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

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Senator Smith took a lot of heat for what seemed like simple-minded questions, but he seems to have worked very hard to cut through all the techno-babble, making people speak in plain English.<<

For the most part, I would tend to agree. One of Smith's handicaps was that he didn't have much in the way of a nautical background. Even with experienced mariners available to offer expertise and advice, he wouldn't always know what questions to ask. One of his great strengths was that as an experiened trial lawyer, he knew how to extract useful tidbits of information from people, often by re-weasal-wording the same questions. Because of that, he managed to get a lot more on the record then may have been offered otherwise.

 

[Sandy McLendon]

Samuel:

If you mean my posts about Lightoller, I've tried to qualify what I've said as my opinion, and I've tried to state why I feel Lightoller probably couldn't have seen much of anything (moonless night, impaired night vision, busy swimming, etc.). If I've been unsuccessful at that, you have my apologies. I'm seeking information here to expand my understanding, not attempting to "prove" an agenda. I just honestly don't understand how Lights could have seen a blessed thing, so his assertion to the BOT that the ship went down entire has always puzzled me, that's all.

Hope that clarifies things at least a bit.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Paul:

The interesting question remains as to what exactly did the Virginian hear at 12:10 AM, NY time, and after that time that night? Unlike today, wireless receivers in 1912 were passive devices and not capable of amplifying signals. The loudness of a signal depended on the signal strength of the received radio frequency signal. The received signal strength depended on the power level of the transmitting station, the propagation loss along the signal path between transmitter and receiver, and gains and orientations of the transmitting and receiving antennas. And unlike most communications channels today, the radio frequencies that were used were simplex communications channels, shared by many wireless stations that were out there. In recognizing a particular transmission, the receiving operator depended on reading specific call signs (like MGY for the Titanic) as confirmation that a signal came from a particular station. They did learn, however, to recognizing a particular operator’s touch on the key, as well as the unique signature tone and harmonics sent out by the spark gap generators of some of the stations. But when signals are weak, and a lot of other transmissions going on, dependence on these other factors are much less reliable. Only recognizing a call sign can one be sure as to where the transmission came from. It is possible that the last transmission sent out from the Titanic was at 12:10 NY time. After that, it is somewhat questionable. Sometimes what one wants to hear, one tends to hear.

And the Virginian was not alone in this. According to the PV record of the Mount Temple, at 1:58 AM NY time the operator of the Birma (SBA) thought he heard the Titanic and sent a message to MGY saying: “Steaming full speed to you; shall arrive you 6 in the morning. Hope you are safe. We are only 50 miles now.”

In a report written by Harold Bride to Mr. W. R. Cross, the traffic manager of the Marconi Company, on April 27, 1912, Bride writes:

Again Mr. Phillips called "C Q D" and "S O S" and for nearly five minutes got no reply, and then both the Carpathia (MPA) and the Frankfurt (DFT) called. Just at this moment the captain came into the cabin and said, "You can do nothing more; look out for yourselves."

Apparently, this occurred just minutes before he and Phillips abandoned the Marconi room. Looking at the timeline of last messages, it seems that we can correlate this event to the messages at 11:55 PM NY time. Converting to NY time to Titanic time, it tells us that Capt. Smith released the two wireless operators a about 1:55 AM Titanic time.
In an interview with a NY Times reporter on April 18th, the day the Carpathia docked in NY harbor, Bride said that they abandoned the wireless cabin 10 to 15 minutes after Smith released them. At the American Inquiry he said:
“Mr. BRIDE. The motor and alternator that was working with our wireless set were running when we left the cabin, 10 minutes before the ship went down.”
It was at this point that both he and Phillips went up on top of the officers quarters, with Phillips going aft and Bride going to Collapsible B that was trying to be pushed off of the officers quarters. This would put them abandoning the wireless cabin about 2:10 AM Titanic time, or just a few minutes before that wave, induced by the sinking of the Titanic, washed so many overboard, including Harold Bride. If Phillips was indeed working the transmitter up until that time, then that would correspond to the transmission heard by the Virginian at 12:10 AM NY time and identified as coming from MGY. According to Bride, the last message that Phillips sent out was a general “CQD MGY” call, and it was this call that the Virginian operator described as: “Hear MGY calling very faintly, his power greatly reduced.”

Oh, by the way, the time on the Titanic was set for noon April 14th longitude. That put there clocks 2:01 ahead of NY, not 1:50 or 1:33 ahead as accepted by the two Inquiries, respectively. But that's another matter altogether for some other time.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Sandy: No, not your posts.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

To clarify some numbers I've seen used in earlier posts, Gracie said his watch stopped at 2:22 AM, not 2:02 AM.

 

[David G. Brown]

I've been away on business and do not have time to make a long post. Let me answer Sam's argument about what Wilding's flooding scenario.

I agree that Sam has recapitulated the traditional view of how Wilding's testimony has been interpreted. However, I have to catagorically deny that what Sam has presented was: a.) what actually took place on Titanic; or, b.) what Wilding actually said when you put together his London and New York testimonies.

Wilding's started his flooding at a condition that did not obtain for at least 20 minutes after impact. Either this is true, or Barrett and Beauchamp lied about pulling down the fires in boiler room #6. And, I stand by my argument that Wilding also ended his timeline at the breakup simply because Titanic ceased to exist at that moment. Using the actual times and durations presented by Wilding, you don't get to 2:20 a.m., but logically to about 20 minutes earlier--when the breakup took place.

The traditional view of Wilding's comments assumes that water overtopping the bulkheads is what sank Titanic. This myth is pure bovine feces. The water that sank Titanic was ingress--through the hull plating as a result of the original accident (with the berg) and as a gradual result of the weakening of the hull girder/shell plating. After that, downflooding finished the job. Water overtopped the bulkheads at some point, as it does on every ship that sinks, but this was not the cause of the Titanic's demise. It was a "red herring" out into the official reports just to confuse the real issue.

The breakup must have occurred some time prior to the disappearance of the stern. The traditional view is that the thing folded up and disappeared in a twinkling. Not possible. That stern had a helluva lot of air in it after the bow broke away. This is why it stood up and took about 20 minutes to submerge.

We have a grisly sort of proof of this in the descriptions of the protracted cries for help. These have been ascribed to people int he water, which is again ridiculous. Anyone in 28 degree water is going to lose their ability to shout very quickly, most within a minute or two. This doesn't mean they're dead, just busy trying to breath. Anyone who has jumped into a swimming pool on a hot day has an inkling of the effect that a sudden plunge into cold water has on the human system. Well, where were those people doing all of the shouting? DRY. That's why they could shout. They were dry because they were on the upended stern section of Titanic as it slowly sagged into the sea.

The lifeboats didn't go back because only a goddamned fool would row a clumsy boat with a crew of amateurs up to a few thousand tons of steel that's breaking apart, pivoting in the water, upending, and then sinking. When the danger was over, there was effectively nobody to rescue.

Now, if we look around at all those lifeboats at 2:20 a.m. we notice a lot of empty seats. It has probably never occurred to most people that the emptiness of the earliest boats was in part due to the fact that boiler room #6 did not flood as the official myths claim. If Titanic had flooded that quickly, the negative bow trim would have been frightening enough to force boatloads of people to forget the "unsinkable" nonsense and look for a lifeboat. It was the solid, "nothing's changed" feeling that passengers had during the first hour of the sinking that kept 'em indoors where the music was entertaining.

There is really no reason to discuss who saw Titanic break apart and who did not. Some people must have lied. Others must have told the truth. Most probably did the latter. But, what they said on this subject carries little weight against the physical evidence on the bottom. Titanic broke apart and the breakup appears to have been close to, or at the surface.

But, if you look at the testimonies a pattern emerges of White Star/Harland & Wolff-friendly witnesses claiming the ship stayed intact. This pattern of testimony includes Wilding's comments about the sinking being no more traumatic to the hull than a North Atlantic storm. We can come up with lots of hypotheses as to why the shipping line and the builder would want to hide the breakup. But, that would be pure speculation. All that is certain is that it appears an attempt to "hush up" the breakup was quite successful.

Which comes back to the flooding numbers. If the traditional myth of five compartments flooding and water pouring over the top of the bulkheads had been true, then Wilding was probably correct about the hull probably having the strength to survive the sinking intact.

But, when the real flooding pattern as described by Lightoller during the U.S. hearings is applied instead of the myth, then a different picture emerges. The myth is of a rapidly-flooding ship in which the water is quickly redistributing itself to equalize the strain on the hull girder. In reality, Titanic lost buoyancy at one end and tried to sustain that condition for an extended period of time. The result was bending of the hull known as "hogging."

Proof of this comes from the pulling apart of the forward expansion joint very early after the accident. This happened while steam was still venting from funnel #1. The joint would not have pulled apart in any Atlantic storm. It could only have opened beyond its designed limits if the hull were undergoing severe hogging because of the all-in-the-bow flooding.

And, the opening of the expansion joint is directly tied to the upwelling of water in boiler room #4 and the collapse of funnel #1. It is also tied to the flooding of boiler room #6 and the firemen's tunnel nearly a half hour after the accident. And, at about 1:55 a.m. something failed in way of boiler room #1 that allowed Titanic to tear itself apart.

With a nod to Captain Eric, I must say that Titanic did not sink. In theory, the iceberg did not cause fatal ingress of water. What caused the demise of Titanic was a sort of rolling disintigration brought about the by loss of buoyancy at one end (the bow) of the hull girder. In the end, the "unsinkable" ship broke apart and 50-thousand odd tons of newly-made scrap steel tumbled to the bottom.

--David G. Brown

 

[Paul Lee]

Hi Sam,
When I said 2.02, I meant that it was corrected; allowing for the time that Gracie said he felt the collision occurred (midnight) according to his watch while in his cabin. It seems that his watch was 20 minutes fast.
Incidentally, regardless of whether the 2.02am/2.22am time is correct, and assuming that his watch stopped instantanously on contact with the water, Titanic must have sunk very soon after this. Unless Gracie had lungs the size of a hot air balloon. I don't think he could have stayed under water for a long period, and the ship had gone by the time he got to the surface.

Regarding rhe 12:15am wireless signal: looking back, this may be right. Boxhall went below twice, and saw the water in the mail room at about midnight, according to his estimates. He went up and reported to the captain who came below to see for himself. After this, presumably, he went and instructed the wireless men to signal for help. So, 12.15am Titanic MAY be right.

By the way, what does this mean:

Senator SMITH. Do you know what time you arose from your bed?

Mr. BRIDE. It must have been about a quarter to 12, sir; about 5 minutes to 12, ship's time.

Does this mean that wireless time was ten minutes difference from ship's time?

Paul

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Hey Dave

I don't recall - what testimony do we have of the opening of the expansion joint?

 

[Paul Lee]

AFAIR none - it was presumed to have opened to account for the falling of the first funnel.

Paul

 

[Erik Wood]

Well I am not sure what "Captain Eric" Dave is referring to...but I will comment somewhat. His small blurb pretty much sums up my thinking.

Wilding was forced to go by what Lord Mersey wanted in the testimony and with that recreate the sinking. Which is exactly what he did. However there are open loop holes in his testimony in which he delibrately skips over facts and basically says that. At one point he didn't want to take about how it happened just the outcome and this was of course permitted.

The Titanic story has thousands of loop wholes in regards to how the ship actually sank. In order to get the result that we know of as it sits on the bottom then the story most of us have been told for the last 90 years is an outright fabrication. A fabrication made of out of some facts, but based mostly off incorrect data to put it kindly. Without getting into all that I am sticking with my knowledge base, which is ships, how they sink and why.

Some of this has been discussed in other threads but I don't think it has ever been discussed in one thread.

Those of you with firefighting experience and in particular pumping a fire engine in rural setting will understand to some extent what I am about to say. When you get to the bottom of the drop tank and you run out of water your pump starts to cavitate your hoseline pressure drops and if you permit it to continue you could sieze your pump. When you get fresh water you have to prime your pump, that is make the pump suck enough water to get the pump to operate and free flow water at whatever rate you want, this long drawn out description relates to Titanic in the following way.

In order to get the ship to sink in one piece in the manner in which Mersey wanted you have to pump parts of the ship almost dry and then refill them with "new water" and certain points in the timeline. Parts of the ship we know to be dry or know to be wet have to be flooded in a manner which doesn't make sense based off the witnesses description of events. So know we are at the point where the water (the old story) is running out and making our pump (reality) cavitate..(which means something doesn't jive).

We have first hand knowledge of flooding in Hold 1 (Hemmings and later Lee), and Hold 3 (Boxhall and the message relayed by the Carptenter), Boiler Room 6 at a much slower rate then the previous two (Barrett and Beachump).

Wilding places uncontrollable flooding in the first four compartments (holds 1 thru 3 and boiler room 6) almost immediatly after the accident but they fill at basically the same rate and the rates seem to be uneffected by the addition of weight in the forward end or secondary flooding. You add the later in and we have a problem. We are talking a loss of anywhere between 25 and 45 minutes depending on what you use for flow rate.

Now Wilding himself said that the could only be at the 25% correct and he knew far more about the ships construction then any of us will ever know, which means my or anybody elses theory can only be around 30%.

What it boils down to is if you use the testimony you can't sink the ship in the manner that has been described something else had to happen. Any other theories are just as valid as mine, because none of us where there.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Paul: You assumed Gracie's watch was 20 minutes fast because he said he awoke when the accident happened. And this, I believe, is the problem with Gracie's timeline. It is not clear it was the collision that woke him up, since he also said he almost instantly heard the blowing off of steam, something that did not take place immediately after the collision event.

I have put together a table of reported times for the collision and sinking as reported by a list of people. Also included are times on stopped pocketwatches. For the times of the collision and sinking events, I included where these people were at the time they said. This table is shown below.

Please note that some people had adjusted their own timepieces in anticipation of the expected clock setback for the night of April 14th, a setback that did not occur because of the accident. As an example, Annie Robinson said she saw the ship go down at 1:40 AM on her watch. But she also said, "That was by altered time," which meant she had set her watch back for the night, 45-50 minutes. The actual expected clock setback we learned for the night of Apr 14th was 47 minutes. Spencer Silverspoon was in the 1st class smoking room reading and waiting for the clock change at midnight so he can set his pocketwatch to the correct time for the next day. He probably got the collision time off the clock in the room which is why he said he was there in the 1st place. Other members of the crew may have set their own watches or cabin clocks back so they would go on watch at the right time. The crew expected a stage setback of 23 minutes and 24 minutes, splitting the 47 minutes between the two deck watches. We know from Fleet that he expected to remain on watch about 20 minutes more, and QM Rowe in a letter published in the THS Commutator wrote that he expected to stay on watch till 12:22 AM, and he was talking about unadjusted time. We also have some indirect evidence that he had set his timepiece back by about 20-25 minutes or so at midnight in anticipation of the 1st of the two clock changes for the crew based on his reported times going onto and off the bridge at the US Inquiry. This may also explain some of the differences in the reported time of events. Weikman's pocketwatch setback as Rowe's by about 20-25 minutes. John March's pocketwatch set back, as Annie's, by 45-50 minutes. Robert Norman's pockwatch never set to Apr 14th time, thus 46 minutes ahead which was the setback done on the night of the 13th. But notice that most people's times correlate very well with a collision time of 1:40 PM and a sinking time of 2:20 AM, within a few minutes of each other.

Regarding Thayer's watch times, I'll let Jack speak:

"I wound my watch--it was 11:45 P.M.--and was just about to step into bed, when I seemed to sway slightly. I immediately realized that the ship had veered to port as though she had been gently pushed. If I had had a brimful glass of water in my hand not a drop would have been spilled, the shock was so slight.
***
At about 12:15 A.M. the stewards passed the word around for every one to get fully clothed and put on life preservers, which were in each stateroom.
***
It was now about 12:45 A.M. The noise was terrific. The deep vibrating roar of the exhaust steam blowing off through the safety valves was deafening, in addition to which they had commenced to send up rockets.
***
It was now about 2:15 A.M. As the water gained headway along the deck, the crowd gradually moved with it, always pushing, toward the floating stern and keeping in from the rail of the ship as far as they could.
***
I finally came up with my lungs bursting, but not having taken any water. The ship was in front of me, forty yards away. How long I had been swimming under water, I don't know. Perhaps a minute or less. Incidentally, my watch stopped at 2:22 A.M."

I don't know how accurately his watch was set, but assuming the running time was somewhat accurate, we have 2 hours and 37 minutes from collision time to the time Jack went into the water (assuming his watch stopped at that point). And we know that the ship broke in two very shortly after Jack came to the surface.

"Suddenly the whole superstructure of the ship appeared to split, well forward to midship, and bow or buckle upwards."

As far as wireless messages go, Bride certainly was not the best of witnesses. But there are few things that should be pointed out. When questioned by Senator Fletcher at the US Inquiry he was asked about the time kept in the wireless cabin. There were two clocks, one set to apparent ship's time, the other to NY time. When Fletcher asked was the difference 1 hour 55 minutes, Bride responded, "There was about 2 hours difference between the two." Notice, not 1 hour 50 minutes, nor 1 hour 33 minutes, but "about 2 hours difference." This indeed corresponds to the diffence between NY time and the ship's time base on the ship's Apr 14th noontime longitude.

Now we know from testimony of Annie Robinson that about 12:10 ship's time (she said about 1/2 hour after collision), Capt. Smith was seen with McEroy and a mail clerk going down to F deck to investigate flooding. We know from Steward Wheat and Jack Thayer that about 12:15 the order had been given to have passengers get dressed with lifebelts on and go up to the boat deck. About 12:20 Charles Mackay on E deck sees Capt. Smith going back up the working staircase, estimating it was 10 minutes after he saw him come down those stairs. We know from Gracie's account, after he confirred with other passengers, that it was about 45 minutes after the collision that the order was given to load the boats with women and children. That puts the time at 12:25. And it appears that the 1st wireless message, the initial CQD, was ordered to be sent out at this time, that is after Capt. Smith had returned from his personal inspection of the damage and concluded, after confirring with Andrews, that the ship could not last. The only thing left to do was load the boats and send out that call for help, the one that Capt. Smith gave a heads up to Phillips before going on his inspection tour. The time of the initial CQD was 10:25 PM NY time.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Using what I will call the Wilding scenario input, Hackett and Bedford were able to sink the ship intact in 2 hours 20 minutes. Like any analysis they made assumptions, as did Wilding. You do not need to assume the ship broke apart to get it to sink. There are some differences between these two analyses. For example Wilding had 16,000 tons in 40 minutes while Hackett and Bedford had 15,000 tons in the same time frame. These were the conditions that led to the aggregate hole size calculations. Wilding also used a method called flooding by compartment to get different conditions of trim angles and sinkage. This does not mean the ship flooded this way. It was a method of calculation only to see what the effect would be by flooding each compartment beginning with the forepeak tank and moving aft, one at a time. Wilding stopped at flooding BR No. 5. The point was to show that if initial flooding was confined to the forepeak tank, No. 1, 2, and 3 holds, and BR 6, the ship could not be saved.

Hackett and Bedford's analysis used essentially the same input data that Wilding used. It should be no surprise that they should get similar results. There analysis showed quantity of flood water Vs. time, and trim angle Vs. time. Their analysis required assumptions, as did Wilding's, to get the ship to sink in the alloted time frame which was part of the input data. Mainly, it required additional openings to be added as the result of sinkage than those assumed in the initial flooding stages. Like any analytical work, output is only as good as input. Since the end result is known, adjustments in the analysis had to be made, including additional assumptions, which may or may not be valid. Some people call this cooking the books, but it is a valid step unless new data is supplied to change the initial conditions or other subsequent assumptions that are made.

It has been suggested that pre-existing cracks in the way of the aft expansion joint and cold-punched rivet holes combined with the high stress concentrations and low fracture toughness lead to rapid crack propagation and catastrophic structural hull failure. Certainly when she broke, the ship was doomed. But even if it did not completely break in two, the end result, a visit to bottom of the sea, may have been inevitable.

What I think Capt. Erik and Dave Brown are saying, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the actual sinking scenario may have followed a very different pattern from the Wilding or Hackett and Bedford scenarios. Small structural failures caused by overstresses started much earlier in time leading to increased flooding rates and different flooding patterns from the initial conditions that took place immediately after the iceberg encounter. And I too believe this is more in sync with actual observations.

But does any of this mean that Wilding knew for certain that the ship broke apart, or that the initial flooding rates per compartment were really different than what he understood them to be? I personally don't think so.

 

[Paul Lee]

I believe that the answer can be found in Wilding's notebooks that he used for his calculations before the BoT inquiry, then we will know of any unsafe assumptions that he made. I am trying to trace them, and got the following email from Harland and Wolff (well, Chris Hackett's, the co-author of the RINA paper, boss):

"I have spoken with Chris who advises that the 'Wilding books' were in John Bedford's possession for a time during the study period. Sadly John died some years ago though we believe some of his historical data was passed to the Ulster Titanic Society by his family. We have no way of knowing whether the information requested was in John's possession at the time of his passing or what may have become of it. H&W have not retained originals. You may care to contact either the Society or perhaps The Ulster Folk and Transport Museum who retain much of our old archive data."

Cheers

Paul

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>But does any of this mean that Wilding knew for certain that the ship broke apart, or that the initial flooding rates per compartment were really different than what he understood them to be? I personally don't think so.<<

A liitle qualifyer that what follows is highly speculative and I could be wrong.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Wilding did know but was never able to say anything publicly because of politically motivated concerns over perceptions from people in High Places. Wilding was no fool, could crunch the numbers along with the best of them, and when the actual flooding data indicated that there was not enough through-hull damage to sink the ship, he had to wonder what was really happening as there was no doubt that the ship sank.

He may not have known about the breakup initially, but I doubt that every detail of the testimony offered to the U.S. Senate remained unknown to him. Almost a month and a half passed between the time certain depositions were taken from those who bore witness to the breakup and the time Wilding offered his own testimony, and then there's an all too conspicuous effort by the Wreck Commission to avoid having any such statements make it into the record.

Why try to avoid having something make it into the record if you don't know there's something you want or even need to keep out of it?

Unless of course, you do know. I think the Wreck Commission did. Even if Wilding didn't find out on his own what was entered into evidence at the Senate Inquiry, I would be greatly surprised if the Mersey Court was unaware of it. The U.K. had their own representatives keeping an eye on things and they could read and listen as well as anyone else.

It's not much of a leap to consider that Mersey or one of his representatives came to Wilding with something along the lines of "See what you can make of this, but keep it on the Q.T."

As I indicated, I could be wrong however, if there was any one person who could work it out, tipped off or not, Wilding was the guy.

 

[Paul Lee]

I've had another look at the RINA report and, although I was initially sceptical of it, it now seems to be more coherent and answeres a few questions about the sinking.

It does have one or two little things that I thought should have been addressed:
In diagram C6 (2.10am), there seems to be a sizeable quantity of water in boiler room 4. However, when the room was abandoned at 1.20am, Cavell noted that the water was round his knees. It seems to me that the rate of water flow is too small. In section 4.13, the authors note that "small quantities of water were coming into No.4 Boiler Room", and didn't include the ater coming from below into their calculations. This, I feel, is remiss.

There is also no mention of the water flow along E deck; the water seen going into the Turkish bath area by Wheat for instance, and then later on, close to the foundering, the water seen by Joughin entering his cabin close to the engine room casing. Interestingly, Wheat says that the working alleyway was dry, so the water must have come from the mail room and up along the 1st class starboard corridor on E deck.

So, how did water get into Joughin's cabin before the ship sank? Ift the water had flooded the aftermost boiler rooms as it headed aft down the working allewyay, the ship would have sunk- I recall the diagrams showing that the flooding of Boiler Room 4 seemed to "tip" the ship into an unstable situation.

I believe that water flooded up the 1st class corridor, and then, later on into the working passageway, either form 1st class (near the 1st class/grand staircasefoundation) or from the flooded foreward most compartments. I think that the water took advantage of any outlets to other areas, such as the 3rd class dining saloon on G deck...and then the water eventually got to Joughin's cabin...

Any thoughts on this, or on the RINA paper?

Cheers

Paul