Captain Collins,
What is your source of information regarding "massive renting" of the entrance, plating, and framing from the collision? Having studied the testimony and forensic evidence from the wreck, the only proven damage along the starboard bow that I'm aware of appears to be a relatively slight separation of a plating seam. There may very well be additional damage, but as yet there is not enough evidence to prove it.
Regarding the parted seam, only a small portion of it has been caught on video. Polaris imaging of the bow section is inconclusive because it cannot differentiate between collision damage and damage sustained when the bow section "stubbed its toe" on the ocean floor. Regardless, even the Polaris scans show relatively small and isolated shadows that could be openings, not the "massive renting" you refer to.
I cannot answer your questions because they in turn were not asked of CDR Desh during his interview. If you were to ask me the question, I would give you the following opinion:
I believe that the pattern of evidence points to the hull striking the ice along the bottom while attempting a turn under right rudder. The damage suffered along the side was not caused by impact, but rather by the racking of the hull as it momentarily and slightly rode up on the ice. The fatal damage was actually suffered along the bottom...the ingress of water in the boiler rooms was dramatic enough to impress the eyewitnesses, but was not in and of itself what sank the ship. I can't remember if I have discussed this with you before, but your friend, Allen Clarke, is aware of it.
Therefore, I won't attempt to answer your question because I hold to a different scenario. Just to be clear, I will state again that mine is a theory -- an educated guess based off one interpretation of existing evidence -- not established fact.
Personally, I believe that the framing was, as you mentioned, damaged during the collision, but there is as yet no corroborative evidence to prove this. All I have at the moment is circumstantial evidence that might indicate damage. One attempt has been made to ascertain physical evidence, but the camera silted out before it could penetrate the area. I hope that another attempt can be made in the future.
Am I speaking for CDR Desh? No. I'm afraid your questions will go, for the time being, unanswered. If he is solicited again for another interview, then I will make sure your questions are put to him.
Again, I would like to see your supporting evidence that the haze reported by the lookouts was in fact pack ice. As a theory, I would even agree with you...if the "haze" reported by the lookouts was in fact real, I would be inclined to believe that they actually saw pack ice. I highly respect your opinion and the experience behind it, but according to the rules of historical research that I have been taught, even the most qualified opinion does not constitute established fact. Do you agree?
Parks