Hello Captain Collins,
From what I quickly read, and relay here (hopefully without too many serious errors), the November 18 1929 Laurentian Slope Earthquake and South Shore Disaster measured 7.2 on the Richter Scale - Burin Peninsula to the north was hit hard 2 1/2 hours after the quake with 3 pulses of water reaching from 2 to 7 meters with a maximum perhaps 3 times that in some of the narrower bays. Approximately twenty seven people lost their lives. The quake could be felt in New York and a tsunami was recorded along the East Coast as far south as South Carolina and across the Atlantic in Portugal. The Canadian coast sustained damage along 48 km of shoreline. There was a displacement of approximately 200 cubic km of material in the Laurentian Slope and 12 or 13 transatlantic cables were parted (though none by 13 miles..). It has been estimated that the speed attained by suspended underwater sediment was reduced to 14 mph when and where the last cable broke, about 295 miles downslope (south) from the shelf. The time of the breaks is known - 8 nearest the epicenter broke suddenly and the rest at a slowing rate. The epicenter of the quake was at 44° 69' N 56° 00' W - a distance of 687.1242 nm from where the bow section is now (and was before then). The wreck speaks for itself it many ways; one might not expect such a localized break but perhaps a more widespread disturbance from a quake related incident. And the dispersion of the lighter items, such as the teacup on the boiler, does not suggest quake activity to me. Many have mentioned several points about the boilers - what do you say? How did they get where they are? Does this wrecksite appear disturbed to you since 1912 and if so, how?
I would think a 14 mph sediment laden turbidity current can be very, very powerful indeed, but is there evidence of turbidite deposits or Bouma Sequences in the region where the wreck itself rests? Is this location "protected" or hidden by geological features as is often said? It has been stated the 1929 earthquake/slope collapse triggered a turbidity current spreading the finer deposits as far as 500 miles away from the toe of the landslide over a vast area of the Atlantic in excess of 100,000 miles. The walls of the Laurentian Fan were scoured by the turbidity current, and suggest a height of about 300 meters or more. This wave of mud, sand and pebble size material was actually started by slope failure and not the quake itself.
What could a 14 mph turbidity current do to the Titanic (assuming an unbroken liner etc.. neutral buoyancy etc.. 13 miles drift. and resting upright I assume....etc..) with her displacement of approximately 52,310 tons along with the 117,239,444 pounds of water filling her? How might this be calculated? What kind of forces would be exerted? Does the wreck site and its location/dispersion support any of this? If I read correctly this shock/quake wave would have hit the last cable some 13 hours and 17 minutes after the actual quake. It seems the turbidity current lasted for between 4 and 11 hours. Could a sustained 14 mph turbidity current break Titanic in roughly two and deposit those sections a half mile apart - both upright - while leaving the both lighter and heavier items relatively close by? If there were a steadily slowing current flowing for many hours from the epicenter (a known point), would this not result in the lighter objects coming to rest (lightest = furthest) in a recognizable dispersal pattern away from the source of the quake? I am getting way out "of my depth", so please excuse any errors - logical or factual. I'd guess that if Titanic were hit by this current the result would be much less Titanic spread out over way more area. The most relevant connection I currently see between the Titanic and this seismographic event is that the Olympic was in the area at the time and shook for 2 minutes.
Can you give us a "simple" explanation of your scenario/position for those trying to understand it? I posted this once before and post it again in the hope you might respond. Again, pardon what must be several errors, but no one seems to discussing your theory and I'd like to see your explanation of it.
Best,
Eric Longo
