Specifics of the Breakup


Steven Hall

Member
I never mentioned anything about boiler room 4.

"This forensic error is probably more common than realized, especially in Titanic research. Opinions are formed and only the evidence that fits the opinion is sought. There are mysteries still to be uncovered. Maybe even the maritime equivalent of a bullet hole. Who knows? But, I'll bet the biggest clue as to what happened will come from something never even discussed on any of these forums. Just a hunch..."


Well Dave, could that be what's in store for the next wheezy 'I found this' documentery.

New doc finds bottom fell off ship ! How, why ? Read it, see it - coming soon.
Watch the world wide special 'listen for network announcements, buy the DVD. Expeditions amazing ‘new’ finds. Live link to submersible.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Steve I saw something on youtube about the Titanic and i dont know if its cause the person who put the subtitles in between sections didnt know what their talking about or not but they were claiming the double bottom fell off the ship under Boiler room # 2 and # 3. I thought that was kinda funny considering the Boilers of Boiler Room #2 are basicly still in place in the bow so the bottom couldnt have fell off unless they ment just a portion of the outter hull and not the inner bottom.
 
The new doc does not "show bottom fell off ship" but that the BREAK-UP of the ship, between smokestack 3 and 4 might have ---accoriding to the new evidence--- in most certainty, occured quite differently than previously shown in documentaries and in Cameron's film.

It shows that the tear (break-up) was in a way, somewhat halted on the plates on the bottom of the Titanic keel, for a while (like when you tear bread, and the tear stops at the harder crust and you have to apply more pressure to tear the crust also...)--- and these plates gave way, diving to the Ocean floor, before the whole bow and stern sections plunged to the bottom.

What the new doc is showing, that it is logical to assume that right above the place where the keel plates ("steel ribbons", they initially called them) of the Titanic have been found in the abyss--- is the exact location where the horrific tear-up of the Titanic structure occured, the way I understood it.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Solomon I didnt know there was a new documention on the Titanic. The one I seen on youtube was from a couple years back atleast I think. It was done by a group of divers i belive
 
Hi, Matt.
I taped that documentary on Video-cassette. I don't know from which year it is. But I could check for you. I kind of missed the beginning, but I could find out year-specifics and more information from the end credits or the doc itself.
I'll need some time for that. But anyway, here in Israel, when they showed that documentary, it was publicised as "NEW EVIDENCE concerning Titanic, never shown before" and that kind of stuff.
It was shown (in Israel) on "The History Channel". The researcher who told of the "double bottom holding the tear and then breaking" theory is ROJER LANG, Naval Architect.
Other members of the expedition to find 'the steel ribbons' which were the keel-plates of the Titanic, include: PATRICK LEARY, Director, Victorianresearch.org, RALPH WHITE from Woods Hole and also famous Titanic-artist and explorer Ken Marschall. The expedition met sometime around December 2005... but this is the first time I, personally, saw this documentary, and was first time introduced to the complete-keel plates of Titanic resting on the sea-floor ground footage.

Rojer Long's theory does not seem so far-fetched--- and they DID actually show those Titanic keel plates on the sea-floor! All this time, they were resting in the debris field between the bow and stern, in a far section, which Rojer Long says no previous expeditions had bothered to investigate.

For more information, I'll have to check the video cassette and get back to you.
 
>>What would you say if you cross-checked and found that the water in BR4 was seen above the floor plates even before the catastrophic failure of a bulkhead described by Barrett in BR5?<<

Parks, I would say that this is strong evidence of some sort of progressive structural failure which was opening up seams and allowing the ingress of water from below before it was likely to be coming down from above.

But that's just me.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
The only question I have is how do we prove that as Titanic sank that her floor plates seperated enough to allow water to come up through the floor plates like some have stated as their theory (which I am beliving is most likely what happened). I could see it being found out if the plates were popped up and seperated but wouldnt that be a little hard to tell if it was caused by the impact she suffered with the sea floor or during the sinking?
 
PARKS:

quote:

Just to be clear, that's not what I said. Of course we need to examine BRs 5 & 6, but I have no intention of stopping there...we need to understand the rising water in BR4.

I never said that you said that; I was referring to something Steve said. My point was that BR #4 is not the only concern for study when it comes to determining how Titanic sank, although I contend that it is, indeed, a major point.

And, yes, the condition of BR #4 will tell us a lot. All your questions seem to point to an isolated opening below BR #4 to which neither BRs #3 nor 5 have access. Structural damage underneath? That definitely would expedite the sinking process and even ensure the breakup that did, in fact, occur.


STEVE: Yes you did mention BR #4. Please take a look here and above in your first post:

quote:

"We will never fully understand why Titanic sank, though, if we can't determine the cause for the flooding in BR4."


SOLOMON:

First, welcome to the board. Nice to have you here.
happy.gif


quote:

It shows that the tear (break-up) was in a way, somewhat halted on the plates on the bottom of the Titanic keel, for a while (like when you tear bread, and the tear stops at the harder crust and you have to apply more pressure to tear the crust also...)--- and these plates gave way, diving to the Ocean floor, before the whole bow and stern sections plunged to the bottom.

If this is true, we need to find out why and how the flooding of the BRs contributed to that. It was all a chain reaction of events, but I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that due to the forces that built up in the T's structure that night, the punctures in the starboard bow were not the only opening to the sea below water level. It's very possible that the growing stress on the bending metal caused the hull to pop or stretch open in other places to allow water to seep in from below. Exactly how this affected the break is an interesting thought.

By the way, if you want to isolate a quote like you said you want to do, you type in this:

\ quote { quote to be copy/pasted }

The only thing is to not put spaces between any of these characters, excepted the words within the excerpt to be pasted. I hope that helps.​
 

Steven Hall

Member
I was quoting Parks earlier post. " "
My reference (below his comment) is specific for boiler room 6 (re the damaged plating) & 5 (coal bunker fire). If the doors were blown off by pressure, the ROV could look inside.
What happened in 4 is academic, the ship was foundering.
Either way, I'll leave this topic to you guys.
 
Steve,

I disagree with you...what was happening in BR4 was not academic, it was part of the fatal damage that the ship sustained. Think of it...they had two sets of pumps (with the BR3 set having the greater capacity) operating in BR4 and could not keep ahead of the rising water. One pump set kept BR5 dry until a catastrophic event changed the situation.

Now, let's look at it from a forensic perspective...there's no visible damage to the hull outside of BR#4, all the way down to the bilge keel (which includes the void between the stokehold plates and the tank top). Maybe there's damage to the double-bottom structure, but how would water get past the watertight tank top? This is not an academic concern for me...I need to know what was going on in BR4 -- as well as BRs 5 & 6 -- in order to understand the larger picture.

Steve, when you comment on the shows that I work on, then you're commenting on my own personal work. I'll take your comments as you have offered them.

Michael,

I know where your comment about "progressive structural failure" is coming from but consider what I said above...we can see the entire hull above the watertight tank top on the wreck today and there are no open seams. And if water was coming into the double-bottom structure, how did the water rise past the tank top? Also, the timeline is such that there would be, for a period of time, more water in BR4 than BR5. Think of that from a loading perspective.

Matt,

There are no guarantees that we will be able to find what we're looking for. My job is to convince people with money and equipment to try. Even if we fail to find the Holy Grail, how can we lose if we manage to get a camera inside yet another unexplored interior (like the boiler rooms) inside the wreck? Even in our "failed" penetrations, we learn more about the ship that we didn't know previously.

That's all that I am willing to say on this particular subject for the time being. I'll share more after I have completed some unfinished work.

By the way, I believe that the Emmy promotional copy of "Last Mysteries of the Titanic" being offered on eBay at the moment is the Cameron edit that has yet to be broadcast. I checked with Earthship Productions and even they don't know, so I purchased a couple of copies off eBay 2 days ago and will be able to tell which edit it is once I receive one.

Parks
 
>>we can see the entire hull above the watertight tank top on the wreck today and there are no open seams.<<

Makes me wonder what was going on inside the double bottom then, and perhaps in areas that we can't even see because of the mud or because nobody got inside to take a look. If it was not coming down from above...and at the point of the sinking you have in mind, it wouldn't be...then it had to come from somewhere at the level of or below the boiler room.

>>Think of that from a loading perspective.<<

I am. I've been thinking in those terms since the Topeka Gathering of 2002. I'd love to see the computer modeling of this, but I'll bet the differential stresses don't make for a pretty picture!
 
It's all about weight distribution and how it effects the structure of the ship, in this case, a structure which is already damaged and not up to taking the sort of uneven bending loads being imposed.

Think of what happens when the first five compartments which are already flooded, the one behind it isn't, but the next one is flooded and filling far more rapidly then the pumps can keep up with. Kind of like a stick being pushed down on both ends while the centre is against your knee.

Something's going to break!
 

Steven Hall

Member
"Steve, when you comment on the shows that I work on, then you're commenting on my own personal work. I'll take your comments as you have offered them."

After all the supportive posts I’ve made of your refreshing approach and perspective to analyzing the ship, you think I’m taking a swipe at your work There’s been hundreds of dives to Titanic since 1987. The one’s you’ve been involved in directly and indirectly have been the most progressive.

I’m sorry you’ve formed that opinion of me. And on that note, this is my final post on ET.

I hope your have a long and successful future in Titanic exploration and research Parks.
 
That's interesting, Mike. If BR #5 was dry while #4 was flooding fast, the stress was off-set. Yes, something has got to break. Not only is it important to find out what happened in BR #4, but how that affected the break three boiler rooms back.

STEVE: If you decide to come back periodically and read the board without contributing, I am sorry to see you go. This is a very interesting discussion, and everyone is welcome. Take care and good luck.
 
Top