PragmaticStatistic

Thanks for the links.

Here are some interesting info I found in the above links, the two people involved in the thread discussions below appear to be very knowledgeable and popular as well (the yellow highlights are mine):

Thayer's account of list/turn: Tim Brandsoy

"He returned to the stateroom (C-68) to get his parents They went to the starboard side of A deck where John B. Thayer senior thought he saw small pieces of ice floating around, but Jack saw nothing. As they crossed to the port side they noticed that the ship had developed a list to port."

----


Collison: Samuel Halpern

"Did she handle sluggishly? Was there enough time to turn away for the bow to miss hitting the object? Was the ship really turning when contact with the ice was made? What was the time interval between the 3-bell warning signal from the crow's nest to ice contact? How much time before or after ice contact were engine orders sent down to the engine room? How do you resolve all the inconsistencies in the various testimonies given by witnesses, including the helmsman, lookouts, those below in the machinery spaces, and the ship's 4th officer?

The truth is we really don't know the details of what happened except that the ship made contact along it's starboard which caused fatal damage to the ship."

-----

My comment:

Is the opposition between the damage to the hull on the starboard side, and the list to port, evidence of any affects of the angle of the ice shelf beneath the ship leaning away from the upper portion of the iceberg? Or, am I just messing with the information to prove my wild and crazy concept? Until this thread, I never had any interest or knowledge of the facts involved in the Titanic sinking. From what I read in the above links this morning, there is much that contradicts itself. So, even a wild and crazy concept like mine may be valid.

PragmaticStatistic

A few minutes ago I thought of something that I should have included earlier. What impact would a 46,328 ton ship, traveling at 22 knots, have on a floating and drifting iceberg? Would it make the iceberg spin in the current, and in the process change the underwater ice shelf shape that is under the ship over a period of time. In other words, what impact would a rotating ice shelf of constantly changing elevations, being pushed by a sea current, have on the sinking ship?

I am simply amazed that none of the discussions on the other Titanic treads ever considered the impact of the iceberg on the ship beyond the initial contact.

tjadams

Interesting
Full Titanic wreck site is mapped for first time | Fox News

and

What sank the Titanic? Scientists point to the moon | Reuters

larkin

My point exactly

PragmaticStatistic

Its coordinate has also been Google Mapped on my interactive map of Sunken Ships of the Atlantic.

Belgarion

What do photographs of the wreck reveal? While the ship is in two main sections is there any evidence of the 'zipper' opening of the hull on the starboard side, or of the explosive release of air under pressure that would be the result of the bow section sinking rapidly in an almost vertical attitiude.

larkin

Ballard and others looked but apparently the opening is below the mud and the split of the ship into two separate wrecks makes an assessment unlikely.

PragmaticStatistic

See the web site Marconigraph by Parks Stephenson, who pretty much confirms my ice shelf theory a lot better than I ever could.

• See the subhead, "So, what DID cause the sinking of the Titanic?"
  
• It explains how the ice shelf impacted the ship.

Then see the section titled, "3.0 Grounding"

• Which explains the grounding with the ice shelf in detail.

sculptingman

Um... from the moment the Carpathia started picking up survivors, those survivors were asked to recount the sinking.

Thayer's account was identified by the seamen aboard Carpathia as being the most credible and detailed.
And the drawings were made literally that morning, to Thayer's recollections.

The compelling bit is that the story that got accepted was the Sank in one piece story. And Thayers account forgotten.

But when the wreck was found, the damage and position was exactly as would be expected based upon his description.
'

sculptingman

The problem is the lack of damage to the base plate... in Cameron's reconstruction, the stern falling off should have BENT or folded the base plate down as the rest of the steel pulled apart from tensile forces.

But they weren't bent. A large section from the break was found unbent... as if its seams had torn from direct tension. This - plus the wide wedge shaped area of crumpled damage to the decks above this area all supports a hull busting at the bottom, first, with either end folding up