Screams Came from Floating Stern?

[Kyle Naber]

Science is always secondary.

Survivor accounts should be taken with a grain of salt if:

A) They defy the laws of physics

B) Are outliers from the majority

C) Do not match recorded facts

You say that nothing can be out ruled from the condition of the wreck, so by your logic, it is possible to say that the ship never even broke apart?

 

[Mark Baber]

Moderator's hat on:

Tone it down, folks. Now.

Moderator's hat off.

 

[Rob Lawes]

The biggest problem I have with this idea that the stern section somehow rotated through 180 degrees while on the surface is that I can't, for the life of me, work out where the force came from to enable that scenario to take place?

We are talking about a section of the ship weighing close to 20 thousand tonnes. That is going to take a significant amount of force to rotate.

What force pushed on the side of the hull to impart a rotating movement?

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Plenty of proof that the ship broke before the forward funnel fell.

Plenty of proof? What proof? Jack Thayer was clear the funnel fall before she breaks. Yet you left that part out and use only what fit with your idea.

3. We have survivors who saw the two forward funnels leaning and watched her break in two. The leaning was evidently caused by the forward section breaking away which caused the bow to take a sudden lurch.

Which survivors? Mrs. Ryerson was the one. Which are the others?

6. We have accounts of the ship breaking and then turning around. Lightoller denied the ship broke but he admitted the ship had exploded and turned around before he reached the surface and that was before he reached the collapsible which was later pushed away from the scene by the funnel when it eventually fell. His own admission that the ship had turned around while he was under the water is proof that she was already broken. He just couldn't admit to that at the Inquiry. None of the officers could.

7. We can't even determine what caused the ship to break.

Yes we can. It is only you who is coming up that nothing can be trusted and explained and use made up and yellow press reports.

So you claim now the ship broke when Lightoller was under water and turned (Lightoller did not said that the stern turned, it is you who said this). You are arguing the first funnel did not fall as Lightoller said a funnel. Now you listed in point 5 & 8 accounts about the first funnel falling. So you use only the silly report about Lightoller from the Marschall book but ignore everything else even what he has in his own book. Why?

Science is always secondary. It can only determine the facts based on what survivors said and what physical evidence can be found inside the wreck. Owing to the condition of the wreck we cannot rule out anything, and if scientists do not follow the accounts or project a scenario based on the accounts then their findings no matter how well carried out will still be flawed. A single porthole left open could change their analysis. There are too many unknowns, and if accounts as important as the ones I listed are casually disregarded then science must also be disregarded as it will be inaccurate and incomplete. Of course, this is merely my opinion, as we are all entitled to believe what we want based on our own research and findings..

No, you are using bit and parts from different sources try to fit it into your ideas. So what is it now, is it what survivors said, your opinion or what exactly?
What scientist left what out? Have you ever read any of the research papers about the break up? And interesting how you ignore other survivors and when showed that something can not be the case you came up with the same excuse about we did not know what happened and science to be wrong. Something similar conspiracy theorist do.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

You say that nothing can be out ruled from the condition of the wreck, so by your logic, it is possible to say that the ship never even broke apart?

It is more with statements like this or his other ones (like we do not know how and what happened) one can came up and claim everything he likes.

 

[Aaron_2016]

It is more with statements like this or his other ones (like we do not know how and what happened) one can came up and claim everything he likes.

Ignored your rant and reported you. I don't give a damn what you think of my research. If you don't like it, then don't read it. You can criticise the survivor accounts, but my opinion of them is off limits and the Moderator has already stated in the past that criticism against any member's opinions will not be tolerated. You have been reported 'again'.

Survivor accounts should be taken with a grain of salt if:

A) They defy the laws of physics

B) Are outliers from the majority

C) Do not match recorded facts

You say that nothing can be out ruled from the condition of the wreck, so by your logic, it is possible to say that the ship never even broke apart?

A) Defy the laws of physics - The physics are based on the flood rate and that flood rate is based on what survivors saw and how much the ship had listed. Entirely based on survivor accounts. Which is why science is secondary.

B) I believe when the survivors saw the ship turn around it was obviously in my opinion the broken stern, so any survivor who could originally see her beam before she broke might only see her keel after she broke, and vice versa, depending on where each survivor was before and after the ship broke which might also change. As this is rarely discussed we can not prove what the survivors saw was true, a lie, or simply they were mistaken. As the science follows what they say, there is a great deal of give and take regarding the survivor accounts they use when they construct their models. It is entirely up to them as to which survivors they choose to believe.

C) The recorded facts are: We are told by survivors that the ship struck an iceberg, broke in two and sank. For decades the survivors who saw her break were not believed because survivors that the public chose to believe did not mention her breaking. They had to find the wreck to prove them wrong. If the general consensus was wrong for decades, then who knows what else they got wrong. Which is why all survivor accounts should be analysed thoroughly before they can be ignored.

Nothing can be overlooked or out ruled. Every survivor account should be treated as true until proven wrong because everything we have learned from the disaster comes from survivor accounts. Hence their importance and why nothing can be overlooked.


.

 

[Rob Lawes]

A) Defy the laws of physics - The physics are based on the flood rate and that flood rate is based on what survivors saw and how much the ship had listed. Entirely based on survivor accounts. Which is why science is secondary

Just because someone said they saw it happen does not mean it happened. It is the job of science and engineers to put this to the test.

Put National Geographic on on any night and watch episodes of Air Crash Investigation (broadcast as Mayday! In some countries). The investigators in air accidents take a holistic approach which, while it includes passenger, crew and witness testimony, uses all of the available evidence plus science to determine what is and isn't possible to get to the outcome.

Please can you explain what during the final moments of the stern section imparted enough force to rotate up to twenty thousand tonnes of hull through 180 degrees?

Newton's first law of motion states a body will do whatever it is doing until another force is applied. In the case of the stern, the forces are those of gravity forcing the hull down and the opposite force of buoyancy trying to hold the hull up. These forces are acting in a vertical plane.

Where does the horizontal force come from that can exert enough energy to cause a rotational movement as indicated by the rotational arrow in your drawing?

 

[Aaron_2016]

We don't know where the ship broke before she separated. Survivors said they were blown away and saw a number of dead bodies around them. The stern keeled over to port when she broke. I think it's safe to presume the starboard side of the ship broke or blew wide open, causing the stern to careen over to one side and turn around as the port side remained intact and was twisted around as the bow sank rapidly and pulled the stern around. As the bow reached a certain depth the air inside the stern would compress and resist the bow and separate completely and rise to the surface again. We have no idea how much the stern rocked and reeled as it broke and later when it separated and whatever direction it may have taken. As we have survivors who saw the stern turn around we can only put our trust in what they saw happen. I recall a documentary which showed a large trail of coal on the sea floor in a straight line in front of the stern and they suspected that the stern was afloat for a considerable time before it finally sank. As we have survivors who judged the stern to be afloat for 5 minutes and possibly longer after she broke it would give the structure plenty of time to turn around even after the separation. Science can not tell us that. They just make their estimations based on survivor accounts and fill in the gaps the best they can with a projected model.

When the ship listed over to port during the evacuation Lightoller ordered the passengers to the starboard side and he believed the weight of people caused the port list to ease away. Can science prove that? They can't because they do not have enough evidence to know where the ship was flooding at that moment, how many portholes were open, if doors were open or closed, and if the ship was beginning to break. They can only follow survivor accounts the same as we do and make their best judgement.


.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Ignored your rant and reported you.

What? Which rant?

I don't give a damn what anything thinks of my research. If you don't like it, then don't read it. You can criticise the survivor accounts, but my opinion of them is off limits and the Moderator has already stated in the past that criticism against any member's opinions will not be tolerated. You have been reported 'again'.

Why did you post and ask questions if you don't like the answers?!
Reported 'again'? So let us see, you did not answer questions ask, come with the excuse it is what survivors said or your opinion or your theory and then starting to threaten other members who are questioning you.

So your opinion is of limits and others not?

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

For the Moderators, I want to Report Aaron for causing trouble and threaten other members!

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Just because someone said they saw it happen does not mean it happened. It is the job of science and engineers to put this to the test.

Put National Geographic on on any night and watch episodes of Air Crash Investigation (broadcast as Mayday! In some countries). The investigators in air accidents take a holistic approach which, while it includes passenger, crew and witness testimony, uses all of the available evidence plus science to determine what is and isn't possible to get to the outcome.

Please can you explain what during the final moments of the stern section imparted enough force to rotate up to twenty thousand tonnes of hull through 180 degrees?

Newton's first law of motion states a body will do whatever it is doing until another force is applied. In the case of the stern, the forces are those of gravity forcing the hull down and the opposite force of buoyancy trying to hold the hull up. These forces are acting in a vertical plane.

Where does the horizontal force come from that can exert enough energy to cause a rotational movement as indicated by the rotational arrow in your drawing?

Careful Rob, you sure will be the next one he is going to "report".

 

[Aaron_2016]

I don't criticise or threaten anyone's beliefs or opinions. You do. I never tell anyone if I think they are wrong or mistaken. You do. I'm too polite and civil for that. Anyone who doesn't share anyone else's opinion of the evidence they provide or support is entitled to look at the evidence themselves and debate what they think is right or wrong, or skip by whatever the member has to say. Perfectly normal when debating on a forum, but anyone who makes personal attacks and intentionally tries to provoke an argument, or makes feeble posts in an attempt to discredit and belittle them, or harshly criticises their methods of research is a blatant breach of the rules. You can criticise the accounts and evidence provided and debate them in a civil manner, but not the members who provide and support the accounts even if they interpret them differently. Mark Baber will undoubtedly have to step in again, as personal attacks are not tolerated.


.

 

[Chris cameron]

For the Moderators, I want to Report Aaron for causing trouble and threaten other members!

He is reporting us for constructive criticism. Because he hates being wrong he is going to have this thread closed. He is VERY immature.

 

[Chris cameron]

I don't criticise or threaten anyone's beliefs or opinions. You do. I never tell anyone if I think they are wrong or mistaken. You do. I'm too polite and civil for that. Anyone who doesn't share anyone else's opinion of the evidence they provide or support is entitled to look at the evidence themselves and debate what they think is right or wrong, or skip by whatever the member has to say. Perfectly normal when debating on a forum, but anyone who makes personal attacks and intentionally tries to provoke an argument, or makes feeble posts in an attempt to discredit and belittle them, or harshly criticises their methods of research is a blatant breach of the rules. You can criticise the accounts and evidence provided and debate them in a civil manner, but not the members who provide and support the accounts even if they interpret them differently. Mark Baber will undoubtedly have to step in again, as personal attacks are not tolerated.


.

Who is making personal attacks? Everyone except you was being civil and polite. You are the one who is resorting to threats and profanity in response to people pointing out errors in your opinion. You are simply fundamentally WRONG and immature and petty. You are making it become personal. As I said before, look at yourself. I suppose you will report this as well.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Stop lying. It's time some members climbed off their pedestal and toned down their self righteousness. It is a great disservice to the truth. If I want to believe the bow rose up, then I am fully entitled to do so without fear of personal attacks. This topic is yet another trolling of insults against me personally, and those members will be reported. The audacity that they think they can turn around and play the victim is laughable. Anyone who insults another member will be reported. Instead of listing the accounts and debating each one in a rational perspective, my opinions of those accounts are ridiculed and criticised without debating the accounts.

I read the survivor accounts which state the lights were on after the ship broke and that the ship broke before the funnels fell and that the stern turned around after it broke. I listed the survivors and gave my personal opinion. That's it. Now if anyone can't accept those accounts or my interpretation, then that is their own problem. They can debate each individual account like a normal person. Instead all I hear from several members are childish rants and being unable to accept whatever the survivors said because it doesn't fit with the mainstream narrative or whatever limited science can provide. If 20 survivors stated the ship broke in two and 300 stated the ship sank intact, then history dictates the ship sank intact, which of course is not true. The same applies to those who saw the ship explode and the bow rise up. Being a minority does not make it false.

Again any personal attacks against any members will be reported. I have several work colleagues here in Belfast who know plenty about the Titanic and shipbuilding, but refuse to come to his forum because of blatant attacks against members simply because their views are different.


.