Thayer's Drawing


N

Nunya Buisness

Guest
Why does Jack thaer's drawing show the forward end of the Titanic foating after breakup? Is it possible the damage was further down the ship than all of us thought and the very front part of the ship recievng no iceburg damage?
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
5
183
No, Thayer was simply mistaken. Given how the flooding occurred, the bow would not have buoyed up as Jack had illustrated. It simply isn't possible.


Adam
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
Considering that flooding was observed/reported in every section from the forepeak all the way back to Boiler Room Six, I have a hard time believing that the very front received no damage.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,241
27
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
I agree with the above posts. Their's just no way that the forward part escaped any damage.

Best regards,

Jason
happy.gif
 
J

John Meeks

Guest
I was just about to make a post justifying, possibly, Thayer's sketch...but checked a couple of drawings first. Most surprised!

It's only today that I really noticed how low Titanic's bulkheads were! Number 1,2,4, & 6 hardly reach above her waterline! In my opinion, they must have been, essentially, useless!

I wouldn't have wanted to spill a cup of tea down there!

Thayer must have got it wrong - unless there were some very effective air pockets in the bow.


John M
 

Pat Cook

Member
Apr 26, 2000
1,277
5
313
First, I totally agree that the bow sank first, then the stern. That being said, I would like to draw you attention to the fact that Thayer wasn't the only one with the opinion expressed in his drawing. In fact, Senan Molony just did an article about this very subject in the latest ITHS "White Star Journal".

Not only did Thayer believe the ship sank in this fashion (totally wrong as Mr. Beesley points out in his book) but Clear Cameron, in a letter home to a friend, wrote: "We got about two miles from the Titanic and watched her sink. She just broke up in two and the two ends were sticking up only for about five minutes". In the same article, Mark Baber added an April 23, 1912 edition of the Hudson Observer, in which Thomas Oxenham stated: "When the big ship parted and the hulks drifted apart before going under, we sat shivering and afraid...The halves just seemed to rise out of the water."

Amazing what was seen, or thought to have been seen, that night.

Best regards all around,
Cook
 
Mar 18, 2000
1,384
18
313
Somewhere around here, I've seen reference to Thayer later in life something like "No, that drawing wasn't right". Wish I could remember exactly where - I'll try to give it some thought this weekend.
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
19
233
I agree that it was probably a misunderstanding by Mr. Skidmore. The drawing also shows (if memory serves) the Titanic plowing onto the iceberg, and it looks all wrong. This drawing was made so soon after the sinking no one really knew just what had happened, and Jack had been through so much overnight I doubt he cared.


Cheers,
happy.gif


-B.W.
 

Mike Bull

Member
Dec 23, 2000
515
15
263
Here's a little fun thought though-if the Titanic didn't reach such a steep angle before she split in two, then the tip of the bow wasn't so far under the water as was at first thought. Test drops with a model have shown that the detached bow waffled back and forth through the water like a leaf as it fell way, going from the narrow bow point to the heavy mid section, and back again. What if, as the ship broke, that heavy mid-section dropped first, and the tip of the bow popped up a little as it did so?

I'm sure that's not what happened, but it's a fun idea!!!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
The test drops were conducted by trained marine engineers using a properly weighted and balanced model so I'm inclined to believe that they have a high probability of getting it right.

As to the bow, why would it "pop up like that" in the first place. The thing is massively heavy with all the water which leaves it flooded solid and that means it would have to fight against it's own mass and inertia to do this.

Not the most likely of scenerios.
 
C

Chris Nicholson

Guest
Im not sure if im right here but, Didn't the midsection of the ship have the boilers. Wouldn't the boilers wheigh down the midsection of the ship? Plus wasn't the forpeak pretty much just an empty compartment. And I read somewhere that scince the forpeak had little to none ways of getting in there, air was trapped in it. It caused steaming sounds in the front of the ship as air escaped rapidly. Maybe all the air didn't have a change to escape And maybe it still sunk from the bow down because the second compartmentwas wheighing it down. Plus when the Titanic sinking model sinks, mine, after it breaks, it stats rocking down to the bottom, the first time causing the front of the ship to come out of the water.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
Hi Chris, I think the above may be a bit of a stretch. The forepeak tank wasn't all that large, certainly not so large that a negligable amount of air trapped there would cause the bow to go up as portrayed in the drawing. Also, the fact that air was heard to be escaping from a tube leading into the peak tank (Indicates flooding) is a matter of fact documented in the evidence.

The Boiler Rooms occupied the midsection of the ship as can be seen at https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/deckplans/deckplan_orlop.shtml
 
C

Chris Nicholson

Guest
Yes that was what I was saying Michal. The little escaped air in the forepeak, plus the rocking, through in all the heavy boilers and machinary in the midsection, it just might have been possible. However none of us will ever know.
 
Dec 31, 2003
274
5
183
Hampstead, London
Chris said: "However, none of us will ever know." Certainly - every detail considered - that must remain so: possibly even in our absolutely correct assignment of cabins! But, I believe Chris should continue to question whether the famous Skidmore drawing (apart from scale!) might not be accurate. At his or at Thayer's age, I believed it was - and I still do today. Although Thayer might seem - by 1932 - to have succumbed to 'expert' opinion that Titanic did not break up - the accepted view 50 years later! - he was evidently correct in his 1912 opinion. Likewise, I remain convinced that - like some great 'canoe' whose keel had been broken on 'rocks' - Titanic's bow and stern were - for 5 minutes - once again above water. The position and condition of the sea-board evidence tends to merely confirm me in this. However, I do continue to question. And, to hope that some individual - even team! - will one day attempt to re-model scientifically (i.e. with dis-belief suspended) the structurally-traumatic events that actually occurred.
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
6
183
Hindsight is always 20/20. In 1912, it was easier to believe an Officer than a 17 year old boy.

While I don't believe Lightoller lied about seeing the ship sink intact, he was swimming under water for his life! The break up could have happened then. When he surfaced, the stern was rising for the perpendicular before sliding down and under.

Jack had a front row seat to the event as he was probably treading water near the ship before swimming to the over turned collapsable.

The artist who turned in the drawing was probably just looking for a quick buck from the press. Jack may not have even seen it to verify the exactness of detail.

I was saddened to read about how Jacks life ended. I hope he rests in peace easier after Ballards expedition proved his testimony correct.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
>>We really dont know what exactly happened to Titanic anyway right? Its not like we were there lol.<<

No-o-o-o-o-o...we don't know exactly what happened to Titanic. However, we have a lot of evidence and accounts by way of the inquiries as well as additional research based on survivor interviews and forensics analysis of the wreck which gives us a very good picture of the situation. One that is in some respects better then that of those who were there because they only had parts of the picture, not the whole. We can piece things together in such a way that we can figure out what did happen, what may have happened, and what could not have happened by any means.

Unfortunately, this issue of those who were there vs. those who were not is a two edged sword since the involved parties do have the advantage of having seen details we can only guess at. But then it's taking a look at things in the hopes of working it out which makes historical research so interesting.

It wouldn't be "fun" if there wasn't some element of mystery.
wink.gif
 
Jan 7, 2002
2,447
36
243
I think the manner of breakup as depicted in the Cameron film was a bit over the top....

I think when Titanic broke apart, it was not a clean snap....Part of her hulle held, and the debris field consists of a section of hull that crumbled as the ship tore asunder...

As she broke....bits of hull plating held the bow and stern together, the stern was pulled to port and spun around........

If there was a remaining air pocket in the bow section, It might have caused the bow section to resurface for a few seconds...

The question is..did she break from boat deck to keel, or keel to boat deck?


Tarn Stephanos
 

Similar threads

Similar threads