| Author |
Message |
    
Matthew Smith
Member
Username: pinnappletot
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 5:30 pm: | 
|
Sinking Stages
Stage 1
After the iceberg hit, the Titanic began to take on water in her first five compartments.
Stage 2
As the five compartments filled, the next compartment began to fill also. As the compartments filled, the Titanic's bow began to sink.
Stage 3
After the first compartments filled, the next ones did. Then the next, and the next. The stern of the ship began to rise and the bow started to sink more.
Stage 4
As the stern rose, the angle became so steep, that all moving objects on the ship began to crash towards the bow.
Stage 5
Pretty soon, the lights flickered, and then totally went off. Leaving everyone on the ship, and in the lifeboats, with total darkness.
Stage 6
As the stern rose, it stood almost to a 90 degree angle. People on the ship grabbed for anything to hang on to.
Stage 7
With the stern in the air, a weak spot developed between the third and fourth smoke stack, which caused the stern of the ship to break off.
Stage 8
After breaking off, the stern rested in the water in the normal position.
Stage 9
After about a minute, the stern was over taken by water, and slipped into the sea. |
Wayne Keen
Member
Username: dockeen
Post Number: 210
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:42 am: |
|
What are we supposed to derive from this list? Is this your hypothetical timeline and you are asking for feedback?
Wayne |
liam forber
Member
Username: charmedmad
Post Number: 34
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
didnt the lights stay on for a bit longer? |
Trevor William Sturdy
Member
Username: trev
Post Number: 37
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Hi Matthew, As Wayne stated, not really sure what you are getting at with this, however, as you spend more time researching through this site you will find that you're "stages" will change substantially
Amateurs built the Ark - Professionals built Titanic.
|
Matthew Smith
Member
Username: pinnappletot
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 2:33 pm: |
|
liam yeah they did |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9586
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
The lights managed to stay on until just immidiately before the break. They went off, flickeed back on again, then went out for good. This would correspond to steam lines to the dynamos being broken as well as electrical cable snapping apart as the hull's midsection collapsed.
With regard to the stern standing 90° on end, this is highly questionable, given what's known about the structure of the ship and the sort of loads it's componants were designed to carry. If this had in fact happened, the engines and boilers should have torn loose from their mountings and plummeted straight to the bottom, yet they bloody things are still right where the builder left them.
However, even though it's unlikely that the stern went vertical, depending on one's vantage point to the stern, it's really not hard to see how it could look that way to an observer. Especially in the dark of the night when visual conditions are deceptive and confusing.
I would invite everyone taking an interest in this thread to click on http://marconigraph.com/ and take a look at the reconstruction that Parks Stephenson came up with. Since I can't direct link to it (The site is on a frameset) what you need to do one the homepage downloads is
a)Click on "Titanic" in the frame on the side, then,
b) click on "Titanic's Final Moments: Missing Pieces "Traditionalist" Breakup Sequence" once the index page appears and wait for the page downloads.
It shows two views in each frame and does a better job then I can of explaining how something that just ain't so could look like it is. It also shows how a witness could...depending on his vantage point...be looking right at the breakup and yet have no idea that it happened.
Keep in mind that Park's renderings represent one possible scenerio and are subject to some revision so keep an eye on that page for possible updates.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matthew Smith
Member
Username: pinnappletot
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 5:07 pm: |
|
I only posted this for people to take another theory into account
It was recently on tv and dvd and on the internet that it had been found out that titanic sank like this
although it may have sank differently i posted this as the most recent theory from tv etc
i don't want people to suddenly change their minds i will let you decide on your own theory |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9607
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 1:55 am: |
|
>>i don't want people to suddenly change their minds i will let you decide on your own theory<<
We've been doing that for at least the past six years, and some of us even longer. The problem with your theory is that it's really more of a brief timeline then anything else, and as I pointed out earlier, the notion that the stern went completely vertical is very questionable.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matthew Smith
Member
Username: pinnappletot
Post Number: 23
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
|
still a theory |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9638
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 3:40 pm: |
|
>>still a theory<<
Yes and some of it outdated in the light of new evidnce, and it doesn't really explain why. It speaks a bit to effect but not cause. A truely valid theory addresses the possible cause to explain the observed effect.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matthew Smith
Member
Username: pinnappletot
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
WEll sorry
A True britt
And Titanic fan!!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Titanic_Movie_Leo_Kate_Kiss.jpg
|
Michael Ryan
Member
Username: xmtryanx
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 6:28 am: |
|
"With regard to the stern standing 90° on end, this is highly questionable, given what's known about the structure of the ship and the sort of loads it's componants were designed to carry. If this had in fact happened, the engines and boilers should have torn loose from their mountings and plummeted straight to the bottom, yet they bloody things are still right where the builder left them."
I have to disagree... the boilers should have stayed where they were had Titanic reached a 90 degree angle. Britannic's boilers have been hanging at 90 degrees for several decades now and seem to be just fine where they are  |
Ryan McKeefery
Member
Username: ryan_mckeefery
Post Number: 490
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 6:50 am: |
|
Britannic's boilers have been hanging at 90 degrees for several decades now and seem to be just fine where they are :-)
Bloody good point, Michael!
That's something I hadn't thought of before.
"I even hate being obnoxious." - Me
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9720
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 4:23 am: |
|
>>the boilers should have stayed where they were had Titanic reached a 90 degree angle.<<
Harland and Wolff disagreed.
They could also have been wrong and as such, Michael makes an interesting point.
The boilers could have stayed on their mountings at a ninety degree angle, but the question that goes unanswered is did the Titanic actually go vertical? The available evidence points to this being very questionable. The stern might have but the perceptions of same can be just as readily explained by an optical illusion based on the vantage point of a given observer.
As it stands, even if the stern went vertical, what's there are the engines. The boilers in the debris field came from the part that basically disintigrated. What remains in the area that's visible is still where the builders left them almost a century ago.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 76
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 4:31 am: |
|
even IF the stern didnt go verticle during the sinking the chances in my opinion would be higher than 50%, i say 60 to 80% chance that she went verticle while under water at some point, but then theres the 20 - 40% chance that she didnt due to the angle the wing propeller is positioned from her impact with the bottom. I would just like to belive that she did indeed went verticle cause she looks alot more impressive in the sinking stages if verticle and just dosent look right if she didnt go verticle. If britannic`s boilers are still in place then I say going verticle wouldnt have made them break loose, cause if britannic hit seafloor hard enough to twist her forepeak completely off the rest of the ship then i think in titanic`s actions of sinking with her tearing her self in half and breaking her own back, I dont think they would have came out, but there are reports i belive cant be for sure, about how some of the boilers in the bow are missing i think one or two im not sure i can be wrong i just want to say i heard that from some historian |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9733
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 6:55 am: |
|
Whether or not the stern would have gone vertical on the way down would depend on how the weight was distributed. The engines were big massive brutes and would have placed a lot of that weight forward. By the same token the drag induced by the flow of water over the hull would have had an influence too, and it may well have flipped over to land stem first.
The problem is the we just don't know for sure. The mechanics of how a ship sinks once it's completely submerged aren't that well understood. Simulations are interesting and can even offer insights on what's possible, but they're only as good as the underlying assumptions behind them. If the simulations are bogus, then the information is almost certain to be inaccurate.
When you get down to it, it's not what we believe or what looks impressive that matters so much as what can be demonstrated by the evidence.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Matt Pereira
Member
Username: milner62
Post Number: 78
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 7:02 am: |
|
Well Michael we know at some point underwater she fliped around and landed props first, thats how the prop on the port side got bent upwards, if it landed engine end first the props wouldnt have been bent up. so who knows might have just simply raised up no more than 20 degs and the length of the vessle to a little lifeboat looked verticle and underwater it sank mostly level and then the prop end sank lower. I agree that no one will know unless we could take and mimic how the stern look just after the break but considering how much damage the impact and falling 2 1/2 miles did to the stern wouldnt be that easy. I even heard that the engine`s were split and broke and two cylinders were found, but every time i look at the footage of the wreck those look like the high pressure cylinder not the low pressure which would be the second from the front, but im going to look again might just be not paying attention to the surroundings |
Miguel Alfonso De Guzman
Member
Username: calvin_anderson
Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Um.. Matthew? You forgot the funnels. |
