A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Walking about Belfast today is not a pleasant sight for lovers of history and architecture. Victorian, Edwardian, and Art Deco buildings are coming down all over the city with many more to come.



demolition1.JPG


orpheus01b.JPG



A few years ago they demolished 500 Victorian homes effectively ending the history of an entire community which no doubt had links to the shipyard workers.

Village area residents angry over 'wasteland' left by south Belfast regeneration bid - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk


They also demolished a good chunk of the Titanic drawing offices as they modernise the building.

drawingoffice1.JPG



.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,538
581
123
What are they thinking?!?

(I going to quickly create a new thread for the Belfast demolition so we don't lose focus for this one.)

Back To Topic!
 
Last edited:

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
Hi, you are wrong.
The Titanic had the first 6 watertight compartments flooding so it was definitely going to sink. It could only stay afloat with the first 4 compartments flooded.

Even if the bulkhead did rupture and let water into the adjacent watertight compartment, the water would flow into a compartment that was already flooding! So the collapsing of the bulkhead would have no effect whatsoever on making Titanic sink faster.

Look at the photos on this thread. The so-called black mark is well forward of the bunker that was smouldering. Look at the GA side profile of Titanic then compare it to where the black mark is, they do not align in the slightest.

Also, the whole of the bulkhead would never collapse. It spanned 92 feet of the ship sideways and had many stregthening points eitherside of it. The most that could have happenec is that there wad a rupture around the area where the fire was, and thus it leaked water into the adjacent compartment which was flooding anyway. The idea of a 92 foot wide bulkhead completely giving way because of the effects of a fire in a locallised area is not feasible.

Best regards,

Ajmal
 

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
Hi Gemma,
I agree, the fire-induced bunker collapse theory by Maloney is laughable. The black mark does not fall in line with the smouldering bunker at all.

Regards,

Ajmal
 

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
Hi,

Boiler room 5 was flooding also, so if the bulkhead between 6 and 5 did rupture due to fire-induced weakening it would have made no difference at all. Even if the bulkhead did hold up, and think it did, Titanic would have sunk. The claim that the blsck mark is where the fire was is laughable. Essentially, this is a documentary foer people obsessed with conspiracies and a money -spinner.

Best regards,

Ajmal
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,538
581
123
I said this before but even the own documentary's graphics disprove the myth it tries to claim happened as aVFX scene shows the smear forward of Boiler Room 6 (no where near the actual bunker).
Screen Shot 2018-04-27 at 08.12.02.png
 

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
I would be embarrased to claim the black mark was due to the bunker 5 fire when bunker 5 was a long distance away from the black mark.
I thought the documentary was embarrasing, frankly.

Regards, Ajmal
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harland Duzen
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Was there any discussion on the forward coal bunker and coal reserve?



coalforward.png


bunker01.png





.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I had marked the reserve coal and cargo in red in the left picture. The picture on the right just shows where the black mark is.


Looking at the deck layouts, where is the 'coal reserve'? It looks like the mail and coal reserve were on the same deck.



coalreserve.png


coalreserve2.png



Also what if the fire in the coal bunker(s) had warped the side that was against the watertight doors? Would a red hot, dented, warped bunker against the watertight door cause the door to jam, or burn out the wires and make the lights go out? I heard the doors closed slowly and when they reached a foot or so near the ground they dropped fast. Would the rapid force of the door slamming near the bottom cause the metal in the damaged bunker to fracture? Maybe Fred Barrett wasn't looking at iceberg damage in the bunker in boiler room 5, but really the effects of the doors slamming, the wall fracturing, and the water coming through from boiler room 6. Also I hear the ship was gradually bending as she took on water. Would the bending of the ship cause the wall to weaken and buckle open?


.
 

Ajmal Dar

Member
Jan 5, 2018
95
14
18
Nottingham
Maloney's claims are also CRUEL TO TITANICS VICTIMS RELATIVES WHO ARE ALIVE NOW.

He has studied Titanic for ca. 30 years yet gave out misleading information (1. the black mark was no where the coal bunker that was smouldering, 2. the coal bunker was not ablaze, 3. the Titanic would have sunk anyway as at least 6 compartments had flooded, 4. there could not be a wholesale collapse of a 92 foot long bulkhead. Both compartments 5 and 6 were flooding, so there would be water pressure on either side of the bulkhead, effectively cancelling each other out. The most that could have happened is that the bulkhead may have ruptured a little bit around the area wher the fire may havecweakened it. I even doubt this happened).

So relatives of Titanic's victims must now be very upset thinking that the ship was unsafe to go to sea in the first place, should never have done so and that White Star were criminally negligent.

Titanic Historians have a moral duty to tell the story factually and not resort to sensational claims in the pursuit of financial gain. A cruel documentary really.

Regards,

Ajmal
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The way I see it. He saw a dark smear in two photographs near where the coal reserve was stored and made a point of showing it in the documentary. He used it as a basis to attract the viewers attention in the hopes that they would tune in and watch the documentary. Basically eye candy to keep the viewers interested in the topic. Same goes for the colourised photos and how they came to life. Wonderful effects, but still just another form of eye candy to keep people tuned in. On a related note - The Olympic stored extra coal in her 3rd class dining room during this period, so one has to wonder if coal was stored in areas in and around where the dark smear is on the hull, or possibly deck alterations were done which are not shown in the deck plans.

The documentary also showed survivor accounts which mentioned the coal fire that was possibly raging in one or more bunkers from April 2nd to April 14th and mentioned the number of crew that were ordered to fight the fire. Nothing at all disrespectful so far. It also described the damage and how the weakened metal would become brittle and fracture. The ship's pumps were controlling the flooding in boiler room 5 so the only flooding that was out of control was in the forward compartments. It rose rapidly up to E-deck as the forward holds were already filled with mail and cargo so the ship was not weighed down much and appeared to settle down very slowly. Mr. Ismay said the Chief engineer was confident the ship's pumps would keep the ship afloat long enough for rescue to come. Captain Smith ordered several lifeboats to row towards the other ship that could be seen and offload the passengers and then row back to the Titanic for more. Orders were given to open the gangway doors with the expectation that the passengers would return to the ship in the morning. Then suddenly a rumble could be heard and a rush of water came through the bunker wall into boiler room 5 and the ship flooded much more rapidly from that moment onwards.

The documentary I believe just stated what we know so far as the bunker fire is an open question.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 18, 2008
2,273
566
183
Germany
>>The documentary I believe just stated what we know so far as the bunker fire is an open question.<<

Actually that so called documentary goes way beyond it making false claims and putting things out of context not only about the fire but also about the coal, the cause for the sinking, the quality of the steel. Aside from that the dark smug on the hull are only on 2 photos, the photos taken next after them did not show them. As if that was not enough another photo of Titanic at Southampton was presented claiming the ship was docked with the port side to hide the dark smug on the hull from the people. Not only that this claim is absurd, the dark smug mentioned was a coal barque and it was in a complete different location.
One thing which is clear it brought back attention to Titanic sadly creating more damage than good.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,538
581
123
At the end of the day, It's one of several things:

1) Smear on Kempster camera's lens.

2) Soot from when coal was loaded into the ship coal bunkers while docked in Belfast due to wind.

3) Funnel soot from the Tugs that due to high wind as it was removed from the dock was blown onto the hull.

4) A optical effect due to the curvature of the ship's hull, sunlight and 1 or some of the above.

While it seems likely there was something on the hull (due to a photo from Southampton, April 6th shows a floating platform in roughly the same area showing the hull was being cleaned*) whatever it was from above, caused no structural damage or danger too the ship.
One thing which is clear it brought back attention to Titanic sadly creating more damage than good.
Sadly very true.

(*By the way, I just saw your reply mentioning the coal barge in the photo. Back to Topic!)
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2008
2,273
566
183
Germany
It is nothing, it is caused by shadow and light from the curve of the water. It is only on 2 of the Belfast photos and not on any other one (which of course were not shown in that documentary).
Here is the next one from the Kempster Album taken directly after the other, nothing to see as with the rest of the photos where nothing is visible.
10492178_1680962615504610_6050092282604487113_n.jpg


And by the way this is what Senan Molony wrote in the book "Titanic Unseen" which had those photos the following on page 118: "Both these pictures show dark diagonal on the starboard side, below the well deck. While a coal-bunker fire was already merrily blazing, expert opinion suggests the mark is a causeway reflection."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harland Duzen

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,538
581
123
Off topic here, but Is "Titanic Unseen" worth getting for high quality photos of the Kempster Album (provided I don't trust any of the text inside?
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,273
566
183
Germany
For me it was but I was a bid disappointed about how some photos were published, either small or it was "cut" as it was in the middle as it happened with a wonderful Olympic photo.
About high quality, on the larger ones you can make out some details but I would not call all high quality. Maybe you have a chance to have a look into the book before buying it?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harland Duzen

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,106
174
223
Moderator's hat on:

Keep the discussion focused on matters of substance, not speculation as to other people's motives.

Moderator's hat off.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Have any of the expeditions looked inside the large hole on the starboard side? The location of the dark smudge is just underneath it, so an internal inspection might give us some answers.


sidehole.png


.