The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
Here you go:

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.
Click to expand...

As I suspected, your summary is somewhat inaccurate, not to say garbled.

And can you point to where he mentions 'hexacomposite'?
 
Vixen said:
Braidwood says the next time he accessed the film that section had been edited out.

Presumably it has since been removed by bomb disposal divers, as Braidwood himself was.
Click to expand...

Braidwood was removed by bomb disposal divers? How bizarre.
 
Vixen said:
The full report can be read here:

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/pdf/Enclosure05.pdf

ETA: I should say, this is a later, abridged version that leaves out the data reports and tables.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read this and we discussed it at length in a previous chapter of this thread. One of the conclusions you agreed with at the time—and have since reiterated—is that you are not proficient in the relevant sciences. I am.

However, as I stated then and restate now, the problem with the report has less to do with technical findings than how those findings are interpreted in a logical framework. One does need technical competent to discover the error, but the underlying nature of the error is logical, not technical.
 
zooterkin said:
As I suspected, your summary is somewhat inaccurate, not to say garbled.

And can you point to where he mentions 'hexacomposite'?
Click to expand...

Hexacomposite is the term used by Kurt Ziegler of the Brandenburg laboaroty Briadwood submitted samples to. It was reported in the INDEPENDENT at the time.

The sinking of the Estonia – Europe's worst transport disaster since the Second World War with the loss of 852 lives – may have been caused by an explosion. Laboratory tests in Germany and the US on two pieces of metal cut from near the car ramp at the wreck's bow have revealed signs of an explosion on the ferry's hull before it sank in the Baltic in 1994, said Kurt Ziegler of the Brandenburg state laboratory.

"The results show changes to the metal similar to those seen by high detonation velocity," said Dr Ziegler. "That would be consistent with explosives such as Semtex or Hexa Composite. That kind of material will send shockwaves straight through the metal and is designed to destroy it."
Click to expand...

Speaking of which, we can see here, the dismissive attitude of the JAIC of these findings:

Independent: Estonia may have been sunk by explosion 19.12.2000 2:00 The sinking of the car ship Estonia could have been caused by an explosion, writes The Independent, a British newspaper, in its online version. Laboratory tests in Germany and the United States have shown signs of an explosion in the hull of a raft, Kurt Ziegler of the Brandenburg State Laboratory told the paper. Three laboratories examined two metal parts that were detached during dives organised by German TV journalist Jutta Rabe and American businessman Gregg Bemis in August from the front of the Estonia. Ziegler received support from British explosives expert Brian Braidwood . He claimed, according to the paper, that laboratory tests provide incontrovertible evidence that the parts have been exposed to the explosion. Braidwood has previously worked on the landing of the Meyer shipyard that built Estonia. Kari Lehtola, a member of the official Estonia Research Commission, was sceptical about the information, but said in the paper: "If it can be proved that a bomb went off on the ferry, that would be a good reason to reopen the investigation. Then, however, it would be better for the investigation to be led by the police, because then 852 murders will be investigated." HS-STT
Click to expand...

https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003934936.html

SHOCKING!!! So much for the JAIC investigating the truth of the matter. It just wanted a quiet life.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, I read this and we discussed it at length in a previous chapter of this thread. One of the conclusions you agreed with at the time—and have since reiterated—is that you are not proficient in the relevant sciences. I am.

However, as I stated then and restate now, the problem with the report has less to do with technical findings than how those findings are interpreted in a logical framework. One does need technical competent to discover the error, but the underlying nature of the error is logical, not technical.
Click to expand...

Answer me this: do you have specific qualifications in Material Science Metallurgy? A simple yes or no will suffice.
 
Vixen said:
Answer me this: do you have specific qualifications in Material Science Metallurgy? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...

No, it won't, because your question is vague. Which specific qualification do you mean? Also "Material Science Metallurgy" isn't a thing. Materials science is a subspecialty of engineering. Metallurgy is a subspecialty of materials science. As a licensed engineer, I have tested competent in both.

I've explained what's wrong with the reports you refer to. You can either address those reasons or you can't. Trying to poison the well instead is a desperate fallback.
 
I'm no metallurgist. Not much of an explosives expert outside of firecrackers and M-80s. But in this case I don't need to be. A shape charge large enough to blow off the bow visor would leave obvious damage that is instantly identifiable as such. As of now there are no signs of an explosive charge, or charges having been used on the Estonia.

The bow visor has sat in an easily accessible location since it was recovered, and it has no damage from a blast of any kind.

The bow ramp was recently raised in front of HD cameras, and there are no signs of explosives used on, or in close proximity.

I've watched three house of the original dive footage on Estonia, and the bow shows no damage from explosive charges. The bow does show signs of rippling cause by the hammering of the bow visor before it fell off the ship.

This explosives expert is wrong. Period.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
A shape charge large enough to blow off the bow visor would leave obvious damage that is instantly identifiable as such. As of now there are no signs of an explosive charge, or charges having been used on the Estonia.
Click to expand...

True; I agree. But more explanation is in order. The whole point of using shaped charges is to use a tiny bit of explosive to achieve a specific, focused effect. The bow visor is fastened to the ship in a few specific places. The proper application of shaped charges would be to fail those specific mechanisms. This is a well-developed science: modern rocketry involves dropping large chunks of your vehicle in a dependable and controlled manner. The yellow object in the video bears zero resemblance to a shaped charge.

In contrast, using a large-scale spherical or hemispherical charge would be stupid. If your goal is to detach the bow visor from the inside, that's the least effective way to do it. You'd have highly evident damage in much more of the ship.

Wasn't that what some of the experts found? No, not really. The large scale deformations are not distributed throughout the ship structure in a way that supports the hypothesis. You can truthfully say that it is "consistent" with explosives, but that's only true where it occurs. The fact that it doesn't occur in the other expected places rules that out. The microscopic evidence is also "consistent" with the high strain rates of explosive effects. But it's also consistent with fatigue. By leaving out the prosaic explanation, they lead the reader right up to the desired conclusion without actually drawing it.

And if your goal is to sink the ship via a non-shaped explosive placed inside the ship, as opposed to on the hull in the manner of a limpet mine, then putting the charge above the waterline is stupid.

This explosives expert is wrong. Period.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
 
Vixen said:
Hexacomposite is the term used by Kurt Ziegler of the Brandenburg laboaroty Briadwood submitted samples to. It was reported in the INDEPENDENT at the time.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that Braidwood submitted samples to the laboratory?

And to remind you, your original statement was:
Vixen said:
That is incorrect. Professor Ida Westermann, Head of Metallurgy at a Norwegian University found indisputable evidence that the deformation she observed in her testing of a section of the bow visor could not have been caused by the 'pressure of pounding waves' or 'the striking of the bow visor against the car ramp', as claimed by the JAIC in its conclusions, and they were only guessing, anyway.

Likewise British Naval explosives expert, Robin Braidwood did recognise a British hexacomposite explosive device, which had not gone off, when he saw it on a video.

Call them liars all you want but at least they have provided considered documentary evidence. Your claim, "No signs or evidence of explosives were found" is unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...

Nothing you've quoted supports the highlighted statement.
 
Vixen said:
Braidwood says the next time he accessed the film that section had been edited out.

Presumably it has since been removed by bomb disposal divers, as Braidwood himself was.
Click to expand...

Making stuff up again
 
Vixen said:
Hexacomposite is the term used by Kurt Ziegler of the Brandenburg laboaroty Briadwood submitted samples to. It was reported in the INDEPENDENT at the time.



Speaking of which, we can see here, the dismissive attitude of the JAIC of these findings:



https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003934936.html

SHOCKING!!! So much for the JAIC investigating the truth of the matter. It just wanted a quiet life.
Click to expand...

We still don't know what hexacomposite is supposed to be
 
zooterkin said:
Where does it say that Braidwood submitted samples to the laboratory?

And to remind you, your original statement was:


Nothing you've quoted supports the highlighted statement.
Click to expand...

Because there's no such thing.
 
I think I need to have a wod with my old shipmate Ben Liddel. He was a Clearance Diver in the RN.
His training and job was to attach demolition charges to mines on the sea bed and blow them up. After he left the navy he worked as a saturation diver in the North sea.

I'll get him to look at the 'charge' and read the report on it.
See what he thinks. I won't mention this discussion, I don't want to colour his opinion.
 
Vixen said:
Braidwood says the next time he accessed the film that section had been edited out.

Presumably it has since been removed by bomb disposal divers, as Braidwood himself was.
Click to expand...
You think a clip of video was edited out by bomb disposal divers working in their part time job as video editors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom