Apparently some people still think it sank whole...


Ryan Burns

Member
Sep 23, 2016
121
26
73
39
I'm currently in a bizarre debate with an obviously well read fellow on YouTube who claims that it went down whole and tore apart deep in the ocean due to implosion. I feel like I'm talking to a flat-earther or a 9/11 truther. But I hate to put the "conspiracy lunatic" label on this chap because he's obviously well read on the Titanic and his arguments don't come across as coming from some frothing at the mouth crazy person. So it's just so weird to me.

Any of you ever encountered anyone like this? Like, how is this even debatable anymore??
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
46
73
I'm currently in a bizarre debate with an obviously well read fellow on YouTube who claims that it went down whole and tore apart deep in the ocean due to implosion. I feel like I'm talking to a flat-earther or a 9/11 truther. But I hate to put the "conspiracy lunatic" label on this chap because he's obviously well read on the Titanic and his arguments don't come across as coming from some frothing at the mouth crazy person. So it's just so weird to me.

Any of you ever encountered anyone like this? Like, how is this even debatable anymore??

Yes, plenty of times I have come across people like that on other Titanis forums. A more current argument I was involved with is Titanic encountering another iceberg after dodging another iceberg. How can he be a well read individual, while disregarding evidence and testimony that the ship broke on the surface. Does he suggest that a partial break occurred on the surface and fully separated underwater of is he suggesting a fully intact ship on the surface and only breaking once under? Are you sure you are not being had?
 

Ryan Burns

Member
Sep 23, 2016
121
26
73
39
Are you sure you are not being had?

No, he's quite sincere and only claims it broke up under the water due to implosion.

One of his main issues is that the survivors closest to the ship, those messing around with A and B, such as Lights and Gracie, don't mention anything about a breakup. But of course that's a really, really easy argument to defeat because you gotta think that anyone in the water wasn't paying attention to what was happening with the ship...they were paying attention to STAYING ALIVE. I explained to him that the majority of the quartermasters and able seamen who testified said it broke in half and I think their testimony actually carries more weight than those closest to the ship. They were able to sit on their oars and quietly observe everything. As I said, those closest to the ship had more pressing matters to concern themselves with than watching the ship.

Also, how in the hell do you explain Frank Prentice's quotes where he basically said that he was hanging on for dear life at the stern (next to the beware triple screws sign) and he suddenly felt the ship fall down, bounce around, and then rise back up again. There is literally no way to interpret that quote as meaning anything other than the ship breaking in half.

If you care to read this lunacy and my and others responses, check out the comments section. Scroll down about 10 comments and see where "David Frigault" starts talking. I seriously can't fathom how anyone can have this viewpoint.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
468
67
93
Well, often the crazies are the most well-read. They have to be. It takes no real thought to agree with popular opinion, but to go against the grain requires an arsenal of counter-facts. Also, because they debate so many people, they have exposure to a wide range of facts and opinions. They're good at it because they've had so much practice. People who take common knowledge at face value are rarely so well-prepared.

I have a wonderful mental exercise postulating that the Earth is the center of the universe, and no one has ever proven it wrong, simply because they're so used to assuming facts. It's actually relatively easy to disprove, but they are incapable of analyzing the argument on a technical basis simply because they are unprepared. We believe that we are rational creatures with the capacity for emotion, but actually we are emotional creatures with the capacity for reason. Much of what we believe is not actually based in fact, rather the facts are an excuse for rationalizing what we choose to believe (example: any religious or political debate)
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,510
925
388
65
In the 1997 annual British Titanic Society conference I met a chap - in his late 60s at the time - who was one of those who believed that the Titanic sank whole and the split occurred over time due to currents, WWII effects (he was rather vague on that one) etc. He was not crazy as such but I got the impression that he was set in his ways and not very bright. He believed that the Titanic was so well built that it was impossible for "a few tons of water" to have caused her to break in two. He was also quite anti-American and thought that the 'split theory' was some sort of conspiracy started by Ballard et al for propaganda.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
It is strange that he would believe the ship sank intact and used Lightoller as his source because Lightoller said there were two explosions and when he came to the surface he saw the stern of the ship facing the opposite way and her mighty propellers narrowly missed the collapsible boat. He even said "The ship had turned around while I was under the water." I doubt a fully intact ship the size of the Titanic could turn around 'intact' that fast, unless she was broken in two.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
He was not the only one, Aaron. This from the Final report of the British Commissioner for Wrecks, Lord Mersey:

"Her stern was gradually rising out of the water, and the propellers were clear of the water. (14078) The ship did not break in two; (14075) and she did eventually attain the perpendicular, (14084a) when the second funnel from aft about reached the water. (14089) There were no lights burning then, though they kept alight practically until the last. (Lee, 2558) (Pearcey, 10454)

This what he was talking about:

"14074. (The Solicitor-General.) I do not know whether you can help us at all in describing what happened to the ship. You were engaged and had other things to think about; but what did happen to the ship? Can you tell us at all?
[Lightoller]- Are you referring to the reports of the ship breaking in two?
14075. Yes? A: - It is utterly untrue. The ship did not and could not have broken in two."
 

Ryan Burns

Member
Sep 23, 2016
121
26
73
39
I bet that most every witness who saw it break in half could never in their wildest dreams ever imagine that a ship could do that. I guess what I'm saying is that if I was to invent some story about the ship's final moments, I wouldn't say that it broke in half because that's almost too unbelievable to even lie about.
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
46
73
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for posting the link to the YouTube video, the guy you were describing certainly is unwavering in his argument lol. I had a question dealing with your quote from Frank Prentice. Besides Charles Joughin, there are not that many people who were on the ship till the end. It the statement , he says they were hanging on for dear life and then the jolt forward indicating the break up. When he said they were hanging on, was that before or after the break? I have been looking at his interviews and cannot find anything in which he described that particular event.
 

Ryan Burns

Member
Sep 23, 2016
121
26
73
39
He said they were hanging on before the break. Of course he never called it a break, but we now know that he was 100% accurately describing the breakup. It was after the breakup that he decided to jump off. Interestingly, the two buddies he was with jumped before the break, one of whom he never saw again and the other encountered in the water seriously injured. If his two mates jumped right before the break, as he described them doing, then those guys jumped off the ship at its greatest height and it is no wonder they seem to have been killed by the fall. We now think that the stern didn't rise as high as we traditionally thought, but I bet those guys jumped from at least 150 feet up. Of course any fall into water greater than 100 feet is likely to kill you if you don't fall perfectly. So ya, Frank jumped off the ship at the perfect moment. His fall wasn't nearly as far since he jumped right as it started to rise again after the break.

I'm trying to recall who the other person was who was still on board and described the breakup. Joughin doesn't describe it, but I think there must be someone else because I recall someone stating that people were shouting "we're saved" when it split. It's possible Frank said that in a different interview.

His quote comes from this video. He starts talking about his experience at the stern at about 1 hr and 4 mins into this video

 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
46
73
Thank You,
What got my attention was that his description of the condition of the ship seems to go against the newer theory of the 10 degree breakup. I know the break up likely didn't occur at 45 degree angle as originally thought, but I lean more towards a 23 to 30 degrees break demonstrated in James Cameron's more recent simulation. At 23 degrees, which doesn't look much different than a 30 degree angle, would look relatively high while still allowing those on the ship to walk . It would still be a struggle but they would not slide down the deck. I do not believe that the ship parted at 10 degrees as it would raise a lot more questions that lean against that theory. Those who witnessed the ship from a distance but were able to see the break up are the one's that I tend to view as more reliable. It would seem that those on the ship give more vague testimony because, as you previously said, did not have the opportunity to just watch as they were busy trying to stay alive. There are some that even try to theorize that the break up occurred before the bridge was even submerged or the forward funnel fell. At that point there would still have been lifeboats being loaded and the ship still blazing with light. While the start of failure could have very well began at a more shallow angle, complete failure and separation could have occurred as the stern was rising higher. I recall in reading survivor testimony in both inquiry's passengers visually demonstrating what the ship position was with their hands but unfortunately we cannot know what they were showing. But hearing Prentice describing movable objects crashing seems to suggest a steeper angle than 10 degrees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
He said they were hanging on before the break. Of course he never called it a break, but we now know that he was 100% accurately describing the breakup. It was after the breakup that he decided to jump off. Interestingly, the two buddies he was with jumped before the break, one of whom he never saw again and the other encountered in the water seriously injured. If his two mates jumped right before the break, as he described them doing, then those guys jumped off the ship at its greatest height and it is no wonder they seem to have been killed by the fall. We now think that the stern didn't rise as high as we traditionally thought, but I bet those guys jumped from at least 150 feet up. Of course any fall into water greater than 100 feet is likely to kill you if you don't fall perfectly. So ya, Frank jumped off the ship at the perfect moment. His fall wasn't nearly as far since he jumped right as it started to rise again after the break.

I'm trying to recall who the other person was who was still on board and described the breakup. Joughin doesn't describe it, but I think there must be someone else because I recall someone stating that people were shouting "we're saved" when it split. It's possible Frank said that in a different interview.

His quote comes from this video. He starts talking about his experience at the stern at about 1 hr and 4 mins into this video
Hello Ray. How's this for size? This from the evidence of Trimmer Dillon, who was possibly the role model for Leonardo de Caprio.

"3857. (The Commissioner.) Am I to understand that you were actually on board the "Titanic" when she went down? A: - Yes, my Lord.
3858. (Mr. Raymond Asquith.) Before the ship actually went down did you see her make any movements? A: - Yes, she took one final plunge and righted herself again.
3859. She gave a plunge and righted herself again? A: - Yes.
3860. Did you notice anything about the funnel? A: - Not then.
3861. Did you afterwards notice something about the funnel? A: Yes

3863. Was that after you had left the ship? A: - Before I left the ship.
3864. What did you notice? A: - Well, the funnel seemed to cant up towards me.
3865. It seemed to fall aft? A: - Yes; it seemed to fall up this way.
3866. Was that the aftermost funnel? A: - Yes.
3867. Did you get the idea that the ship was breaking in two? A: - No.
3868. Did the funnel seem to fall towards you? A: - Yes."


I believe that although Dillon did not imagine that Titanic was breaking her back between Funnels 3 & 4...he actually witnessed the moment when that happened. Up until then, because he was standing on the poop and the ship was canted by the head, all four funnels would seem to him to be leaning forard.
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
46
73
How did you come to the conclusion that he suggested all four funnels were leaning when he only was asked and addressed the after most funnel? Perhaps im not understanding it correctly.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Possibly I'm at fault, Chris. I'll try and paint a word picture.

Think of it this way" You are a passenger standing on the poop looking forward. You can see Funnel 4. inclined and fore-shortened toward you because the funnels are raked aft toward your position and the ship is on and even keel.
As the stern rises out of the water and the ship begins to tilt by the head, No 4 funnel appears to you to get taller.
Eventually, as the stern rises further out of the water, and the bow titls further down, the funnel seems to gert shorter again.
Suddenly, the ships breaks it's back just froward of funnel 4. The aft end from just forward of funnel 4 settles back onto the sea surface. In that brief moment, No.4 Funnel reverses its aparent height. i.e. it gets taller then shorter as it returns to its original attitude... raked aft. it seems to be 'leaning' back toward your position.

I can draw you a wee picture but don't have the time just at the moment.
 

Ryan Burns

Member
Sep 23, 2016
121
26
73
39
Yeah, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for there to be any other explanation to explain Dillon and Prentice's comments other than the ship breaking in half.

Also, the laws of physics makes it impossible for a funnel on a ship that is sinking by the bow to fall aft absent some other superseding cause.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Similar threads