Draining the Titanic sinking theory

[Kyle Naber]

I don't see a way to edit my last message, but I want to add that an acknowledgement that the amount of accounts that the ship broke on the surface lends credence to those accounts. I clicked on your link and have only read a few accounts so far. There are two things that strike me. One, the crew members are so far divided on what happened, and I feel like their accounts may have a little more weight than the passengers' because the crew would have had more experience at sea and would have known more about what was going on. I'll try to keep an eye on that as I read further. Two, in the sampling I've read, I've seen a lot of people saying they heard noises that they thought meant the ship was breaking and things like that. I have seen one or two accounts of people saying they could tell the ship broke even in the dark, but I still wonder if they could have been mistaken.

Again, I wonder about the possibility of a sort of hybrid scenario in which the upper decks split but the hull didn't. That could explain the different accounts as people saw the upper decks split but they weren't able to see the hull and they just assumed it had also split. On the other hand, there still would have been debris coming off the ship at that point, so if there's anything to this theory about the debris field, that would also disprove the hybrid break-up.

Lots of it will depend on the witness’s vantage point. The way the ship sat in the water, you’d hear the low rumbling of the hull underwater and the metallic clanging as the deck/deck houses/funnel fell.

At the 2:37:50 mark, you can see the ship hogging downward before the decks open up:

 

[atomicmouth]

I don't agree with that as applied to the Titanic situation. The crew might have had experience with regular navigational and other shipboard matters, but none of them had seen a large ship - largest in the world at the time as a matter of fact - break into two main sections till then. In fact, I think the testimonies by the "inexperienced" passengers who reported that they saw the Titanic break apart is actually a bit more credible because they would have reported what they saw - or thought they saw - without fear of ridicule or corporate repercussions. On the other hand, some of the crew who thought that they saw the Titanic break might have hesitated to admit it because of the risk of being dismissed and ridiculed. An experienced crew member would have found it difficult to believe himself that a ship like the Titanic could actually break the way it did and so there is a good chance that many of them never mentioned it. But some crew members did and those statements, combined with those from the surviving passengers when collated and considered together, very strongly suggest that the titanic did indeed break apart at the surface very close to the manner that is now believed.

I did not find William Lange's theory very believable.

That's a good point, and I actually had a similar thought. I wondered if White Star might have influenced the crewmembers' testimonies in some way.

While I found Lange's theory intriguing and plausible (as a layperson), the thing that bothers me the most about it is that he doesn't explain exactly how he reached his conclusion about the debris or how debris is supposed to behave. He just presents his claim and expects everyone to accept it as if the debris radius explains itself. Still, if it's bunk, I'd like to see it debunked with a logical explanation about ocean debris that proves his idea is false. But who knows about the way debris sinks? Has anyone ever actually studied it?

 

[atomicmouth]

Lots of it will depend on the witness’s vantage point. The way the ship sat in the water, you’d hear the low rumbling of the hull underwater and the metallic clanging as the deck/deck houses/funnel fell.

At the 2:37:50 mark, you can see the ship hogging downward before the decks open up:

So, based on this model, my idea of a hybrid break-up is possible. For what it's worth, I'm not sold on that either. I'm fascinated by all the possibilities, and I want to explore them all.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

I don't see a way to edit my last message

Hello and welcome to the Encyclopedia Titanica Message Board,

There is an edit button found on each of your posts. Once your post is up, you have 60 minutes to edit it; after that it's there to stay.

The evidence that the ship broke apart lies at the bottom of the North Atlantic, which is the wreck and it doesn't lie. I wouldn't put much stock in Bill Lange's theory, as there are simply too many accounts from survivors stating that they witnessed the ship breaking apart on the surface.

I recommend reading this well researched article which features 101 survivor accounts:

The Titanic Break-Up

Prior to September 1985, if you had read a book or an article about the sinking of the Titanic, it would often say that the ship sank intact. The discovery of the shipwreck changed all of that...

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

 

[atomicmouth]

Hello and welcome to the Encyclopedia Titanica Message Board,

There is an edit button found on each of your posts. Once your post is up, you have 60 minutes to edit it; after that it's there to stay.

The evidence that the ship broke apart lies at the bottom of the North Atlantic, which is the wreck and it doesn't lie. I wouldn't put much stock in Bill Lange's theory, as there are simply too many accounts from survivors stating that they witnessed the ship breaking apart on the surface.

I recommend reading this well researched article which features 101 survivor accounts:

The Titanic Break-Up

Prior to September 1985, if you had read a book or an article about the sinking of the Titanic, it would often say that the ship sank intact. The discovery of the shipwreck changed all of that...

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

Thank you.

I don't doubt that the ship broke up because that much is obvious. My question is when that happened. I'm not prepared to believe Lange's theory, and I understand that most people, including scientists, believe that happened on the surface. I'm just curious about the evidence and what it suggests, or, as I said, WHEN it suggests. I think witness accounts are often unreliable (and not just in Titanic's case), but maybe I haven't given them enough credit. It was a chaotic night, but a gigantic ship breaking up in front of you seems like a hard thing to imagine or to be wrong about. I still wish I knew more about the physical evidence and when it says the break-up happened.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I'm just curious about the evidence and what it suggests, or, as I said, WHEN it suggests. I think witness accounts are often unreliable (and not just in Titanic's case), but maybe I haven't given them enough credit. It was a chaotic night, but a gigantic ship breaking up in front of you seems like a hard thing to imagine or to be wrong about.

Yes, I understand what you are saying and to some extent, that was what I referred to in my previous post. When it sailed out on its maiden voyage, the Titanic was the largest, the most luxurious and one of the strongest looking ships of the time, capable of carrying over 3300 people - passengers and crew - when full. When it struck the iceberg and started sinking, that fact in itself would have caused a sense of surrealism and disbelief among the eventual survivors. So, when it actually broke apart just before disappearing from the surface, the people who saw it - passengers and especially the crew - could not believe their eyes........and some of them likely decided not to and so never mentioned it. But more than sufficient people did claim that they saw the Titanic break into two (main sections) at the surface and this included some crew who were more or less accurate about the point of break.

Even though many witnesses mentioned the break-up either during their testimonies or in private newspaper interviews after the disaster, it might not have received much publicity at the time because even the reporters probably thought the story was too ridiculous to print. In the years that followed, various books and articles about the Titanic concentrated on the growing myth about the pre-disaster public perceptions of its 'unsinkability' to glamorize the whole thing and that did not sit well with reports that the ship had broken apart before sinking. When I first saw Skidmore's sketches of the sinking Titanic based on Jack Thayer's impressions decades ago, I remember thinking how silly the idea a massive ship could break-up like that was. It was only after Ballard's team discovered the wreck in September 1985 and the analysis that followed that reality started to take over in the public mind.

To summarize, I believe that there were more than enough survivor accounts mentioning the break-up in the immediate aftermath of the disaster for us to conjecture that it happened at the surface.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

My question is when that happened.

It occurred at about 2:18, forward of the third funnel and aft of the second.

Ships are not designed to be strung up in the air; there was simply too much stress placed on the Titanic. Before she sank, approximately 36,000 tons of water had poured into her, which is well above what she could have handled in four watertight compartments (an estimated 15,000 tons).

Even the White Star Line didn't want to believe that she broke in two, let alone that she sank. They firmly believed that the Titanic was "practically unsinkable". Some survivors believed that the noise they were hearing from the lifeboats was the boilers exploding but in actual reality, it was the ship breaking apart. As Arun says, there are too many survivor accounts from various angles (depending on where each lifeboat was located at the time) to simply dismiss the fact, that the liner broke at the surface.

Here's an interesting YouTube video that someone uploaded last year, regarding all the various perspectives from the lifeboats and what survivors witnessed:

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Some survivors believed that the noise they were hearing from the lifeboats was the boilers exploding but in actual reality, it was the ship breaking apart.

Definitely. the sound from the decks, keel and other structures ripped apart in such a catastrophic manner would have been very loud and IMO could have gone on for around a minute or more. For lack of any better term, many survivors described them as "explosions" although they might not have been 'conventional' explosive sounds that we modern folk think of. Over time, some survivors, reporters who were told about the sounds and later analysts believed that they might have been due to exploding boilers, but AFAIK there was no evidence of exploded boilers in or around the wreck site.

I have never understood the conjecture that the hot boilers of the Titanic could have exploded due to contact with icy cold water. While that was a theoretical possibility, in case of the sinking Titanic many boilers - for example those in BR6 and then BR5 were exposed to the cold water comparatively early when they would have been close to their hottest and did not explode. By the time BR4 started to flood, the vented steam and passing time would have made the boilers not as hot and so even less likely to explode.

That is my halfpenny worth anyway. I don't know what the others think about it.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

For lack of any better term, many survivors described them as "explosions" although they might not have been 'conventional' explosive sounds that we modern folk think of.

Yes that is correct, including Arthur Peuchen who felt sure "that an explosion had taken place in the boat, because in passing the wreck the next morning..." while "standing forward looking to see" if he "could see any dead bodies, or any of his friends", and to his surprise he noticed the barber's pole floating.

Senator SMITH.
Did you hear the explosions?

Maj. PEUCHEN.
Yes, sir; I heard the explosions.

Senator SMITH.
How loud were they?

Maj. PEUCHEN.
Oh, a sort of a rumbling sound. It was not a sharp sound - more of a rumbling kind of a sound, but still sharp at the same time. It would not be as loud as a clap of thunder, or anything that way, or like a boiler explosion, I should not think.

Senator SMITH.
Were these explosions evidently from under the water?

Maj. PEUCHEN.
I should think they were from above. I imagined that the decks had blown up with the pressure, pulling the boat down, bow on, this heavyweight, and the air between the decks; that is my theory of the explosion. I do not know whether it is correct or not, but I do not think it was the boilers. I think it was the pressure, that heavy weight shoving that down, the water rushing up, and the air coming between the decks; something had to go.

Senator SMITH.
How many explosions did you hear?

Maj. PEUCHEN.
I am not absolutely certain of this, because there was a good deal of excitement at the time, but I imagine there were three, one following the other very quickly.

This is indicative of the ship breaking apart on the surface, rather than below. If I recall correctly, other survivors descriptions were quite similar. But I don't have my notes handy at the moment, so will need to double check.

I have never understood the conjecture that the hot boilers of the Titanic could have exploded due to contact with icy cold water. While that was a theoretical possibility, in case of the sinking Titanic many boilers - for example those in BR6 and then BR5 were exposed to the cold water comparatively early when they would have been close to their hottest and did not explode. By the time BR4 started to flood, the vented steam and passing time would have made the boilers not as hot and so even less likely to explode.

I agree with you. If the boilers were going to explode, then you would think they would done so, long before the final minutes.

 

[WentHulk]

I don't agree with that as applied to the Titanic situation. The crew might have had experience with regular navigational and other shipboard matters, but none of them had seen a large ship - largest in the world at the time as a matter of fact - break into two main sections till then. In fact, I think the testimonies by the "inexperienced" passengers who reported that they saw the Titanic break apart is actually a bit more credible because they would have reported what they saw - or thought they saw - without fear of ridicule or corporate repercussions. On the other hand, some of the crew who thought that they saw the Titanic break might have hesitated to admit it because of the risk of being dismissed and ridiculed. An experienced crew member would have found it difficult to believe himself that a ship like the Titanic could actually break the way it did and so there is a good chance that many of them never mentioned it. But some crew members did and those statements, combined with those from the surviving passengers when collated and considered together, very strongly suggest that the titanic did indeed break apart at the surface very close to the manner that is now believed.

I did not find William Lange's theory very believable.

Honestly neither do I.