Sinking angle/funnels falling

Dr. Wacky

Dr. Wacky

Member
in conclusion especially with the stress on the ship and knowing that there is a low probability that the second funnel fell first. i can say for my theory. titanic sank with 3 funnels up.
1652561376000
 
Seumas

Seumas

Member
I couldn't find anything about the funnels for Sidney but emily said the forward funnels seemed to lean then the ship broke. Emplying the ship broke with all 4 funnels up.
Sidney Daniels gave an interview which appeared in "The Western Daily Mercury" of April 29th. Although he was not named, he gave enough clues to identify him. He said, "Two of her funnels fell off and after an explosion, which I distinctly heard being only a short distance away at that time, she smashed in the middle. her bows went down and then her stern, which was almost upright when she sank."
Emily Ryerson "Then suddenly, when we still seemed very near, we saw the ship was sinking rapidly. 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, and there was no sound for what seemed like hours."

And a further comment by Dr Paul Lee (one of our best living Titanic historians) - Mrs.Ryerson's description of the funnels is interesting. This author has long thought that, if Ryerson missed the falling of the 1st funnel, as described by Lightoller, then she may have seen the 2nd and 3rd funnels falling. After all, when the 1st funnel fell, it was probably not in a state of illumination; the forward part of the boat deck had dipped under, and the only possible "upwards" not "outwards" (from cabin windows and deck lights) was the forward Grand Staircase skylight...which would actually have been provided some small light for the base of the 2nd funnel, if anything.
I wish Bob Read was still posting here, he was always really good at explaining the maths and science behind the sinking and proving all these elaborate, fantasy theories could not have happened.
 
Dr. Wacky

Dr. Wacky

Member
I wish Bob Read was still posting here, he was always really good at explaining the maths and science behind the sinking and proving all these elaborate, fantasy theories could not have happened.
I'm not intending it to be a fantasy theory. I legit trying to make a theory here
 
Seumas

Seumas

Member
I'm not intending it to be a fantasy theory. I legit trying to make a theory here
I appreciate you do genuinely mean well and are showing great enthusiasm for the subject but the fact is, your evidence is extremely unconvincing to say the least.

You'll have a very, very hard time finding evidence that would convince serious Titanic historians like Wormstdt, Fitch, Kent Layton, Lee, Chirnside and co of this. I would drop it and focus on something else, for which evidence is more plentiful.

There are a couple of things which I think happened that night but which I could never in a million years prove and as such it would be wrong of me to post them.
 
Dr. Wacky

Dr. Wacky

Member
I appreciate you do genuinely mean well and are showing great enthusiasm for the subject but the fact is, your evidence is extremely unconvincing to say the least.

You'll have a very, very hard time finding evidence that would convince serious Titanic historians like Wormstdt, Fitch, Kent Layton, Lee, Chirnside and co of this. I would drop it and focus on something else, for which evidence is more plentiful.

There are a couple of things which I think happened that night but which I could never in a million years prove and as such it would be wrong of me to post them.
Thank you. I'll keep in mind that I shouldn't post my thoughts that might start a major controversy here.
 
Seumas

Seumas

Member
Are you emplying I should leave the titanic community? Or just focus on the break up aspect than anything else?
Firstly, please stay in the ET community. :cool:

Secondly, let go of the funnel theory. It's not convincing anyone and lacks the necessary extensive evidence for it to be taken seriously.

It's more constructive (and a better use of your own time and resources) to focus on new concepts that one can actually prove and for which there is plentiful evidence for.

Thank you. I'll keep in mind that I shouldn't post my thoughts that might start a major controversy here.
That's the spirit ;)

I just wish that Robin Gardiner and Marmaduke Collins had not confused their own imagination with fact.
 
Dr. Wacky

Dr. Wacky

Member
I appreciate you do genuinely mean well and are showing great enthusiasm for the subject but the fact is, your evidence is extremely unconvincing to say the least.

You'll have a very, very hard time finding evidence that would convince serious Titanic historians like Wormstdt, Fitch, Kent Layton, Lee, Chirnside and co of this. I would drop it and focus on something else, for which evidence is more plentiful.

There are a couple of things which I think happened that night but which I could never in a million years prove and as such it would be wrong of me to post them.
Thank you. I'll keep in mind that I shouldn't post my thoughts
Firstly, please stay in the ET community. :cool:

Secondly, let go of the funnel theory. It's not convincing anyone and lacks the necessary extensive evidence for it to be taken seriously.

It's more constructive (and a better use of your own time and resources) to focus on new concepts that one can actually prove and for which there is plentiful evidence for.


That's the spirit ;)

I just wish that Robin Gardiner and Marmaduke Collins had not confused their own imagination with fact.
Aye.
 
LukeW17

LukeW17

Member
Hi everyone not been on here in a long time. I never knew there was any theories on the second funnel falling first.
Sorry to revive my old thread haha
 
Top