mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (08/01/86)
I was under the impression that the TITANIC didn't break up. Remember that this is a very large, extremely solid piece of metal we're talking about. I can't recall the title of my source so I can't afford to proselytize, but the account I read went something along the lines of: 1) TITANIC gashed, starts to sink 2) tilts dramatically, problems getting lifeboats off davits as a result. 3) finally upends itself with the stern pointing nearly straight up. 4) loud crashing and grinding. (here's where some think it breaks up) 5) ship goes straight down very fast. Now, remember that the boilers on the TITANIC were huge things with fuel, water and all -and they were about a storey high. (remember the pictures?) Some historians think that when the ship upended (from water filling the front compartments) the boilers TORE LOOSE and all these multi-ton hunks of metal crashed through the length of the ship, and essentially finished it off. This is not unreasonable, since survivors described a great rumbling and tearing. it could have been a breakup, or it could have been the sound of the boilers trashing the front of the hull. Also remeber that the boilers were very solidly mounted - but they were not designed to maintain thier positions at a 90 degree angle ! The account I read maintained that the reason the thing went so fast was because the boilers probably made a whole about 60 feet by 30 feet right through *everything* on the way out... live free, mjr -- *All opinions expressed aren't even mine, let alone those of Gould, Inc.*
hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman) (08/02/86)
In article <150@gouldsd.UUCP> mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > I was under the impression that the TITANIC didn't break up. It seems clear from the wreckage that it did. The two sections of the hull are SO far apart (around 2000 feet, as I recall), that the breakup must have occurred well before the ship hit bottom. The fact that there was enough time for the two halves to turn around so as to face in precisely opposite direc- tions lends even more credence to this theory. Edward Hoffman ARPAnet: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu BITnet: CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A UUCP: ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (08/04/86)
<<<< < < This is not unreasonable, since survivors described a great rumbling and < tearing. it could have been a breakup, or it could have been the sound of < the boilers trashing the front of the hull. < or it could have been the sound of a super hot boiler suddenly immersed into some very cold water. John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
curtis@leadsv.UUCP (John Curtis) (08/06/86)
In article <150@gouldsd.UUCP>, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP writes: > > I was under the impression that the TITANIC didn't break up. Remember > that this is a very large, extremely solid piece of metal we're talking about. > I can't recall the title of my source so I can't afford to proselytize, but > the account I read went something along the lines of: > 1) TITANIC gashed, starts to sink > 2) tilts dramatically, problems getting lifeboats off davits as a > result. > 3) finally upends itself with the stern pointing nearly straight up. > 4) loud crashing and grinding. (here's where some think it breaks up) (later cites possibility of ship's boilers smashing through the bulkheads as the ship tips forward.) > 5) ship goes straight down very fast. > > mjr Yes, I once read an account that sounded exactly like this. It was _Raise_The_Titanic_, a spy novel by Clive Cussler. (Although he might have got this theory from yet another source.) Unfortunately, it can never come true since film from the recent expedition show the Titanic in two pieces. Great book, though. Reagards, John B. Curtis -- {decwrl,dual,ihnp4}!{amdcad!cae780,sun!sunncal}!leadsv!curtis