THE PROOF OF
THE
EXPLOSSION THEORY
from the chapter
"Kampen om senking"
in the book
"Assault on Kielland"
(Sabotasjen mot Kielland)
pages 163 - 204
published by FALK 1992.
Ingress:
After the capsized Alexander L. Kielland platform was uprighted inspection onboard should commence in Sept./Oct. 1983.
The discussion what to do with the platform started before the inspection took place, either sinking the platform on 700 meters in the Nedstrandfjord, scrapping it selling off the equipment and materials still to be used, or transfering her into an offshore safety training senter.
Events from behind the public scene tells how politicians from various political parties played their roles to obtain public sympathy and support.
Gro Harlem Brundtland
the Prime Minister from Arbeiderpartiet, Labour, in power after Labours Oddvar Nordli left office in Feb. 1981 talked with
"double tongue"
stating she was in support of not sinking the platform?
Before sinking the platform, inspection onboard divulged findings that strongly indicated that the cause of the disaster was an
explossion in bracing D4.
Documents showed that this must have been known to people involved in the investigation only few days after the capsize on March 27th 1980.
The reader is taken onboard with the inspectors representing relatives and survivors. How the inspectors (Mr. Ostlund and Mr. Borseth) finds evidence. The Statoil report
made for the Commission which included measurements and pictures of the broken away bracings including the explossion in bracing D4.
Their struggle for being heard before the platform was sunk on Nov. 18th 1983.
How both Norwegian and French experts
supported the explossion theory
and
how the Norwegian press told
the Norwegian people that
"no explossion"
had taken place, while the backplayers knew otherwise.
Ship inspector Dale in Kristiansand,
who few days after the disaster wrote in his report about calls from
KRIPOS (Crime Police) in Oslo about
a person who had testified he had been involved in the assault.
How technical scientists at the University in Trondheim,
NTNU and Sintef, was mislead by not being forward steel samples for metallurgical examination from the
explossion area.
Their conclussion was that a fatigue crack in bracing D-6 adjacent to the exploded bracing D4 had caused the disaster. They could not conclude how the strong "waves" overloading the rest material in the fatigue crack had come about?
With more than one bracing in failure the D-leg broke away and the platform
capsized,
123 people perished,
among them
2. U.S. and 27 UK citizens.
You may read more on the websites of
FALK International
"Technical Documentation"
http://www.multinet.no/~falk/Falk1.3.htm
The French contractor CFEM was sued for bad workmanship.
In meeting, Oct 22nd 1990 I presented
proof
for the Explossion theory
to people from
Cabinet International Monceau
in Paris.
 |
