Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 9th, 2012, 12:07 PM   #1
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 2,170
Titanic Truth


I am so sick of the ongoing repetition of false theories on the sinking of the Titanic, and Cameron's grossly inaccurate portrayal that its time to set things somewhat right. Again.

In the hours after the sinking a survivor named Thayer seemed to be the only person who had any accurate understanding of how the ship went down... his testimony was so compelling to two of the crewman aboard the Carpathia that they actually made a series of 6 drawings, recorded only hours after the sinking.

here it is:
Click the image to open in full size.

Because the majority of passengers, who knew nothing about ships, reported the ship going down in one piece, This far more reliable witness' story was discounted and pretty much forgotten about.

It shows several areas in which the traditional, and even the more recent notions of the sinking were way off.
First, it show, correctly, that the ship's stern did Not break off due to being hung up in the air... but that the ship FOLDED, under the waterline, with the Bow bending back UP to surface briefly, and that this breaking of the middle DOWN is what brought the stern up initially.

Only after the Bow then sinks again and tears free does the stern right itself slightly, and Then the stern section swiveled to face the opposite direction before going vertical and hanging there for 5 minutes before sinking. The bow probably tore away unevenly, imparting this spin to the stern.

There are two reasons why this drawing is compelling... first of all, it explains why the upper decks of the ship were far more damaged than the lower hull at the break...because those sections were crumpled by the fold hinging around the bottom of the hull. And it perfectly predicted that when the wreck was found, the the stern would be facing the wrong way. ( no unexplainable 'theories' of the stern spinning as it sank thru the water like a propellor are necessary )

But more importantly it shows the actual forces acting on the ship, that so many "theorists" entirely missed.

A ship stays at the surface thru displacement. Picture the Titanic before striking the iceberg... the decks below waterline, the holds, the engineering spaces- all filled with air... the ship sits in the water displacing the amount of water that equals the weight of the ship.


Now consider... during the sinking... at every moment the ship remained at the surface, even partially afloat, she must, the whole time, have been displacing the exact same amount of water.

Unlike Cameron's vision where water inside the ship can be seen at the same level as the water outside the ship, even with the bow submerged, a large portion of the spaces inside the bow had to be dry. Even more dry that you might imagine as the water inside the ship moves with the ship and so adds to the amount the ship has to displace to remain at the surface.

The weight of the water in the forward section lifts the stern out of the water, like a seesaw, true... however, consider that the stern, once out of the water is no longer displacing Any water... for it to remain above water, the portion of the ship below water must be displacing its share of the weight of the entire ship, plus the water inside it.

Water did not flow freely thru the passages and compartments of the bow. They filled, but often slowly... but when the water reached the wide open engineering spaces, these areas filled rapidly with little to impede the influx of water.

The result was that the engineering spaces, already the heaviest portion of the ship, became vastly heavier with all that water.
The middle of the ship was held at the surface by the submerged portions of the ship that were still filled with air... the increasing weight of the ship, supported at either end by sections with barely enough buoyancy.

Folding in two, at the heaviest point, with the tip of the bow rising back up- NOT the stern breaking down due to its weight.

Once all the decks at the break were compromised, the bow flooded more rapidly and sank again, the reverse bend tearing it loose, and allowing the stern to settle back somewhat...
But note that the drawings do not show the stern dropping back down level again ( as does the movie )

As the bow sank, it STILL had air in it. just not enough to displace the weight of the bow section. There must have been people in some compartments, who sank, alive, with the ship, ultimately killed as the air found its way out, or by the increasing pressure in the remaining air as she sank.


When you see the drawing of the ship down at the bow, its stern in the air- you have to try and visualize that, internally, the water level in the ship would have to be 20 to 30 feet Lower than the sea level outside... that is the only way the ship can remain at the surface.
It was the not the weight of the stern that broke the ship- it was the force of buoyancy trying to hold the ship UP against the increasing weight of the vessel, when that weight of ship and inboard flooding exceeded the the strength of the steel, it buckled.

The Drawing of Thayer's account not only perfectly predicted the damage to and distribution of the wreck as she was found... it also is the only account that actually agrees with the physics acting on the hull as she sank.
sculptingman is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 9th, 2012, 05:33 PM   #2
Academician
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 75

Recorded how many hours after the sinking? Seems a bit quick brother, didn't it take them four to pull the boats from the water? Likely weren't drawing diagrams immediately, just warming up freezing people and counting survivors.

Not trying to be contrarian, just struck me as a bit too soon.
Alamo is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 07:34 PM   #3

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

It was dark as well, there was bound to be many interpretations of what was seen and from what angle.
I'm sure the surviving crew members left their recollections as well and they would be well schooedl in nautical happenings.
tjadams is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:03 PM   #4
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,296

It could be seen against the stars. Not sure the phase of the moon.

I think the bottom keel plate plays a role here to. It was the first part laid for the ship, and I think it ripped off at some point and was found a distance away from the other two section.

That the open middle engineering sections filled rapidly and caused the ship to fold could have also caused the base plate to rip off.
steve53 is offline  
Old March 10th, 2012, 08:10 AM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Florida
Posts: 1,358
Blog Entries: 1

Not objecting to your account, but there are factors you have not considered.

1) The passenger accounts could be that some viewed the scene from behind the aft section, away from the iceberg, and therefore it would appear from the rear as if the ship sank in one piece despite any twisting of the ship. According to the image below the ship remained close to the iceberg and the passengers viewed the sinking from behind, and it would be logical to say they were further away from both the ship and the iceberg than the artists interpretation suggests, and that the artist rendered a 3/4 view of the ship to better explain multiple events that took place over several hours.

Click the image to open in full size.


2) The 11:45 PM image you provided, shows the ship striking the iceberg and the bow rising out of the water. No where in your account, or any other that I have read, indicates the ship rose out of the water, or to what extent the iceberg projected out under the water.

Click the image to open in full size.


The Wikipedia the photo below has a caption that states, "The iceberg suspected of sinking the RMS Titanic; a smudge of red paint much like the Titanic's stripe was seen near the base."

Click the image to open in full size.
See
Iceberg Iceberg


If this is the iceberg, its shape certainly looks similar to that in your sketch above, and does not indicate a pillar shape that would have straight walls that go down deep under the water. Instead it shows a shape that could gradually extend out under the water which would account for the raising up of the ship out of the water considering the ship's speed. The sharp break in the iceberg where the paint smudge is could have been the result of the ship striking the upper part of the iceberg. The movie as I remember shows snow and ice falling on the decks.

What affect the ice under the ship would have on the ship's breaking up and sinking is unknown and not predictable. But, it could impact on how long the ship stayed afloat, and its twisting, before the ice entangled in the ship, or beneath the ship, broke off.

This is all hypothetical, and so is any other opinion, because there is no way to prove otherwise. But, it is fun to play with all the possiblities.
PragmaticStatistic is online now  
Old March 10th, 2012, 10:09 AM   #6

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,940

As we always say in Northern Ireland, there was nothing wrong with her when she left Belfast
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old March 10th, 2012, 12:02 PM   #7

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,817
Blog Entries: 5

I have a theory based at the point of impact..

The story goes the iceberg tore a long gash along the side of the ship below the water line...

I disagree.

First point is that icebergs floating that far down South into the Mid-Atlantic become relatively smooth below the waterline due to melt.

Second point. I believe that the Ship did hit the iceberg but the inertia of a body with that much mass, caused the ship to keep going after it hit, popping a line of rivots all along one side opening a long seem between the poor quality iron plates allowing in a torrent of sea water. Only then did the weight of the moving ship push it passed the iceberg but the damage was already done.

This may have contributed to the break up several hours later.

I have never heard of any reports taking into accounts the huge weight of the ship and the damage trying to stop it would cause because of,...inertia.
larkin is offline  
Old March 10th, 2012, 01:51 PM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Florida
Posts: 1,358
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by larkin View Post
I have a theory based at the point of impact..

The story goes the iceberg tore a long gash along the side of the ship below the water line...

I disagree.

First point is that icebergs floating that far down South into the Mid-Atlantic become relatively smooth below the waterline due to melt.

Second point. I believe that the Ship did hit the iceberg but the inertia of a body with that much mass, caused the ship to keep going after it hit, popping a line of rivots all along one side opening a long seem between the poor quality iron plates allowing in a torrent of sea water. Only then did the weight of the moving ship push it passed the iceberg but the damage was already done.

This may have contributed to the break up several hours later.

I have never heard of any reports taking into accounts the huge weight of the ship and the damage trying to stop it would cause because of,...inertia.
Check out this PDF file from curry.eas.gatech.edu. Go to page 1262 (eight pages in) to see the computer-generated image on the left showing the underwater profile of an iceberg, shown in the photo above it, whose under water ice shelf extends far out from the upper part of the iceberg. It seems to fit both your scenario and mine. It implies that the shape of the berg seen above water can be very different underwater.

Then read the next page about the economic factors and how small icebergs cause more damage because they are harder to find with radar due to their melted small above-water size.

Thus, to your point, the ship may have passed upper part of the iceberg that it struck as the photo shows in my first post. While to my point, the ship may have still have remained over the underwater ice shelf. Making us both potentially correct and account for the illustration showing the ship lifting out of the water and the delay in sinking.

It may also be possible that the iceberg's under shelf moving towards the ship, may have contributed to the folding and twisting of the ship had the weight and movement of the iceberg pushed against the submerged bow of the ship causing the bow to slide up an underwater ice embankment, brake off from the aft section, and slide backwards down the embankment. Causing the aft section to teeter and twist in the process. I know this sounds really far out. But it can make sense when you factor the iceberg itself contributing to the delay.

Last edited by PragmaticStatistic; March 10th, 2012 at 01:52 PM. Reason: missed a typo
PragmaticStatistic is online now  
Old March 10th, 2012, 06:38 PM   #9

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,817
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
from PragmaticStatistic: Thus, to your point, the ship may have passed upper part of the iceberg that it struck as the photo shows in my first post. While to my point, the ship may have still have remained over the underwater ice shelf. Making us both potentially correct and account for the illustration showing the ship lifting out of the water and the delay in sinking.
The watch did report the iceberg to the brige and the ship did start a turn. We know that the Titanic did not hit the iceberg head on but there was an impact of some sort.

I can see where the issue of inertia was not discussed at the time. Blame was leveled at the iceberg as a hazard too late to be avoided. The iceberg was to blame.

If the issue of inertia had been the focus of the investigation, it would have placed the blame squarely at the feet of Captain Smith and to the ship craft of Harland and Wolff. Perhaps politics and commercial interests influenced the inquest.

I am fully aware of the fact the as much as 70% of an iceberg is below the water. When melt changes this proportion icebergs have been known to suddenly flip over revealing a smooth surface of soft contours.

If the visitors to the wreck had found the hull breech that supposedly was caused by the iceberg it would shed light on what really happened.

Torn metal and displaced plates would indicate a tear by an external source.

A long open seam of broken rivets would have been the result of impact that couldn't stop the ship. Inertia kept the ship moving forward causing the hull to compact, then opening the hull along lateral lines.
larkin is offline  
Old March 10th, 2012, 07:25 PM   #10

Mosin's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: under the bridge
Posts: 411

The two links are to the same site.
The first is the home page.
The second is a direct link to the message board, collision/sinking theories.
Enjoy.

Encyclopedia Titanica : Titanic Facts, Survivors Stories, Passenger and Crew Biography and Titanic History

Collision / Sinking Theories

Mosin
Mosin is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
titanic, truth


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two kinds of truth or two sides of truth? kowalskil Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 51 May 1st, 2014 04:18 PM
Titanic fans HERE??? Titanic 2 movie is here! Heidi XX History in Films and on Television 37 October 4th, 2012 10:50 AM
If The Titanic never sank. Inspiration Speculative History 35 October 24th, 2010 09:45 PM
Titanic. Toolbox123 General History 3 November 17th, 2007 09:51 AM
Titanic flaja General History 2 October 16th, 2006 04:36 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.