Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
What is that now? I have posted here stuff for information and proof, nothing more.

So let us see, you are the one coming up with Titanic facing west, the bow and stern by some mysterious force landed as they are today, claiming first that wreck pieces from the bow are at the stern, then stating it could not be so. Claiming there are no pieces which are from the 3rd and 4th funnels which was wrong too, the engines are all in the stern which was not the case, missed the double bottoms, came up they are not double bottoms because it is nothing which fit what you have seen, then they are not upside down, count rivet holes on a hull plate (if you know better why did you not noticed where you are counting them?) and posting the conclusions the rivet holes are not similar on the "keel bar" and then that it is not Titanic wreck. Do I forget something?

And by the way I am not the only one who knows what the photos show and it is not my own "interpretation" that it is the double bottom upside down. But as I said, believe what you like, the evidence is at the bottom of the ocean and clearly speaks against your claims.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
What is that now? I have posted here stuff for information and proof, nothing more.

So let us see, you are the one coming up with Titanic facing west, the bow and stern by some mysterious force landed as they are today, claiming first that wreck pieces from the bow are at the stern, then stating it could not be so. Claiming there are no pieces which are from the 3rd and 4th funnels which was wrong too, missed the double bottoms, came up they are not double bottoms because it is nothing which fit what you have seen, then they are not upside down, count rivet holes on a hull plate (if you know better why did you not noticed where you are counting them?) and posting the conclusions the rivet holes are not similar on the "keel bar" and then that it is not Titanic wreck. Do I forget something?

And by the way I am not the only one who knows what the photos show and it is not my own "interpretation" that it is the double bottom upside down. But as I said, believe what you like, the evidence is at the bottom of the ocean and clearly speaks against your claims.

Oh! Touched a raw nerve that time. Sigh! You are really pushing this Ioannis. But if that's what you want who am I to spoil your fun.

I am not the one pushing anything. Common sense and First Year Apprentice level of technical knowledge shows that Titanic could never have turned northward against a south-setting current after her engines began to slow down. That is not an arguable point. I would ask you to work it out for yourself but that would be unfair to you. It follows that what Boxhall said was true... there was nothing to cause the ship to swing to the northward. But what did he know? After all, he was just an Extra Master.

"15419. Do you know at all whether the "Titanic" was swinging at this time?
- No, I do not see how it was possible for the "Titanic" to be swinging after the engines were stopped. I forget when it was I noticed the engines were stopped, but I did notice it; and there was absolutely nothing to cause the "Titanic" to swing."

The mode of descent of the large pieces of the ship to the sea bed is most certainly a mystery to everyone including you.

Sorry to say this, but you do not have anything original to offer in this debate nor do you have the technical knowledge to argue the point. My sincere suggestion to you is to leave this while you are behind.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Sorry to say this, but you do not have anything original to offer in this debate nor do you have the technical knowledge to argue the point. My sincere suggestion to you is to leave this while you are behind.

Wow! That is the answer for the question regarding the wreck debris? So what did you have to offer? Wreck pieces of which you did not know that they exist and the excuse that they are not Titanic.
How typical, you can not show that you are right and start personal attacks.


Oh! Touched a raw nerve that time.

I guess you are speaking about yourself.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I am a very patient person Ioannis and understand that you are not writing in your first language. However, as the Moderator advised, let's act with a little more decorum and good manners.

Doubtless, those members who have not become bored with the level of debate will make their own judgments.

For your information: I am perfectly aware that there is debris on the sea bed from the Titanic. I also know that there are bottom scour currents which will doubtless cover and expose continuously. I also know that most of the debris is in the vicinity of the stern section and came from it and from the section between funnels 2 and 4.
Like you, I have seen the latest sea bed maps. Therefore, I also knew about the two major parts of Double Bottom tank...the ones we are discussing. You made bold statements of identification...identifying butt straps as Titanic's keel plate then when challenged, modifying your observation to that of a bar keel...a keel which Titanic did not have.
I made a simple, innocent observation about the red paint seen on the wreckage. You turned that into some sort of misdemeanor on my part.

I have asked you to supply proof as to how the bow section is pointing NNE. I still wait for your reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
You made bold statements of identification...identifying butt straps as Titanic's keel plate then when challenged, modifying your observation to that of a bar keel...a keel which Titanic did not have.

I did not challenged anything. When you are counting rivet holes on the wrong part (a hull piece) that is not my problem!

I guess the people at H&W must have been all idiots! This is from the Olympic shell plating (I have written below what is stating there for the case it is not visible) must have been a complete fool who did that then.
01_Plan_shell_plating_plan_Olympic 1a1.jpg


However as I said Jim believe what you like, if it makes you happy it is the butt straps and the double bottoms are not upside down... If someone else like he can continue...
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I did not challenged anything. When you are counting rivet holes on the wrong part (a hull piece) that is not my problem!

I guess the people at H&W must have been all idiots! This is from the Olympic shell plating (I have written below what is stating there for the case it is not visible) must have been a complete fool who did that then.
View attachment 2793

However as I said Jim believe what you like, if it makes you happy it is the butt straps and the double bottoms are not upside down... If someone else like he can continue...
Get your facts right Ioannis. I counted the rivets on the butt strap on the picture YOU supplied as being proof of it being Titanic's Keel. I questioned the so call keel photographs stating that I had never seen a keel like that...I was simply stating a fact.
Then you apologised and stated that the plate I counted rivets on was not the keel plate but that a dark heavy, rectangular bit of steel low on the LH side of the photograph was actually the keel bar. Go back and have a look at that and tell me if it is anything like what we see in your latest drawing offering.

The thick plate shown on the drawing of Olympic is a keel bar.... not a Bar Keel. These are two entirely different items. The only reason the item on your drawing is called 'bar' is because of it's thickness as opposed to a plate. However, although it is narrower than the one fitted to Titanic, it is the same thickness. Now look at the Double bottom pictures you posted yet again. Check the thickness of what you call a keel bar against the thickness of the surrounding plating. Is that keel of your double the thickness of the surrounding plates? Come to think of it, was there two keels?
shipkeel-png.png


I see you are still dodging the most important question...how did the bow section end up pointing north?
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
You made bold statements of identification...identifying butt straps as Titanic's keel plate then when challenged, modifying your observation to that of a bar keel...a keel which Titanic did not have.
Get your facts right Ioannis. I counted the rivets on the butt strap on the picture YOU supplied as being proof of it being Titanic's Keel. I questioned the so call keel photographs stating that I had never seen a keel like that...I was simply stating a fact.
Then you apologised and stated that the plate I counted rivets on was not the keel plate but that a dark heavy, rectangular bit of steel low on the LH side of the photograph was actually the keel bar. Go back and have a look at that and tell me if it is anything like what we see in your latest drawing offering.

I guess you get a few things mixed up here! I posted images from the double bottom, keel bar & bilge keel.
The one image in question had not the keel bar visible as it is on another image I posted later on the far left side visible.

So what do I have now to do with you counting the wrong rivet holes? The empty rivet holes you have counted are from a plating as I said. And by the way you have come up as the expert and did not noticed where you are counting empty rivet holes? And now I am the bad guy because you did not notice it? How easy to blame others for your mistakes!

And interesting how you ignore the bilge keel on you right side up double bottoms!

The thick plate shown on the drawing of Olympic is a keel bar.... not a Bar Keel.

Read my earlier posts I did wrote keel bar as the different plans have it!

I see you are still dodging the most important question...how did the bow section end up pointing north?

Answer had been already given.

As I said believe what you like, if others want they can continue this stuff.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Ioannis, your arguments remind me of the tale of Icarus. I don't know what your expertise is but it is certainly not ship construction.
The following is from the book "Titanic, The Ship magnificent".
ch03-left4-sm.jpg


Keel - Titanic’s keel was laid on March 31, 1909, in Slip No. 3 of Harland & Wolff’s Queen’s Island Shipyard at Belfast. Titanic’s keel was of the “flat-plate” design, formed by a single thickness of plating 30/20 inches thick and reducing to 24/20 inches toward the ends. The keel plate was 52 inches wide at its broadest point and was strengthened below by a flat slab bar 19½ inches wide by 3 inches thick. The purpose of this flat slab bar, called a “rubbing strip,” was to protect the flat-plate keel from being damaged if the vessel should run aground. It also protected the keel plate during drydocking.

In riveted hull construction a flat-plate keel resembled an ordinary strake of outside shell plating, the difference being that it was of much greater thickness than the adjacent strakes. This was necessary not only because of the wear and tear to which this plate was often subjected, but also because, in conjunction with the vertical center keel plate, or “vertical keel,” which stood upon it and to which it was attached, it was a considerable factor in the longitudinal strength of the hull. . . (continued)

Image above, Keel Plate and Double Bottom - A detail from the midship section showing Titanic’s keel and floor design. Illustration, Bruce Beveridge based on original H&W Midship Section."
 

Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
1694110.jpg

The Keel / Rubbing Bar would be connected via two rivets rows arranged in a zigzag pattern, through the Keel Plate and the Bottom Keel Angles on either side the Vertical Keel. Here's a picture of Olympic's Rubbing Bar being first to be laid.

keel_p10.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
From "Titanic The Ship Magnificent" (Vol. 1) page 62, from the same page as the drawing show in Jim's post No. 109, Illustration done by Bruce Beveridge based on original H&W plan (as the one posted by me post No. 106) (Close to letter A we see "Keel Bar".)
IMG_20170321_204707584_1.jpg


From page 71 (same book) again Illustration by Bruce Beveridge based on the original plan for Olympic & Titanic. (Close to letter A we see again "Keel Bar".)
01_IMG_20170321_205717858_1.jpg


As George G. explained and show it in the above post No. 110 I am not going to quote from the text or add other images and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Thanks for that George. It's as have been trying to explain to Ioannis...that bar was not part of the keel which is a main strength member... the ship's back bone. Heaven knows why they needed a 'rubbing bar' on the bottom of a ship built to sail across the Atlantic.

The section suspended from the crane in P1 looks as though it is shaped, i.e. trending upward at one end and is not equally thick across its width. There is also a gap between the plate edge and the keel bearers behind the man in the bowler hat standing on a plate which is certainly less than 19.5 inches wide x 3 inches thick. If that plate is 19.5 inches wide then that man has huge feet. There is nothing like that on the wrecked double bottom of Titanic
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Thanks for that George. It's as have been trying to explain to Ioannis...that bar was not part of the keel which is a main strength member... the ship's back bone.

From Jim Curries postings;

Post 83
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.

Post 86
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.

Post 98
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.

Post 100
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.

Post 105
You made bold statements of identification...identifying butt straps as Titanic's keel plate then when challenged, modifying your observation to that of a bar keel...a keel which Titanic did not have.

Post 107
The thick plate shown on the drawing of Olympic is a keel bar.... not a Bar Keel. These are two entirely different items. The only reason the item on your drawing is called 'bar' is because of it's thickness as opposed to a plate.

All I said was the term used in the different plans for Olympic & Titanic which had it as the Keel Bar. So what was it you wanted to explain after going fore and aft with your "bar keel" (as we see it was you with the bar keel and not me)?!


There is nothing like that on the wrecked double bottom of Titanic
13392a.jpg
2017-03-17 at 20-14-44a.jpg
Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD (full movie)_2 1508a.jpg


Sure, "nothing like that on the wreck"....
But I forget:

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.
then that photograph is not one of part of Titanic.
You made bold statements of identification...identifying butt straps as Titanic's keel plate
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
From Jim Curries postings;

Post 83


Post 86


Post 98


Post 100


Post 105


Post 107


All I said was the term used in the different plans for Olympic & Titanic which had it as the Keel Bar. So what was it you wanted to explain after going fore and aft with your "bar keel" (as we see it was you with the bar keel and not me)?!



View attachment 2800 View attachment 2801 View attachment 2802

Sure, "nothing like that on the wreck"....
But I forget:
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:
upload_2017-3-22_18-6-48.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
The keel bar was not part of the keel.

Interesting how you are putting statements in my mouth which I did not make like the "Bar Keel" which was you who did bring it up and then claiming it was me!


There really is no point in discussing this with you, Ioannis.

I guess because you have 0 proof. By the way the double bottom pieces are known from the 1990s and had been exterminated by many people including David Livingstone (naval architect from H&W). But when Jim Currie said they are right way up it must be so.

I agree there is no point in discussing anything with you.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Discussing something is when people exchange ideas about a topic in a reasonable, well mannered way without insulting or trying to belittle anyone and without using any form of sarcasm. Just as I did with my last post.
I remind you of how I finished it:

"Here is what I suggest. Forgive bad sketches:"

That being the way I finished my post; what prompted your remark of " "But when Jim Currie said they are right way up it must be so." ?
Was it because you know that for more than 20 years, I was New-building Surveyor for Underwriters at the Clydebank Yard of John Brown & Co., which became Marathon UK Inc and finally U.I.E Ltd.? Or was it that you knew I was formally trained In Shipbuilding, Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture?
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,526
1,807
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
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.
I've stayed away from this thread for a while, but I do feel the need to ask the following regarding the statements above.
1. Assuming a southward current of about 1 knot, why would that act only on the starboard bow of the vessel as claimed above? The entire ship was sailing on a body of water that was moving. As such, the movement of the ship has two components, the movement of the water plus the ship's movement relative to that body of water. As long as the current was uniform over a relatively large area compared to the dimensions of the vessel (i.e., the movement of water was the same everywhere), the movement of the ship relative to the body of water would be the same as if there were no current at all.
2. The order to shift the rudder came after the berg had passed aft of the bridge as it was going astern. There is no evidence that it came as late as 30 seconds after impact. The rationale for an order to shift the helm hard-aport (right full rudder) after the ship struck is to mitigate further damage happening along the starboard side by trying to swing the stern away from the berg.
3. The is no supporting evidence that full astern on the engines was actually ordered. That story came only from Boxhall who gave a very compressed time frame for him to have witnessed all the things he said he heard. If full astern was ordered, the why would an engineer send a Stop signal to the stokeholds to dampen the fires when a full head of steam was still needed?
4. From several eyewitness accounts, there were minutes, not just a few seconds, between the time of impact with the berg and when the engines came to a stopped. The shortest quantified time estimate that I could find was from Dillon who said they stopped in about a minute and a half after the impact. So even with engine orders sent down prior to the impact the ship was running ahead on her engines for quite some time afterward.
5. If the ship was not turning to starboard by the time Capt. Smith showed up on the bridge, then why would Murdoch, Smith and Boxhall go out on the starboard bridge wing to look for the berg? The berg would have been off the port quarter by then.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Quartermaster Rowe was asked at the 1912 British Inquiry -


Q - How long after the ship struck do you think it was you looked at this patent log? Ten minutes or a quarter of an hour?
A - About half a minute

I asked myself what would cause him to rush over to the port side and reel in the log so soon after the collision? In 1957 he gave a TV interview and said - "I felt her give a jar. I thought that was peculiar. I looked along the side and I saw what I thought was a windjammer, but as it came astern I saw it was an iceberg. The engine was going full speed astern then so I pulled the log in."

There wouldn't be time for the engines to go full astern so soon after the collision. This led me to believe they had lost a propeller blade in the collision, as survivors described it as a series of bumps followed by a long vibration, and as QM Rowe must have felt this vibration at the stern after the collision he mistook it for the engines going astern and immediately pulled up the log. Survivors said they thought she had lost a blade, and according to some survivors the Titanic went slow ahead after she stopped. It is my belief that Captain Smith was checking the propellers as he had recently lost a blade on the Olympic and would recognize the sensation.

Mr. Stengel was asked:

Q - How long after the impact was it before the engines were stopped?
A - A very few minutes.
Q - Give the number of minutes, if you can. You are accustomed to machinery and matters of this kind.
A - I should say two or three minutes, and then they started again just slightly; just started to move again. I do not know why; whether they were backing off, or not. I do not know. I hardly thought they were backing off, because there was not much vibration of the ship.

When the Olympic lost a blade the passengers felt a vibration that woke some of them up. Perhaps the vibration that Mr. Stengel felt was the sensation caused by the ship moving slowly with a broken blade creating the second vibration. Reading newspaper accounts it appears Gretchen Longley thought they had struck two icebergs. Perhaps she also felt the second vibration and mistook it for a second collision as the ship moved forward again.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 22, 2003
6,526
1,807
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Forensically speaking, there is no evidence that any blade was lost because of contact with an object. Of the blades that can be seen on the wreck, they appear to be untouched. Given the revolutions carried, more than one blade would have come in contact with the berg if the stern came close enough to have one ripped off or severely bent.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads