Second Officer Lightoller recorded that he put around 40 people into boat No. 4 and gave the order to lower it to the gangway door (where the Steerage passengers came on board the ship). The idea, he said, was to fill every boat to capacity once it was in the water. This suggests a possible reason why the lifeboats were lowered less than full. We know that the officers mistakenly thought the listing of the ship would tip full lifeboats into the sea. Maybe this was their solution? What do you think?
Then he ordered the Bosun's Mate to take 6 sailors and open the port lower-deck gangway door, which was abreast of No. 2 hatch. Neither the Bosun's Mate nor the 6 sailors were ever seen again...
The mystery is - what happened to them? How many people got off the ship through the gangway door? Did the Bosun's Mate and the 6 sailors get out this way then die in the sea? Or did they even get to the door before the ship sank? I have not found a definitive answer for this.
Do you know what happened? If you do, please don't keep it to yourself! Post it here now!

quote:

Originally posted by Warlike Poet:
Second Officer Lightoller recorded that he put around 40 people into boat No. 4 and gave the order to lower it to the gangway door (where the Steerage passengers came on board the ship). The idea, he said, was to fill every boat to capacity once it was in the water. This suggests a possible reason why the lifeboats were lowered less than full. We know that the officers mistakenly thought the listing of the ship would tip full lifeboats into the sea. Maybe this was their solution? What do you think?

That is a possibility, but the main reason people didn't board the lifeboats is the felt safer on the Titanic, even though it was sinking, than in an open lifeboat.

quote:

Originally posted by maxman:

quote:

Originally posted by Warlike Poet:
Second Officer Lightoller recorded that he put around 40 people into boat No. 4 and gave the order to lower it to the gangway door (where the Steerage passengers came on board the ship). The idea, he said, was to fill every boat to capacity once it was in the water. This suggests a possible reason why the lifeboats were lowered less than full. We know that the officers mistakenly thought the listing of the ship would tip full lifeboats into the sea. Maybe this was their solution? What do you think?

That is a possibility, but the main reason people didn't board the lifeboats is the felt safer on the Titanic, even though it was sinking, than in an open lifeboat.

Thank you for your contribution, but I have to point out that the information came from the book, Titanic Voices Memories From the Fateful Voyage (first published 1994 in the U.K. by Southampton City Council (U.K.)). It is proven fact, not just my opinion, so there is no room for debate. Also, my posting was dealing with why the lifeboats were lowered when not full to capacity. The speed of the evacuation was not relevant to that. The Officers and the Captain, created and carried out the plan I described, not the passengers. The actual myth I was dealing with was - why were the lifeboats lowered less than full? The answer is that Lightoller said the plan was to fill the boats once they were in the water (presumably to avoid the mistakenly perceived hazard of tipping people into the water if the boats were full). In addition, a number of survivors said that it was not possible to fit 65 people into each boat. They said the boats were not big enough.
I do hasten to add that I agree that many people did not rush to get into the boats, but that is not really a myth. That is a fact, so I wouldn't normally deal with such an issue as that. I am focussing on things about the disaster that were unknown until now.
Read the book, visit Southampton City Council's website in the U.K. and check out the S.S. Birma's Communications Log on the 'Net (S.S. Birma received the first distress call from M.G.Y. (Titanic's callsign) at 11.45 p.m., which stated (among other things), "We're sinking"). That proves the Captain and Officers were well aware of their predicament from very soon after the collision, so they would have wanted the evacuation to be as rapid as possible. I know the passengers did think the ship could not sink, but that is a fact, not a myth for me to deal with.
Please keep reading this topic and let us know of any information you have about my previous posting. What happened to the 7 sailors sent to the gangway door? How many people did they save? Did they even get to the door before the Titanic sank?

For reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained, on the day before Titanic sailed from Southampton, Chief Officer Henry Tingle Wilde (age 38) was transferred from her sister ship Olympic. This caused Murdoch (who was the original Chief Officer) and Lightoller (originally First Officer) to be relegated to First Officer and Second Officer respectively. Second Officer David Blair was taken off the ship, which was lucky for him considering what subsequently happened to it. All other officers remained unchanged.
Lightoller said (words to the effect) that this caused confusion, because Lightoller and Murdoch had been doing different duties to the jobs they were given after Chief Officer Wilde joined the ship. This made them unfamiliar with what they were doing and they were now working with a Chief Officer who was not on the ship during the sea trials, so he would not have had as much knowledge of how it worked as Murdoch and he would not have had experience of working with the other officers.
The mystery is - did White Star believe that Wilde's experience with Olympic would help the running and safety of Titanic? Did they think the late officer changes would not cause the confusion that actually resulted? Did they assume Wilde was a better choice for Chief Officer, despite the fact that Murdoch was present at the sea trials, so would have known more than him about the Titanic?
Does anyone know the answer to this?

quote:

Originally posted by Warlike Poet:
One of the crew on upturned collapsible D claimed that he saw a man swimming towards the boat. He recognised the man as Captain Smith. The crewman told the Captain that there was no room on the boat. The man in the water is alleged to have said, "Righto boys. Good luck!" Then the man turned away, swam into the darkness and was never seen again.
Despite there being about 30 men on the boat, none of the others reported this sighting, so, as far as I know, it remains unconfirmed. Unless you know different!

That is also possible, because the captain of the Lusitania wanted to go down with the ship, but was miraculously thrown from the bridge at the last instant and was able to testify at the inquiry to the sinking.

quote:

Originally posted by maxman:

quote:

Originally posted by Warlike Poet:
One of the crew on upturned collapsible D claimed that he saw a man swimming towards the boat. He recognised the man as Captain Smith. The crewman told the Captain that there was no room on the boat. The man in the water is alleged to have said, "Righto boys. Good luck!" Then the man turned away, swam into the darkness and was never seen again.
Despite there being about 30 men on the boat, none of the others reported this sighting, so, as far as I know, it remains unconfirmed. Unless you know different!

That is also possible, because the captain of the Lusitania wanted to go down with the ship, but was miraculously thrown from the bridge at the last instant and was able to testify at the inquiry to the sinking.

Thank you for your latest reply, which makes you the most prolific contributor to this topic apart from me!
I can't comment on the intentions of the Captain of the Lusitania, because I have not researched that case to the same extent as the Titanic disaster. However, I was actually looking for any evidence that Captain Smith really WAS seen alive in the water during the sinking. Maybe anyone else who saw him did not survive to corroborate this statement. Can anybody tell us of any such proof of what happened to Captain Smith on that clear, moonless, freezing cold night...?

quote:

Originally posted by Warlike Poet:
Thank you for your latest reply

You're very welcome. However, I don't know of any evidence that either supports or refutes this.

This week's Titanic conundrum is - what happened to Chief Officer Wilde? As far as I know, he was probably present when Captain Smith gave his final orders to the officers and then the Captain was never (confirmed as being) seen again, but what about Chief Officer Wilde? He definitely wasn't among the survivors (or the identified bodies recovered from the sea). Where did he go if he WAS at that last officers' meeting? Did he give his life deliberately to allow another person to have a place in the lifeboats? Did he commit suicide because of the hopelessness of the situation? Did he go down with the ship and die in the sea like many others? Did he heroically stay at his post to help the passengers and crew still on the ship after the last lifeboat was launched? I don't know. None of the books or tv investigations have mentioned this, as far as I can see. Do YOU know? If you do, please tell us!

I found a statement that the design of the Titanic was based on old ideas, not new innovative methods. One example of this is the wooden deck on an otherwise metal ship! This was clearly a design flaw, which, I believe, allowed the water to spill over the watertight bulkheads (not including the first one, as it was a box shape.This was different to all the others and could have contained the water, thus saving the ship) as the bow settled lower and lower in the water.
Another potential design error was the enormous space inside the ship required to house the 3 gigantic engines. Surely it must have been obvious to the designers and builders that the ship would be doomed once these areas were flooded? There seems to have been very few measures put in to deal with flooding. The pumps were inadequate to pump out the water on the night,the watertight bulkheads did not all extend up to A Deck and the wooden deck would, I think, not have prevented the water from filling up the ship.
Bruce Ismay's admission that White Star thought the Titanic was unsinkable and Captain Smith's actions in increasing speed towards a reported icefield show that the company, the Officers and the designers simply did not think that water would get inside the ship. This mistake was a major contributory factor in the deaths of 1532 adults and children.
My question is - why did White Star use an old design for what was the biggest ship of it's time? Were they short of money? Did they want to stick to tried and tested methods? Were they unable to compete on technology with competitors like Cunard (which was a much bigger company with more money)? Please enlighten us all if you know the answer to this.

In number 5 boiler room a small number of firemen and engineers stayed in an attempt to pump the water out of their compartment. At about 12.45 a.m., the bulkhead between 5 and 6 boiler rooms gave way and the room was flooded in seconds. Only Leading Stoker Frederick Barrett managed to escape. All the others died.
This week's puzzle is:- were the watertight bulkheads strong enough? Did the coal bunker fire that had been burning when the Titanic left Belfast cause damage to the bulkheads, resulting in the failure of that one and the subsequent loss of the ship? Did the designers consider the potential risk posed by coal bunker fires (which were common at the time)?
What do you think? Please feel free to tell us. The victims are all dead and, therefore, have no way to tell us what happened. It's up to us to make sure that such a preventable catastrophe never happens again...

If there really WAS a coal bunker fire on board the Titanic when it sailed from Belfast, why didn't the crew try to extinguish it? After all, there WAS a coal strike in Britain at the time, which did cause many ships' voyages to be cancelled.
Rev. Harper's ship, due to leave on Saturday, was replaced by a slower one. He wrote that he decided to wait till the following Wednesday to go on board a faster vessel. Wednesday was Titanic's sailing day and his decision was to prove fatal as he was not among the survivors of the subsequent disaster...
Given that the shortage of coal supplies caused many ships not to sail during the strike, that makes it even more mysterious as to why the valuable coal stocks on board Titanic were allowed to burn for days without any attempt to put the fire out! I know it was standard practice at the time not to fight such fires, but the question is - why? Did Captain Smith realise the potential risk of damage to the watertight bulkheads? Was it thought to be too dangerous for the crew to fight such a fire in an enclosed space? Or were the Officers even aware of the fire? I don't know, because I think that only qualified firefighters and sailors of coal powered steam ships would know the answer. If you are not suitably qualified, don't worry. Your opinion could be the right reason for this amazing situation. If you do post any ideas, please state if you have relevant qualifications or experience to comment. A summary is sufficient. E.g. Firefighter, sailor etc. Please do not post your name or any other personal details.
I have seen, on the news, that the last Titanic disaster survivor Millvina Dean has just died in Britain. She was the last remaining direct connection with that fateful night in 1912 when the largest ship of it's time, which took 3 years to build, hit an iceberg and sank in only 2 hours 38 minutes. All that now remains are the many investigations, such as this one, into the myths, facts and opinions about what happened in those days, long ago, when Britain believed it had total control of the sea. In less than 2 hours, on that moonless night, British confidence in it's maritime technology and safety standards was destroyed forever...

Actually, they did try to extinguish the fire. It was put out by shovelling the coals into the furnace around the clock, and by the day she sank, the fire was out, but the metal was warped, so they just covered the warped metal with oil. The bunker was about the spot the iceberg hit, and that might explain how the dual hull failed.

Thanks for that. I just mentioned the fire because the book I got the information from did not mention any attempt to put it out. It only said that the heat could have damaged one of the watertight bulkheads, which then gave way at the time I stated. After that, the Titanic's fate was sealed.
Re the double hull, don't forget that it did not extend up to A Deck. Bruce Ismay himself ordered the double hull on the Olympic to be extended after the Titanic sank. Unfortunately, Leading Stoker Barrett, who witnessed the water entering through the damaged side of the ship, described the unzipping of the steel plates well above the double hull as the stern started to rise.
I think it was the Q.E.2, which ran aground, but was saved by it's double hull. Sadly, Titanic wasn't so lucky. It suffered very slight damage below the water line, but the double hull was penetrated (or bypassed), allowing the water in. Then, after the watertight bulkhead failed, the stress on the ship caused the rivets to fail one by one. That led directly to the loss of the ship.
Yes, I agree that the damage caused by the fire could have contributed to the iceberg being able to pierce the side of the ship.
I do try to keep an open mind, because there are many books and tv shows on this subject. Many of them contradict each other, so I have to find out what really happened.
There are many more Titanic Myths to be explored... !

A while ago, there was an author on The Colbert Report promoting her book, which was also her thesis, about how an inferior quality rivet holding the steel plates together at the spot the iceberg hit. Her theory is the rivet gave way when the iceberg hit, and aided the sinking, so combined with the fact the watertight bulkheads didn't extend to A Deck and the warped metal caused by the fire, and these factors could be the cause of the sinking.

Thank you for that info. Yes I fully agree with what you and the author said. I would also like to point out that, apart from the evidence you mentioned, it is also supported by the statement of Leading Stoker Barrett, who actually saw the rivets giving way one by one and the tv investigation I saw with the Metallugists, who said the steel plates, the steel rivets and the wrought iron rivets were not the strongest quality that they could have been. The steel was, "best", quality, instead of the stronger, "best best", quality. They also found lots of impurities in the wrought iron rivets, which is supposed to make them stronger, but too much impurity can make them weaker. With such a slight collision, maybe stronger steel plates and rivets would have prevented the fire damage causing the side of the ship to be penetrated at all. That is a Titanic mystery in itself! Why didn't White Star use the strongest steel? The answer is probably that the company was short of money, trying to compete with richer rivals like Cunard. The temptation to use cheaper materials would have been overwhelming. White Star being short of money is illustrated by the incident where Olympic collided with a Royal Navy warship (which had dodgy steering that jammed as the officers were trying to avoid Olympic). White Star had the law on their side, because they said Olympic had right of way. Unfortunately, a collection of civilian crew and a handful of expert witnesses was no match for the vast resources, expertise and experience of the battery of experts and top lawyers employed by the Admiralty. The result was almost inevitable. White Star took it all the way to the House of Lords - and lost! This is a symptom of a company that cannot afford the repair bill for such an accident. The insurers would not have covered all the costs. Somebody would have had to pay any excess and uninsured losses (e.g. loss of revenue while Olympic was being repaired etc.).
Another thing which weakened the steel plates and rivets was the temperature of the water. The last entry in the Captain's Log, just before the iceberg was sighted, showed the water was at the exact temperature that the steel would have been weakest. More Titanic Myths are waiting for a solution. Watch this space...!

quote:

Thank you for that info. Yes I fully agree with what you and the author said. I would also like to point out that, apart from the evidence you mentioned, it is also supported by the statement of Leading Stoker Barrett, who actually saw the rivets giving way one by one and the tv investigation I saw with the Metallugists, who said the steel plates, the steel rivets and the wrought iron rivets were not the strongest quality that they could have been. The steel was, "best", quality, instead of the stronger, "best best", quality. They also found lots of impurities in the wrought iron rivets, which is supposed to make them stronger, but too much impurity can make them weaker. With such a slight collision, maybe stronger steel plates and rivets would have prevented the fire damage causing the side of the ship to be penetrated at all. That is a Titanic mystery in itself! Why didn't White Star use the strongest steel? The answer is probably that the company was short of money, trying to compete with richer rivals like Cunard. The temptation to use cheaper materials would have been overwhelming. White Star being short of money is illustrated by the incident where Olympic collided with a Royal Navy warship (which had dodgy steering that jammed as the officers were trying to avoid Olympic). White Star had the law on their side, because they said Olympic had right of way. Unfortunately, a collection of civilian crew and a handful of expert witnesses was no match for the vast resources, expertise and experience of the battery of experts and top lawyers employed by the Admiralty. The result was almost inevitable. White Star took it all the way to the House of Lords - and lost! This is a symptom of a company that cannot afford the repair bill for such an accident. The insurers would not have covered all the costs. Somebody would have had to pay any excess and uninsured losses (e.g. loss of revenue while Olympic was being repaired etc.).
Another thing which weakened the steel plates and rivets was the temperature of the water. The last entry in the Captain's Log, just before the iceberg was sighted, showed the water was at the exact temperature that the steel would have been weakest. More Titanic Myths are waiting for a solution. Watch this space...!

Rubbish

I believe that you have described your own opinion precisely, so I don't need to comment further on your inaccurate statement. You are ignoring my stated sources and the Metallurgists in the tv investigation quoted by me in my posting.
Either indicate what you thought was rubbish about my posting (including your own information sources to prove it) or please just stick to less demanding discussion topics elsewhere. Those who make ridiculous comments online cannot later retract them, because other people have now seen your ludicrous posting.
This is (as I stated before) a serious investigation into the many myths surrounding the Titanic disaster, not an oportunity for people to post unsubstantiated and inaccurate opinions. I am only interested in finding answers to the mysteries, supported by evidence. Actions like yours are not worth the effort you appear to have put into it in gathering your justification before you submitted your lengthy posting...

Today, I want to focus on one of the conspiracy theories.
A number of people believe that the Titanic was deliberately sunk for the insurance money. Here is a summary of their case:-
(1) They claim White Star was short of money (this was probably true).
(2) They said Captain Smith was in on the plan, which, they say, is proved by his increasing the ship's speed heading towards a known ice field, despite many iceberg warnings.
(3) They reckon the Olympic and Titanic were switched after the Olympic's collision with H.M.S. Hawke caused her to return to Belfast for repairs while Titanic was still there being built.
(4) They stated that it was, in their opinion, strange that Californian had far more safety equipment than the number of passengers and crew she had on board, leading to the notion that Captain Lord was sent to stop near the Titanic's position to save all the passengers from this supposed preplanned sinking. Unfortunately, their version of events says, Californian did not receive Titanic's distress calls, as had been planned, leading to the unintentional loss of life that followed.

The case against this conspiracy theory is:-
(1) The, "big piece", raised from the wreck was clearly marked with the number, "701", which was Titanic's number. Olympic was marked, "700", so we can prove the ship that hit the iceberg and sank that night was, indeed, Titanic.
(2) The 2 ships were very nearly identical, except for on one deck an extra toilet was added to one of them. This required an extra window to be installed. It is clearly obvious that the ship that carried on sailing after the disaster WAS Olympic. This is proved by the promotional pictures. The spacing of the windows match those of Olympic precisely.

I would like anyone to tell us what they think about this conspiracy theory. Please suggest any other conspiracy theries that you know about. Don't forget to include evidence for and against, so that everyone can make up their own mind about each one.
I do believe this deliberate sinking for the insurance theory is not true. What's YOUR opinion...?

The Captain heroically, and deliberately, going down with his ship seems to have originated with Captain Smith of the Titanic.
I don't know of any other captains, who intentionally did that before the loss of the Titanic. It sounds, to me, like just another Media created legend about this iconic ship.
Can YOU add anything to solve this mystery... ?

The Titanic had safety equipment, which conformed to the British Board of Trade rules applicable in 1912.
Ships over 20,000 tons (I think that's correct, but I will check this a.s.a.p.) were only required to carry 16 lifeboats. I know that, inexplicably, the number of passengers on board was not taken into account. Today's question is - ships of that time were built ever bigger and faster to cater for the growing number of passengers wishing to cross the Atlantic. So why were the number of places in the lifeboats not matched to the number of passengers and crew on board in the Board of Trade rules?
My opinion is that many people just thought, as Captain Smith did, that the ship designs they were using made the loss of a ship very unlikely. It is known that White Star, and their competitors, simply did not realise that nobody can float in the Atlantic indefinitely. If hypothermia did not kill the survivors, dehydration, sunstroke or starvation probably would. Finding people floating in the sea is extremely difficult, even with modern 21st Century technology.
I repeat my question - why didn't the Board of Trade rules require the ships to carry enough lifeboats to save all the passengers and crew? I have given a number of suggestions, but what do YOU think? I suspect that nobody has the answer to this. Prove me wrong...!