Could Titanic's double bottom have been torn open by the iceberg

Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>Therefore, should we take this generalization as fact? <<

I don't think so, but then that's part of what I've been trying to say. Overall, it looks like you and I are on the same page.
 
M

Mark Robert Hopkins

Member
Oh, okay. I thought you were supporting Wilding's claims (not that I'm not altogether, but I don't support them altogether either), although I admit that I didn't have a chance to read all of your posts in this thread. Still, my assertions were a separate discussion altogether. I just tied them into the Wilding issue.
 
S

Sandy McLendon

Member
Hi:

Yeow, what a can of worms I've opened here! Remind me not to mix it up on the Californian threads any time soon, LOL.

Whatever the truth of the matter, it must have been a chilling sight to witness the entry of water into the ship. One of the most terrifying and memorable images in the Cameron movie is the sight of sequential breaches occurring in the cargo hold- hole after hole after HOLE opening up as the ice scraped along the side, letting the sea in. Whether or not it really happened that way, it's one hell of a sight to see. If it did happen that way, I cannot imagine anyone witnessing it remaining unparalysed with terror.
 
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
Paul: Replace your h by h-H where H is level of water in hold which increases with time. Your equation gives initial flooding rate only. But as the hold fills the head of water decreases. I can send you more on this privately, include time to fill up the hold to the waterline as well as equation for flooding rate Vs. time. It also takes into account movement of the ship if any, and more.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>Oh, okay. I thought you were supporting Wilding's claims <<

Oh hardly. After hanging out here for four and a half years, listening to some real experts dissect it and reading it for myself, I'm all too aware of Wilding's strengths and the problems with his information.
Wink


>>Yeow, what a can of worms I've opened here! Remind me not to mix it up on the Californian threads any time soon, LOL. <<

Well, if you do, just aquire teflon shoulders and asbestos coveralls. The Californian controversy is not for the faint hearted.

>>If it did happen that way, I cannot imagine anyone witnessing it remaining unparalysed with terror.<<

I can. Check out Fireman Barrett's testimony sometime. Regardless of where it can be demonstrated that he was, when he saw that water coming in, he got outta there and fast! Can't say as I blame him. I would have done the same!
 
P

Paul Wilkinson

Member
Sam,

I assume you mean that H is the level of water in the hold above the hole? If the water level is below the hole, it seems to me that H should be zero and Paul's equations should be correct.

Cheers

Paul (another one!)
 
David G. Brown

David G. Brown

RIP
Beware that before you discuss Wilding's "12 square feet" you check out how he cooked the data to get pre-supposed answers. Talking about the size of the openings using the BOT timetable and Wilding's data is like trying to measure the button holes on the emperor's new clothes. Both exist only in the eye of the beholder.

The weaver of the "invisible" clothing feared the wrath of the king. Likewise, I suspect that Wilding feared those who held sway over his job. He quite openly admitted changing around the pattern of flooding until he obtained one that met the BOT's presuppositions.

Wilding's duration for the calculations was, according to his own words, 40 minutes. He also said that at the end of those minutes the ship would have water coming over the bulkheads, giving it an hour and a quarter to live.

0:40 + 1:15 = 1:55 Wilding Total Time Afloat

adding 1:55 to the 11:40 p.m. time of the accident (private to Sam--in any reference) gives 1:35 a.m. Does anybody see anything wrong? Didn't the ship float until 2:20 a.m.?

The answer to the latter question is "yes and no." Her's the kicker--Wilding knew about the breakup and used it in his mathematics. His flooding scenario ignored the 20 minutes during which boiler room #6 was DRY and Beauchamp, Shepherd, and Barrett raked down the furnaces. In effect, Wilding's initial 40 minute flooding scenario started 20 minutes after the accident, or at midnight.

11:40 + 0:20 = Midnigh + 1:55 = 1:55 a.m.

There are still some apparently missing minutes, but not really. A check of the stopped pocketwatches shows that the ship broke apart at sometime between 1:50 and 2:00 a.m. Look into the timepieces of Gracie, Thayer, Weichman, and March for corroboration.

The stern then took some time to sink. Maybe 20 minutes, maybe not. However, it is quite obvious that Wilding used the breakup of the hull to end his math. That's logical because once the hull split apart Titanic ceased to exist as a ship. It was only a pile of junk on the way to the bottom to which no flooding formulae would apply.

Proof that the button holes never existed (that is the 12 square feet) came from Paul Mathias on the Discovery Channel web page. He filed a report on his echosounding which included a direct statement that more of what appeared to be open seams were found on the port bow than on the starboard. Some TV documentary writer ignored the port side damage, then back-figured what was found on the starboard side to be, naturally, about 12 square feet.

Button holes? Do you see any buttons on this suite of clothes?

--David G. Brown
 
J

John Flood

Member
Hi David,

Are you sure the hull broke apart as early as 1.50 - 2am? I thought the last collapsible lifeboat was launched shortly after 2am, and that the last distress message sent from Titanic was received by the Virginian even later again.

I always assumed the breakup occurred sometime after 2.15am with the stern sinking a few moments later.

All the Best,
John.
 
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
Yes, Paul W., you are correct. H is the height to waterline above the hole. The flooding rate would be as Paul Lee gave until the level in the hold reached the height of the hole. Then the rate would start to decrease until the level reached the waterline when it would stop.
 
Steven Hall

Steven Hall

Member
"Are you sure the hull broke apart as early as 1.50 - 2am? I thought the last collapsible lifeboat was launched shortly after 2am, and that the last distress message sent from Titanic was received by the Virginian even later again."

I agree - I'm not sure what David is saying here.
 
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
What Wilding did was very simple.
quote:

Assuming the forepeak and Nos. 1, 2 and 3 holds and No. 6 boiler room flooded, and that the water has risen to the waterline which is shown on those diagrams, it would mean that about 16,000 tons of water had found their way into the vessel. That is the volume of the water which would have to come in. As far as I can follow from the evidence, the water was up to that level in about 40 minutes. It may be a few minutes more or less, but that was the best estimate I could make. When the inflow started the evidence we have as to the vertical position of the damage indicated that the head would be about 25 feet. Of course, as the water rose inside, that head would be reduced and the rate of inflow would be reduced somewhat. Making allowance for those, my estimate for the size of the hole required (and making some allowance for the obstruction due to the presence of decks and other things), is that the total area through which water was entering the ship, was somewhere about 12 square feet.

The situation he assumed at 40 minutes after the collision is shown in the attached diagram. It was an aggregate result, not the condition in any one particular compartment. NOTICE THAT THIS WAS THE CONDITION WHERE THE WATER IN THE COMPARTMENTS REACHED THE WATERLINE, NOT TO THE TOP OF BULKHEADS.
93841


As far as sinking in 1 hour to 1 1/4 hour, this is what was said:

20320. (The Commissioner.)... As a matter of curiosity, for my information, how long after the water got above the watertight bulkheads would this ship float. Would she sink instantly? - Absolutely no, my Lord. Probably for an hour - perhaps a little more; it would depend upon the extent of the damage. Assuming the damage in this particular case, it would take, I should think, an hour to an hour and a quarter, as well as I could estimate.

Now we talking about the situation shown below, where the water in compartment 5 (BR 6) reached the top of the bulkhead E. It is from this point that Wilding made his educated guess of 1 hour to 1 1/4 hour. So it it absolutely wrong to add 1:55 to the 11:40 p.m. as Dave had assumed.

93842


And not to get into the time debate with Dave Brown again, Thayer and Gracie's pocketwatches both stopped at 2:22, John March had set his personal watch back earlier in the evening so it would agree with ship’s time when the morning came, and Weikman's pocketwatch was set back about 25 minutes as were several other crew members in anticipation of the 1st of two clock setbacks for the crew that night that never happened. And there is absolutely no evidence that that Wilding used the breakup of the hull to end his math. In fact, it is likely he did not believe that the hull broke apart at all. After all, there were many who said it didn't as well as those that said it did.​
 
B

Bill Wormstedt

Member
The vast majority of people at the Inquiries were not asked whether the ship broke apart - in fact, especially at the British, it appears the Assessors did not WANT to ask. 65 people in this situation.

13 people said it broke apart. And ONLY FOUR said it sank intact. Lightoller, Pitman, Dillon and Woolner.

See my article "The Facts" here at ET for more details.
 
S

Sandy McLendon

Member
Bill:

Can you shed any light on why Lightoller ventured the testimony that Titanic sank intact? Was he trying to protect WSL at this point, in some way?

The reason I ask is that conditions were such that no one could have had any real visibility, so far as I can guess. There was no moon, and the lights had gone out on the ship. In addition, anyone who HAD been looking at the ship before its lights went out would have had poor night vision when the ship went down. Lightoller knew all about night vision; he was very hacked at Mrs. J. Stuart White's use of her electrically-lighted cane in her lifeboat later. He later cheerfully admitted to arranging for the cane's disappearance aboard Carpathia, as his payback to Mrs. White for interfering with his night vision by flashing her light.

It seems to me that Lightoller could not have seen much of anything, and that he must have known that any careful consideration of all the testimony at the hearing would have made that apparent. Yet he made a definitive statement that the ship sank in one piece. Puzzling.
 
M

Mark Robert Hopkins

Member
>>Can you shed any light on why Lightoller ventured the testimony that Titanic sank intact? Was he trying to protect WSL at this point, in some way?<<

One very strong possibility is that he foresaw the trouble should the break be revealed. At that time, such a disclosure would certainly have hurt WSL as well as reduce ticket sales, not to mention the fact that Lightoller knew that those conducting the investigations (American, too) were out for more than the information (they were also very much likely attempting to scapegoat the entire affair, and the best target for that would have been the crew or those who made the ship. To acknowledge that the ship had broken apart would have feuled the debate and opened the doors for the investigators to do that. Lightoller was most likely trying to deter this possibility. He had been around long enough to know not to give any information that would be detrimental to him or that would be unnecessary). In this case, it was the obvious consensus among certain individuals to keep such information on the down-side. Unsurprisingly, there were probably many others involved at that time who knew that the ship did, in fact, break in two, and Lightoller was one of them. All this is what you'd call the 'politics of the business.'

I am not sure whether there is evidence to support this now or not, but one person who could shed further light is Michael Standart. Mike, would you like to add anything?
 
B

Bill Wormstedt

Member
Sandy:

As far as Lightoller 'protecting' White Star - I think it is very possible. Keep in mind, if he tics them off - he's out of a job!

But you are right, Lightoller had no real visibility. In fact, at the time the ship was breaking apart, Lightoller was fighting for his life! Underwater, trying to pull away from the gratings by the funnel. And when over that, trying to find something to grab onto, when he found Collapsible B.

Pitman was in a position to see what actually happened - but had the same situation as Lightoller - White Star was his employer.

Woolner had no real reason to cover anything up - probably neither did Dillon.

Two people who did NOT testify at the Inquiries, but did leave accounts that say the ship did not break apart, are passengers Gracie and Beesley. Gracie was also underwater fighting for his life, and probably was too busy to actually see. Beesley could have seen, and had no real reason to lie.

Still - my point is that very few survivors said it sank intact. Far more said it broke up. However, the British Inquiry chose to believe the few who said it sank intact. And *appeared* to be suppressing the statements of those who could have said "yes, it broke up".
 
Top