Will, There were big enough pieces floating for some to climb aboard but being as pitch black as it was, would have been hard to spot it unless you bumped into it, then they were already soaked in water and with the cold air temp would have been hard on them but would have been possible to survive long enough for the lifeboats that came back to pick them up.
By the way, I might have missed it, but what did Thayer say to Skidmore to give the latter the impression that the bow broke the water after the break? I think that would be the crux of Thayer's actual involvement as far as the famous drawing/illustration goes.
>>but what did Thayer say to Skidmore to give the latter the impression that the bow broke the water after the break?<<
Unfortunately, the details of that conversation have apparantly been lost to history. The best evidence we have of what might have been discussed are the sketches themselves. The catch here is that short of dialing 1-800-OujiaBoard and asking Jack Theyer himself, we have no way of knowing what is an accurate reflection of what he said and what is artistic license.
Still say it is POSSIBLE, although not PROBABLE that the bow may have come up awash just as she broke and the bow sank. There are so many forces at work such as shifting cargo and I would think air trapped under the foredeck in the tops of the holds. It must be noted we're talking seconds at best. A very simple description would be that the ship breaks up, the weight and air shift, the air releases via the hatches, she noses down again rolling slightly to port, and dives towards the bottom. There's so much going on all at once that I agree we need to get Thayer on the line, but it's a 1-900 number and at least $20.00 a minute!
Will, I agree its possible but I just dont see it has happening. Water slowly filled the bow so air had time to escape, in the sterns case water filled in rapidly and air didnt have time to escape. I dont really see cargo shifting much either cause they would have been tied down with cargo nets tightly, wouldnt want cargo shifting in heavy seas but even with water pouring into boiler room 1 and 2 quickly i dont think would cause the fore peak to break the surface cause thats only two compartments filling rapidily and the ones foreward of those two are mostly flooded all the way
I agree Michael, that it would take alot of energy more energy than the stern after the break would have had to pull the bow aft end down and push the fore end up. Thats also why I dont really agree with the bottom up break theory at the moment. Even though the stern didnt have that much weight to push the aft end of the bow down, it would have had enough mass to pull the upper decks apart from one another even if the bottom keel and keel plates didnt bend or compress. I know that last time I messed with T-1 Iron which was used in ships at one time not sure if they still are using it now or not but that Iron would break before it would bend and flex. I have a small 2 Ton shop crane made out of that stuff, put it to 4 Tons and instead of the boom flexing and bending it just simply snaped in two.
But I have been wrong alot in the past so I could be wrong about this so Im keeping an open mental folder and not putting the bottom up break in a yes or no folder as to if it happened.
>>But I have been wrong alot in the past so I could be wrong about this so Im keeping an open mental folder and not putting the bottom up break in a yes or no folder as to if it happened.<<
A wise move. For whatever it may be worth...and that may not be much...I'm not wedded to either top=>down or bottom=>up. At least not as an either/or proposition. I think it was a lot more complex and dynamic then that.
That would then get rid of the opposite bend, and alot. I don't know though, many state it rights almost more to the waterline, and this is more in the ally where the ship doesn't at all.
It's weird because the ship seems to break first, then it's dark "up until the ship's lights" gave them help. However, it seems to be Titanic's itself as it sinks with rows going out. What? The lights went back on?
Would this be another one of those ingorable notes? Not to be nasty, but the testimony from the quantity of survivors make more sence with each other then this.
First Berths wrote was: "We possibly were not 3/4 hour when the ship seemed to break in the middle and went in nose and stern and it what seemed minutes not a vestage of her could be seen. Then all was calm and dark,"
Then, instead as talking about what happened after that, she went back and talked about how it was before the ship broke to explain how the ship's lights had helped them see before they went out. She said, "up until then [when the break happened] the lights of the ship gave some help, but as she sank lower and lower, row after row of lights would go out." So what she is saying is that when she first was sent away in the boat, the ship's lights were a help to see in the dark. As the ship sank lower and lower, less lights were visible and it got darker and darker. Then after she sank all was calm and dark.
It was just a poorly written explanation of what she saw.
This thread is regarding A Personal Sinking theory of mine or thought on Roy Mengot's. I was inspired by Roy's theory which is the bottom-up failure, in his theory it depicts and shows that "the ship was at an angle of 20-23 degrees when her lights went out at 2:17. The ship suddenly snapped in two pieces, just around the third funnel, causing the stern to slowly settle into the water. The keel fails first and the draft and lower hull is crushed and breaks apart. The only thing holding the ship together now is B deck. Water surged into the bow and stern of the ship through the huge cracks, causing the bow section to sink beneath the waves. B-deck breaks and the superstructure beneath the 3rd funnel crumbles. The stern rises to the high angle of 70-90 degrees, where it then sinks and disappears beneath the waves." (Source: https://titanic.fandom.com/wiki/Break-up_of_the_Titanic#:~:text=Theory%208%2DRoy%20Mengot%20Theory,is%20crushed%20and%20breaks%20apart).
In My Personal Thought/Theory The Ship was at an angle of 20-23 degrees everything else is the same but during the break portion. the titanic as it bends the upper decks also fail and crack open. and this also supports the witnesses that the saw the stern with no forepart connected to it. or they can see the stern not connected to the bow and gives them the impression that she had a partition/break. after she broke she lists to port rises and turns stays up vertical for awhile and then finally sinks to the bottom of the sea.
Here is A Full Time Animation of the Final Plunge i Created Using Blender:
Here is a Video regarding with the Theory regarding the Partition Part Only:
Here is a 2D View of The Break:
If Any Questions or Thoughts on Comment on my theory just feel free to reply ANYTIME! ^^
You may also correct me on stuff i missed!