Titanic alternative theories

Many alternative theories to the sinking of the superliner RMS "Titanic" have been put forward. The accepted reason for the sinking, which resulted in the death of more than 1,500 people, is that the ship struck an iceberg at 11:40 PM on 14 April 1912, buckling the hull and allowing water to enter the ship’s first five watertight compartments (one more than the "Titanic" was designed survive), and sank two hours and forty minutes later. Hypotheses which have been suggested as the cause of the disaster include a curse on the ship by the Unlucky Mummy, unsafe speed, an insurance scam and an ice-pack rather than an iceberg. Most of the stories have been debunked.

Mummy

The "Titanic's" mummy curse is an urban legend, possibly based on the Princess of Amen-Ra who lived in 1050 B.C.cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/mummy.asp | publisher=Snopes |title= Everything But the Egyptian Sinks|accessdate=2008-10-04] According to legend, after her discovery in the 1890s in Egypt, the purchaser of the mummy ran into serious misfortune. The mummy was then reportedly donated to the British Museum where it supposedly continued to cause mysterious problems for visitors and staff. The mummy was eventually purchased by journalist William Thomas Stead, who dismissed the claims of a curse as quirks of circumstance. The legend claims that he arranged for the mummy to be hidden under the body of his car for fear that it would not be taken aboard the "Titanic" because of its reputation. He reportedly revealed to other passengers the presence of the mummy the night before the accident.

Official records state that the British Museum never received the mummy, only the lid of its sarcophagus (which is on display at the museum and known as the "Unlucky Mummy"). [Citation | last = Kamuda | first = Edward | title = The Titanic Mummy Legend | journal = Titanic Commutator | volume = 18 | issue = 2 | pages = 24-25 | date = August-October 1994 | year = 1994] Additionally, except during war and special exhibits abroad, the coffin lid has not left the Egyptian room. [cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417396/Hi-Mummy-Im-home.html|title=Hi Mummy I'm home!|publisher=Daily Mail|author=Robert Hardman|date=2006-11-20|accessdate=2008-10-04]

Pack ice

In 2003 Captain L. M. Collins, a former member of the Ice Pilotage Service published "The Sinking of the Titanic: The Mystery Solved" proposing, based upon his own experience of ice navigation and witness statements given at the two post-disaster enquiries, that what the "Titanic" hit was not an iceberg but low-lying pack ice. He based his conclusion upon three main pieces of evidence.

# At 11:30pm on the night of the sinking the two lookouts spotted what they believed to be haze on the horizon, extending approximately 20 degrees on either side of the ship's bow, despite there being no other reports of haze at any time. Collins believes that what they saw was not haze but a strip of pack ice, three to four miles (6 km) ahead of the ship. (Collins, 2003, p16)
# The ice was variously reported as convert|60|ft|m high by the lookouts, convert|100|ft|m high by Quartermaster Rowe on the poop deck, and only very low in the water by Fourth Officer Boxhall, on the starboard side near the darkened bridge. Collins believes that this was due to 'an optical phenomenon that is well known to ice navigators' where the flat sea and extreme cold distort the appearance of objects near the waterline, making them appear to be the height of the ship's lights, about convert|60|ft|m above the surface near the bow, and convert|100|ft|m high alongside the superstructure. (Collins, 2003, p17-18)
# A ship such as the "Titanic" turned by pivoting about a point approximately a quarter of the ship's length from the bow, with the result that with her rudder hard over, she could not have avoided crushing her entire starboard side into an iceberg were such a collision to occur, with the result that 'the hull and possibly the superstructure on the starboard side would have been rent. In all probability the ship would have flooded, capsized, and sunk within minutes. [Collins 2003, pp 24-25]

Coal fire

Ohio State University engineer Robert Essenhigh released a theory in November 2004 that claims a coal fire led indirectly led to the iceberg collision. [cite web | title=Coal Fire Theory | work=Titanic.com | author=Geological Society of America and Robert H. Essenhigh|date=November 2004|url=http://www.titanic.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=27|accessdate=2008-10-04] He claims a pile of stored coal had started to smolder, and to get control over that situation, more coal was put into the furnaces, leading to unsafe speeds in the iceberg-laden waters.

Essenhigh states that records prove that fire control teams were on standby at the ports of Cherbourg and Southampton because of a fire in the stockpile, and that such fires are known to reignite after they have been supposedly extinguished. He suggests that the "Titanic" actually set off from Southampton with one of its bunkers on fire, or that a spontaneous combustion of coal occurred after the ship left port. Such fires were a common phenomenon aboard coal-fired ships and one of many reasons why marine transportation switched to oil in the early 1900s. It is similarly theorized that such a bunker fire was responsible for the explosion of the USS "Maine" in 1898, by setting off her powder magazines.Fact|date=October 2008

Gardiner's "Ship That Never Sank"

One of the most controversialBeveridge and Hall 2004] cite web | title="Olympic & Titanic" - An Analysis of the Robin Gardiner Conspiracy Theory| url=http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/pdfs/Conspiracy_Dissertation.pdf|date=2006| author=Mark Chirnside|accessdate=2008-10-04] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, 'TITANIC: The Ship That Never Sank?' [Gardiner 1998] In it, Gardiner draws on several events and coincidences that occurred in the months, days, and hours leading up to the sinking of the "Titanic", and concludes that the ship that hit sank was in fact the "Titanic"'s sister-ship RMS "Olympic", disguised as the "Titanic", as an insurance scam.

The "Olympic" was the older sister to the "Titanic", built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to the "Titanic", save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows. These were not glazed in the "Olympic". In the "Titanic" the front half of the promenade deck was fitted with smaller glazed windows to protect passengers from spray.

On 20 September 1911, the "Olympic" was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy cruiser "HMS Hawke" near Southampton. The cruiser smashed its ram into the side of the "Olympic", seriously damaging both ships. The inquiry found the "Hawke" free of all blame. This set in motion Gardiner's theory. White Star Line was allegedly not insured for the cost of fixing the damaged "Olympic" (which, according to Gardiner, had damage to the central turbine's mountings and the keel). The White Star's flagship would also be out of action during any repairs, and the "Titanic's" completion date would have to be delayed. All this would amount to a serious financial loss for the company. Gardiner proposes that, to make sure at least one vessel would be earning money, the 95% complete "Titanic" was converted to become the "Olympic". Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name badges. Thus, Gardiner believes the "Titanic" spent 25 years in service as the "Olympic".

Gardiner uses as evidence the length of "Titanic's" sea trials. The "Olympic's" trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but the "Titanic"'s trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.

Gardiner suggests the plan was to dispose of the "Olympic" to collect insurance money. He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship. If numerous ships were stationed nearby to take off the passengers, the shortage of lifeboats would not matter as the ship would sink slowly and the boats could make several trips to the rescuers.

Gardiner maintains that on the 14 April, Officer Murdoch was not officially on duty yet was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers that knew of the plan and was keeping a watch out for the rescue ships. One of Gardiner's most controversial statements is that the "Titanic" did not strike an iceberg, but an IMM rescue ship that was drifting on station with its lights out. Gardiner based this hypothesis on the idea that the supposed iceberg was seen at such a short distance by the lookouts on the "Titanic" because it was actually a darkened ship, and he also does not believe an iceberg could inflict such sustained and serious damage to a steel double-hulled (sic) vessel such as the "Titanic".

Gardiner further hypothesizes that the ship that was hit by the "Titanic" was the one seen by the "Californian" firing distress rockets, and that this explains the perceived inaction of the "Californian" (which traditionally is seen as failing to come to the rescue of the "Titanic" after sighting its distress rockets). Gardiner's hypothesis is that the "Californian" was not expecting rockets, but a rendezvous. The ice on the deck of the "Titanic" is explained by Gardiner as ice from the rigging of both the "Titanic" and the mystery ship it hit. The collision, according to Gardiner, caused the already fragile structure of the ship to give way, sinking the ship.

Researchers Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall took issue with many of Gardiner's claims in their book, "Olympic and Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy". Author Mark Chirnside has also raised serious questions about the switch theory.

Expansion joints

The common belief is that the Titanic, after hitting the iceberg, began to take on water at the puncture point of the iceberg. After some time the ship's bow and mid-section had filled up with water and the stern began to rise out of the water as the bow sunk into the ocean. The stern rose into the air high enough to make a 30 degree angle between the bottom of the stern and the surface level of the ocean. At that point, due to stress of the unsupported weight of the stern, the ship broke into two pieces and separated completely.However a theory has been presented by naval architect Roger Long that says there was a critical flaw in the design of the Titanic. In fact, the ship actually only rose to about an 11 degree angle, and did not break into two pieces immediately. Expansion joints are commonly used in a variety of projects to allow for thermal and other types of expansion between materials. Today, expansion joints are rarely used in ship building. At the time of the building and design of the Titanic, expansion joints were not understood very well but were in the plans for the Titanic. The main joint was to be placed directly down the middle of the vertical axis of the ship to allow for bending stress of the ship when in rough waters. Unfortunately, this also critically weakened the vessel. Long’s theory originates from an examination of two pieces of double bottom hull discovered in 2006 and that the crew of the Titanic seemed to have thought they had much more time to get people into lifeboats than they did. Long believes the ship actually failed along the expansion joint and that pitching of the stern would not have been nearly as drastic as 30 degrees, but as gentle a maximum of 11 degrees. This would mean the ship would have appeared to the passengers and crew that the ship was simply stagnant in the water and was sinking very slowly.

Notes

References

*cite book | author=Robin Gardiner| title=TITANIC: The Ship That Never Sank? | publisher= Ian Allan Publishing | year=1998 | id=ISBN 978-0711026339
*cite book | author=L.M. Collins| title=The Sinking of the Titanic: The Mystery Solved" | publisher= Souvenir Press| year=2003 | id=ISBN 0-285-63711-8
*cite book | author=Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall| title=Olympic & Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy | publisher= Infinity Publishing| year=2004 | id=ISBN 978-0741419491