Was the forward funnel the only one to collapse

[Alex McLean]

Jeremy,
I was using the reference of Britannic to explain that because of the stability of her in comparison to Titanic, it is no surprise the funnels still remain.
You have made a very interesting point, though, in saying that perhaps the funnels of Titanic drifted further away from the wreck. It then raises the question as to why steam pipes and whistles were found near the wreck site.
My best,

Alex

 

[Chris Mazzella]

Well i found out the metal used to construct the funnels was 1/2" or more, but the thing is if u look at the opening where the first funnel once was there are stills parts of the funnel attached so wouldn't that leave a possiblity for the funnels to remain. Maybe not completely deteriorated but partly.

 

[Jeremy Lee]

>>Maybe not completely deteriorated but partly<<

However if the funnels were crushed by the water pressure etc. and now lies SOMEWHERE partly buried on the sea floor, then who knows?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

The funnels would not have been crushed by the water pressure. They would have been flooded solid from the moment they were submerged so this wouldn't even be an issue. That doesn't mean that impact with other debris or with the bottom would have done them a lot of good.

 

[Dustin Dwayne Vanderpool]

If you notice in the animation sequence in JC's TITANIC you can see where all the funnels fell above water level except for the second which gives way right after going underwater I think that the animation in this film is probably pretty accurate to what actually happened to the ship when it sank especially the segment which shows the bow hit the ocean floor..

 

[Parks Stephenson]

We have evidence that the #2 funnel hit the Gymnasium roof and the Boat Deck just outboard and slightly aft of the Gymnasium. The damage indicates that this happened before that area was submerged.

Parks

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Interesting, Parks. What evidence suggests this? Does the fact that the gymnasium is already caved in have anything to do with this (despite 93 years under water)?

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

Hi, Dustin!

>>I think that the animation in this film [JC's Titanic] is probably pretty accurate to what actually happened to the ship when it sank . . .

You may get an argument from some quarters over that, I'm afraid.

Roy

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Mark,

The collapse of the Gymnasium roof and the large hole that has opened up in Boat Deck has revealed structural members that show sign of impact stress. After viewing the post-collapse imagery, I concluded that the relatively early collapse of the Gymnasium roof and the extensive dissolution of the Boat Deck in that area is no coincidence...I believe that we have sufficient evidence to assert that their decay was accelerated by the trauma suffered during the sinking. The structures around the starboard base of the #2 funnel are greatly distorted and/or mangled, as opposed to the pristine condition of their counterparts to port. The internal shaft of the boiler uptake is pulled sharply out-of-round aft and to starboard.

Your "93 years under water" falls short of explaining what I have seen in the imagery. If that were the case, then the Marconi Room roof would have collapsed before the Gymnasium's. Which, by the way, is something to keep in mind when evaluating claims of damage wrought by submersible landings.

Parks

 

[Parks Stephenson]

quote:

>>I think that the animation in this film [JC's Titanic] is probably pretty accurate to what actually happened to the ship when it sank . . .

You may get an argument from some quarters over that, I'm afraid.

Known problems with the sinking animation are being corrected, as we speak. The new revision should be more accurate.

Parks​

 

[Alex McLean]

Parks,
Will we have a copy of this new animation sinking with the special edition DVD, or by a different medium. Who's lending their assistance to it?
My best,

Alex

 

[Erik Wood]

Parks just wondering...do you have a specific reason in mind for the 2nd funnels collapse??

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Parks,

The only reason I mentioned the "93 years under water" was to suggest that the gymnasium roof's collapse was due to something other than corrosion and decay, which has been suggested in a couple of other books I've browsed. When you mentioned the theory about the 2nd funnel affecting damage upon the gymnasium, I automatically thought about the roof collapse, because the point you made about the Marconi rooms stuck out in my mind at that point. I knew that there must have been a correlation between the toppling of the 2nd funnel and the early collapse of the gymnasium roof.


>>Parks just wondering...do you have a specific reason in mind for the 2nd funnels collapse??<<

Is it possible than when the forward expansion joint shifted it caused the forward funnel to topple and, at the same time, loosened the 2nd funnel base. This may also serve as indirect evidence that at the time the forward expansion joint shifted (the collapse of forward funnel and loosening of 2nd funnel base), the ship was listing to starboard. In my mind, there's no other possibility at this point, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

By the way, my "93 years under water" doesn't fall short of anything, as I never implied it served a cause for anything (see in the post above). Just thought I'd clarify that. In other words: I'm right there on the same page with you.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Alex,

I can't answer your question, because there are certain proprietary concerns that must be satisfied before the animation can again be made public. The animation is being revised to accommodate new findings but unless those legal hurdles can be leaped, the revised animation may not become public. In other words, all the work going into a new revision may be for naught. That's all I can say at this time.

Erik,

I do not have anything specific in mind, other than the fact that during my analysis work for NOAA, I noticed the damage mentioned above and concluded that the #2 funnel had caused it. I'll leave those observations in your and others' hands, to construct scenarios as fits their theories. To paraphrase a certain news organisation's tagline, "I report, you decide."

Mark,

I would like to stress again my recommendation not to make too much of the open expansion joint. Three reasons: First, a common misconception is that the expansion joint represents a weak point in the hull structure (I read this in a thread just today, don't remember where). That is not true...the expansion joint was a device used in older ships (it's rarely used today in shipbuilding, thanks in large part to the improved qualities of steel) to allow the superstructure to flex atop the hull without causing ductile tearing in its lighter steel. The expansion joint did not penetrate the strength deck, which forms the top of the hull girder (B Deck, in Titanic's case). Second, the funnel stays were designed so that they could accommodate the flex of the hull and superstructure. The stays could also be removed in calm weather without fear of the funnel collapsing, although I can't tell you what it would take to topple an unsecured funnel. Third, the opening of the expansion joint that can be observed at the wreck today was caused by impact with the bottom and collapse of the hull girder underneath. Yes, the expansion joint opened up on the surface, but not to the unnatural degree seen at the wreck today. Last month, I had a lengthy discussion about this subject with an authority whose insight, knowledge and practical experience I greatly respect. We agree that the funnels collapsed not because of the tilting deck or parting stays, but rather because of differential water pressure inside the boiler casings. That's all I will say at this time, because the man with whom I had the discussion will soon make public his theory on this and I don't want to steal his thunder. He will also present the evidence that we believe supports this theory.

Mark, I also misread your comment about "93 years under water," mostly because I am constantly being criticised for looking into reasons behind the pattern of decay, rather than accepting the simplistic notion that everything is falling apart naturally without any help from other forces. To some of these people, it's like the ship suffered no trauma until Dr. Ballard discovered the wreck.

Parks