What happened to the Forward Tower?

[Aaron_2016]

Of course things can be out-ruled. Otherwise we have a ship that nearly capsized at the point of collision, broke both in front of the first funnel and after the fourth funnel, two lifeboats that were sucked underwater, and a story in which everyone is saved. We can't take everything into considerations when some ideas or testimonies are clearly outliers that don't match with the majority. That is why we use science and forensic analysis to solidify our ideas to the best of our abilities.

The forensics and science can be flawed just as the newspaper accounts which claimed the ship was being towed to Halifax. e.g. We might observe a crack on the wreck at a specific location, but the forensics of that crack could lead us to a dozen possibilities as to its origin. No studies of the wreck have been conducted which examines all of the boiler rooms and counts how many portholes are open. Without these facts the examiners are left with open speculation and faith in what the survivors witnessed. By comparing as many accounts as possible we can form a narrative, but it has to be an open narrative that is free to change whenever new evidence becomes available and more accounts are studied.



.

 

[Kyle Naber]

therefore nothing can be ruled out

But we can rule out the idea that Titanic broke apart at a high angle as a result of it going down by the head?

 

[Aaron_2016]

But we can rule out the idea that Titanic broke apart at a high angle as a result of it going down by the head?

Correct. She could have gone down exactly like the 1997 film, or any other Titanic film. The survivors who witnessed the bow rising could easily have mistaken the stern for the bow when the stern turned around and faced the other way which would create the impression that the bow was rising up when it was really the stern, or if the staircase broke off as one and floated upwards. We can't say with any certainty what happened. We can only examine what the survivors witnessed and base our assumptions by piecing together their assumptions. Since E-deck was the main path for the water to travel aft and we have accounts that show the ship settled down bodily by her broadside I feel confident that the ship sank in the manner that the survivors collectively witnessed her sink with all contradictions easily explainable by the position in which they sat, with individual perspectives of the sinking from a range of distances and directions around the ship.



.

 

[Rob Lawes]

but selecting which accounts were true or false just creates chaos and a narrative that only works based on a biased interpretation

Interesting point. So Boxhall was right then. He was on the bridge and did hear the hard a port order and see the telegraph's full astern. After all, we can't say his account was false as that creates chaos?

 

[Aaron_2016]

Interesting point. So Boxhall was right then. He was on the bridge and did hear the hard a port order and see the telegraph's full astern. After all, we can't say his account was false as that creates chaos?

No we can't say Boxhall was right because he contradicted himself and other survivors. Olliver was on the bridge when the order 'hard a-port' was given and we have a number of survivors who felt the ship heel over to port which corresponds to the ship turning right (hard a-port) and a number of survivors who saw the stern swinging away (hard a-port). Like I said before, we can't look at one or two accounts and base an entire narrative on what the individual witnessed and base the entire sequence of events solely on one or two accounts. We have to objectively look at and examine every available account to determine what really happened and work out every contradiction in a logical plausible manner e.g. Boxhall might not have heard the order because he was not really there, or he went below decks to look for damage and did not hear Murdoch give the order, or he heard the engine telegraph ring and assumed they went full astern as he might have felt the long shuddering vibration and came to the same misconception as QM Rowe that the engines had been reversed full astern.

There is a range of plausible answers that can easily explain every contradiction made e.g. He might have been more concerned about saving his career and overheard what had occurred from various men on the Carpathia and in order to save grace he told the Inquiry he was on the bridge and heard Murdoch inform the captain what happened, despite contradicting himself several times as he said he had no idea what happened and overheard Moody say what happened. Anything that was possible within the confines of all plausible scenarios was possible. We can work out and correct all of the contradictions, but it would still lead us to a specific narrative. We can only speculate and assess the pattern in which the water travelled throughout the ship as she settled down and rolled over to port and broke. This is why I believe all accounts should first be given the benefit of doubt and once a pattern emerges from collective study of all available accounts we can pin point the discrepancies and try to explain why each person saw and heard what they believed they saw and heard, and by examining all of the evidence as a whole without dismissing anything out of hand we can try to determine what really happened.



.

 

[Rob Lawes]

No we can't say Boxhall was right because he contradicted himself and other survivors.

So by the very same logic, we can say the handful of survivors who claimed to see the bow rise up were wrong because they contradict other survivors.

Aaron by your own logic you are not attempting to include Boxhall's statement as fact but dismissing it because it does not fit your view.

You have claimed almost every crew member in the vicinity of the bridge lied, was coerced or mistaken in order to form a sequence of events that fits your opinions and yet you claim you do not dismiss evidence but treat every testimony with equal weight and not true or false, fact or fiction. You have contradicted yourself.

 

[Aaron_2016]

So by the very same logic, we can say the handful of survivors who claimed to see the bow rise up were wrong because they contradict other survivors.

Aaron by your own logic you are not attempting to include Boxhall's statement as fact but dismissing it because it does not fit your view.

You have claimed almost every crew member in the vicinity of the bridge lied, was coerced or mistaken in order to form a sequence of events that fits your opinions and yet you claim you do not dismiss evidence but treat every testimony with equal weight and not true or false, fact or fiction. You have contradicted yourself.

No. Like I said, I examine all available accounts and determine the most likely scenario based on a collective analysis of the accounts as a whole. If a number of accounts show signs of intentional dishonesty then it is noted and taken into account. e.g. Protecting their careers is a logical assumption to make when examining parts of their testimony. Boxhall's testimony contradicted what the other survivors witnessed. It is easy to list down why his testimony contradicted the others and determine why by listing a number of plausible reasons and scenarios as I mentioned above. The survivors who saw the bow rise did not contradict others, in the same manner that survivors who believed the ship sank intact did not contradict the survivors who saw her break. It is easy to explain the apparent discrepancies as they all very likely saw the ship and noticed what happened within the limitations of their field of vision, perspective, seating in the lifeboats, and timescale in which they turned and looked. It can all fit together and present a clear picture when looked at as a whole collective study of all available accounts with no exceptions made. It's quite easy to see how one survivor would witness one part of the sinking, and another would witness another part of the sinking.

Please stop debating how I conduct my research. Feels like some members are getting a creepy obsession with me instead of the topic.


.

 

[Seungho Kang]

Back to the topic of this well, topic.

Titanic Animations will be having a video coming out soon that will talk about the forward tower in full. Pre vis can be seen here on the animation that will be featured on the video

That would be a fair explanation if the ship broke up top down. But my question is: Why did the forward and aft towers broke away at the same time, but ended up very far apart?
And the breakup happening much more underwater, how did the survivors then see the ship breaking just in front of the third funnel?
Jack Thayer:
"I saw the ship in sort of red glare, and it seemed to me that she broke in half just in front of the third funnel."
This indicates that people could actually see the ship breaking in front of the third funnel, not underwater, and not between the two tower structures.

And I don't think that any large structure would break away after the ship broke in two. When there is a lot of stress going on in different regions, it would still break in two, since other stress points would diminish after one stress relieves by breaking. Same goes with their initial full-time animation where the forward tower falls from the stern.
The forward tower would not break away in that manner, unless extra stress--such as crushing, involves into the area.

 

[Rob Lawes]

The survivors who saw the bow rise did not contradict others, in the same manner that survivors who believed the ship sank intact did not contradict the survivors who saw her break.

Yes they did. One said it happened, one said it didn't.

contradict
/kɒntrəˈdɪkt/
Verb - assert the opposite of a statement made by (someone)

Please stop debating how I conduct my research, or the moderator will have to step in yet again. Feels like some members are getting a creepy obsession with me instead of the topic

I am making non personal points relating to the methodology of research. It is essential to examine the context in which the assumptions and assertions have been made in order to facilitate discussion and debate. An author is usually critiqued not just on the overall story but the construction of the prose.

As you have freely submitted your opinion on an open forum I am at liberty to comment upon it providing I remain respectful and within the bounds of the forum rules. This I believe I have done.

Therefore, I feel I am justified in including discussion of your methodology as it is vital in helping to refute your interpretation of the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it.

You are of course at liberty not to respond to my rebuttals.

 

[marina_irc]

Please stop debating how I conduct my research, or the moderator will have to step in yet again. Feels like some members are getting a creepy obsession with me instead of the topic.


.

Research methodology is always a valid line of inquiry. Not just in science, either. Look up the Replication Controversy in modern research Psychology. This isn't about you, it's about the fact that your methodology is objectively flawed and does not meet consensus standards for analysis of evidence in both engineering and social science. It is not a correct way to build a theory in History or Engineering. If you want to propose theories, be prepared to defend the methodology behind them.

 

[Itsstillthinking]

That would be a fair explanation if the ship broke up top down. But my question is: Why did the forward and aft towers broke away at the same time, but ended up very far apart?
And the breakup happening much more underwater, how did the survivors then see the ship breaking just in front of the third funnel?
Jack Thayer:
"I saw the ship in sort of red glare, and it seemed to me that she broke in half just in front of the third funnel."
This indicates that people could actually see the ship breaking in front of the third funnel, not underwater, and not between the two tower structures.

And I don't think that any large structure would break away after the ship broke in two. When there is a lot of stress going on in different regions, it would still break in two, since other stress points would diminish after one stress relieves by breaking. Same goes with their initial full-time animation where the forward tower falls from the stern.
The forward tower would not break away in that manner, unless extra stress--such as crushing, involves into the area.

I know the person who animated that, and the main reason it looked rushed was because of time constrains on his end with real life things.

I personally had been a firm idea in my head of a top down scenario, as shown in the 2012 animation with the keel/double bottom connecting the ship and i thought the idea of a bottom up scenario to be silly.

But after i started to look hard at all available material and evidence, and having to start animating these things in details, it started to never added up to a Top down scenario.

It always made sense to me in my head of the "Banana Peel" theory with the double bottom, but after one looks on the basics on how this works, and looks closer at the footage of the two pieces, one realizes this would have been impossible for these pieces to bend the 15+ degrees as the double bottom could not have done this as it was a ridged and could not bend like that without snapping.

Then there was the Keel, which is bent in a S shape, and no matter how you slice it a top down could not have bent this nor could it have bent back and forth like a airplane wing like it was shown in 2012.

It should be noted that most of this info of the wreck and towers comes from Roy Mengot, i asked Parks Stephenson about this and he said some of the info of the towers located on his site is wrong in view of recent wreck footage. When i asked about it in more details he came back with "i cant say" so as of right now Roys is the most accurate that Titanic buffs can look at.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Research methodology is always a valid line of inquiry. Not just in science, either. Look up the Replication Controversy in modern research Psychology. This isn't about you, it's about the fact that your methodology is objectively flawed and does not meet consensus standards for analysis of evidence in both engineering and social science. It is not a correct way to build a theory in History or Engineering. If you want to propose theories, be prepared to defend the methodology behind them.

A theories regarding the sinking were presented by the survivors themselves, not me. I spend my time on the Titanic subject by listing down what the survivors said (their theories) and speculating how the ship sank in the manner in which they described. e.g.


Lightoller's theory
"This explosion, or whatever it was, took place. Certainly, I think it was the boilers exploded. There was a terrific blast of air and water, and I was blown out clear."


Major Peuchen's theory
"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."


I examine every theory that is presented by the survivors and seek out all available eye witness accounts and forensic analysis which support their theories. If insufficient data is found, then I shelve that theory and move onto the next.


.

 

[Seungho Kang]

James Cameron's "banana theory" also fails to explain how and why the double bottom ended up attatched to the stern, not the bow. I've experimented a lot of times with other objects, but it seems to me that there is more likelyhood of the double bottom to peel out of the stern rather than detatching from the bow.
The double bottom break areas should be "defined" by bending initially when breakup. My theory of the ship's entire bottom bending like a W.

Notice that the double bottom buckles upwards after breakup, while the forward tower also buckles against the stern.

(what it would most likely shown)
But I am sure that the double bottom "flapped like bird's wings" when going down.

 

[Kyle Naber]

I know the person who animated that, and the main reason it looked rushed was because of time constrains on his end with real life things.

I personally had been a firm idea in my head of a top down scenario, as shown in the 2012 animation with the keel/double bottom connecting the ship and i thought the idea of a bottom up scenario to be silly.

But after i started to look hard at all available material and evidence, and having to start animating these things in details, it started to never added up to a Top down scenario.

It always made sense to me in my head of the "Banana Peel" theory with the double bottom, but after one looks on the basics on how this works, and looks closer at the footage of the two pieces, one realizes this would have been impossible for these pieces to bend the 15+ degrees as the double bottom could not have done this as it was a ridged and could not bend like that without snapping.

Then there was the Keel, which is bent in a S shape, and no matter how you slice it a top down could not have bent this nor could it have bent back and forth like a airplane wing like it was shown in 2012.

It should be noted that most of this info of the wreck and towers comes from Roy Mengot, i asked Parks Stephenson about this and he said some of the info of the towers located on his site is wrong in view of recent wreck footage. When i asked about it in more details he came back with "i cant say" so as of right now Roys is the most accurate that Titanic buffs can look at.

Just clarifying, this theory proposes that the ship was fully separated by the time the stern fully settled back?

 

[Kyle Naber]

I examine every theory that is presented by the survivors and seek out all available eye witness accounts and forensic analysis which support their theories. If insufficient data is found, then I shelve that theory and move onto the next.

Aaron, you’ll be doing this for the rest of your life in this case (even if you might enjoy it lol). A single theory will never satisfy every account. It’s impossible.