Titanic took a wrong turn… apparently

I know the pictures you are talking about but I don’t see any problem. I’ll get into them later on today and will see if I can figure out what Gardiner is on about. There is a slight snag though. According to the H&W list both pictures are of the Olympic. H1515 was taken in April 1911 and H1825 in December 1912. By that time the Titanic was on the bottom of the Atlantic. If Mr. Gardiner had done his homework he would have known. Oh sorry, it’s a conspiracy, isn’t it? So the files must be forged! :diablo: However, if you check to two following photos H1826 and H1827 (Olympic) you will see that the bridge wing cabs haven’t been moved further outboard. This alteration took place on Olympic after the Titanic disaster. So if the ship on the ocean floor is the Olympic, it should have bridge wings that were flush with the surface of the hull, correct?

It is a conspiracy! All we need is a murder an a kidnapping thrown in and we have a full set! (given that it was supposedly Olympic, on fire, and with a broken keel.) Conveniently for the conspiracy theorist types the bridge wings didn’t survive did they? Most of the bridge was wiped out.

You’re being sarcastic. The bell that was found is not the bell people expected to see. Only ONE bell had the name of the ship on it. Apparently they didn’t find that one. Like I said the size of the bell doesn’t match any bell in the rigging plan

Admittedly that was a bit sarcastic, though I wouldn’ really expect anything down there in that area not to come off Titanic. Unless it came from the missing sub, or the mystery ship which she supposedly collided with (The mor I read Mr Gardiners book, the more I think it has more paralllels with Clive Cusslers novels than reality)

The White Swan Hotel has the First Class Lounge and parts of the Grand Staircase. Whenever you’re in that area check it out, the lounge is huge and very impressive.

I’ve put it on my ever growing to do list! A couple of friends suggested I go have a look a while back.

They are! You’ve never seen the film have you? Send me your address via pm and I’ll see if I can get a copy out to you. Gimmi a few weeks though.

Peter

To be honest, it was ages ago when I watched it. No need to go copying it, its on the internet. I’ll have a look again. (Just to check.. I am right in thinking it’s the one with Telly Savalas hosting it, yes??)

I think I’m going to leave this discussion here anyway, as I’m sick of Mr Gardiners book now, and his arguments get weirder and weaker throughout the book. I’ve chucked it in the recycle pile and dug out my copy of Dr Ballards “Discovery of the Titanic”, as it’s a better read.

Just a question as you’re obviously into Titanic in a big way, did they ever find out what happened to the first memorial plaque Dr Ballard laid? Someone told me he had to put another down on his last trip as the original had gone.

Regards,

Ric

Not my pics, so I can’t really post them. However the references if you want to go look for them are: Harland and Wolff/Ulster Folk and Transport Museum H1515 and H1825.

I know the pictures you are talking about but I don’t see any problem. I’ll get into them later on today and will see if I can figure out what Gardiner is on about. There is a slight snag though. According to the H&W list both pictures are of the Olympic. H1515 was taken in April 1911 and H1825 in December 1912. By that time the Titanic was on the bottom of the Atlantic. If Mr. Gardiner had done his homework he would have known. Oh sorry, it’s a conspiracy, isn’t it? So the files must be forged! :diablo: However, if you check to two following photos H1826 and H1827 (Olympic) you will see that the bridge wing cabs haven’t been moved further outboard. This alteration took place on Olympic after the Titanic disaster. So if the ship on the ocean floor is the Olympic, it should have bridge wings that were flush with the surface of the hull, correct?

Right, because finding a ships bell in the middle of a shipwreck was so unlikely wasn’t it?

You’re being sarcastic. The bell that was found is not the bell people expected to see. Only ONE bell had the name of the ship on it. Apparently they didn’t find that one. Like I said the size of the bell doesn’t match any bell in the rigging plan

I take your point about everything found in the UK with 400 on. The fact that a hell of a lot of Olympic is scattered around the country is probably the most damning evidence to shut sceptics up. As for the hotel, thats the one fitted out with a lot of the panelling from Olympic, I don’t need to google it.

The White Swan Hotel has the First Class Lounge and parts of the Grand Staircase. Whenever you’re in that area check it out, the lounge is huge and very impressive.

As for the painted on name, how come in the video the letters aren’t incised into the plate?

They are! You’ve never seen the film have you? Send me your address via pm and I’ll see if I can get a copy out to you. Gimmi a few weeks though.

Peter

Sorry mate! The shell plating at the bow on both ships was perfectly identical! Nothing was changed. Show me the pics and I’ll explain.

Not my pics, so I can’t really post them. However the references if you want to go look for them are: Harland and Wolff/Ulster Folk and Transport Museum H1515 and H1825. You’re looking at the bottom of the hawse hole on the front of the bow. One shot shows it standing proud at its base with a visible gap, one doesn’t.

Go for it with the explanation, I’d love to hear it. Short of a shedload of lead loading, or some quick bodgery with fibreglass, its different. Maybe it was done to improve the aerodynamics, in order to wring that last half a knot out of her.

Yes, well so would I as far as the bells are concerned. However, which ship’s bell IS the main ship’s bell? The one on the bridge front perhaps? They must have picked up some other bell then. Surprisingly the size of the bell that was retrieved doesn’t match any of the bells shown in the Harland & Wolff Yard No. 401 (Titanic) Rigging Plan. Hmmm… So who’s bell did they find? Perhaps it came from someone’s steamer trunk? Besides, nothing else had the name stamped on it (apart from lifeboat nameplates but these didn’t sink). Instead you would find the number 401 on a lot of items. However, the number 400 was found on a large number of items discovered in the past years in the UK. For instance nearly everything that came from the Akzo Noble Paint Factory in Haltwhistle (you might want to google this).
And also in the White Swan Hotel in Alnwick (google too) then perhaps you can explain why Gardiner was right.

That is exactly the video I mean. It is known as the “Port side of the Wreck” video and is of incredible quality. The “A”; “N”; “I”; “C” is perfectly clear.

Right, because finding a ships bell in the middle of a shipwreck was so unlikely wasn’t it? I take your point about everything found in the UK with 400 on. The fact that a hell of a lot of Olympic is scattered around the country is probably the most damning evidence to shut sceptics up. As for the hotel, thats the one fitted out with a lot of the panelling from Olympic, I don’t need to google it.

As for the painted on name, how come in the video the letters aren’t incised into the plate?

No, you do!

Seriously? A “No, you” argument? Are you five years old?!

Thats the second time you’ve taken part of something I’ve said literally. I didn’t mean you personally. It could be Bob Ballard, the Mir submersible teams, even a friendly passing mermaid. The engines stand proud of the rest of the stern they’re that big, yet nobody bothered to look for a makers plate? When they can happily go find a painted on name on the bow?

Your turn!
🙂

Ric

It’s all there for any serious person to examine with a critical eye and decide for themselves.

Sorry, just deciding for myself. I’ll look out for that documentary next time it comes around.

Creaking Door,

Your memory isn’t very good. Everything in your last post is disproved by the documentary and the evidence that has been examined by experts, metallurgists, and naval architects. All your disputes are with John Chatterton, Richie Kohler, and naval architect Roger Long. I’m sure they would be interested in your take on things. Have a nice life, we’re done here.

Let’s face it, you can regurgitate history for ever and a day and get nowhere, the people who were in the know either died on that fateful night or have since died, anything you come up with these days is pure speculation based on what has been said, possibly 10th hand from the person that was actually there and probably died on the night……….. will the facts ever be 100% revealed, no…no matter how many different ways you look at it, what can be said that is fact, is that it hit an Iceberg and sank with a loss of a lot of life and the fact it did probably did more to increase maritime safety than any other incident.

As Shakespere once said ( allegedly) “what is past is prologue”

Sorry, it should have read how the pattern changes. Photos of Olympic before and after the sinking of Titanic show a different pattern of plates on the bow. A pattern which it seems to have swapped with Titanic.

Sorry mate! The shell plating at the bow on both ships was perfectly identical! Nothing was changed. Show me the pics and I’ll explain.

I would expect the main ships bell to, as most other ships seem to have it. Everything else seemed to have the name stamped on it, so why not?

Yes, well so would I as far as the bells are concerned. However, which ship’s bell IS the main ship’s bell? The one on the bridge front perhaps? They must have picked up some other bell then. Surprisingly the size of the bell that was retrieved doesn’t match any of the bells shown in the Harland & Wolff Yard No. 401 (Titanic) Rigging Plan. Hmmm… So who’s bell did they find? Perhaps it came from someone’s steamer trunk? Besides, nothing else had the name stamped on it (apart from lifeboat nameplates but these didn’t sink). Instead you would find the number 401 on a lot of items. However, the number 400 was found on a large number of items discovered in the past years in the UK. For instance nearly everything that came from the Akzo Noble Paint Factory in Haltwhistle (you might want to google this).
And also in the White Swan Hotel in Alnwick (google too) then perhaps you can explain why Gardiner was right.

BS… strong stuff! Is that the video from the French expedition that found a name when nobody else did, that has since disappeared so nobody can find it again?

That is exactly the video I mean. It is known as the “Port side of the Wreck” video and is of incredible quality. The “A”; “N”; “I”; “C” is perfectly clear.

I don’t dismiss anything until proven. Get a serial number off the engines or one of the boilers…

No, you do!

How the pattern what?

Sorry, it should have read how the pattern changes. Photos of Olympic before and after the sinking of Titanic show a different pattern of plates on the bow. A pattern which it seems to have swapped with Titanic.

There were at least THREE exterior bells – one behind the crows-nest; one at the foot of the forward mast and one attached to the bridge front. Do you really believe that they all had the name Titanic on them?

I would expect the main ships bell to, as most other ships seem to have it. Everything else seemed to have the name stamped on it, so why not?

Complete BS! I have video footage here in which the name Titanic can be clearly made out on the portside bow. If Mr. Gardiner doesn’t believe me, he is very welcome to come over here and have a look.

BS… strong stuff! Is that the video from the French expedition that found a name when nobody else did, that has since disappeared so nobody can find it again?

I don’t dismiss anything until proven. Get a serial number off the engines or one of the boilers, then I’ll make my mind up. For now, all I believe is that a ship that at the time was called Titanic sank.

I’ve got Robin Gardiners book (Titanic – The Ship That Never Sank) on the go at the moment and it does make interesting reading. There’s a lot of supposition in there but there are some puzzles. The bits that intrigue me most are:

-how the pattern of plating around the bow on photos of the Olympic:

How the pattern what?

-how the ships bell brought up from Titanic doesn’t have the ships name on:

There were at least THREE exterior bells – one behind the crows-nest; one at the foot of the forward mast and one attached to the bridge front. Do you really believe that they all had the name Titanic on them?

-the only visble letters left of a name on the wreck are “o” and “p”

:confused:

Complete BS! I have video footage here in which the name Titanic can be clearly made out on the portside bow. If Mr. Gardiner doesn’t believe me, he is very welcome to come over here and have a look.

Lets hope this one don’t 😉

http://queenelizabeth.cunard.com/?gclid=CNiYsYn-w6QCFVBe4wodSCT2Ug 🙂

…the Titanic broke up on the surface and then sank. It didn’t sink and then break up. He also was able to prove that the Titanic didn’t sink at a steep angle, it sank at an angle of about 11 degrees.

Not really sure what point you are arguing there; nobody, now anyway, disputes that Titanic broke-up at some point during her sinking (there were even witnesses at the time who claimed that), although neither the US or UK enquiries accepted that this was the case. As to what degree of sinking exactly and at what angle the stern was at when she broke her back that is open to debate (and as I said earlier it was certainly exaggerated for the film Titanic). Personally I think she broke her back late on, at a time when she was in the darkness of a moonless night (without lights), and in such a way that the majority of survivors didn’t really notice (but had vague impressions of her stern ‘righting itself’).

I’m not disputing the fact that there could have been (and probably was) some damage to the double-bottom but what I am disputing is that the two large sections of the double-bottom that were discovered ‘a great distance away’ and that ‘the bottom of the ship underneath the engine rooms was entirely open to the sea’ was the reason for Titanic sinking. Would Titanic have sunk slowly, and more importantly, bow first if the iceberg had ripped large sections of the double-bottom away underneath the engine room?

I am also disputing the fact that these sections were found ‘great distance away’ is any indication of these sections being lost at the point of impact or at the moment of impact. Clearly these two sections became detached a long way from the bottom, but then the whole stern became detached a long way from the bottom, and furthest away doesn’t necessarily mean first to detach in this case.

If I remember the documentary correctly (and it has been a while since I saw it) the team were suggesting that Titanic broke her back when the stern was at an angle of about 11 degrees (slightly different than ‘sinking’ at 11 degrees) and they may well be right, but what is important is the loading on Titanic’s hull and that depends on other factors, mainly how much of Titanic is above the surface and that is linked to how much water is inside her (and where it is distributed).

The idea of the Titanic/Olympic identity swap was first floated (pardon the awful pun) several years ago, but it has apparently since been disproved by items recovered from the Titanic wreck which bear marks confirming she was indeed Titanic, and a vsual inspection of certain parts still on the seabed. I think the clincher was something to do with Titanic’s propellors being slightly different to Olympic’s.

I’ve got Robin Gardiners book (Titanic – The Ship That Never Sank) on the go at the moment and it does make interesting reading. There’s a lot of supposition in there but there are some puzzles. The bits that intrigue me most are:

-how the pattern of plating around the bow on photos of the Olympic
-how the ships bell brought up from Titanic doesn’t have the ships name on
-the only visble letters left of a name on the wreck are “o” and “p”

:confused:

I saw a television documentary a few years ago where a team revisited Titanic in submarines and this team located two huge sections of the double bottom. Their conclusion seemed to be that these showed signs of Titanic breaking her back on the surface as is widely accepted (although not in as dramatic a fashion as in the film Titanic).

I don’t think anybody else has suggested that Titanic ‘lost two entire sections of her double hull where the actual event took place’ and if she had I doubt very much that she would have stayed afloat for two hours or sunk bow first if the ‘engine rooms were entirely open to the sea’. Also although ‘glancing blow’ is a relative term, the impact was so slight that very few passengers even noticed that it had happened; I doubt that would be true if ‘two entire sections’ of double bottom had been ripped from her in the collision.

Not only has “anybody else” suggested Titanic lost two entire sections of her double bottom hull where the actual event took place, they have proved it with the help of metallurgists and naval architect Roger Long. Unlike human witnesses, steel doesn’t forget, exaggerate, or lie about the details. It’s all there for any serious person to examine with a critical eye and decide for themselves. Roger Long was able to prove from evidence provided by Titanic’s hull damage, tearing and crumpling, and the damage on the two sections of double bottom hull found a great distance away that the Titanic broke up on the surface and then sank. It didn’t sink and then break up. He also was able to prove that the Titanic didn’t sink at a steep angle, it sank at an angle of about 11 degrees. The metal tells the story with more accuracy than any other possible means.

Read Brad Matsen’s book “Titanic’s Last Secrets” or watch the History Channel’s documentary “Titanic’s Final Moments: Missing Pieces” and see how your theories hold up to scrutiny against the most recent scientific evidence.

The idea of the Titanic/Olympic identity swap was first floated (pardon the awful pun) several years ago, but it has apparently since been disproved by items recovered from the Titanic wreck which bear marks confirming she was indeed Titanic, and a vsual inspection of certain parts still on the seabed. I think the clincher was something to do with Titanic’s propellors being slightly different to Olympic’s.

I shouldn’t have said it, I know!
Please check out my post #6 here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=97421

The Titanic had a “Cellular Double Bottom” which was flooded with water when most of the coal had been fired to make up for the “lost” weight to maintain the ship’s stability. This had nothing to do with the watertight compartments. It makes no difference: if only one or two compartments had been breached she wouldn’t have sunk.

BTW: an elderly gentlemen told me a few years ago that it wasn’t the Titanic that sank but her sistership the Olympic! 😮
He said he read it in a book!:eek:

The idea of the Titanic/Olympic identity swap was first floated (pardon the awful pun) several years ago, but it has apparently since been disproved by items recovered from the Titanic wreck which bear marks confirming she was indeed Titanic, and a vsual inspection of certain parts still on the seabed. I think the clincher was something to do with Titanic’s propellors being slightly different to Olympic’s.

The Titanic’s hull double bottom hull.

There were no “baffles” to stop the water moving in that space. The beams forming the keel and ribs had circular cutouts in them to reduce weight. So the water was free to move.

The Titanic had a “Cellular Double Bottom” which was flooded with water when most of the coal had been fired to make up for the “lost” weight to maintain the ship’s stability. This had nothing to do with the watertight compartments. It makes no difference: if only one or two compartments had been breached she wouldn’t have sunk.

BTW: an elderly gentlemen told me a few years ago that it wasn’t the Titanic that sank but her sistership the Olympic! 😮
He said he read it in a book!:eek:

There were no “baffles” to stop the water moving in that space. The beams forming the keel and ribs had circular cutouts in them to reduce weight. So the water was free to move.

What about the watertight bulkheads; not much point in having them if the water can flow underneath? :confused:

…..there are documented early reports of water coming up through the floor plates of the engine room and driving the workers away from their stations and forcing them to abandon their posts very early in the disaster. That wouldn’t have happened if the cause was a gash running the down the length of the hull.

The Titanic’s hull double bottom hull.
It is entirely possible that the water flooding in up front simply travelled along the “void” between the bottom of the boat and the boiler room floor plates.
I think that was mentioned in a couple of documentaries.

There were no “baffles” to stop the water moving in that space. The beams forming the keel and ribs had circular cutouts in them to reduce weight. So the water was free to move.

That would explain the water coming up through the deck plating.

I saw the same documentary as creaking door; Titanics hull first flexed upward, her keel snapped from the pulling forces. This essentially broke her back. With no support left, the bow dived towards the depths, flexing the ship downward and splitting the remaining superstructure apart, the two sections of keel hull you talk of then held the bow and stern together before giving way both from the bow section and the stern. This would explain why the stern was seen to rise, then as the bow disappears below the water the stern falls then rises again before sinking.

I saw a television documentary a few years ago where a team revisited Titanic in submarines and this team located two huge sections of the double bottom. Their conclusion seemed to be that these showed signs of Titanic breaking her back on the surface as is widely accepted (although not in as dramatic a fashion as in the film Titanic).

I don’t think anybody else has suggested that Titanic ‘lost two entire sections of her double hull where the actual event took place’ and if she had I doubt very much that she would have stayed afloat for two hours or sunk bow first if the ‘engine rooms were entirely open to the sea’. Also although ‘glancing blow’ is a relative term, the impact was so slight that very few passengers even noticed that it had happened; I doubt that would be true if ‘two entire sections’ of double bottom had been ripped from her in the collision.

The Titanic didn’t succumb to the glancing blow of the iceberg, it “ran aground” on a shelf of ice that couldn’t have been seen. We’ll never know if steering one way or the other might have changed the outcome. What was visible above water couldn’t give any meaningful clues as to what lies beneath the surface. What we now know with great certainty is that the Titanic lost two entire sections of her double hull. Two entire sections, from port side to starboard side, lie together on the ocean floor and mark the closest spot to where the actual event took place. The wreck of Titanic lies some distance away. The bottom of the ship underneath the engine rooms was entirely open to the sea, and there are documented early reports of water coming up through the floor plates of the engine room and driving the workers away from their stations and forcing them to abandon their posts very early in the disaster. That wouldn’t have happened if the cause was a gash running the down the length of the hull.

If the Titanic had just suffered a glancing blow like we believed for so many years, it very likely would have stayed afloat long enough for help to arrive and it might even have been under power for some time after the collision.