| Author |
Message |
    
Neil Scott
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2000 - 10:34 am: | 
|
As I am new to this, and I definitely at this point know I am not using this resource as I should or to it's full potential, could someone direct me to a site that deals with the wreck? ie the scientific findings rather than the artifacts.
Thanks, again Michael for taking the time to explain the break up to me.
Neil |
Michael H. Standart
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2000 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Neil, try these sites;
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9801/Felkins-9801.html
Also the Gibbs and Cox site at http://www.gibbscox.com/titanic.htm
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart |
Fiona Nitschke
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2000 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Hello Neil,
Apart from the sites posted by Dean and Michael, you may also find this of interest: http://home.flash.net/~rfm/
It's Roy Mengot's site, devoted to the wreck and nothing but the wreck, with information on Titanic's sinking and state of decay. Recently, I was fortunate enough to experience first hand Roy's enthusiastic pursuit of knowledge of Titanic as she is now, with his 'guided tour' of Wood's Hole footage. Highly recommended if you ever get the chance.
Cheers, F |
Michael H. Standart
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2000 - 7:35 am: |
|
Fiona, thanks for the link. I think I tried to get it last week from a links list on George Behe's site, but I got one of those bloody "Page not available" screens. It worked this time and it's a goldmine of information.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart |
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 569
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 2:49 am: |
|
I just read a news article which was linked to the ET newsletter email. In the report, some additional details regarding the discoveries this last August by the History Channel's expedition are revealed.
One of the striking details disclosed was that the new debris field was around a 1/2 mile south of the wreck of the stern section.
Wow. SOUTH??
NC USA
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 3:11 am: |
|
Yuri,
If you're talking about the divernet article, don't believe everything said. That article has already been changed by the originator because of some glaring errors; specifically, three expeditions were combined into one.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 571
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 4:23 am: |
|
Checking...Yep divernet. I hadn't seen it before. The dateline given is 01/30/06. Is this an updated version of the article?
Here's the link:
http://www.divernet.com/news/stories/300106titanic.shtml
BTW I saw the ad for the upcoming broadcast on the Hist Channel. Not long now.
NC USA
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1897
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Yuri,
That is the updated version of the article. Simon Mills contacted the editor and explained the difference between the Harris and HC expeditions, which the original article fused together into one. I'm still wary of the reference to the ship sinking faster than previously thought, which is a holdover from the original AP report. Our actual conclusions were more complex than that.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 576
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 2:53 pm: |
|
I just came across this information from the discovery channel website. I'm not sure how long this has been released to the public. (Typically I'm slow to arrive)
http://www.historychannel.com/titanic/
Site states that two large intact sections of Titanic's bottom, red paint still present, were located some significant distance away from the known wrecksite. Good to see Parks' face in the trailer.
So now we know about the two sections of bottom. The next question is distance and bearing from the main wreck. And from what part of the ship did the sections come from. Hopefully that will be disclosed during the program.
Can we begin to speculate that the break up of the ship was aggrevated or perhaps even accelerated because the ship's bottom was already weakened; even before the ship had sustained catastrophic flooding?
I'm beginning to wonder if the information contained in this program will perhaps redefine the debate over both the nature of the collision, and the nature of the final break up.
NC USA
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9407
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Since this program is supposed to air on the 26th of February at 9:00pm, I think about the only safe bet is that we'll have quite a bit to discuss after it's done. (My VHS tape is going to be in my recorder and running!) I don't think it'll neccesserily redefine how the collision happened...I could be wrong...but I'm certain it'll change our understanding of the break up.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 956
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:04 pm: |
|
John Chatterton and Richie Kohler, show hosts for the upcoming Titanic's Final Moments documentary, will be featured on ABC network's Good Morning America TV program in the US this coming Tuesday morning to talk about the upcoming program. I believe the allocated time slot is 7:30 to 8:00 a.m. EST, but it is best to double check that if you're interested.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Yuri,
I don't believe that the History Channel will show my face in the trailers...they don't want to scare away the audience before the show airs.
I used the Santini breakaway model during our deliberations at WHOI as a visual aid. Friday, I got an urgent request to overnight the model to Maine, so that it could be used on GMA tomorrow morning.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 1755
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 7:43 pm: |
|
I like so many others are very excited to watch this new documentary, especially these two pieces that have been found. What new data lies in store is making me bust at the seems with eagerness.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood
|
Paul Rogers
Moderator
Username: progers
Post Number: 368
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 7:45 pm: |
|
"I just came across this information from the discovery channel website."
Here's another site, with a very interesting animation of the break-up. Apologies if it's been posted previously.
"I say Number One, my end's diving, what's yours doing?"
Unknown British submarine officer (K-Class)
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 577
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:08 pm: |
|
I think I had you mixed up with Kirk Wolfinger Parks. Sorry, it was such a quick flash I thought it was you.
Paul, Cool site, thanks for the link. Noticed the break-up animation. It very different from most other interpretations. The bow seems almost bouyant to some extent, even after its submerged. How's that?
NC USA
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 578
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Was the ship's structural hull broken by the collision? If so, then the ship was breaking apart even before it began flooding, is that right? The animation looks like the ship is flexing apart at the beginning of the sinking.
Is this sinking animation your creation Parks?
NC USA
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1925
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Paul,
Thanks for that site. I didn't know about that one.
The animation you see on that site is not mine. That illustrates the theory that Roger Long led the effort on. I was a proponent of a more "traditionalist" version, which I'm still refining.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Paul Rogers
Moderator
Username: progers
Post Number: 369
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:58 pm: |
|
Evening Yuri.
"The bow seems almost bouyant to some extent, even after its submerged. How's that?"
I got the impression from reading the information contained within this link provided by Paul Lee, that there is/was some debate regarding the idea of the bow having some residual buoyancy even when fully submerged. I have no idea how this concept impacts on the animation, although I'd agree with you that it appears to be suggesting buoyancy of the bow, similar to Jack Thayer's famous drawing (not that he actually drew it!) but, of course, without the bow coming anywhere near actually breaking the surface.
I guess the bottom line, as Parks indicated on the linked thread, is that we really will have to wait for the conclusions of those involved to be published in April via the Commutator.
ADDENDUM: Parks' post crossed with mine, and answers Yuri's question much more succinctly.
"I say Number One, my end's diving, what's yours doing?"
Unknown British submarine officer (K-Class)
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 581
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Parks, are you going to be participating in the online 'chat' after the show?
NC USA
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Sadly, we in the UK won't be seeing the show this weekend, so don't forget to fill us in on all the juicy details! |
Denise A. Hunyadi
Member
Username: dahunyadi
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 2:55 pm: |
|
You can see the entire Good Morning America interview with Richie Kohler and John Chatterton on the show's web site: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/
On the right side click on "VIDEO: New secrets of the Titanic." The video runs 7 minutes, 19 seconds.
Denise |
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1927
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Yuri,
I haven't been invited to participate in the live chat. This may be because I live in California, and I won't have seen the show by the time the chat is in session.
The GMA interview is also posted on the Titanicsfinalmoments.com website.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:48 am: |
|
>Parks, are you going to be participating in the online 'chat' after the show?
Yuri,
The situation has changed. It looks now that I will be on the panel for the online chat. The biggest problem was my being 3 hours behind the East Coast, but that problem was remedied by them express mailing a copy of the show for me to view beforehand.
I'll be dialing into a conference call with John, Richie, Roger and the chat monitor. The event manager will read the questions, we will respond verbally and our responses will be typed into the chat forum. Specifically, I'll answer questions about my version of the break-up and sinking scenario (which differs somewhat from the scenario that will be featured in the show). I've never done anything like this before...it should be interesting.
I was called today by an AP reporter who is writing an article about the two interpretations of the sinking scenario. That article will run on the AP wire on Friday and may be picked up by outlets across the country. The reporter who called me is aware of the problems that we had last time and is doing his best to understand our explanations as to what we think happened with Titanic.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9427
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
|
>>The reporter who called me is aware of the problems that we had last time and is doing his best to understand our explanations as to what we think happened with Titanic.<<
I'm glad to hear that. The hackjob that was published when this story first broke just beggers belief. I just hope somebody posts the links here if the articles are a little hard to find. There's at least one history forum on Delphi that may take an interest.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1525
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
http://www.deepseadetectives.com/titanic/
- it is already provoking debate amongst the TRMA!
(and for a few good reasons too!)
http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=100&topic_id=12717&mesg_id=12717&page= |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9429
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 4:05 am: |
|
An interesting vidio there. This particular scenerio appears to be that the break occured at the top and worked it's way down with the midsection being crushed by the two halves and the section of double bottom breaking away.
>>- it is already provoking debate amongst the TRMA! <<
I'm wondering if some aspects of the debate on TRMA may be a bit premature. The show hasn't even aired yet so it strikes me as being a bit risky to be discussing something that hasn't been fully explained yet.
>>(and for a few good reasons too!) <<
Well, I can't quibble with that. If nothing else, the animations looks like it's showing the bridge was already underwater before the final breakup even started. I guess we'll just have to stay tuned for further developments.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 585
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 4:08 am: |
|
Looking forward to watching the show Sunday. I will try to connect to the chat afterward, but the server may block me out if there's too many teen aged girls already there asking if you found the 'Star of the Ocean', or Jack's drawings. Hopefully I'll get through. Hopefully someone with technically relevant questions will get through.
Should be a lot of fun.
NC USA
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Anyone have a feel for when this show will play on the West Coast? Will it run on the History Channel at the East Coast time, or PST?
Bill
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1945
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 6:53 pm: |
|
Bill,
It will air at 9p, Pacific Time. In order for me to participate in the live chat after the show (which is based off Eastern time), the producers have to mail me a copy so that I can view it beforehand. Otherwise, when the chat begins, I wouldn't have even seen the show yet.
That's why I'm so certain about the time out here.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Username: wormstedt
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Thanks, Parks!
Watching wouldn't be so much a big deal for me, but I don't have the History Channel at home. I need to go over to someone else's house, and would prefer not to have to hang out there all night!
Bill
|
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 591
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 10:52 pm: |
|
T-03hrs20min until Titanic's Missing Pieces are revealed. I'm icing my beer now, and will order my large pizza shortly.
I'm anxious to see the answers to my three following questions:
1. Was the ship's bottom damaged further aft, near the engine room, by the iceberg?
2. Were the two new found bottom pieces the first areas of the hull to rupture during the break up?
3. Does the location of the two pieces give further insight into the movements of Titanic after the collision. (ie. were they still steaming around after the collision?)
Two other questions also would be nice if they are answered tonight:
4. Do the two bottom pieces give any witness as to why Titanic's hull finally failed where it did?
5. Can these two pieces ever be raised and examined closer?
NC USA
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Yuri and all-- research is a double-edge sword. As most of you know, I have been promoting the idea that there was contact between ship and ice aft of the bow. In particular, in way of boiler rooms #4 and #1. Not to reveal anything so close to air time, but the pictures of the two pieces of double bottom prove that my theory is wrong as far as boiler room #1 is concerned. So, for me learning the story of the steel was bittersweet. On the one hand, I learned completely new information--but at the cost of my pet theory. That's research.
-- David G. Brown |
Yuri Singleton
Member
Username: yuris
Post Number: 595
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 5:05 am: |
|
Dave, other than the brief statement during the program that no damage to the starboard bilge keel was found on the main bow section, very little else was said or shown to explain that finding. Maybe you've seen more of the evidence brought back with the expedition regarding the forward portion of the starboard bilge keel than was included in the program.
You're saying with certainty that there was no iceberg damage found on the forward stbd bilge keel?
Well then its as you say, a dead theory. But I am having a very difficult time accepting that result. I'm a firm believer in the grounding theory. How can there not be damage to the bilge keel!!??? It has to be there and this group just missed it somehow. A complete side-swipe just isn't possible. Bergs aren't shaped that way.
Ugh. This is difficult to swallow.
NC USA
|
David G. Brown
Member
Username: brown
Post Number: 1692
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 5:23 am: |
|
Yuri-- I fear the History Channel team started out with a misinterpretation of the grounding theory proposed in the White Paper which Parks and I wrote several years ago. They conceived of the whole ship sliding over the ice, while we focused only on the nature of the bow damage.
What the relatively pristine condition of the two pieces says...and as Roger Long pointed out, the steel does not lie...the steel says there was no ice damage to the bottom from bilge keel to bilge keel in way of boiler room #1. So, no grounding that far aft, something that was never predicted by the grounding theory.
My thought was that a large piece of iceberg may have broken away and rolled beneath the ship, bumping the bottom from time to time. This cannot have happened simply because there is no evidence of ice damage to the pieces studied by John and Richie.
But, the condition of the hull beneath boiler room #1 says nothing of what was beneath boiler room #4 or even beneath the forward holds. I stand 100% behind the grounding theory with regard to the bow. It remains the only explanation for the type and location of damage suffered by the ship.
-- David G. Brown |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9444
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:02 am: |
|
>>On the one hand, I learned completely new information--but at the cost of my pet theory. That's research.<<
Indeed. Each new discovery answers old questions but raises new ones. I've already seen one comment in the Titanic-Titanic forum which pronounced the grounding theory dead. A premature judgement in my opinion as the physical evidence actually observed was decidedly inconclusive...beyond showing what didn't happen. With the show aired, I've a sense we'll start hearing a lot more about what was discovered and it's signifigence now that non-disclusure agreements are...I hope...rendered moot. I've already seen Parks interpretation of the breakup based on the new evidence posted Marconigraph.com. Check it out for yourself as it explains a lot, particularly how somebody such as Lightoller could be looking right at the break and not even realize what happened.
School's back in session everybody, but then it was never really out!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
colin lindsly
Member
Username: newark
Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
I saw the documentary tonight.
I read the reports on Marconigraph.com.
I am thankful that I didn't have to experience the sinking of that ship. I would think being aboard the ship while she tore herself apart, especially in the lower decks, might be worse than the actual flooding that followed.
As for the evidence of the grounding, the eyewitnesses in the forward boiler rooms reported water coming up from the bottom of the ship, along with water from the side. Though not mentioned in the special, I consider this evidence for the grounding theory. Considering that the most important piece of evidence is being buried under sediment and debris from the corrosion of the main body of the ship, I think it will be inevitable when future ocean archaeologists will conduct a study on the bottom of the RMS Titanic after the superstructure has completely eroded away. Whether or not they will be able to distinguish between damage caused by the sinking or by the collision with the ocean bottom, I think is its own issue.
There are two points I noticed that were raised in the program and weren't addressed in the summary of the episode or Mr. Stephenson's reconstruction of events. These were:
1. the hypothesis that the ship sank farther east than where the bow and stern come to rest
2. the trail of coal from the stern to a point some distance from the wreckage
I find it interesting that the coal trail doesn't ultimately lead back to the debris field in the east. Is the debris in the east of lighter weight than the bow and stern and could be carried by currents to its present location? If so, does this help us to gauge the speed of said current and its affect on the other pieces of wreckage? |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1538
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 12:35 pm: |
|
We in the UK haven't seen this yet. Could some nice soul summarise the show - particularly the coal trail, and how far the new finds are from the bow, and in which orientation? I ask because Ballard's 1985/6 expeditions found keel sections 100-200 metres north east, east and south east of the wreck site. |
Adam Lang
Member
Username: langer
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Paul,
The show was great. It was somewhat of a documentary of the crew on the Keldysh who were trying to find out more facts to support the theory of the double-bottom being damaged in the collision. On one of their searches of the wreck, they found a trail of coal that stretched the 800 meters from bow to stern. None of them were able to come to a conclusion about the coal trail from what I saw (I had a fever and fell asleep before the show was over). They also had a little sub-plot about Titanic's story that we already know, but it still brought back a few facts that I had forgotten. Hope this helps.
-Adam Lang |
Paul Lee
Member
Username: dpl
Post Number: 1539
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Thanks! Did the coal trail extend from bow to stern and beyond? (I recall the distance as being about 600 yards, roughly 600 metres) |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 9447
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 3:54 pm: |
|
The coal trail leading south was not between the bow and the stern. It started at the location of the stern and extended south of that point to lead to another debris field. This is the one that's been known about for several years although this is probably the first time it's been examined in any real detail. However, the important find for the purposes of this expedition were the two sections of double bottom which were located east of the wreckage in a seldom looked over area. It just goes to show that there are still a lot of unknowns down there and I hope at some point, somebody with some resources will wise up and do a truely complete topographical survey of the area to try and locate as much as possible.
Everything down there is evidence and each piece of debris in it's proper context can tell us as much about the Titanic's demise as the main sections of the wreck itself.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 970
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Not much time to spend on this discussion today, but I tend to agree with Dave Brown concerning the grounding theory. For me I look at some of the evidence given by Fleet and Lee who both said they felt the ship heel over to port slightly as the berg passed along the starboard side. If the impact with the berg were purely a contact along the side of the ship the heel should have been to starboard, not to port since the main contact pressure would be along the starboard side below the ship's center of gravity. Since both these men said the ship took a slight heel to port as the berg was passing aft, it suggests to me that there was an upward force component acting along the starboard bottom in the forward part of the ship that was great enough to cause the slight heel to port, more so than the sideways force component after the initial impact. This could be an area for further study.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Parks Stephenson
Member
Username: sparks
Post Number: 1958
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 5:55 pm: |
|
I'm having trouble accessing the forum today, so if my replies are sketchy, it's because of that. Also, I will be on the Queen Mary for the next two-and-a-half days, so I may not be able to contribute fully until late Thursday night or Friday.
That said, I don't believe that the grounding theory is dead. The History Channel expedition neither proved nor disproved the grounding theory, in my view. Yes, the forensics might tell us something, but one of my main beliefs in a grounding strike is based on the consensus of eyewitness descriptions relating to the character of the collision. From my experience, what most people described was a smooth grounding event, not a impulse-and-momentum type of collision.
Regarding the coal...please see my comments in the "Titanic's Final Moments: Missing Pieces" thread. I believe that what we are seeing in the southern debris field is some of the first light objects to fall out of the hull during the break on the surface.
Why are the double-bottom sections so far to the east? Maybe they glided that way, much like a wing surface. But what about the large piece of shell plating, encompassing E through G decks, that is lying next to one of the double-bottom sections? Maybe the same thing. But what about the large pile of debris that is the remains of about 2-3 decks' worth of steel from around the base of the #3 funnel that was also found in the eastern debris field? Hmm, that's a hard one. can't explain that...yet.
I believe that the loose grouping of the 5 single-ended boilers and the LP cylinders best represents the spot over which Titanic broke apart. How these other objects got so far to the east of the wreck is still a mystery, as far as I am concerned.
Parks
http://marconigraph.com
|
colin lindsly
Member
Username: newark
Post Number: 10
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
So, if you believe the break-up occurred to the east of the current wreck site, is it possible that if one travels further east, one could actually find some trace evidence of the collision itself? |
Jeffrey Beaudry
Member
Username: jbeaudry
Post Number: 115
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:42 pm: |
|
"But what about the large pile of debris that is the remains of about 2-3 decks' worth of steel from around the base of the #3 funnel that was also found in the eastern debris field? Hmm, that's a hard one. can't explain that...yet."
Parks,
I noticed in the animation on the show and www.titanicsfinalmoments.com that there was an area that pancaked between the two main pieces of the ship, near the third funnel. Perhaps this is that pancaked area? Just a thought. |
Derek Gullon
Member
Username: bags
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 5:44 am: |
|
Sorry if this issue has been addressed before, but I am new to the board. I noticed in the J. Cameron movie, during the "forensic description" their video show's Titanic splitting just aft of the third funnel. And again in the TFM clip, same break point. I am to assume that that depiction is accurate to the debris field then?
If that is the case - here is the main question: was that primarily a function of mass or were there contributing factors to that being the break point? |
Joćo Carlos Pereira Martins
Member
Username: keen_on_titanic
Post Number: 291
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hello Derek! Welcome to the site.
As you can imagine if you read some of my posts, I'm not a specialist in this very technical issues, but the only thing I remind to say is that one of the main reasons which caused the break was the high pressure of hundreds of people standing on a rising poop. The hull was not made to stay out of the water and rise 45ŗ in the air. The "experts" say that the break point was a weak zone of the ship, I can't remind why.
Best, JC |
Derek Gullon
Member
Username: bags
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Thanks J.C., I had originally suspected that the 'berg might have come in secondary contact with the ship about in that section, however a response by Dave Brown in another thread made that an impossibility.
Insofar as why the ship had a weak point there, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that in that section is where the engines were and therefore also the point at which the drive shafts have to enter the ship. A fact which, to my mind, would make for a "necessary" weak point in the hull. I could also be wrong, hehe. Also we have seen similar breaks in the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald. Keels on ships are designed to take loads in the -y axis, not the +y axis, if you follow what I mean. As a result, it's only a matter of time, when you try to bend a ship backwards, until it throws in the towel.
"Are you willing to die for what you believe in?"
"Yes..... 'course that's not Plan 'A'"
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 10714
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 3:55 pm: |
|
If you want to understand the dynamics behind the break up, I can think of no better site then Roy Mengot's "The Wreck Of The RMS Titanic" at http://home.flash.net/~rfm/index.html
Keep in mind that forensics investigation and inquiry is nothing if not dynamic and ever changing. Some interesting information was brought to light in the History Channel presentation last February. If you want to see one of the interpretations of that, go to http://marconigraph.com/mgy_breakup.html
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
