A New Theory in Topeka

[Michael H. Standart]

But down from where? Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen any testimony about water pouring down the access ladder, and the flooding was very sudden. Vent ductings perhaps?

Guess I'll have to double check my deck plans this weekend.

 

[Erik Wood]

I wish I could remember what exactly Roy said in Topeka. Perhaps Rob remembers?? If water does come from above to flood boiler room 5 we have a another piece to support my theory. The only problem is trying to get proof or some kind of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Well for what it's worth Erik, I think it helps to remember that while 15 transverse bulkheads were watertight, none of the decks were. ONe wonders how many cableways, conduits, vents, etc. that there were going down there. (Which is why I wish I had taken the opportunity to make copies of the deck plans Roy Mengot brought along with him!Arrggg!)

I just have this nagging feeling that it wasn't just any one particular thing that happened, but a series of events that happened so close together that the difference in time is scarcely worth mentioning.

 

[Erik Wood]

This is a point that I have been hinting at for several months. I believe that the structrual loss in boiler room 6 led to the structural loss of boiler room 5. I am not talking about water intake at this point. The two events are linked. I am not yet sure how, but I have a hunch that they are linked.

I wonder if Rob might comment on Lightollers testimony regarding the status of boiler room 6??

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I don't know if this helps or not, but This Article by Marcus Phillip may be useful to David in regards the time questions. I'll need to make some special time to read it, but it looks like he's done some homewirk on the matter.

 

[Erik Wood]

John Feeney and (we have actually been getting along quite well) have been disecting Captain Collins book and sharing research that each of us has done in relation to the book.

Something that he (first) and I have come up with is that we can't find an ounce of testimony (other then twisting words said by Boxhall) into anything resembling "pack ice". This leads to another question:

If there was a berg surrounded by pack ice, is it possible that the only damage incurred by the actual berg was around boiler room 6/hold 3 and the rest by heavy pack ice hitting the bow??

David B. and I have tossed this around (this is a idea that we both kind of came to at the same time). After talking with (or reading the posts of) David Haisman in the collision thread, he is onto to something, I don't know what but something.

I am really interested in Roy's water from above not from next to. I may send him an email or ask him to post here.

I will be further interested to see if Captain Collins responds to Captain Haisman.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Erik, I don't think you'll find anything about pack ice because nobody was in a position to see it. I don't buy into the "No iceberg" scenerio in the least little bit. We've both read the testimony, and Henning Pfieffer did a nice job of recapping it for all to see. The testimony from the witnesses who saw the beast is pretty explicit.

That doesn't mean some pack ice wasn't along for the ride. Just because nobody was in a position to see it in the inky black sea doesn't mean it wasn't there. I've said this publicly, and not just to toss a bone to somebody I was differing with, but I think we may have to take seriously the possibility that it may have been both the berg they saw and some rather large chunks of pack ice that nobody ever saw but which was there all along.

You might try crunching a few numbers to see if it works. It might explain a lot.

 

[Erik Wood]

I have been crunching numbers, and I think your latter comments about both may be significant. As soon as Dave arrives back from Miami the research will continue and we will see what occurs from there.

The No Iceberg theory is meeting opposition from everybody on the board, which isn't a surprise, it is a poorly researched and shotty piece of work.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

From my read of the book thus far, I'm inclined to agree. Some of the conclusions seem to be based on a very superficial and selective read of the evidence. Still, even a broken clock is right twice in the day, and I can't think of ay reason why some pack ice couldn't have been drifting along with that overgrown icecube.

It would certainly explain some of the side damage. What it can't speak to is testimony that smells too much of a grounding event.

 

[Erik Wood]

Collins made a very rude post in regards to John Feeney's comment about his book. Which wasn't the best and would imply that he doesn't take critizm very well.

See my post in response. I am still thinking on it, but I can't believe how rude and arrogant he is. Feeney is becoming my best friend in comparison.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I saw it Erik. Can't say as I'm impressed. John showed some remarkable restraint IMO.

 

[Erik Wood]

Regardless of my past interactions with Feeney, he and I have been corresponding in private about both the Californian and other things. I have found him to be quite a nice man and one (much like me) sometimes responds to words and not intent.

This is a considerable shift in thought on my part. Something that I am still shocked about.