In fairness to my good friend, be it known that I am speaking for myself and not Parks Stephenson.
Many of my other friends here on the E-T site know that I was rudely treated by the SNAME SD-7 panel that drafted the Titanic report. As far as I am concerned, what occurred during my appearance before the SD-7 panel was nothing more than a pre-planned attempt to humiliate me. And, while the "final" report by this body of experts mentions the White Paper prepared by Parks and me, it distorts what we said in order to destroy our credibility.
The SNAME report is riddled with information not supportable in either the testimonies or the known facts. This might be acceptable from engineers (who are, after all not historians) except that they base their conclusions on what amount to errors-in-fact. This is the same as building a house upon a foundation of quicksand. Engineers know such a building would not stand, and they should no equally well that neither do conclusions not based in fact.
This report alleges to explane the damage by promoting a new version of the mythical 300-foot gash in the side. No such gash ever occurred. The gash was a myth on April 15, 1912 and it continues to be so.
Of course the SNAME report puts a new and apparently scientific twist on the old myth by claiming that the iceberg unzipped a seam in the shell plating. Alleged echosounds of the side of the ship buried tens of feet beneath the mud are give as the "proof."
What sort of proof are these alleged images? Well, nobody knows. And, don't ask because apparently it's none of your business. The report does not show the images. The company that made them does not answer questions about them. The images are simply not available to other, independent analysis. Do the alleged images exist at all? I don't know...
Based on the images it either cannot or will not present as evidence, the SNAME report claims the iceberg opened a seam in boiler room #6 for a distance of more than 40 feet. And, that opening just happens, when added to the other alleged open seams, to add up to that magical 12 square feet. Nice try guys, but it just isn't true. Read Firemen Beauchamp's account of being in boiler room #6 for 10 to 15 minutes after the accident raking the coals out of his furnaces. Either Beauchamp was blind, or that seam was tight because he never saw the veritable Niagara Falls that would have cascaded over his head if the SNAME report were true.
The SNAME report claims to be a forensic analysis of the sinking. Yet, it failed to even consider the possibility that resetting of the clocks may have given Titanic more than 20 extra minutes of life. If the time change is factored in, every flooding calculation ever done is invalid. Certainly, engineers should recognize that they need to establish the accuracy of their basic data. Or, if there is a conflict, it would behoove them to present both possibilities for comparison.
What kind of forensic report would overlook the strange configuration of the firemen's tunnel and adjoining stair tower. Oh yes, and that strange vesibule of watertight doors in way of bulkhead D. Could this unusual design have played a role? The report ignores the question.
And, why doesn't the SNAME report tackle the thorny issure of Titanic's engines restarting after the accident?
To me...and I'm speaking only for myself...this report does nothing more than confuse and hide the truth.
--David G. Brown
