The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

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

Carefully phrased to be inconclusive.

...a hole with sharp edges and metallurgical signs of having been in a high-explosives region.

Shake your head. Deny it.

I'll point out that yesterday you claimed not to be any sort of metallurgist, and today you're demanding we accept your expert judgment in that very field.

Are you saying decorated Brits who loyally served in the navy are lying?

No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
 
The submarine collision is the considered theoretical opinion of Margus Kurm...

A non-expert. But the problem is that you keep deploying mutually exclusive conspiracy theories as if they all should somehow be considered credible. That's not how investigations are done.

...and Professor Amdahl an eminent physicist and academic who modelled a 3-D cut out of the hole on the hull.

I dealt with the claims for which Amdahl was cited as the expert. I showed what was wrong with his analysis. This is something in which I am licensed and he is not. You were not competent to participate in that discussion.
 
An extensive search hasn't revealed any underwater demolition charge or limpet mine that resembles the one in the video in any way
 
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?

Brian Braidwood's report: "Background Facts; Small Explosive Charges and their Effects'. 2000

4 Any explosive device must contain some sort of timer and firing mechanism, as well as the actual explosive charge. I understand that military stores of Soviet Bloc origin, including timer/firing mechanisms, were widely available in Eastern Europe at the time of the incident. These mechanisms have a maximum delay time of not less than 24 hours and the firing time can normally be selected to the nearest minute, or at worst within five minutes, of a selected firing time.

5. The mechanism would also contain an arming pin or switch to be activated after the device was in place, thus ensuring the safety of the user. The Soviet Bloc electronic timer is about the shape and size of a packet of cigarettes, so it would have fitted quite easily into the shape and size of block being described.

Explosive charge and weight

6. The timer and firing mechanism can be surrounded by plastic explosive, moulded into a cube shape by hand, in exactly the same way as plasticene. Having allowed space for the magnet, the timer and the firing mechanism, the cube could certainly have contained one kilogram of plastic explosive and possibly as much as 2 kilograms. When referring to the possible weight of an explosive it is normal to refer to TNT equivalent. This is because effects of an explosion will not indicate exactly what type of explosive may have been used.
 
An extensive search hasn't revealed any underwater demolition charge or limpet mine that resembles the one in the video in any way

Braidwood was comparing and contrasting a device that is placed underwater outside of a ship, for example, a limpet mine, has a radically different effect from one placed inside a ship in dry air conditions.

He points out that the classic petal-shaped hole is small and consistent with an internally placed device.
 
Brian Braidwood's report: "Background Facts; Small Explosive Charges and their Effects'. 2000

I see lots of generalities and supposition.

In my experience demolition charges are not perfect cubes attached to large plates.

I just did an extensive search for any similar and found nothing.
 
On the contrary, the reputation and credentials of a source is important.

Not as a substitute for evidence.

Braidwood and Fellowes are high ranking military explosives experts.

And therefore why we expect them to be able to back up their claims with examples of other explosives packages that resemble this one.

If I say I can immediately recognizing something as a hydraulic rudder actuator, that means that I'll be able to give other examples. My ability to "immediately" recognize something, if valid, means that I've encountered many such things and can provide evidence to support my identification. Especially if the claim is that it is a common rudder actuator. "Common" means many such specimens exist and can be shown to others' satisfaction.

Braidwood can't do that, so I reject his claim. It doesn't matter what he calls himself or how eminent you think he is. If he can't provide evidence to support an evidentiary claim, it's not credible.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, the report was produced March 1999.

Got a link?

The material you just posted appears to say he thought the Soviets could have fitted a time bomb into an object the size of that block pictured in the video, and not that he recognised it as a typical example of a Soviet magnetic explosive device, as you claimed earlier today.

You appear to have embellished what Braidwood actually wrote to make it seem much more certain and much less speculative. If you're going to claim experts support your theories you might at least be straight about what they actually said and not tell us instead what you wish they had said.
 
Who uses it?

The guy who's blog you linked to won't even work with it, it's very unstable.

As Braidwood explains in his report, it may not be possible to identify specifically what the explosive was but you can identify from forensic metallurgical examination the velocity of the explosion. He says an explosion will cause deformations caused by the temperature of the heat as of 700ºC upwards in the immediate vicinity of high explosives. This is calculated as metres/second, so any metal sample showing deformations compatible with a velocity between 1,000 to 10,000 m/s indicates there must have been an explosion.
 

Back
Top Bottom