The break up and descent

I

Ioannis Georgiou

Member
I do not know if they knew about the second part of the double bottom in 1998. But they knew about the one which was filmed. This and the lower angle break were also made public. I think it was William Garzke who wrote a report about that and even the Discovery Channel documentary Titanic - Answers from the Abyss show that. I was only going to point out that both 1998 and 2005 were having a similar conclusion.
Most things what survivors report in 1912 were still ignored.
 
W

walter hojka

Member
I would like to learn more about these double bottom pieces. Indeed I have found little information. I am interested in any theories regarding how these pieces came to be. I would also like to learn the location of these pieces relative to the No.1 Boilers and the Stern and Bow sections.
I find it to be very curious that the bottom of the ship is in four pieces. I believe this suggests that the ship began to break up at the bottom.

Yours,
Walter Hojka
The Steel doesn't lie
 
M

Michael Cundiff

Member
David: In part I can agree with you, however I feel that RMSTI/IFREMER had their minds on salvage as opposed to forensics during that initial *double bottom* finding. And, was'nt it David Concannon who initially peaked the interest in the section anyhow? You will remember Mr. Concannon dove with the Russians only and not the French. Subsequently Concannon contacted the History Channel & Dive Dectives (Chatterton & Richey). I believe Nargeolet and the other members of NAUTILE's crew were deploying grid mapping and artifact search during that stumble upon the double-bottom section. I would just love to see an entire sonar/eoscan image of the entire wreck site.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
>>The problem with Titanic research is that too much is known, but too little is revealed. <<

Very true. A good example is the sub-bottom profiler data of the port side of the bow from Polaris Imaging. Apparently, that data was deliberately withheld from the public.

>>As far as the lower angle of the breakup is concerned, the angle can be calculated quite handily from data contained within the testimonies of survivors. <<

Not very precisely, especially when considering some of the conflicting accounts from witnesses at various vantage points. What we can say is that the ship was still intact at 10° when water was coming over the bridge. That can be quantified quite easily. At what angle beyond that did the break occur is less well defined from eyewitness accounts. After all, nobody was measuring it especially once the lights went out.

>>It showed the strains on Titanic's hull did not exceed the design parameters set by Harland & Wolff until the angle reached 11 to 15 degrees.<<

It is amazing that it took so long to figure that out. As in so many other cases, there usually is simpler way to bracket the results without going to great expense as I described in my article Why a Low Angle Break? on this site.
 
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
If one takes Lightoller's evidence at face value, the base of the first funnel and the crows nest were just about level with the water when he dove into the sea. I think that makes an angle of about 9 degrees (?)
 
M

Michael Cundiff

Member
Samuel: I was not even aware that Paul Mathias
undertook an EOSCAN imaging of the buried port-side forward hull. Owing to collision with ice on her starboard side, scanning was endeavored on the buried portion. RMSTI/IFREMER even expressed interest in actually excavating the mud in that general area. Did the portside EOSCAN images reveal the *same* type of abrasions as did those starboard side (below mudline) images?
(As seen on Discovery Channel & Susan Wel's book)

I only recall above inspection of the portside forward hull. In fact P.H. Nargeolet informed
George Tulloch of the *wrinkled* plating, because Tulloch was curious as to why no 30' breech as seen on the starboard side.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>I find it to be very curious that the bottom of the ship is in four pieces. I believe this suggests that the ship began to break up at the bottom.<<

That might hold water if the pieces were close together.

They're not.

The debris field covers at least four square miles with the bow and stern sections widely seperated and the double bottom sections being located off on a tangent which was also well away from the main body of the wreck. This points to a breakup which began at the surface and which continued as the ship decended through the water column, with the pieces being scattered about.
 
W

walter hojka

Member
Sorry, What I meant was that because the double bottom is broken into four pieces it suggests to me that the ship broke apart from the bottom up. I agree that the breakup occurred at the surface. I believe that the hull collapsed at boiler room no.1 and that these two stray pieces of the double bottom buckled out. They would be the first major pieces of the ship to arrive at the bottom of the ocean.

Yours,
Walter Hojka
The steel doesn't lie
Chicago, IL
 
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
How does a shallow break-up angle correlate with the survivors who saw the screws break water before the ship sank? I didn't think a 10 degree trim would allow that.
 
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
I thought Lightoller said that the base of funnel 1 and the crows nest were level at the waterline? If that was the case, the screws don't break the water.
 
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
Samuel's article is stimulating but I am not sure aboutt he numbers he plots on the graph of eyewitnesses' view of list as a function of time.

On the same note, Wilding said that the boilers would move if the angle of trim exceeded 35 degrees. Looking at the boilers in the wreck (BR 2), this obviously didn't happen. So, how come the 45 degree angle has become so widely and unquestioningly accepted?
 
M

Michael Cundiff

Member
Trevor: Then again the *eye witnesss* accounts from CALIFORIA's Donkey Man Gil? reported..."She looks to have a high end out of the water", just before he reported "That ship that was firing rockets, she seems to sailed over the horizon".

As David Brown said..."There are so many things that we know and so many things that we do not".

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>I thought Lightoller said that the base of funnel 1 and the crows nest were level at the waterline? If that was the case, the screws don't break the water.<<

If you take a look at the first illustration in Samuel's article, you'll note that the crows nest is level with the ocean and the screws are clear of the water. If the ship dipped to the point where the water was level with the base of the funnel, the crows nest would have been submerged but the screws would still be exposed.

>>On the same note, Wilding said that the boilers would move if the angle of trim exceeded 35 degrees. Looking at the boilers in the wreck (BR 2), this obviously didn't happen. <<

Which is demonsterably questionable. Take a look at the Britannic's wreck. The ship is lying on her starboard side and the boilers are still on their foundations.
 
W

walter hojka

Member
The only boilers then that are not in their foundations are the ones from boiler room 1.
It seems unlikely that they would just spill out. Some force must have sheared them off.

Walter Hojka
The steel doesn't lie
 
Top