1. Welcome to Encyclopedia Titanica
    or subscribe for unlimited access to ET! You can also login with , or !
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information you’ve provided to them or they’ve collected from your use of their services. More information
    Dismiss Notice

Sinking angle/funnels falling

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

  1. Remember, eyewitness claims are not high-speed video detailing what actually took place. They are simply human impressions of a traumatic event modified by what the individual knows the audience expects to hear.

    Accounts like Wiechman, the ship's barber, make exciting reading. But, think about his situation at the time. He had just been washed off the deck into freezing sea water. That was just about the time funnel #1 came tumbling down. Any bets on how much of a wave that cylinder of steel created when it hit? Anyone doubt that it fell into a mass of humanity like Weichman struggling in the sea. I'd say his recollection of the event matches what was taking place, but his "explosion" may have had quite a different origin. If you ever have one handy, try dropping a 67-foot diameter cylinder of still on its side sometime. You might think there was an explosion.

    The same wave Weichman described also seems to have dumped collapsible B over and even washed around to the starboard bridge wing.

    -- David G. Brown
    Daniel A. Soto likes this.
  2. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    In his affidavit he said he was near the stern when the wave struck him. "I started to swim, when there was a pile of ropes fell upon me, and I managed to get clear of these and started to swim for some dark object in the water. It was dark. This was about 1.50 a.m. toward the stern." Q - How do you know it was 1.50 a.m? A - "Because my watch was stopped at that time by the water." Q - Did you hear any noise? A - "Yes; 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."

    Frank Prentice was on the poop deck and felt the stern rise up and settle back. He looked over the railing and said "there was so much debris floating and bodies dead and alive were around. Hundreds of them around the stern of that ship. They all seemed to drift down that way."

  3. The so-called "center section" is all there, just it has become a mashed-up mess both in the hull and in the surrounding debris field. Nothing disappeared or was "blown to smithereens" by some sort of whopping explosion. I have seen hours of video detailing much of it, including the two pieces of double bottom.

    Those sections of bottom tell a very interesting tale. The edges show bending typical of a compression failure. This means the hull failed while the stern was lifted so the vessel was in a "hogged" condition. But, the skin shows no "washboarding" as you would expect if the ship were hogged beyond its design strength at failure.

    Something else is rather odd about those pieces of double bottom. The sides including the frames are gone...gone...gone as if torched off by a shipbreaker. The only logical reason for this is that the sides opened in bird's mouth fashion fore and aft at the center break. Evidence of that is the clean break at the forward and after ends of the missing bottom pieces. It's as if they came out in one piece that separated on the way to the bottom.

    The open caverns called boiler room #1 and the reciprocating engine room were partially decked over on F deck. Curiously, the stuff from the wreck that came out below this deck appears to have fallen out when the bottom was pulled out.

    My sense of it is that vertical cracks developed on the port side in way of the after expansion joint. Even in rivet construction we have documented evidence of such cracks migrating around the hull to separate the ship into two pieces. A failed port side would account for the ship changing its list to starboard, which had obtained for almost 2 hours after the accident, into a death roll to port.

    Evidence the cracking did girdle the hull comes from those pieces of double bottom. They are split directly in way of the after expansion joint. Once the bottom pieces came out, Titanic's bow section began flooding from both ends. However, the stern end would have been a roaring flood, while the forward end ingress was slowing. Logically, the stern end of the bow would have begun to sink faster than the pointy front end.

    Looking at the wreck and debris field, the type of damage changes above F deck. Instead of being pulled out, everything is crunched, bent, compacted, torn, and busted as if whirled in what Mike Standart once called a "giant marine Cuisinart." Never having seen such a machine, I rather think the crunching was just what it looks like, crunching of material as the broken center section sank quicker than the more buoyant bow and stern.

    Any drawing of this point in the sinking that shows the bow hanging down like a ....(phrase deleted)... is 100% wrong. If that had been the case, the weight of the fully-flooded bow would have been far more than the buoyancy of the stern could have supported. The iconic iron tombstone described by survivors could not have happened. Oh, the fantail might have disappeared last, but not standing up proud the way people saw it happen.

    So, based on multiple accounts and the iron on the bottom, what must have happened is that the hull began to form a "V" shape in way of the after expansion joint (which by now existed only as a memory of what once was). The stern pivoted up supported by both its own and what remained of the bow sections buoyancy. As the back end of the bow sank, the mechanics of ship stability forced the bow to rise if only for an instant. The prow was described by a number of survivors as re-surfacing and there is every reason to believe that it could have done just that.

    Nothing was constant. The prow went under and the stern broke free. Titanic's bow was on its way to the bottom. The stern splashed down and some thought for an instant it might float, providing a giant life raft for those unlucky enough to still be aboard. Even before that happy thought could be fully formed, however, the stern tipped up due to flooding and the weight of the machinery.

    In seconds it was all over, including the shouting. Only the debate remains.

    -- David G. Brown
    sir john adams and Aaron_2016 like this.
  4. Arron -- Wieichman clearly states he was working on a collapsible boat when washed off the deck. This puts him forward where those boats were stowed. No collapsible boats were aft of funnel #1.

    -- David G. Brown
  5. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    In a V Break scenario. Also, in a traditionalist sinking theory, the bow rises up. However, it is the stern end of the bow at the boat deck.


    Parks Stephenson’s 2006 report is quite old, but you’ll notice that it shares a lot of aspects with the 2012 Final Word documentary and the 2013 History Channel documentary. Here’s a link to the full page:

    More Questions Than Answers, Part 2
    Chris cameron likes this.
  6. >>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.<<

    It was not pulverized into smaller sections. There are at last 3 very large objects from that area the two so called tower debris which are at last 3 to 4 decks high (the one has the base of the 3rd funnel still attached, the other is from the skylight over the main engine room) and also a large part from the galley on F Deck. These objects would not have been there with a "V" break and also not if the had been "blow up or was pushed up and out or shattered and fell to port and starboard".
  7. >>As the back end of the bow sank, the mechanics of ship stability forced the bow to rise if only for an instant. The prow was described by a number of survivors as re-surfacing and there is every reason to believe that it could have done just that.<<

    What "number if survivors"?
    It could not have done that.
  8. The large parts are marked here. With the "V" break as some here claimed happened those pieces would have been destroyed/smashed which is not the case.

    Titanic At 100 Mystery Solved 720p HD (full movie)_2 2234.jpg
  9. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    i believe the bow and stern did not have to compress into the middle section to achieve the 'V' or 'L' angle during the sinking. The stern was seen to tremble and rise sharply with lights still blazing away before the forward funnel fell. The initial break could have been a few feet or even a few inches of buckled plates. The weight of the engines threw the stern upwards. I recall survivors who felt the bow moving forwards. This would rise the stern further.



    It would then break and settle back. The ship was described as "shaking" "reeling" and "trembling" and it is unclear if those descriptions were referring to the bow or stern, or both. I believe the stern did not have to crush hard into the middle section to achieve the V angle or L angle. More likely, both sections tore apart and the stern keeled over one way and the bow the other, and the stern rose upwards and away from damaging the middle section. Or It may have been partially attached to the bow and stern sections and when they pulled apart the stern keeled over, turned around, and rose sharply into the air, with neither section making a hard contact as the stern turned away.


    The wreck can only tell us so much owing to her destructive descent and landing with the seabed. Like analysing a plane crash that has crashed inside a tornado.

    Last edited: Oct 7, 2017
  10. Ioannis -- you know that the classic description of the ship's last moments are of the stern upended. It's not necessary to quote a bunch o' quotes that have been re-quoted before.

    Regarding what you call "large pieces" of the center portion of the hull, all I can say is, "Compared to what?" That tower is a rather minor piece of ship junk compared even to the two pieces of double bottom which are but small sections of what was an enormous vessel. The so-called "big piece" on display around the world is not as much percentage of Titanic as a fender off your car.

    What you have on the bottom is a very large section of bow; a smaller but still large section of stern; and small stuff (by comparison) in the middle. Even the debris field confirms this. You see stuff from the 1st/2nd class galley all over, but nothing from passenger cabins which were located inside what are now the intact large sections.

    Even the one piece of wreckage of note spotted from Carpathia was the barber pole -- logical enough as that shop was located in the break area.

    OK...Going on to the renderings of the bow dangling down...the laws of physics regarding buoyancy scream, "NOOOOOO!!!!!" The steel, wood, and stuff of the bow weighed somewhat under 30,000 tons. That weight didn't go away just because the bow filled with water. If the bow stayed attached to the stern and dangled as shown, then something had to support it at the top of the water column. The only "something" in the vicinity of the sinking ship was the sinking ship. Now, how in the name of Davy Jones did the stern section create that much buoyancy?

    Either the stern had a couple hundred barrage balloons tied to its railings....or, the concept of the water-filled bow hanging from the still-floating stern is rotten bully beef.

    We all are familiar with the simple fact that objects fall through the air (neglecting for the moment aerodynamics) on the vertical. So do things that fall through a water column (again, neglecting hydrodynamics). Vertical is defined as the direction from the observer to the center of the Earth. A ship, or pieces of a ship will land on the bottom pretty much in a straight line with where they started sinking on the surface.

    Yet, there were people on deck, particularly the forward boat deck, who sensed the ship moving forward. That sensory impression made them think the ship was in some sense "driving itself" under the surface. The witnesses told the truth in terms of what the experienced, but the physics say that what they think happened did not.

    Here's an experiment to help understand the wave that washed aft during the breakup. Take a very shallow, flat baking dish and fill it a third full of water. Now lift the pan and teeter-totter it lengthwise. Note that the wave grows as the water sloshes. Part of this is the result of friction with the bottom of the pan. It slows the lowest molecules of water while those above are free to move. The result is a sort of traffic jam that builds a wave. This is the process that creates beach breakers washing ashore created by smooth swells in deeper water offshore.

    (Hint to serious researchers: Look up "free surface effect in any good seamanship manual.)

    Lifting of the bow in the manner I propose would have created just such a wave washing aft on Titanic's forward boat deck. The size of the wave would have been dependent upon the depth of water at the forward end of the deck. And, the wave would have quickly spilled overboard as it moved aft -- explaining why it was noted by survivors in that end of the ship and not the stern.

    I was in a room of researchers (wow!) all trying to outdo the others with dull stories when Parks brought up his theory about how and why the stern pivoted on the surface. I did a mental head slap. Of course! Back then, the Titanic community talked about the starboard list after impact on the berg, but they sort of neglected the port roll later on and its implications to the iron on the bottom. A while later Parks published his theory to overwhelming indifference of the conventional wisdom crowd. A prophet is never recognized in his own nation.

    Back to objects falling through a water column. As it falls the debris forms an ever-widening circle centered pretty much on the vertical of where the vessel foundered. The guys who study this stuff at Woods Hole showed me a formula for determining the size of that circle based on water depth. They call it the "debris cone." Titanic's debris field is sort of elliptical with the stern at one end, bow at the other and the "cone" stuff in between. Most researchers accept that the boilers which came loose from the lost pieces of double bottom sank nearly straight to the bottom. Hence, the so-called "boiler field" is considered the most probable position on the surface of the ship's last moments.

    The bow does appear to have moved forward as it sank. This can be explained by the shape -- flat bottom with a pointed end -- creating uneven resistance to movement through the water. And it is a partial explanation for the fan-shaped coal pattern on the bottom.

    Some pieces had considerable hydrodynamic shape. A prime example is the section of double bottom that split into the two pieces found at a considerable distance from the rest of the wreck. They must have "glided" their way down. Since they are close together, it's prossible they were attached for most of their fall, separating only at the end.

    -- David G. Brown
    Aaron_2016 likes this.
  11. >>Back then, the Titanic community talked about the starboard list after impact on the berg, but they sort of neglected the port roll later on<<

    Funnily when I came up with the port list a few years ago and even quoted survivor accounts I was told by many what a "nice theory" I had but that I was "wrong".

    Regarding the rest, I think Roy Mengot&Richard Woytowich with the bottom up break as well as Parks Stephenson (and James Cameron) with the top down break have explained it well.
    Kyle Naber and Chris cameron like this.
  12. Scott Mills

    Scott Mills Member

    Totally tangential question to this thread... has any of the four funnels been located in the debris?
  13. Aaron_2016

    Aaron_2016 Member

    This is the second funnel according to the documentary - Titanic: 100 years: Mystery Solved.



  14. Was doing some 3d modeling and this is what the angle looked like at around 23 degrees

    Its hard to tell here but depending where the camera is placed it looks as much as 45 degrees
  15. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    A lot of the disagreements and discrepancies truly were caused from different point of views.
  16. From Starboard
    sir john adams likes this.
  17. From aft
    sir john adams likes this.
  18. Yep! That's why the 2012 sinking analysis was great as it bridged the gap of people from different views and a logical idea of what happened.

    Its also easy to see from the first render why logically it would have been impossible for the bow to pop up
  19. Here are some more, you could tell why Lightoller had a hard time seeing it with the lights being a murky red
    Aft Port.jpg
  20. Kyle Naber

    Kyle Naber Member

    Especially here, you can see just how extreme not even 25 degrees looks. Seeing it in real life also would definitely change things. You can see why someone would explain this as 60 degrees or even near perpendicular.
    Itsstillthinking likes this.