Titanic Animations
Member
This was originally written in French, I used Google Translated and GIMP to translate the text to English. If the map is correct, the forward tower wandered off to starboard along with both pieces of the keel bottom.
mitfrc
Member
Aaron, I think we've said enough to each other on this matter. I suggest letting others judge for themselves based on what they read. Thank you.
Seungho Kang
Member
I never implied that the bow rose up again and sank. I don't believe in that anymore. I know that it was just the bow rolling.
It is in a V shape because the bow goes down in a gradual angle pulling the stern until it separates. The bow makes a 80 degree angle and descends, while the stern settles back and sinks while rotating.
Then again, how did the forward tower break away from the stern?
A "third break" is not possible, as no stress would cause the stern section to break again.
And a clean break cannot sink the stern or delay the sinking, as mentioned by Roy Mengot.
Seungho Kang
Member
This gives me another question. Only the keel and forward tower lies east, while the galley deck section(the "Chunk of deck including kitchen areas"), boilers of BR #1 and rest of the "middle section" lies near the stern.This was originally written in French, I used Google Translated and GIMP to translate the text to English. If the map is correct, the forward tower wandered off to starboard along with both pieces of the keel bottom.
The aft tower has its decks flipped back to the stern, meaning it was broken during implosion, while the forward tower still remains intact with its decks, meaning it broke before the stern implosion.
The "Large quantity of coal" might mean the coal burst out from the coal bunkers when the bunkers made impact.
If the forward tower broke by the "third break", the coal bunker and the galley decks would lie in the same region, far from the stern.
Why did the structures below the 3rd funnel ended up so far apart?
David G. Brown
RIP
Towers...what towers? I've asked this several times for a good reason. There were three nearly identical structures in Titanic and one slightly different all called (then and now) "casings." They have never been called "towers" any more than the Grand Canyon has ever been called a "creek," or Buckingham Palace called the "Queen's bungalow."
Also, anything defined as "forward" on a ship is located toward the bow. Thus, the "forward tower" ,if it existed, would be part of funnel #1 and the structure supporting and/or serving it. A "forward tower" by definition and nautical custom would never have been part of the third funnel structure.
If there were a "forward tower," it would have been the "No.5 and No. 6 boiler casing. Next aft would have been the "No. 4 and No 3 casing." Then would come the "No. 2 and No 1 casing." Note that these names correspond to the #1, "#2, and #3 funnels which carried exhaust gasses up from the boiler fires in their corresponding boiler rooms. They did this through a system of uptakes, fiddleys, ventilators, and fan trunks. By nautical definition, no "towers" were involved.
The fourth casing primarily served the engine room from which it got its name. It was the smallest of the four casings and also served the galley fires.
Casings originated to keep smoke and coal dust out of the passenger accommodations back when steamships were new. Most of them were built of lightweight sheet metal over an equally light framework. They added very little strength to the hull. In today's shipyards the light steel used for such purposes is often called "tin" or "tinwork" by shipwrights. Well, wen you compare it to the side plating of a freighter I guess it is "tinny."
Nearly all elevation drawings of the ship use the same weight of line for the casings and uptakes as they do for the bulkheads and other heavy structural parts. The result is quite misleading as to the comparative strengths of materials. I urge extreme caution against making this mistake.
Could a casing have come roaring out of the ship like a falling box of rocks pushed from an airplane? Perhaps. I personally don't see it likely and virtually impossilbe forward of funnel #3. But that casing serving boiler rooms No. 1 and No. 2 up went through the full breakup. Maybe that casing could fall out, but only if the structural members to which it was attached had already failed and were no longer part of the hull structure.
-- David G. Brown
PS -- Roy was a great guy, but an American. He introduced himself to me as Roy "Men-got," with no trace of a French accent. The producers of the video should check out this detail. No research is better than its smallest error.
Also, anything defined as "forward" on a ship is located toward the bow. Thus, the "forward tower" ,if it existed, would be part of funnel #1 and the structure supporting and/or serving it. A "forward tower" by definition and nautical custom would never have been part of the third funnel structure.
If there were a "forward tower," it would have been the "No.5 and No. 6 boiler casing. Next aft would have been the "No. 4 and No 3 casing." Then would come the "No. 2 and No 1 casing." Note that these names correspond to the #1, "#2, and #3 funnels which carried exhaust gasses up from the boiler fires in their corresponding boiler rooms. They did this through a system of uptakes, fiddleys, ventilators, and fan trunks. By nautical definition, no "towers" were involved.
The fourth casing primarily served the engine room from which it got its name. It was the smallest of the four casings and also served the galley fires.
Casings originated to keep smoke and coal dust out of the passenger accommodations back when steamships were new. Most of them were built of lightweight sheet metal over an equally light framework. They added very little strength to the hull. In today's shipyards the light steel used for such purposes is often called "tin" or "tinwork" by shipwrights. Well, wen you compare it to the side plating of a freighter I guess it is "tinny."
Nearly all elevation drawings of the ship use the same weight of line for the casings and uptakes as they do for the bulkheads and other heavy structural parts. The result is quite misleading as to the comparative strengths of materials. I urge extreme caution against making this mistake.
Could a casing have come roaring out of the ship like a falling box of rocks pushed from an airplane? Perhaps. I personally don't see it likely and virtually impossilbe forward of funnel #3. But that casing serving boiler rooms No. 1 and No. 2 up went through the full breakup. Maybe that casing could fall out, but only if the structural members to which it was attached had already failed and were no longer part of the hull structure.
-- David G. Brown
PS -- Roy was a great guy, but an American. He introduced himself to me as Roy "Men-got," with no trace of a French accent. The producers of the video should check out this detail. No research is better than its smallest error.
mitfrc
Member
I don't think the casings have much to do with the "towers", David. I took the "towers" to be "Titanic community lingo for SILSFOOB1 and SILSFOOB2", which are my attempt to translate into DOD abbreviationese, meaning "Semi-Intact Large Superstructure Feature Observed On Bottom"; in the almost extinct tongue called "plain English" they might be called "detached chunks of the upper decks". I understand being pedantic very well since I am an engineer and guilty of it often, but I just felt it easier to go with the flow here.
Titanic Animations
Member
I used the term 'towers' because it is what they are described as when viewing Roy's archived website. Meant no disrespect or ill-misleading intent in using that term. If I offended you or confused you about it, I'm sorry.
I never had the chance to meet or correspond with Roy, I wasn't privy to this pronunciation of his name. I can assure you it'll be correct if he is mentioned in any future video I produce.
Michael-McDonnell
Member
If a V break did happen the bow should've imploded like the stern due to escaping air but didn't by looking at the wreck of the bow.
Michael-McDonnell
Member
Forensic evidence trumps witness testimony.
Survivor accounts always seem to be they said this, they said that, all due to faulty memories, personal perception emotional reactions to life threatening situations.
Kyle Naber
Member
Exactly. Eyewitness accounts are extremely important and telling, but if the wreck can absolutely rule out a phenomenon that was reported to have happened, then it couldn’t have happened. If the wreck were all in one piece right now, then of course they would have been wrong about the ship breaking apart.
Michael-McDonnell
Member
People like Aaron1912 wouldn't use forensic evidence just a few survivor accounts and the Skidmore sketch which don't prove how the ship sank and broke apart, just using the sketch as proof without taking into account it was so dark that night and everyone traumatized by it all or using forensic evidence to back it up.
ShinGoji (Kiefer)
Member
True, Jack Thayer himself even said that the Skidmore sketch was wrong. also it was never Jack Thayer's sketch it was Skidmore, and Skidmore just drew WHAT JACK THAYER WAS TELLING. but Jack then himself said the sketch was wrong. the "ends" sticking up as well is not the bow but just the stern, English was different back then so the word "ends" was "end". "forward end" on the other hand may refer to the bow but not necessarily the Forecastle, it could be any end, the stern or it could also be the broken ends or the area where it split. also In Roy Mengot's theory the bow does move up as the stern settles back and it does seem that the bow did actually "Rise".
It's just impossible for a 90,000 ton bow that is filled with water to rise back again, because it would totally be impossible and it violates Physics itself.
It also has to have forensic evidence and just like what Roy Said "The process has to leave the wreck the way we find it today." it should be what it seems in the wreck today, and it also should follow the survivor accounts an not just cherry-pick those accounts and make it seem like "it fits" it should account every single detail and etc.
The Fall of The Forward tower may seem to have been like this:
(GIF From my Upcoming Real Time and a Analysis I made based on Roy Mengot which explains the Break-up I made shown in the Following GIFs [you may also leave opinion on my break-up analysis])
Attachments
Cam Houseman
Member
The forward tower was misnamed by Roy Mengot, said Bill Sauder. I had a conversation with him and he said Roy misnamed it, its really just a lump of junk on the oceanfloor. The only tower debris to exist is the (Aft) Tower north of the Stern, which was named so because it stands up like an apartment building, and centers around the Engine casing. (Me and a friend have a theory that the uptakes are super strong and are what help the stern and Bow standing.)
The other hull piece is, literally as Parks Stephenson said in 2012, is "A big, ugly, pile of junk."
The other hull piece is, literally as Parks Stephenson said in 2012, is "A big, ugly, pile of junk."
