WentHulk

Member
Apr 18, 2017
41
3
38
The theory is definitely invalidating to survivors who saw the breakup conspire- ESPECIALLY due to the fact that the ship is on the ocean floor in multiple pieces. It takes some real mental gymnastics to justify an underwater break.
Lange points out that 3 survivors who were in the best place to see the breakup said they didn't see a break up. But yeah I agree.
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
401
108
Glasgow, Scotland
Lange points out that 3 survivors who were in the best place to see the breakup said they didn't see a break up. But yeah I agree.
Prentice, Joughin & Dillon ?

It's not surprising that they didn't actually see the break up. Two reasons ...

Once the ships lights failed everything was pure, pitch black. It wasn't the sort of dark blue evening hue as the '97 film made it out to have been.

Those three chaps probably couldn't have seen more than two or three feet in front of them at best.

The other reason quite simply was that they were in shock as to the extraordinary events happening around them and indeed, the extreme danger they were in.

That name William Lange rings a bell but I can't quite place him. Was he not involved with some of the nineties expeditions to the wreck ?

There was a bloke who died a couple of years back called Marmaduke Collins who came up with this stark screaming lunatic theory that the ship went down without breaking up and landed upon the ocean floor completely intact ..... only to be broken up by a powerful undersea earthquake that occurred during the twenties. Deary me.
 

WentHulk

Member
Apr 18, 2017
41
3
38
William Lange should sound familiar to us Titanic aficionados. He has worked on other documentaries he is based at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute he is director of the Advanced Imaging and Visualization Laboratory (AIVL). And yeah you are right. And yes I believe those were the men I mentioned. Drain the Titanic does not name them though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
630
188
20
I always thought it was weird how they talk about people on the poop deck not seeing the break. Of course they won’t see it! They felt a shift in downward trim, but that’s really it.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
630
188
20
How heavy were the Engines, and how strong would the bolts have to be to keep them in place?

Not sure about the bolts, but the engines were definitely heavy enough to pin the stern in a near-vertical position at the end of the sinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
2,241
1,131
308
How heavy were the Engines, and how strong would the bolts have to be to keep them in place?
The piston engines were 1000 tons and the turbine engine came in around 420 tons. As for the mounting bolts size and or system they used I don't know that. Another factor holding back the engines/turbine was how good was the coupling between the engines and the prop shafts. Also any associated piping connected. All that would have to break apart to dump them out of the ship. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,130
483
158
16
Maryland, USA
The piston engines were 1000 tons and the turbine engine came in around 420 tons. As for the mounting bolts size and or system they used I don't know that. Another factor holding back the engines/turbine was how good was the coupling between the engines and the prop shafts. Also any associated piping connected. All that would have to break apart to dump them out of the ship. Cheers.
Alrighty, thanks Steven!

makes sense. Maybe the forward two engines were ripped away when the keel broe out from under them
 
Nov 14, 2005
2,241
1,131
308
Alrighty, thanks Steven!

makes sense. Maybe the forward two engines were ripped away when the keel broe out from under them
I'm sure that was a contributing factor. Plus gravity. I will to go look around to see if I can find just how they mounted the engines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,130
483
158
16
Maryland, USA
I'm sure that was a contributing factor. Plus gravity. I will to go look around to see if I can find just how they mounted the engines.
Alright!

Stupid theory, but what if the Engines going into a 90 degree position put strain on the shafts and the propellers and that's why they were ripped so easily and lay on the sediment
 
Nov 14, 2005
2,241
1,131
308
Alright!

Stupid theory, but what if the Engines going into a 90 degree position put strain on the shafts and the propellers and that's why they were ripped so easily and lay on the sediment
Not a stupid theory. 1000 tons is lot of weight. And whatever mounting system they used whether it be hard docked to the deck, on pads or whatever wouldn't have been designed to deal with the situation it found itself in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,130
483
158
16
Maryland, USA
Not a stupid theory. 1000 tons is lot of weight. And whatever mounting system they used whether it be hard docked to the deck, on pads or whatever wouldn't have been designed to deal with the situation it found itself in.
awesome, thanks!

Funnily enough, I just found the Waterpipes atop the tank room on the aft tower while looking at imagery of it
1619305312839.png
 
Jul 4, 2021
33
7
28
Skegness
Blimey, you really have to admire 1912 photoshop skills! However, I still believe she broke between the 3rd and 4th Funnels. don't forget that in ''Titanic: Mystery Solved'' they showed Titanic had technically broken into 3 pieces with the section between the bow and stern being tore to shreds on the sea floor.
The ship most likely did break into three pieces like the Mengot theory and On A Sea Of Glass.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads