Another measure taken by White Star, after the Titanic sank, was to change the design of the stress points (they are needed to give flexibility to the structure of the ship, allowing it to withstand the buffeting effect of crashing through the waves). The ship broke apart at precisely one of these points. I believe this is significant, because maybe White Star were simply trying to prevent a potential weakness in the design causing a future disaster.
Today's puzzle is - why did the designers, builders, owners and the Board of Trade design safety standards not take this possible flaw into account? Surely they must have known these flexible parts could break up in extreme circumstances (e.g. a storm, hitting icebergs or collisions with other ships etc.)? It's my opinion that 1912 was an era of over confidence in new technology, so maybe nobody thought it was potentially dangerous? Could the ship have been saved if these features had been stronger (or a different design)? What's YOUR opinion about this?

I just found a thread in the Water Cooler about the conspiracy theories, the main one being the ship that sank was the Britannic, despite the fact that the Britannic wasn't built until after the sinking.
http://community.discovery.com...1967776/m/7481963779

Thanks for that. I will follow it up a.s.a.p. I am still interested in any other conspiracy theories. It is known that the media created many myths about the Titanic, so there must be many more conspiracy theories than I am currently aware of...

Due to the transfer of Chief Officer Wilde from Olympic to Titanic the day before Titanic sailed, Chief Officer Murdoch was relegated to First Officer and First Officer Lightoller became Second Officer. Original Second Officer David Blair was taken off the Titanic, inadvertantly taking the key to the binocular cupboard with him. This meant that there were not enough binoculars for the Bridge officers and the lookouts, so the lookouts were left without them.
Could Frederick Fleet (the man who spotted the iceberg and passed the warning to the Bridge, "Iceberg right ahead!") and his colleague, Reginald Lee, who both survived the disaster, have spotted the iceberg sooner to give enough time for the ship to avoid the collision if they had both been given binoculars?
Normally, icebergs could be detected by seeing the waves breaking against the ice, but the night of the disaster was moonless, so this was impossible. Instead, the lookouts said they saw a mist on the horizon then a big black object. That was the point at which Frederick Fleet reported the sighting to the Bridge.
He was quoted as saying (words to the effect) that maybe he could have spotted the danger in time if he had been given binoculars. He committed suicide in 1965.
What do you think? Could the use of binoculars by the lookouts have allowed them to spot the iceberg in time to avoid it?

If there had been a public address system on board, I believe that the evacuation could have been significantly speeded up. I know they had electricity, radio, microphones and speakers already available to make one, but when was the first public address system invented?

Boat number 14, launched from the port side, contained an estimated 63 people, including 53 women, under the command of Fifth Officer Lowe, who had been put in charge by Chief Officer Wilde.

Fifth Officer Lowe had the boat rowed away from the ship, then he collected 5 boats together and transferred most of the passengers from his boat so that he could pick up other survivors from the water. Unfortunately, by the time he was ready to to carry out his plan, there were not many people left alive in the freezing cold sea to be rescued.

Wouldn't it have been quicker to just take the collected boats and pick up survivors directly into each one, rather than transfer passengers from his own boat, before starting the rescue from the water? We know that hypothermia, and the need to recover people from freezing water as quickly as possible, was not something that was known in 1912, so Fifth Officer Lowe and White Star would not have considered speed of rescue to be as important as we now know it to be today.

Do YOU think more people could have been saved if Fifth Officer Lowe had put his plan into action in a different way to the method he actually used? In what way could he have saved more lives?

Survivors said that, just before the Titanic disappeared below the surface of the sea, they heard a massive explosion inside the already mortally damaged ship. Dr. Ballard's team, who found the wreck, said that the bow section was largely intact, bearing in mind the length of time it had been submerged in the sea. However, they found the stern part of the ship, which was several hundred metres away on the seabed, was more damaged with less features intact.

What caused this explosion? Could it have been a coal bunker fire igniting something else? Coal bunker fires were common on board steam powered ships at that time. Or could it have been the very hot boilers coming into contact with ice cold seawater? Or could it have been something else...?

What do YOU think caused it?

We know that Titanic sank for many different reasons, but could it have survived, or at least stayed afloat long enough for everybody on board to be rescued, if there had been enough pumps to pump out the water before the stern started to rise into the air resulting in the rivets giving way and making the loss of the ship inevitable?

The main part of this mystery is - how much room would the minimum number of pumps have needed, inside the ship, to save it? Maybe there just wasn't enough room? An estimated 7 tons of water per second was entering the ship from the moment of impact, but this must have increased massively after the rivets started giving way. Maybe no amount of pumps, available at that time, could have prevented the tragic finale to the night's events. What do YOU think about this?

The British inquiry into the Titanic disaster was set up by the British Board of Trade. In effect, this was a potential conflict of interest, because it was the very same Board of Trade which set the minimum saftey standards for the design and operation of the ship. The rules proved to be inadequate for the provision of lifeboat places, the need to have 24/7 radio communication, proper signs to direct passengers around the unfamiliar ship to the boat deck, lifeboat drills (so that passengers and crew would know what to do to evacuate the ship in an emergency) and making sure the lifeboats were actually big enough to accommodate the number of people they were intended to carry.

Why did the British Government allow the Board of Trade to, effectively, investigate itself? Needless to say, it was no surprise that the British Inquiry exonerated the safety rules and concluded that Captain Smith did everything in accordance with normal procedure at the time.

Captain Lord, of the Californian, was criticised for failing to see the flares from the Titanic. He protested his innocence for the rest of his life, but was unable to completely shake off the accusation. It has since been proved, after the wreck of the Titanic was found, that Californian was too far away. The myth that they could have seen the Titanic was based on Boxhall's (incorrect) estimated Titanic position given to the rescue ships over the radio.

Curiously, the British inquiry did not call any of the passengers to give evidence! I am sure they could have given an unbiased account of what happened. All the witnesses were experts (who weren't even on the ship when it sank!) and crew, who might have been influenced by their employer's best interests.

Why didn't the British Government set up an investigation independent of the Board of Trade? Maybe because they feared an embarrassing report? Were they concerned about criticism of the lax safety rules? Were they worried about their political future due to a potential scandal?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warlike Poet:
We know that Titanic sank for many different reasons, but could it have survived, if they had just turned instead of reversing the engines or by just going ahead and ramming the iceberg?

quote:

Originally posted by Tom Leming:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warlike Poet:
We know that Titanic sank for many different reasons, but could it have survived, if they had just turned instead of reversing the engines or by just going ahead and ramming the iceberg?

I am not quite sure what this contributor is trying to say. Certainly this is, on the face of it, a misquote of my original posting. Perhaps it it a separate question by the contributor that I never posted myself. Please do not quote me as saying things that I clearly did not say!
I interpret the question to be along the lines of - (1) Could the Titanic have been saved if they had just steered hard to port or starboard, the engines were not stopped and the reverse engine was not used? And (2) Could the ship have survived a head on collision without slowing the impact speed by stopping the 2 forward engines and not using the reverse engine?
Remember I am not directly quoting the contributor. I am trying to work out one possible interpretation of the questions they posted.
(1) There were many other smaller icebergs and growlers in the icefield through which Titanic was sailing at 22.5 knots. Any of them could have caused significant damage - even if a collision with the actual iceberg HAD been averted. Remember, the actual impact speed was minimal, but the ship sank anyway.
(2) Surviving a head on collision at 22.5 knots is unknown. A naval architect at the British inquiry said it was possible that the Titanic COULD have survived a head on impact due to the box shape of bulkhead number 1 being possibly able to contain the water. This would need a proper test to prove or disprove, but there were other ships around that time in history which DID hit an iceberg head on and survived. For now, all I can say is the answer is - maybe.

Please keep reading and posting, because there are many more Titanic myths yet to be investigated!

Did not mean to misquote you. I didn't erase your quote all the way. I just wanted to ask the question that I did and you gave me the answer. Thanks you. Would like to see it tested on Mythbusters though.

Thanks for your reply. Don't worry, I was just trying to interpret what you said. The way you phrased it was a bit confusing at first, until I realised what you really meant.

YES! YES! YES! I fully agree that your very important question (and, I believe, many other Titanic myths) SHOULD be tested on Mythbusters! There are many Titanic myths we have covered in this topic already - but I still have many others in mind that I have not mentioned yet!

I really genuinely DO value everybody's contributions to this investigation. No qualifications required. Just an interest in one of the most preventable tragedies in British maritime history. There are many more Titanic myths to come, so please keep contributing and... watch out for my next posting - coming soon!

Many survivors reported seeing an unidentified ship nearby, after Titanic hit the iceberg. Attempts were made to communicate with it by radio and by distress flares, but there was no response at all. Captain Smith even ordered the lifeboats to row towards the mysterious ship, but, despite the ship firing white flares only to mast height, it turned away and disappeared before any of the boats could reach it.
Who was on board the (to this day) unknown ship? At the time it was assumed to have been Californian, due to Titanic giving it's own position incorrectly. However, since the wreck was found, the true position has been confirmed. It showed that Californian was clearly not the ship concerned, because Californian's position was given correctly by her crew, so it proved she was too far away, over the horizon, to have seen Titanic in her final desperate moments before she finally lost her battle with the cold, unforgiving sea. Many believe it was a smugglers' ship, because smugglers would need only short distance communication with each other, or shore based accomplices, to avoid being spotted by anyone else, who might report them to the authorities. They did not routinely use radio, at that time in history, for fear of monitoring by Customs officers. That could explain their flares only going up to mast height, the lack of radio response and their inexplicable action when they turned away from a ship clearly in distress and disappeared without attempting to pick up survivors. Many more lives could have been saved by that ship. Surely nothing could have been more important than saving the lives of the people from the stricken ship? Even criminals could have been treated leniently if they DID save 1532 lives. Who else could have been on that strange ship, which ignored the unfolding disaster right in front of them? Can YOU solve this mystery?

let's get you away from dope

quote:

Originally posted by hambone7:
let's get you away from dope

I could respond to this inaccurate posting, but I don't need to, because it speaks volumes about the person who wrote it. I don't do drugs, because I know they are dangerous. That way allows me to investigate the Titanic mysteries and myths without distractions. I know that many things said about the Titanic are not true. E.g. they were not increasing their speed to win the Blue Riband for the fastest crossing of the Atlantic Ocean, because the holder at the time did the trip at an average speed of 27 knots (Titanic's maximum speed in her sea trials was only 24.75 knots). This disaster is historical fact, not just my own opinion.

There were many survivors who said they saw the mysterious ship. Were they ALL lying? Certainly a quantum leap of imagination and co-ordination for so many strangers to be able to tell the same story so precisely and still be wrong!
We know there WAS such a ship and we know it failed to help in any way. What we don't know is WHY?

Why did White Star choose Captain Smith to command Titanic? He had experience of commanding her sister ship Olympic and he DID hand Olympic over to Captain Herbert James Haddock (who was still in charge of Olympic during the Titanic disaster).
Captain Edward John Smith (address, in 1912, Winn Road, Southampton) was the most senior officer in White Star with the actual rank of Commodore. He was allegedly on his last trip before retirement when he took command of Titanic's maiden voyage.

However, his career with the company was not unblemished, even though it wasn't his fault for all of the incidents he encountered.

He was born in 1850 and started his sea career at the age of 13. Joining the White Star Line as a junior officer in 1880, he gained his first command in 1887. Two years later, he was commanding the Republic when it ran aground off New York and was refloated after several hours. During the same day, three crew died in a boiler accident. In 1890, he ran another ship aground near Rio de Janeiro. He commanded several troopships in the Boer War, resulting in the award of a medal and a commission in the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve as a Commander, allowing any merchant ship under his command to fly the Blue Ensign instead of the Red Ensign normally flown by British merchant ships. In 1901 aboard the Majestic and again in 1906 aboard the Baltic, he encountered serious fires. In November 1909 his ship, White Star's flagship Adriatic, ran aground in the Ambrose Channel near New York. With Olympic, he crushed a tug while berthing at New York as well as being in command when Olympic collided with H.M.S. Hawke (Wednesday 20th September 1911) and another incident (February 1912) where Olympic lost a propeller after hitting an uncharted object eastbound over the Grand Banks about 750 miles from the Newfoundland coast, which both resulted in separate visits to Belfast for repairs.

I repeat (given his eventful career) - why did White Star choose Captain Smith for the maiden voyage of the Titanic? Were there any other captains with better safety records? Was it just a question of him being the most senior rank? Was it his long career? Or could it have been that he had experience of Titanic's sister ship Olympic, which was very nearly identical? Does anyone know why he was chosen?

The British Inquiry accepted that there were no locked gates preventing Steerage Class passengers getting to the Boat Deck. Survivors disputed this. They insisted that there WERE locked gates separating the different classes of passengers. They said crew refused to unlock the gates, forcing the Steerage passengers to take a very long and complicated route through the ship to reach the lifeboats. The First Class passengers, mostly on B Deck, were meant to simply step aboard the lifeboats as they were lowered from above. The Second Class passengers' route would have been slightly more difficult, but they were still not far from the Boat Deck compared with the Steerage passengers.

The mystery is - how did the British Inquiry arrive at this clearly incorrect conclusion? We know they were just the Board of Trade investigating itself and their own (out of date) safety rules. Were they trying to deflect criticism away from the Board of Trade's indisputable failures? Was it political influence from the Government of the day to avoid the blame for the failures in the law ending up with them? Or did the Inquiry simply believe the professional sailors and bosses at White Star in preference to the mostly unqualified passengers? This is a very strange conclusion for which I can find no justification whatsoever. Can YOU help explain it... ?

I have just found a promotional picture showing the design of the double bottom of the ship. It shows that it did not extend above the waterline, as I originally thought. This would explain why the side of the ship was so easily holed by such a slight impact.

It does, however, reveal yet another Titanic mystery. Why didn't it extend above the waterline, at least? I think it was because White Star was only concerned with preventing the ship sinking when running aground (see the details of Captain Smith's career - already posted above). There seems to have been no consideration given to the possibility of collision with other ships or icebergs. I don't know of any other reason. Do YOU...?

I saw an account of an accident involving a White Star Line ship and another company's vessel. Unfortunately, I cannot trace it, so I don't know which White Star Line disaster it was (among many!). I have decided to give everybody the information that I have found so far. The incident is relevant to the Titanic, because it was said to be the reason that White Star thought their safety plan to transfer passengers and crew to rescue ships without sufficient room in the lifeboats for everyone on board would prevent embarrassing loss of life.

The RMS Republic, a White Star Line ship (not the same ship as Captain Smith served aboard earlier in his career) left New York in January 1909 under the command of Captain Selby. It was equipped with a Marconi wireless.

Early in the morning of 23rd January, it ran into dense fog. The captain ordered slow speed and periodically sounded a whistle to warn other ships of its presence. At 5.47 a.m. another whistle was heard. The captain ordered evasive action. The Florida appeared and hit the Republic amidships.
The Republic began to sink and Captain Selby ordered the first ever transmission of the CQD distress call. It was thought to mean, "Come Quick Danger", but it actually consisted of the Marconi code, "CQ", meaning, "to all ships", and, "D", the general Marconi code for danger. The Titanic became the first ship to use the more modern, "SOS" distress call. "SOS", was thought to be easier to transmit than, "CQD".

Then Captain Selby ordered abandon ship and the passengers and crew were transferred to the Florida and from there to other ships.

The Republic stayed afloat for more than 12 hours, but sank while being towed back to New York. Only 6 lives were lost in the collision and none as a result of the sinking. This disaster reinforced the idea of ships being their own lifeboats to stay afloat long enough for everyone to be rescued by other ships.

Three years later this strategy was tragically exposed for the myth it proved to be when the Titanic, with its insufficient lifeboat provision, struck an iceberg and sank in only 2 hours and 38 minutes giving rescue ships no chance of saving everyone on board.

The Titanic not only sank taking 1532 people with it to a freezing, watery grave in 1912, but it also destroyed the myth of the unsinkable ship forever.

Why did White Star (and many people) believe that a ship about 400 miles from land could stay afloat long enough to evacuate everybody to rescue ships? Was it really the RMS Republic disaster, in 1909, which confirmed the theory to White Star (even though the Republic was near land when she suffered the impact)? Could it have been misguided faith in the new technology of the day? Or was it something else? Do YOU know why this myth ever existed... ?