Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
but what do you think about the fact that the front part has emerged again when the ship broken up?

I am not aware that any researcher has this as a "fact".


This could explain why the decks are collapsed on the rear of the front part?

No, aside that she broke directly in front of the 3rd funnel which can be seen at the wreck, the debris, especially the tower debris with the 3 funnel base as well as the pantry piece speak against it. The hull plates at the break area come loose from the frames, the force of it hitting the bottom bend the decks downwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,166
643
188
21
I am not aware that any researcher has this as a "fact".




No, aside that she broke directly in front of the 3rd funnel which can be seen at the wreck, the debris, especially the tower debris with the 3 funnel base as well as the pantry piece speak against it. The hull plates at the break area come loose from the frames, the force of it hitting the bottom bend the decks downwards.

Ioannis is exactly right. Given the damage put upon the bow and the way flood waters would have traveled throughout the ship, there’s no way the bow could have risen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
Hello everyone! Maybe my question was asked (but I don't understand all the messages you wrote 'cause I'm french) but what do you think about the fact that the front part has emerged again when the ship broken up?

This is from the 2001/2012 sinking simulations, and as you can see the ship is flooded up to boiler room 2 so there would not have been any air left in the bow to lift 25 thousand tons (not including the water) The collapsed rear part of the ship was caused when the Bow hit the bottom at around 30 knots (the aft section of the bow had lots of open spaces with the reading & writing room and first class dinning room) not to mention the down blast
23.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
To understand the flooding of the bow one has to understand where the water travelled. It did not fill the bow and contain itself there. As soon as the water rose to a relevant floor which gave access further aft it would take that path immediately and flood further aft and spill down the floors in that area, and it would continue in that direction and allow the ship to sink bodily. The list to port and the open portholes and gangways would also enhance this change in the direction. Numerous survivors said the bow did sink 'at first' by the head as the water started to fill the lowest compartments in the bow, and when the ship sank lower the water began moving aft, spilling down all accessible cracks, pipes and stairways to fill the lowest sections first. Physically it had to flood the lowest floors forward, middle and aft before it could rise up because the downward trim was so slight, especially when compared to the port list which according to survivors was much more significant. If the water did not flood the lowest floors first it would make the ship top heavy and cause her to roll over and capsize. The heavy list to port may have been the result of water flooding one of the sections of the ship above a section that was not flooded e.g. above the sealed off boiler rooms.

When the last boats were leaving survivors noted the ship was settling lower with little to no noticeable downward tilt at all. I believe that is a significant change as this meant the water was flooding the centre of the ship and possibly much further aft. With little downward trim the water would not continue to flood the rest of the bow because the entire ship was settling lower in unison and the water would freely sweep across the ship and aft. The ship was settling very low in the water and listing heavily to port. Mr. Joughin noticed the water was creeping up the huge Scotland road corridor on E-deck towards his room which was close to the aft section, and when he left his cabin after 1.30am he noticed the ship had listed more to port and the water had disappeared from the corridor. This tells us the water very likely had spilled down further aft, or had in fact receded away from the bow and was flooding the decks below him. Fred Barrett was in boiler room 5 and heard a banging sound and saw a rush of water come into boiler room 5, not from above, but from the wall in front of him. It has been widely suspected that either the coal bunker door failed, or the bulkhead wall itself had failed. In either case the water was being filtered out of the bow, receded away from the Scotland road corridor, and was now moving aft from the lowest point. We don't know if the failure in boiler room 5 continued further aft in a chain reaction or if the watertight doors were reopened or if some other failure took place. In either case the water was rushing aft from below and filtering out of the flooded bow and was spilling into the middle of the ship. (Like pulling the plug out of the bathtub and allowing the water to flood into another bathtub further aft.)

Soon after, the last collapsible was being pushed towards the davits. Explosive sounds were heard deep inside the ship. The bow took a sudden lurch. Men were now in the water up to their hips. They then felt the bow suddenly rising up (a few feet) and the forward part of the boat deck rose up as the ship sank hard in the middle. I believe the sudden intake of water in the middle of the ship, coupled with the weight of the engines, the receding of the water in the bow, and the list to port caused the liner to buckle open in the middle. The weight forced the buckled ship rapidly down in the middle and she literally tore herself in two. Mr. Brown was near the forward funnel and saw the stern tremble and break away. Other survivors noticed how all four funnels were still in place when the break up occurred and others noted that the first explosive sounds came from deep inside the ship just moments before the ship broke and the bow took a sudden lurch i.e. the initial breaking away. It was too late to launch the collapsible and they frantically tried to cut it free. They noted that the rising of the bow allowed them to cut the boat free. So in a sense the breaking of the ship saved their lives. The bow fill rapidly from the back and gave a second plunge and sank like a stone. The stern twisted around and rose sharply into the air, settled back slightly again and sank.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
It's a;ways interesting on how the ship flooded, its also amazing ho much the ship resisted the flooding (If one believes that the damage extended all the way to boiler room 4 with it flooding from the stockhold plates) The PDF i gave before (which is just the 2011/2012 detailed report and mathematical side of thing) shows regardless on on how much damage they put in model (due to the details on the damage being unknown) and the coal fire port list the ship almost made it and was at the point of surviving.

Time History.png

Time history of mean draft

Time-step convergence.png

Time-step convergence for mean draft. Curves represent different calculation time steps (increments). Assumes “best estimate” permeability and “benchmark” times

Time History.png

Time history of trim
floodwater.png

bending moment.jpg

Bending moment and shear force distributions from GHS (simple beam method) for the maximum permeability load case at maximum bending moment. Mmax = 1,790,000 ft·lton at frame 10a (Boiler Room 2). Background arrangement drawing is courtesy of Bill Sauder

stress.jpg

Bending stress distribution in the bridge deck and bottom shell plating from GHS (simple beam method) for the maximum permeability load case.

stress3d.jpg

: Distribution of VonMises (equivalent) stress (σVM) for the maximum permeability load case at maximum bending moment.
fig28.jpg

: Distribution of longitudinal stress (σX) in the bottom shell plating below Boiler Rooms 1 and 2 for the maximum permeability load case at maximum bending moment
gig27.jpg

in these areas based on the maximum bending condition
fig 29.png

Ultimate strength assessment of hull section between frames 9a and 10a (Boiler Room 2) using MAESTRO add-on ALPS/HULL. Plot shows stress components (longitudinal = X and transverse = Y) in the tank top and bottom plating vs. the applied moment.

trim.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,166
643
188
21
I personally don’t think it’s a coincidence that survivors examined the breakup in front of the third funnel and there’s a naval academy study that spent years of research and proves it. I think if the ship were to sink any other way, it’d be hard to have a scenario in which the ship actually does break in the same exact spot as a traditionalist theory and matches multiple accounts.

The study only took into account the initial damage reported. Everything fell into place. The bow dips down, the stern rises up, the ship lists to port, and the ship breaks apart. All of this was noted by survivors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I would really like to see a graph that incorporates the following survivor accounts. I believe that without these accounts the analysis can not be conclusive. I have added my own thoughts in bold. Feel free to share you thoughts on these accounts.


Mr. Pearcey (collapsible c)
Q - Did you notice when you rowed away whether the ship had any list?
A - Yes, the ship had a list on her port side.
Q - Did you notice whether she was down by the head?
A - No, I did not notice.
Q - Did you notice whether she appeared to be going deeper into the water forward? Did you notice that?
A - No.
Q - Did you see the vessel go down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were you facing her when she went down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were her lights burning?
A - Yes, the lights were burning.
(The ship was at that point sinking bodily with practically no downward tilt and the water was rushing aft and down into sections further aft. I think it would not matter if water was spilling in from the top at this point as the water would still have to travel down deep inside the ship and amidships before the decks above could flood. The downward trim was easing away and the ship was listing more to port which created a new maze for the water to travel.)


Mr. Joughin
Q - Now by this time was the list of the ship the same, or do you think she was worse?
A - She had gone a little more to port.
Q - And about being down by the head, could you tell at all?
A - I did not notice anything. I did not notice her being much down by the head.
Q - Do you mean that the list to port was more serious than being down by the head?
A - I thought so, yes.
(The port list was now their major concern as the passengers were ordered to the starboard side to "keep the ship up as long as possible" and how they had to "go gently" because the slightest imbalance of people on the deck would "disturb the ship's position" and cause her to roll over. This could suggest the water was pouring down and flooding areas of the ship 'above' areas that were not flooded which made her top heavy and unsteady, resulting in the passengers being directed to keep the ship in an upright position "as long as possible".)


Mr. Olliver
"I heard several little explosions, but it was not such explosions as I expected to hear."
Q - Were these before or after she sank?
A - Before she sank and while she was sinking.
Q - What did you think those explosions were?
A - Myself, I thought they were like bulkheads giving in.
(The first explosion occurred "before she sank". Could this have been the bulkhead collapsing in boiler room 5 which caused Barrett to escape or was this the initial break commencing?)


Mr. Archer
"I should say they would be, about 20 minutes between each explosion. From the time I heard the first one until I heard the second one, it would be about 20 minutes, sir."


Mr. Clench
"The lights went out after the second explosion. Then she gradually sank down into the water very slowly."
Q - How long a time would you say it was after the second explosion before she sank out of sight?
A - I should say a matter of about 20 minutes.
(We can deduce the explosions, certainly the second one, was related to the break up)


Mr. Brice
Q - How far apart in time, probably, were the two explosions?
A - From 8 to 10 minutes.
Q - When the first explosion occurred, were the lights out?
A - The lights were still on in the after end of the ship after the first and second explosions.
(Several others heard the explosions and saw smoke and sparks come out of the funnels during the explosions and they saw the lights on the stern after it broke and settled back, so we can deduce the explosions were an effect or after effect of the break up.)

Mr. Carter
"I looked around just as the Titanic went down, being attracted by the explosions."
(The explosions caused him to turn and look at the ship. We can deduce the explosions caused others to turn and look.)


Mrs Ryerson
"I was in the bow of the boat with my daughter and turned to see the great ship take a plunge toward the bow"
(We can deduce the first explosion made them turn and look.) "The two forward funnels seemed to lean and then she seemed to break in half as if cut with a knife, and as the bow went under the lights went out; the stern stood up for several minutes, black against the stars, and then that, too, plunged down"


Mr. Mellors
"We were trying to fix up a collapsible boat when she gave the first signs of going under. There seemed to be a tremble run through the whole of the ship and the next thing we heard were loud reports inside which I think were the watertight doors giving way (First explosion) and before you could say Jack Robinson there seemed to be mountains of water rushing through the doors, and I was swept away from where I was right against the collapsible boat, and I simply clung on for all I was worth, whilst all this was going on she was going under water and it seemed as if thousands of men were dragging me under with her, when suddenly, her nose (bow) on which I was, seemed to suddenly rise from underneath the water and I and a few more that were close by cut the ropes that held the boat to the falls. There was suddenly an explosion (the second explosion and detachment, or collapse of funnel, or expulsion of air) and I found myself whizzing through the water at an awful pace, having been blown away by the explosion. When I came to my senses a few minutes after I looked round and suddenly saw the ship part in the middle with the stern standing several hundred feet out of the water, at this time I was trying to swim away from her."


Mr. Daly
"I reached a collapsible boat that was fastened to the deck by two rings. It could not be moved. During that brief time that I worked on cutting one of those ropes, the Titanic gave a lurch downward and we were in the water up to our hips. She rose again slightly, and I succeeded in cutting the second rope which held her stern. Another lurch threw this boat myself off and away from the ship into the water."

Mr. Dillon
British news report - "The bow seemed to bob up and then break clean off."

Mrs Hippach
"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."


Mr Brown
Q - Did you notice whether the bow broke off?
A - 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. I might be wrong.
Q - But that was your conclusion from it?
A - Yes.
Q - I suppose your opportunities for observation were not very good at this time?
A - No. That part was practically under water then.
Q - When the afterpart gave this tremble, where were you then?
A - In the water; right before the forward funnel.
Q - Did you notice whether the lights of this afterpart were still lighted or not?
A - There were lights burning then.
Q - Could you see that?
A - Yes.
(He saw the forward funnel after the bow broke off i.e. lurched forward. He made no mention of being blown into the water or pushed away from the ship by the collapse of the funnel, so the break up occurred before the first funnel fell.)


There are other accounts of the funnels still in place when the ship broke such as Ruth Becker who described with her fingers how the explosion occurred and the ship broke in two and the two forward funnels separated from the rest. That is how she was able to indicate that the ship had broken, similar to Mrs Ryerson who saw the two forward funnels lean as the ship broke in half. If the ship was already well submerged and her stern was rising when she broke then there clearly should have been horrible screams before she broke, but Ruth Becker said the screams began after the ship broke in two and that was the reason which caused so many to scream and panic on the ship as she sank much more rapidly from that point. Hugh Woolner was reported as saying there were two explosions and how the second one caused the most damage and blew away the funnels. This is likely the moment that the screams began. August Weikman said the explosion blew him away from the ship and killed a number of people. Others described graphic scenes of people blown into the air and body parts floating in the water.

Lightoller said he was sucked down when the bow went under and when he rose to the surface the ship was facing the opposite way. He then reached for the collapsible and then witnessed the forward funnel falling which pushed the collapsible away from the scene. What puzzles me is, how could the first funnel push his boat away if the ship was facing the opposite way when he reached the surface? I believe the stern was already broken and detached and corkscrewing around when Lightoller was sucked down with the bow section, and possibly one of the other funnels had fallen and pushed his boat away. Maybe even the fourth funnel which possibly fell over the side and splashed into the water from a great height.


That said, it is good to read different opinions of the accounts and analysis of the sinking.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
Il through my hat in the ring, this is from Walter Lords A Night Lives On
"
Final plunge

As seen from Boat 1. She took a heavy cant, bow down, stern well out of the water. Then, as she went down, her poop righted itself, and he thought, “The poop is going to float.” But 2 or 3 minutes later, poop went up “as straight as anything,” then “a sound like thunder and soon she disappeared from view.”…“Stern righted itself without the bow; in my
Br 17687-17688)

When No. 4 lowered, A Deck “only 20 feet from the sea.” Could see water washing into open portholes. (Mrs. Ryerson, US 1107)

When “D” lowered, forecastle head just going under water—“that would be about 20 feet lower than the bridge.” (Bright, US 839)

When Collapsible D lowered, water right up to bridge. (Lucas, Br 1518, 1528, 1534, 1548)

When “D” lowered, Boat Deck only 10 feet from sea. Water at A Deck. (Lightoller, Br 1420, 14023)

As Boat D lowered, water washes onto A Deck, port side all the way forward. (Woolner, US 887)

Final plunge

As seen from Boat 1. She took a heavy cant, bow down, stern well out of the water. Then, as she went down, her poop righted itself, and he thought, “The poop is going to float.” But 2 or 3 minutes later, poop went up “as straight as anything,” then “a sound like thunder and soon she disappeared from view.”…“Stern righted itself without the bow; in my estimation she must have broken in half…about abeam of the after funnel.” (Symons, Br 11512-11525, 11722)

Boat 2. “After she got to a certain angle she exploded, broke in halves, and it seemed to me as if all her engines and everything that was in the after part slid out into the forward part, and the after part came up right again, and as soon as it came up, right down it went again.” (Osman, US 541)

Boat 3. Saw the forward part go down, then looked as if she broke in half, and then the after part went. (Moore, US 563)

Boat 4. Forward end seemed to break off, after part came back on an even keel, then turned up and went down steadily. (Ranger, Br 4094-4102, 4114, 4166, 4174)

Boat 4. Started breaking up…stern went up in air. After part briefly rights self. (Scott, Br 5673-5681)

Boat 4. “Very near.” Suddenly sees Titanic sinking rapidly. Takes a plunge toward the bow, then two forward funnels seem to lean, then she seems to break in half as if cut with a knife, and as bow goes under, the lights go out. Stern stands up for several minutes, and then that, too, plunges down. (Ryerson, US 1108)

Boat 5. “She broke forward, and the after part righted itself and made another plunge and went right down.” (Olliver, US 530-531)
Boat 5. No breaking up—went straight down. (Pitman, US 280; Br 15078-81)

Boat 5. Ship rises as though about to take a violent dive, then settles back; then stern rises, and down she goes. (Etches, US818)

Boat 6. Went down intact, did not break up. (Peuchen, US 339)

Boat 10. Broke in two between third and fourth funnel. Stern section falls back horizontal, then tips and plunges. (Evans, US 753)

Boat 10. “She went down as far as the after funnel, and then there was a little roar, as though the engines had rushed forward, and she snapped in two, and the bow part went down and the after part came up and stayed up five minutes before it went down.” (Buley, US 609-610)

Boat 12. Broke at first funnel. After part then righted itself after first part disappeared. (Poingdestre, Br 3108, 3111, 3117)

Boat 14. She almost stood up perpendicular…and presently she broke clean in two, probably two-thirds the length of the ship. After third—beyond after funnel—settled back, still floating. Then an explosion, and the after part turned on end and sank. (Crowe, US 620)

Collapsible A. Seemed as if the bow had broken off. (Brown, Br 10553, 10557)

Collapsible B. Bow was in the water, stern up. Then she exploded, throwing stern up out of the water. Stern floats for at least a minute, lights out. Then, “she turned over again and down she went.” (Collins, US)

Collapsible B. Ship did not break in two. (Lightoller, Br 14075; US 69)

Collapsible B. Near perpendicular, then simply glided away. (Joughin,)

Collapsible D. Broke in two, after part briefly righted itself, then down. (Bright)

Standing on poop. Gave a plunge and righted herself again. Then, as starts down again, after funnel seems to cant up and fall aft toward well deck. (Dillon, Br 3858-3869, 3883-3885)


Its evidence like this that makes me wonder how in the world Bill Lange came up with the idea that the survivors where mistaken that the ship did not break up on the surface.

To combat this and other "expert" claims i have another quote from Walter lord and it reminds me when people said the Titanic could not have broken in two.....

"The discovery shows once again the danger of relying too much on experts. They are not always right. Here, moreover, there was good reason to question their opinion from the start. After all, Beesley was a mile away in Boat 13; Pitman was at least 400 yards off in Boat 5; and Gracie didn’t see the final plunge at all—he was under water fighting for his life. Lightoller did have a swimmer’s-eye view, but much of the time he, too, was under water or trying to climb onto overturned Collapsible B. From the collapsible, 250 feet of the Titanic’s hull towering over him could easily have looked like an unbroken wall stretching up to infinity."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,166
643
188
21

Final plunge


As seen from Boat 1. She took a heavy cant, bow down, stern well out of the water. Then, as she went down, her poop righted itself, and he thought, “The poop is going to float.” But 2 or 3 minutes later, poop went up “as straight as anything,” then “a sound like thunder and soon she disappeared from view.”…“Stern righted itself without the bow; in my estimation she must have broken in half…about abeam of the after funnel.” (Symons, Br 11512-11525, 11722)

Boat 2. “After she got to a certain angle she exploded, broke in halves, and it seemed to me as if all her engines and everything that was in the after part slid out into the forward part, and the after part came up right again, and as soon as it came up, right down it went again.” (Osman, US 541)

Boat 3. Saw the forward part go down, then looked as if she broke in half, and then the after part went. (Moore, US 563)

Boat 4. Forward end seemed to break off, after part came back on an even keel, then turned up and went down steadily. (Ranger, Br 4094-4102, 4114, 4166, 4174)

Boat 4. Started breaking up…stern went up in air. After part briefly rights self. (Scott, Br 5673-5681)

Boat 4. “Very near.” Suddenly sees Titanic sinking rapidly. Takes a plunge toward the bow, then two forward funnels seem to lean, then she seems to break in half as if cut with a knife, and as bow goes under, the lights go out. Stern stands up for several minutes, and then that, too, plunges down. (Ryerson, US 1108)

Boat 5. “She broke forward, and the after part righted itself and made another plunge and went right down.” (Olliver, US 530-531)
Boat 5. No breaking up—went straight down. (Pitman, US 280; Br 15078-81)

Boat 5. Ship rises as though about to take a violent dive, then settles back; then stern rises, and down she goes. (Etches, US818)

Boat 6. Went down intact, did not break up. (Peuchen, US 339)

Boat 10. Broke in two between third and fourth funnel. Stern section falls back horizontal, then tips and plunges. (Evans, US 753)

Boat 10. “She went down as far as the after funnel, and then there was a little roar, as though the engines had rushed forward, and she snapped in two, and the bow part went down and the after part came up and stayed up five minutes before it went down.” (Buley, US 609-610)

Boat 12. Broke at first funnel. After part then righted itself after first part disappeared. (Poingdestre, Br 3108, 3111, 3117)

Boat 14. She almost stood up perpendicular…and presently she broke clean in two, probably two-thirds the length of the ship. After third—beyond after funnel—settled back, still floating. Then an explosion, and the after part turned on end and sank. (Crowe, US 620)

Collapsible A. Seemed as if the bow had broken off. (Brown, Br 10553, 10557)

Collapsible B. Bow was in the water, stern up. Then she exploded, throwing stern up out of the water. Stern floats for at least a minute, lights out. Then, “she turned over again and down she went.” (Collins, US)

Collapsible B. Ship did not break in two. (Lightoller, Br 14075; US 69)

Collapsible B. Near perpendicular, then simply glided away. (Joughin,)

Collapsible D. Broke in two, after part briefly righted itself, then down. (Bright)

Standing on poop. Gave a plunge and righted herself again. Then, as starts down again, after funnel seems to cant up and fall aft toward well deck. (Dillon, Br 3858-3869, 3883-

It seems like there is more evidence for a steeper-angled breakup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The problem is, the survivors turned and looked at the Titanic when they heard the first explosions. By the time their eyes fully adjusted and focused on her lights it was too late. They had missed the moment she broke and the bow lights went out, and instead they only witnessed what happened immediately afterwards i.e. The broken stern then rose high into the air and settled back. The testimony tells us the ship was already broken when the stern rose into the air as can be seen below. The survivors who thought the settling back was the moment she broke did not see the actual moment she buckled open. The best approach is to read the accounts from survivors who were in the closest lifeboats because they were far more likely to have seen the initial break which 'caused' the stern to rise up and fall back.


Lifeboat 4

Mr. Scott
"We pulled away from the ship’s side and we had not been away long before the ship started breaking up, and her stern went up in the air, and you could see her three propellers nearly the same as you can see them on the model." "We had just got at the stern of her when she started breaking up." "She broke off at the after-funnel, and when she broke off her stern end came up in the air and came down on a level keel and disappeared."
(This is a clear indication I believe that the break up 'caused' the stern to rise up and then fall back)


Also in Lifeboat 4

Mrs Ryerson
"I was in the bow of the boat with my daughter and turned to see the great ship take a plunge toward the bow. The two forward funnels seemed to lean and then she seemed to break in half as if cut with a knife, and as the bow went under the lights went out; the stern stood up for several minutes, black against the stars, and then that, too, plunged down"
(We can assume the first explosion made them turn as others did and look, and as they saw the bow lurch forward and break off they saw the broken stern suddenly cant upwards.)


Also in Lifeboat 4

Mrs Hippach
"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."
(If she turned away after the break up and looked again she may have mistaken the stern which turned around and thought it was the bow rising up into the air.)


Lifeboat 13

Ruth Becker
She said the ship was tilted down just a little bit at the front and demonstrated how the ship suddenly exploded and broke in two which started the panic and screams aboard, and demonstrated how the two forward funnels leaned forward as the bow broke off. Similar to Mrs Ryerson's account in lifeboat 4.


Also Lifeboat 13


Dr. Dodge
"I am confident that the Titanic broke in two and that was why she sank."
(This would suggest the ship was practically horizontal when the explosion occurred and the ship broke in two and sank)


Lifeboat 9

Mr. Brayton
"I saw the waters reach the bridge after the vessel broke in two and the forward portion began sinking first."
(This suggests the break up caused the bow to take a sudden lurch as the bow broke away and the stern canted upwards)


On the ship

Mr Brown
Q - Did you notice whether the bow broke off?
A - 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. I might be wrong.
Q - But that was your conclusion from it?
A - Yes.
Q - I suppose your opportunities for observation were not very good at this time?
A - No. That part was practically under water then.
Q - When the afterpart gave this tremble, where were you then?
A - In the water; right before the forward funnel.
Q - Did you notice whether the lights of this afterpart were still lighted or not?
A - There were lights burning then.
Q - Could you see that?
A - Yes.


Collapsible C

Mr. Pearcey
Q - Did you notice when you rowed away whether the ship had any list?
A - Yes, the ship had a list on her port side.
Q - Did you notice whether she was down by the head?
A - No, I did not notice.
Q - Did you notice whether she appeared to be going deeper into the water forward? Did you notice that?
A - No.
Q - Did you see the vessel go down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were you facing her when she went down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were her lights burning?
A - Yes, the lights were burning.



Overall I have no choice but to accept that there was no panic until the ship exploded and broke which caused her to buckle and sink much more rapidly. The bow then lurched forward and the broken stern then canted high into the air and settled back. That is what the survivors described above. The settling back would have been far more noticeable to the other survivors than the initial break owing to their perspective and psychological trauma. Anyone who turned and looked and missed the initial break because they heard the explosions afterwards (sound delay owing to distance) would turn and only see the after effects of the break up and witness the broken stern rise up and settle back and mistakenly believe that was the moment she broke, and not realize they had just missed the initial breaking of the ship as was seen by others ( above). I only hope the record can one day be put straight.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Andrew

Member
Jan 2, 1998
38
15
238
44
How could the initial break cause the stern to rise upwards?
That defies the laws of physics, surely?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
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.


expansion-joint-png.png



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.


breakvposition.png


breakvposition2.png



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
Aaron 2016, I would respectably disagree/ differ opinion some of the matters. Ken Marschall says that Ruth Becker, Frank Goldsmith & Edith Haisman told him in person that the stern reached a high angle and clearly saw the break point (Would have been really hard to see in my opinion if was hogging down) and also with the damage to the bow section show's the effects of hydrodynamic of the bow taking off more or less in a vertical position at high speed.

In the word's of JC "We might never know exactly what happened, we can only theorize what might of happened"
So while us Titanic nerds will always wonder what happened in those last two minutes the sad fact is that we will never know. Though ether side out our arguments might be correct or maybe a combination of both!
 
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LukeW17

Member
Oct 3, 2017
80
38
48
The problem is, the survivors turned and looked at the Titanic when they heard the first explosions. By the time their eyes fully adjusted and focused on her lights it was too late. They had missed the moment she broke and the bow lights went out, and instead they only witnessed what happened immediately afterwards i.e. The broken stern then rose high into the air and settled back. The testimony tells us the ship was already broken when the stern rose into the air as can be seen below. The survivors who thought the settling back was the moment she broke did not see the actual moment she buckled open. The best approach is to read the accounts from survivors who were in the closest lifeboats because they were far more likely to have seen the initial break which 'caused' the stern to rise up and fall back.


Lifeboat 4

Mr. Scott
"We pulled away from the ship’s side and we had not been away long before the ship started breaking up, and her stern went up in the air, and you could see her three propellers nearly the same as you can see them on the model." "We had just got at the stern of her when she started breaking up." "She broke off at the after-funnel, and when she broke off her stern end came up in the air and came down on a level keel and disappeared."
(This is a clear indication I believe that the break up 'caused' the stern to rise up and then fall back)


Also in Lifeboat 4

Mrs Ryerson
"I was in the bow of the boat with my daughter and turned to see the great ship take a plunge toward the bow. The two forward funnels seemed to lean and then she seemed to break in half as if cut with a knife, and as the bow went under the lights went out; the stern stood up for several minutes, black against the stars, and then that, too, plunged down"
(We can assume the first explosion made them turn as others did and look, and as they saw the bow lurch forward and break off they saw the broken stern suddenly cant upwards.)


Also in Lifeboat 4

Mrs Hippach
"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."
(If she turned away after the break up and looked again she may have mistaken the stern which turned around and thought it was the bow rising up into the air.)


Lifeboat 13

Ruth Becker
She said the ship was tilted down just a little bit at the front and demonstrated how the ship suddenly exploded and broke in two which started the panic and screams aboard, and demonstrated how the two forward funnels leaned forward as the bow broke off. Similar to Mrs Ryerson's account in lifeboat 4.


Also Lifeboat 13


Dr. Dodge
"I am confident that the Titanic broke in two and that was why she sank."
(This would suggest the ship was practically horizontal when the explosion occurred and the ship broke in two and sank)


Lifeboat 9

Mr. Brayton
"I saw the waters reach the bridge after the vessel broke in two and the forward portion began sinking first."
(This suggests the break up caused the bow to take a sudden lurch as the bow broke away and the stern canted upwards)


On the ship

Mr Brown
Q - Did you notice whether the bow broke off?
A - 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. I might be wrong.
Q - But that was your conclusion from it?
A - Yes.
Q - I suppose your opportunities for observation were not very good at this time?
A - No. That part was practically under water then.
Q - When the afterpart gave this tremble, where were you then?
A - In the water; right before the forward funnel.
Q - Did you notice whether the lights of this afterpart were still lighted or not?
A - There were lights burning then.
Q - Could you see that?
A - Yes.


Collapsible C

Mr. Pearcey
Q - Did you notice when you rowed away whether the ship had any list?
A - Yes, the ship had a list on her port side.
Q - Did you notice whether she was down by the head?
A - No, I did not notice.
Q - Did you notice whether she appeared to be going deeper into the water forward? Did you notice that?
A - No.
Q - Did you see the vessel go down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were you facing her when she went down?
A - Yes.
Q - Were her lights burning?
A - Yes, the lights were burning.



Overall I have no choice but to accept that there was no panic until the ship exploded and broke which caused her to buckle and sink much more rapidly. The bow then lurched forward and the broken stern then canted high into the air and settled back. That is what the survivors described above. The settling back would have been far more noticeable to the other survivors than the initial break owing to their perspective and psychological trauma. Anyone who turned and looked and missed the initial break because they heard the explosions afterwards (sound delay owing to distance) would turn and only see the after effects of the break up and witness the broken stern rise up and settle back and mistakenly believe that was the moment she broke, and not realize they had just missed the initial breaking of the ship as was seen by others ( above). I only hope the record can one day be put straight.


.
My only problem with a low angle break with all four funnels attached etc is what would and could cause the stern to break at such a low angle, with no noticeable stress on the hull. It sounds like the properllers wouldn’t have yet breached the surface?

A break at the maximum stress of 23 degrees is surely the realistic outcome?

Luke
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,166
643
188
21
To me, a high angle break just makes more sense. And maybe not necessarily even a 23-25 angle, but a scenario in which the stern breaks off of the bow, it settles back, and the bow pulls the stern down. The analysis of the tower debris and the keel sections speak against the V configuration. And so do the laws of physics. I don’t really see how a sudden intake of water could BLAST the stern upwards and immediately conceal the break. I think the splitting of the ship would have been much more discreet and was only allowed to be clearly witnessed by those near by. This would result in the myth that the Titanic sank intact. Surely if the stern settled back twice with crazy explosions and sparks and fire, the public’s opinion would be different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LukeW17

Member
Oct 3, 2017
80
38
48
I agree, and I think that the area of the break (around the third funnel) would have been close to the surface, making it especially hard for many to see properly.

Any object will break at or near it’s point of maximum stress, the Titanic included.

A V shape break up sounds very dramatic and I at first thought it definitely happened: if the survivors said so, it happened. But it goes against all physics of the sinking, and these passsengers were I believe, just mistaken.

Luke
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The Britannic rose into the air and according to the latest animation it was suspended for several minutes at a high angle before going down, yet there are no signs of breaking. There must be countless stories of ships going down in wartime with their bows or sterns rising high up, yet no reports of them breaking owing to stress of their hulls in the air, and some of these ships were heavy battle ships.

The Titanic was listing heavily to port, so heavy that passengers were ordered to the starboard side to keep the ship upright with fears that she was going to capsize. Historians dismiss this because they can't explain why this could help. i.e. if they don't know the answer, they just dismiss the question or target the person who asked the question (similar to people who question allied atrocities, the holocaust, and 9/11 etc.)

The heavy port list and decreasing downward tilt tells me that she was possibly top heavy with water flooding in from the portholes on C-deck and D-deck forward and aft and the bulkhead that gave way in boiler room 5 would filter water out of the bow and move aft from below and settle the ship even lower in the middle. This is something historians can't compute or include in their analysis because the factors are too large for them to compute as this would radically shift the directions of the flooding and the stresses on the ship. The rolling of the ship from starboard to port and then back to starboard with the hogging down in the middle with a slight elevation of the stern would cause enormous stresses on the hull and break her open at her heaviest point i.e. her engines. Out of 700+ survivors only a fraction provided testimony in 1912. Some wrote private letters soon after and others gave interviews later in life. That is still a tiny minority and that is all the evidence we have on the break up. Out of that minority a number of them saw the moment the Titanic broke open while others saw the moments that immediately followed. Mr. Olliver saw her break but Boxhall who was in the same lifeboat said she did not break. Ruth Becker saw the ship break but Mr. Beesley who was in the same lifeboat denied she broke. There was a clear attempt to censor what happened to secure the future of the company and the stability of British shipbuilding against the competing nations such as Germany.

Frank Prentice said he went on the poop deck and said the ship righted herself. This was before he described the stern going up into the air. I believe he was describing the same event that happened on the bow when the passengers were ordered to the starboard side and Lightoller said the ship righted itself. This would have put enormous strain on the ship as she was partially flooded from various sections and was now rolling back. If there was just the slightest delay between the bow rolling back and the stern rolling like a train pulling a carriage, it would cause her to buckle open. The ship then split open and the weight of the engines thrusted the stern upwards into the air. This is why survivors said the lights were still on the stern when it was almost vertical. So in a sense James Cameron's portrayal of the stern sticking high in the air with her lights still on is correct. He just got the timing wrong for the break up. It happened immediately before that and was the cause for the stern rising sharply into the air. It then settled back and corkscrewed around. Frank Prentice felt the ship come up and then go down again as the stern settled back. He then looked down at the water and saw hundreds of bodies floating around the stern. This would indicate that he was looking down as the stern rotated and faced the opposite way so that the bodies that were washed off the forward boat deck were now under the propellers which is why Jack Thayer who was in the collapsible saw the stern swing around and thought the propellers were going to come down and strike their boat. As the majority of the lifeboats were rowing away from the bow and towards the lights of another ship off the bow they would look back and see a giant black mass sticking up in the air and going down.

The damage to the wreck is inconclusive. The middle section (large pile of debris) is partially intact and mangled and it took a great deal of research to understand what part of the ship it was owing to its mangled condition. It is unknown if this held onto the tail of the bow or the front of the stern when the ship broke, or simply broke and fell immediately when the ship tore open. The strong list to port could have thrown this mangled mess over the side or pushed it upwards. We simply don't know. When the stern broke and the engines forced the stern into the air there is no reason to believe it compressed into the bow section as both sections could have drifted apart as they sank.

Some UK reports from 1912 said the ship broke into three. This would make the middle section the lever for the bow and stern. If the ship twisted and broke apart like a Christmas cracker then the damage would have been incalculable as the stern rolled to port and threw the aft funnel over to port and the bow lurched to starboard and threw the forward funnel over to starboard. One thing I believe is clear. The breaking of the Titanic was either unique or something that has happened to many ships that flood and list one way and then the other. Perhaps the ways in which oil tankers break on the surface owing to the stresses of waves might be an indicator as to how the Titanic broke on the surface. I spoke to a former sailor in Belfast and he talked for almost an hour about the stresses on large freighters and oil tankers and how the distribution of ballast and slight imbalances can cause enormous stresses on the ship. They can even shake themselves apart. Lightoller said the ship was trembling and "shaking very much". Perhaps this was a deciding factor in the break up as various sections flooded inside?


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 23, 2017
1,128
744
188
Some UK reports from 1912 said the ship broke into three. This would make the middle section the lever for the bow and stern. If the ship twisted and broke apart like a Christmas cracker then the damage would have been incalculable as the stern rolled to port and threw the aft funnel over to port and the bow lurched to starboard and threw the forward funnel over to starboard. One thing I believe is clear. The breaking of the Titanic was either unique or something that has happened to many ships that flood and list one way and then the other. Perhaps the ways in which oil tankers break on the surface owing to the stresses of waves might be an indicator as to how the Titanic broke on the surface. I spoke to a former sailor in Belfast and he talked for almost an hour about the stresses on large freighters and oil tankers and how the distribution of ballast and slight imbalances can cause enormous stresses on the ship. They can even shake themselves apart. Lightoller said the ship was trembling and "shaking very much". Perhaps this was a deciding factor in the break up as various sections flooded inside?


.

It might of but i doubt it, Had the ship hogged and broke in a v like shape the light's would have (in my opinion) would have gone out more early than they did as boiler room one and two would have been compromised right away, i myself don't know how they could have stayed on and the emergency lights for several more minutes if they had no steam. The only way i can explain right now on how the engineers kept the emergency lights on after the break up is that they where still working in the breaker room even after the break up. If that is true than that is just amazing, in addition to all the amazing stuff they did that night
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Similar threads

Similar threads