6-13 In Search Of... The Titanic (Part 2 of 2)

[happyshark100]

What did you expect they were going to use the Titanic..

Hello, they did have witnesses. The head of White Star, second officer, and the radio officer.. Here the best part. There were 700 people in the life boats. They did see a model sink. By the way how could 700 witnesses be wrong?

I'll tell you why the Titanic sank. The White Star cut corners. 1 cut 40 life boats out. so the first class didn't need to see them. 2 the biggest problem that is they had to reduce the water tight doors,

[snakes3425]

@happyshark100

Not everyone testified, especally third class survivors.

Why did the Titanic sink, the rivits in the bow section were faulty and installed improperly, and the iceberg popped enough of them to create a series of slashes running the length of six compartments, which were flooding at different rates, and the pumps could only keep the water down in Boiler Room #5, until a bulkhead, damaged by a coal bunker fire gave way

[samtim83]

why bother having witnesses? when they jst make up there own stories.

I wld be more inclined to believe some one that was actually there, than some square with a toy model that wasn't//

[davinp]

Even though eyewitnesses reported the ship broke in half when she sunk, the British inquiry decided that she did not break in half. It wasn't proven until Dr. Robert Ballard discovered the wreckage in 1985. It has disputed how high in the air Titanic stuck up when she sunk

[snakes3425]

Calfornian's message never got to the bridge because her radio operator formatted it wrong. It was also common pracitce for Edwardian Captains to race through dangerous ice conditions as fast as they could.

[starsnbars3]

Since they now know where the Titanic sunk, do they know how far away the California was at the time of the sinking??? My understanding is that the California was 20 miles away. Does anybody have any creditable facts to add???

[snakes3425]

Californian had been the ship that passed on the warning about the iceberg titanic struck. However Titanic was firing white rockets, instead of red (the sign of distress) and the crew was firing them at 4-8 minute intervuls which was the signal for "We have suffered engine trouble, keep your distance." instead of 1 rocket every minute for distress. But the big thing is that Californian's radio was turned off so she never got Titanic's SOS

[snakes3425]

As for the mystery ship it was one of two ships the sealer Samson, who headed TItanic's warning to keep away (due to the crew sending the wrong singles) the other was the Mt. Temple, a ship responding to Titanic's SOS, but had become trapped on the other side of an Icewall, preventing her from reaching the survivors

[starquant]

@snakes3425 wow, that's amazing bad luck for all involved. I never knew that either, so thank you so much for filling in the gaps in this sad tale.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

In the case of the Californian, the accident happened right after the Californian turned off it's radio. Californian was close enough to see the rockets, and factor in they were the wrong color and the timing was wrong, it's possible Californian's lookout could have misktaken the rockets for a celebration, that's also possible because of the amount of publicitiy surrounding Titanic's madien voyage. However Californian's log book was lost when she was torpedoed during World War I

[starquant]

@snakes3425 THEY LOST THE LOG BOOK!. INCONCEIVABLE..... The most important artifact to clear their name and they LOST IT!.... Surely it would have been taken and held shortly after the event and held it as evidence, or perhaps transcribed and then returned... oh, well, I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing. This is really incredible to read. I have several books on this subject, but you know a lot more than me.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

The log was used as evidence in the initial inquiry but was destroyed during World War I and couldn't be used in later investagations, but because of Californian's close enough to see the rockets, Stanley Lord took the full blame, despite the fact no one on Titanic, not even Capt Smith, knew the rockets were the wrong color, and not one of member of the crew, Capt Smith included, was trained to send signals with rockets, something that wasn't looked at in the intial investiagion

[starquant]

@snakes3425 was the color of the Flares an issue at the first inquiry?

[snakes3425]

@starquant

The color and how the distress rockets were fired was never brought up, nor was the crew's training in how to use the rockets, other problems included the fact Titanic had no internal alarm system, and very few of the crew were bi-lingual. Also Smith safty record never came up when he commanded the Germanic, she capsized at her moorings due to ice, and when he commanded Olympic, she damaged a tug boat on her maiden voyage and collided with the cruiser HMS Hawke

[starquant]

@snakes3425 I was aware of the Commanders previous record (one thing I do know...lol). Also, do you know when internal alarms were mandated on passenger ships?. Also, do you know what recommendations (if any) came as a direct of the first inquiry. Maritime law is very complex in issues such as this. Was the sinking of the Titanic a pre-cursor, or was it the sinking of the Lusitania?.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

The major change was that boat and raft capacity was to be based on how may people the ship could carry the not weight, Titanic was required by law to carry enough boats for a ship of 10,000 tons, lifeboat drills were to be held regulary, watertight bulkheads had to extended to the top of the top of the ship, a 24 hour radio watch had to be maintained. Lusitania did carry enough boats for everyone on board at the time of her loss, but she sank so quickly it made little difference

[starquant]

@snakes3425 is that all they came up with as a recommendation?. I have read everything you have said with great interest ( I consider you an expert on this topic because you have demonstrated it so adequately). By todays standings, I think there would be a continuing public outcry not only on the basis of inconsistencies of testimony , but also the result and resulting perceptions in relation to public safety on passenger ships.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

At the time some survivors, especally those who had seen the break-up were bribed by White Star to change their stories, also at the time of the sinking technology limited how fast news could travel, if the disaster happened today there would indeed be a massive outcry

Contrary to popular belief Titanic faded into obscurity when the First World War broke out two years later.

Today many people may know all about the ship but they don't understand the era that created her.

[starquant]

@snakes3425 WOW. I can't believe that people could be so easily compromised for the sake of a buck. To change the topic slightly. I wish to address the construction of the "Hull" and the synopsis that the Titanic was unsinkable. In one of my books on the "Titanic", ex-rays of the Hull that were brought to the surface ( in recent times), showed the smelting to be inferior, but an acceptable standard of the day. The process to me looks like a "Swiss Cheese" by comparison of modern day standards.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

The Rivets and Steel Plates were indeed of inferior quality by today's standard, the steel plate became brittle at low temeratures and the foundry men making the rivets unknowingly put too much slag into the rivets, compromising their design and unlike the rest of the ship, the rivets in the bow were installed by hand since the drill was too big to fit into the bow area weakening them further Rivet failure is seen today as the major cause of how the iceberg compromised the design

[starquant]

@snakes3425 yes I agree with that, but was it not also the construction of the plates themselves that compromised the integrity of the hull, enabling such a catastrophic degradation of the entire structure?. I wish I could show you the x-rays I have, but they are in a book. They look really inadequate.

[starquant]

@snakes3425 Arrgh so impeded with the use of 500 words or less!. I guess what I was trying to ask was, do you consider the damage could have been contained or the overall damage considerably less, if the quality of the steel was of a higher caliber?.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

it depends on whether or not the ship's design itself is compromised. Higher quality steel could have resulted in less damage or slower flooding, but if the water coming in was more then the pumps could handel even just having her first two compartments breeched would have doomed the ship, owing to the bulkheads extending only 10' above the waterline, it was further complicated by the fact the bulkhead seperating Boiler Rooms 5 and 6 had been damaged by a coal bunker fire

[starquant]

@snakes3425 a fire?. Does that mean that the ship was slowed by this action?. Once again, you have confounded me with your intricate knowledge. I am trying to use general knowledge with a bit of Physics, also combined with Newtons law, but when you add another pound of sugar into the mix (so the speak). I'm LOST. Does that mean that these boilers were not in use at the time?. I seem to vaguely remember something about this, but it's NOT helping me NOW.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

Coal Bunker fires were a common hazard on late 19th Century and early 20th century ships. The fire itself was confined to the coal bunker, so the boilers were in operation and it was extingished shortly before the collision. The problem was the fire had damaged the bulkhead, causing it to giveway during the sinking

[MsDoctorWhoFan1]

@starquant the fire supossedly started after the ship left from Southampton. it wasn't put out untill the day before collison.

[starquant]

@MsDoctorWhoFan1 no way !. If you have a source please state it, so I can research it. Interesting comment and thank you for telling me.

[starquant]

@snakes3425 are you sure the bulkheads were only 10" above the waterline?. Sorry to ask, but I always thought it be considerably higher than that. if what you say it true, then everything that happened in relation to this design flaw, was a fais de complis.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

Many compartments only exteneded as high as E Deck and D Deck but the design flaw was caused by what kind of Ship Titanic was: an Ocean Liner. To make her more luxurious, the tops of the bulkheads were compromised by the addition of doors to allow passengers and crew easy access to all areas, and at the same time making it impossible to isolate damaged compartments from the rest of the ship, once the water reached the passenger and crew levels

[starquant]

@snakes3425 you know something.... I had no idea. So the compression (or water tight) doors, were of little or no value.?

[snakes3425]

@starquant

If the water had been coming in at a rate the pumps could have handeled the doors would have worked, however if one or more compartments was taking on water faster then the pumps could handel, then the doors were essentually useless since the water would have eventually breeched the bulkheads at D or E deck and flooded other compartments next to it. Some ask why Capt. Smith didn't counterflood the stern compartments to slow the sinking, if that been done the ship would've capsized

[snakes3425]

@starquant

one forgotten part of the titanic tragedy is that history repeated itself in january of 1959 the press bragged about the new Danish liner Hans Hedtoft being unsinkable and on January 30 1959 she met the exact same fate as the Titanic, however unlike Titanic all nearby aircraft were grounded and all nearby ships were unable to reach her due to bad weather and she sank with all 95 passengers and crew

[starquant]

@snakes3425 I can't help but argue a point here. The smelting process of steel was far more advanced than back in the early 1900's. So, (humor me here), I see the process of water tight containment units a fee sable idea. My point being, it's not the concept, but the application, that is at fault.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

The smelting process is better today yes, and ship hulls are welded together, which is far more reliable then the rivited design Titanic used. When it comes to watertight compartments, damaged compartments have to be able to be isolated from the rest of the ship for them to be affective. In terms of Titanic the compartments were rendered useless because the inital collision delivered a fatal blow, and compromised her design

[starquant]

@snakes3425 so, do you think that the "overall" concept was a good idea?. Is it in use today or has it been dismissed because of past misadventure?.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

The overall concept was a good idea, from what I'm aware of the design is still today since the compartments define a ship's ability to resist flooding. In the case of Titanic to make the passengers more comfortable: the first class public rooms took up too much space and the doors added to allow passengers and crew easy access compromised the bulkheads, in additon they also made Titanic vulnerable to fires, which could spread uncontrollably if they reached the passenger levels

[starquant]

@snakes3425 to be honest, I can't get past the idea of the chronic misuse of the steel. While I realize the rivets were the main cause of the problem as well as ( as you have pointed out) overall design flaws. In my own mind, the vessel was never "Sea Worthy" to begin with. I can't get past this basic point.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

If it had been today, they would have caught the defective steel, but at the turn of the century the technology used to inspect steel was in it's infancy

[starquant]

Agreed. I still think (in my own mind) that this is why the vessel sank. If the steel was of an optimum grade, then none of this would have happened.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

Optimum grade steel might have limited the damage or caused slower flooding, in the case of Titanic I don't think optmum grade steel and rivits wouldn't have made any difference, unless she hit the berg head on, which wouldn't have happened since Murdoch would have been brought up on charges for failing to turn the ship. What doomed the ship more then anything was the fact there were more stewards and waiters onboard then crew trained in damage control or fire fighting

[starquant]

@snakes3425 also a lack of a good pair of Binoculars I think...lol. I am NOT an Engineer, but think that an engineer would have considered every possible scenario.

A calm sea and a full moon, obviously never factored into their calculation. Mind you the best of circumstance would highly give rise to a tragedy of this calibre. I know we have been going over this, but the whole thing was such an epic failure, I'm amazed anyone had the guts to go to sea on this vessel.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

Actually the captain, officers, deck crew, are responsible for knowing weather conditions and contray to popular belief it was common practice for Edwardian period captains to speed through dangerous conditions as fast as possible.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

When it comes to Titanic, the reason so many set out, was that white star bragged about her luxery and invinciblity. Titanic was also underbooked on her madien voyage: Olympic Class Liners could carry around 3,547 but Titanic left with 2,223. She also exceeded the number of required lifeboats at the time (she had 20 as opposed to 16) and it was suggested by White Star's owners to reduce the lifeboats to 16 , enough lifeboat space for only 962 passengers and crew prior to sailing

[snakes3425]

@starquant

In the end the full blame for the Titanic disaster, regardless of any influence Ismay had, belongs to Captain Smith, he was the Captain and the Titanic, her passengers and crew were his responsiblity at sea. There is no evedence that Ismay went to the bridge behind Smith's back and ordered full ahead, and Smith himself gave the order to go full ahead. Had Andrews not been on board the disaster would have been worse since Smith also believed that not even God could sink Titanic

[starquant]

@snakes3425 ok snakes I have a curve ball for you. I JUST saw a documentary about the under carriage theory...in that the Titanic was wrecked due to a catastrophic effect obtained from damaged sustained from an opening from the under-side of the vessel and NOT from the side as was commonly perceived... any comments or thoughts plz. .... and yes I agree with your other comments. I think this is really plausible and answers many questions on the eventual sinking... do you agree?.

[starquant]

@snakes3425 ahh a ship of this size takes AT least 2,5 kms to make an adjustment in forward travel, is this not correct?.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

True, the problem though was this in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries two different ways of giving turning orders existed: Tiller (Sailing Ships) and Rudder (Steamships) in Tiller you turn the wheel in the opposite direction you want the ship to turn and that was what Murdoch and the officers on duty were trianed in, when Murdoch ordered hard a starbord he ment Turn the wheel left, Hutchens though for a few brief seconds turned the wheel right.

[snakes3425]

@starquant

(blasted 500 word limit)

Lightoller is believed to have over heard Hitchens say he turned the wheel the wrong way, as well as Ismay say he convinced Smith to sail on at slow ahead which caused the water to flow in faster then sitting still. his family didn't reveal it owing to the fact Lightoller was a war hero for helping evacuate Royal Army and French Army units during the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940 and Lightoller himself didn't want to put other survivors out of work

[snakes3425]

@starquant

I think I know the documentary, given that some boiler room survivors reported water coming through the bottom it's possible TItanic sustained grounding damage

There is some new evidence which indicates the quatermaster, who was at the wheel the night of the accident paniced and turned the wheel the wrong way (Starboard as opposed to Port)

[starquant]

@starsnbars3 read below, snakes3425 has all the info. A fascinating Youtuber to talk to as well... ).

[Myuutantobasuta]

damn I bet that so called "expert" felt like a real retard when they found the thing

[OceanbornAngel]

Considering that the Titanic actually ripped in half...yes that guy must have felt like an idiot.

[starquant]

@Myuutantobasuta being a smart ass only shows your overall weakness in the human gene pool. Read the comments first plz.

[snakes3425]

@Myuutantobasuta

I'm actually surprised. The Break-Up, even though not confermed, was still a possible theory prior to the wreck being located so why the expert never brought up the idea that the ship broke apart is actually very odd

[snakes3425]

Given that the wreck had let to be located, no one was able to determine what that loud nose was, but it's obvious now that the loud nose people heard was the break up

[RMSTitanic87]

True

[snakes3425]

When you think of it, the saddest part of the Titanic's story is that over confidence in technology caused something to happen that should never have happened

[MsDoctorWhoFan1]

@snakes3425 also the loud noise was from objects coming free from their holdings.Before the ship broke in half, the ship tilted bow down, the objects fell and crashed down into the bow.