The Break-up of the Titanic: Viewpoints and Evidence
A detailed discussion of structural failure as the Titanic sank....
The Break-up of the Titanic: Viewpoints and Evidence
- Thread starter Encyclopedia Titanica
- Start date
-
- Tags
- break-up
A number of survivors who witnessed the sinking claimed the stern broke off but were scoffed at by White Star at the time. If you examine where the Olympic was severely damaged it matches up with where the Titanic's stern broke-off when a million tons of water, boilers, coal, fixtures, furniture, etc. were trying to pull it under. The ship was at 90 degrees sticking straight up. The air locked in the stern could not escape fast enough & the weakpoint tore open and broke off. An Irish shipyard worker/seaman named Patrick 'Paddy-the-Pig' Fenton fessed up to exchanging the nameplates allegedly so the Olympic would not miss any scheduled runs. I believe the millionaire's captain, E.J. Smith, intentionally hit that iceberg so the former-Olympic would finally be covered by insurance for J.P. Morgan, IMM & the White Star Lines. They knew the wreck would be 2&1/2mi below the icey North Atlantic
Capt MFG1 (1266)
Member
An excellent review. I am confident that Titanic did not break up on the surface. I say this based on eye witness reports which confirm events depicted in "A Night To Remember". Walter Lord spoke to 40 or more survivors including 3rd officer Pitman and 4th officer Boxhall. Director James Cameron said he wanted to create a Titanic 'spectacular'. In other words, never let facts stand in the way of a good story. Nothing could have been more spectacular than the actual events of April 15, 1912. I hope the fiction depicted in the Cameron movie will not be repeated in future films.
[email protected] Jake
Member
the titanic would have broken in two on the surface the suspension joint would have been the course of the break up I'm from the British titanic society and I'm a titanic historian and I have been a titanic expert for 17 years the titanic broke from the superstructure to the bottom as the suspension joint was between the third and fourth funnel she would have broke when the bow was submerged it has also been proven that the break would have been unexpected and as the bow was being pulled down right through the sinking the suspension was flexing as of course the bow and suspension joint was not designed to take the strain of the water in the bow you have to take in to account that there was only one section of the ship that was taking water on that night the stern was being pulled by the bow and the ship would have snapped at the most weakest part of the ship and that would of been the suspension joint and the white star line changed the plans of the suspension joint was changed on the Britannic and that she would have gone through the same stresses as her sister would have gone through but she did not break in two like the titanic and also Eva heart said that she saw the titanic break between the third and fourth funnel and the ship broke from the super superstructure to the bottom and not the bottom to the superstructure if the ship had broke because of the double bottom the ship would have broke from bottom to the superstructure
Scratch Back
Member
Hi, I can't help but notice that the top down expansion/suspension joint failure doesn't collaborate with my research. That being said, you don't have to look far when it comes to titanic. I say that, because we can compare the front expansion joint failure to the sterns expansion joint failure. The forward expansion joint failure in the officers cabins collaborates with my research of ships that fractured apart at there expansion joints. If it were the expansion joint in the after part of the ship that failed, note its large compartments where it broke. This allows me to believe the fracture should more resemble other ships that fractured at the expansion joint, a fracture from top to bottom. This makes me question it greatly, do to wreckage we see on the bottom of the ocean. The wreckage reveals a large missing midsection of the ship. It reveals a large V shape pattern, and with certainty fragmentation as well. I can't help it but feel there is some truth to what some witnesses described it exploded in halves. Considering the pattern and fragmentation roughly between the 3-4 funnel. So I compiled all the witnesses that said explosion, exploded, blew up, or something similar as volley of musketry. I'm rather shocked how many said this, and I was truly shocked when I read some inquiries stating before the sinking, during, and after it sank. Especially the one inquiry describes that describes a 1,2,3 explosion before the lights went out, as if the explosions were in sequence... I can understand some could of got these noises or visual depictions wrong during the catastrophic breakup took place but before and after, doesn't make sense to me. I feel Mengot is right about the bottom up theory, but for the strongest part of the ship (the double bottom) to fail first(compared to the susp/expansion joint) has me scratching my head. Now if we go by how witnesses such as Osman, Collins. That visually saw/heard the ship explode in the water and out of the water. I feel we found the culprit that broke the camels back to say(Titanic's double bottom). No I can see why everyone steers away from this thesis, is that we have nothing to explain it away. That is none of the boilers found, show any signs of explosion. Just maybe it was intentionally sank by WSL for particular reasons and this where nobody wants to go sort of path. I understand why, its like saying WSL is crazy and everyone got to be in on it right? Now lets forget that for minute and see if we can rule explosions out at least. I mean most metallurgy test I read are focused on the strength of the steel/iron. Other then some visual analysis of markings. I feel a test for deformation of all the structural failures should be compared/cross examined and it would greatly answer our questions or at least rule explosions out. Until then we should remain open minded about this until its completely ruled out.
Scott Tucker
Member
There was no swapping of ships. The Titanic is the one that sank and this has been debunked many, many, many times.I read a couple books on it and almost fell for the idea... now I feel like an dolt even considering there may have been a switch because I did deeper research and used simple common sense.Titanic's hull number was 401 and Olympic was 400. When Olympic was scrapped, her fittings all had "400" stamped on them and this can be seen in photos on the web if you look.
Chuck (4329)
Member
Interesting and informative-- BUT you say: "Ballard's historic discovery in 1985 of the wreckage of the Titanic. . ." he did not find it alone -- let's give some credit to the others on the expedition.
user401911
Member
A very clever theory. But more misdirection than truth. If you really want a good story, google "The Titanic Hoax Miles Mathis";.
Do you mean the pseudo-scientist that claims Pi = 4?
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
