Could the Bow Have Risen?

[Harland Duzen]

To put it simply, Titanic or any other ship (be it the Mauritania or Queen Mary 2) If it takes damage and then floods in her bow or forward section can't and won't be able to rise out of the water due to lack of buoyancy.

Unless the entire hull was completely empty of decks and bulkheads and there had been some force powerful enough to slosh thousands of tons of water to Midship AND the air had then vice versa managed to move to the Bow without pressure causing a mass implosion or rupture of the hull, then it might* have been possible.

*And even then it would't be 100% possible without the Bow imploding or falling apart.

 

[Aaron_2016]

.....Down by the head is down the head. You can't go and put words in peoples mouths 100 years later.

It's entirely up to interpretation. Boats that were lowered near the bow would see the forward well deck close to the water. Boats that rowed towards the light of a ship off the port bow would also look back and see her bow (the only part they could see) settling down to the water. When asked if the ship was down at the head they would answer yes. Those who saw her broadside said she sank "bodily" "broadside". Violet Jessop counted the decks and noticed how each line dipped below the surface in unison with no tilt to either bow or stern and she counted each line disappear one after the other. Mrs. Harris saw the same thing. e.g.

"I looked up, five ribbons of port hole lights that converged from the stern to the bow quickly became four, then three, then two, then one and then I knew my beloved and all those fine men and women who had become so close to me during those trying hours hadn't a chance."


This video shows how ridiculously wrong the angle of the ship is.

In reality the ship was settling bodily broadside and primarily over to port. The water rushed into the middle through many open portholes on C-deck. As the water approached the boat deck she began to buckle in the middle and her stern broke and stood up with lights blazing. The only light remaining in the bow section would be the starboard green light. The deck lights turned red and went out, the wireless went out, and the port light submerged and went out. The navigation lights likely had an extra boost of power for emergencies and this could explain why the green starboard light continued to burn when the ship buckled and the stern rose up like a skyscraper. e.g.

Edith Rosenbaum
"I remember we kept our eyes focused on the bow light of the Titanic which shone bright green on the starboard side. This light seemed to dip nearer and nearer to the water's edge......Gradually the green starboard light hit the water's edge, and it seemed to me that the boat stood on end. (stern buckles upwards)......At 2:20 I saw the green light disappear entirely. The boat fully lighted up, suggesting one of our skyscrapers. It stood on end and then seemed to shoot or dive; went down by her nose with such speed, that I seemed to think it would come up again in some other part of the ocean."

Owing to her perspective she did not see the ship break in two. She her green light was close to the water and her stern was standing up like a skyscraper. Her green light went out, the bow 'disappeared' and the stern was still sticking up in the air. As she thought the ship sank intact she naturally assumed that if her stern was sticking up, then her bow must be pointing down. Those who heard the explosion and looked had observed her bow break and take a violent lurch downwards. The lights went out in the bow and that was the last they could see of it. Those closer however could see her break into three, and observed the bow and stern rise up as she sank rapidly in the middle. Dillon told a British reporter that the bow broke off like a carrot and bobbed back up again. Yet he told the Inquiry that she did not break in two, so we get an idea why Lightoller said the Inquiry was a whitewash to protect the company. They were afraid there was a catastrophic failure in the ship's design and did everything they could to dismiss the claims of those who said she broke.

It is interesting that a number of survivors said the ship broke just aft of the first funnel. This suggests that the forward funnel fell at the same time the buckled stern was separating and turning around. If they were seated in a boat that was facing the bow then they could only see her forward funnel, and when it fell they turned and saw the stern had broken off and was slowly turning and twisting around which hid most of her lights as she turned her decks away. This also explains the different timings of the lights going out in the stern. It entirely depended on where each lifeboat was at the time and what they could see, which explains why there are so many discrepancies.


.


.

 

[Rennette Marston]

In reality the ship was settling bodily broadside and primarily over to port. The water rushed into the middle through many open portholes on C-deck. As the water approached the boat deck she began to buckle in the middle and her stern broke and stood up with lights blazing. The only light remaining in the bow section would be the starboard green light. The deck lights turned red and went out, the wireless went out, and the port light submerged and went out. The navigation lights likely had an extra boost of power for emergencies and this could explain why the green starboard light continued to burn when the ship buckled and the stern rose up like a skyscraper. e.g.

Edith Rosenbaum
"I remember we kept our eyes focused on the bow light of the Titanic which shone bright green on the starboard side. This light seemed to dip nearer and nearer to the water's edge......Gradually the green starboard light hit the water's edge, and it seemed to me that the boat stood on end. (stern buckles upwards)......At 2:20 I saw the green light disappear entirely. The boat fully lighted up, suggesting one of our skyscrapers. It stood on end and then seemed to shoot or dive; went down by her nose with such speed, that I seemed to think it would come up again in some other part of the ocean."

Owing to her perspective she did not see the ship break in two. She her green light was close to the water and her stern was standing up like a skyscraper. Her green light went out, the bow 'disappeared' and the stern was still sticking up in the air. As she thought the ship sank intact she naturally assumed that if her stern was sticking up, then her bow must be pointing down. Those who heard the explosion and looked had observed her bow break and take a violent lurch downwards. The lights went out in the bow and that was the last they could see of it. Those closer however could see her break into three, and observed the bow and stern rise up as she sank rapidly in the middle. Dillon told a British reporter that the bow broke off like a carrot and bobbed back up again. Yet he told the Inquiry that she did not break in two, so we get an idea why Lightoller said the Inquiry was a whitewash to protect the company. They were afraid there was a catastrophic failure in the ship's design and did everything they could to dismiss the claims of those who said she broke.

It is interesting that a number of survivors said the ship broke just aft of the first funnel. This suggests that the forward funnel fell at the same time the buckled stern was separating and turning around. If they were seated in a boat that was facing the bow then they could only see her forward funnel, and when it fell they turned and saw the stern had broken off and was slowly turning and twisting around which hid most of her lights as she turned her decks away. This also explains the different timings of the lights going out in the stern. It entirely depended on where each lifeboat was at the time and what they could see, which explains why there are so many discrepancies.

I think the bow "rising" or "resurfacing" from the sea could've been the bow correcting her heavy list to port after she twisted and broke from the stern. This would create the impression that the bow had risen.

 

[Rennette Marston]

I think the bow "rising" or "resurfacing" from the sea could've been the bow correcting her heavy list to port after she twisted and broke from the stern. This would create the impression that the bow had risen.

 

[Alex Clark]

Looking at that video, it appears that there are portholes(just astern of lifeboat 13 as she’s on the water)aft of the condenser discharge that look to be on the same level. Wasn’t the discharge below the waterline under normal trim? If so, it appears as though those portholes would be underwater when the ship is on an even keel. It must be an illusion as the view of the ship’s side isn’t brilliant in that clip.

 

[Rob Lawes]

The condenser discharge is pictured in this thread:

The discharge vent

I am curious about the water discharge vent that nearly flooded lifeboat 13 (the one abeam funnel 4, on G deck)... what was its purpose? And where did the water it was pumping out on April 14th/15th come from?

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

It was located on G deck. There were third class cabins further aft with portholes. These were only a few feet above the waterline and would have been a bit wet in rough weather therefore I would full expect they would not have been able to be opened.

 

[Rennette Marston]

View attachment 49053

There is an error I noticed... I meant to say the stern leaned heavily to port but said starboard instead. I was tired when I made this graphic, my bad.

 

[Rennette Marston]

For more information, please visit: What if the bow evened her keel after the breakup?

 

[Dr. Wacky]

I feel like we're taking the term "bow rising" way to literally. With the rediscovery of the watt sketch, we can infer the bow rose open by the open end.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I feel like we're taking the term "bow rising" way to literally. With the rediscovery of the watt sketch, we can infer the bow rose open by the open end.

No, we can't.

And you may be referring to the now infamous "Skidmore Drawing" which was supposed to be based on what Jack Theyer said. The problem with that is nowhere did Jack ever say or imply that the bow popped up. Not once.

He stated that the ship broke in two but that was it.

By this time, the bow was flooded solid and couldn't possibly have been flipped up as presented in the drawing.

 

[Dr. Wacky]

No, we can't.

And you may be referring to the now infamous "Skidmore Drawing" which was supposed to be based on what Jack Theyer said. The problem with that is nowhere did Jack ever say or imply that the bow popped up. Not once.

He stated that the ship broke in two but that was it.

By this time, the bow was flooded solid and couldn't possibly have been flipped up as presented in the drawing.

Now I never said Thayer saw the bow bob back up. Nor did I say the sketch was by him.
What I ment to say was the open end might has lifted up for a minute.

Carrie Chaffee: "it seemed to writhe, breaking into the three parts in which it was divided. First the middle seemed to go down lifting bow and stern in the air..."

 

[Michael H. Standart]

What I ment to say was the open end might has lifted up for a minute.

That at least is plausible. Another possibility is chunks of the superstructure which broke away being forced up ever so briefly. The break up was a messy and noisy event.

 

[Dr. Wacky]

That at least is plausible. Another possibility is chunks of the superstructure which broke away being forced up ever so briefly. The break up was a messy and noisy event.

My first idea was that the towers floated. Even before the watt sketch was found. (Image below shows old theory) looking back on it. It's physically impossible...

 

[Dr. Wacky]

Ironically enough. I proposed the open section of the bow bobbed back up before I discovered the robertha watt sketch.

 

[Ryan H]

In my break up theory which is a composite of Roger Long's, Park Stevenson's 2006 Theory, 1998 Three Section Break Up and James Cameron's 2017 theory. I had that the reason why the back end of the bow was risen for a moment. The middle section was still connected to the Stern and the Bow and as the Stern starts to list to port the back end of the bow rose up before it goes underwater disconnected from the Keel.

Keep in mind I am using the Top-Down rules that Park Stevenson's used so its not accurate to Roy Mengot's so yeah what do you think of it?