Author Topic: Titanic ( merged )  (Read 11613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 47,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Titanic ( merged )
« on: January 04, 2017, 15:54:52 »
Yep,

I love good treasure hunts, and the Titanic was a massive find.  This seems like a history changer, if true!

http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/fb89aab2-c004-48fa-917d-295df66d39ae%7C_0.html

Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic

A new documentary theorizes a coal blaze weakened the hull during construction
Dan Bilefsy The New York Times

LONDON — Maybe it wasn’t just the iceberg.

Ever since the Titanic sank on April 15, 1912, killing more than 1,500 men, women and children, mystery has swirled around the tragedy. No one doubts that the ship collided at high speed with an iceberg off the coast of Newfoundland.

But a new documentary posits that the demise of the ship, hailed at the time as the largest ever built, and praised for its professed unsinkability, may have been accelerated by a giant coal fire in its hull that occurred weeks before it set off on its fateful journey to New York from Southampton, England.

In the documentary, broadcast on Channel 4 in Britain on New Year’s Day, Senan Molony, an Irish journalist who has spent more than 30 years researching the Titanic, contends that the fire, in a three-storey-high bunker next to one of the ship’s boiler rooms, damaged its hull, helping to seal its fate long before it slammed into the iceberg.

“It’s a perfect storm of extraordinary factors coming together: fire, ice and criminal negligence,” he argues in the documentary, Titanic: The New Evidence.

“The fire was known about, but it was played down. She should never have been put to sea.”

Molony’s potential breakthrough can be traced to an attic in Wiltshire, in southwest England, where a previously unpublished album of photographs chronicling the ship’s construction and the preparations for its maiden voyage had been gathering dust for more than a century.

The photos were discovered by a descendant of a director of the Belfast-based company, Harland and Wolff, which built the Titanic.

About four years ago, a collaborator of Molony’s acquired the rare pictures of the ship, meticulously taken by Harland and Wolff’s engineering chief before it left a Belfast shipyard.

When the two men looked closely at the images, Molony said, they were shocked to discover a 30-foot-long diagonal black mark on the hull’s front starboard side, close to where the ship was pierced by the iceberg.

An analysis by engineers at Imperial College London subsequently revealed that the mark was most likely caused by a fire in a coal bunker of the ship.

Molony called the photographs “the Titanic equivalent of Tutankhamen’s tomb,” because of the richness of historical detail they conveyed, including the mark highlighting the extent of the damage.

Experts said the theory was compelling, but were divided over how important a role the fire may have played.

In an interview, Richard de Kerbrech, a marine engineer based on the Isle of Wight who has written two books on the Titanic disaster, said that the fire would have damaged the ship’s bulkhead, a wall of steel within the ship’s hull, and made it more vulnerable after it was pierced by an iceberg.

An official British inquiry, in 1912, mentioned the fire, but the judge who presided over it, whom critics saw as sympathetic to shipping interests, played it down.

“This discovery is a revelation and could change our knowledge of the history of what happened,” de Kerbrech said.

Molony contends that the ship’s owners knew about the fire but chose to let it go, since delaying the ship’s journey would have been financially ruinous.

At the time of departure, the ship was berthed so that the marks caused by the fire were facing the sea, away from the dock, and therefore concealed from passengers.

Molony said he believed the fire had been played down, in part because death by iceberg was a more dramatic explanation.

“The ship was seen as a heroic unsinkable ship and, as a result, people focused on explanations that fed that narrative,” he said.

Not everyone is convinced.

David Hill, a former honorary secretary of the British Titanic Society, who has been studying the cause of the sinking since the 1950s, argued that, while the damage caused by the fire to the steel walls protecting the ship’s hull may have hastened its demise, the blaze was not the decisive factor.

“When the Titanic hit the iceberg close to midnight on April 14, 1912, it created a 300-foot-long line of damage on the starboard section of the hull, including punctures and gashes, that opened up too many compartments to the sea, so that the weight of the water dragged the bow down so low that the ship eventually sank,” he said. “A fire may have accelerated this.

“But in my view, the Titanic would have sunk anyways.”
I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,476
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2017, 16:22:50 »
Interesting stuff they dredged up, including the effect of a coal strike that resulted in her carrying a minimal amount of coal.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 195,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,284
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2017, 17:32:36 »
I've got some problems with this being a "new" theory.

The fire, which had been extinguished before the sinking, was well known about at the time of the inquiry that took place just after the sinking. Here's one stoker's testimony:

"Did it take much time to get the fire down? - It took us right up to the Saturday to get it out.

How long did it take to put the fire itself out? - The fire was not out much before all the coal was out.

The fire was not extinguished until you got the whole of the coal out? - No. I finished the bunker out myself, me and three or four men that were there. We worked everything out.

5246   The bulkhead forms part of the bunker - the side? - Yes, you could see where the bulkhead had been red hot.

You looked at the side after the coal had been taken out? - Yes.

5248   What condition was it in? - You could see where it had been red hot; all the paint and everything was off. It was dented a bit.

It was damaged, at any rate? - Yes, warped.

Was much notice taken of it. Was any attempt made to do anything with it? - I just brushed it off and got some black oil and rubbed over it.

To give it its ordinary appearance? - Yes.

You are not a professional expert and would not be able to express an opinion as to whether that had any effect on the collision? - I could not say that."

On top of that there have been theories that the Titanic was travelling at an unusually high speed because of the fire and a desire to get to New York to get the fire under control; that the steel was extremely brittle (especially at low temperatures and confirmed by modern analysis of sample hull plate brought up from the wreckage) and therefore it ruptured with the collision; and that the rivets in that portion of the ship were weaker iron rivets rather than stronger steel ones elsewhere.

The only reason the coal fire theory is resurfacing at this time is because a smudge was found in a photo of the hull which people hadn't noticed before. Nothing new here, just some additional evidence of something that was known before and far from conclusive. It's still anyone's guess what, if any, effect it would have had.

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 47,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2017, 18:04:22 »
I've got some problems with this being a "new" theory.

The fire, which had been extinguished before the sinking, was well known about at the time of the inquiry that took place just after the sinking. Here's one stoker's testimony:

"Did it take much time to get the fire down? - It took us right up to the Saturday to get it out.

How long did it take to put the fire itself out? - The fire was not out much before all the coal was out.

The fire was not extinguished until you got the whole of the coal out? - No. I finished the bunker out myself, me and three or four men that were there. We worked everything out.

5246   The bulkhead forms part of the bunker - the side? - Yes, you could see where the bulkhead had been red hot.

You looked at the side after the coal had been taken out? - Yes.

5248   What condition was it in? - You could see where it had been red hot; all the paint and everything was off. It was dented a bit.

It was damaged, at any rate? - Yes, warped.

Was much notice taken of it. Was any attempt made to do anything with it? - I just brushed it off and got some black oil and rubbed over it.

To give it its ordinary appearance? - Yes.

You are not a professional expert and would not be able to express an opinion as to whether that had any effect on the collision? - I could not say that."

On top of that there have been theories that the Titanic was travelling at an unusually high speed because of the fire and a desire to get to New York to get the fire under control; that the steel was extremely brittle (especially at low temperatures and confirmed by modern analysis of sample hull plate brought up from the wreckage) and therefore it ruptured with the collision; and that the rivets in that portion of the ship were weaker iron rivets rather than stronger steel ones elsewhere.

The only reason the coal fire theory is resurfacing at this time is because a smudge was found in a photo of the hull which people hadn't noticed before. Nothing new here, just some additional evidence of something that was known before and far from conclusive. It's still anyone's guess what, if any, effect it would have had.

 :subbies:

Excellent point, however this is a complete documentary.  I am going on a hunch here, but maybe they will talk about more than an interview and a smudge on a phote, wouldn't you agree?

Anyways, I am excited for it to come out.
I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 47,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2017, 20:06:03 »
You can now watch the Documentary on this link!!!!

https://youtu.be/GrCE73rBfuM


Pssst, FJAG they talk about theorists like you.  ;)


I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 195,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,284
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2017, 20:25:22 »
Excellent point, however this is a complete documentary.  I am going on a hunch here, but maybe they will talk about more than an interview and a smudge on a phote, wouldn't you agree?

Anyways, I am excited for it to come out.

I do agree.

I'm always a sucker for these types of shows. There were several good programs/series I've enjoyed including NatGeo's Rebuilding the Titanic; History Channel's Lost Worlds: Building the Titanic and Titanic: The Complete Story and two docu-dramas: Titanic: Birth of a Legend and Titanic: Blood and Steel

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 47,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2017, 20:49:23 »
I do agree.

I'm always a sucker for these types of shows. There were several good programs/series I've enjoyed including NatGeo's Rebuilding the Titanic; History Channel's Lost Worlds: Building the Titanic and Titanic: The Complete Story and two docu-dramas: Titanic: Birth of a Legend and Titanic: Blood and Steel

 :subbies:

That is why I have always loved your posts!!!

Now time for me to go find any of those Docs I ahve not seen yet!!!

 :subbies: :cheers:
I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 47,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2017, 20:50:33 »
Just finished watching the Doc People, and wow wow wow!!!!!

Well done,a nd lots of info.  I am sold on the theory.

I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 195,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,284
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2017, 21:10:17 »
Pssst, FJAG they talk about theorists like you.  ;)

Yeah. When it comes to these things I'm a bit of a Missourian. I'm sceptical until I can see, substantiate and analyse the "new" facts/theories. Too often these shows promise much more insight then they actually deliver. It's all part of the money making machine which is today's entertainment industry. All too often these shows are long on speculation and short on actual proof.

But I am looking forward to watching this one.

BTW If you're interested in naval disasters and engineering then you might find the whole salvage operation of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor interesting. Here's a link to a site that has an overview and photos of the various activities re specific ships http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/ph-salv.htm and a pdf file article that concentrates on the salvage of the Oklahoma http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/631/2/Salvage.pdf

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 195,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,284
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2017, 04:25:54 »
Okay. I've now seen the video and am unimpressed with the thing.

As I said before, none of the information is new and all that we are getting here is an interpretation of selected old existing evidence which has already been gone over before and found to be irrelevant or marginally relevant.

The key element behind the sinking is that the ship hit an iceberg and opened a large gash below the waterline. The design of the ship was such that it would continue to float if the first four compartments were flooded but if more than that was damaged then the bow would drop to the point where water would overflow the upper decks (principally Decks D and E) resulting in a cascading overflow from compartment to compartment until the entire ship was compromised to the point of no recovery.

When the ship struck the berg at 11:40 pm all the watertight doors in the bulkheads were instantly closed. The damage was immediately assessed by the ship's officers as involving a tear some 300 feet in length and some 10 feet above the keel (well below the water line) affecting six compartments (Holds 1-4 and Boiler rooms 6 and 5 [note that holds are numbered from the bow back while boiler rooms were numbered from the stern forward]). Based on the investigation the representative of the builder, Mr Thomas Andrews, tells the Captain at midnight that he estimated that the ship would stay afloat for two hours at best. By that time water was already 14 feet high in compartments 1,2,3,4, and Boiler Room 6 (somewhat lower and isolated in Boiler Room 5) and rising while the bow was dropping.

By around 1:35 the forecastle deck was flooded and at 2:20 she slipped under. See the US and Brit evidence and reports and a timeline summary:

http://www.titanicinquiry.org/ and http://www.titanicstory.com/timeline.htm

So. Where does that leave me as to this new documentary? In short the ship was doomed right from the moment it hit the iceberg because six compartments became open to the sea and this would pull the bow of the ship down in short order to the point where water cascaded over the top of the bulkheads through the non watertight upper decks.

The genesis of this documentary allegedly started with the discovery of a new photograph of when she sailed and which photos shows a smudge or discoloration on the starboard side well above the waterline which is attributed to the bunker fire.

IMHO there is a disingenuous suggestion and very selective evidence starting around 38 minutes in where the "ship's designer" allegedly said that she would not sink but only if critical bulkheads held. It then goes on to talk about Leading Fireman Barrett speaking of Boiler Room 5 being dry but then there is a sudden "wave of green foam come tearing through between the boilers" which the documentary suggests was as a result of the rupture of the coal fire weakened bulkhead between BRs 6 and 5 leaving you with the impression that if it hadn't been for the fire weakened bulkhead Titanic would not have sunk or, at least, have held on for substantially longer (enough at least to rescue everyone)
 
In fact though, Barrett's testimony in the US was quite clear that the tear made by the iceberg extended "[p]ast the bulkhead between sections [ie Boiler Rooms] 5 and 6, and it was a hole 2 feet into the coal bunkers. She was torn through No. 6 and also through 2 feet abaft the bulkhead in the bunker at the forward head of No.5 section." Barrett stated that the water in No 5 stayed below the floor plates initially. (See http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/AmInq18Barrett01.php (note that if you click on the links for "Section 6" and "No 5" you get a very good schematic of the actual compartments, bunkers etc)

Barrett also testified before the British inquiry, and makes it quite clear, that in fact the gash in the hull of the ship extended beyond the watertight bulkhead between Boiler Rooms 5 and 6 and into the coal bunker at the forward end of BR 5 where the water came in rapidly. See: http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Barrett01.php and http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq04Barrett01.php That quite clearly means that right from the beginning there was a penetration in the hull by the iceberg into all six of the forward compartments although the sixth compartment was less effected then the front five.

It's clear from Barrett's evidence that there was some event where suddenly there was a larger inrush of water into Boiler Room 5 which made Barrett flee that compartment but whether it came from the bulkhead failing due to fire weakness or the BR 5 forward right bunker failing from water that had entered through the tear in the skin or plain ordinary stress on the steel from the ship which had been continuously listing and twisted forward is well beyond anyone to be able to analyse properly at this time. There is significant discussion in the Brit inquiry as to what exactly failed but no clear conclusion.

It's really too bad that the producers completely ignored the fact that the tear in the ship extended a few feet beyond the bulkhead in question (especially because they specifically quote Barrett already). Anytime a story like this leaves out a critical piece of information that suggests an alternate theory to their pet theory - well; that's when my bullsh*t meter starts going off.

What is abundantly clear however is that with at least five compartments fully compromised and a sixth partly compromised the senior staff of the Titanic had recognized the ship as doomed within 15 minutes of the collision with an estimated two hours to live. At best, a fire damaged bulkhead may have been a minor contributing factor, but the death of the Titanic and the speed with which she died came primarily from the 300 foot gash below her waterline and the fact that more compartments were compromised than she was designed to handle.

One thing I'll give them credit for is the fact that they turned some still photos of the time into really neat animation.

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2017, 06:19:48 »
 :goodpost:

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 47,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2017, 13:12:52 »
:ditto:

 :goodpost:

FJAG,

Phenomenal post thank you for the information!!!!!!
I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 218,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,818
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2017, 13:34:31 »
Anytime a story like this leaves out a critical piece of information that suggests an alternate theory to their pet theory - well; that's when my bullsh*t meter starts going off.

Exactly. A documentary film maker once told me that he was not held to the same standards of accuracy as an historian or an author, or I suppose a journalist. In his opinion, he was allowed some artistic licence in telling his story and could present the information in such a way so as to make his point.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,476
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2017, 15:28:38 »
I took away from the doc, that the fire was not out as they believed and was burning as they proceeded to across the Atlantic and that they then needed to move the burning coal into the boilers at a high rate which was part of the issue, plus it was forcing them to go through the limited coal stocks faster than anticipated.

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 47,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2017, 16:20:41 »
I took away from the doc, that the fire was not out as they believed and was burning as they proceeded to across the Atlantic and that they then needed to move the burning coal into the boilers at a high rate which was part of the issue, plus it was forcing them to go through the limited coal stocks faster than anticipated.

Same with me. 

Now don't get me wrong, I am no Titanic Historian, just a fan of the story, so I would definately bow to people like FJAG as he, and Old Sweat made a good point, would give us good info and not drop out anything for a "producer" like a Journolist would.  So for me alot of that information is new.

I must admit though, it is one of the better documentaries I have seen, on any topic.

Either way, I would love this thread to keep going, as I said, I am fascinated by the whole story.

I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 195,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,284
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2017, 19:15:14 »
... I am no Titanic Historian, just a fan of the story, so I would definately bow to people like FJAG as he, and Old Sweat ...

Don't give me more credit than I'm due. Old Sweat is the real historian in this forum while I'm an enthusiastic amateur with an interest in certain historic events.

One thing I do have is several decades of experience as a lawyer in gathering facts from conflicting witnesses (and witnesses rarely agree even when they are all telling the truth), researching law and scientific and other expert (and often conflicting) literature and forming an opinion as to what is the more probable situation/outcome. Generally I find that theories can be classified as 1) definitely this is what occurred; 2) it's more probable than not that this occurred; 3) it's possible that this might have occurred; and 4) this definitely didn't happen.

There are various fields of law (negligence being one) where the important thing is to establish "causation" for a loss and that's really what the two inquiries were involved in. What one looks for is the event (or events) that "directly caused" the loss; we generally call that the "proximate cause". There may very well be other minor events which might also be in play but which are "too remote" to be the actual cause for the loss.

I'm no expert on the Titanic but have followed the numerous articles and documentaries that have come out since the wreck was discovered and enjoyed reading or seeing all of them as they usually added something to my understanding of the event. If anything I've come to the conclusion that there are somethings we'll never know because many of the key people involved died and the physical evidence is buried deep under the sea. Therefore most of the theories, to me at least, will always be in the third class (it's possible but not probable or definite) and therefore might be "remote causes". The only one of the theories that I tend to put into the definite theory class, and what I would consider the "proximate cause" for the loss of the ship, is the gash that completely flooded five compartments and extended into the sixth (with initially minor flooding) so that the buoyancy of the bow of the ship was compromised beyond the ship's design specs and thereby dooming it.

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 195,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,284
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2017, 00:14:04 »
I took away from the doc, that the fire was not out as they believed and was burning as they proceeded to across the Atlantic and that they then needed to move the burning coal into the boilers at a high rate which was part of the issue, plus it was forcing them to go through the limited coal stocks faster than anticipated.

This is another one of the things about the documentary that bugs me.

About two thirds of the way through there is a piece that starts with "Astonishing new evidence" which consists of a newspaper interview by the New York Tribune with an officer who wouldn't give his name which talks about bunkers in the plural in stokeholds 9 and 10 which relate to the two adjoining bunkers in BRs 5 and 6. (The page with the article is here in column five about half way down under the heading "Say Fire Was In Progress": http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1912-04-20/ed-1/seq-6/)  Based on this the documentary then goes on to show a schematic of a fire first in the aft starboard coal bunker of Boiler room 6 (where there is clear evidence that there was a fire) and a second alleged fire starting up in the adjoining forward starboard bunker of BR 5 (which is separated from the previous bunker by the "weakened" bulkhead.)

On the other hand, a Fireman Dilley is attributed as saying to the British inquiry that rather than there being a fire in the forward starboard BR 5 bunker, the bunker was emptied as a "precautionary measure" to ensure that it wouldn't catch fire by heat transfer. Trouble is that in fact Dilley never testified before either inquiry. (But see this article for some discussion on this issue http://titanic-model.com/db/db-03/CoalBunkerFire.htm - like the author of that article I have searched the inquiries from stem to stern and the only reference to him is for some expenses paid and listing him as part of the crew and as far as I can see there is no evidence that the fire ever spread to the fwd stbd bunker of BR5.

The two main witnesses at the inquiries respecting the fire, Frederick Barrett and Charles Hendrickson, do not mention a second fire in BR 5 but both agree that there was one in the aft stbd bunker of BR 6 and that,as at the time of the crash, the fire (singular) was out and both those bunkers were empty of coal. So, while the two fire theory is weak, the fact that both bunkers were cleared of coal is substantiated.

The trouble is that the documentary now wants to use the coal removed from these bunkers as the reason why the Titanic was travelling as fast as she was. The documentary theorises that to get rid of this burning coal the ship had to go faster.

That's pure bullsh*t.

Firstly, the fire was out and both bunkers were emptied of coal well before the crash and therefore there was no more need to stoke heavily to get rid of the coal. The ship could easily have slowed down even if the theory might have been right while the fire was burning.

Secondly, you should note that the ship had five double boiler rooms each with four coal bunkers and one single boiler room with two coal bunkers (with a total of five single boilers, 24 double boilers and 22 coal bunkers at the floor plate/tank top level (with more compartments higher up--See here for a full description/schematic: http://www.titanicology.com/Titanica/TitanicsPrimeMover.htm). If they had to shovel out these two particular bunkers (with what appears to be a capacity of 300+ tons out of a total ship capacity of 6,611 tons i.e. about 5% of capacity) then there could have been a lot of balancing off with the boilers/bunkers that remained. The way I understand the evidence is that she was steaming at "normal" speed just below her maximum and that some of the boilers (the five single boilers) were off at the time of the crash while all the 24 double boilers were lit (apparently she was making 75 revolutions per minute on her drive shafts out of a possible high of 83). With no need to get rid of burning coal at this point, they could have easily tamped down several boilers and reduced revolutions.

The documentary tries to answer that question by the fact that because of a miners strike she had taken on "just enough fuel to get to NY" and therefore if she was to slow down for the ice and then speed up again they would run short (quite correctly increasing speed does eat up fuel). The trouble with this is that she was not short of coal. Titanic had coaled-up in Southampton to an 89% capacity (5,892 tons of a capacity of 6,611 tons) and the Olympic (her sister ship) had done the run to NY on 3,540 tons. This would leave Titanic with 1,300 tons spare. The 300+ tons from the two at-issue bunkers would still leave a 1,000 ton reserve (and that's if you figure that in having burned off those two bunkers the Titanic had received no propulsion benefit) (If you've got the patience, here's a lengthy article on the speed issue that looks to a good bit of the evidence given at the inquiries which includes the coal tonnage figures: http://www.titanicology.com/Titanica/Speed_and_More_Speed.pdf)

I know there are a number of theories as to why she travelled at the speed she did but all the evidence given seemed to be that she was running at her normal scheduled cruising speed with no intent to set a record or conserve coal or get to NY to put out the fires etc etc. etc. etc. The Captain had given instructions for the night watch that, because the night was clear and the ocean smooth, they should keep up her normal speed but if it became hazy so that visibility was an issue then speed was to be reduced.

Hate to say it but the documentary's whole "the Titanic was going fast because of the coal fire issue" is nothing more than a case of situating the estimate to get the sensational result that it's authors/producers wanted.

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,436
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,056
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2017, 07:10:38 »
Watched the 'documentary' last night, and was not impressed.

Points I took away:
-Show claimed that the ship wasn't believed to be sinking until almost 2 hours after the strike, in fact, Captain Smith understood within the first 15 minutes that his ship was doomed.
-Much 'hey' was made over the onrushing wall of green water that was reported in boiler room 5, which was (I believe) the 6th watertight bulkhead area.  If the water overflowed the area of bulkhead 5 (boiler room 6) then of course there's going to be a flow of water over the top and down into the space. 

I'm certainly not convinced that this was the 'smoking gun' based on this 'new evidence.'

May it have contributed?  Yes.

Did it sink the ship?  Not on its own.   Hitting the iceberg sank the Titanic.

NS

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,436
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,056
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2017, 07:15:43 »
Here's another image:



Note, the Boiler rooms were numbered from aft to fore, so the foreward-most boiler room was #6.  (Fills with water in BLUE in this image) and note that when this boiler room fills, the angle of the ship is now such that there would be a huge rush of water that would overcome the top of the bulkhead and would fill boiler room #5 very quickly.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 195,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,284
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2017, 12:25:52 »
Watched the 'documentary' last night, and was not impressed.

Points I took away:
-Show claimed that the ship wasn't believed to be sinking until almost 2 hours after the strike, in fact, Captain Smith understood within the first 15 minutes that his ship was doomed.
-Much 'hey' was made over the onrushing wall of green water that was reported in boiler room 5, which was (I believe) the 6th watertight bulkhead area.  If the water overflowed the area of bulkhead 5 (boiler room 6) then of course there's going to be a flow of water over the top and down into the space. 

I'm certainly not convinced that this was the 'smoking gun' based on this 'new evidence.'

May it have contributed?  Yes.

Did it sink the ship?  Not on its own.   Hitting the iceberg sank the Titanic.

NS


I agree fully with you that this is what happened although you should note that in his appearance before the inquiry Fireman Barrett (the wall of water guy) was specifically asked if the water came over from the top of the bulkhead and he said that he couldn't see how it could. He thought something gave way but the evidence is somewhat unclear as to whether it was the bulkhead or the outside bunker wall. (See here: http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Barrett02.php)

One thing to recall is that Barrett also reported that water was coming rapidly into the empty fore stbd bunker in BR 5 through a two foot "rent" there and that they closed that bunker's doors (although these were not watertight doors-just coal tight I guess)

Also note that Barrett is the one that saw the rush of water coming from "between the boilers" which means that at this time he would have had to be on the aft side of BR5 and not standing near the weakened bulkhead/fwd coal bunkers. His view of what was happening at the forward wall would have been obscured by the boilers. On top of that he testified that they had pulled the fires in the boilers by pouring water on the coals and that the visibility in BR5 was obscured by steam. He did indicate that by this time the ship was definitely tilting down at the bow with the tilt getting worse as time passed.

My wild *ssed guess is that water had been filling the fwd stbd bunker of BR 5 through the gash there (and then made its way to the port side of the fwd bunker of BR5 as the two were connected above the central passageway). In addition to that any water initially overflowing the bulkhead from BR6 might have initially made its way into both the stbd and prt fwd bunkers of BR5 filling those rather than into the main part of BR5. The walls of the coal bunkers facing the boilers were weaker than those of the actual bulkhead. In my mind it is possible that the bunker wall at some point failed letting that water rush into the main part of BR 5. I have no proof for that but it could explain Barrett's observations even if the main bulkhead did not fail.

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Chispa

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 199
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2017, 13:58:08 »
A fire in the sinking was argued many moons ago…aliens…wasn’t christened…the moon…all certainly questionable or a combination of factors sunk the Titanic.


AS FJAG posted on the Inquiry, fallow link:
Page 243 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 1 – 5:
5238. Did you help to get the coal out? - Yes. 5239. Did you hear when the fire commenced? - Yes, I heard it commenced at Belfast.
5240. When did you start getting the coal out? - The first watch we did from Southampton we started to get it out.
5241. How many days would that be after you left Belfast? - I do not know when she left Belfast to the day.
5242. It would be two or three days, I suppose? - I should say so.
5243. Did it take much time to get the fire down? - It took us right up to the Saturday to get it out.

http://www.titanicandco.com/inquiry/Days1-5/files/basic-html/page243.html


N Y Times: In Weak Rivets, a Possible Key to Titanic’s Doom By WILLIAM J. BROAD APRIL 15, 2008

Researchers have discovered that the builder of the Titanic struggled for years to obtain enough good rivets and riveters and ultimately settled on faulty materials that doomed the ship, which sank 96 years ago Tuesday.

The builder’s own archives, two scientists say, harbor evidence of a deadly mix of low quality rivets and lofty ambition as the builder labored to construct the three biggest ships in the world at once — the Titanic and two sisters, the Olympic and the Britannic.
For a decade, the scientists have argued that the storied liner went down fast after hitting an iceberg because the ship’s builder used substandard rivets that popped their heads and let tons of icy seawater rush in. More than 1,500 people died.

When the safety of the rivets was first questioned 10 years ago, the builder ignored the accusation and said it did not have an archivist who could address the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html


dailymail.co.uk: Did poor workmanship sink the Titanic? Physicist claims missing rivets were crucial to 'cascade' of events that sank liner

•   Three million rivets held ship together
•   Poor-quality rivets meant part of hull that hit iceberg was weaker than rest of vessel
•   Vessel had been rushed out for maiden voyage
•   Weak rivets meant air compartments ruptured

By Rob Waugh Published: 16:24 GMT, 2 April 2012 | Updated: 17:56 GMT, 2 April 2012

Poor engineering was the fatal factor that sent the Titanic on its journey two and a half miles to the bottom of the Atlantic 100 years ago.

The steel and wrought iron fasteners used to hold the metal plates together had been inserted unevenly, and some were low-quality - due to the vessel being rushed out for its maiden voyage.

The weak rivets meant that sealed compartments meant to keep the vessel afloat burst open - condemning the passengers to an icy death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2124038/Did-poor-workmanship-sink-Titanic-Physicist-claims-missing-rivets-crucial-cascade-events-sank-liner.html

C.U.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 14:01:21 by Chispa »
History is not like playing horseshoes where close enough counts; those that have done the proper legwork have a responsibility to insure a detailed accurate account. Canada at War Blog  http://wp.me/55eja

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 195,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,284
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2017, 17:04:32 »
A fire in the sinking was argued many moons ago…aliens…wasn’t christened…the moon…all certainly questionable or a combination of factors sunk the Titanic.


AS FJAG posted on the Inquiry, fallow link:
Page 243 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 1 – 5:
5238. Did you help to get the coal out? - Yes. 5239. Did you hear when the fire commenced? - Yes, I heard it commenced at Belfast.
5240. When did you start getting the coal out? - The first watch we did from Southampton we started to get it out.
5241. How many days would that be after you left Belfast? - I do not know when she left Belfast to the day.
5242. It would be two or three days, I suppose? - I should say so.
5243. Did it take much time to get the fire down? - It took us right up to the Saturday to get it out.

http://www.titanicandco.com/inquiry/Days1-5/files/basic-html/page243.html


N Y Times: In Weak Rivets, a Possible Key to Titanic’s Doom By WILLIAM J. BROAD APRIL 15, 2008

Researchers have discovered that the builder of the Titanic struggled for years to obtain enough good rivets and riveters and ultimately settled on faulty materials that doomed the ship, which sank 96 years ago Tuesday.

The builder’s own archives, two scientists say, harbor evidence of a deadly mix of low quality rivets and lofty ambition as the builder labored to construct the three biggest ships in the world at once — the Titanic and two sisters, the Olympic and the Britannic.
For a decade, the scientists have argued that the storied liner went down fast after hitting an iceberg because the ship’s builder used substandard rivets that popped their heads and let tons of icy seawater rush in. More than 1,500 people died.

When the safety of the rivets was first questioned 10 years ago, the builder ignored the accusation and said it did not have an archivist who could address the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html


dailymail.co.uk: Did poor workmanship sink the Titanic? Physicist claims missing rivets were crucial to 'cascade' of events that sank liner

•   Three million rivets held ship together
•   Poor-quality rivets meant part of hull that hit iceberg was weaker than rest of vessel
•   Vessel had been rushed out for maiden voyage
•   Weak rivets meant air compartments ruptured

By Rob Waugh Published: 16:24 GMT, 2 April 2012 | Updated: 17:56 GMT, 2 April 2012

Poor engineering was the fatal factor that sent the Titanic on its journey two and a half miles to the bottom of the Atlantic 100 years ago.

The steel and wrought iron fasteners used to hold the metal plates together had been inserted unevenly, and some were low-quality - due to the vessel being rushed out for its maiden voyage.

The weak rivets meant that sealed compartments meant to keep the vessel afloat burst open - condemning the passengers to an icy death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2124038/Did-poor-workmanship-sink-Titanic-Physicist-claims-missing-rivets-crucial-cascade-events-sank-liner.html

C.U.

I'm not disputing the "weak rivets" theory at all but in following up after reading your post I came across this article which argues that perhaps the rivets weren't that much of a problem.  http://marconigraph.com/titanic/rivets/rivets1.html Their experiments, while not fully scientific seem persuasive. Their ultimate conclusion is that "It may just be a matter of simple physics…any steel structure, hit with a greater mass at a certain momentum in just the wrong way, will suffer consequences. In the grand scheme of things, it didn't take a massive gash in the hull to sink the ship; in fact, our experiment showed that a seam need not be opened for water – under pressure – to find its way inside the hull."

Interesting stuff. I'm enjoying this thread and spending entirely too much time on it. Have to get back to my book.

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 47,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2017, 17:19:59 »
I have read before, and the documentary touches on it.

What are the thought's on the use of inferior metal to build the Titanic.  Is that a major factor, since we are talking about the rivet theory.  Or is that theory a fallacy?



I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline Chispa

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 199
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2017, 11:33:09 »
I'm not disputing the "weak rivets" theory at all but in following up after reading your post I came across this article which argues that perhaps the rivets weren't that much of a problem.  http://marconigraph.com/titanic/rivets/rivets1.html Their experiments, while not fully scientific seem persuasive. Their ultimate conclusion is that "It may just be a matter of simple physics…any steel structure, hit with a greater mass at a certain momentum in just the wrong way, will suffer consequences. In the grand scheme of things, it didn't take a massive gash in the hull to sink the ship; in fact, our experiment showed that a seam need not be opened for water – under pressure – to find its way inside the hull."

Interesting stuff. I'm enjoying this thread and spending entirely too much time on it. Have to get back to my book.

 :subbies:


My apologies should’ve elaborated; I know you’re not disputing, just added the inquiry U mentioned for those interested, and the rivet theory.

I can’t emphasise the importance of metal and rivets, even a plane requires expensive alloys, rivets, bolts, and all manufactured too special specification.

The evidence suggests for those times that was your typical high grade steel, published in 1998 although by 96-97 steel tests were conducted.

Recent tests of steel from the Titanic reveal that the metal was much more brittle than modern steel but the best available at the time, a metallurgical engineering professor at the University of Missouri-Rolla says in a paper to be published in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals.

The steel used to build the Titanic was not as "impact-resistant" as modern steel, according to Dr. H.P. Leighly, a professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at UMR. But it was the best steel available at the time, says Leighly, who studied some 200 pounds of steel from the wreckage.
Leighly's paper, co-authored by UMR metallurgical engineering student Katie Felkins, will appear in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals, the publication of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers.

Inferior steel wasn't the only reason the luxury ocean liner Titanic sank in the early morning hours of April 15, 1912. Other factors -- such as flaws in the ship's design, the crew's negligence and the lack of lifeboats -- also contributed to the disaster, Leighly says.

"The naval architects can point their fingers and say, 'It was bad steel'" that caused the Titanic to sink, Leighly says. "It's easy to point a finger and say, 'Bad steel.' But it's uncomfortable to point at yourself and say, 'Bad design.'"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971227000141.htm
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 11:46:00 by Chispa »
History is not like playing horseshoes where close enough counts; those that have done the proper legwork have a responsibility to insure a detailed accurate account. Canada at War Blog  http://wp.me/55eja

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 506,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,365
    • The job.
Re: Before the iceberg, a fire may have doomed the Titanic
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2017, 11:40:32 »
Regarding the ice burg.

The loss of life by ice burgs prior to Titanic was not many. Would that perhaps explain, what seems to me, a lack of caution? Number of lifeboats etc.

List of ships sunk by icebergs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_icebergs
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 12:00:26 by mariomike »