A New Theory in Topeka

R

Rob Ottmers

Member
Dont have a lot of time right now but wanted to post a bit here (will post more later). Mike, your post above doesnt hold water (excuse the pun) - Barrett testified the water was coming from the pass between BR 6 and BR 5, not from the bunker door.

"2038. Then tell us what happened at the end of a quarter of an hour? - A rush of water came through the pass - the forward end.
2039. You say the forward end of the pass. What is the pass? - It is a space between the boilers where we walk through."

-

"2056. And you say it got worse. Now can you give me any idea whether the water came from over the top of the bulkhead or through it? - I do not see how it could come over the top.
2057. You do not think it did come over the top? - No.
2058. Now, when it came through this pass between the boilers, did it come with a rush? - Yes."

-

"2321. (Mr. Cotter - To the Witness.) You say there was a rush of water when you were in No. 5? - Yes.
2322. Have you any idea where the water came from? - No."

-

"2354. (Mr. Laing.) I think so, my Lord; I think that must be so. (To the Witness.) This rush of water which you have described coming from the pass; was it like a fire hose? - No, it was a greater rush than a fire hose.
2355. Can you give us any idea of the volume of water that came in when you were in No. 6? - The pass was filled up."

This would also fit in with Cal's concerns about the bulkhead walls either side of the watertight bulkhead.


More later....
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
Holly crap, Rob, you confused the heck out of me. What in the world is Barret saying?? He doesn't mention any loud noise, no bang or boom which would lead me to the belief that it wasn't a structural collapse (i.e. the bulkhead giving way). If it wasn't a bulkhead collapse or a bunker door what was it??

Open seam??? Plus the bulkhead is a set of three.

This is more confusing (I guess I should have figured it would be when dealing with Titanic) then I thought it would be. I wish I could go into detail on what I am thinking.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
Mmmmmmmmm...Rob maybe I'm missing something, but it seems Barrett was talking about the pass between the boilers, and not the cul de sac where the WT door was located.

Unfortunately, it doesn't speak to the source of the deluge. Do you know of any witness that did?
 
R

Rob Ottmers

Member
Hello Mike,

Actually, if you look above to my previous post, at question 2039 Barrett identifies what he terms as "the pass" - that is "a space between the boilers where we walk through."

Sadly, aside from Barrett's testimony I find nothing concerning the flooding of number five.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
I have been doing some reading and rereading of the testimony and I think I can come to the conclusion that water came from between the boilers from which they walked, but that it also wasn't the structrual failure of the bulkhead.

That leaves the question of: Where did the water come from??

Obviously from forward. In Topeka, Roy mentioned that he believes water may have come from above and down. Perhaps this is another avenue to research.

Any thoughts??
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
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.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
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

Michael H. Standart

Member
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.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
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

Michael H. Standart

Member
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.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
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

Michael H. Standart

Member
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.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
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

Michael H. Standart

Member
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.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
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.
 
Top