DS Forums

 
 

Titanic - New Evidence C4.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-01-2017, 13:54
taurus_67
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lancashire, N. England
Posts: 4,709

This is a part of the Titanic story that's been kind of lost until now so it's really not a feeble theory at all. The fire meant the burning coal was shovelled into the furnaces quicker than intended, which meant the ship was travelling at top whack rather than at a steady speed. There's always been a bit of confusion as to why the ship was going so fast and this solves that. .
It doesn't really explain why she didn't alter south in an attempt to avoid a sea area where there were active ice warnings.

I've always thought the best captains were risk averse and my own humble opinion, uneducated and perhaps slightly ignorant as it is, has always been that if Bruce Ismay hadn't been aboard captain Smith would have adopted a more southerly track and taken maybe a day extra to reach port. I just have a feeling that businessman Ismay, influenced by the financial rewards and headlines of a faster crossing and also his own hype of building an 'unsinkable' liner may have directly or indirectly encouraged Smith to take the faster more risky route.
taurus_67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-01-2017, 14:08
SparklySwede
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 949
In the movie, Jack and Rose run through the boiler rooms earlier in the voyage and I don't remember seeing any unusual fire in that scene.
SparklySwede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 15:00
Gary Halliday
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 277
Great post Gary, yes that theory of "they went at top speed as they were short of coal" confused me too & I agree with everything else you posted except for "the Olympic class ships were badly designed, badly built and badly sailed" surely the ships were an engineering wonders of their time, the Olympic being proof of that with a long successful career of 24 years.
Sadly, these were not an advanced design at all. They were late nineteenth century steamship practice taken beyond its limits. The Olympic class ships were just big cheap hulls, luxuriously fitted out. Nobody ever built ships the size of the Olympic class with reciprocating engines except White Star. The late decision to install a low pressure turbine as a sop to modernity resulted in a centre screw which prevented the installation of a modern balanced rudder (as had been fitted to Lusitania and Mauretania five years earlier. The Olympic class ships had none of the grand double height spaces that were a feature of the Cunard ships (and their German rivals), having notably low deckheads.
The really bad feature of their operation was that no consideration was given to the question of manoeuverability with such a large ship. The practice of running at full speed in poor conditions was excused as being normal practice. Well it may have been normal practice in 20,000 ton ships travelling at 15 knots, but to do so in a 45,000 ton ship travelling at 22 knots was simply reckless. But, as I pointed out before, the Olympic class ships had no reserve speed so could not afford to slow down, unlike the Lusitania and her sister which could reach 26 knots if needed.
Gary Halliday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 15:11
Sun Glasses Ron
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Central ATV
Posts: 451
In the movie, Jack and Rose run through the boiler rooms earlier in the voyage and I don't remember seeing any unusual fire in that scene.
It was a movie based on the Titanic story so much of it was fiction
Sun Glasses Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 16:02
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,766
I thought the documentary implied that the ship was running at full speed because they had to stoke the furnaces with burning coal to stop the fire. rather than because they were running out of coal?
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 16:14
mark_beach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 402
It was a movie based on the Titanic story so much of it was fiction
Spoiler
mark_beach is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 16:15
nattoyaki
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,709
I saw a documentary fronted by Gary Wallace a few years back that mooted a theory that Titanic was actually "Olympic" which had been badly damaged in a collision with a Royal Navy vessel

https://theunredacted.com/titanic-co...at-never-sank/

If the Titanic sinking was indeed an "insurance job", then setting sail with coal bunkers on fire would be an obvious thing to do to assist in the "accident"
There's a lot of circumastantial evidence for this. The Olympic was indeed damaged. The ridiculous tortuously late 'rescue' attempt is highly suspect imho.

As per usual 'follow the money'. Look at who pulled out of the trip just beforehand (especially the major bankers). Then look at who died (especially more major bankers). The difference is the ones who pulled out backed the creation of the Federal Reserve (private bank, i.e. interest debt control of the government ) and the ones who were opposed sailed and died.

Couple that with an insurance job and the fire sounds like an almost necessary part of the set-up. Even if not true it fits the narrative they needed.

New evidence? My hairy baboon's bum!

Same thing with JFK - he started to issue national GOVERNMENT (not private bankster) backed debt-free currency (amongst other things like warning the public of the shadowy hand running the US and aiming to restrict the CIA, and looking at removing Hoover from the FBI). Result? Head blown off.
nattoyaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 16:44
Elvisfan4eva
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,806
I have a question. Was it common knowledge amongst the general public or those who travelled by sea then, that most liners had coal fires when they sailed? I wonder how many people would have got off had a repeated announcement been made in Southampton by loudspeaker that a fire was raging in the coal bunkers which was proving difficult to put out. I'd have certainly disembarked.
Elvisfan4eva is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:02
hansue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,038
I thought the documentary implied that the ship was running at full speed because they had to stoke the furnaces with burning coal to stop the fire. rather than because they were running out of coal?
That was my understanding as well.
hansue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:13
Rodney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Craigavon, Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,373
I saw a documentary fronted by Gary Wallace a few years back that mooted a theory that Titanic was actually "Olympic" which had been badly damaged in a collision with a Royal Navy vessel

https://theunredacted.com/titanic-co...at-never-sank/

If the Titanic sinking was indeed an "insurance job", then setting sail with coal bunkers on fire would be an obvious thing to do to assist in the "accident"
That was soon disproven as all ships have a unique ID number stamped onto all of their component parts. The numbers on the various bits of hull at the bottom of the seabed match those of Titanic and not Olympic.

Also the whole "fire" thing was known about all long. This is not new evidence at all.
Rodney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:35
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,766
Also the whole "fire" thing was known about all long. This is not new evidence at all.
The show didn't say it was new evidence. They said it wasn't given significance in the original investigation.

The 'new' evidence may explain why the ship was running at full steam and why the hull was weaker than usual.

If the ship had not set sail with a weakened hull, had not been running at full steam it might have survived the trip.

All things that might have only happened because of the coal fire.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:42
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,849
Originally Posted by koantemplation
I thought the documentary implied that the ship was running at full speed because they had to stoke the furnaces with burning coal to stop the fire. rather than because they were running out of coal?



That was my understanding as well.
There's no logic in that as I explained earlier.

Not all the boilers would have been in use. Using all the boilers would not safely increase the top speed.

They could have fed the burning coal into those not being used and closed the dampers. If you restrict the air to the fire, it will burn less quickly. Or they could have fed it to several being used but partly close the dampers to slow the rate of combustion, if the shortage of coal were the problem.

The reason for traveling at full speed was just to keep on schedule. Not because they were running out of coal. Cruising at a slower speed would have consumed less fuel, same as in a car.
Doghouse Riley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:43
Paace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,487
Of course there was a massive cover up by the White Star line management .
I never knew there was a fire on board the Titanic as it was being launched .

Would the passengers have boarded the liner knowing there was a fire in part of the ship, of course not .

The White Star line management under Ismay and the captain Smith are to blame for the deaths of all those who lost their lives in that ill fated voyage .
Paace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:46
Supratad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,005

The White Star line management under Ismay and the captain Smith are to blame for the deaths of all those who lost their lives in that ill fated voyage .
Well, that's obvious, because it was their decisions that led to the collision with the massive iceberg.
Supratad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 18:25
lealeeds
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,026
That was my understanding as well.
I thought they meant that if they had let the furnaces die down and thus reduce speed they wouldn't have enough coal to stoke them up again to get to New York on time which was vital as it was the maiden journey.
lealeeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 19:22
LittleGirlOf7
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,171
It doesn't really explain why she didn't alter south in an attempt to avoid a sea area where there were active ice warnings.

I've always thought the best captains were risk averse and my own humble opinion, uneducated and perhaps slightly ignorant as it is, has always been that if Bruce Ismay hadn't been aboard captain Smith would have adopted a more southerly track and taken maybe a day extra to reach port. I just have a feeling that businessman Ismay, influenced by the financial rewards and headlines of a faster crossing and also his own hype of building an 'unsinkable' liner may have directly or indirectly encouraged Smith to take the faster more risky route.
There were various aspects to this disaster. The decision not to alter the ship's direction southwards is separate to what was happening in the bulk hold with the fire. Even if there had been no fire, the decision not to move south out of the path of the iceberg field would most likely have still been taken and a collision would still have happened. Saying that, it's possible that the extra speed of the ship from clearing the fire by shovelling the burning coal into the furnaces caused it to reach the iceberg at that particular point. At a different speed it may have hit the iceberg at a different angle or missed it altogether. We'll never know as it's a variable.

The new significance of the fire is in relation to the sinking itself, after the iceberg hit. Without the fire, the ship should've stayed afloat long enough for other ships to reach it and rescue pretty much everyone on board. Because of the damage caused by the fire, the water burst through into a section flood water was not meant to go. This had a knock on effect of tipping the front of the ship downwards which caused more water to enter, which caused more tipping forward and eventually the ship sinking quicker than anyone expected or planned for in any event.
LittleGirlOf7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 19:40
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,849
I thought they meant that if they had let the furnaces die down and thus reduce speed they wouldn't have enough coal to stoke them up again to get to New York on time which was vital as it was the maiden journey.
That's what they were trying to imply, but it's just conjecture.
The whole of the bunkers weren't likely on fire, but they had to remove all the coal to put the fires out.
Also it wasn't "vital," to arrive on time. They had a good reason not to....Icebergs....Just a bad decision.
Doghouse Riley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 21:17
Steve9214
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
There's a lot of circumastantial evidence for this. The Olympic was indeed damaged. The ridiculous tortuously late 'rescue' attempt is highly suspect imho.

As per usual 'follow the money'. Look at who pulled out of the trip just beforehand (especially the major bankers). Then look at who died (especially more major bankers). The difference is the ones who pulled out backed the creation of the Federal Reserve (private bank, i.e. interest debt control of the government ) and the ones who were opposed sailed and died.
IIRC were there not a lot of empty seats on Pan Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie) when it was supposed to be fully booked.

Only a few of the "no shows" were explicable - Pik Botha the South African foreign minister had reservations on several flights, and IIRC was it Kool and the Gang or "The Pips" (Gladys Knights backing singers) who were in a recording session that over ran.
Steve9214 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 22:13
DUHO
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 605
I am very surprised the programme didn't claim Lee Harvey Oswald was steering the ship when it hit the iceberg
DUHO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 22:16
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,849
I am very surprised the programme didn't claim Lee Harvey Oswald was steering the ship when it hit the iceberg
It was Captain Haddock.
Doghouse Riley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 22:23
mark_beach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 402
It was Captain Haddock.
so thats why they'd had their chips?
mark_beach is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 22:28
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,849
so thats why they'd had their chips?
Stop that!

Know your plaice!
Doghouse Riley is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10.