What happened to the Forward Tower?

[Kyle Naber]

And if the Titanic broke after the collapse of the 2nd funnel, it is more likely that it would break aft of the 3rd funnel, because the stress would move away from the "middle" of the Titanic.

These images are from https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/attachments/study-titanic-pdf.39309/

Both of the funnels would have collapsed at this point.

This graph shows that even at a “high” angle of 23°, the greatest concentration of stress is pinpointed right in front of the third funnel, which matches up with Thayer’s placement of the break.

 

[marina_irc]

It's no accident that the area between the bending moment and shear force peaks corresponds with the area that broke up.

 

[Seungho Kang]

After some research, I have come to believe that the Titanic broke when it reached this angle:

I don't think that the bow rose up into the air in any way, but still it rolled to starboard after the breakup, causing the survivors in the starboard collapsible to feel the deck rising. Their collapsible lifeboat would have been drifted near the second funnel base, which it got caught in the guy wires.
Instead of the double bottom, I think that the strength deck would act like a hinge, buckling the double bottom into an A shape.

(the coal bunker would fall out in this moment)

 

[marina_irc]

You're at an 80pct solution now with the diagrams you provided. The main thing is that the hinging would never be so dramatic. The ship would, after the first break, still only be hogging by a matter of feet. The hinging you show would have long severed every single material connection and would prevent the second failure. Even after a primary strength member fails, all the other connections will hold the ship together... For a while. This is why ships with broken backs have even made it into port before in one piece.

 

[Itsstillthinking]

After some research, I have come to believe that the Titanic broke when it reached this angle:
View attachment 44116
I don't think that the bow rose up into the air in any way, but still it rolled to starboard after the breakup, causing the survivors in the starboard collapsible to feel the deck rising. Their collapsible lifeboat would have been drifted near the second funnel base, which it got caught in the guy wires.
Instead of the double bottom, I think that the strength deck would act like a hinge, buckling the double bottom into an A shape.
View attachment 44118
View attachment 44119
(the coal bunker would fall out in this moment)

Im sorry but what does after "some research" mean?

We have had three major forensic study's since 1996 and while the results of each has varied slightly, all have pointed towards a angle of trim of 16-23 degrees of trim before the main fracture began or when the strength of the material was surpassed

 

[Seungho Kang]

You're at an 80pct solution now with the diagrams you provided. The main thing is that the hinging would never be so dramatic. The ship would, after the first break, still only be hogging by a matter of feet. The hinging you show would have long severed every single material connection and would prevent the second failure. Even after a primary strength member fails, all the other connections will hold the ship together... For a while. This is why ships with broken backs have even made it into port before in one piece.

Would there be a possibility for the bow to simply break away instead of the third diagram?

 

[marina_irc]

Seungho, think about the reports by many that there were a series of "explosions". These explosions represent massive structural failures. However, the hogging from each one would be small, because otherwise the deformation of the ship as a strength girder would have strained the others to failure. Stresses and physical displacement are linked physically.

 

[Seungho Kang]

Again, I would like to know which "tower" and/or "towers" are the references of this thread. Obviously the conversation is not about the non-ferrous metal support for the standard compass. Nor can any of the four funnels be under consideration. By definition they are "funnels" or "uptakes," or even in lubberly language "smokestacks." The structures round the bases of the funnels are properly known as "deck houses," or by the name of their function such as "officers dining saloon." Again, a dining saloon is not a tower. So what are we talking about here?

-- David G. Brown

http://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Tear_Profile.jpg
The "forward tower" I am mentioning is about the section of decks A, B, C, D and parts of E deck marked yellow in this diagram, just below the third funnel, and on top of the "galley deck" section.

 

[Itsstillthinking]

Would there be a possibility for the bow to simply break away instead of the third diagram?

There is no possibility of the bow floating or righting itself by the forward trim.

We have to remember there is a reason why the final plunge was starting, the ship was sinking. If the bow could correct its forward trim or do a v break, that means that there is sufficient buoyancy left to keep it afloat, if this is the case then the ship would not be sinking.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Would there be a possibility for the bow to simply break away instead of the third diagram?

It does not take much to break a ship's back. In calm weather tankers and freighters break their backs due to misplaced cargo, and uneven ballast distribution.

In 1943 just 16 days after the SS Schenectady was completed she suddenly broke in two while moored in calm waters. Cold weather and low grade metal were blamed for the breakage.

My cousin worked on the big blue funnel tankers for decades and when we discussed the Titanic breaking and how the survivors saw her rolling from side to side, twisting, and breaking in the middle, he was confident by their descriptions that the water rushing in various decks along her midships was more than sufficient to unsettle the ship and cause her to rock, fracture, and break, just like a tanker loaded with uneven ballast or cargo. They can break so easily in calm waters, and the slightest roll can create a rocking motion which continuously rocks the ship from side to side owing to the water inside dipping, and rising and pushing the ship from side to side into a dangerous roll that accelerates the breaking of the ship.


Correcting the ballast levels is essential to prevent a long ship like the Titanic from breaking amidships.

Miss Glynn
"We watched the Titanic rolling and bobbing like a cork. All her lights were burning, and over the water we caught the strains of 'Nearer, My God, to Thee.’ Finally Titanic ceased rolling, seemed to hesitate a moment, and plunged her bow into the ocean."

2nd officer Lightoller
"....Reeling for a moment, then plunging."

John Haggan
"The ship was shaking very much."

Mr. Barkworth
"I remember somebody shouted: 'Go gently!' as if a sudden shift of weight would have disturbed the ship's position."

Colonel Gracie
"There was a very palpable list to port as if the ship was about to topple over. 'All passengers to the starboard side,' was Lightoller's loud command, heard by all of us."

Samuel Hemming
"The captain was there, and he sung out: "Everyone over to the starboard side, to keep the ship up as long as possible."


.

 

[Aaron_2016]

There is no possibility of the bow floating or righting itself by the forward trim.

We have to remember there is a reason why the final plunge was starting, the ship was sinking. If the bow could correct its forward trim or do a v break, that means that there is sufficient buoyancy left to keep it afloat, if this is the case then the ship would not be sinking.

Mr. Ray saw the first lifeboat lowered down on the starboard side shortly after 12.30am. He went below decks and saw the forward part of E-deck was underwater. Over an hour later the bow still had not dropped any lower. Lifeboat 13 was lowered down over an hour later and when they rowed away they noticed the ship's bow was still only down as far as E-deck on the starboard side.


Mr. Littlejohn
"Her forward E-deck ports were under the water"

Mr. Caldwell
"At first, she seemed unharmed but, as we looked toward the bow of the ship, we could see that the lower line of portholes extended down into the water."

Mr. Beesley
"There was nothing else to indicate she was injured....The lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea......We rowed away from her in the quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then."

This means the continuous settling down of the bow did not take place as the open corridors on E-deck averted the continuous settling of the bow for a significant length of time owing to the bodily sinking of the ship.


.

 

[Itsstillthinking]

Mr. Ray saw the first lifeboat lowered down on the starboard side shortly after 12.30am. He went below decks and saw the forward part of E-deck was underwater. Over an hour later the bow still had not dropped any lower. Lifeboat 13 was lowered down over an hour later and when they rowed away they noticed the ship's bow was still only down as far as E-deck on the starboard side.


Mr. Littlejohn
"Her forward E-deck ports were under the water"

Mr. Caldwell
"At first, she seemed unharmed but, as we looked toward the bow of the ship, we could see that the lower line of portholes extended down into the water."

Mr. Beesley
"There was nothing else to indicate she was injured....The lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea......We rowed away from her in the quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then."

This means the continuous settling down of the bow did not take place as the open corridors on E-deck averted the continuous settling of the bow for a significant length of time owing to the bodily sinking of the ship.


.

Well that might be a true statement, 20+ years of analysis always seem to point against this.

While its never a good thing to trust a computer analysis too much over testimony, the fact that 20+ years have shown a consistent series of angles that agrees with a majority of testimony cannot be so easily pushed aside.

As we have seen for the years prior to 85, trusting a few rouge accounts over the majority can lead to false ideas or presumptions of the sinking

 

[Itsstillthinking]

You can see the forward tower in 3d here

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Over an hour later the bow still had not dropped any lower. Lifeboat 13 was lowered down over an hour later and when they rowed away they noticed the ship's bow was still only down as far as E-deck on the starboard side.


Mr. Littlejohn
"Her forward E-deck ports were under the water"

Mr. Caldwell
"At first, she seemed unharmed but, as we looked toward the bow of the ship, we could see that the lower line of portholes extended down into the water."

Mr. Beesley
"There was nothing else to indicate she was injured....The lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea......We rowed away from her in the quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then."


This means the continuous settling down of the bow did not take place as the open corridors on E-deck averted the continuous settling of the bow for a significant length of time owing to the bodily sinking of the ship.
.

In Lifeboat No. 13:

Dr. Dodge

After we had been afloat possibly half an hour I observed, on looking at the steamer, that the line of lights from the portholes, showed that the vessel had settled forward into the water, but to no great extent. ... Watching the vessel closely, it was seen from time to time that this submergence forward was increasing. ... The gradual submersion of the vessel forward increased, and in about an hour was suddenly followed by the extinguishment of all the lights, which had been burning brightly, illuminating every deck and gleaming forth from innumerable portholes.

Beesley

There was nothing else to indicate she was injured; nothing but this apparent violation of a simple geometrical law - that parallel lines should "never meet even if produced ever so far both ways"; but it meant the Titanic had sunk by the head until the lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea, and the portholes in the stern were lifted above the normal height. We rowed away from her in quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then. The crew, however, did not think so. ... And all the time, as we watched, the Titanic sank lower by the head and the angle became wider and wider as the stern porthole lights lifted and the bow lights sank, and it was evident she was not to stay afloat much longer. ... At about 2:15 A.M. I think we were any distance from a mile to two miles away. ... About this time, the water had crept up almost to her sidelight and the captain's bridge, and it seemed a question only of minutes before she sank.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Well that might be a true statement, 20+ years of analysis always seem to point against this.

While its never a good thing to trust a computer analysis too much over testimony, the fact that 20+ years have shown a consistent series of angles that agrees with a majority of testimony cannot be so easily pushed aside.

As we have seen for the years prior to 85, trusting a few rouge accounts over the majority can lead to false ideas or presumptions of the sinking

But there is no majority of accounts that detail how the ship settled down between 12.30 and 1.30. Out of the 700+ survivors only a minority of them spoke in detail of the sinking. From the very start we are working only with a minority of accounts to determine how she sank and therefore researchers can only fill in the huge gaps with speculation and joint hypothesis based on what they believe happened with simulations and diagrams to push forward that narrative without any in depth knowledge of the condition of the ship when she settled down and sank e.g. how many portholes were open, which doors were open, or jammed, which walls collapsed, were there efforts made by the crew to slow down the flooding and channel the water into other sections of the ship? Was there an internal explosion or implosion before or during the break up? The answer to all of these questions remains unknown. e.g. A number of survivors saw the lights remain lit in the stern after she broke, yet this has been rejected by researchers because it doesn't 'fit' their hypothesis of how they believe she sank.

Always remember that all conclusions made are built on limited evidence and a great deal of speculation.

The 20 year old data just leaves us with more questions and few answers. Mr. Ray saw water on E-deck forward shortly after 12.30 while the occupants in lifeboat 13 saw the ship's bow had settled down to E-deck after 1.30 on the starboard side. Without any other survivors to contradict them that I can find (and certainly no majority) we have to believe what they saw and determine how the bow settled down to E-deck and remained like that for over an hour on the starboard side. The most obvious answer I believe is that the water washed along the corridor and down into sections further aft which allowed the ship to settle bodily, and stalled the downward trim of the ship for a considerable time.

In Lifeboat No. 13:

Dr. Dodge

After we had been afloat possibly half an hour I observed, on looking at the steamer, that the line of lights from the portholes, showed that the vessel had settled forward into the water, but to no great extent. ... Watching the vessel closely, it was seen from time to time that this submergence forward was increasing. ... The gradual submersion of the vessel forward increased, and in about an hour was suddenly followed by the extinguishment of all the lights, which had been burning brightly, illuminating every deck and gleaming forth from innumerable portholes.

Beesley

There was nothing else to indicate she was injured; nothing but this apparent violation of a simple geometrical law - that parallel lines should "never meet even if produced ever so far both ways"; but it meant the Titanic had sunk by the head until the lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea, and the portholes in the stern were lifted above the normal height. We rowed away from her in quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then. The crew, however, did not think so. ... And all the time, as we watched, the Titanic sank lower by the head and the angle became wider and wider as the stern porthole lights lifted and the bow lights sank, and it was evident she was not to stay afloat much longer. ... At about 2:15 A.M. I think we were any distance from a mile to two miles away. ... About this time, the water had crept up almost to her sidelight and the captain's bridge, and it seemed a question only of minutes before she sank.

I was talking about the length of time in which the bow settled down to E-deck around 12.30 and remained like that for over an hour as the occupants of lifeboat 13 saw the ship's head was still only down as far as E-deck more than an hour after Ray had seen the water on E-deck. What happened afterwards is not what I was debating.


.