would have used more than one and, in fact, the area by the other lock shows classic petal shaped deformation: a hole with sharp edges and metallurgical signs of having been in a high-explosives region.

Shake your head. Deny it.


Are you saying decorated Brits who loyally served in the navy are lying?
Click to expand...

Yes, probably. Was he ever on HMS Massive?

For that matter I'm a 'decorated Brit that loyally served in the Navy'. I have my Falklands medal.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Here's the thing, Braidwood and Fellows had samples of the bow visor independently inspected by three different forensic metallurgy companies, one on the USA and the other two, in Germany. Laboratories that the police themselves use.
Click to expand...

They liked the reports which agreed it looked like an explosion and rubbished the one which disagreed.
 
Vixen said:
The submarine collision is the considered theoretical opinion of Margus Kurm and Professor Amdahl, an eminent physicist and academic who modelled a 3-D cut out of the hole on the hull.
Click to expand...

So it wasn't bombs that don't appear to have exploded anyway, it was a submarine?
 
Vixen said:
In fact, he recognised the image immediately because it is very similar to what the Royal Navy use.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. While this is what he claims, no one has produce any other example of this allegedly common explosive package. Therefore I reject Braidwood's identification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom