Many alternative stories to the sinking of the superliner Titanic have been put forward. The accepted reason for the sinking, which resulted in the death of 1,503 passengers and crew, is that the ship struck an iceberg at 11:40 PM on 14 April 1912, buckling the hull and allowing water to enter the ship’s first five watertight compartments (one more than the Titanic was designed to survive), and sank two hours and 40 minutes later. Hypotheses which have been suggested as the cause of the disaster include unsafe speed, an insurance scam, an ice-pack rather than an iceberg, and even a curse on the ship by the Unlucky Mummy.
Contents |
In 2003, Captain L. M. Collins, a former member of the Ice Pilotage Service published The Sinking of the Titanic: The Mystery Solved proposing, based upon his own experience of ice navigation and witness statements given at the two post-disaster enquiries, that what the Titanic hit was not an iceberg but low-lying pack ice. He based his conclusion upon three main pieces of evidence.
Ohio State University engineer Robert Essenhigh released a theory in November 2004 that claims a coal fire led indirectly to the iceberg collision.[4] He claims a pile of stored coal had started to smolder, and to get control over that situation, more coal was put into the furnaces, leading to unsafe speeds in the iceberg-laden waters.
Essenhigh states that records prove that fire control teams were on standby at the ports of Cherbourg and Southampton because of a fire in the stockpile, and that such fires are known to reignite after they have been supposedly extinguished. He suggests that the Titanic actually set off from Southampton with one of its bunkers on fire, or that a spontaneous combustion of coal occurred after the ship left port. Such fires were a common phenomenon aboard coal-fired ships and one of many reasons why marine transportation switched to oil in the early 1900s. It is similarly theorized that such a bunker fire was responsible for the explosion of the USS Maine in 1898, by setting off her powder magazines.[5]
One of the most controversial[6][7] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?[8] In it, Gardiner draws on several events and coincidences that occurred in the months, days, and hours leading up to the sinking of the Titanic, and concludes that the ship that sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.
Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows. These were not glazed in Olympic. In Titanic, the front half of the promenade deck was fitted with smaller glazed windows to protect passengers from spray.
On September 20, 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Hawke near Southampton. The cruiser smashed its ram into the side of the Olympic, seriously damaging both ships. The inquiry found Hawke free of all blame. This set in motion Gardiner's theory. White Star Line was allegedly not insured for the cost of fixing the damaged Olympic (which, according to Gardiner, had damaged the central turbine's mountings and the keel). The White Star's flagship would also be out of action during any repairs, and the Titanic's completion date would have to be delayed. All this would amount to a serious financial loss for the company. Gardiner proposes that, to make sure at least one vessel would be earning money. Olympic was then converted to become the Titanic. Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name badges. Thus, Gardiner believes the Titanic spent 25 years in service as the Olympic.
Gardiner uses as evidence the length of Titanic's sea trials. Olympic's trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but Titanic's trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.
Gardiner suggests the plan was to dispose of the Olympic to collect insurance money. He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship. If numerous ships were stationed nearby to take off the passengers, the shortage of lifeboats would not matter as the ship would sink slowly and the boats could make several trips to the rescuers.
Gardiner maintains that on April 14, Officer Murdoch was not officially on duty yet was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers who knew of the plan and was keeping a watch out for the rescue ships. One of Gardiner's most controversial statements is that the Titanic did not strike an iceberg, but an IMM rescue ship that was drifting on station with its lights out. Gardiner based this hypothesis on the idea that the supposed iceberg was seen at such a short distance by the lookouts on the Titanic because it was actually a darkened ship, and he also does not believe an iceberg could inflict such sustained and serious damage to a steel double-hulled (sic) vessel such as the Titanic.
Gardiner further hypothesizes that the ship that was hit by the Titanic was the one seen by the Californian firing distress rockets, and that this explains the perceived inaction of the Californian (which traditionally is seen as failing to come to the rescue of the Titanic after sighting its distress rockets). Gardiner's hypothesis is that the Californian was not expecting rockets, but a rendezvous. The ice on the deck of the Titanic is explained by Gardiner as ice from the rigging of both the Titanic and the mystery ship it hit. Researchers Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall took issue with many of Gardiner's claims in their book, Olympic and Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy.[6] Author Mark Chirnside has also raised serious questions about the switch theory.[7] There is also evidence that Gardiner's theory is not true. When parts of the wreck were recovered, the construction number 401 was found on all of them. 401 was the Titanic's construction number, the number of the Olympic was 400.
Titanic researchers continue to debate the causes and mechanics of Titanic's breakup. In his book, A Night to Remember, Walter Lord described Titanic as assuming an “absolutely perpendicular” position before its final plunge.[9] This view remained largely unchallenged even after the wreck’s discovery in 1985 confirmed that the ship had broken in two pieces at or near the surface; paintings by noted marine artist Ken Marschall[10] as well as James Cameron's 1997 Titanic depicted the ship attaining a steep angle prior to the breakup. Most researchers acknowledged that Titanic's after expansion joint—designed to allow for flexing of the hull in a seaway—played little to no role in the ship’s breakup[11], though debate continued as to whether the ship had broken from the top downwards (like a stick) or from the bottom upwards (like a cardboard tube).
In 2005, a History Channel expedition to the wreck site scrutinized two large sections of Titanic's keel, which constituted the portion of the ship's bottom from immediately below the site of the break. With assistance from naval architect Roger Long, the team analyzed the wreckage and developed a new break-up scenario[12] which was publicized in the 2006 television documentary Titanic’s Final Moments: Missing Pieces. One hallmark of this new theory was the claim that Titanic's angle at the time of the breakup was far less than had been commonly assumed — according to Long, no greater than 11°.
Long also suspected that Titanic's breakup may have begun with the premature failure of the ship’s after expansion joint, and ultimately exacerbated the loss of life by causing Titanic to sink faster than anticipated. In 2006, the History Channel sponsored dives on Titanic's younger sister ship, Britannic, which verified that the design of Britannic's expansion joints was superior to that incorporated in the Titanic. To further explore Long’s theory, the History Channel commissioned a new computer simulation by JMS Engineering. The simulation, whose results were featured in the 2007 documentary Titanic’s Achilles Heel, partially refuted Long’s suspicions by demonstrating that Titanic's expansion joints were strong enough to deal with any and all stresses the ship could reasonably be expected to encounter in service and, during the sinking, actually outperformed their design specifications.[13] But, most important is that the expansion joints were part of the superstructure, which was situated above the strength deck (B-deck) and therefore above the top of the structural hull girder. Thus, the expansion joints had no meaning for the support of the hull.
Brad Matsen's 2008 book, Titanic's Last Secrets endorses the expansion joint theory.[14]
The Titanic's mummy curse is an urban legend, possibly based on the Priestess of Amen-Ra who lived in 1050 B.C.[15] According to legend, after her discovery in the 1890s in Egypt, the purchaser of the mummy ran into serious misfortune. The mummy was then reportedly donated to the British Museum where it supposedly continued to cause mysterious problems for visitors and staff. The mummy was eventually purchased by journalist William Thomas Stead, who dismissed the claims of a curse as quirks of circumstance. The legend claims that he arranged for the mummy to be hidden under the body of his car for fear that it would not be taken aboard the Titanic because of its reputation. He reportedly revealed to other passengers the presence of the mummy the night before the accident.[15]
Official records state that the British Museum never received the mummy, only the lid of its sarcophagus (which is on display at the museum and known as the "Unlucky Mummy").[16] Additionally, except during war and special exhibits abroad, the coffin lid has not left the Egyptian room.[17]
Another theory involves Titanic's watertight doors. This theory suggests that if these doors had been opened, the Titanic would have sunk on an even keel and therefore, perhaps, remained afloat long enough for rescue ships to arrive. But this theory is far from reality for two reasons: Firstly, there were no watertight doors between the first four compartments, thus it was impossible to lower the concentration of water in the bow significantly. Secondly, Bedford and Hacket have shown by calculations that any significant amount of water abaft of boiler room No.4 would have resulted in capsizing of the Titanic which would have occurred about 30 minutes earlier than the actual time of sinking[18]. Additionally, the lighting would have been lost about 70 minutes after the collision due to the flooding of the boiler rooms[18]. Bedford and Hacket also analysed the hypothetical case that there were no bulkheads at all. Then, the vessel would have capsized about 70 minutes before the actual time of sinking and lighting would have been lost about 40 minutes after the collision.
Later, in a 1998 documentary entitled "Titanic: Secrets Revealed", the Discovery Channel ran model simulations which also rebut this theory. The simulations indicated that opening Titanic's watertight doors would have caused the ship to capsize over half an hour earlier than she actually sank, confirming the findings of Bedford and Hacket.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||