Kyle Naber
Member
Yeah, the tower debris speaks against a “V” or “L” shaped position of the ship. The Titanic only bent one direction, which was middle up, stern and bow down.
Itsstillthinking
Member
Would there had been sufficient air to keep it afloat momentarily?
Kyle Naber
Member
I think the tower broke off from the stern during the descent and not during the actual breaking apart of the ship on the surface.
A
Aaron_2016
Guest
The explosion was heard as the starboard collapsible was being untied. The bow broke and took a violent lurch downwards and then steadied herself and rose back up before sinking properly. Mr. Mellors and Mr. Thayer could hear the explosions inside as the bow tilted down and then back up again. Mr. Daly - "The Titanic gave a lurch downward and we were in the water up to our hips." The lurch would have been about 3 feet down, and then 3 feet back up. However those in lifeboat 4 could see the bow going much higher up as they were very close to the ship, and the sketches that were outlined by Mr. Thayer show the prow of the ship resurfacing. It was likely only 2 or 3 feet below the surface when she broke, and would not have taken much weight at the back to push down and raise the prow back up again.
.
A
Aaron_2016
Guest
The Titanic effectively broke into three on the surface. Whether she separated into 3 on the surface is unknown.
Mrs. Chaffee - Lifeboat 4
"The ship sank steadily until just at the last, when it plunged rapidly. Just before going down it seemed to writhe (twist), breaking into the three parts into which it was divided. First the middle seemed to go down, lifting bow and stern into the air. Then it twisted the other way, throwing the middle up. Finally the bow went under, and it plunged, stern last."
Checking the newspapers to see what the survivors said when they arrived back in the UK.
I recall another account which stated the middle section stayed afloat longer than the bow and stern and was the last part to sink out of sight as the ship went down.
.
H
Harland Duzen
Member
Since Thayer was in the water during the break up and there's been the suggestion the stern possibly spun or rotated in the water, could the risen bow simply been the stern at a different angle that Thayer in all the trauma mistook to be a separate part of the ship.
(Note: I have suggested this either earlier or on a different thread.)
(Note: I have suggested this either earlier or on a different thread.)
A
Aaron_2016
Guest
The broken sections of the keel landed upside down. The plates are bent sharply downwards, including the keel strip which held the ship together. This means if both of these pieces were right side up then the keel must have parted when she was in a V position, or more plausible would be an L position as the stern rose up while the bow sank bodily and then shunted forwards and detached.
Right side up
As the ship separated into 3 sections, (bow and stern tugging apart) the middle became the lever. It rapidly filled with water and sank down, breaking the keel in the V position. The bow end partially broke and lurched forward and was then pulled down by the middle section as it flooded rapidly which pulled the back of the bow down and sent the prow upwards before detaching and plummet down again, and the stern was pulled upwards by the middle as the middle sank and then it detached and the stern settled back again. Lifeboat 4 was very close and Mrs. Chaffee saw her sink exactly like that.
"The ship sank steadily until just at the last, when it plunged rapidly. Just before going down it seemed to writhe (twist), breaking into the three parts into which it was divided. First the middle seemed to go down, lifting bow and stern into the air. Then it twisted the other way, throwing the middle up. Finally the bow went under, and it plunged, stern last."
Mrs. Hippach was in the same lifeboat and also saw the ship break and sink down in the middle, which would naturally cause the bow and stern to rise up as the middle sank deeper and much more rapidly as the weight of the engines in the stern helped to push it down.
"We heard a fearful explosion. I saw the ship split open. At the same time the ship's bow rose up in the air as the steamer sank towards the center."
.
Rob Lawes
Member
Aaron. If you were standing on the boat deck, the forecastle deck would be approximately 18 feet below you. If you look at the ship profile plans you can clearly see that A and B decks are above the height of the Forecastle Deck.
Therefore if you were stood in the front end of the boat deck up to your waist in water, even if the ship was on an even keel, the prow would be over 18 feet below the surface of the water. A rise of 3 feet would not bring the prow anywhere near the surface.
Quartermaster Bright said the forecastle deck was some 20 feet below the boat deck when his collapsible was lowered and that it was just going under the water.
He also added the following:
Further up in Bright's testimony he says he was no more than 100 yards from the bow of the ship when she sank and that he saw the ship break in two.
Therefore if you were stood in the front end of the boat deck up to your waist in water, even if the ship was on an even keel, the prow would be over 18 feet below the surface of the water. A rise of 3 feet would not bring the prow anywhere near the surface.
Quartermaster Bright said the forecastle deck was some 20 feet below the boat deck when his collapsible was lowered and that it was just going under the water.
He also added the following:
Further up in Bright's testimony he says he was no more than 100 yards from the bow of the ship when she sank and that he saw the ship break in two.
A
Aaron_2016
Guest
The water that entered via the forward well deck would still take the same path the water below took and move aft and into the 3rd class dining room amidships. Nothing could flood the upper decks of the bow until the open pathways amidships had flooded. Water can't levitate and hold itself in the bow. It had to travel aft and down in the middle. When the ship broke and the bow took a violent lurch it imbalanced the water inside. As the weight in the middle pushed down at alarming speed and force, it would tilt the partially broken bow back and the prow would go up. The more weight that rushed into the middle the heaver it got and the forward bridge would become the pivot point. Everything aft would tilt down and everything forward would tilt up. Those who tried to free the collapsible felt the bow lurch down and then rise up again. As the forward bridge was the pivot point it would stay close to the surface as the back went down and the prow went up.
The ship sags heavily in the middle owing to the weight of water as she sinks bodily and she buckles open. The weight immediately changes direction and rolls downhill into the middle. The heavier it gets the fast the water rushes away from the bow and downhill into the middle. The weight of the engines thrusts it down even more, especially as the water that is forward bursts through bulkhead walls like a domino effect and rushes into the middle downhill and this tilts the ship down more in the centre and sends the bow upwards which is filled with cargo, crates, mail, air pockets, and a large volume of air that was compressed out of the middle and uphill into the bow as the water below decks rushes downhill into the middle.
Quartermaster Rowe left the ship in collapsible C. He was asked:
Q - When you put off, was the vessel awash in the fore-well deck?
A - Yes.
Q - The fore-well deck was under water?
A - Yes. The forecastle head was not submerged.
He said the forecastle head was not submerged but the fore-well deck was. This tells us that the downward tilt was not significant as the ship was sinking bodily and was not going down by the head towards the end. She was just settling lower altogether. The well deck submerged first and then the forecastle head. If she did go down continuously by the head then her forecastle would have submerged before the well deck. Pearcey was also in the same collapsible and he said he watched the ship sink and he also did not notice she was down by the head. Boxhall was correct when he said she was sinking bodily broadside.
The ship was sinking over to port. It was so bad that Colonel Gracie thought she was going to roll over completely and capsize. The water would wash over the port side of the well deck. Imagine this image is resting heavily to port. Note - the natural curvature of the stern gives the illusion she is going down by the head, when she is really going down almost entirely broadside.
Quartermaster Bright left in collapsible D soon afterwards.
"When I left, the forecastle was going under water."
He rowed away and then - "I heard something, but I would not call it an explosion. It was like a rattling of chain, more than an anything else." When this noise was heard he would have reacted just like everyone else who held an oar, and pulled away as hard and as fast as possible for fear of the suction. Survivors said they were attracted to look back at the ship when they heard the explosions. As soon as Bright could spare a minute he would look back. He said - "She broke in two. All at once she seemed to go up on end, you know, and come down about half way, and then the afterpart righted, itself again and the forepart had disappeared. A few seconds the after part did the same thing and went down. I could distinctly see the propellers everything out of the water." This sounds very much like the survivors who said the stern broke and buckled upwards. The bow lights immediately went out and all they could see was the broken stern sticking up in the air and then settling back again as the bow went under.
Jack Thayer said the stern lights glared like being on fire. This would have dazzled everyone who looked back after the explosions. Bright also told the Inquiry that the lights in the bow section went out when she broke and the bow "disappeared" and the lights in the stern remained on after she settled back. Those who saw the bow rise up were focusing on the bow when she broke e.g. Those in lifeboat 4 were near the stern. They saw her break and her stern buckle and rise up into the air. As they were near the stern they most likely saw her dark keel rising up and they would not be dazzled by the glare of her deck lights as she broke and rose up. This would mean their eyes could see better in the dark and as they were one of the closest boats to the ship they were able to see the bow rise, which is why a number of them stated she sank in the middle and both bow and stern rose up when she broke as she sank down heavily in the middle.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Augusto Félix Solari
Member
Yes. There was. Think of all the curious passengers who felt the collision and peeped outside to see what was going on. Many of them would have left the portholes open. On the other hand, one could say that the stewards inadvertely helped to delay the sinking somewhat by closing all the cabin doors to protect the belongings of the passengers inside.
A
Aaron_2016
Guest
The public rooms might also had their windows left open to air out the rooms in preparation for breakfast. There was also a fault with the heating system. A passenger complained that it was so hot in some of the cabins that the heating was turned off as they attended to the problem. e.g. James McGough left his porthole open because his room was too hot. A number of passengers said that pieces of ice fell into their cabin windows slightly open for air and ventilation (imagine the horrid smell of fresh paint and varnish inside a confined space and trying to sleep through it).
Two accounts that stand out are:
Charles Joughin
Q - On E deck are the portholes in practice opened from time to time?
A - Very, very often we keep them open the whole of the passage.
Emily Ryerson
Q - When you went down into the water, from the boat, did you notice anything about the portholes in the side of the ship?
A - Yes, a great many were open.
Q - Did you notice anything in particular about the portholes on the water?
A - Yes, the water was washing in the portholes, and later I think some of the square windows seemed to be open, and you could see in the cabin and see the water washing in and the gold furniture and decorations, and I remember noticing you could look far in, it was brilliantly lighted, which deck I couldn’t tell.
Q - Did you notice any of the lines of portholes disappear after you got in the boat?
A - Yes, she was sinking very rapidly then, we saw two lines and then we saw only one. It was very brilliantly lighted and you could see very distinctly.
Q - Do you recall seeing any below the C deck?
A - No, our boat was down on that level when we were lowered, practically even with the C deck; the ship had sunk so much on that side.
Looking at the Olympic we can see that the open windows on C-deck would have greatly helped the ship sink more bodily.
.
Two accounts that stand out are:
Charles Joughin
Q - On E deck are the portholes in practice opened from time to time?
A - Very, very often we keep them open the whole of the passage.
Emily Ryerson
Q - When you went down into the water, from the boat, did you notice anything about the portholes in the side of the ship?
A - Yes, a great many were open.
Q - Did you notice anything in particular about the portholes on the water?
A - Yes, the water was washing in the portholes, and later I think some of the square windows seemed to be open, and you could see in the cabin and see the water washing in and the gold furniture and decorations, and I remember noticing you could look far in, it was brilliantly lighted, which deck I couldn’t tell.
Q - Did you notice any of the lines of portholes disappear after you got in the boat?
A - Yes, she was sinking very rapidly then, we saw two lines and then we saw only one. It was very brilliantly lighted and you could see very distinctly.
Q - Do you recall seeing any below the C deck?
A - No, our boat was down on that level when we were lowered, practically even with the C deck; the ship had sunk so much on that side.
Looking at the Olympic we can see that the open windows on C-deck would have greatly helped the ship sink more bodily.
.
Rob Lawes
Member
Aaron, Thomas Ranger was in boat number 4 with Emily Ryerson and he had this to say at the British inquiry before he slid down the falls and into the boat:
4055. You are speaking of the port side as I understand?
- Yes, port side.
4056. Did you notice at all whether there was any list on the ship at this time?
- There was a slight list to port, Sir.
4057. Did you notice whether she was down by the head?
- Yes.
4058. Badly?
- Yes.
4059. Did you see at all whether the water was over her foc'sle deck; could you see that?
- No, you could not.
4060. You could not see that?
- You could not see whether her foc'sle deck was under water at the afterend of the boat.
4061. You could not see so far from where you were?
- No.
4062. But you noticed she was down by the head; you could feel that?
- Yes.
Ryerson also states in her testimony that she was in the bow of her boat watching the ship sink and that it plunged towards the bow.
As for Bright, as you can see, I quoted from his testimony. He clearly states the following:
Mr. BRIGHT.
No; I should say it was as near half an hour as possible. When I left, the forecastle was going under water.
Senator FLETCHER.
Then the collapsible boat on the starboard side was next to the last boat to leave the ship?
Mr. BRIGHT.
Yes; I did not see that lowered. I saw them getting ready to lower it and I went to the other side to get the other one up.
Woah, hold a moment. If Rule left the ship and the well deck was awash but not the forecastle (remember you quoted that in Rule's testimony above) and Bright left after Rule as the Forecastle was going under then the ship must, MUST, have been going down by the head.
4055. You are speaking of the port side as I understand?
- Yes, port side.
4056. Did you notice at all whether there was any list on the ship at this time?
- There was a slight list to port, Sir.
4057. Did you notice whether she was down by the head?
- Yes.
4058. Badly?
- Yes.
4059. Did you see at all whether the water was over her foc'sle deck; could you see that?
- No, you could not.
4060. You could not see that?
- You could not see whether her foc'sle deck was under water at the afterend of the boat.
4061. You could not see so far from where you were?
- No.
4062. But you noticed she was down by the head; you could feel that?
- Yes.
Ryerson also states in her testimony that she was in the bow of her boat watching the ship sink and that it plunged towards the bow.
As for Bright, as you can see, I quoted from his testimony. He clearly states the following:
Mr. BRIGHT.
No; I should say it was as near half an hour as possible. When I left, the forecastle was going under water.
Senator FLETCHER.
Then the collapsible boat on the starboard side was next to the last boat to leave the ship?
Mr. BRIGHT.
Yes; I did not see that lowered. I saw them getting ready to lower it and I went to the other side to get the other one up.
Woah, hold a moment. If Rule left the ship and the well deck was awash but not the forecastle (remember you quoted that in Rule's testimony above) and Bright left after Rule as the Forecastle was going under then the ship must, MUST, have been going down by the head.
A
Aaron_2016
Guest
Rowe not Rule. Bright was not referring to collapsible C. If he was then he was mistaken. Bright left the ship in collapsible D which was the last boat to leave the ship. Rowe left the ship in collapsible C and saw the foredeck was awash and the forecastle head was dry. A few minutes later Bright left the ship in collapsible D after C had left. Collapsible D was the last boat to be lowered and Bright saw the forecastle head was now going under water. This means the ship was not going down by the head because the foredeck submerged before the forecastle head.
They asked Ranger if the ship was down at the head. He said yes. They did not ask him if she was down amidships or at the stern. If they had done, then I feel confident he would have said yes to that as well as she settled lower altogether. He merely answered the question they put forward. i.e. was she down at the head? Answer - yes. Ryerson turned and looked at the ship when she heard the explosive sounds as did others. She then saw the ship break and the bow took a violent lurch as it broke and she saw the two forward funnels lean forward as she broke open as if cut with a knife. The bow lights went out and she saw the stern rise into the air. This is when Brown was plunged into the water when the bow broke and lurched forward and he turned and saw the broken stern rise up. He was near the first funnel, so this ties in with Ryerson's account that the two forward funnel leaned as she broke.
Ruth Becker saw the same thing and demonstrated with her fingers how the two forward funnels leaned forward as she broke.
"As you know the Titanic had 4 funnels and when we heard this explosion the Titanic broke in half."
We also have Lightoller's account. He said there were a series of explosions and he held onto a broken piece of wood that had broken off the deck. He said the piece of wood had a guy wire attached to it which led up to one of the funnels. He held onto it as he was sucked down "two or three times" and when he reached the surface he let go off the wood and found the collapsible. When he reached it he saw the forward funnel fall. This broken piece of wood which connected to the top of the funnel by a wire was undoubtedly from funnel 2 or 3 as the ship broke apart and the broken wood with the wire still attached broke away from the deck which he then held onto and prevented him from being dragged down as the water continued to rush into the hollow of the ship as the bow still contained much air. This would also mean the bow was sticking upwards because the forward funnel was much higher up and still largely above the water when he finally reached the collapsible.
He also said the ship had turned around when he reached the surface. This was undoubtedly the broken stern which slowly turned around after breaking and buckled upwards and presented her lights to some and hid her lights to others as she slowly corkscrewed and turned her decks away. As the stern had broken before the first funnel fell (as witnessed by Brown) then this would explain the broken piece of wood with the guy wire attached to a funnel (2 or 3?) which Lightoller held onto as the broken stern was turning around and the ship was sinking heavily in the middle which kept funnel 1 higher up, so that when Lightoller finally reached the collapsible he made it in time to witness it falling down which pushed the collapsible far away from the scene. Jack Thayer was in the collapsible and he saw the propellers were hovering right above them. This means the stern had already broken and was turning around before the first funnel fell and pushed their boat far away from the scene, which is yet another indication of the early break up which according to Ruth Becker caused the screams and yells to begin. Everything was more or less calm until the ship appeared to explode and break into sections and go down.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob Lawes
Member
Sorry, you're right, too many testimonies for one afternoon.
I'd love to know how you can explain this. The forward well deck was about 9 or 10 feet blow the forecastle deck. As the ship settles down and goes down by the head, of course the well deck will flood before the forecastle deck.
They never asked Ranger about the likelihood of Titanic colliding with a UFO but I feel confident he would have said no to that.
Down by the head is down the head. You can't go and put words in peoples mouths 100 years later.
Itsstillthinking
Member
On a side note has anyone ever been able to find the full interview? Iv only ever been able to find little bits of it here and there
