Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,134
486
158
16
Maryland, USA
The broken end appears to be bent downwards. If the keel is upside down then the bow and stern were going upwards when she broke.



View attachment 2746


View attachment 2749

View attachment 2747



But if the keel is upside down then it looks like this.


View attachment 2748


Mrs Ida Hippach was reported as saying - "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."


.
or it could be the double bottom keeping the bow and stern connected for those few seconds. Bow swings down, The Stern falls back. The DB isn't meant to act like a hinge, so of course its bent, just in a different way of your thinking. (sorry if i sound rude)
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,134
486
158
16
Maryland, USA
There really is no point in discussing this with you, Ioannis. However, if you insist:

The keel bar was not part of the keel. As Georges advised us, it was a kind of rubbing or wear protection strake, attached to the underside of the keel plate. if that is it in your photograph, then it is UNDER the bottom plating, under the plate keel or where the keel plate once was located. It follows that the picture is of the internal face of the bottom plating. Therefore that particular piece of Double Bottom is right-way-up, not upside down. The channel, for that is what it is, running down the center of your photograph, is where the vertical keel and keel plate were original located. Both were ripped away. Subsequently, there should be another piece of double bottom which is also right way up but which consists of the inner bottom and associated plate floors on the underside of it. That part will also have butt straps fitted. Here is what I suggest. Forgive bad sketches:
View attachment 2816
neat drawing! I could be wrong, in Ken Marshall's Bow painting, the keel bar thingy is visible. if not it, what is it? I thought KBs were used to keep a ship from rolling?
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,134
486
158
16
Maryland, USA
I remember seeing something interesting footage in the Titanic At 100 on the History channel (Sorry if this has already been brought up) but they showed some brief footage of the in the word's of park "A pile of crap on the ocean floor" of the deck house from under the third funnel. What i found interesting is that you can see for the few seconds of footage (again the full footage is not available to the public so i might be wrong) That the brass casing of the aft expansion joint intertwined with the wreckage and a sliver (to me) of the expansion joint itself. Unless the full footage shows that im seeing it wrong but it almost seems that the expansion joint actually survived the break up. Again i might be totally wrong but i thought it was an interesting thought
RMS Titanic docs by Mark has the full doc!
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,134
486
158
16
Maryland, USA
Oh and before i forget the point on people only turned to the Titanic when they heard the first explosion and where too late to see the break up, Eva Hart and Lawrence Beesley said that outside of a few people, they laid down their oars and never took there eye's off the amazing site in the water, also Ken makes the argument (And so do i) that the Titanic survivors could actually see more than we than we give credit for. It's a really long argument so il be brief on it (Head on over to the Titanic Channel to see him talk about this in full) but the Ships lights where going more redder in the last 5 to 10 minutes and the lower color of the amber makes it easier for the human eye to see and with night vision (again talks about this with planets ect) not to mention that there where alot of evidence that the Titanic light still glowed even for a time after the break up so even though the emergency light due to how they are located dont help much for people far away, closer ones could still see the slight illumination of the stern
i found a titanic, but the uploads aren't even two minutes. can i have a link please?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Auden G Minor

I am a Titanic enthusiest!
Member
Sep 8, 2020
67
53
38
The ship became hogged down in the middle. The weight of the enormous engines and the water rushing into the middle of the ship, added with the heavy port list and the stresses on the starboard side caused by the twisting and rolling of the ship caused the breach on the starboard side and buckled open the ship. The failure of the forward bulkhead wall or doors would cause a cataclysmic event as water filtered out and rushed aft and the middle of the ship tore open. The weight of the engines would immediately cause the tail of the buckled stern to rise sharply into the air and tear the ship wide open.

Mr. Mellors was near the bridge and felt the tremble and explosive sounds deep inside the ship as he tried to free the collapsible boat. As the ship began to break the bow took a sudden lurch and the water rushed over the bridge. Mr. Brown was in the water near the first funnel and looked back at the stern. He said "With the first report of that explosion I saw the afterpart of the ship giving a tremble like this (showing), and I thought by the afterpart going up like this (showing), and giving a bit of a tremble that the bow had fallen off." That is also what Mr. Scott had seen as his boat was near the stern. "When she broke off her stern end came up in the air and came down on a level keel." The water rushed into the middle with such force that it tilted the bow back and the water that was forward immediately rushed aft (downhill towards the broken decks aft). Mr. Mellors felt the forward end of the bridge rise up and he succeeded in cutting the collapsible free. The bow then filled rapidly and sank like a stone. Others described the bow rocking and reeling as it broke free and filled with water. The air inside the bow then expelled out of the ship and up the funnels which blew heavy plumes of smoke and coal up and out, and the air escaped out of the gratings so fast that it bent the gratings upwards and the air propelled Lightoller up to the surface. This gives us an idea of how much air was trapped deep inside the ship and could explain the heavy roll to port as the ship became increasingly top heavy as the water did not spill into the boiler rooms from the decks above as was pointed out by Fred Barrett.


What I find most interesting is how slow the Titanic filled with water during the evacuation and how the water travelled aft and settled the ship lower and lower into the water in unison. The flooding of the forward 5 compartments would bring the head down and cause the water to spill onto E-deck and into boiler room 5, but even late in the evacuation this still did not occur. Fred Barrett heard a knocking sound and saw water rush in and around his feet and not from above him as he escaped up the ladder. Violet Jessop and Alfred Pearcey both described how the ship sank lower with no downward tilt at all as one entire row of lights disappeared and then the next entire row and so on. Boxhall rowed around the stern and realized the ship was sinking when he saw her stern getting very low in the water. This I believe not only suggests the bodily sinking of the ship but also the resistance involved as the buoyancy in the stern section would fight to stay afloat and the flooding of the rest of the ship would weigh the ship down so much and fight against the stern to remain afloat that something undoubtedly would buckle and the tearing of the ship allowed more water to enter new areas which would buckle the ship even further until she broke completely in two.


Another interesting note is that if the ship was bending and buckling open it may have caused the enormous influx of water in boiler room 5 as witnessed by Fred Barrett. On the wreck there is a huge crack from the forward expansion joint down to the keel. This might be an indicator as to how the ship performed under stress, and what kind of stresses were on the starboard side as the ship listed more to port.


View attachment 39333


The broken ends of the keel are bent in a V position which would suggest the stern was canting high into the air before the bow had submerged. Everything in the middle would break and fall out of the ship as the liner keeled over to port and threw everything over the side.


View attachment 39334

View attachment 39335


.
The Titanic did not have enough buoyancy in the bow to float. It would implode and look like an absolute mess. But it doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,134
486
158
16
Maryland, USA
The hull below C deck was a 'girder', it's main strength members being the sheer strake of shell plating running round the hull at C deck and the plate keel. As Georges point out there would be a bending moment. The fulcrum of the bend would be at the forward end of the engine room where the keel met the surface of the sea. This point would be in compression and the sheer strake on each side of C deckwould be in tension. However, before here was a structure failure, the bending action would cause a deformity in the weaker parts of the hull plating, particularly in way of large void spaces such as the forward end of the main engine room. This would cause the shell plating in that area to bulge out on each side. (Try bending an empty milk carton and watch what happens to the sides in way of the bend.) This would cause failure in the shell plating rivets which in turn would allow a sudden influx of sea water to enter the engine room. (The engine room is flooding). This sudden load of very heavy sea water abaft the point of flotation would cause bodily sinking and at the same time attempt to rotate the bow back toward the surface. The bow would be prevented from rising due to the water above it and the initial bending moment would be aggravated to the point whereby the cheer strake area under the greatest stress would break. Thereafter, the fracturing would be free to make for the weakest point in the superstructure.. the aft expansion joint. That's how the pole from outside the barber's shot on deck C was able to escape to the surface and be seen by passenger Major Peuchin. There was an ornate stairway beside the Barber's Shop. It too would have been torn free to float among the passengers in the water.
a survivor did see a large staircase floating, remains of the Forward or Aft staircase. About 10-12 feet high, Jim. Her name was Majorie Newell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
There is absolutely no proof that Titanic turned North, but there is survivor evidence that she did not.
The relative positions of the bow and stern sections on the sea bed cannot be evidence of the heading on the suface.
Here is a picture of a ship which sank in a mere 530 feet which is 4.25% of the water depth Titanic sank in (12500 feet). In addition, the vessel in the picture sank in fresh water so the rate of descent would have been greater. Take a look at the attitude of the bow section relative to the stern. That probably happend in a matter of about 10 to 15 seconds. Think about it!
edmund.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Jul 4, 2000
6,359
375
433
Moderator's note:

Another message has been removed. Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks on others.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,134
486
158
16
Maryland, USA
There is absolutely no proof that Titanic turned North, but there is survivor evidence that she did not.
The relative positions of the bow and stern sections on the sea bed cannot be evidence of the heading on the suface.
Here is a picture of a ship which sank in a mere 530 feet which is 4.25% of the water depth Titanic sank in (12500 feet). In addition, the vessel in the picture sank in fresh water so the rate of descent would have been greater. Take a look at the attitude of the bow section relative to the stern. That probably happend in a matter of about 10 to 15 seconds. Think about it!
View attachment 74771
the bow didn't turn though.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
the bow didn't turn though.

Why should it?
It's the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald by the way. She was under her own power when she sunk in a storm. Water was already entering her cargo hold. One theory is that she was struck by a rogue wave.
It's a complete different circumstance how she sunk so no good compare to Titanic wreck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,134
486
158
16
Maryland, USA
Why should it?
It's the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald by the way. She was under her own power when she sunk in a storm. Water was already entering her cargo hold. One theory is that she was struck by a rogue wave.
It's a complete different circumstance how she sunk so no good compare to Titanic wreck.
agreed, she sank in different conditions! my own question is, what brought the stern down? Or rather, is the location of the No. 1 Boiler room boilers the true hypocenter of the breakup?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
agreed, she sank in different conditions! my own question is, what brought the stern down? Or rather, is the location of the No. 1 Boiler room boilers the true hypocenter of the breakup?
I am very much aware of the Edmund Fitzgerald case and the considerable controvasy that still surrounds it. However, the prevailing conditions i.e. the fact that she was under her own power makes no difference. It is what happened to the bow section relative to the stern setion after they part company that matters.
Similarly, neither the bow or stern sections of the Titanic would behave as they did on the suface. The popular belief is that the bow of Titanic went down more or less without changing direction and that the stern section gyrated due to lack of slick hydrodynamic shape. That is pure nonsence.
Only if the bow section sank vertically and the mass behind the bow was uniforn on each side would here have been a slim chance of her doing so. A flighted arrow maintains its direction in air, try firing one vertically downard into a deep water tank.
Here is a little sketch showing you what I am trying to get over.
sinking and swerving.jpg

The bow pointing northward on the sea bed is simply another "eurika" moment which is designed to provide proof where there is none...i.e. that Titanic turned North after she hit the berg. However, the promoters of such an idea forgot two simple things which are:
1. How was it possible for a ship with an inefficient rudder and rapidly losing power, to beable to turn into a 1.2+knot south setting current ? And.
2. Presuming this mythical current was running deep (which it should have been if it was cold). what effect would a sideways force have had on an irregular shaped object sinking through its layers?

By the way. these considerations also apply to the stern section. Which I believe went open end down, stabalised on a level keel due to the engines and went flat-footed down thereafter and did not gyrate. That is a nother "fit" to explain the nothward turn.

Have fun.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,585
1,361
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Some people live in an alternate universe. There is plenty of evidence that she did, much more than not.
Perhaps that is simply because they live in the real world, Sam? Your reply suggests thay you have weighed the evidence in a proper technical and scientific manner. If so, then point me in the direction where I can read this. (I'm a pensioner so can't afford to pay for it)
 

Similar threads

Similar threads