Titanic sinking theory

[Housey]

In fairness the design was pretty much unsinkable in theory, the multi-compartment design was revolutionary in it's day, it's just on the ill fated day something went wrong (apart from hitting an iceberg lol).

It's worth noting that one of the Titanic's sister ships the Olympic survived a major collision and damage after an American cruiser collided with it, and became the first civilian ship in history to sink an enemy military vessel in combat during WW1 when it intentionally rammed a German submarine that was lining up to torpedo it.

Sorry but a little bit of knowledge and all that. Go read about the RMS Carmania and its battle with the SMS Cap Trafalger. Both were liners converted to cruisers for wartime duty.

The third ship in the class the Britannic sank during WW1 after hitting a mine (adding to the modern theories that the sub-spec construction materialsls

Many ships with massively more solid construction and water tight bulkheads were sunk by mines during ww1. A mine like a torpedo has massive destruction power so suggesting sub standard construction due to a mine is again a leap.

 

[ubersonic]

Edit: Oddly enough, the Olympic does indeed have 16 portholes in exactly the same configuration of the launched Titanic

The Olympic received a refit in 1912/13 during which it received numerous upgrades including many Titanic spec modifications (though obviously not the major structural ones).

Sorry but a little bit of knowledge and all that. Go read about the RMS Carmania and its battle with the SMS Cap Trafalger. Both were liners converted to cruisers for wartime duty.

And as such both were military vessels, as I said Britannic was the first recorded civilian ship to score a wartime kill on an emery military vessel.

A mine like a torpedo has massive destruction power so suggesting sub standard construction due to a mine is again a leap.

I didn't suggest it, I just mentioned that it was speculated. I personally believe the official stance that it sank due to too many portholes being left open (against regulation).

 

[Jokester]

The Olympic received a refit in 1912/13 during which it received numerous upgrades including many Titanic spec modifications (though obviously not the major structural ones).

They're present in photos of the Olympic during her sea trials though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic#/media/File:Olympic_sea_trials.jpg

 

[ubersonic]

They're present in photos of the Olympic during her sea trials though.

So they are.

As above I had thought they were added during the refit, I guess it must be that they were added to both Olympic and Titanic at some point during construction then.

 

[Orionaut]

I believe the claim was "virtually unsinkable".

Titanic was designed to withstand three different types of damage.

1) Hitting another ship (She could remain afloat with all four front compartments flooded)

2) Being hit by another ship (She could withstand any other two compartments being flooded)

3) Running aground (She had a double bottom)


Unfortunately, she could not survive the sort of damage that you might get from hitting rocks, at speed, in 16,000ft of water.

(sliding past an iceberg)

It has long been largely accepted that had she hit the ice head on, she would have been badly damaged but would likely have remained afloat.

Interestingly, 50 years earlier, Brunel's Great Eastern suffered even more extensive damage when she hit the (what is now known as) "Great Eastern Rock"

However, since she was entirely double hulled (A ship within a Ship with three feet between the two hulls) She continued her voyage unabated

A "Great Eastern" double hull combined with Titanic water tight compartments would have been a formidably survivable ship!

 

[Housey]

And as such both were military vessels, as I said Britannic was the first recorded civilian ship to score a wartime kill on an emery military vessel.

All were civilian ships in millitary service. It was acting as a troop ship under Naval command.

 

[HEADRAT]

Nobody has mentioned the wonderful technique of turning 2D pictures into 3D film.
I don't think I've ever seen that before.

Best bit, incredible

 

[Jokester]

So they are.

As above I had thought they were added during the refit, I guess it must be that they were added to both Olympic and Titanic at some point during construction then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic#/media/File:Titanic_launched_at_Belfast.jpg

I'm not sure it would be something they would have retrofitted at such a late stage (something that was already a departure from the Olympic build).

 

[Rroff]

Can I suggest you research this theory, it is badly reasoned conjecture nothing more and should be dismissed.

Its funny how keen some people are to shut down even the remotest hint of any explanation for something other than the official one almost like the world would end if a conspiracy theory turned out to be true.

Personally I don't particularly subscribe to the switch - none the least its fairly easy to research what a huge investment in effort and cost it would have involved to pull it off and lack of evidence of any motivation for something that costly - but a good proportion of the evidence against it is stuff like engraved or titled objects recovered from the Olympic with the correct markings - but all those things are easy to fake - obviously when you come to the structural evidence, etc. its another story.

My original comment wasn't that evidence had been found that would show the conspiracy to be real but that something had been found when looking at things from a different perspective to the normal (reference material for 3D modelling) that had potential to significantly rule the conspiracy in or out fairly conclusively. Unfortunately it was a few years ago now and only a subject I glanced at due to an interest in game level design and followed up a few threads on out of interest and can't find the original discussion again now.

 

[Housey]

Its funny how keen some people are to shut down even the remotest hint of any explanation for something other than the official one almost like the world would end if a conspiracy theory turned out to be true.

Personally I don't particularly subscribe to the switch - none the least its fairly easy to research what a huge investment in effort and cost it would have involved to pull it off and lack of evidence of any motivation for something that costly - but a good proportion of the evidence against it is stuff like engraved or titled objects recovered from the Olympic with the correct markings - but all those things are easy to fake - obviously when you come to the structural evidence, etc. its another story.

My original comment wasn't that evidence had been found that would show the conspiracy to be real but that something had been found when looking at things from a different perspective to the normal (reference material for 3D modelling) that had potential to significantly rule the conspiracy in or out fairly conclusively. Unfortunately it was a few years ago now and only a subject I glanced at due to an interest in game level design and followed up a few threads on out of interest and can't find the original discussion again now.

When it comes to maritime and naval history I would argue I'm better read than most, to my point above about it being my passion to which I've invested heavily. My dismissive comment was based on that extensive reading not me taking a side having read some wiki content and its ilk. As has been said facts outweigh opinion when it comes to these sorts of things and there are massive facts and evidence to dismisse the swap theory.

 

[Worthy]

Nobody has mentioned the wonderful technique of turning 2D pictures into 3D film.
I don't think I've ever seen that before.

This is what I came in here to mention, that was fantastic!

The rest of it was indeed, guff. Something to get viewing figures from a subject that still fascinates many, and also gets naval historians to be a bit firm with one another. As in this thread.

 

[Cold Fusion]

I have to a agree with the sentiment here.

I watched about 75% of it before going to bed and although interesting it was over sensationalized and the 'experts' failed to be asked whether this contributed to the sinking.

Did enjoy the 2D-3D representation of the photographs until they started adding too many 'actors' to the scene which I found unnecessary.

So from a technical point of view it was good but from a content / historical point of view a bit exaggerated.

 

[spoffle]

Can I suggest you research this theory, it is badly reasoned conjecture nothing more and should be dismissed.

I'm not actually subscribing to the theory, I'm finding the thread in general interesting. My point was that there's absolutely no point continuing to debate with Sliver as he just is completely incapable of reasoned and logical debate.

 

[Swifty55]

If only Jack had survived!

 

[Greebo]

If only Jack had survived!

There was room on that door the fat cow!

 

[Housey]

I'm not actually subscribing to the theory, I'm finding the thread in general interesting. My point was that there's absolutely no point continuing to debate with Sliver as he just is completely incapable of reasoned and logical debate.

I've no idea who he is or his posting style but that's my total lack of recognition for 99.9% of posters.

I have tried to find a website (rather than me sifting through books and taking pictures of passages) that confronts the swap theory and provides a perspective on the swap theory, from a standpoint of addressing the specific claims made in the bloke from Oxfords book, which though in no way the start of this myth, a book that got it into people's minds.

http://www.titanicswitch.com/index.html

In no way detailed or thorough but a different perspective and I get that the swap theory isn't something you agree with, I simply chose your comment as the basis of my point.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

Titanic had a curved wheelhouse Olympics was straight. There has been many photos shown of the curved wheelhouse of the wreck of Titanic. The switch theory is nonsense.

The fire evidence is not new but has never led to anything. The iceberg ripped through the poor quality steel like butter. The ship was doomed from then the fire might have sped up the sinking by weakening the bulkheads.

Interesting...

 

[Amp34]

It is interesting to note that the launched vessel had 16 portholes down the front, whilst during building and fitting out it only had 14 they're. Something was definitely changed!

Edit: Oddly enough, the Olympic does indeed have 16 portholes in exactly the same configuration of the launched Titanic

It's worth pointing out the link a page or so ago, with information on all this.

For example the both Olympic and Titanic had 14 portholes when they were first floated, with the two more added to the titanic between floating and maiden voyage to add more light and ventilation, and the two added to Olympic AFTER the Titanic sank.

It's also pointed out that the image of the Titanic with the name in the different place is because it was stencilled onto the print on one of them, and the other is the original. Fairly common practice in those days apparently.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

Most photos claiming to be off Titanic are in fact Olympic especially interior ones and lots were doctored to look alike to sell the ships. Images of Olympic were doctored to look like Titanic and her improvements.

Lots of old school photoshopping went on..... lol

 

[Amp34]

Apparently I didn't get the previously mentioned link from this thread.

Here it is instead

http://www.williammurdoch.net/articles_34_Titanic_switch_theory_03.html

Claim: Titanic had 14 bow portholes. Olympic had 16 bow portholes. The ship photographed departing Southampton has 16 bow portholes. It is the Olympic, not Titanic.
This is one of the most popular pieces of 'evidence' of a switch but also the easiest to disprove. Quite simply, Titanic had 14 portholes on the port side C deck (bow) when launched, but in the following months she got 2 extra for better light and air. In fact both Olympic and Titanic were launched with 14 portholes on the port side forecastle on C-Deck and 15 portholes on the starboard side of the same area. However, in December 1911, during Titanic's fit out, she had 2 added to light the crews galley and wash room which resulted in a total of 16 as seen in the maiden voyage photographs. Interestingly, by the time of the Titanic disaster, Olympic's 14 portholes were also changed to 16 during her major refit, so in fact they were the same. Hence post-Titanic-sinking images of Olympic also have this 16 porthole configuration.

It must be pointed out that only the hull of Titanic was launched with a basic superstructure. Once it was launched then it was 'fitted out' i.e. everything else was added. The ships that were launched were not launched in a finished state. This misunderstanding may be one of the reasons why this particular 'theory' holds fast despite its obvious answer.
According to Titanic researcher Ioannis Georgiou, "The two additional potholes on Olympic were added about March 1912 during her short stay in Belfast and before the maiden voyage of Titanic. So by April 1912 both ships had 16 portholes. (This is something I have noticed.)"
One must also suggest - if those behind the 'switch' were so clever so as to be able to switch absolutely everything aboard Olympic/Titanic as to include the numbers 400/401 etched onto the back of wooden panels in all the state rooms (refer to point here) then how is it they would overlook something as simple as the number of port holes on the outside of the ship?