1. Welcome to Encyclopedia Titanica
    or subscribe for unlimited access to ET! You can also login with , or !
    Dismiss Notice

Sinking angle/funnels falling

Discussion in 'Collision / Sinking Theories' started by LukeW17, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. LukeW17

    LukeW17 Member

    I too would’ve thought he meant the stern section.

    How many people other than Lightoller said the ship sank intact? Was it three others?
  2. Harland Duzen

    Harland Duzen Member

    Hello LukeW17, Welcome to ET!

    Since all the witnesses who claim the Bow rise upwards were standing on / near the bridge, it's possible it was water that sloshed over the barrier between the bridge and the rest of the boat deck which in the chaos they thought meant the ship rose.

    See my post (No. 37) on a previous thread here for a possible better description: Sinking Poll
    LukeW17 likes this.
  3. LukeW17

    LukeW17 Member

    Thanks mate and I will take a look at it there is some very interesting stuff on this forum

    Harland Duzen likes this.
  4. Harland Duzen

    Harland Duzen Member

    Us Titanic fans / historians / experts are like friends in a pub, we be merry one minute and angrily arguing some topic the other over , but by the end of the night (or thread) we still friends.

    (I been waiting ages to use this analogy so thank you).

    Back To Topic!
    sir john adams and Kyle Naber like this.
  5. LukeW17

    LukeW17 Member

    [Haha a good way to sum it up!
    Harland Duzen likes this.
  6. Henry Sincic

    Henry Sincic Member

    Nicely said, Martin.

    By the way, welcome to ET, Luke!
    LukeW17 and Harland Duzen like this.
  7. LukeW17

    LukeW17 Member

    Thanks mate, hope to have some good discussions with you lot.
  8. I find it interesting the amount of survivors who mention the movements of the bow, after the break up. Clearly an angle of 23 or more degrees would have fully submerged the bow?
  9. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    I recall one account which went along the lines of “the foward part wallowed over and disappeared instantly.”
  10. LukeW17

    LukeW17 Member

    That’s what I thought
    Daniel A. Soto likes this.
  11. Its just odd that someone would describe the motions of a section of the ship that should have been out of view by that time.
    sir john adams likes this.
  12. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    When the ship partially broke most of the 'bow' lights would have extinguished as the stern buckled and rose high up at a considerable angle fully lighted, giving the false impression to some that the ship was still intact and her bow was deep below the surface and how she appeared to stand up on end like a sky scraper full lighted and intact. e.g. Testimony from Mr. Crawford.

    Q - Did you hear any explosion or any evidence of an explosion?
    A - I heard an explosion when we were lying to in the water, in the boat, sir.
    Q - In what boat?
    A - In the lifeboat.
    Q - What character of explosion?
    A - Sort of a sharp, like as if there were things being blown up.
    Q - Was there any outward indication?
    A - No, sir; we did not see any, because we were pulling very hard away.
    Q - Did you see the ship go down?
    A - We saw her at a distance; yes, sir.
    Q - What shape was she in when you saw her last?
    A - It seemed as if her bow was going down first. (he wasn't even positive she was sinking head first.)
    Q - At how much of an angle?
    A - We saw all the lights going out on the forward part of her.
    Q - And still burning on the after part?
    A - Yes, sir.
    Q - How much of the after part was out of the water?
    A - There was a good bit of the stern part out of water.
    Q - How many decks?
    A - I could not say how many decks there, sir, but it seemed all clear right from amidships to aft.

    The bow had 'disappeared' and those who did not see the initial break during the first explosive sound below the surface (submerged plates breaking open) would think the ship was sinking intact with her stern rising high into the air fully lighted. Owing to their position, distance, limited view, and when they actually turned and looked following the explosive sound they would not see the initial break that others had seen, and when the second much larger explosion occurred they saw the stern break completely away and settle back. This was in their eyes the moment she broke without realizing that was simply the final stages of the break up. Albert Pearcey left the ship in Collapsible C and did not see the bow going deeper. This suggests a bodily sinking of the bow section before the bow lights went out. Mr. Collins was washed off the boat deck when the 'wave' washed everyone else off the forward boat deck. He said he was making his way to the stern and was amidships when the wave washed over:

    Q - Were you on the boat at the time that you were washed off the ship?
    A - Amidships, sir.

    This shows us how bodily the bow section was going down as the wave washed over the entire bow section as the ship broke and buckled upwards. This bodily submersion baffled the British Inquiry. During their summing up Mr Edward said:

    Mr. Edwards:
    "So that it is pretty clear on the evidence that, as the sinking was gradual, there must have been water coming in a good way aft. That will raise and has raised one or two very serious questions which your Lordship and your special technical advisers will have to decide, namely, as to whether there was any fault in the construction of the ship; whether there was any negligence in utilising the mechanical precautions in the ship for averting a disaster of this kind...."

    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017
  13. With the exception of the few deep water seaman on this board, I doubt anyone reading this post has ever been in darkness matching that in which Titanic sank. The modern world is full of what astronomers call "light pollution" from car headlights to car park lights to LED television sets.

    I don't know of one survivor who was a trained naval architect with a working knowledge of large steel ship construction.

    So, the combination of ignorance (not stupidity) and not being able to see with precision logically resulted in different versions of events. Even if they had close up observations the witnesses didn't even have the technical vocabularies to describe what they only half saw in the darkness.

    Twisted, bent, and ripped steel on the bottom, however, doesn't have perception problems. It doesn't change shape like memories and it is fading at a far slower rate than mortal humans. The steel is still there, the survivors are no longer with us.

    Start with what's 12,500 feet down on the bottom and work back to the surface to see what is spot on true in witness testimonies, what is possible, and what is pure fancy.

    -- David G. Brown
  14. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    Exactly! I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that multiple survivor accounts match a two-and-a-half year naval architectural study.
  15. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    Very true. We have reports that the funnel fell over to starboard. The wreck shows us that the starboard bridge wing is badly crushed. Checklist - tick one. We have reports that the bow sank bodily and the stern buckled upwards. The wreck shows us the edges of the double bottom are bent in a V position. Checklist - tick two. We have reports that the ship broke into three sections. The wreck shows us the middle section is largely intact and may acted as the hinge which held the bow and stern together. Checklist - tick three. I believe the more we look at the wreck the more we will see that the survivors were telling the truth on how they saw the Titanic sink. Independently they sound contradictory as each survivor only saw a fragment of the sinking, but when putting them altogether we can see a clearer picture of how the ship really broke apart and sank.

  16. The middle section is not intact. There are several large parts.
    The double bottom did not show anything about a "V" position. If that was the case there would be not much left from, the parts above it (the "middle section").
    Chris cameron likes this.
  17. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    The double bottom does support the V position. The double bottom pieces are upside down and the ends are bent downwards and that would mean that both sections right side up were breaking when the ship was in a V position.



    Right side up, they separated when the ship was in this position.


    With physical evidence of the keel bending in a V position we then look for accounts that support that theory of the bow sinking bodily and the stern buckling and rising high up before the forward bow had gone down.

    Edward Brown
    Q - Did you notice whether the bow broke off?
    A - With the first report of that explosion I saw the afterpart of the ship giving a tremble like this (showing), and I thought by the afterpart going up like this (showing), and giving a bit of a tremble that the bow had fallen off. I might be wrong.
    Q - But that was your conclusion from it?
    A - Yes.
    Q - I suppose your opportunities for observation were not very good at this time?
    A - No. That part was practically under water then.
    Q - When the afterpart gave this tremble, where were you then?
    A - In the water; right before the forward funnel.
    Q - Did you notice whether the lights of this afterpart were still lighted or not?
    A - There were lights burning then.
    Q - Could you see that?
    A - Yes.

    The way I read that is that the bow section was sinking fore and aft "practically under water" and the forward funnel was still intact when he heard the explosive sound and saw the stern break and rise into the air. The ship sank more 'L' position than 'V' position. The structure above the double bottom could have broken upwards or fell out sides ways depending on which way the bow and stern were twisting apart.

    sir john adams likes this.
  18. >>The double bottom does support the V position. The double bottom pieces are upside down and the ends are bent downwards and that would mean that both sections right side up were breaking when the ship was in a V position,<<

    From the Mengot/Woytowich modell:
    Condition 1.jpg Condition 2.jpg

    >>With physical evidence of the keel bending in a V position we then look for accounts that support that theory of the bow sinking bodily and the stern buckling and rising high up before the forward bow had gone down.<<

    There is no physical evidence of a "bending in V position".
    Chris cameron likes this.
  19. I tend to agree with Ioannis. I would think much of the center of the ship would have been smashed to pieces if the ship broke in a "V" shape.
  20. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    But not if the middle section acted as a hinge for the bow and stern as it rose up like a door hinge. We don't know how the middle section detached as it was pulverized into smaller sections. It may have blown up or was pushed up and out or shattered and fell to port and starboard. Survivors saw lumps of coal, sparks, and plumes of smoke rushing out when she broke. Something may have blown the middle section out of the ship, causing the stern to violently cant upwards into the air. An affidavit from survivor Mr. Weikman was read at the US Inquiry:

    "I was about 15 feet away from the ship when I heard a second explosion. Q - What caused the explosion? A - I think the boilers blew up about in the middle of the ship. The explosion blew me along with a wall of water toward the dark object I was swimming to, which proved to be a bundle of deck chairs, which I managed to climb on. While on the chairs I heard terrible groans and cries coming from people in the water......There was a great number of people killed by the explosion, and there was a great number that managed to get far enough away that the explosion did not injure them, and these are the people that I think could have been saved had the lifeboats been close."

    Mr. Hyman spoke to a reporter and said - "There came a terrible explosion, and I could see men, women and pieces of the ship blown into the air from the after deck. Later I saw bodies partly blown to pieces floating around, and I am sure more than a hundred persons were blown off into the sea by that explosion."

    Daniel A. Soto likes this.