A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Incredible that the officials dismissed the idea that the Titanic had broken in two, when the very first survivor accounts confirmed that she did and said in detail what had occurred. When the Carpathia arrived in New York the survivors were interviewed that very night, their accounts were published the next day.



April 19th 1912

titanicintwo.PNG


brTitanic.PNG


brTitanic2.PNG


brTitanic1.PNG



The Inquiry was basically a means to wash away those reports and re-write history.

Lightoller - "It is utterly untrue. The ship did not and could not have broken in two........Absolutely intact.......Intact, sir!"


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Actually the debris concentrated at the stern is from the stern - the stern was rotating and even turned and spilt most of its content out, the galley is exactly the part which fits between bow and stern section and the remains (a large piece of deck) are close by the stern. The bow section had no much debris to loose, most of it which came out from the break (at the aft end of the bow) is close to it.

Your white lines are not right as also the position of the white "unbroken" ship.

How do you know my white lines, broken and unbroken "are not right" Ioannis? Is that your opinion or do you have proof?

Apart from the coal, which parts come from the galley?

The bow section extends forward of WT Bulkhead "J". It includes Nos. 1 and 2 funnel locations and the associated accommodation under it. It tapers up and forward to terminate at the rear of funnel No.2.
No. 4 funnel location and associated accommodation as well as engine rooms and electrical rooms is part of the stern section and is contained from WT bulkhead "K" to the stern post.
The area of Double bottom between WT Bulkheads "J" and "K" under boiler room One and its contents together with a wedge shaped piece of the ship containing the aft lifeboats, the aft dome and funnel No. 3 was separated.

Perhaps you can explain the following?

The single end boilers and the two pieces of double bottom come from the area in way of boiler room One. All these parts are in a single line trending ENE from the stern section.
Both the pieces of DB which connected bow to stern at the bottom are 600 feet ENE of the stern but are more than double that distance...1,400 feet and SE of the bow section. These were very heavy and would have gone straight down.
They and at least one of boilers which were mounted on top of them at the moment of separation now lie in a direct line with the stern section. On that same line and 200 feet forward of the boiler, is the circular metal framework of one of the staircase domes. The after Dome was in the missing wedge of ship and directly above the place where Titanic originally broke apart. The forward dome was 210 feet forward of it.
There is a pile of lifeboat davits 300 feet north of the remains of the Dome. There were 16 sets of lifeboat davits on the stern section. these were located aft of the aft expansion joint and the dome was between lifeboats 10 and 9.
In contrast to the foregoing, there is no serious debris within 1600 feet of the bow section yet it is anything but intact. Two of the four funnel housings and associated superstructure are missing.

You miss several important point...if the stern simply rotated downward, while scattering its contents then it went down at approximately the position where Titanic sank. if that was so and it is simply an educated guess on the part of some researchers, why then, are the heaviest parts to the east of the stern?
Also, how did the bow get to be almost 2.5 ship lengths away to the northward of the stern and what caused the southward trending wake-like plume of coal issuing from the bow section ? Please don't say The Labrador Current.
Here's a French version for you:
967px-FR-Titanic-Wreck-Site-Map.png
 

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
468
67
93
If the Titanic had remained intact would her port list ease away just the same, as her bow flooded completely and her stern rose up? Also curious to know what Jack Thayer meant when he said one of the funnels "seemed to be lifted off". It appears the forward funnel of the Orama fell upwards instead of down as the ship went down. Is that what "lifted off" means?.
That's probably what Jack Thayer meant.

As far as how the Titanic would sink, then that's all up to the way the water flooded the hull. It depends on a hundred things we could never know. However, as a matter of rotational geometry, any object rotated to a 90 degree vertical position will loose all roll, it will only have yaw and pitch. In this sense, the port list is "roll", the Titanic's heading East or North is "yaw", and it's nose-down, tail-up is "pitch"
 

Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
Not really, Georges. I have seen this brittle steel argument before. Forgive me for saying so, but it just doesn't hold water.

The sea water was not -2 C. We do not known what the water temperature was at the time of collision. If it was anything, it would have been 32 F for about a foot under the surface since it would have been fresh melt water from the iceberg. I don't think it was even that since melt water disappears close to the berg itself and titanic stopped to the west of it.
Additionally, Titanic would have been travelling through relatively warmer water up until she hit the iceberg. The rivets and shell plating would have been warmed from the inside. The relatively low conductivity of the longitudinally thick revets would have ensured they retained temperatures above that of freezing.
Apart from the foregoing, Titanic's sister ship, Olympic lasted a very long time with so called inferior rivets.

Jim,

· Who is talking about the rivets inferiority?
· For the longitudinal toughness as per the previous figures, what is the difference between 0°c and 20°c? Virtually nada zero!
· Where was that outside freezing temperature coming from … the Golf Stream? The wind blowing over the freezing Labrador Current?
· If a freezing air temperature was blowing over a warmer sea temperature, you would have to admit that super-refraction existed and that all the calculations to estimate the distances between the vessels on the scene, would have to be recalculated taking due account of that abnormal propagation.
· Did the SS Olympic allided with an iceberg? Was she rammed in the center by a vessel of her class progressing at 21½ knots through haze?
· SS Britannic sank like a stone upon hitting a single mine and that, after refit. She plunged into only 400 feet of water and broke in two pieces.
· If the 1912 marine steel quality was good, that means that his modern counterpart grade is armor indestructible and rust free.

If you observe ship side fragments that were salvaged from the abyss, one can notice that the ruptures are as neat as brittle glass fractures. There are the same brittle steel fragments all over the ocean floor. The stern section which was subject to much more water resistance than the bow section seems like having going through an atomic explosion. If the steel was that good, the main structure would have been found in much better condition, like the modern ones discovered.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The keel on the broken stern section is in terrible shape. The ship sank on her port side when she appeared to explode and break in two. The forward engines fell out, but looking at her keel it appears the engines may have fallen over to port and ripped out the keel on the port side. Then again, the broken keel is shaped like the engines that fell out. Perhaps they dropped straight down? Often wondered how much weight would it take in that compartment to break the keel and cause the engines to fall straight out. Perhaps that is what caused the ship to break in two, as the engine room flooded?



sternwreck.PNG




The bow appears to have touched the seabed with forward momentum that pushed the prow into the sand, compressing the hull as she moved forward in the sand.


bowreck1.PNG



The bow section must have struck the seabed with relative ease as her interior windows and wall tiles are still intact. Plates are still neatly stacked, drinking glass on tables, a dressing room mirror still upright and intact, Mr. Ismay's cigar case still casually resting on his fire mantel, and a clock placed on a mantel. Certainly signs of a soft landing.



bowwreck.PNG



.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Jim,

· Who is talking about the rivets inferiority?
· For the longitudinal toughness as per the previous figures, what is the difference between 0°c and 20°c? Virtually nada zero!
· Where was that outside freezing temperature coming from … the Golf Stream? The wind blowing over the freezing Labrador Current?
· If a freezing air temperature was blowing over a warmer sea temperature, you would have to admit that super-refraction existed and that all the calculations to estimate the distances between the vessels on the scene, would have to be recalculated taking due account of that abnormal propagation.
· Did the SS Olympic allided with an iceberg? Was she rammed in the center by a vessel of her class progressing at 21½ knots through haze?
· SS Britannic sank like a stone upon hitting a single mine and that, after refit. She plunged into only 400 feet of water and broke in two pieces.
· If the 1912 marine steel quality was good, that means that his modern counterpart grade is armor indestructible and rust free.

If you observe ship side fragments that were salvaged from the abyss, one can notice that the ruptures are as neat as brittle glass fractures. There are the same brittle steel fragments all over the ocean floor. The stern section which was subject to much more water resistance than the bow section seems like having going through an atomic explosion. If the steel was that good, the main structure would have been found in much better condition, like the modern ones discovered.

George, I find it hard to follow your argument.

I assumed (obviously wrongly) that you had read the scientific papers on the subject. Have a look at the following:
ww.nytimes.com/1998/01/27/.../faulty-rivets-emerge-as-clues-to-titanic-disaster.html.,
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Did-poor-workmanship-sink-Titanic-Physicist-claims-missing...
writing.engr.psu.edu/uer/bassett.html.
Etc.
My last post was designed to dismiss the brittle fracture nonsense, not enhance it.
 

Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
image-10.jpg

If we look at that fragment, we can observe that upper right edge was zipped apart along a fragile rivet holes longitudinal line. On the upper left edge, the rivets fixed through the flat connecting bar seemed to have held well, except for the ones in line with a suspected fracture of the next upper plate. I would not be surprise at all that the same scenario happened in the iceberg impact area; shell plates partially ripped apart along the fragile rivet holes longitudinal line. The horizontal riveted plate’s configuration was a good vertical crack arrestor but certainly not for a tremendous longitudinal ice impact. The fragment also shows neat vertical edge fractures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
George, I find it hard to follow your argument.

I assumed (obviously wrongly) that you had read the scientific papers on the subject. Have a look at the following:
ww.nytimes.com/1998/01/27/.../faulty-rivets-emerge-as-clues-to-titanic-disaster.html.,
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Did-poor-workmanship-sink-Titanic-Physicist-claims-missing...
writing.engr.psu.edu/uer/bassett.html.
Etc.
My last post was designed to dismiss the brittle fracture nonsense, not enhance it.

I must admit that my English writing is not the best in the world. But I do hope it is somewhat better than Google Translator! Read my words twice then… On the contrary, my post was designed to enhance the brittle 1912 steel plates, not to promote that nonsense steel utmost quality! You are still focus on the rivets whereas I’m talking about the plates.

Have you read that obviously wrong one …?

Conclusions

It is quite apparent from the test results and the metallography that the steel obtained in 1996 from the site of the RMS Titanic was inferior in mechanical properties to steel commercially available today. A significant factor is that the last eight decades have shown a marked improvement in steelmaking.

The slag content of the RMS Titanic steel is absent in the modern steel and the volume fraction of both sulfides and silicates is greater than in the modern steel. The lack of cleanliness of the steel had a deleterious effect on the mechanical properties, particularly the notch toughness as demonstrated by Charpy Impact Tests.

These factors were contributing causes of the rapid sinking of the Titanic. Omitted in this study have been design faults and poor seamanship, which were basic to the loss of the RMS Titanic.


http://products.asminternational.org/fach/data/fullDisplay.do?database=faco&record=1910&search=
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
How do you know my white lines, broken and unbroken "are not right" Ioannis? Is that your opinion or do you have proof?

The debris field and the wreckage.

Apart from the coal, which parts come from the galley?

Aside that not all coal came from the galley (they also came from the coal bunkers (at bulkhead J) there are also the kitchen stuff like stoves and other items like pots, dishes etc. and not to forget the large galley debris itself.


The bow section extends forward of WT Bulkhead "J". It includes Nos. 1 and 2 funnel locations and the associated accommodation under it. It tapers up and forward to terminate at the rear of funnel No.2.
No. 4 funnel location and associated accommodation as well as engine rooms and electrical rooms is part of the stern section and is contained from WT bulkhead "K" to the stern post.
The area of Double bottom between WT Bulkheads "J" and "K" under boiler room One and its contents together with a wedge shaped piece of the ship containing the aft lifeboats, the aft dome and funnel No. 3 was separated.

Actually the double bottoms are from the aft end of boiler room No. 2 to the 2nd part of the engines of the reciprocating engine room. Which aft lifeboats are you talking?


The single end boilers and the two pieces of double bottom come from the area in way of boiler room One. All these parts are in a single line trending ENE from the stern section.
Both the pieces of DB which connected bow to stern at the bottom are 600 feet ENE of the stern but are more than double that distance...1,400 feet and SE of the bow section. These were very heavy and would have gone straight down.
They and at least one of boilers which were mounted on top of them at the moment of separation now lie in a direct line with the stern section. On that same line and 200 feet forward of the boiler, is the circular metal framework of one of the staircase domes. The after Dome was in the missing wedge of ship and directly above the place where Titanic originally broke apart. The forward dome was 210 feet forward of it.
There is a pile of lifeboat davits 300 feet north of the remains of the Dome. There were 16 sets of lifeboat davits on the stern section. these were located aft of the aft expansion joint and the dome was between lifeboats 10 and 9.

Ok, so you have one piece of double bottom (yes there are 2 pieces) and one boiler in a line. What you are missing in your claim are other parts as the large deck debris with the remains of the 3rd funnel and for example the large deck debris of the light and air shaft to the reciprocating engine room.
Actually the aft 1st class staircase is aft of the break and not "above where Titanic originally broke apart." Regarding the lifeboat davits, do you want to tell us that on the pile we will find now all 16 sets from the stern? Actually 2 sets are still at the stern (the one has dropped into the broken hull) and here is a picture of the pile which clearly is not 16 sets.

titanic_ss2_217233.jpg




Two of the four funnel housings and associated superstructure are missing.

They are not missing, both wreckage are known.

You miss several important point...if the stern simply rotated downward, while scattering its contents then it went down at approximately the position where Titanic sank. if that was so and it is simply an educated guess on the part of some researchers, why then, are the heaviest parts to the east of the stern?

Which are the heaviest parts? Sure not the double bottom as you claimed!
The debris, the stern wreck itself and the bottom clearly show that the stern rotated (aside that it also turned around on the water surface before it went down). I guess you should do some more research before stating others to be wrong or to "miss several point."

And still you have not answered my question, which debris from the bow is at the stern area?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
The debris field and the wreckage.
Aside that not all coal came from the galley (they also came from the coal bunkers (at bulkhead J) there are also the kitchen stuff like stoves and other items like pots, dishes etc. and not to forget the large galley debris itself.
Actually the double bottoms are from the aft end of boiler room No. 2 to the 2nd part of the engines of the reciprocating engine room. Which aft lifeboats are you talking?

Ok, so you have one piece of double bottom (yes there are 2 pieces) and one boiler in a line. What you are missing in your claim are other parts as the large deck debris with the remains of the 3rd funnel and for example the large deck debris of the light and air shaft to the reciprocating engine room.
Actually the aft 1st class staircase is aft of the break and not "above where Titanic originally broke apart." Regarding the lifeboat davits, do you want to tell us that on the pile we will find now all 16 sets from the stern? Actually 2 sets are still at the stern (the one has dropped into the broken hull) and here is a picture of the pile which clearly is not 16 sets.
View attachment 2716
They are not missing, both wreckage are known.
Which are the heaviest parts? Sure not the double bottom as you claimed!
The debris, the stern wreck itself and the bottom clearly show that the stern rotated (aside that it also turned around on the water surface before it went down). I guess you should do some more research before stating others to be wrong or to "miss several point."

And still you have not answered my question, which debris from the bow is at the stern area?

I will answer you in reverse, Ioannis.

There is no bow debris at the stern are, nor should there be.

That the stern section rotated is not disputed. However, you have only the evidence of some of the survivors that the stern rotated at the surface. In fact there are a many who saw her go down who said nothing about the stern rotating on the surface. In any case, how would it be possible for them to see that in total darkness and what would cause it to do so?

Apart from the bow section and the stern section the two bits of double bottom are the two heaviest pieces of wreckage visible.

The easiest way to show my thought is as follows:

1100px-Titanic_side_plan_annotated_English.png

While you are digesting the above, please explain how it was that Titanic's bow ended up on the bottom pointing NNE.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
I will answer you in reverse, Ioannis.


There is no bow debris at the stern are, nor should there be.


First you said there was;

Explains why almost all the debris from the bow section is concentrated around he stern section.


Now you say there is nothing. Not the first time you said yes and then no.



While you are digesting the above, please explain how it was that Titanic's bow ended up on the bottom pointing NNE.


The explanation was already given and I am not going to start an argument about the ship facing West because of Californian theory. If someone else want he or she can deal with it.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The two pieces of double bottom only account for part of the missing keel.


The forward and aft sections connect together, but observe the top of the aft section.


double1.PNG



It does not match with the broken keel of the stern. There is a huge section between them that is missing.


double2.PNG


I believe the engines may have dropped out of the ship and tore off the keel directly below them. Perhaps the bow was pulling down and the stern was pulling back and like a Christmas cracker she tore herself in two? Then again, maybe the water entered the engine room internally or by breaches to her sides, the water rushed into the forward section of the engine room and the weight caused the engines to drop through her keel. Would be interesting to see what the third piece of keel looks like. Might show evidence of bending or compression, maybe damage caused by an explosion?



.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
The explanation was already given and I am not going to start an argument about the ship facing West because of Californian theory. If someone else want he or she can deal with it.

You cannot start an argument against a facts Ioannis. The simple facts are that Titanic was heading west when she sank and did not turn north after she hit the iceberg and rapidly slowed down because under such conditions, it was a physical impossibility for her to do so. The reason for claiming the contrary is secondary to the facts of the matter.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
You cannot start an argument against a facts Ioannis. The simple facts are that Titanic was heading west when she sank and did not turn north after she hit the iceberg and rapidly slowed down because under such conditions, it was a physical impossibility for her to do so. The reason for claiming the contrary is secondary to the facts of the matter.

You mean your facts. Your facts does not speak for all.

And by the way, let us going from what you are claiming. So you want now to tell us that the double bottoms broke and sank directly at the spot where the ship broke at the surface? The same double bottom pieces on which the 5 single ended boilers of BR 1 were fixed as the forward part of the reciprocating engine? So the double bottoms went strait down while the 5 boilers and the forward part of the engine remained somehow by some force in the hull and landed at different spots southwest of the double bottoms?
Not only that, somehow the bow turned to north while the stern turned to south and somehow debris from the break area also landed somehow at different spots?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
You mean your facts. Your facts does not speak for all.

And by the way, let us going from what you are claiming. So you want now to tell us that the double bottoms broke and sank directly at the spot where the ship broke at the surface? The same double bottom pieces on which the 5 single ended boilers of BR 1 were fixed as the forward part of the reciprocating engine? So the double bottoms went strait down while the 5 boilers and the forward part of the engine remained somehow by some force in the hull and landed at different spots southwest of the double bottoms?
Not only that, somehow the bow turned to north while the stern turned to south and somehow debris from the break area also landed somehow at different spots?

Not my facts, Ioannis. If you are familiar with the physics required to turn a ship then you will agree with me. If you do not, then that is no big deal. However, as I have often suggested to others, if you believe it was possible for Titanic to turn to the north, north east after impacting the iceberg then get hold of a naval Architect specialising in the turn characteristics of a large vessel designed exactly like Titanic and pose the following hypothetical question to him or her:

A vessel with the following dimensions L: 882.75 x b: 92.5 is travelling at a speed of 22.5 knots. She is fitted with a single plate, center-line unbalanced rudder and driven by two triple expansion steam engines and a single, center line uni-directional stem turbine. The weather is flat calm and there is a 1.2 knot current acting on the starboard bow. Suddenly she is confronted with an iceberg directly ahead of her.
The officer in charge orders hard left rudder (hard-a-starboard) and at the same time, order the engines to STOP...FULL ASTERN. However, his orders are too late to avoid the iceberg and when the vessel is no more than 10 degrees off course, she hits the iceberg with he starboard (right) shoulder at the bow. The Officer immediately orders hard right rudder (hard-a-port) to swing the stern to the left and away from the ice. This order is given about 30 seconds after impact, when the iceberg is at the stern, the turbine is stopped and the triple expansion engines are also stopped.
The officer in charge continuously uses the tripple expansion engines to bring the vessel to a complete standstill.

Q: Determine the attitude of the above vessel when she finally slows down and is dead in the water.

If you do not pursue the answer to the above question then I am sorry to say that I can only assume that you are not interested in the truth but wish to reiterate a popular myth.
However, if you succeed in proving that Titanic was able to turn from pointing south west, through west while overcoming a counter-acting current on her bow and using an ever-failing rudder, then I will willing bow to the superior knowledge of the person who proved you to be correct.

As for the engines, boilers and double bottom sections. Here are some fact that you cannot deny.

All 5 boilers from BR 1 are located within a circle radius 450 feet . The nearest is 250 feet east of the stern

The engines were mounted on a very heavy, bed-plate which in turn was mounted on top of the double bottoms. These double bottoms were deeper than the standard double bottoms on each side of the bed plate. At the forward end, they tapered down to a reduced depth under Boiler Room 1. I believe that was Titanic's Achilles heel.
If what we see in the stern section is the two HP cylinders of the main engines then both the entire engines are still on the wreckage of the stern section.

The 5 single end boilers in BR One were mounted on stools. These stools were not rigidly fixed to the tank top. The stools supporting coal fired boilers were subject to expansion due to heat and, with the exception of the outboard stools on boilers 1 an 5 which were attached to the tank side margin plate, had to have a bit of flexibility. When the double bottom broke loose in that area, the boilers would easily be torn from their mountings. Since they were pressure vessels; if the water have been vented with the steam then some may even have retained a little buoyancy above the fire tubes. and would therefore move easily and be retain within the section of hull and superstructure until it disintegrated.
You nit-picked on a previous post about where the pieces of DB came from. In fact, you forget that the double bottoms are simply that...an inner bottom mounted on top of an outer bottom and are formed into tanks by transverse water tight floors and bulkheads.
The two pieces seen on the sea bed do not show any sign of internals, nor do we see evidence of the two, transverse,heavy verticals which would indicate the WT bulkheads "J" and "K" separating the engine room from BR 1 and BR 1 from BR 2. How can you or anyone else be sure that we are seeing two pieces of either inner or outer bottom.. i.e the tank tops or bottoms of 2 DB tanks. How do you know that in fact, we are seeing the inner and outer bottom plating of the DB tank area between WT Bulkheads "J" and "K".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
If what we see in the stern section is the two HP cylinders of the main engines then both the entire engines are still on the wreckage of the stern section.

What we see on the stern wreck are the HP cylinders. Maybe you should have again a look yourself as the first cylinders were the LP which are in the debris field.


The 5 single end boilers in BR One were mounted on stools. These stools were not rigidly fixed to the tank top. The stools supporting coal fired boilers were subject to expansion due to heat and, with the exception of the outboard stools on boilers 1 an 5 which were attached to the tank side margin plate, had to have a bit of flexibility. When the double bottom broke loose in that area, the boilers would easily be torn from their mountings. Since they were pressure vessels; if the water have been vented with the steam then some may even have retained a little buoyancy above the fire tubes. and would therefore move easily and be retain within the section of hull and superstructure until it disintegrated.

Aside that the single ended boilers were not lit, the bottom was gone the sides were gone. So you have not really answered that question.
Maybe I should add the 2 cylinders and other parts and ask you again how they landed there where they are now going by what you are claiming?


You nit-picked on a previous post about where the pieces of DB came from. In fact, you forget that the double bottoms are simply that...an inner bottom mounted on top of an outer bottom and are formed into tanks by transverse water tight floors and bulkheads.
The two pieces seen on the sea bed do not show any sign of internals, nor do we see evidence of the two, transverse,heavy verticals which would indicate the WT bulkheads "J" and "K" separating the engine room from BR 1 and BR 1 from BR 2. How can you or anyone else be sure that we are seeing two pieces of either inner or outer bottom.. i.e the tank tops or bottoms of 2 DB tanks. How do you know that in fact, we are seeing the inner and outer bottom plating of the DB tank area between WT Bulkheads "J" and "K".

Funny that you believe I forget anything. The 2 parts the double bottom (outer hull to the tank top) are upside down. aside from that, the bilge keel and other aspects show where they come from (aside that there is no other part missing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
As for the engines, boilers and double bottom sections. Here are some fact that you cannot deny.
If what we see in the stern section is the two HP cylinders of the main engines then both the entire engines are still on the wreckage of the stern section.

So let us see, from my copy of the Shipbuilder for Olympic & Titanic (1911) we have from forward (right) to aft (left) the following cylinders:

LP HP IP LP

2017-03-16 at 21-44-36.png


And here is the one LP Cylinder which is north-east of the stern but according to Jim the fist cylinder is the HP one and the engines are all in the stern!
1082562_10201570241406235_1449771088_o.jpg

Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD (full movie)_2 1577.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
What we see on the stern wreck are the HP cylinders. Maybe you should have again a look yourself as the first cylinders were the LP which are in the debris field.
Aside that the single ended boilers were not lit, the bottom was gone the sides were gone. So you have not really answered that question.
Maybe I should add the 2 cylinders and other parts and ask you again how they landed there where they are now going by what you are claiming?
Funny that you believe I forget anything. The 2 parts the double bottom (outer hull to the tank top) are upside down. aside from that, the bilge keel and other aspects show where they come from (aside that there is no other part missing).

You are correct, the first cylinder is indeed the No I was used to triple expansion engines with 1 LP cylinder,hence the term "Triple Expansion". However I did use the word "if" nothing written in stone. Sam will remember that he corrected me on that one years ago, I just forgot.

If as you say the two double bottom parts we are seeing are upside down, perhaps you can explain the two close together parallel lines running from top to bottom on the center line of one of the sections as well as other anomalies indicated as follows:
titanic_MM7985_rmst_double_bottom_hull_012-660x389.jpg
looks nothing like any ship's bottom I have ever seen.

The single end boilers are in a cluster on the sea bed to the right of the stern section. In your last post, you say the No. LP cylinder is north east of the stern section. You do not say how far to the north east. That being the case it incorporated part of the heavy, engine bed plate so that's where it fell to the bottom from the ship. it most certainly did not swirl around but would have dropped like a stone to the bottom. Since the DB parts are also to the north east, I think you can safely say that spot is very near to where the ship sank and nowhere near where the bow finally ended up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Similar threads