Titanic proceeding to Halifax


Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
46
73
If the collision had pushed the Titanic away from the iceberg and made it appear up to 100 feet away as it passed the starboard beam it would have to be a significant impact to repel the ship away that fast. Didn't a survivor state that there was ice left on the windows of the Cafe Parisian further aft? Also I recall survivors in the smoking room who felt the ice passing under their feet as the ship possibly grounded over the ice. Regarding the second iceberg. Didn't the Carpathia see several icebergs in the immediate area in the morning that were close? Do we really have any guarantee that the lookouts were telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Fleet and Lee were inches apart yet their testimonies were widely different concerning the density of the haze and what effect it had in their ability to detect the ice. Hichens' account doesn't match Boxhall's and Boxhall's account kept changing again and again. I just find the generally accepted theory of the collision to be slightly odd. As Mr. Lightoller would later publish:

"In Washington it was of little consequence, but in London it was very necessary to keep one's hand on the whitewash brush. Sharp questions that needed careful answers if one was to avoid a pitfall, carefully and subtly dug, leading to a pinning down of blame onto someone's luckless shoulders.....A washing of dirty linen would help no one.......The Board of Trade was holding an enquiry into the loss of the ship, hence the whitewash brush. Personally I had no desire that blame should be attributed either to the Board of Trade or the White Star Line, though in all conscience it was a difficult task.......I think in the end the Board of Trade and the White Star Line won.....I know when it was all over I felt more like a legal doormat than a mail boat officer."

I think his statement really does cast doubt on the testimony from the key witnesses e.g. The lookouts, Hichens, and Boxhall.


.
\
Although I don't have any solid proof, I think it would be silly to assume that there weren't any icebergs nearby, as so many were see in the morning.
But I highly doubt that there was another Iceberg in that immediate area that close, and yet not one eyewitness to back it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Dec 13, 2016
149
54
73
31
I suppose you are correct. It must have been the same iceberg. Again, unless he was mistaken about its size, a berg about the height of the boat deck would be hard to miss. I'm really pulling my hair out here trying to figure out how it could be 50-100 yards away, but also be somewhat close to the docking bridge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
46
73
Yes, the accounts can cause some confusion, but I would say it is more dealing with people sort of winging their distances not really considering or knowing the estimates in actuality. I would say that is more likely and logical than jumping the idea of "there was a second iceberg" as an option to reconcile the testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Dec 13, 2016
149
54
73
31
Looking back on his testimony, I realized he was most likely giving a rough estimate, not an actual figure. I had to re-read the testimony to understand. I also mistakenly thought the distance given was 50-100 yards...it was feet. Makes more sense now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
If the collision had pushed the Titanic away from the iceberg and made it appear up to 100 feet away as it passed the starboard beam it would have to be a significant impact to repel the ship away that fast. Didn't a survivor state that there was ice left on the windows of the Cafe Parisian further aft? Also I recall survivors in the smoking room who felt the ice passing under their feet as the ship possibly grounded over the ice. Regarding the second iceberg. Didn't the Carpathia see several icebergs in the immediate area in the morning that were close? Do we really have any guarantee that the lookouts were telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Fleet and Lee were inches apart yet their testimonies were widely different concerning the density of the haze and what effect it had in their ability to detect the ice. Hichens' account doesn't match Boxhall's and Boxhall's account kept changing again and again. I just find the generally accepted theory of the collision to be slightly odd. As Mr. Lightoller would later publish:

"In Washington it was of little consequence, but in London it was very necessary to keep one's hand on the whitewash brush. Sharp questions that needed careful answers if one was to avoid a pitfall, carefully and subtly dug, leading to a pinning down of blame onto someone's luckless shoulders.....A washing of dirty linen would help no one.......The Board of Trade was holding an enquiry into the loss of the ship, hence the whitewash brush. Personally I had no desire that blame should be attributed either to the Board of Trade or the White Star Line, though in all conscience it was a difficult task.......I think in the end the Board of Trade and the White Star Line won.....I know when it was all over I felt more like a legal doormat than a mail boat officer."

I think his statement really does cast doubt on the testimony from the key witnesses e.g. The lookouts, Hichens, and Boxhall.


.
When a ship strikes an object, it is no repelled bodily side-ways; not unless the ship is moving bradside toward that object like a long quay side or another ship's side. Even then, he pressure beyween the to biulds up anf afford a cushionong effect. When a ship hiys something with its bow, it pivots at the point of contact. Usually the part of the ship behind the point of contact swings away from it. I hope you understand this.
Now add the factor of motion...fast forward motion in the case of Titanic.
Then, the point of contact was moving back along the side of the ship. If the ship had not been under hard left rudder, my guess is that the pivoting motion would have increased as long as the contact between the two was maintained. Once contact was broken, the ship's natural pivot point took over and her stern would have swung back toward the iceberg. It did so. Can you see this picture in your mind's eye?
I have heard that nonsense about grounding on tbe ice before. It is proposed by those who haven't the faintest idea of the effect grounding would have had on the stability of that ship. A naval Achitect will understand what I mean.
The distance was not exactly100 feet, Aaron. The man guessed a distance. However, the ship was not hugging that berg but was a considerable distance off her side at mid-length.

Lightoller said he was keeping his hand ON the whitewash brush...he didn't say he used it. If in fact he had used it, his feet would not have touched the ground. His prevarication would have been very quickly discovered and he would have been on the beach earlier than he planned.
His remark about the US evidence tells us how little he knew what was going on at the time. In fact, Lord Mersey had a full transcript of the US Inquiry and used it frequently during the questioniong of witnesses. So did The Attorney General.

Think about the evidence of the Lookouts. They had 20 minutes left of a long Watchup up in a freezing cold, windy box in front of the foremast and were looking forward to a warm bunk. They were human. Probably talking and saw that berg at the last minute. They did not wish the world to think they were careless so came up with excuses. Pity they did not compare notes before taking the stand.
The only person whoi did not have surviving witnesses to his actions was QM Hichens. However, there were surviving witnesses to the actions of Murdoch, the Lookouts and Boxhall. The results of the actions of Murdoch were a guide to the evidence of Hichens so for any of these survivng people to prevaricate would be madness. They could never know who would contradict them. Thik Fleet versus Lee.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,479
1,744
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
or he could be mistaken entirely about size and distance.
Very likely.
Ice came in through an open porthole between cabins D17 and D21. That was just ahead of 1st funnel position looking from a side profile. Severe underwater damage lasted until the berg went past the area of the 1st funnel. There was also some possible underwater damage to side plating in BR4 between tank top and floor plates. Ice came in open porthole in cabin E25 which was just between 1st and 2nd funnels. Windows on Café Parisian up on B deck got wet. That was opposite the 4th funnel. Berg was seen very close to docking bridge as it passed by. There is no possible way that the berg got as far as 50 ft, let alone 100 ft, from the side of the ship as it went by.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I thought I had replied to your last earlier, Aaron. Must have binned it by mistake.

Before a moving ship contacts an external point, it pivots round an immaginary point on its centerline located somewhere about 1/4 length from its bow. The second it touches an immoveable object like a quay side, mooring dolphin or an underwater protudence, the point of contact becomes the point around which it will pivot. Once it breaks free of that point of contact, the ships in-built pivot point takes over once again. I know that's simple but it is sufficient for illustration purposes.
When Titanic touched that iceberg, the point of contact became the pivot point and the ship began to swing round it. However the point of contact was also mobile and changing location rapidly. This means that as well as the ship receiving a 'glancing' push to the left from the contact, it also swayed and the bow momentarily tried to turn round the point of contact. This caused the the section of hull astern of the contact point to momentaily swung away from it in a pivoting motion. However, because the ship was moving so fast, more an more of it moved beyond the iceber and the point of contact was lost just aft of the bridge. At that moment, the ship's internal pivot point took over and the rudder once again did it job. Titanic rapidly began to turn left as intended and the stern section swung back in toward the iceberg. The ship's side was still 10 feet away from the iceberg when the stern cleared it.
I cannot find any record of ice on the Cafe Parisiene windows but I can find a record of the icberg gliding by in full view of those in the Smoke Room aft of the cafe. and of those in the Smoke Room joking about going forward to get ice for their drinks. In any case, the idea of ice on the cafe parisiene windows is nonsenss, Aaron. Think about it. The Cafe Parisiene was on B deck, 50 odd feet above the water and over 300 feet aft of the last point of contact with the iceberg. We know that the iceberg was at least 10 feet off the ship's side as it passed the bridge otherwise it would have wiped out boat No.1 which was hanging over the side. We also know that the iceberg was 10 feet off the ship's side when it passed the aft docking bridge. Work it out for yourself. If it had contacted the side at the Cafe Parisiens, then it would also have holed the ship in way of the main engine room or at least made a hell of a noise in that place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
You can appreciate my knowledge of ships is confined to text books and a reliance on what other people tell me is true, but if Boxhall heard the helm order as he was approaching the bridge and felt the collision before he even got there, and if the shock he felt was the same shock that Cavell felt in boiler room 4 which caused an avalanche of coal to fall around him, then Boxhall must have heard this helm order at the exact moment the iceberg was striking the bow further forward, or just a second or two before. I just don't see how ordering "hard a-starboard" makes any sense. It would simply swing the stern into the iceberg and push the starboard beam into the iceberg, instead of away. Even if the ship was pushed away momentarily by the impact there is no way Murdoch could have known that was going to happen. According to Lightoller the US Inquiry was of "no consequence" and this could be why quartermaster Olliver was not called to testify at the British Inquiry because it was treated with more importance. He said he arrived on the bridge when Murdoch was closing the watertight doors and he never heard that helm order given, and never heard Hichen's or Moody announcing that the helm was hard over either. He also testified in America that the Captain ordered half speed ahead after the collision. I believe those were two key points that could support a case of negligence against the company. He was one of the most important witnesses and yet he was never called to testify in Britain where according to Lightoller it really mattered.

The helm order makes sense only if they had sufficient time to make a judgement and turn the ship away, but if Boxhall's movements are correct then there was no time to barely get the wheel hard over let alone swing the bow out of the way.


Boxhall said (in one of his 3 versions) that the helm order was given during this short walk and felt the collision as he was passing the Captain's quarters.



bridgeplan1.PNG




.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Very likely.
Ice came in through an open porthole between cabins D17 and D21. That was just ahead of 1st funnel position looking from a side profile. Severe underwater damage lasted until the berg went past the area of the 1st funnel. There was also some possible underwater damage to side plating in BR4 between tank top and floor plates. Ice came in open porthole in cabin E25 which was just between 1st and 2nd funnels. Windows on Café Parisian up on B deck got wet. That was opposite the 4th funnel. Berg was seen very close to docking bridge as it passed by. There is no possible way that the berg got as far as 50 ft, let alone 100 ft, from the side of the ship as it went by.
Well he didn't exactly measure the distance Sam but it must have been an appreciable distance off the ship's side for him to remark in the way he did.
The beam starts to decrease at cabin D 17 so there is no big mystery about ice getting into portholes there. Cabin E25 was at Frame No. + 42, 136 feet forward of the cabin occupied by he Harders. Frame No.42 was 6 feet forward of WT bulkhead F, the rear bulkhead in boiler room 5 and about 42 feet aft of the last visible damage seen by Leading Fifreman Barratt. On the boat deck, it was level with the rear end of Lifeboat No. 5 and about 90 feet from the entrance to the bridge. QM Olliver saw the tip of the iceberg passing aft. He was on the boat deck, somewhere forward of Frame No 42 at the time. He also stated categorically that when he saw the iceberg, the noise of contact had ceased. The noise/sensation of contact could not have lasted more than 6 seconds.

You wrote: "There is no possible way that the berg got as far as 50 ft, let alone 100 ft, from the side of the ship as it went by."
I beg to differ. Think about how a ship leaves a berth without moving ahead or astern. (in the days before thrusters). To make it easier,..there is half a ship's length of empty quay-side ahead of her. Now apply your findings to the Titanic riddle of how she defied logic and moved away from instead of toward the iceberg. Think of her charging along at 22.5 knots when suddenly her starboard shoulder encounters a bit of a drag. It doesn't stop her. In the old days, it ws called "springing her out", Sam.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
You can appreciate my knowledge of ships is confined to text books and a reliance on what other people tell me is true, but if Boxhall heard the helm order as he was approaching the bridge and felt the collision before he even got there, and if the shock he felt was the same shock that Cavell felt in boiler room 4 which caused an avalanche of coal to fall around him, then Boxhall must have heard this helm order at the exact moment the iceberg was striking the bow further forward, or just a second or two before. I just don't see how ordering "hard a-starboard" makes any sense. It would simply swing the stern into the iceberg and push the starboard beam into the iceberg, instead of away. Even if the ship was pushed away momentarily by the impact there is no way Murdoch could have known that was going to happen. According to Lightoller the US Inquiry was of "no consequence" and this could be why quartermaster Olliver was not called to testify at the British Inquiry because it was treated with more importance. He said he arrived on the bridge when Murdoch was closing the watertight doors and he never heard that helm order given, and never heard Hichen's or Moody announcing that the helm was hard over either. He also testified in America that the Captain ordered half speed ahead after the collision. I believe those were two key points that could support a case of negligence against the company. He was one of the most important witnesses and yet he was never called to testify in Britain where according to Lightoller it really mattered.

The helm order makes sense only if they had sufficient time to make a judgement and turn the ship away, but if Boxhall's movements are correct then there was no time to barely get the wheel hard over let alone swing the bow out of the way.


Boxhall said (in one of his 3 versions) that the helm order was given during this short walk and felt the collision as he was passing the Captain's quarters.
View attachment 3795
.

I very much appreciate your position regarding where your knowledge comes from Aaron. I also appreciate that you do not blindly accept the word of others but ask question about things that do not ring true to your way of thinking. Let's examine the evidence of Boxhall from the time he heard the hard-a-astarboard helm order. I can talk you through this because as a callow youth, I have actaully put a helm similar to that of the Titanic hard over more times than I care to rremember. It was a common occurance when steering a big ship down a narrow winding, buoyed channel when under pilotage.

When Boxhall heard that order, it would have been shouted by Murdoch from his normal station on the bridge wing. QM Hichens would react immediately, certainly within a second. It would take Hichens no more than 4.5 seconds to put the helm hard over. It follows that from the first heard shout of "Hard-a-starboard" until the order was completed, 5.5 seconds of time would have passed by. From Hichens, we know that impact took place at or very close to the momet the helm was hard over. Boxhall als said that the heard the three bells first follwed almost immediately by the helm order and telegraph bells ringing. That matches perfectly with the evidence of the lookouts who said they rang the bells then went immediately to the phone and confirned the ice sighting to the bridge.
What is so difficult to understand about all that?
 
Dec 13, 2016
149
54
73
31
When a ship strikes an object, it is no repelled bodily side-ways; not unless the ship is moving bradside toward that object like a long quay side or another ship's side. Even then, he pressure beyween the to biulds up anf afford a cushionong effect. When a ship hiys something with its bow, it pivots at the point of contact. Usually the part of the ship behind the point of contact swings away from it. I hope you understand this.
Now add the factor of motion...fast forward motion in the case of Titanic.
Then, the point of contact was moving back along the side of the ship. If the ship had not been under hard left rudder, my guess is that the pivoting motion would have increased as long as the contact between the two was maintained. Once contact was broken, the ship's natural pivot point took over and her stern would have swung back toward the iceberg. It did so. Can you see this picture in your mind's eye?
I have heard that nonsense about grounding on tbe ice before. It is proposed by those who haven't the faintest idea of the effect grounding would have had on the stability of that ship. A naval Achitect will understand what I mean.
The distance was not exactly100 feet, Aaron. The man guessed a distance. However, the ship was not hugging that berg but was a considerable distance off her side at mid-length.

Lightoller said he was keeping his hand ON the whitewash brush...he didn't say he used it. If in fact he had used it, his feet would not have touched the ground. His prevarication would have been very quickly discovered and he would have been on the beach earlier than he planned.
His remark about the US evidence tells us how little he knew what was going on at the time. In fact, Lord Mersey had a full transcript of the US Inquiry and used it frequently during the questioniong of witnesses. So did The Attorney General.

Think about the evidence of the Lookouts. They had 20 minutes left of a long Watchup up in a freezing cold, windy box in front of the foremast and were looking forward to a warm bunk. They were human. Probably talking and saw that berg at the last minute. They did not wish the world to think they were careless so came up with excuses. Pity they did not compare notes before taking the stand.
The only person whoi did not have surviving witnesses to his actions was QM Hichens. However, there were surviving witnesses to the actions of Murdoch, the Lookouts and Boxhall. The results of the actions of Murdoch were a guide to the evidence of Hichens so for any of these survivng people to prevaricate would be madness. They could never know who would contradict them. Thik Fleet versus Lee.

You don't think that some of the testimony of the collision, points to a grounding? I'm just asking not presenting an argument. You know a whole lot more about ship than I do and like Aaron, my knowledge is limited to books and the information shared to me by others.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The way I see it, Boxhall was unaware they had struck an iceberg as he approached the bridge:


Q - And you were on deck at that time?
A - On the deck, sir.
Q - Approaching the bridge?
A - Just approaching the bridge.
Q - Could you see what had occurred?
A - No, sir; I could not see what had occurred.
Q - Did you know what had occurred?
A - No, not at all. I heard the sixth officer say what it was.
Q - What did he say that it was?
A - He said we had struck an iceberg.

I find it remarkable that Boxhall could have heard the bell ring, the telegraph ring, the order hard a-starboard and felt the collision all within a 10 second walk and yet he never mentioned hearing the phone ringing or being answered and apparently did not even hear Moody report to Murdoch that there was an iceberg right ahead as he later found out from Moody that "we had struck an iceberg" (past tense). So he was completely unaware that there was an iceberg when he approached the bridge. Then we have Hichens who claimed the helm order was given after the telephone was answered and how the ship had successfully turned 2 points:

Q - Do let me understand. Had she swung two points before the crash came?
A - Yes, my Lord.

That would have taken a significant time and yet Boxhall claimed that everything happened inside a 10 second walk. We also have Fleet who told Major Peuchen that nobody answered the phone and told the Inquiry that the ship was already turning while he waited at the phone to get a reply and even had to ask if there was anyone there. Fleet also told Lightoller on the Carpathia that the helm turned "distinctly before the report" yet Hichens said the order was given after the report. Then we have Olliver who did not hear the order at all, which all could explain why Boxhall did not know what had occurred as he apparently did not hear Moody answer the phone or report to Murdoch there was an iceberg right ahead.


You can appreciate how the testimony when examined collectively is very confusing. If Boxhall arrived on the bridge at the same time the Captain did and both men were completely unaware what had just happened, and if the Captain was in the navigation room just prior to the collision then it could mean that everything happened very fast and no helm orders were given in an emergency before the collision, as the iceberg appeared seemingly out of nowhere or emerged suddenly out of the haze and there was no time to turn the ship away. Just my two cents of course. If the testimony doesn't match, then suspect everything.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thomas Peffer

Member
Jul 10, 2017
2
0
11
David Brown: I have never read that 2012 book you speak of nor am I a conspiracy therorist. According to actual seaman weather charts from that night they show an intense high pressure system (strongest on Earth for 1912 in fact) right over the ice field. You were right about the speed tho...4 knots sounds right and the telegraph handle set to SLOW AHEAD not half that I had erronously posted earlier. There was in fact 2 types of steering still in use in 1912 (I took the time to do further research on that point, its verified, and not on some wackjob conspiracy websites either. On the surface tho it does seem unlikely given Hitchens' prior experience which is why I followed up on your claim stating that Quartermaster Hitchens turned the wheel correctly). The White Star Line crew in my opinion did a fantastic and admirable job doing everything they could to save as many as possible unlike today where captains and crew seem to abandon passengers and save themselves (the Con Concordia disaster, etc). The Titanic itself was built extremely well for 1912 standards. Women and children first. That's how it should be. I mean, who actually does that anymore these days? Anyways sorry but Captain Smith DID delay turning The Corner 20 minutes instead of turning it at 5:30pm ships' time April 14th he turned it at 5:50pm ships' time to try to avoid the ice field in response to earlier ice warnings. What Smith couldn't have known was the ice field in 1912 was unusually enormous and extended much further south due to an unusually warm Arctic winter which caused more bergs to calve. The inferior mirage thing isn't a theory it's proven science. It's easily seen during the day when a ship can appear distorted and the horizon appears elevated something all captains know about all too well. Smith was trying to first head for Halifax but soon after realizing he wasn't going to get Titanic nearly that far decided to simply try and steam back the 14 or so nautical miles toward the main shipping lanes so he could save his passengers and crew which is why he restarted the engines.
 
Last edited:

Alex Kiehl

Member
Aug 1, 2006
70
26
108
Approximately how long were the engines on HALF-AHEAD before they were stopped for good? Would it be fair to say five minutes, perhaps?
 

Sam Brannigan

Member
Dec 20, 2000
904
15
263
It was reported in the New York Evening World that at 1pm on the 15th April word came through to the White Star New York office “from Boston” that the “Allen Line Montreal (by telephone) confirms report Virginian, Carpathia and Parisian in attendance”. There was also a report “of an unofficial character” received in Montreal at 8.30am on the 15th that the Titanic was crawling in the general direction of Halifax towards the Virginian.

I think that based on those confused reports Franklin, being the superb manager he no doubt was, booked the train to Halifax. From a publicity point of view it showed the hardiness and proactive nature of White Star, and it pre-empted any criticisms of inertia and incompetence at what, at that point, was an unfolding PR disaster.
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Approximately how long were the engines on HALF-AHEAD before they were stopped for good? Would it be fair to say five minutes, perhaps?

The engines did not go Half-Ahead but Slow-Ahead. While Greaser Scott gave a long estimate (10 minutes for the engines going slow ahead) it was very likely much less. Trimmer Dillon gave the time as 2 minutes.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Approximately how long were the engines on HALF-AHEAD before they were stopped for good? Would it be fair to say five minutes, perhaps?

Quartermaster Olliver was on the bridge and said: "After she struck; she went half speed ahead......The captain telegraphed half speed ahead." The engines had been charging at high speed for days and were suddenly ordered to stop. Great care would be given when the order was given to go "half speed ahead" and no doubt the engines would slowly progress forward again and work themselves up to half speed ahead.


Mr. Dillon said:

"They went ahead again."
Q - For how long?
A - For about two minutes.

Mr. Scott said:

"They rang down slow ahead. For ten minutes she was going ahead."
Q - Can you tell us at all what time passed between the order “Stop” and “Slow ahead”?
A - I should say. About 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour.


It is unclear if Dillon and Scott were basing their assessment of the engines by the speed they were moving. e.g. The captain may have ordered "half speed ahead" but the engines may have been slowly building up towards it, and stopped again before she had worked up to it. The same could be said for the order "full speed astern". 4th officer Boxhall said that both telegraphs indicated "full speed astern", but Dillon and Scott could only see the engines moving "slow astern" as the engines had to work up to it. I believe this accounts for the discrepancy between the survivors.


.
 

Scott Mills

Member
Jul 10, 2008
670
90
133
43
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
I've always been very doubtful with the fact that the sinking of the Titanic is only due to a starboard site contact with the iceberg. This theory is usually admitted by the majority and shown in detail in the movie "Titanic". The discovery of the wreck permits some examination of the bow's iron plates. It shows eventually small damages. The mortal injuries must be found somewhere else.

The reading of the transcript of the US Senate Hearings brings me to ask myself some questions:

* Why Quartermaster Hitchens stays at the wheel about 43 minutes after the impact?
* Why did Ismay go himself to the Engine room after the accident?
* What was the purpose of the message from Capt. Smith to the Chief Engineer Bell delivered by Seaman Olliver? The answer of the unknown message was: "He told me to take back - to tell the captain that he would get it done as soon as possible".
* Who sent the famous Marconigram: ""Titanic proceeding to Halifax. Passengers will probably land there Wednesday. All safe."
* What was I supposed to understand by that:
- Senator FLETCHER. That condition could not have obtained unless the steel plates had been torn off from the side of the ship?
- Mr. BULEY. From the bottom of the ship. It was well underneath the water line.
- Senator FLETCHER. And the plates must have been ripped off by the iceberg?
- Mr. BULEY. Yes, sir.

- Senator FLETCHER. You think if she had had collision mats, she might have been saved?
- Mr. BULEY. That would not have done much good with her, because I believe she was ripped up right along.
- Senator FLETCHER. For what distance?
- Mr. BULEY. I should say half way along, according to where the water was. I should say the bottom was really ripped open altogether.
- Senator FLETCHER. The steel bottom?
- Mr. BULEY. Yes, sir.

I was very confused by numerous inaccuracies between the generally admitted facts and the transcription of the witnesses' testimonies.

The light came from an extract of David G. Brown's book named "The last Log of the Titanic". And everything became very clear. Mr Brown explain the succession of misunderstandings that lead to the fatal decision to restart the engines:

"The inescapable conclusion is that Titanic's pumps were swamped by massive amounts of water pushed into the ship by its own forward motion." … "Put another way, it was not the ice that sank Titanic, but the actions of its captain and owner."

Is anybody else convinced by these facts, as I am?

I am too sick (literally), tired (literally), and at work to get too in depth into this discussion; however, I think there is excellent circumstantial evidence that:

1. The officers of Titanic (including Andrews) did not know Titanic was fatally damaged until at least 30 minutes after the collision;
2. That the rumor of heading Halifax existed on board at the time of the sinking;
3. That White Star Line's New York office was told by telegram Titanic would head for Halifax and that the origin of the telegram was Titanic herself;
4. That Titanic made way for some period of time (between 10 and 20 minutes) following the collision; AND
5. This forward momentum may have exacerbated the collision damage.
 

coal eater

Member
Mar 1, 2018
123
19
63
Mr. Scott Mills the forward movement of ship did not increase flooding at all. lifeboats started to be launched before 1:00. and titanic was blowing steam not long after 00:00 . and engines probably were started around 23:45 and stopped between 23:55 and 00:00 but its unclear for how long they were going and there is no proof titanic was moving for half hour after collision,with wented steam it had not sufficient pressure to run engines at desired speed,howewer at very slow ahead might be possible but as above,titanic was not moving for more than 10-15 minutes after collisio maybe 20minutes but not more

titanic had another problem,water building up in coal bunker in boiler room 5,water would soon or sooner overcome the doors resistance and break them open and flood the boiler room,titanic was doomed when boiler room 5 was flooded,if it was keept dry there was chance it could stay afloat in standstill.

titanic technocally could use engines for around entire hour problem is that propellers soon would emerge from water and engines would be useless from that time.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads