Runboard.com
Слава Україні!


Forum hosted by Runboard | TDTSC Home        Please register for a free account (Learn about it) | Login to TDTSC (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 

 
graham 01 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Middlesbrough UK
Posts: 5797
Reply | Quote
another probability theory


Hi All

Ok been sitting here doing some work on the research I am involved in at the moment, and this has made me think of something .

We all now know Titanic broke in two, This was not of course definite till Ballard found the wreck. Now this has made me think about something which I have not seen anywhere else before.

So a troll in my library to find a copy of a essay where I can remember seeing this little point, or big point depending how you look at it.

The essay in question is from one of Harland and Wollf pages
http://www.harlandandwolff-ts.co.uk/hwtech.serv/hwts3.shtml
TITANIC, the story from a ''Shipbuilders'' point of view, as told by Tom McCluskie.

This paper says the most likely point at which Titanic would break was the furnace ash removal door.

This door was 370 feet from the stern of Titanic on the port (left) side at E Deck level

So lets consider this then. Titanic starts to sink, she rocks on the axes of this point. Stern goes up in the air and breaks her back. Now remember the Titanic is down by the bow, the aft of the ship is above water. No water is inside the ship at this point.

Now for argument sake lets say it was a clean break on the surface. The aft of the ship now smashes back down in the water.

But in reality this is not what happened, The hull of the ship was a lot stronger than the top and decks, So it did not snap of, therefore dragging the aft down under water to its grave.

My point you ask, well its simple, had the ship snapped in half and the aft slammed back into the ocean could it of floated independently? If this was so and to be honest don't see any reason why not then she would of saved all passengers apart from the people trapped in the front half.

Regards
Graham

---
Why dont people do what they say nowadays http://www.freewebs.com/hms-kellington/
http://www.freewebs.com/graham7760/index.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/hmsroyaloak/
Mar/17/2004, 6:12 pm Link to this post Send Email to graham 01   Send PM to graham 01 Blog
 
wills Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 02-2004
Posts: 4308
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


hello ,
yes graham i too have thought of that very thing.
my answer would be yes i think she would have stayed afloat.

i studied it for a long time and kept comming up with that same conclusion.
especially where she broke in half. right between two water tight doors.


i have always thought it funny that the two things designed to help her destroyed her.
those are
the water tight doors.
the double bottom.

the 'water tight' doors turned out to be not so watertight.
and the double bottom aided in that too.
if the ship would have broken completely in half the stern would have fallen back level.
however that is not what happened. she broke down to the keel and that is what pulled her under.
so again graham,
we have the same level of thinking.
wills


---
Suicide is a permenant solution to a temporay problem........

Whatever obstacles control,
Go on, true heart,
thou'lt reach the goal.


http://com4.runboard.com/bthetitanicshack
wills~~~~~
Mar/18/2004, 1:37 am Link to this post Send Email to wills   Send PM to wills Blog
 
graham 01 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Middlesbrough UK
Posts: 5797
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


Hi Wills

Yep well now great minds think alike, just one thing though the water tight doors did hold it was the bulkheads that did not, water cascaded over them as they did not go to the top, had this of been done then another scenario might of been that night.

I do think though like you say one of the safety factors sunk her in the end, if not two like you say.

Any other people have a opinion?

Regards
Graham

---
Why dont people do what they say nowadays http://www.freewebs.com/hms-kellington/
http://www.freewebs.com/graham7760/index.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/hmsroyaloak/
Mar/18/2004, 6:50 am Link to this post Send Email to graham 01   Send PM to graham 01 Blog
 
Titanica Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 551
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


Hi Graham, Hi Will,

I believe the ship might have not split in half completely. I guess from the upper few levels only, but still attached from the lower floors; just like when you try to break a bar of Mars or Snickers chocolate, it will break from the top (above water) only and that's what the survivers saw. But below water the two halves must have been still attached, so when the bow went down it pulled the stern with it.

---

Mar/18/2004, 8:15 pm Link to this post Send Email to Titanica   Send PM to Titanica Blog
 
Titanica Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 551
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


I must add that it might have split totaly on the way down....remember it is almost 4 km distance to sea-bed!

---

Mar/18/2004, 8:23 pm Link to this post Send Email to Titanica   Send PM to Titanica Blog
 
wills Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 02-2004
Posts: 4308
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


hi titnaica,
yes i believe that it broke to the keel at the surface but didnt completely break untill about 250 ft down. that is probably what the passengers heard durning the sinking.
wills

---
Suicide is a permenant solution to a temporay problem........

Whatever obstacles control,
Go on, true heart,
thou'lt reach the goal.


http://com4.runboard.com/bthetitanicshack
wills~~~~~
Mar/18/2004, 11:02 pm Link to this post Send Email to wills   Send PM to wills Blog
 
Titanica Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 551
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


Yes that is true (I believe), if you remeber at the begining of JC's Movie Titanic, they showed a beautifuly made computer animated sinking of the Titanic. It shows just that!!

---

Mar/18/2004, 11:07 pm Link to this post Send Email to Titanica   Send PM to Titanica Blog
 
wills Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 02-2004
Posts: 4308
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


yeah i like most of that movie.
some of it [the factual things] i like but the whole rose and jack senerio i am not crazy about.
wills

---
Suicide is a permenant solution to a temporay problem........

Whatever obstacles control,
Go on, true heart,
thou'lt reach the goal.


http://com4.runboard.com/bthetitanicshack
wills~~~~~
Mar/18/2004, 11:28 pm Link to this post Send Email to wills   Send PM to wills Blog
 
Titanica Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 551
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


I understand why JC added that fictional part in the Titanic movie. I guess the movie was not meant for the "Titanic Ship" fans only. It was mean for the general public who are (I guess) not interested in the ship herself. The general public, since day 1, after the sinking, were shocked about the loss of lives. Cameron wanted us to know someone from the ship to taste the Tragidy of loosing someone you know in such a horrible way. The only question that remains is why did not he use a real persons story? I read somewhere about real Love stories that happened on board the Titanic. People were seen huging, kissing and showing their affection right till it disappeared under water!! One story I remember reading and loved (brought tears to my eyes), is that of two old Rich couple who refused to part. The old lady did not want to go on a life boat without her husband....instead she gave her seat to her poor maid (in fact she gave her her "Fur Coat" too saying: ..."I won't be needing it anymore"... No this is a realy moving gesture from these rich old people. When I read that, I wished that JC took that story and amplified it a bit...but probably he was after teenagers as well....remember, he wanted to make money too!

---

Mar/19/2004, 7:15 am Link to this post Send Email to Titanica   Send PM to Titanica Blog
 
graham 01 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cedric Member

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Middlesbrough UK
Posts: 5797
Reply | Quote
Re: another probability theory


Hi Wills and Titanica

That was my point, The ship did not break in two halves at the surface causing the full sinking (foundering) front section to drag the aft, which was still in my mind full ballast, down with it. This means of course the hull in this case was too strong.

The aft had it snapped of completely was still as I say in full ballast so would of floated for well whatever time. in fact it could of stayed afloat till towed back .

Regards
Graham

---
Why dont people do what they say nowadays http://www.freewebs.com/hms-kellington/
http://www.freewebs.com/graham7760/index.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/hmsroyaloak/
Mar/19/2004, 7:16 am Link to this post Send Email to graham 01   Send PM to graham 01 Blog
 


Add a reply to this TDTSC topic.

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (Login to TDTSC)


Copyright © 2003-2018 TDTSC Maritime Network