New collision theory

[Parks Stephenson]

Has it ever occurred to any of you that Thomas Andrews may have been fully aware of the shortcomings in the design of the Olympic class and warned Harland and Wolff of his concerns in his reports and comments as the vessels were constructed.

Tom,

Since you and I have corresponded on this subject, I can say that it has occurred to me. However, I am arguing a slightly different point here. I am challenging those who impose a double standard on their interpretation of historical events; in this case, applying inconsistent standards in a subjective analysis of various historical persons’ integrity.

People were rightfully upset over the portrayal of Murdoch seemingly accepting a bribe in the film, "Titanic." That portrayal, fictional though it might have been, nevertheless cast aspersion on the real William Murdoch's integrity. Was that right? based upon the passionate response from the Titanic community, I would say that the answer to that question was a resounding "No!" So why is it that pretty much the same people will so willingly promote the assertion that the very real Charles Lightoller lied under oath (or in signed statements) in order to protect the White Star Line? Isn't that casting aspersion on Lightoller's integrity?

Do I believe that all testimony reflects real truth? No. I believe that Boxhall was mistaken when he reported that Murdoch ordered the engines run FULL ASTERN. This is not just my opinion...I base my skepticism on other documented evidence (those who are familiar with my writings will know to what evidence I refer). Rather than call Boxhall out as a liar and ridicule anyone who disagrees, I choose to present the evidence and let it persuade the reader.

Regarding the points raised in this thread, let me address just one as an example. It has been mentioned that in private correspondence, Fleet claimed that no one was on the bridge at a critical time. That conflicts with his own statements given under oath and statements provided by others. In order for Fleet's claim to be true, then someone else must be lying. Before we go down the path toward casting one or more of Titanic's crew as villains, I have to challenge the assertion...if you expect me to believe this particular claim by Fleet, I need to see corroborative evidence. Subjective opinion does not qualify as corroborative evidence. I need to see proof that Hitchens was lying, that Olliver was lying, that Boxhall was lying, that Lee was clueless, and that Fleet was really telling the truth in his off-the-record comments.

We can assume anything we want as we examine the evidence and try to figure out what happened. We can even assume that people scrambled to cover their butts when they were put into the spotlight. But when you start casting villains (usually through accusations of lying) in the Titanic story, don't expect me to participate unless you have some sort of corroborative evidence.

Parks

[Thomas Golembiewski]

The strapes must burst free . . .

Sam wrote:

"The suggestion that the officers were not at their stations has no real foundation."

The vessel being lost calls that into question.

Mrs. Chaffee demanded an answer . . . all right, Fleet gave it to her . . .

Parks---

No one is calling Lightoller a liar, prevaricator perhaps, but remember he wasn't in touch with the bridge at the time of the critical sequence . . . his testimony is mostly secondary . . . he was a good company man, doing what he could to maintain his company's integrity . . .

I must say the British Inquiry did as good a job as possible, under the circumstances, questioning him . . . even though they knew he was off duty . . .

[Parks Stephenson]

Thomas,

I have asked three times for corroborative proof to support your subjective opinion and your consistent answer is "straightjacket." That's enough for me.

Parks

[SamHalpern]

Has it ever occurred to any of you that Thomas Andrews may have been fully aware of the shortcomings in the design of the Olympic class and warned Harland and Wolff of his concerns in his reports and comments as the vessels were constructed. Could this be one of the reasons Harland and Wolff for many years refused to provide any information on the design and build of Titanic and subsequently deliberately destroyed much of their historical documentation.

Tom, would you care to elaborate on the shortcomings that Thomas Andrews may have been aware of? I don't think you are suggesting that these ships were not adequately designed to meet the demands of the service they were employed in, are you?

[Tom McCluskie]

Parks,

Yes you and I have corresponded at length on the construction details of the Olympic class and like you I respect confidences between colleagues and with your agreement I do not propose to reveal details of our discussions which I regard as private and confidential.

Sam,

Shipbuilding is an evolving business, it is true to say the no two sister ships are exactly alike, not even relatively simple structures as oil tankers. Regarding the "shortcomings" on Titanic perhaps I was being a trifle harsh in this description but defects there certainly were. Harland and Wolff in common with most other shipbuilders operated a policy of continual review of its designs. Mistakes discovered during the build of the first of class, in this case Olympic would be reported back to the design office and the construction drawings modified accordingly, as can be seen on the drawings used during Titanic's construction phase and amended by Andrews or one of his staff. The sea trials report produced by Andrews after Olympics trial indicated numerous areas of concern, the vibration experienced in certain areas, cracking of the structure and hull panting phenomenon were all documented as areas for investigation and modification. This report ran to several pages and was widely circulated to the Harland and Wolff management and to White Star. Obviously the report was commercial in confidence however most of the less contentious portions soon became public knowledge such as the lack of coat hooks in the public bathrooms, noisy exhaust fans and insufficient illumination in some areas, all relative trivalities and of little consequence.

I had the privlige of reading this document on many occasions however Harland and Wolff maintained a strict embargo on the release of its contents and therefore you have only my word of honour such a document existed however I would ask you to consider how unusual it would be for the class designer not to provide any details of his observations during the sea trial of the first of class. Certainly it is well known Titanic underwent several design modifications which eminated in the main from Andrews observations.

Alas these and many other documents have since been destroyed for whatever reason

[SamHalpern]

Thanks Tom for clarifying what you said. Those of us who have done serious research on these WSL vessels know about quite a number of the modifications that were made, and have seen documents exchanged between H&W and the BOT regarding these various changes. A good example are the straps that were added to Titanic as a result of lessons learned with Olympic after slack rivets were found in certain areas of Olympic's shell plating following a storm in Januray 1912. Nothing really unusual about any of that.

[Aly Jones]

Murdoch ordered the engines run FULL ASTERN. This is not just my opinion...I base my skepticism on other documented evidence (those who are familiar with my writings will know to what evidence I refer).

Care to share with others,please?

As some reports suggest that the iceberg was seen so many meters away,and there was no back wash from the sea to the iceberg base,no binoclurs,only moon light,& the wind in the lookout eyes (michael knows how that feels) how on earth did the look outs see the iceberg before the collision? (its a shame they did spot iceberg,would have been a head on collision,Titanic would have lempt to Newyork)
Going by how small & how low the iceberg was to the sea,the iceberg looks like a noodle in a hay stack compared to the Sea & Titanic.
Here's an image of the fatefull Titanic iceberg.

http://www.history.com/content/titanic

go to exclusive video,then Titanic pictures,then go to image gallery,then go to pg 8,you should come across the iceberg at question.

PS,if there is a chance if any one has got time or me, could some one work out how to get the under water Titanic video's to work on the link I provided? I just seem to veiw these films.

Cheers every one.

[Thomas Golembiewski]

This is for everybody's reference:

Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, April 16, 1912, p. 2, c. 7:

ANOTHER KNOWN IN CHICAGO.

Another man who was known to many in Chicago who is missing is H. F. Chaffee of Amenia, N. Dak. He was returning with his wife from a tour abroad. Mrs. Chaffee was rescued. Mr. Chaffee was one of the largest land owners in Cass county, North Dakota.

_______________________________________

If the Hearings had paid more attention to the witnesses and less to White Star's needs and wants things would've been quite different: people stated under oath the ship broke in two . . . okay, the vessel suffered structural failure . . . that's what was suppose to be investigated . . . of course that bottom part, and laying where it's at is most odd, the Matsen book really didn't go into it to deeply, it might explain what really happened that night . . . I fear more exploration will be needed . . .

[Laura Donovan]

Hey, i am doing a report on why the Titanic sank and if it was Ismay's fault (the owner of the white star line)
do you know anything about that
i also have to interview someone so if i could interview you can u tell me ur email

[Jeremy Aufderheide]

Ismay was actually chairman and managing director.

It's not known what Ismay's involvement was with the operation of the ship. It's known that he ice warnings in his possession, but how he got them isn't known (before or after the Smith saw them).

My feeling is that Smith advised Ismay on the course. But I doubt that Ismay gave much input. Smith was the highest-paid captain at the time and had a fairly flawless career (Olympic accident aside). I can't imagine Ismay undermining the WSL's highest-paid captain with a huge millionaire following (i.e. people that would only cross on ships under Smith's command). Smith was a money-maker and a huge asset to the company. For Ismay to undermine him and take control of the ship on their premiere captain's final crossing would have been a really crappy thing to do to someone who had served the company *very* well.

[Ludwig Bader]

I do agree with you, Jeremy.

Just to mention it: There was allegedly a conversation between Ismay and Smith in which Ismay tried to influence Smith to reach New York on Tuesday evening, not on Wednesday morning as scheduled (you can see that chat in the Cameron movie). It is said that it was Ismay's goal to beat the Olympic's maiden voyage time. But there are a lot of doubts about it as it was testified by a woman sitting close by who surely did not pay a lot of attention to the conversation between the two men as she couldn't know at that point how the story would end... (That's what I believe.)

Furthermore, ships of that time were generally not pushed to full speed during their maiden voyage as the engines had to be run in. Ismay knew that, and it couldn't be of his interest to ruin the engines on the ship's first trip.

There were often chairmen or line presidents on board of their ships, and there is no evidence that they ever tried to influence the captain and the nautical affairs on board.

@Laura: If you like, please send me a private message so that I can tell you my email address. I would be glad to help you with your report.

Best regards, Ludwig

[Joshua Noble]

Ismay was actually chairman and managing director.

It's not known what Ismay's involvement was with the operation of the ship. It's known that he ice warnings in his possession, but how he got them isn't known (before or after the Smith saw them).

My feeling is that Smith advised Ismay on the course. But I doubt that Ismay gave much input. Smith was the highest-paid captain at the time and had a fairly flawless career (Olympic accident aside). I can't imagine Ismay undermining the WSL's highest-paid captain with a huge millionaire following (i.e. people that would only cross on ships under Smith's command). Smith was a money-maker and a huge asset to the company. For Ismay to undermine him and take control of the ship on their premiere captain's final crossing would have been a really crappy thing to do to someone who had served the company *very* well.

Hmmm.... I never thought of the story that way.

[Jeremy Aufderheide]

From a business perspective, it only makes sense.

[George Behe]

Hello, Ludwig.

> But there are a lot of doubts about it .....

I disagree.

>Furthermore, ships of that time were generally not pushed to full speed during their maiden voyage ....

Nevertheless, the Titanic was scheduled for a full-speed run that was to take place on Monday or Tuesday.

>There were often chairmen or line presidents on board of their ships, and there is no evidence that they >ever tried to influence the captain and the nautical affairs on board.

I'm afraid that isn't true, Ludwig. At least one account exists in which an Olympic passenger claimed that Bruce Ismay pressed for high speed on one of the Olympic's voyages.

George

[Ludwig Bader]

Thank you, George, for your comments!

Just to explain what I mean:

That there were some influences of line chairmen to the speed of their ships, may well be. But I would still see this as an exception. Albert Ballin, for example, the well-known president of the HAPAG Line before the war, was a common guest on his ships and was very keen on checking out the ships' service, but never tried to influence the nautical affairs. And George Balfour, Cunard's chairmen in 1907, explained to the press that ships generally were not set to break records on their very first trip - and he said this about the Lusitania which was built to be a Blue Ribband winner, what the Titanic never was.

I know about that full speed trial which should take place on Monday. But that has nothing to do with a try to force the Titanic to break her scheduled arriving time. A few hours of maximum speed are a test of the engines, but two days of maximum speed during a maiden voyage are something different which could positively have caused more damage than use.

What I wrote above that Ismay - Smith conversation is of course my personal opinion. I simply can't imagine that a woman (I can't remenber her name at the moment, sorry) remembers so well a chat she has heared a couple of days before from which she positively did not know that it would ever be of interest and about a topic she was not familiar with (i.e. firing extra boilers, measured mile, average speed...) If I think about chats I hear by accident in a restaurant on the next table and how much I remember about them just an hour later - it is very few;)

But you are right, I now remember another hint that Ismay was actually interested in a high speed: In the Don Lynch/Ken Marschall book "Titanic - An illustrated history" a conversation with Mrs. Ryerson and Mrs. Thayer on the evening of April 14th, in which he told them about some extra boilers to be fired and the icebergs which he didn't see as a kind of danger. Furthermore he explained that there was no time (!) to assist the German ship Deutschland which was out of coal because he definitely wanted to reach New York on Tuesday evening, not Wednesday morning.

I see Ismay as a quite ambivalent character: I don't know whether his swaggering in front of passengers was actually the truth or just his over-dimensioned ego which wanted to show: I'm the boss... I have doubts that his influence on the ship's course was that big as he wanted his environment to believe. For example he didn't appeal to Smith's decision to alter course far more south than usually in April, a fact that definitely endangered his Tuesday evening plan... Well, I'm not the "Ismay expert" here, but this is my perspective on him.

Best regards, Ludwig

[George Behe]

Hi, Ludwig.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply.

>That there were some influences of line chairmen to the speed of their ships, may well be. But I would >still >see this as an exception.

I completely agree with you. I was specifically referring to Bruce Ismay and your suggestion that Ismay would never have tried to influence the navigation of the Titanic or any other White Star ship.

>I know about that full speed trial which should take place on Monday. But that has nothing to do with a >try >to force the Titanic to break her scheduled arriving time. A few hours of maximum speed are a test of >the >engines, but two days of maximum speed during a maiden voyage are something different which could >>positively have caused more damage than use.

Possibly, but - at the speed she was traveling at the time of the collision - the Titanic would have had to slow down in order not to arrive at the Ambrose Light on Tuesday night (and that's without taking the planned speed trial into consideration - or the icefield, of course.) Also, don't forget that - despite Ismay's claim to the contrary - the Olympic is known to have arrived in New York at 10:08 p.m. on Tuesday night on at least one occasion before the Titanic went down.

>What I wrote above that Ismay - Smith conversation is of course my personal opinion.

I understand. I was merely stating my own opinion as well.

>I simply can't imagine that a woman (I can't remenber her name at the moment, sorry) remembers so well a >chat she has heared a couple of days before from which she positively did not know that it would ever be >of interest

However, the same claim could be made regarding ANY statement made by ANY passenger or crewman that was repeated after the sinking - in which case we would lack any information at all about the Titanic disaster. The reason I believe Mrs. Lines' story is that she testified: "At first I did not pay any attention to what they were saying, they were simply talking and I was occupied, and then my attention was arrested by hearing the day's run discussed." IMO it's perfectly reasonable for a person to suddenly become interested in someone else's conversation when the talk turns to a subject in which that person is interested.

>If I think about chats I hear by accident in a restaurant on the next table and how much I remember about >them just an hour later - it is very few;)

I agree. However, I suspect that if one of the speakers was a well-known person who was talking about the Titanic or any other subject in which you were interested, you'd remember the main points of the conversation after you left the restaurant - especially if something happened shortly afterward that was directly connected with the subject of that conversation. (That's one reason why so many accounts of Titanic-related "paranormal" activity were remembered after the disaster; it was the disaster itself that cemented those accounts in the memory of the people who originally heard about them before the sinking.)

>I see Ismay as a quite ambivalent character: I don't know whether his swaggering in front of passengers >was actually the truth or just his over-dimensioned ego which wanted to show: I'm the boss...

I agree. At this late date it's difficult to know what kind of person Ismay really was and whether his behavior was caused by one character trait or by another trait altogether.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, Ludwig - much appreciated!

All my best,

George

[Jeremy Aufderheide]

At least one account exists in which an Olympic passenger claimed that Bruce Ismay pressed for high speed on one of the Olympic's voyages.

Was that passenger claiming this before or after the Titanic sank?

[Thomas Golembiewski]

This might possibly explain what "really" happened that fateful night:


Chicago Tribune, Wednesday, April 17, 1912, p. 4, c. 2 (extract from longer article):

___________

Titanic Disaster Explained at Hydrographic Office Here.

Tells of Submerged Menace

Capt. Charles Campbell, also of the Chicago branch of the hydrographic service, was of the opinion that the Titanic probably struck the ice a mile or more before the berg itself was visible.

“In large icebergs it nearly always is the case that a large portion of the ice is covered by water,” he said. “Some section is visible but a portion a mile or more in length may have been under water. The steamer evidently struck the water covered portion, unmindful of any impending danger. The fifth of the iceberg which extends above the water melts in the warm air of the gulf stream and the vapor forms a band of fog.”

Capt. Campbell attributed the sudden sinking of the Titanic to longitudinal stress, which he explained as follows:

“When the impact occurred one end of the boat naturally was plunged upward. The rivets of the bottom of the vessel then broke, and, in my opinion, the entire bottom of the boat was severed from the upper portion. It is a mistaken notion that slow boats are less perilous than fast steamers,” he added. “A slow boat striking the iceberg as the Titanic did would have met the same fate.”

____________________________

I myself believe something else occurred on the night of Sunday, April 14, 1912; however, some of what he says may be true, the weakening of the ship's frame . . .

[George Behe]

Hello, Jeremy.

>Was that passenger claiming this before or after the Titanic sank?

After, since it was only after the Titanic went down that the Olympic passenger realized the possible importance of her earlier observation.

George

[Jeremy Aufderheide]

And as a Titanic researcher, you feel that someone coming forward to tell a story several years later...after the person in question was demonized in the press...is credible?

You see this all the time on the news. Someone will commit a crime, and people who knew the person will go on camera saying "I always knew something was wrong".

This is exactly the same thing. As this was printed at a time when anyone who mentioned the Titanic could get their name in the papers, I'd really pause for a second when considering this report.