The remaining part of the port front bulkhead down to the forepeak deck is apparently undamaged.
In summary the following can be concluded:
(a) The port front bulkhead was damaged substantially less than the starboard front bulkhead, in particular there was apparently no explosion damage, possibly because the explosive device did not detonate.
(b) The cut/torn open part of the bulkhead was apparently caused by the visor- actuator because its width corresponds to the actuator diameter and the actuator shows corresponding damage (see pages 808 ff. of our Report).
(c)Its visible condition demonstrates that the void space above B-deck where the ramp hook, the upper securing bolt actuator and the fastening of the bow ramp actuators were located, was apparently not affected by explosion.
(d) The damage at the openings for the lug and hook of the visor’s locking devices indicates that the visor was pushed upwards by ca. 0.4 m with great force and subsequently almost fell back to its initial position with the shell plating overlapping the forepeak deck.
(e) The evaluation of the available video footage obtained on 02.10.94 and 09.10.94 and subsequently indicates that the orange coloured cube visible on the footage obtained on 09.10.94 is not visible at the corresponding location on 02.10.94 and also not in the December 1994 footage. It has thus to be concluded that the orange coloured cube believed to be an explosive charge had not been at the location during the sinking scenario, but was placed there by whatever interested party* after the 02.10.94 but before the 09.10.94 and removed again before 04.12.94.(f) Based on the damage picture, see pages 98/100, experts did conclude that the transverse deck beam at frame 159 had been cut through by explosives on both sides prior to the visor moving up and forward. |
