Screams Came from Floating Stern?


Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Is 2.20am really the time the Titanic sank or simply the time she 'disappeared' from most of the survivors' view? Perhaps the stern was still afloat for a considerable time after she broke. Survivors heard horrific screams that lasted about 10 minutes after the ship had 'disappeared' but survivor Thomas Dillon told a British reporter that nobody could scream in the water because it was so cold. Lady Duff Gordon said there were terrible screams during the sinking but also absolute silence after she sank. Other survivors described how the screams stopped immediately after the ship sank. I believe a large number of people heard the screams after the lights went out and assumed the ship had sunk, when they were possibly still on the floating stern which had keeled over and was rocking violently in the dark. This could also explain why the lifeboats refused to return to the scene. They feared of being pulled in by the suction as the broken stern went down. The officers could not admit she broke, so they instead said it was too dangerous because the people might swamp the boat. They probably could see the outline of the stern and realized it was too dangerous to row back.


The survivors would one minute see a giant ocean liner all beautifully lit, and the instant they heard an explosive sound and turned their shoulder, they would see darkness, and possibly assumed the ship had sunk at that very moment, without realizing the stern had broken, canted over, turned around, and was hiding what little light she had left against the backdrop of millions of stars stretching the horizon - hence their belief that she sank around 2.20am when in reality the stern may have been afloat for a long time after that as watches stopped long after 2.20am.


watches1.PNG



A report from 1912 said that Frank Prentice was on the stern and dropped into the water when the ship's lights went out. He later gave an interview and said before he left the ship the stern had settled back and seemed to bob like a cork and then he dropped into the water. He showed his pocket watch which stopped at 2.21am - the moment he slid into the water while the stern was still afloat. Some survivors said the stern was afloat for at least 5 minutes. Some heard explosions before she sank while others heard explosions after she 'disappeared'. I think the term disappeared could be misleading as that was not the moment she actually sank. We also have survivors who said there was an explosive sound as the stern rose up to take her final plunge, while other survivors heard heard two explosive sounds and judged them to be 10 to 20 minute apart, which could suggest the stern was afloat for as long as 10 minutes (assuming the first explosion was the break and the second was the moment the stern rose up to take her final dive). There are also some survivors who thought the ship sank with her lights still on - hence their belief that the ship had sunk the moment the lights went out, or to put it better, the moment she seemed to disappear. I believe the stern was likely still afloat for a considerable time after she broke, and that the 2.20am time of sinking might be incorrect.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,066
551
188
20
Interesting theory. I'd like to hear what others have to say! Although I thought Frank said that he dropped off of the stern when it was almost vertical after the break. If his watch stopped at around 2:20 when the stern was being dragged under, then I would think that the stern finally did sink at the accepted time. Very easily the watches could have been off.
 
Last edited:

Millerpsc

Member
Jul 3, 2017
27
3
3
I ageee to some extent. How long would it take for the stern to lose its buoyancy enough to sink completely? Think about how much force it takes to push a beach ball into the water, now think about how many hundreds if not thousands of square feet of air space was trapped in the stern
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
With her watertight doors sealed, the stern may have become her own lifeboat.


Mr. Buley

"You could hear the rush of the machinery, and she parted in two, and the after part settled down again, and we thought the after part would float altogether......She uprighted herself for about five minutes, and then tipped over and disappeared."


Edith Rosenbaum

"I was able to keep an accurate account of the time, wearing a bracelet watch........At 2:20am I saw the green light disappear entirely. The boat fully lighted up, suggesting one of our skyscrapers. It stood on end and then seemed to shoot or dive.........There was a very heavy explosion under water, a second and then a third. We were surprised that instead of sucking us in, the effect was to the contrary, it pushed us out and onward. Perfect silence! Preceding the sinking of the boat, there was a loud cry, as if emanating from one throat. The men in our boat asked the women to cheer, saying "Those cheers that you hear on the big boat mean they have all gotten into life boats and are saved," and do you know, that we actually cheered, believing that the big shout was one of thanks giving."


In Frank Prentice's 1912 account he said he dropped about 100 feet into the sea. The top deck was about 70 feet high, therefore by his own estimation the stern was not particularly high in the air when he slid off the rail into the water. Owing to the strong list to port her propeller and possibly centre propeller would have been above the surface and from his position in the water (looking up) they would appear high in the air, when they may have been elevated just above the surface right above him as she canted over heavily to port.


Thomas Dillon stayed on the stern and pushed himself away as the ship went down. Prentice might have already slid off at that point into the sea. Dillon was then sucked down and when he reached the surface he believed the stern rose up again and sank down again as the stern tried to stay afloat.

Q - Well, what did you do?
A - I went on to the poop.
Q - Was she getting low in the water then?
A - Yes.

Note - He was on the poop and believed it was getting lower in the water. Similar to Boxhall who also saw the stern getting low in the water and also Joughin who said - "I did not notice her being much down by the head." Q - It has been stated that she turned practically perpendicular. I want to ask your opinion about that, because I think it is very important. Did you see the propellers come out of the water at all? A - "She was not far out of the water at any stage that I saw." Q - So that to say that she stood up like that - (showing stern in air) - would be wrong? A - "It would be absolutely wrong."

Dillon

Q - Well, what did you do?
A - I went on to the poop.
Q - Was she getting low in the water then?
A - Yes.
Q - Before the ship actually went down did you see her make any movements?
A - Yes, she took one final plunge and righted herself again.
Q - How did you get off the ship into the water?
A - I went down with the ship, and shoved myself away from her into the water
Q - Did you see any of the other passengers in the water, any other people in the water of any sort?
A - Yes.
Q - Many?
A - About a thousand.
Q - When you came up again, after you were sucked down, you told us you were sucked down and came up again, was the ship still floating then?
A - No.
Q - She had sunk when you came up again?
A - Well, I saw what I thought would be the afterpart of her coming up and going down again, final.
Q - Then she had not sunk?
A - She came up and went down again.
Q - You saw what you thought was the afterpart coming up again?
A - I thought it was the ship coming up again. She came up and went down again, finish.

In his newspaper account he described what happened when he entered the sea.


Dillon1aa.PNG


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Millerpsc

Member
Jul 3, 2017
27
3
3
I wonder if the stern was attached to the bow the entire time and didn't detach until the descent to the bottom. Maybe it stayed floating until the bow completely filled and pulled it down. Based on the total destruction of the stern it had quite a bit of air still inside, maybe enough to keep it from sinking by itself
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Nobody actually knows what really happened. We can only read the survivor accounts and speculate on what they said was actually true and not a misunderstanding of what they 'thought they saw'. There are little scientific facts because we don't know exactly where the iceberg struck, how bad the damage was, and when the ship commenced to break. She may have actually started to break immediately following the collision as survivors felt the ice passing underneath the ship and it may even have tore off one of her propeller blades as there is one missing from the wreck. The wireless operator said the Captain told him the iceberg had struck the ship "amidships or just aft of amidships" and a passenger said he was told by the crew that the iceberg had broke her back and that was why she sank. Their accounts are ignored because it doesn't 'fit the mainstream narrative'.

Science can only make conclusions based on the determined facts, but we don't know what the facts are. So anything that claims they know all the facts should be scrutinized. For instance when it comes to the damage suffered by the collision in boiler room 6 we only have one survivor who saw water immediately rush in. He was the leading fireman and therefore his account automatically over rules everyone else's. 2nd officer Lightoller pushed the narrative that the Titanic sank intact and his words overruled everyone else's. Then we have those who felt and saw the bow rising up. We have at least two survivors who wrote private letters outside the influence of any outsiders and they were actually on the bow section trying to free the last collapsible and they felt the bow rising up and the water washing away from their feet making the deck dry again. That surely should be treated as vital evidence not to be ignored or disregarded but again it doesn't 'fit with the mainstream narrative' or what other senior figures said, so they were overruled.

Then we have the 'science' which is only used in a biased sense because it does not include every possibility, and is based on limited knowledge of what some of the survivors saw with also a lot of predetermined assumptions thrown into the calculations. So their conclusions are really only how they 'think' she 'may' have sunk, rather than how she actually sank. e.g. If just 10 or 20 portholes were left open up and down the ship, who knows what role that would play in the flooding and position of the ship as she sank, and what path the water would travel as she listed over to port, and sank bodily, before breaking in two. Are those calculations added to their findings, of course not. It would understandably be too complex, but not impossible to figure out with more work to see how she may have sunk. The fact that those discussions are not debated is why I believe the 'science' is flawed.

The collision may have damaged the entire bottom of the ship which resulted in minor flooding that was not noticeable at first as the crew were standing several feet above the bottom plates, and as she sank lower the pressures outside the hull may have pushed upwards and made the damage more severe resulting in heavy flooding possibly where she broke in two. There are so many 'what if' possibilities that science simply has no way to prove or disprove, hence my belief that nothing can be ruled out. In my opinion scientists are just guys with credentials after their name who naturally can not factor in every possibility, but their words are treated as gospel. Probably the same scientists who conned the public with evolution and global warming nonsense. No thank you.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
727
208
England
Probably the same scientists who conned the public with evolution and global warming none sense.

Pardon? You think evolution (I.e. Darwin I presume) and climate change are nonsense?

As for Science, it has a crucial role to play in any forensic examination of an accident.

Survivors testimony gives an excellent starting point but rarely tells the whole story.

If that were the case the Police wouldn't bother gathering evidence.

You do a great disservice to the many scholars, engineers, scientists, mariners and professional researchers who have spent years on Titanic.

I can explain why the deck lifted a little at the point the last collapsible floated off in a few simple paragraphs and also why it is an absolute impossibility for the bow to have raised as in that sketch.

Science and testimony combined.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
You're exaggerating what I said. In science we trust. Never. Science does not have all the answers. I don't believe we evolved from fish or monkeys and having Darwin on my bank notes and teached at school and praised like some genius is incredibly insulting to everyone religious. Man made global warming is also not a proven fact, but merely a theory based on some calculations which are by no means accurate. The same applies to the Titanic sinking. I am told that the survivors in group A who saw the bow rise were wrong because survivors in group B did not mention it rising, and then I'm fed more science jargan about the bow filling up completely with water and sinking and how it was scientifically impossible for it to rise. Again, the science they provide is based on assumption. This is not a police forensics scene because more than a century has passed and all of the survivors are deceased and the 'scene' was not captured on film but recorded in witness testimony. The 'science' is based on trust in what people said, and determining who was right and who was wrong. It is not up to scientists to make that call. They don't know any more than we do. Really, it is not me who does science a miss-justice, but those who use their analysis based on assumption not fact, but pass it off as fact that do the greater injustice. I am simply against science that is treated as fact when their conclusions were based on assumption and theory, or when they have a political agenda.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,066
551
188
20
Yes, there could be multiple scenarios and theories for how the Titanic sank. But currently, the generally accepted one has been found to be the most likely outcome for the sinking based on what has been found at the wreck site. There is no "agenda" to cover up survivor accounts. Nothing is set in stone, however. If new evidence that suggested that the bow rose up, or the stern were able to float for ten minutes, I would gladly accept it.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
There was certainly an agenda during the official inquiry to cover up and whitewash the fact that she broke in two. As all of the surviving officers denied she broke, one has to factor in what they did not say or (were not allowed to say) in public, because any suggestion that the bow rose up would have been confirmation that she broke, and any reference to the stern remaining afloat and turned around would also confirm she had broke. One has to ask why they would need to cover that up because if the break up was merely an event that occurred as she was sinking then there would be no reason to deny it because she was already going down, but if the officers believed the break up 'caused her to sink' then the question of her strength and design would be raised and cast doubts on the Olympic and Britannic's future. The wireless operator was told by the Captain that the iceberg had struck the ship "amidships or just aft of amidships". A bit of a coincidence as that is where she broke. Frederick Scott was below decks and "felt a shock and I thought it was something in the main engine room which had gone wrong." Perhaps the ship's bottom had cracked when it steamed over the ice. The water would filter in very slowly, but as she sank deeper it became worse until she broke in two. This is merely one version which science has yet to explore, hence my reluctance to believe their current hypothesis of the sinking is the absolute truth.


.
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,295
311
353
Probably the same scientists who conned the public with evolution and global warming nonsense.

Moderator's hat on:

The merits of evolution and climate change are wholly out of bounds. They will not be discussed further.

Moderator's hat off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Mar 18, 2008
2,561
1,024
248
Germany
The two halves from the double bottom in the debris field are from the break area and did not show any damage from the ice.
Aside that Bride might be mistaken, "amidships or just aft of amidships" is a large area.
And it were survivors who mentioned where water was and where not, there is no report about water at the break area (BR 2 thought main engine room).

There were at last 13 crew members who stated in the Inquiries that the ship broke. If it was a cover up or as it has been suggested WSL & H&W want to quite down survivors, there would be no mention by anyone about it.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,066
551
188
20
I think Lightoller honestly couldn't see the break. I think his position denied him the ability to witness such a thing.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The officers had more credibility to their name. As long as they denied she broke in two it would not matter what the other crew members had said. Their testimony would be overruled by their superiors within the company. Lightoller was asked during the US Inquiry:

Q - Was the vessel broken in two in any manner, or intact?
A - Absolutely intact.
Q - On the decks?
A - Intact, sir.


But he gave a different account later and described how the forward expansion joint opened which caused the forward funnel to fall over to starboard. He may have witnessed the upper decks where the expansion joint was located were pulling apart, and yet he told the Inquiry that her decks were absolutely intact when she sank. He could not confess what really happened at the official inquiries. He also described several explosions, and how the ship reeled and trembled and when he was sucked down and reached the surface again he thought the ship had actually turned around while he was under the water. I believe that was the broken stern that had turned around because the sudden plunge that was felt at the bow was a result of the ship breaking. He then swam for the collapsible boat. Jack Thayer was also on this boat and saw the propellers were now looming above him and feared they would come down on top of them as the stern sank. What doesn't make sense is that Lightoller said the forward funnel fell and pushed this collapsible boat away from the scene when he was holding onto it, but he said the ship had turned around before that happened and the propellers were above the collapsible. How could the collapsible have been pushed away by the forward funnel if the ship had turned around before that? Perhaps it was the aft funnel that fell backwards into the water and that is how the collapsible was pushed away, or possibly the stern was already turning around before the bow had submerged?


.
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
44
63
The officers had more credibility to their name. As long as they denied she broke in two it would not matter what the other crew members had said. Their testimony would be overruled by their superiors within the company. Lightoller was asked during the US Inquiry:

Q - Was the vessel broken in two in any manner, or intact?
A - Absolutely intact.
Q - On the decks?
A - Intact, sir.


But he gave a different account later and described how the forward expansion joint opened which caused the forward funnel to fall over to starboard. He may have witnessed the upper decks where the expansion joint was located were pulling apart, and yet he told the Inquiry that her decks were absolutely intact when she sank. He could not confess what really happened at the official inquiries. He also described several explosions, and how the ship reeled and trembled and when he was sucked down and reached the surface again he thought the ship had actually turned around while he was under the water. I believe that was the broken stern that had turned around because the sudden plunge that was felt at the bow was a result of the ship breaking. He then swam for the collapsible boat. Jack Thayer was also on this boat and saw the propellers were now looming above him and feared they would come down on top of them as the stern sank. What doesn't make sense is that Lightoller said the forward funnel fell and pushed this collapsible boat away from the scene when he was holding onto it, but he said the ship had turned around before that happened and the propellers were above the collapsible. How could the collapsible have been pushed away by the forward funnel if the ship had turned around before that? Perhaps it was the aft funnel that fell backwards into the water and that is how the collapsible was pushed away, or possibly the stern was already turning around before the bow had submerged?


.
What? How is that even possible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Lightoller said the ship had turned around when he was sucked underwater. That was before he made it to the collapsible. When he came to the surface again the broken stern was facing the opposite way as survivors saw it turn around after she broke. Jack Thayer was on the collapsible boat and described the ship turning around and looked up and saw the propellers above the collapsible boat and thought they were going to come down and smash the boat. Lightoller got onto this boat after he reached the surface. Since he believed the ship had turned around while he was under the water (before he got onto the collapsible) it would mean the boat was not pushed away by the waves created by the 1st funnel falling as it was a great distance away, which is why it may have been the 4th funnel that fell backwards and fell near the propellers where the collapsible boat was. Another possibility is that the broken stern was turning around before the bow had submerged. So it could have been the first funnel and the stern was hovering over the bow section as it turned around. Lightoller did not tell the official Inquiries what he later stated i.e. that the ship had exploded and turned around when he was under the water, because the Inquiry would have been puzzled how the stern section and propellers could be hovering above his boat while the bow section was sinking separately and the first funnel was falling near his boat. It would mean the ship was broken in two.


.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,561
1,024
248
Germany
What is this mysterious Lightoller report about the ship turning when he was sucked underwater (and other claims). Why is it not in his other reports or his book?!
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
His account can be found in several Titanic books by Logan Marshall. e.g. Sinking of the Titanic and Great Sea Disasters. Found this passage on ebooks. Note: Lightoller does not state that it was the first funnel.



TitanicLightoller.PNG


.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,561
1,024
248
Germany
Note, he stated it here;

Now, the sinking of a great ship like the Titanic, there was also the fear of suction to overcome, and at this time the forward funnel fell, throwing the boat, myself, and other survivors about twenty feet clear of the ship, so that of suction we felt nothing.
Christian Science Sentinel, October 1912

As well as in other reports, at the Inquiry and in his book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads