The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I doubt that's what he said, but I'm sure that if it is, you can provide a link to it?
 
Vixen said:
Nothing to do with subjectivity. Based solely on lab reports and numerical printouts, for example patterns in the metal, temperature need to create various deformations or material structure. 100% scientific.
Click to expand...

No. You are not competent to determine whether what has been offered as scientific evidence is reliable or credible. The problems with Braidwood's methods and conclusions have been explained to you. If you are not able or willing to engage with those, you aren't competent to have this discussion.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

You just made that up, you have no idea what any of it is supposed to mean.
 
If it's supposed to be Soviet in the 90s it would be a certainty it was Semtex
 
JayUtah said:
No. You are not competent to determine whether what has been offered as scientific evidence is reliable or credible. The problems with Braidwood's methods and conclusions have been explained to you. If you are not able or willing to engage with those, you aren't competent to have this discussion.
Click to expand...

I'd like a response to this please Vixen, since you always ignore posts like it.
 
Vixen said:
As Braidwood explains in his report, it may not be possible to identify specifically what the explosive was...
Click to expand...

Braidwood said he "immediately" identified the object as an explosives package. How could he do that if he can't identify it?

Braidwood's report blatantly reasons backwards. He has started with the conclusion that it's an explosive and is working backward speculatively from there. He says Soviet demolition equipment could be made to fit in the package he observes in the video. Well, yes, but so also could Estonian pornography.

His methods and conclusions are worthless from an investigative standpoint.

...but you can identify from forensic metallurgical examination the velocity of the explosion.
Click to expand...

Braidwood is not a metallurgist. His conclusions presuppose an explosion.
 
zooterkin said:
I doubt that's what he said, but I'm sure that if it is, you can provide a link to it?
Click to expand...

That whole paragraph is gibberish. Heat doesn't cause major deformation in metal unless there is an accompanying mechanical load. These can sometimes be dead loads or internal stresses, but those do not produce "petalling" or other large-scale effects. Heat will cause localized surface texture effects, and the nature of those effects can be used to determine the cause and intensity of the heat. That is sometimes visible in video but usually not. "Petaling" and other macro scale deformations can be consistent with explosions, but a determination of whether that was the cause depends on microscopic examination of the fracture edges. It cannot be determined from the video. The strain-rate and velocity estimates simply presuppose the desired conclusion. The logic is that if it was an explosion that caused the deformations, what would the explosion velocity work out to be? That's not evidence that the cause was an explosion.

It's garbage reasoning from start to finish. It's meant to sound sciency without actually expressing any valid science.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
I doubt that's what he said, but I'm sure that if it is, you can provide a link to it?
Click to expand...

Here you go:

Temperatures of Deformation

8. The report explains that the major part of deformation energy from any explosion will be changed into heat and produce very high temperatures in the immediate vicinity of the explosion. In the case of high explosives, the temperatures would be consistent with the figure of 700 degrees C quoted in this report.

Velocities of Detonation and Subsequent Deformation

9. The report states that:-

"a deformation velocity between 1,000 to 10,000 metres/second must have occurred in this particular case. According to the relevant literature this range of velocities can only be achieved by detonations and/or firing guns."

The velocity of detonation or VOD of a normal high explosive is about 6,500 m/s. After allowing for possible Transmission Loss, this is consistent with the range of deformation velocities quoted in the report.

Summary of Test Results

The findings of this technical report are further evidence that the damage to the starboard forward bulkhead in the ESTONIA was caused by the detonation of a high explosive charge.
Click to expand...
Braidwood Fellows Report 1999

ETA Braidwood here is describing the Clausthal-Zellerfeld findings, one of the independent forensic metallurgy labs the samples were sent to.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Braidwood Fellows Report 1999
Click to expand...

It's 100% speculation wrapped in a few sciency-sounding tidbits. He hasn't proved an explosion caused the damage he observes. All he's done is to describe what kind of explosion would produce that damage, if you assume that damage were caused by an explosion.
 
JayUtah said:
Braidwood said he "immediately" identified the object as an explosives package. How could he do that if he can't identify it?

Braidwood's report blatantly reasons backwards. He has started with the conclusion that it's an explosive and is working backward speculatively from there. He says Soviet demolition equipment could be made to fit in the package he observes in the video. Well, yes, but so also could Estonian pornography.

His methods and conclusions are worthless from an investigative standpoint.



Braidwood is not a metallurgist. His conclusions presuppose an explosion.
Click to expand...

Have you read his report? If not, then you are simply prejudiced.
 
Vixen said:
Have you read his report? If not, then you are simply prejudiced.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's how I'm able to tell you what's wrong with it from an expert's point of view, which I have done a number of times. If you cannot address those reasons, then you have prejudicially accepted his opinions as fact. Unlike either you or Braidwood, I am trained and licensed in the sciences you two are only dabbling in.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
It's 100% speculation wrapped in a few sciency-sounding tidbits. He hasn't proved an explosion caused the damage he observes. All he's done is to describe what kind of explosion would produce that damage, if you assume that damage were caused by an explosion.
Click to expand...

Those are the findings of the Clausthal-Zellerfeld metallurgists.

Dr Dölling and Dr Neubert GmBh

'Institut für Materialprüfung und Werkstofftechnik Dr. Dölling + Dr. Neubert GmbH wurde am 19.08.2005 unter der Handelsregisternummer HRB 4127 beim Amtsgericht Braunschweig registriert.

https://www.dngmbh.de/en/

Are you seriously calling Dr Dölling and Dr Neubert frauds, together with Braidwood and Fellowes?
 
JayUtah said:
Yes. That's how I'm able to tell you what's wrong with it from an expert's point of view, which I have done a number of times. If you cannot address those reasons, then you have prejudicially accepted his opinions as fact. Unlike either you or Braidwood, I am trained and licensed in the sciences you two are only dabbling in.
Click to expand...

Really? Link me to Braidwood & Fellows' full report, including the lab reports. I don't believe you, as I don't think these are available online, other than perhaps a summary.
 
Vixen said:
Those are the findings of the Clausthal-Zellerfeld metallurgists.
Click to expand...

Speculation is speculation, and doesn't substitute for evidence no matter who makes it. The reasoning they present presupposes an explosion. It doesn't provide evidence for one.

Are you seriously calling Dr Dölling and Dr Neubert frauds, together with Braidwood and Fellowes?
Click to expand...

I'm saying their reasoning is unpersuasive for the reasons I've elaborated. Would you care to address those reasons? Just because you're impressed with their stated credentials and assume that means they can't be wrong doesn't mean the rest of us must be as crippled as you.
 
JayUtah said:
Speculation is speculation, and doesn't substitute for evidence no matter who makes it. The reasoning they present presupposes an explosion. It doesn't provide evidence for one.



I'm saying their reasoning is unpersuasive for the reasons I've elaborated. Would you care to address those reasons? Just because you're impressed with their stated credentials and assume that means they can't be wrong doesn't mean the rest of us must be as crippled as you.
Click to expand...

If you have never read the reports of the three laboratories in full, quite independently of each other then you are being irrational and unreasonable in claiming you do not agree with their objective scientific methods, expertise and findings.

I'll ask again: have you read the report in full?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom