The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Andy_Ross said:
I posted the same just yesterday and several times in previous chapters.
Click to expand...

Indeed it was to that I was alluding. The notion that the best way to cripple or sink a ship with minimal required ordnance and minimal risk of detection should occur to several people simultaneously indicates that Braidwood's imagination may not be all it's cracked up to be. The scenario he insinuates is bonkers.

I would choose the engine and generator through hull pipes. When they are blown machinery is actively pumping thousands of litres a minute in to the ship.
Click to expand...

For the benefit of people who don't build and operate ships, ship engines and equipment are cooled by seawater pumped into the engine spaces, circulated around the hot equipment, and then pumped back out. This is true for diesel engines (the "M" in MS Estonia) and even more so for steam engines that recover spent steam, condense it, and pump it back into the boilers (the "S" in RMS Titanic). A break in of of these circuits is more than just an instant hole in the hull. It's a feedwater pump blasting water into the wide open (i.e., relatively uncompartmentalized) engineering spaces of the ship.

Far less explosive needed than trying to blow bows off or try to blow holes in the hull plating.
Click to expand...

Correct. You don't need luggage-sized satchel charges to sink a ship if you have access to the interior. The line of reasoning for explosives is blatantly reasoned backwards. They've started with the presumption that explosives were used, and are trying to find an explosives-driven scenario that matches a cherry-picked subset of evidence. The result is not a credible scenario, but when your job is to stir up controversy you don't care.
 
If you look in to the records of ship sinkings you will find that failure of through hull fittings is one of the most common causes. They tend not to be spectacular or dramatic so rarely get mentioned.
 
Andy_Ross said:
If you look in to the records of ship sinkings you will find that failure of through hull fittings is one of the most common causes. They tend not to be spectacular or dramatic so rarely get mentioned.
Click to expand...

Which makes a small shaped charge on a feedwater pipe an attractive way to sink a ship with explosives in a way that's hard for an investigation to detect, and in a way that looks like an accident until you look very closely.

But no, let's concede that the alleged saboteurs had access to the interior of the vessel so that they could place charges that petaled the shell plating outward. But let's have them use large spherical-burst charges on a major part of the vessel above the water line. These charges have the potential to leave all kinds of forensic markers. And some (but not all) those markers are coincidentally discovered on samples of the only pieces brought to the surface. What are the chances?
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed it was to that I was alluding. The notion that the best way to cripple or sink a ship with minimal required ordnance and minimal risk of detection should occur to several people simultaneously indicates that Braidwood's imagination may not be all it's cracked up to be. The scenario he insinuates is bonkers.



For the benefit of people who don't build and operate ships, ship engines and equipment are cooled by seawater pumped into the engine spaces, circulated around the hot equipment, and then pumped back out. This is true for diesel engines (the "M" in MS Estonia) and even more so for steam engines that recover spent steam, condense it, and pump it back into the boilers (the "S" in RMS Titanic). A break in of of these circuits is more than just an instant hole in the hull. It's a feedwater pump blasting water into the wide open (i.e., relatively uncompartmentalized) engineering spaces of the ship.
Click to expand...
I always thought the "M" stood for "Merchant" to differentiate it from naval ships. Perhaps I should look further.

Correct. You don't need luggage-sized satchel charges to sink a ship if you have access to the interior. The line of reasoning for explosives is blatantly reasoned backwards. They've started with the presumption that explosives were used, and are trying to find an explosives-driven scenario that matches a cherry-picked subset of evidence. The result is not a credible scenario, but when your job is to stir up controversy you don't care.
Click to expand...

Which area would be easier for a saboteur to access? As someone not employed in the marine transport, I rather doubt I could walk on board a ship and waltz into the engine room. Although if I was wearing mechanic's overalls bearing the company's logo I probably could.
 
JayUtah said:
For example, on the last page Braidwood notes that the laboratory looked for three markers of explosives: hardening, laminating, and twinning. When explosives go off, they hammer metal and harden it much the same way cold-rolling and hammering do in production processes. And things between the explosives and the metal get slammed into the metal so hard that it welds those intervening elements to it, in a process we sometimes employ purposely. And finally, certain shifts in crystals happen at a microscopic level when the metal is subject to a high strain rate.
Click to expand...


<Respectfful snips for brevity>

I think the request to the labs for analysis, as described in the introduction to Braidwood's report, is telling.

1.2. The samples of metal have been subjected to comprehensive tests at separate and independent Materials Testing Laboratories in Germany. The laboratories were asked to examine the samples for any evidence of an explosion and produce an account of their test results.
Click to expand...


Assuming this is an accurate description of the requests for analysis, IMO this reads as a biased request. It’s not “please examine these samples for chemical contamination and mechanical damage and report likely causes of your findings”. The request(s) as described seems to point to a desired conclusion, IMO, realizing some general background on the samples needs to be given.

I have personal experience running a small in-house laboratory with samples submitted by persons requesting their desired findings.
 
Do it at night when there's just a minimal watch on duty. The usual routine is to have a walk round every 20 to 30 minutes to visually check everything's running ok. Otherwise the couple of bods on will be drinking tea and monitoring remote instruments from the control room.

As for the first thing the M is for Motor vessel, the S is for steam. I have come across a few common variations. MV for Motor Vessel, MS for Motor Ship, SS for Steam Ship, ST for Steam Turbine and TT for Twin Turbine.
There aren't any steam ships left in regular service They died out in the late 70s when big diesels started giving comparable power and fuel costs went up. Steam lasted in warships a bit longer where economics weren't as important as total power available for a given installation size.
There used to be RMS named ships, it stood for Royal Mail Ship and denoted they held a contract to carry fast international mail. They were usually big, fast liners. They disappeared when long distance air services got more able to carry larger cargo loads.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Which area would be easier for a saboteur to access? As someone not employed in the marine transport, I rather doubt I could walk on board a ship and waltz into the engine room. Although if I was wearing mechanic's overalls bearing the company's logo I probably could.
Click to expand...

Better to wear coveralls from one of the equipment subcontractors. The crew and line people will know each other. Someone appearing to be from, say, Siemens will have both a plausible reason to be in the ship's equipment spaces and be unfamiliar to the regulars—but not necessarily out of place.

The conspiracy theory in question presupposes access to parts of the ship. Just getting on the ship is hard enough. Once you're on the ship, people just assume you know what you're doing. The conspiracy theory also presupposes a high level of proficiency, nay, even "military precision." You're not wrong to raise the issue of infiltration. But we're just following the presuppositions we've already been given.
 
ferd burfle said:
Assuming this is an accurate description of the requests for analysis, IMO this reads as a biased request.
Click to expand...

It could be. As you say, we don't know to what extent Braidwood might be paraphrasing a more honestly worded brief.

It's not improper to ask an independent expert whether evidence they can develop supports a given causation, or any of a group, or any we might develop without prompting. But you want to write the brief carefully so as not to telegraph whether you are looking for a yes or a no. To say, "look for evidence in favor of this causation and tell me what you find," is subtly wrong. Pursuant to that brief, they will tell you what evidence they find in favor of your hypothesis, no matter how little of it there is. And that's both technically accurate and ethically sound. But that's not the same as asking them to test the hypothesis against the evidence in which they are expert. Even then, the smart expert knows that the ultimate determination of causation will be based on several factors, many of which may be outside the scope of their examination or knowledge. You have to weasel up the findings:
Based on the evidence developed within the scope of our investigation and limited to the facts, representations, and materials presented or discovered, we conclude that the hypothesis presented in the introduction is [fully, strongly, indeterminately, weakly, not] consistent with our findings.​

I have personal experience running a small in-house laboratory with samples submitted by persons requesting their desired findings.
Click to expand...

Yes, independent analysis including hypothesis testing is part of my company's bread and butter, time permitting. You develop a sixth sense for briefs that don't seem completely on the level.
 
ferd burfle said:
...realizing some general background on the samples needs to be given.
Click to expand...

Of course. You can't just dump a charred and mangled 747 nose gear on my loading dock with a note pinned to it saying, "Tell us what you think."

Background would include the subtype and year of manufacture (e.g., a Boeing 747-400 manufactured in 1995). It would include the facts of any relevant incident, insofar as they have been objectively determined (e.g., Subject airframe crashed while attempting to take off and was subsequently engulfed in fire.) It would specify any subsequent handling, inspection, or investigation that might have produced observations that could mislead us: "Scratches identified in Photograph A-1 are the result of recovery operations at the crash site."

Then ideally we would be asked specific questions, e.g. :—
"If possible determine the cause of the deformation noted in Photograph B-2."

"Identify any components or fasteners missing from the specimen as delivered."

"If possible determine whether the abrasion identified in Photograph C-3 occurred prior to, during, or after the crash."

"If possible determine whether hydraulic fluid/pressure was present in the actuator identified as Part XYZ in Photograph D-3 at the moment of impact."

"If possible determine the primary direction of impact that would produce the pattern of deformation observed in the specimen."​
Note how none of those is phrased to suggest what the "right" answer is. And of course there are open-ended questions such as, "Identify any observations, evidence, or the result of any analysis that are inconsistent with the representations in section 1." Those are invitations for us to look, for example, at what we think might be suspicious gouges or fractures and see, for example, whether there are bits of side-grinder grit in it, or dents the same size and shape as are made by a hammer. That's rare.

No contract analysis is done in a vacuum, nor is antiseptically devoid of prejudice. But you push hard in the opposite direction if you're doing it right.
 
Andy_Ross said:
As for the first thing the M is for Motor vessel, the S is for steam. I have come across a few common variations. MV for Motor Vessel, MS for Motor Ship, SS for Steam Ship, ST for Steam Turbine and TT for Twin Turbine.
There aren't any steam ships left in regular service They died out in the late 70s when big diesels started giving comparable power and fuel costs went up. Steam lasted in warships a bit longer where economics weren't as important as total power available for a given installation size.
There used to be RMS named ships, it stood for Royal Mail Ship and denoted they held a contract to carry fast international mail. They were usually big, fast liners. They disappeared when long distance air services got more able to carry larger cargo loads.
Click to expand...

But, but, but my uncle from Backwater, Nova Scotia once told me that the M meaning Motor was a myth and it's ALWAYS stood for Merchant. And the S always stood for ship. And in the case of the Estonia, the MS makes no sense because then it would mean "Motor Steam!" So it must mean Merchant Ship!

QED.














:sarcasm:
 
Andy_Ross said:
I would choose the engine and generator through hull pipes. When they are blown machinery is actively pumping thousands of litres a minute in to the ship.

I would add in the outflow from the pumps to that so any attempt to pump would add to the problem.

Far less explosive needed than trying to blow bows off or try to blow holes in the hull plating.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Better to wear coveralls from one of the equipment subcontractors. The crew and line people will know each other. Someone appearing to be from, say, Siemens will have both a plausible reason to be in the ship's equipment spaces and be unfamiliar to the regulars—but not necessarily out of place.
Click to expand...


Thanks, guys! The next time I go to sink a multi-million dollar ship I'll know just what to do. :p
 
ferd burfle said:
I think the request to the labs for analysis, as described in the introduction to Braidwood's report, is telling.


1.2. The samples of metal have been subjected to comprehensive tests at separate and independent Materials Testing Laboratories in Germany. The laboratories were asked to examine the samples for any evidence of an explosion and produce an account of their test results.
Click to expand...

Assuming this is an accurate description of the requests for analysis, IMO this reads as a biased request. It’s not “please examine these samples for chemical contamination and mechanical damage and report likely causes of your findings”. The request(s) as described seems to point to a desired conclusion, IMO, realizing some general background on the samples needs to be given.

I have personal experience running a small in-house laboratory with samples submitted by persons requesting their desired findings.
Click to expand...


Vixen has claimed that Hoffmeister's report found evidence of the bow components being "worn, stress-fractured and corroded long before the accident" rather than evidence of sabotage because that was what their remit was.
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
Some sources say "Royal Mail Ship" but that "Steam Ship" or "Steamer" are also used.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I looked it up too—afterwards. When defined in Titanic discussion, it always works out to Royal Mail Steamer. I'm happy learning that's not canonical, but I was trying to make a point. As a long time student and then a teacher, I feel the pain of poorly-chosen examples.
 
JayUtah said:
Yeah, I looked it up too—afterwards. When defined in Titanic discussion, it always works out to Royal Mail Steamer. I'm happy learning that's not canonical, but I was trying to make a point. As a long time student and then a teacher, I feel the pain of poorly-chosen examples.
Click to expand...

Nobody's perfect & I only know of one person who claims to be an infallible expert on EVERYTHING!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom