Kyle Naber
Member
Ever since the discovery of the wreck, many questions surrounding the breakup of the ship came up. What I still wonder is what does seeing the ship split apart actually mean? Cameron's film presents a scenario in which little debate would have been formed during the inquiries. Newer progressive and stability testing shows a break which occurs right as water reaches the base of the third funnel:
If the Titanic was listing to port and broke just in front of the third funnel, wouldn't it only be possible to see the actual seperation of the plates from the starboard side?
Edward John Buley in lifeboat 10 (port side) was questioned at the inquiries:
"Senator FLETCHER: What do you mean by saying she snapped in two?
Mr. BULEY: She parted in two.
Senator FLETCHER: How do you know that?
Mr. BULEY: Because we could see the afterpart afloat, and there was no forepart to it. I think she must have parted where the bunkers were. She parted at the last, because the afterpart of her settled out of the water horizontally after the other part went down. First of all you could see her propellers and everything. Her rudder was clear out of the water. You could hear the rush of the machinery, and she parted in two, and the afterpart settled down again, and we thought the afterpart would float altogether."
This gives me the impression that the people in the boats on the port side must have heard a couple of explosive sounds, and then the stern would fall back on an even keel without the front half of the ship without seeing the actual break. What are your opinions?
If the Titanic was listing to port and broke just in front of the third funnel, wouldn't it only be possible to see the actual seperation of the plates from the starboard side?
Edward John Buley in lifeboat 10 (port side) was questioned at the inquiries:
"Senator FLETCHER: What do you mean by saying she snapped in two?
Mr. BULEY: She parted in two.
Senator FLETCHER: How do you know that?
Mr. BULEY: Because we could see the afterpart afloat, and there was no forepart to it. I think she must have parted where the bunkers were. She parted at the last, because the afterpart of her settled out of the water horizontally after the other part went down. First of all you could see her propellers and everything. Her rudder was clear out of the water. You could hear the rush of the machinery, and she parted in two, and the afterpart settled down again, and we thought the afterpart would float altogether."
This gives me the impression that the people in the boats on the port side must have heard a couple of explosive sounds, and then the stern would fall back on an even keel without the front half of the ship without seeing the actual break. What are your opinions?
Last edited: