Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
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:
looks nothing like any ship's bottom I have ever seen.

In the centre is the keel bar (look at pic 2) on the sides the bilge keel (look at pic 1). Your bottom "anomalies" are pars where the hull plating is missing. Pic 3 show what is between. If that does not look for you like a ship bottom, your problem.
Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD (full movie)_2 1047 bilge keel.jpg
Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD (full movie)_2 2465.jpg
titanic-shipwreck-underwater-mystery1.jpg



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.

The boilers are about the spot where the ship broke at the surface.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
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.



keel2.PNG



shipkeel.PNG


shipangle1.PNG




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


shipangle2.PNG



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."


.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
In the centre is the keel bar (look at pic 2) on the sides the bilge keel (look at pic 1). Your bottom "anomalies" are pars where the hull plating is missing. Pic 3 show what is between. If that does not look for you like a ship bottom, your problem.View attachment 2739 View attachment 2740 View attachment 2741
The boilers are about the spot where the ship broke at the surface.

Why should it be a "problem"? I asked you what it was, you told me...no problem. But you have one.

Your picture 2 is not of the 'Keel bar". Titanic did not have a bar keel, she had a composite keel consisting of a plate keel and a keel Girder. In fact what your picture shows is a piece of double bottom right way up. This is what it would have looked like. Please excuse bad sketch:
Titanic plating.png

What you see in your picture 2 is the butt strap on top of the inner bottom. The picture shows a section of DB right way up.
In fact, if you carefully look at the following photograph taken during the construction of Titanic, you can see the very Butt strap in question
Butt strap.jpg
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Your picture 2 is not of the 'Keel bar". Titanic did not have a bar keel, she had a composite keel consisting of a plate keel and a keel Girder. In fact what your picture shows is a piece of double bottom right way up. This is what it would have looked like. What you see in your picture 2 is the butt strap on top of the inner bottom. The picture shows a section of DB right way up.

So it is right way up with the bilge keel on both sides and having red paint? Really?!


In fact, if you carefully look at the following photograph taken during the construction of Titanic, you can see the very Butt strap in question .

It's not Titanic.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Your picture 2 is not of the 'Keel bar". Titanic did not have a bar keel, she had a composite keel consisting of a plate keel and a keel Girder. In fact what your picture shows is a piece of double bottom right way up.

So let us have a look on a few close up pictures of your "right way up" double bottom (with the bilge keel and non existing keel bar).

First the bilge keel:
2017-03-17 at 20-13-17.png
2017-03-17 at 20-13-17.png
2017-03-17 at 20-12-32.png
2017-03-17 at 20-12-41.png
2017-03-17 at 20-12-51.png
2017-03-17 at 20-13-02.png



Now the keel bar:

2017-03-17 at 20-14-44.png
Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD (full movie)_2 1510.jpg


And here is one of your "anomalies" from a previous post.
2017-03-17 at 20-13-57.png
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
So it is right way up with the bilge keel on both sides and having red paint? Really?!


Do the pictures of the bilge keel come from the same section of double Bottom?

Yes it's right way up. A ship's keel does not look like that, Not even a bar keel. For your information, I enclose excerpts for a Merchant Ship Construction manual:
connections.jpg
Keel developement.jpg

Now compare the above with what you see on the sea floor.



It's not Titanic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
From Post No. 86 Jim Currie wrote "Yes it's right way up. A ship's keel does not look like that, Not even a bar keel."

So let us have a look. Here is the double bottom at the break under the HP cylinder at the stern.
385692_368895739825886_1024842283_n.jpg


Fits well with what the Shipbuilder for Olympic & Titanic show for one of her boiler rooms (the bilge keel is visible on both by the way)
Image1.jpg


So now the side of the double bottom in the debris field (which according to Jim the it is right way up). By the way both double bottoms are upturned.
Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD (full movie)_2 1502.jpg
10660315_4469349228711_433702132878314800_n.jpg



Luckily reality does not change whatever Jim Currie claims.
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
46
73
Why do you care so much what Jim beliefs? Can't you just agree to disagree make peace and move on?


.

Why do you care what they are debating? They are arguing a topic dealing with facts and if they want to debate each other, then so be it. If it bothers you so much then don't read it. If either one of them says they don't want to continue the discussion that is up the them and should be of no concern to you. It a forum and people often debate each other on the validity of their information, you should be familiar with that. What isn't peaceful about their debate? It seems fairly civil to me.
 
Last edited:

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Jul 4, 2000
6,367
390
433
Moderator's hat on:

Please keep the discussion focused on the merits of the issues and not the people involved.

Moderator's hat off.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
From Post No. 86 Jim Currie wrote "Yes it's right way up. A ship's keel does not look like that, Not even a bar keel."

So let us have a look. Here is the double bottom at the break under the HP cylinder at the stern.
View attachment 2770

Fits well with what the Shipbuilder for Olympic & Titanic show for one of her boiler rooms (the bilge keel is visible on both by the way)View attachment 2771

So now the side of the double bottom in the debris field (which according to Jim the it is right way up). By the way both double bottoms are upturned.
View attachment 2772View attachment 2773


Luckily reality does not change whatever Jim Currie claims.

The reality that you posted shows a magazine drawing of the bottom in way of the double bottoms. The same drawing also shows a keel plate 19.5 inches wide by 3 inches thick. Now go back and look at what you claim is the keel.
On the DB section in question, we see a quadruple riveted butt strap about 14 inches wide by about 1 inch thick; certainly not 19.5 inches wide by 3 inches thick. Or do you disagree with that too?
titanic-at-100-mystery-solved-720p-hd-full-movie-_2-2465-jpg.jpg
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Why do you care what they are debating? They are arguing a topic dealing with facts and if they want to debate each other, then so be it. If it bothers you so much then don't read it. If either one of them says they don't want to continue the discussion that is up the them and should be of no concern to you. It a forum and people often debate each other on the validity of their information, you should be familiar with that. What isn't peaceful about their debate? It seems fairly civil to me.

It's not too much to ask to keep the replies civil. Jim simply stated his beliefs and Ioannis replied to him and said - "You mean your facts. Your facts does not speak for all." "Luckily reality does not change whatever Jim Currie claims."

There is nothing civil about telling a member that they live in their own reality outside the truth simply because their beliefs are different.

Back to topic. The double bottom could be upside down or right side up. As documentaries are nearly always wrong in their findings because they are more interested in TV ratings, the best solution is to conduct independent research.


.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Yes, I did. And I did it because all you need is two things... the diameter and pitch of rivet holes and by comparison to the thickness of surrounding plates.

Oh, and by the way, the straps you show are different. One has two sets of double rivets and the other has 6 evenly spaced across the width
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Oh that! Yes it is different because it is the hull. Guess I got the wrong picture, here is the one with the keel "bar" or however you like to call it on the far left side.
Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD (full movie)_2 1508.jpg
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Oh that! Yes it is different because it is the hull. Guess I got the wrong picture, here is the one with the keel "bar" or however you like to call it on the far left side.
View attachment 2777

Have to point out, Ioannis, that if that is a bar keel (not keel bar) on the left of the HS photograph, then that photograph is not one of part of Titanic. That is what the keel of a much older vessel would have looked like. I remind you of your own post:
image1-jpg.jpg



Another thing I find strange about these photographs is the presence of red anti-fouling paint. At least, that's what it looks like.
Anti-fouling paint contained high concentrations of copper. It normally disolved away and had to be renewed annually or bi-annually at dry dock time. I find it hard to accept that it still can be seen on the surface of the ship's bottom plating after all that time. If that is AF paint, then we should try and get the formula. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Have to point out, Ioannis, that if that is a bar keel (not keel bar) on the left of the HS photograph, then that photograph is not one of part of Titanic.

Believe what you want, I am tried of the always same discussion with you. It is always the same, first it is not what it is said, then it is not Titanic.


Another thing I find strange about these photographs is the presence of red anti-fouling paint.

It is which is also visible on the bow and stern sections. (Below an image from the bow above the bilge keel, the quality is a little bad but the red is visible).
10333373_4145509614008_5353965200633515650_o.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I'm sorry that you get tired so easily, Ioannis. Perhaps you should rest?

Let's just set the record straight.

You are the one who posted photographs purporting to be of Titanic's keel.
You are the one who posted drawings of Titanic's keel and double bottom showing a plate keel then backed them up with photographs claiming she had a bar keel.
You are the one who promoted Titanic's turn to the north, hence the position of the bow section on the sea bed but on being challenged, declined to say how it got there.
I simply remarked that the pictures you posted did not resemble any ship's bottom or keel that I had ever seen. I then backed up my observation with technical fact from a 3rd party source.
I also simply made the light remark that the anti-fouling paint in the photographs, if it was such, was a remarkable material.

Why should I be condemned for questioning what you post? I question what you write and will continue to do so if, in my informed opinion, it requires to be questioned. I do not completely dismiss anything you post but point out to you perceived inconsistencies. If you, as I do, believe in what you post, you should be prepared to defend your belief with substantial back-up and not dismiss out of hand any genuine, balanced criticism.
Lastly: Do not take life so seriously. I am not pursuing, and never have previously, pursued, a vendetta against you alone...I do it with everyone. (Just kidding) It is not my goal in life to make you tired, unhappy or angry. I have far more important things to contend with; not the least of which is growing old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Similar threads