A New Theory in Topeka

[Michael H. Standart]

According to the formatting thing I linked to, you would use the \ followed by qoute with the{} enclosing what ever section you want to quote.

For example, I could quote Vir Cotto's frindly wishes towards Mr. Morden in a Babylon Five episode That quote being "I want to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head, and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favours come with too high a price. Every day, I'll walk past, look up into your lifeless eyes, and wave at it, like this," (Demonstrates)"Can your assocciates arrange that for me Mr.Morden?"

It would come out looking like this;

quote:

"I want to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head, and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favours come with too high a price. Every day, I'll walk past, look up into your lifeless eyes, and wave at it, like this," (Demonstrates)"Can your assocciates arrange that for me Mr.Morden?"

(And you can see how much Vir Cotto loved the evil and slippery Mr. Morden!

 

[Erik Wood]

Ah, Mike is always a huge resource around this dump...I mean board.

So then I could quote President George W. Bush

quote:

"We will hunt down and punish those responsible.."

Wow, it worked. I feel so competent. Don't worry it is a temporary feeling.​

 

[Michael H. Standart]

That formatting link I provided above will give you step by step instructions on how to do just about anything on this board that this board will allow you to do.

Now what were we talking about???

Oh yeah, the Titanic.

 

[Cal Haines]

David wrote:
... with hold #1 and #3 definitely gone and hold #2 probably flooding--if hold #6 flooded within the first 10 minutes, how did Titanic float so long?

The classic assumption is that #3 flooded from the bottom up, with water seen in the mail hold within ten minutes. What if the mail hold floods from a wound in the side of the ship, flooding directly into the mail hold? #3 would then flood from the top down, taking much more time. #1 may have flooded only when the water from the fireman's tunnel reached the top of bulkhead B and poured over the top, running down through the hatch cover (where it is seen). BR#6 may have been the only compartment to flood rapidly. Unlike the forward holds, we have two witnesses (Barrett and Hendrickson) who saw #6 flooded very early on. Nobody saw water in the bottoms of #1 or #3 (at least not that have come to my attention). Hendrickson saw water at the base of the fireman's stair, so #2 (at least) had to be taking water (assuming the wound is in the side, near the foot of the ladder).

To put Barrett in #3 hold does (in my opinion) change his story quite a bit. If he was in #6 when Hesketh ordered "all hands stand by your stations" (#1926) what boiler room did he go back to? Beauchamp himself puts "the leading stoker" (Barrett) in the after part of boiler room #6 (stokehold #10) with "the engineer" (Hesketh) at the time the "close the dampers" order was given. (#665). Finally, there are just too many references to BR#5 and BR#6 in Barrett's testimony to leave any doubt (at least in my mind) as to where he was.

As to Beauchamp, I can't see any way to reconcile his account of drawing the fires with Barrett's and Hendrickson's reports of BR#6 flooded early on. There is no way that the water can be 8 feet above the stokehold plates 10 minutes after the collision (Barrett) or BR#6 flooded by the time the lights go out (Hendrickson) and there be time to draw the fires. It takes a fair amount of time to shovel several tons (7 if memory serves) of burning coal out of 3 furnaces. Then there is the fact that without trimmers to assist, the pile would be too large to work over, not to mention the heat (there were only 4 trimmers, probably only two in the boiler room). Then there is the problem that if even one of the firemen takes the "lead" of the leading stoker or the senior engineer and boogies, someone else has to draw his fires, doubling the time required. (I know if my boss and the plant manager suddenly ran for door after a huge crash, I wouldn't be far behind.) So that leaves us with the premise that Barrett really didn't run away, he just said that he did. Now why would he lie about something like that?

Cal

 

[Erik Wood]

I am not sure if I completely understand what you are saying Cal, so if I misrepresent what you meant to say please call me on it.

In writing my paper for September I quoted several sections of testimony from both Barrett and Beachamp and came to the conclusion that Barrett is either lying or seems to be mistaken. Also, it occured to me that I think Barrett didn't say 8 feet above the stoker plates he said 8 feet from the bottom. Bottom of what?? Bottom of the ship, wouldn't that be roughly 8 feet or so??

So perhaps Barrett was right as was Beachamp. But Cal opens an interesting can of worms. Why would Barrett not be raking fires with his crew. He mentions raking fires but I don't that he was very specific in where he was raking fires.

Also Beachamp said it took a quarter of an hour to drawer the fires in boiler room 6.

This is interesting..I wonder where it will lead??

 

[Cal Haines]

Cap'n Erik wrote:
>... In writing my paper for September I quoted several sections of testimony from both Barrett and Beachamp and came to the conclusion that Barrett is either lying or seems to be mistaken ...

Interesting. I came to exactly the opposite conclusion. I have been trough both men's testimony many times and Barrett impresses me as very truthful and consistent. Beauchamp, on the other hand, just does not make sense.

I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on why you think Barrett may have been lying. Personally, I can't think of any motive for him to lie about the things that he recounts. Beauchamp, however, seems to have been brought in to help ease over the embarrassing fact that Barrett had testified that he and one of the sainted engineers had abandoned their posts when the water came pouring in.

> ... I think Barrett didn't say 8 feet above the stoker plates he said 8 feet from the bottom. Bottom of what?? Bottom of the ship, wouldn't that be roughly 8 feet or so??

No, he's clear that it is above the stokehold plates that he is talking about. The BOT inquiry added two feet to his estimate to account for the space under the stokehold plates, above the tank top, and came up with their estimate 10 feet after 10 minutes. Here's some of his US testimony:

quote:


... She was torn through No. 6 and also through 2 feet abaft the bulkhead in the bunker at the forward head of No.5 section. We got through before the doors broke, the doors dropped instantly automatically from the bridge. I went back to No. 6 fireroom and there was 8 feet of water in there. I went to No. 5 fireroom when the lights went out. I was sent to find lamps, as the lights were out, and when we got the lamps we looked at the boilers and there was no water in them. I ran to the engineer and he told me to get some firemen down to draw the fires.

http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/AmInq18Barrett01.html

Recall that Barrett's US Inquiry testimony was taken in one of Olympic's firerooms. That had to be very helpful to him in estimating the depth of water that he saw that night.

Here is some of Barrett's BOT testimony:

quote:

1926. Then what did you do when you got into No. 5? - Mr. Hesketh shouted out "all hands stand by your stations." That is for the men to stand by the fires. My station was in the next boiler room, and Mr. Shepherd and I went up an escape and down to the boiler room, but we could not get in. There were 8 feet of water in it.
1927. (The Solicitor-General.) I do not know whether your Lordship caught that. I will ask it again. It is more satisfactory than my telling you. (To the Witness.) I was asking you, and I will get you to repeat it slowly and clearly, what happened when you got through this doorway and into No. 5? You told me that Mr. Hesketh gave an order? - Yes.

1928. What was the order he gave? - "Every man to his station."

1929. Your station was No. 6? - Yes.

1930. The one you had just come from? - Yes.

1931. Then what did you do? - Me and Mr. Shepherd, that is the engineer who is in my section, go up the escape of No. 5 and down No. 6 escape.

1932. You tried to go back into the place you had come from? - Yes, we did go back, but we could not go in there because there were about eight feet of water when we got there.

1933. You could not get back to No. 6 through the doorway because it was shut? - Yes.

1934. So you had to go up one escape and down another? - Yes.

1935. When you came into No. 6 what water did you find in it then? - Eight feet above the plates.

1936. That is a rise of six feet since you left it? - Yes.

1937. (The Commissioner.) How long? - It was not a quarter of an hour, just on ten minutes.

1938. (The Solicitor-General.) You told us you got as quickly as you could into No. 5? - Yes.

1939. And when this order was given did you obey it as quickly as you could? - Yes, we obeyed it as quickly as we could.

1940. Now just think. Was there much length of time after you got into No. 5 and before Mr. Hesketh gave that order? - I should say about ten minutes.

1941. You had been in the bunker? - Yes.

http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Barrett01.html

>...Why would Barrett not be raking fires with his crew. He mentions raking fires but I don't that he was very specific in where he was raking fires.

Why? Because by the time he could return to boiler room #6 the furnaces were already under water and his men were gone. Yes, he helped draw fires, but that was in BR#5. He is very clear about that.

Hendrickson also tells us that BR#6 was flooded:

quote:


4855. Did you look down the staircase? - Yes.

4856. Did you see the water? - I saw the water rushing in.

...

4896. Did you go and report that? - Yes.

4897. To whom? - The second engineer.

4898. Do you know what his name was? - I met Mr. Hesketh first, the second engineer, and reported to him.

4899. Did he give you any instructions? - He told me to get some lamps after that and get some men with me, and get some lamps as we come along and take them down below.

4900. Where did you find Mr. Hesketh? - In the working alleyway on the port side of the ship.

4901. And where did you go and get the lamps? - In the engine room.

4902. You went right along the alleyway to the engine room? - I went right through.

4903. When you got the lamps did you go back with them? - I got all the lamps I could get that were ready. I got five, and left four or five men there to get more if they could. Then I came back by the engine room, went along and down the escape to go to No. 6 section. When I got down there I found I could not get any further, the water was up too high; so I came back by the escape again and went to No. 5 section.

4904. Did you go down No. 5? - Yes.

4905. Did you find Mr. Hesketh there? - No. When I got down there I met Mr. Shepherd; he said to me, "You have got the lamps, have not you?" and I said, "Yes, Sir." He said. "That is right, light them, and put them up by the water-gauges of the boilers." So I lit them up and took them up and came down below again, and Mr. Shepherd said to me, "Start drawing fires," and I said, "Yes." I went to pull the fires out when Mr. Harvey came and asked me if I would get some men down.

http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq05Hendrickson01.html

Cal​

 

[Erik Wood]

So are you saying that the 10 feet is above the stoker plates or from the tank tops?? If it is the tank tops then wouldn't the 8 feet mean up to the stoker plates. If I recall rightly Beachamp said he went and drew the fires in 6. If it was 8 feet above how would that be possible.

My main concern with Barretts testimony now, isn't so much his location and when. But his estimates of water (which of course can be subject to your memory which isn't always reliable, just ask my wife about mine).

Beachamp seems to say just as much as Barrett but about the things that Barrett doesn't discuss. Like where the fires where drawn and how long it took. What the water was doing in that compartment. To me, the most interesting.

So perhaps I shouldn't have said Lying, but Barrett seems to leave out the good stuff after the accident. Agreed that his account of what happened during the accident is probably the best from below decks. But what happens after I don't know.

I can't find a solid reason as to why either man would need to or want to lie. That was part of the stuff I didn't understand when writing my paper.

I sure wish you could come up to Topeka. It would be fun to debate this face to face. Most of the testimony that you quoted above I used in my paper.

 

[David G. Brown]

Help! I am in the position of having started an argument among my friends. Let's pause in this discussion for a moment.

Cal has carefully delineated the traditional viewpoint. He has the high ground in this argument simply because it is the conventional opinion. And, until proven differently, Cal's description has to stand as the accepted version of what took place.

Erik and I think there may be an alternative explanation, although we have not yet put forth a full and cogent argument. The proper thing for us to do is to research our scenario and write a paper listing our arguments and the proof behind them. Then, we should have Cal do what is called "peer review" of what we have written.

Finally, everything should be put in front of the ET Forum so that the various contributors can make up their own minds.

--David G. Brown

 

[Erik Wood]

No argument here Dave, just friendly debating.

If you are suggesting that you and I write a paper...well I need to get my paper for September off the ground. If you think we can do both then I am more then up for it.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I've been reading the rough that you've sent me Erik. Interesting stuff, and I understand your ideas a lot better. Any idea when the finished version with diagrams and such will be ready?

I'm taking my copy of the Shipbuilder Special reprint to work with me today so I can do some extra homework on my breaks.

 

[Erik Wood]

The finished product with picture will most likely be done sometime in early September. The editor is currenlty editing and once he tells me what to do what where to put stuff I will. Then I will be sure to send you an advanced copy.

 

[Cal Haines]

David,

Everything is fine on this end. But I'm just dying to know how you guys managed to fix up Beauchamp's testimony!

Cal

 

[David G. Brown]

Cal -- Glad to have you on board for this idea. The results should be interesting. At the moment, nothing is "fixed up" because I still have not done the research. This could become a foot-in-the-mouth-changing-exercise.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Erik Wood]

When I first met Dave I thought he was one legged. Then I realized that his other foot was firmly in his mouth.

But that's ok. When Dave first met me he thought I was a yoga expert, then he realized that my head was permantly up rumpuss.

 

[Yuri Singleton]

Hey folks,

Sorry it has taken soooo loooong to get back to the conversation. I've had my plate very full lately, but now things have worked out so I can again participate. And am I glad to be back! It looks like I've already missed alot. I certainly have some catching up to do.

Erik, I am now a confirmed attendee for your Topeka event. I've already made my resv. and I'll be arriving late Friday night in Kansas City International. If you or Michael could contact me I could use some additional information. I've emailed Michael already, so Mike if you get a chance call me or email me back. Thanks so much.

Now about the above discussion. I have to say my opinion is that Barrett was in BR6 when the crash came on the starboard side. He then 'followed' 2nd engineer Hesketh and engineer Shepard, into BR5 as the WT door was closing. Why did he follow the engineer? Well he was the lead stoker, so maybe that was his duty, to be an assistant to the engineer either Shepard or Hesketh. Maybe he didn't have a fire or boiler of his own to manage. At least in my mind I never assumed Barrett as shoveling coal into the boiler. I always saw him as walking around the boiler room supervising the other stokers and assisting the engineers as needed. Afterall that is what he did after the collision, assist the engineers. Why would he do that if it wasn't already part of his duty. So when the crash came, Barrett goes to BR 5 because the engineers he is assisting goes to BR 5.

Meanwhile Beauchamp and the majority of men in BR6 stayed at their posts. They draw the fires, (rapidly no doubt because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the sooner they draw the fires, the sooner they can get the he** out of there), then they all evacuate up the escape ladder. This drawing the fires takes about a quarter of an hour according to Beauchamp. So then if there is any amount of time spent waiting in line at the bottom of the ladder for his turn to climb up, add that to the time it takes to climb the ladder to E deck and we have some time more than 15 minutes. Perhaps 20 minutes.

Barrett goes to BR 5 and then in about 10 minutes, Hesketh orders Barrett and Shepard back to BR 6. The two go up the escape and looks down into BR 6 where they see no people and 8 feet of water above the stokehold plates.

But in my opinion, Barrett is wrong in his time estimate of how long it took from the closing of the WT door until he was looking down into BR 6. I tend to think that what Barrett is saying is that after the WT door closed behind him, he was in BR 5 for a few minutes, maybe up to 10, when Hesketh orders the men back to BR 6. Then they go up to E deck which takes a few minutes as well. So its more like 15 or 20 minutes from the closing of the WT door to the looking down into BR 6. This is why Barrett sees no one in BR 6. Because Beauchamp and the other men in BR 6 have already drawn the fires and evacuated. Which could have happened in 20 minutes. But not in 10 as stated by Barrett.

Yuri