At the beginning of this subchapter the Estonian managing director of Estline, Johannes Juhanson, shall be quoted when he told the Estonian media on 29.09.94:
»"Estonia" was sunk by an abnormal factor, an explosion or an underwater collision.«
In February 1999
Brian Braidwood was requested by this 'Group of Experts' to look into certain
aspects of the casualty in his capacity as diving and underwater explosives
expert, in particular to investigate whether explosive devices were present
on board the ESTONIA and had caused damage when they exploded before the sinking
of the ferry.
After a very
careful investigation Brian Braidwood concentrated his attention on three
aspects, viz.:
a. The suspect package found during underwater surveys by the port side of the bow ramp.
b. Damage near the visor starboard side locks.
c. Damage on the car deck at the port side forward.
After dealing with
each item in turn, he has drawn certain conclusions.
These are:
a. The suspect
package
It has been considered whether this suspect package could have been an explosive
device even if the sides of the cube were no longer than 100 mm - the smallest
estimate. A block of this size would indeed have enough space to hold all
the essential components of a small explosive charge of one to two kilograms.
Finding such
a device near the side locks suggests an attempt to damage the ship at a particularly
vulnerable position. However, in later video surveys of the same area, the
package has disappeared. When or how the device got there must remain a matter
of conjecture. It can only be emphasised that the act of placing and arming
such a charge takes only a few seconds as the firing time will have been set
beforehand. A determined saboteur might well decide to increase his possibility
of success by placing more charges, at similar vulnerable points elsewhere
on the ship.
Brian Braidwood
concludes that on a balance of probabilities the suspect package could have
been an explosive device containing between one and three kilograms of plastic
explosive.
b. Damage near
the visor starboard side locks
Photos of the
visor tank on land, show that on the starboard side, the two metal plates
forming the hook for the manual side lock were severely distorted and folded
onto an overlapping position. The lug for the hydraulic side lock has been
ripped off the visor tearing away a flap of metal. The photos also show distinct
darkening of the white paint surface above the badly distorted hook for the
manual side lock. This marking looks like burn or scorch marks.
On the port
side, however, the ends of the two metal plates forming the hook for the manual
side lock had only been pressed together. Also, the lug of the hydraulic side
lock had been ripped off where its welding has given way, but there was no
sign of burn marks anywhere on the port side.
There are several
black and white photos and one composite picture made up of overlapping video
stills. This composite picture gives a dramatically clear impression of the
damage to the ship's bulkhead in the area of the side locks. This view of
the damaged area was taken from the forward side of the bulkhead looking aft.
The bottom half of the picture shows the opening for the manual side-lock
hooks. Above that is the hydraulic side-lock lug which was torn off the visor.
Above that again is a fresh hole in the metal.
Dealing with
the details from the bottom, the picture shows that the extreme lower end
of the manual side-lock opening is still in the shape of a smooth curve and
so is undamaged. However, within a very short distance, the metal has been
splayed out towards the camera. This is easier to see in the actual video.
At the top
of the opening for the manual side lock, photos show damage to the bulkhead
in the immediate vicinity of the visor damage just described. In a colour
photo, the opening designed to receive the hook of the manual side lock, has
been enlarged by damage at its upper end and some pieces of metal may have
been completely displaced from the area. The manual side-lock securing mechanism
can been still inside the hole as it was never secured for the final voyage.
The hydraulic
side-lock lug, which was ripped away from the visor, was lodged in its recess
on the starboard front bulkhead where it would normally be located when locked.
At the edges of the hole the metal seems to have split in all directions away
from the centre. this is all characteristic of the sea of an explosion.
Just above
this area there is a fresh hole which is made by a flap having been pushed
back in an S-shaped fold. It is a fairly round hole about 250 mm across. Some
of the metal has been pushed in, (away from the camera position).
A comparison with the port side bulkhead showed no damage at all that might have been compatible with an explosion.
The circumstances
surrounding a possible explosion can be explained as follows: By midnight,
the weather had deteriorated and because of an ineffective seal the visor
space was filling up with sea water. By 0045 the level would have been well
above the hydraulic side locks. This water would have been pouring through
the openings for the side locks to flood the compartments adjacent to the
car deck. It would also have been coming directly into the car deck past the
ineffective bow ramp seal. At about this time a major crash was heard from
the forward part of the car deck. There was certainly a lot of noise by this
time and this may have masked the sound of a small explosion.
The marking
and damage suggests that if an explosive device was used it would have been
placed on the after side of the bulkhead, just above the manual side-lock
slot. This means that a device like the one described earlier would have remained
in place despite water flowing through the slot just below it. When it exploded,
it was probably completely surrounded by water, with the other side of the
bulkhead also flooded. This would have resulted in a strong shock wave through
the water reaching the nearby visor. However, the presence of water on both
sides of the bulkhead would have reduced the area of damage. The chock might
well have fractured the welds of the hydraulic side-lock lug, which was retained
in the bulkhead by its pin. The welds apparently tore out the triangular strip
of metal seen on the photo of the visor.
To sum it up, the following damage has been described and illustrated in the area of the starboard side lock:
- Split and torn metal damaged around the top part of the manual side-lock opening front bulkhead.
- All of this damaged metal has been pushed forward towards the visor.
- Darkening of the visor paintwork at exactly the same level as the damaged metal described.
- The hydraulic side-lock hooks just below the burn marks were pushed down and severely distorted in a manner unlikely to have resulted from any mechanical impact.
On a balance of probabilities Brian Braidwood has concluded that:
- The damage near the starboard visor side locks was caused by an explosion.
- The charge weight was between one and two kilograms of TNT equivalent.
- The explosive device was placed on the forward bulkhead, just above the manual side-lock recess.
- The device could easily have been placed by someone following the route taken by the crewman responsible for operating the manual side lock.
c. Damage to
the car deck port side forward
Brian Braidwood
investigates damage in the port forward corner of the car deck, to establish
if it might have been caused by an explosion. The damage can been seen in
a short part of Video B40c which was taken by a diver. From the video it seems
that the diver may not even have been aware of this particular damage, or
else was told to look away and concentrate on other areas. The damage is only
visible when the camera and light, which the diver is wearing on his head,
are turned briefly to one side. There is no reference to the hole by either
the diver or his supervisor. Nevertheless, the relevant section of the video
has been studied in great detail to establish the possible cause of damage.
The image is seen most clearly when the video is played in very slow motion,
or even frame by frame, using specialist viewing equipment.
The videos
and still photos from around the port forward corner of the car deck show
a widespread presence of some sort of red or pink material. Some of it is
very shiny and reflects the diver's light. The material may be bedding. In
an case it seems to have been used to reduce the flow of water from the flooded
visor space past the edge of the raised bow ramp and into the car deck.
Based on estimates
from studying the video and still photos, the lower edge of the damage is
about 300 mm above the deck level and there is no apparent damage to the deck
itself. This suggest that the device may have been lying on something, perhaps
bedding, when it exploded. It could, therefore, have been placed in a higher
position and become dislodged by some physical impact in the immediate vicinity.
The forward edge of the damage is about 300 mm away from the forward edge
of the bulkhead.
Inside and
around the hole can be seen the red and pink colouring of the bedding. It
looks as if some of it was inside the adjacent compartment and can be seen
through the damage hole. The damage hole itself is fairly round and about
300 mm across.
The hole is
bordered by petals of split metal which have split in all directions away
from the centre of the hole. The photos are taken looking at the bulkhead
from inside the car deck space and it can be seen how the petals cast strong
shadows onto the bulkhead. This clearly shows that the metal has been pushed
away from the bulkhead into the car deck space.
The circumstances
surrounding a possible explosion can be explained as follows: By midnight,
the weather had deteriorated and because of an ineffective seal the visor
space was filling up with sea water. By 0045 the level would have been well
above the hydraulic side locks. This water would have been pouring through
the openings for the side locks to flood the compartments adjacent to the
car deck. It would also have been coming directly into the car deck past the
ineffective bow ramp seal. At about this time a major crash was heard from
the forward part of the car deck. There was certainly a lot of noise by this
time and this may have masked the sound of a small explosion.
When the device
exploded in the manual side-lock access compartment the space would have been
flooded. This means the device would have been surrounded by water with air
on the car deck side of the damaged bulkhead. However, from the comparatively
small extent of damage, it is unlikely that any device exploded in contact
with the bulkhead, and there is no way of knowing how far from the bulkhead
it might have been.
In summary the following circumstances were established:
- A fairly round damage hole in the port bulkhead of the car deck adjacent to the bow ramp.
- Split and torn metal petals around the edge of the hole.
- All of the damaged metal pushed away from the bulkhead into the car deck space.
- That any explosive device used could have been dislodged from a higher position and fallen on some bedding in the compartment next to the car deck.
- Any device used would have been surrounded by water when it exploded. These points, taken together, suggest that a small explosion occurred on the far side of the bulkhead with the seat of the explosion being in the centre of the damage hole.
On a balance of probabilities, Brian Braidwood has concluded that:
- The damage in the car deck port side forward was caused by an explosion.
- The charge weight was between one and two kilograms of TNT equivalent.
- The explosive device was placed inside the space used to give access to the visor side locks.
- The device could easily have been placed by someone following the route taken by the crewman responsible for securing the manual side locks.
- The seat of the explosion was just above deck level as if the device had been resting on something, perhaps a pile of blankets, before it went off.
- The device may be have been placed on the forward bulkhead like the one on the starboard side, and been knocked off to fall onto some bedding before it exploded.
The complete Report is attached as Enclosure 34.7.435.
34.7.1
Supplementary Investigation Report
by Brian H.L. Braidwood, MBIM, MIExpE, Weymouth/UK
After the discovery of further unexplainable damage in way of the starboard front bulkhead of the wreck above and below B-deck, Brain Braidwood was requested to examine also these areas. His respective findings and conclusions are explained in the above mentioned report which is attached as Enclosure 34.7.1.435.1. As to the damage above B-deck level the expert has concluded on the balance of probabilities:
1. The condition of the port actuator was caused by damage when it ripped through the forward bulkhead on tearing away from its base plate.
2. The lack of damage to the starboard actuator means that the adjacent hole in the forward bulkhead must have existed before it passed through when it tore away from its base plate.
3. The hole in the starboard forward bulkhead was not caused by the starboard actuator.
4. The pattern of petals along the sides of the hole is characteristic of explosive damage.
5. The hole in the forward bulkhead was caused by an explosive device.
6. The damage to the bow ramp is indicative of an explosion.
7. The seat of the explosion was on the after side of the bulkhead.
8. It is possible that the damage above and below B-deck/upper car deck level was caused by the same explosive device.
As to the damage below B-deck the conclusion on the balance of probabilities are:
1. The hole in the longitudinal of the manual lock access space by the starboard side of the car deck was caused by an explosion.
2. The damage extending down the ship's forward bulkhead from the starboard side locks was caused by an explosion.
3. The damage to the starboard side of the bow ramp below the level of B-deck was caused by an explosion.
4. The damage to the lower part of the visor on the starboard side was caused by an explosion.
