What happened to the Forward Tower?

Dec 23, 2017
1,104
607
123
Mr. Ray saw the first lifeboat lowered down on the starboard side shortly after 12.30am. He went below decks and saw the forward part of E-deck was underwater. Over an hour later the bow still had not dropped any lower. Lifeboat 13 was lowered down over an hour later and when they rowed away they noticed the ship's bow was still only down as far as E-deck on the starboard side.


Mr. Littlejohn
"Her forward E-deck ports were under the water"

Mr. Caldwell
"At first, she seemed unharmed but, as we looked toward the bow of the ship, we could see that the lower line of portholes extended down into the water."

Mr. Beesley
"There was nothing else to indicate she was injured....The lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea......We rowed away from her in the quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then."





This means the continuous settling down of the bow did not take place as the open corridors on E-deck averted the continuous settling of the bow for a significant length of time owing to the bodily sinking of the ship.


.
Well that might be a true statement, 20+ years of analysis always seem to point against this.

While its never a good thing to trust a computer analysis too much over testimony, the fact that 20+ years have shown a consistent series of angles that agrees with a majority of testimony cannot be so easily pushed aside.

As we have seen for the years prior to 85, trusting a few rouge accounts over the majority can lead to false ideas or presumptions of the sinking
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle Naber
Mar 18, 2008
2,194
501
183
Germany
Over an hour later the bow still had not dropped any lower. Lifeboat 13 was lowered down over an hour later and when they rowed away they noticed the ship's bow was still only down as far as E-deck on the starboard side.


Mr. Littlejohn
"Her forward E-deck ports were under the water"

Mr. Caldwell
"At first, she seemed unharmed but, as we looked toward the bow of the ship, we could see that the lower line of portholes extended down into the water."

Mr. Beesley
"There was nothing else to indicate she was injured....The lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea......We rowed away from her in the quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then."


This means the continuous settling down of the bow did not take place as the open corridors on E-deck averted the continuous settling of the bow for a significant length of time owing to the bodily sinking of the ship.
.
In Lifeboat No. 13:

Dr. Dodge

After we had been afloat possibly half an hour I observed, on looking at the steamer, that the line of lights from the portholes, showed that the vessel had settled forward into the water, but to no great extent. ... Watching the vessel closely, it was seen from time to time that this submergence forward was increasing. ... The gradual submersion of the vessel forward increased, and in about an hour was suddenly followed by the extinguishment of all the lights, which had been burning brightly, illuminating every deck and gleaming forth from innumerable portholes.

Beesley

There was nothing else to indicate she was injured; nothing but this apparent violation of a simple geometrical law - that parallel lines should "never meet even if produced ever so far both ways"; but it meant the Titanic had sunk by the head until the lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea, and the portholes in the stern were lifted above the normal height. We rowed away from her in quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then. The crew, however, did not think so. ... And all the time, as we watched, the Titanic sank lower by the head and the angle became wider and wider as the stern porthole lights lifted and the bow lights sank, and it was evident she was not to stay afloat much longer. ... At about 2:15 A.M. I think we were any distance from a mile to two miles away. ... About this time, the water had crept up almost to her sidelight and the captain's bridge, and it seemed a question only of minutes before she sank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob Lawes
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Well that might be a true statement, 20+ years of analysis always seem to point against this.

While its never a good thing to trust a computer analysis too much over testimony, the fact that 20+ years have shown a consistent series of angles that agrees with a majority of testimony cannot be so easily pushed aside.

As we have seen for the years prior to 85, trusting a few rouge accounts over the majority can lead to false ideas or presumptions of the sinking
But there is no majority of accounts that detail how the ship settled down between 12.30 and 1.30. Out of the 700+ survivors only a minority of them spoke in detail of the sinking. From the very start we are working only with a minority of accounts to determine how she sank and therefore researchers can only fill in the huge gaps with speculation and joint hypothesis based on what they believe happened with simulations and diagrams to push forward that narrative without any in depth knowledge of the condition of the ship when she settled down and sank e.g. how many portholes were open, which doors were open, or jammed, which walls collapsed, were there efforts made by the crew to slow down the flooding and channel the water into other sections of the ship? Was there an internal explosion or implosion before or during the break up? The answer to all of these questions remains unknown. e.g. A number of survivors saw the lights remain lit in the stern after she broke, yet this has been rejected by researchers because it doesn't 'fit' their hypothesis of how they believe she sank.

Always remember that all conclusions made are built on limited evidence and a great deal of speculation.

The 20 year old data just leaves us with more questions and few answers. Mr. Ray saw water on E-deck forward shortly after 12.30 while the occupants in lifeboat 13 saw the ship's bow had settled down to E-deck after 1.30 on the starboard side. Without any other survivors to contradict them that I can find (and certainly no majority) we have to believe what they saw and determine how the bow settled down to E-deck and remained like that for over an hour on the starboard side. The most obvious answer I believe is that the water washed along the corridor and down into sections further aft which allowed the ship to settle bodily, and stalled the downward trim of the ship for a considerable time.


In Lifeboat No. 13:

Dr. Dodge

After we had been afloat possibly half an hour I observed, on looking at the steamer, that the line of lights from the portholes, showed that the vessel had settled forward into the water, but to no great extent. ... Watching the vessel closely, it was seen from time to time that this submergence forward was increasing. ... The gradual submersion of the vessel forward increased, and in about an hour was suddenly followed by the extinguishment of all the lights, which had been burning brightly, illuminating every deck and gleaming forth from innumerable portholes.

Beesley

There was nothing else to indicate she was injured; nothing but this apparent violation of a simple geometrical law - that parallel lines should "never meet even if produced ever so far both ways"; but it meant the Titanic had sunk by the head until the lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea, and the portholes in the stern were lifted above the normal height. We rowed away from her in quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then. The crew, however, did not think so. ... And all the time, as we watched, the Titanic sank lower by the head and the angle became wider and wider as the stern porthole lights lifted and the bow lights sank, and it was evident she was not to stay afloat much longer. ... At about 2:15 A.M. I think we were any distance from a mile to two miles away. ... About this time, the water had crept up almost to her sidelight and the captain's bridge, and it seemed a question only of minutes before she sank.
I was talking about the length of time in which the bow settled down to E-deck around 12.30 and remained like that for over an hour as the occupants of lifeboat 13 saw the ship's head was still only down as far as E-deck more than an hour after Ray had seen the water on E-deck. What happened afterwards is not what I was debating.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 18, 2008
2,194
501
183
Germany
The 20 year old data just leaves us with more questions and few answers. Mr. Ray saw water on E-deck forward shortly after 12.30 while the occupants in lifeboat 13 saw the ship's bow had settled down to E-deck after 1.30 on the starboard side.

I was talking about the length of time in which the bow settled down to E-deck around 12.30 and remained like that for over an hour as the occupants of lifeboat 13 saw the ship's head was still only down as far as E-deck more than an hour after Ray had seen the water on E-deck.
What happened afterwards is not what I was debating.

Ray was on deck and saw the first lifeboat lowering and then went down to his cabin. That was well after 12:30. Lifeboat No. 13 left before 1:30 a.m. (Barrett mentioned he left BR 5 and got immediately to boat No. 13 at 1:10 a.m., Dr Dodge mentioned how they watched 1 hour long how the ship sank deeper) so your timing does not really match.

Mr. Littlejohn
"Her forward E-deck ports were under the water"
And as we see he said E Deck portholes were under water which means D Deck was close to the water level.
The ship was still sinking even it slow a little down when the water level reached E Deck.
 

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
173
134
53
36
New England
http://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Tear_Profile.jpg
Would the forward tower, along with the aft tower being pushed by it, smash against the "Unknown" section and destroy it?
Not really the likely outcome because the structural strength of the towers is not appreciably different than that of the galley area you're referring to. To be honest, I think it was part of the cracking process and disintegrated on the surface, so you're sort of right, but it's hard to tell because once the cracking started it would be a fairly chaotic process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seungho Kang
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Ray was on deck and saw the first lifeboat lowering and then went down to his cabin. That was well after 12:30. Lifeboat No. 13 left before 1:30 a.m. (Barrett mentioned he left BR 5 and got immediately to boat No. 13 at 1:10 a.m., Dr Dodge mentioned how they watched 1 hour long how the ship sank deeper) so your timing does not really match.



And as we see he said E Deck portholes were under water which means D Deck was close to the water level.
The ship was still sinking even it slow a little down when the water level reached E Deck.
According to James Cameron's research Lifeboat 7 was the first boat lowered on the starboard side at 12.45. Ray went down to E-deck and saw the water covering the forward portion of E-deck. Wheat also saw the water flood the forward part of E-deck and noticed the water was confined only to the starboard side as he observed it wash up the corridor on the starboard side and down into the turkish baths below the grand staircase. The ship was listing to starboard at that point which would result in the forward lights on E-deck being submerged on the starboard side. According to James Cameron's research Lifeboat 13 was lowered at 1.40am and when they rowed away and watched her forward lights they could see her starboard bow was still only down as far as E-deck i.e. porthole lights submerged, just as they were when Ray went down an hour earlier. Therefore the theory that the bow continued to drop down continually without stalling or easing back is therefore in my opinion debunked.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
173
134
53
36
New England
As an aside, if crack initiation did begin in the double hull, the strength deck is the corresponding member and might have actually held long enough to pull the stern into a more 'dramatic' trim condition as the entire bow was sinking. The geometry of that actually works out neatly. I've read the arguments for the crack starting in the keel, though, and I have to say I remain conflicted -- you can't separate any part of the hull structural girder, it was functioning as designed as a girder, until the bitter end the rest of the hull including the strength decks should have been distributing load and working as a system to resist much greater strength. At some point, the materials failed... Almost certainly at an identifiable weakness. Materials fabrication was not good enough to prevent variations in the period, something was weaker than the rest of the hull (this is why factors of safety were so high then, to guarantee you had a reasonable margin for the uncertainty of the means of production).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob Lawes

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
173
134
53
36
New England
According to James Cameron's research Lifeboat 13 was lowered at 1.40am and when they rowed away and watched her forward lights they could see her starboard bow was still only down as far as E-deck i.e. porthole lights submerged, just as they were when Ray went down an hour earlier. Therefore the theory that the bow continued to drop down continually without stalling or easing back is therefore in my opinion debunked.


.
That is eyewitness testimony only and is therefore insufficient to debunk any theory by itself.
 

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
173
134
53
36
New England
But the physics are not available for analysis as we don't know how many portholes amidships and aft were open, and how many bulkhead walls had failed which would transfer water rapidly out of the bow as it moved rapidly through the ship and aft owing to the bodily settling of the ship, and we don't know how many watertight doors were re-opened or re-closed, or jammed open by the bending of the ship's structure or left open slightly ajar by a discarded wheelbarrow, shovel, or human body blocking the door and preventing one or more from closing fully, or how many normal walls separating the upper sections had burst open by the weight of water building up behind the unsupported walls, or how much stress was put on the ship as she rolled violently from side to side, with the stern tagging behind with a slight delay which would create a chinese burn movement until her hull buckled open in the middle, and we don't know if the machinery was held in place by its weight alone and was not bolted down which would mean the strong list to port might have caused it to crash through the side. We also have the reported explosions that blew people off the deck, and the observation of millions of sparks shooting into the air with escaping steam and lumps of coal raining down near the lifeboats, and the multiple eye witnesses who saw and felt the bow rising up, and the V break edges of the double bottom which held the two tower sections together.

I believe there is good reason to believe the ship sank in the same manner those survivors had seen her sink. I remain optimistic that every possibility was possible.


.

Aaron, the V break didn't happen because the remaining air-filled spaces in the bow are much smaller than those amidships by statistical probability, because the hull volume is greater. The plate buckling you showed on the bottom is awesome. And it could have happened even if Titanic sank bow first. The reason for that is that the upper plates of the double bottom failed first and, under enormous tension and supported by the stern, those at the ship's bottom were being pulled, lengthened in the plastic zone of deformation, and with the bow accelerating downwards, still attached to the stern, the plates bent and stretched until they broke, in a tremendous wrenching motion which did fatal damage to the stern; improper weight balance in the stern then finished it off (i.e., the stern had bad trim because of the engine weight).
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
http://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Tear_Profile.jpg
Would the forward tower, along with the aft tower being pushed by it, smash against the "Unknown" section and destroy it?
I believe the portholes may have been open along the D-deck galleys where she broke.









The windows directly below on E-deck were possibly open as well.


Charles Joughin
Q - On E deck are the portholes in practice opened from time to time?
A - Very, very often we keep them open the whole of the passage.







To get an idea how she looked at the time the water rushed in we can look at the accounts of lifeboat 4 which rowed towards that area when she broke apart.



Lifeboat 4
Martha Stephenson (heard the ship starting to break as they rowed up the port side towards the stern)
"The order was called from the deck to go to the stern hatch and take off some men. There was no hatch open and we could see no men, but our crew obeyed orders, much to our alarm, for they were throwing wreckage over and we could hear a cracking noise resembling china breaking, which we learned later was the cracking of the boiler plates. We implored the men to pull away from the ship, but they refused, and we pulled three men into the boat who had dropped off the ship and were swimming toward us"


Lifeboat 4
Thomas Dillon (was one of the men who swam to lifeboat 4). He was on the boat deck when he heard the cracking sound and saw the bow break off and lurch downwards and then rise back upwards.)
"The bow seemed to bob up and then break off like a piece of carrot."


Lifeboat 4
Mrs. Hippach
"We heard a fearful explosion. I saw the ship split open. At the same time the ship's bow rose up in the air as the steamer sank towards the center."


Lifeboat 4
Mrs. Chaffee
"The ship sank steadily until just at the last, when it plunged rapidly. Just before going down it seemed to writhe (twist), breaking into the three parts into which it was divided. First the middle seemed to go down, lifting bow and stern into the air. Then it twisted the other way, throwing the middle up. Finally the bow went under, and it plunged, stern last."


Lifeboat 4
Mrs. Ryerson (Looked over her shoulder when she heard the explosion / cracking, and observed the bow breaking off and the 2 forward funnels leaning forward)
"I could see all the portholes open and water washing in, and the decks still lighted.....We rowed toward the stern, some one shouted something about a gangway, and no one seemed to know what to do. Barrels and chairs were being thrown overboard. Then suddenly, when we still seemed very near, we saw the ship was sinking rapidly. I was in the bow of the boat with my daughter and turned to see the great ship take a plunge toward the bow, the two forward funnels seemed to lean and then she seemed to break in half as if cut with a knife."


Putting their accounts together we can form a scenario based on what the occupants of lifeboat 4 saw.

e.g. The lifeboat is lowered down on the port side. They observe many portholes open. They approach the stern and hear the plates buckling and breaking. They watch the bow break off and lurch downwards. Dillon jumps overboard and climbs into the lifeboat. They immediately pull away and observe the bow buckling and rising upwards as she sinks rapidly down in the middle.

The above is just a summary of what those occupants in lifeboat 4 witnessed. Other occupants watched other events which completed the full picture of how she broke. The same procedure can be used with the occupants of the other lifeboats as some of them watched key moments of the break up occur which correlates to what the survivors in lifeboat 4 had witnessed as well e.g.


The survivors who witnessed the bow rise up were in lifeboats 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and also several on the ship and in the water.

Taking them into account we can get a picture of how the tower debris broke as it first buckled and rapidly dropped down, sending the middle down, and the footprint of the forward reciprocating engines could indicate that the heavy machinery dropped out of the ship or crashed forwards and fell onto the back of the bow, and the immediate lightening of the tower debris would allow it to rise up, and twist the bow and stern the other way as they detached - as witnessed by Mrs. Chaffee above.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
173
134
53
36
New England
Aaron, why do you think that an untrained observer who has no night vision because the lights only just failed can tell the difference between the bow and the stern at night?

Why is the portholes being open relevant? The ship is already breaking open and sinking... Only minor interior partitions would fail under the pressure of water entering a few feet below the free surface. Bulkheads and structurally secured partitions would not. Remember, it's a dead calm, Titanic is stopped, both those are normally different in other shipwrecks, and the water is entering at the free surface, not under pressure near the bottom of the hull. I keep seeing you repeat "collapsing bulkheads" like we're in SMS Lutzow at Jutland, making 25kts with a torpedo hole forward. Titanic wasn't that much weaker than a warship if the time! Water entering at the free surface isn't going to collapse anything called a bulkhead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ioannis Georgiou

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
873
366
73
18
Aaron, why do you think that an untrained observer who has no night vision because the lights only just failed can tell the difference between the bow and the stern at night?

Why is the portholes being open relevant? The ship is already breaking open and sinking... Only minor interior partitions would fail under the pressure of water entering a few feet below the free surface. Bulkheads and structurally secured partitions would not. Remember, it's a dead calm, Titanic is stopped, both those are normally different in other shipwrecks, and the water is entering at the free surface, not under pressure near the bottom of the hull. I keep seeing you repeat "collapsing bulkheads" like we're in SMS Lutzow at Jutland, making 25kts with a torpedo hole forward. Titanic wasn't that much weaker than a warship if the time! Water entering at the free surface isn't going to collapse anything called a bulkhead.
To be fair, I will say that people's eyes would have gradually been adjusting to the night as the power decreased and the lights burned orange. However, you're right in the sense that there's no saying that every single testifying person knew the correct terminology when it came to ships.

Like if an airplane sank and someone said one of the wings rose up in the air but it was the nose, that's something that can easily be switched around and confused, especially in a time of panic and trauma.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Aaron, why do you think that an untrained observer who has no night vision because the lights only just failed can tell the difference between the bow and the stern at night?

Why is the portholes being open relevant? The ship is already breaking open and sinking... Only minor interior partitions would fail under the pressure of water entering a few feet below the free surface. Bulkheads and structurally secured partitions would not. Remember, it's a dead calm, Titanic is stopped, both those are normally different in other shipwrecks, and the water is entering at the free surface, not under pressure near the bottom of the hull. I keep seeing you repeat "collapsing bulkheads" like we're in SMS Lutzow at Jutland, making 25kts with a torpedo hole forward. Titanic wasn't that much weaker than a warship if the time! Water entering at the free surface isn't going to collapse anything called a bulkhead.
As the lights remained on the stern section after she broke and the night was illuminated by tremendous starlight which made the funnels appear white after the lights went out and the upturned collapsible lifeboat appeared white and attracted the attention of the survivors in the water we can speculate with a good degree of possibility that it was bright enough to see what was happening. It was so bright that Mrs. Candee said:

"It was a marvelous sight all emphasized by a more than twilight and a heaven full of such stars as only an arctic cold can produce. They actually lighted the atmosphere. The sea with its glassy surface threw back star by star the dazzling array, and made of the universe a complete unity without the break of a sky-line. It was like the inside of an entire globe."

The sea was described as a dark blue and the stars shined down and reflected their brilliance on everything below. The wireless operator on the Parisian said the night was so clear and bright that it looked just like daylight and it was so bright that a game of football could be played. Therefore this rules out any theories that suggest it was too dark to see anything.

When the ship rolled over to port the waterline was level with C deck on the port side and level with E deck on the starboard side. The forward well deck was seen to submerge before the forecastle head which indicates how minor the forward trim was as she settled down heavily on her port side. Although the correct term is roll over as the waterline outside did not correspond with the water inside the ship. e.g.

Helen Candee could see at least two rows of portholes still shining below the waterline which indicates how much the ship had settled down and rolled over with several decks dipping below the waterline that were not yet flooded.

"When we reached the water I could see two lines of portholes under water, brightly lighted. That lighting of the ship to prevent the horrors of darkness during the death of the Titanic, represented the self-sacrifice of the electrical engineers.....Not until I saw the two lines of lighted portholes under the water had I the slightest idea of the truth. The Captain's voice again shouted emphatically. 'All boats row away from the ship. All boats keep together.'"


A bit like Jack in the film Titanic as he watches the ship and porthole settle below the waterline.




As the ship rolls over to port, more open portholes submerge along her entire broadside, drawing the lifeboats towards her side, and accelerates her top heavy roll as the boiler rooms below have not yet flooded.





Fred Barrett was down in boiler room 5 and believed something had given way.

"All at once I saw a wave of green foam come tearing through between the boilers and I jumped for the escape ladder. There was a knocking noise, but no explosion."


Possibly much like this sound at 0:14




Barrett was asked:
Q - Supposing that the bulkhead which is the fore-end of No. 5 had given way, would water come through it and through this pass?
A - Yes.
Q - Do you know yourself where it was the water came from, whether it had got through the bulkhead or not?
A - I did not stop to look.
Q - Now can you give me any idea whether the water came from over the top of the bulkhead or through it?
A - I do not see how it could come over the top.
Q - You do not think it did come over the top?
A - No.
Q - Now, when it came through this pass between the boilers, did it come with a rush?
A - Yes.
Q - Something had given way?
A - That was my idea.
Q - Something that had been holding the water back gave way?
A - That is my idea, my Lord.


The first rumble / explosive sound was heard between 10 - 20 minutes before the second larger explosion.


3rd officer Pitman said - "I assumed it was bulkheads going, myself."

Quartermaster Olliver said - "I thought they were like bulkheads giving in."

Mr. Mellors (standing near the bridge) said - "There seemed to be a tremble run through the whole of the ship and the next thing we heard were loud reports inside which I think were the watertight doors giving way."

Mr. Thayer (standing between the 1st and 2nd funnels) said - "Occasionally there had been a muffled thud or deadened explosion within the ship. Now, without warning, she seemed to start forward, moving forward and into the water.....accompanied by a rumbling roar, mixed with more muffled explosions."

Captain Moore of the Mount Temple had many years experience and told the Inquiry:
"It may have been that these bulkheads with the water coming in had collapsed. It may have been that the pressure of the air had started something up......I dare say some bulkheads would go."


As more portholes submerge on the port side she rolls heavily to port. The well deck submerges before the forecastle and the flooding of her port beam cabins pulls her down more and more by her port side.





The starboard condenser rolls above the surface and soaks the occupants in a starboard side lifeboat as it is being lowered, as the port side rolls under. The bursting of one or more bulkheads and unsupported walls causes a tidal wave of water to filter out of the flooded forward compartments and rush aft, thus correcting the port list and Lightoller mistakenly believes that the weight of passengers has corrected the list as orders were given for everyone to make their way to the starboard side to keep the ship up as long as possible. Cracks and buckling sounds are heard and she breaks in the middle. She sinks heavily in the middle which drags her bow and stern down, thus propelling their ends upwards. The engines break lose and fall down, the water sagging the middle down rushes out, and the bow and stern return to their pre-break positions, and sink down independently.


Just my two cents on what I believed occurred based on what I have researched so far.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
173
134
53
36
New England
All of your quotes from serious men are about bulkheads giving way lower in the hull where there is at least another atmosphere of pressure, and do not address my comment.
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,044
579
143
England
The starboard condenser rolls above the surface and soaks the occupants in a starboard side lifeboat as it is being lowered, as the port side rolls under.
The condenser outlet was always above the water line so I'm not sure where you got that from?

Boats 11 (soaked by the outlet) and 13 (pushed aft by the discharge) were affected by it. Neither of these two boats or boat 15 launched within moments of boat 13, report being affected by the significant list to port that you describe.
 

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
173
134
53
36
New England
The condenser outlet was always above the water line so I'm not sure where you got that from?

Boats 11 (soaked by the outlet) and 13 (pushed aft by the discharge) were affected by it. Neither of these two boats or boat 15 launched within moments of boat 13, report being affected by the significant list to port that you describe.
If there was a list of 40 degrees while those boats were being lowered in all certainty those boats and everyone in them would have perished. Any extreme lists before the last starboard boat is finished lowering away are impossible by the laws of reality and invalidate the theory. It's only possible to entertain discussion of an extreme list after lowering has been completed--and even then we have plenty of evidence against it.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The condenser outlet was always above the water line so I'm not sure where you got that from?

Boats 11 (soaked by the outlet) and 13 (pushed aft by the discharge) were affected by it. Neither of these two boats or boat 15 launched within moments of boat 13, report being affected by the significant list to port that you describe.
As the ship settled bodily as sections further aft flooded the starboard discharge outlet would submerge as well as the port one. When she began to roll over to port the starboard outlet raised above the water to a degree that soaked the occupants of the lifeboat. When lifeboat 15 was lowered the ship had rolled over so much to port that Frank Dymond said their boat had smashed against the side of the ship and damaged the gunwale by the thumping and scraping as they went down her side. Collapsible C had even more difficulty as their boat kept catching on the rivets which hampered the lowering of the boat. Frank Prentice said the ship righted and they finally managed to get the starboard side boats away as they were no longer stuck against the ship's side. "We couldn't get them down because she had a list to port, and you can imagine half way down they would have hit the side."



All of your quotes from serious men are about bulkheads giving way lower in the hull where there is at least another atmosphere of pressure, and do not address my comment.
The bow was tapered at the front with watertight doors below and above, with narrow passageways, boxed in rooms, cargo, mail, and coal reserve which would occupy a large percentage of space in the cramped bow section. The water would rise rapidly up from the mail room section and spill onto the E-deck corridor. The weight of water in the bow was only sufficient to pull her head down as far as E-deck. From that moment she flooded significantly slow, which created the illusion she was not going to sink any further. Even when lifeboat 13 rowed away shortly before she went down the occupants could see her starboard bow was still only down as far as E-deck, while the survivors on the port side could see her entire broadside settling very low in the water.


Lifeboat 13 survivors

Mr. Caldwell
"At first, she seemed unharmed but, as we looked toward the bow of the ship, we could see that the lower line of portholes extended down into the water. The lights on the Titanic burned until a few minutes before she sank."

Mr. Beesley
"There was nothing else to indicate she was injured.......The lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea......We rowed away from her in the quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then."

Mr. Littlejohn
"Her forward E-deck ports were under the water and we could see the lights gradually go out on the E-deck as she settled down. All her other lights were burning brilliantly and she looked a blaze of light from stem to stern. We watched her like this for some time, and then suddenly she gave a plunge forward."

Miss Dowdell
"Then there was one great explosion. I guessed it was the boilers. The Titanic did not stay up long after that, but tilted, bow downward, with a great part of the stern in the air. She steadied for a moment, then plunged under. Her lights were burning to the last."

A number of survivors saw the same thing i.e. the ship settling steadily and then the bow breaks and lurches forward and downward, before rising upward as the middle goes down.


All water that entered C, D, E, decks would spill down to the lowest accessible sections forward middle and aft owing to the lack of the forward trim and the natural and unnatural bending of the ship along her beam with possible sagging in the middle, and the roll to port would bottle that water against the port side and effectively delay the sinking of the ship and buy her more time. Even when the forward well deck had submerged the water would rush along the corridor and bottle against the port side cabins, rolling her over so much that Colonel Gracie thought she as going to capsize.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,044
579
143
England
When lifeboat 15 was lowered the ship had rolled over so much to port that Frank Dymond said their boat had smashed against the side of the ship and damaged the gunwale by the thumping and scraping as they went down her side.
That would still only describe a slight list to port. The list you describe (over 10 degrees) would have prevented lifeboat 15 from launching at all.