History to date of my mission to date to conclusively prove that the RMS
Titanic was lost as the result of grounding on an submerged ice shelf rather
than having her hull breached by starboard side contact with an iceberg on
April 14, 1912.
Written by: Robert M. Williams
Deck of the Titanic - 12,420 ft. below sea level
Deck
of the Titanic - 12,420 ft. below sea level
In July 2001 I made my first dive to the Titanic. This adventure was a realization
of a dream that I held for more than 50 years. My fascination with the Titanic
legacy began when I was eight years old. It was then that my English grandmother
gave me a book that she had originally purchased in late 1912. This book
was entitled The Sinking Of The Titanic And Other Great Sea Disasters. It
was written in 1912 by a Marshal Logan.
I spent the ensuing years trying
to unravel the mysteries of the Titanic sinking. There have been many theories
and plausible explanations made by a very educated group of people concerning
what happened the night of April 14/15th during that fateful three hours
from the time that the Titanic struck the iceberg until the time it sank.
The commonly held theory is that the Titanic struck a glancing blow to
the starboard side of its hull as it passed by the iceberg. The obvious
contradictions to this theory have held me many years to the belief that
another explanation prevailed.
When my grandmother presented me with the book,
I immediately consumed it. Also, even though I was not a boater at that time,
questions developed in my mind as to the true nature of the disaster. Even
as a neophyte, one has to ask himself, how can a ship traveling in at
22 knots sideswipe at an iceberg and have the majority of its occupants not
realize that collision had occurred?
As I grew older, my basic understanding
of physics led me to realize that for every action there's a equal and
opposite reaction. If the Titanic had contacted the iceberg in the manner
that currently theories dictate, the resulting impressions of its occupants
would have been much different than those related in survivor accounts. These
recollections and known facts along with the knowledge many virtually slept
through the event has to bring into question the impressions that have gilded
the textbooks. The fact that there is no record of anyone losing their footing,
china and glasses crashing to the floor, or a serious feeling that any major
event occurred, provide ample opportunity for the assumption that the Titanic's
rendezvous with the iceberg was decidedly different than those portrayed
in current textbooks.
I held my beliefs in abeyance until after I had concluded
my initial dive to Titanic in 2001. After viewing the Titanic wreck site
first hand and again reviewing all of the published photographs and observer
accounts of others who had had the same opportunity as I, it became glaringly
obvious that nothing could be conclusively speculated, much less proven
from the wreckage contained within the known debris field. The forward
hull section, although being the best preserved and being the portion of
the vessel which everyone agrees contains the area which made contact with
the iceberg also hit the ocean bottom traveling somewhere close to 30 knots
in its fateful plunge, burying the draft portion of its hull some sixty feet
into the hard, glacier rock strewn mud. It is almost laughable for anyone
to creditably claim that evidence of starboard side hull plate separation
discovered through ultrasound soundings made of the buried hull conclusively
proves the faulty theory of sideswipe. The hard fact is that the true location
of the Titanic's hull contact with the iceberg WILL NEVER BE determined by
any currently known scientific examination of the forward section of its
hull for the simple reason that it is impossible to separate the below water
line damage that might have occurred from contact with an iceberg from that
which surely occurred when it impacted the ocean bottom at 30 knots. On that
first dive, I concluded that the real evidence lay elsewhere.
Shortly after
returning from the 2001 expedition, I had the opportunity of procuring
a copy of a recently published book written by David G. Brown entitled "The
Last Log of the Titanic". I read this book
from cover to cover and also reviewed the White Paper prepared and presented
by David Brown and Parks Stephenson to the Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers in May, 2001. I found myself in general agreement with many
of the conclusions reached by Captain Brown and Mr. Stephenson in their research
of the subject, particularly with the theory that the Titanic actually was
able to “port around ” the above water portion of the iceberg in
accordance with First Officer Murdoch's emergency avoidance plan. Both Captain
Brown and myself are in agreement that the fatal damage inflicted on the Titanic's
hull was due to the grounding on an underwater ice shelf rather than a starboard
piercing of the forward side of Titanic's hull. Although his research penetrated
far deeper in the records than I had been able to, it still lacked conclusive
proof.
There is general agreement that Titanic encountered an iceberg at approximately
11:40PM (Ship's time) on the night of April 14, 1912 at 41.43.25N latitude,
49.56.55 W. First Officer Murdoch, the officer in charge of the Bridge at
that time, reportedly gave the order to stop engines and instructed the Quartermaster
to bring the helm, "Hard a'starboard" in a vain attempt to port
around the berg. It had long been my belief that the ship actually missed
colliding with the above water portion of the iceberg and instead grounded,
her keel coming in contact with an underwater ice shelf somewhere along the
bottom of the bow section of the vessel, the result of which stripped loose
sections of exterior bottom plating in its tank bottom, opening it to the
sea.
Titanic
strikes iceberg, tearing plates from its bottom just as Murdock gives second
helm order.
Traveling in excess of 21 knots at the time of impact and having cleared
the bow to the left of the above water portion of the berg, Murdoch executed
the second half of the "Port Around" maneuver by ordering the helm
to Port in an attempt to swing the advancing stern section of the Titanic
clear of an impending collision with the visible portion of the iceberg.
As the stern began to swing to Port, the ship grounded, effectively accelerating
the bow's shift to starboard. As the ship's
keel
rode up on the underwater shelf, a number of things happened in the relatively
few seconds of contact. Rivets holding the bottom hull plating in the area
of contact were sheared by the movement of those affected plates and large
sections of bottom plating in the area of the forward keel of the ship were
torn loose and began tumbling to the depths some 2 1/2 miles below. The already
established turning momentum
of the ship was thus assisted by the fulcrum of contact of the forward portion
of its keel and starboard tank bottom as it rode along the transverse slope of
the ice shelf. This contact assisted the ship to change its forward course
from easterly
to almost north as it essentially pivoted on this fulcrum of forward hull
contact,
aided by the force of its rudder now pushing the stern to port. As the Titanic
continued to slowly swing north, it also continued to move forward across
the underwater shelf before sliding free. During this process, the tremendous
weight of the vessel depressed the ice shelf as it rode over it, effectively
levering the above water portion of the berg toward the starboard side of
the Titanic's forward well deck as it passed, brushing off pieces of surface
ice in the process which fell harmlessly to the deck.
Ships
tremendous weight bearing down on ice shelf, levering the above water portion
of the berg toward its starboard side. The resulting brush depositing chunks
of ice on the forward well deck.
All recorded indications document that the engines were brought to a full
stop either before or within moments of contact and NOT reversed as some
would have others believe. Survivor accounts contradict any thought of engine
reversal as anyone with a shred of marine experience knows the consequence
of reversing engines on a ship traveling in excess of 21 knots would have
most likely transmitted dire consequence to the mechanical drive train of
the vessel. At the very least, if such an action had been taken, it would
have literally rattled the teeth out of every passenger and crew, particularly
those located in the stern sections of the ship. Neither of those consequences
can be supported by any of the testimonies given at either of the two inquiries
conducted as a result of this tragedy.
After becoming free of the iceberg, the ship continued to coast north as
the iceberg with which it had its rendezvous continued to drift south in
the prevailing current. There are some accounts that the Titanic may have
been restarted and run forward at slow speed for as long as a 10 minute period
between the time of impact and midnight........ before it was realized how
badly wounded she was. Under either scenario, the Titanic could have coasted
or been driven north for 2-3 nautical miles before finally coming to a stop
at approximately 12 midnight. As lifeboats were readied and lowered, it then
begin to drift south with the current in the same manner and rate as the
iceberg which it had collided some 20 minutes earlier.
During the vessel's northerly coasting and the iceberg's southerly drift,
the distance between it and the iceberg it impacted steadily increased. Once
the Titanic coasted to a stop and began to drift with the current, the distance
between it and the berg remained relatively constant at approximately 4 to
6 nautical miles. Judging that the Titanic was stopped at 12 midnight when
the order was given to prepare the lifeboats for lowering, and broke up and
sank almost 2 1/2 hours later at 2:20 AM, the Titanic could have drifted
back south to an area within a one nautical mile radius of the geographical
location of its initial contact with the iceberg.
The location of actual impact has been entirely based on the dead reckoning
coordinates given by 4th Officer Joseph Boxhall and these coordinates have
often been brought to question the many speculations that have been advanced
since that fateful night in 1912. If my theory
was correct, the conclusive evidence was to be found at a place outside the
established perimeter of the known wreck site and debris field... most likely
at a point on the ocean floor directly below the actual geographic location
of the collision that occurred at 11:40 PM, April 14, 1912. The proof that
I was looking for would be in the form of bottom hull plates or sections
of the starboard bilge keel of the Titanic lying in an area free of break
up debris.
Currently, the bow and stern sections lie on the bottom
some 2000 feet apart, with stern surrounded by a massive field of debris
as a result of the surface break up of the vessel. Hull plating lying
on the bottom outside the perimeter of the known break up debris field
can be safely assumed to be the result of something other than the break
up,...namely, the grounding. These isolated pieces of bottom plating
would not only offer proof of the actual cause of the sinking, they would
also mark the actual geographical location of the grounding. Although
expert testimony after the disaster estimated that the aggregate opening
Titanic's hull created by its contact with the iceberg approximated 12
square feet, I believe that the plates torn from the hull as the ship
grated across the submerged ice shelf opened an area in the outer hull
that may have been considerably larger than that. Research done by David
Brown also appears to substantiate this contention. The 12 square foot
area was the result of a mathematical calculation considering the amount
of water entering necessary to overcome the vessel's buoyancy versus
the time that the Titanic remained afloat after striking the iceberg.
One has to remember that the Titanic employed a double bottom in its construction
and there is no evidence that the accident caused a breach in the tank top
of this structure. The space existing between the bottom side of the ship
and the tank top (which was in essence the lowest deck of the vessel ) was
known as the "tank." However, there was interesting testimony given
during the U.S. Inquiry into the disaster.
Samuel Hemming, a seaman from Southampton,
England testified to hearing a loud hissing coming from the area of the
forecastle head shortly after the accident. Going down all the way to the
tank top and finding everything dry, he determined that the hissing was coming
from a vent pipe on the top of the tank top, indicating that water coming
into the ship from the hole/s in the bottom of the ship (i.e., the tank bottom).
Although the aggregate opening in the ship's bottom likely exceeded 12 square
feet, the aggregate opening in the tank top was likely close to that area.
The condition that
existed
was much like inverting an open container in a pail of water. The water rises in
the open end of the container to the level at which the trapped air is compressed
to equal
the force of the entering water. If one then makes a small opening in the top
of the closed container thus allowing air to escape, the water rises in the
container at a proportional rate to the area of the punched hole, NOT in proportion
to the area of the submerged open end of the inverted container.
Such was the case with the Titanic............ even though it had a number
of hull plates missing from its bottom after the grounding, the initial sizes
of openings existing in the tank top of its double hull which allowed entrapped
air to escape actually governed the rate of its sinking and not the opening
created in its outer hull. Other openings in the referenced tank top were
sealed with heavy canvas reinforced with steel battens. Testimony indicated
that the canvas cover on the forward hatch ballooned up after the accident,
being held in place only by the strength of the battens. It doesn't take
much imagination to know the effect on the ingress of water once those battens
failed, which I believe may have happened during the latter phases of the
sinking.
In July, 2002 I participated in a
Expedition to explore the Rainbow Vents which occur at the Mid-Atlantic rift
southeast of the Azores which, although very interesting, served to fortify
my desire to again visit the Titanic. In the ensuing period, I gathered whatever
further information and opinions of the Titanic disaster and started to map
a plan for my return. Part of my research followed the salvage operations
conducted from the time of its discovery in 1985 by Dr. Robert Ballard to
the present. The current Salvor-
In-Possession,
the RMS Titanic group was mired down in legal and financial problems and
in the course of my research of that situation,
a friend and Explorer Club member, Don Walsh directed me to contact David Concannon,
also a member of the Explorers Club. During the course of the
many
Jill Williams,
Dr. Robert Ballard, Robert M. Williams
conversations we had, David revealed to me that in 2000,
while making a dive to the Titanic wreck site, he and his pilot, Anatoly
Sagalevitch, had ventured to an area far south of the stern section in search
of a basket of salvaged relics lost in a previous retrieval attempt by the
French.
During the course of this search, they had happened upon
some large pieces of wreckage. Although their sighting was several hundred
meters south of southern boundary of the debris field, he felt that he could
find his way back to it. I related my theory to him and from his description
of the wreckage he had seen in 2000, I felt confident that this could lead
to the proof that I was looking for.
The problem I faced was convincing both the MIR pilot and
whoever would be accompanying me in the MIR to forego much of their bottom
time at the popular wreck site to venture off on what might turn out to be
a wild goose chase. Although I did much lobbying over the next several months
by both fax and e-mail, I was uncertain if I was going to be able to pull
it off. Once the Russian research vessel Keldysh was at sea, I spoke of my
quest to Capt. Fred McLaren a retired nuclear submarine commander with whom
I had established a friendship during a previous expedition to the Hydrothermal
Vents. After listening to my theory, Fred volunteered that he would be my
dive partner on this search as he, like I, had previously visited the Titanic.
Robert
M. Williams, Anatoly Sagalevitch, Capt. Fred McLaren
The plan was to descend down by the bow section and then
move on to the stern and utilize it as a demarcation point for my search.
Armed with notes provided by Concannon and a copy of his August 6, 2000 dive
profile which I was able to secure from files inboard the Russian research
vessel Keldysh, Anatoly, Fred, and I headed to the bottom on the morning
of July 7, 2003. We touched down some distance west of the bow and once the
lights were turned on and I was able to see out of my porthole, I knew we
were in trouble. The sea snow was a virtual blizzard, worse than I had ever
seen it. It was close to white out conditions with visibility only a few
meters. “Sea Snow” as it has come to be called, is composed of
plankton and the remains of tiny sea creatures raining down from the water
column above. It has been speculated that the over fishing of the Grand Banks
has exaggerated the amounts of “Snow” simply because of the elimination
of the animals that feed on this beginning of the food chain.
After all three of us agreed that the snow was worse than
any of us had ever seen at the site before, Anatoly flipped the switch on
the powerful 330 kHz forward seeking sonar to enable our continued navigation
to the bow. Didn't work! All we had was a blank screen. Now I really knew
that my mission was in serious, serious jeopardy. After utilizing a of bit
of dead reckoning navigation to the bow section, I was surprised to see the
amount of deterioration that has taken place in the short time since I last
visited in 2001. Although I had previously heard rumors that damage might
have occurred at the site from unauthorized use of unmanned ROVs by unnamed
visitors the previous fall, my observation of the forward mast provided me
with no indications that its splitting and further breakup has been due in
any way to abortive salvage attempts. It would appear that the wrapped steel
sheet it was formed from has simply relaxed as the rivets have failed from
the accelerated corrosion that has taken place.
After spending what seemed no more than 30 minutes at the
bow section, we headed off towards the stern, again being forced to use dead
reckoning and the sub chart plotter to find our way. Along with the reduced
visibility and our non-functional sonar, we also experienced an unusually
brisk south to north current. Although Anatoly judged the current to be in
the area of one knot, I would estimate that it could have been easily twice
that as the MIR 1 had to really labor to make headway towards our ultimate
destination.
The reduced visibility and the absence of a functioning forward
seeking sonar necessitated traveling over the bottom plain at an elevated
level as a safety precaution against the possibility of collision with projecting
wreckage. This mode further reduced the opportunity for visual recognition,
particularly through the small observation ports of the MIR. Once we were
able to make our way to and positively identify the stern section, we struck
out on a southerly course in an attempt to rendezvous with the coordinates
that I had determined from Concannon's information.
Maintaining a steady course was difficult due to the strong
current. Traveling south from the stern section we encountered much china
and other porcelain artifacts material along with some small sections of
metal superstructure debris. No large metal sections such as those described
by Concannon were observed. In the course of traveling south from the stern
section at a level approximately 50-75 meters off the bottom, a strange looking
creature suddenly appeared swimming vertically, passing close by my view
port as it appeared on my lower left and exited from view to the upper right.
I had my camera running and neither Anatoly or Fred were able to witness
this creature's passing. It appeared to be barrel shaped, perhaps 25-30 centimeters
in vertical length and 10 centimeters in girth. It was propelled by a single,
bat-like semicircular wing and moved with what appeared to be a high degree
of agility.
About
10 minutes later, I encountered another one of these creatures swimming in virtually
the same manner as the first, only this animal exhibited a high degree of bioluminescence.
I didn't realize until the expedition was completed and I was reviewing my
film that I had caught both of these creatures with my video camera.
At first, I thought that I might have tripped upon a new species of deep
sea animal but after consulting with Dr. Bruce H. Robison of the Monterey
Aquarium Research Institute, learned that I had seen a deep sea species of
bioluminescent sea cucumber known as Enypniastes Eximia. This odd form of
holothurian is one of about 25 species that has adapted from the sedate sea
cucumbers found on the bottoms of most oceans at all depths to one that remains
on the bottom only to feed and then swims up in the water column to avoid
predators. Its bioluminescence it thought to be employed as a defense means,
rubbing off on its attacker and thus exposing the predator to potential attack
by larger predators prowling the lightless depths.
After venturing some 800 to 900 meters south without seeing what I was looking
for, we turned to travel out of the debris field and then north with the
current. At approximately 16: 30, as we sped across a point that would estimate
was almost due east of the coordinates I had plotted, I did see what appeared
to be two sections of hull plating standing vertical from the bottom in an
area virtually devoid of breakup debris at a depth of about 3840 meters.
These crumpled pieces were standing on edge, burrowed unto the bottom mud
much in the same manner as the Titanic's bow. Unfortunately, I was unable
to get a photo of this fleeting glimpse* due to our accelerated bottom speed
facilitated by the northerly flowing current. I immediately informed Anatoly
as to what I had seen and requested that we come about immediately and take
a reverse azimuth to return to this site. As we started our turn, a very
large Dumbo octopus swimming a few meters ahead literally swam into the main
view port. To sate everyone's interest in this unusual creature, we spent
a few minutes drifting with the current photographing this animal, who seemed
totally unruffled by our abrupt meeting. By this exercise, we compromised
our established track and when we resumed our turn, we weren't able to find
our way back to the previously mentioned hull plating section.
Although we
spent over an hour in our search, the absence of the forward sonar made
our return to the site of this promising debris a virtual impossibility.
After completing the dive and reviewing the dive profile generated from the
transponder data of our submersible's course during that dive, I would estimate
that we came within 150 meters of the plates I had seen but conditions existing
on the ocean bottom, complicated by non functional navigational systems
serve to prevent us from reachingthat
destination. Needless to say, I came away from this experience with a deep
sense of disappointment having come so close to my objective but not being
able
to completely achieve it. I had hoped to develop concrete photographic evidence
which would serve to overturn the currently accepted theory that the Titanic
was sunk as a result of damage incurred by a sideswipe of her starboard hull
rather than the more logical conclusion of grounding on the berg's underwater
ice shelf. Luck was not in my corner on July 7, 2003 however I did come away
with a visual observation that would have provided the proof that I was looking
for.
Whether I would ever be afforded a future opportunity to again visit Titanic,
I could not say at that point in time, but I continued to hold out
that hope that I would. I knew that there would be no more expeditions to
Titanic in 2003 as well as 2004. 2004 was the year for the scheduled disassembly
and 10 year retest for both MIRs, and so it was not likely that the opportunity
for another visit would be anytime soon or ever, for that matter. However,
once the MIRS are back in service , I knew that I would again be standing
in line... but this time much closer to my quest.
The two year wait for the next opportunity to visit Titanic provided me
with time to evaluate my three deep ocean dive experiences as well as do
further research. Although I remained convinced that the Titanic grounded,
a nagging question remained. In grounding situations, a hull break up usually
follows in the sinking process. The Titanic did, in fact, break up in its
final moments before plunging to the bottom. However, the collision damage
of the Titanic occurred on the forward third of its hull but the break up
occurred on the aft third of the ship. Why did this great ship break in a
location that seemingly was free of collision damage? I became convinced
that something had occurred during the accident that heretofore had not been
reported.
This realization and further research changed my plan for my future revisit
to the Titanic site, if such a rendezvous were to ever be possible. I still
needed to photograph the plates I had seen in 2003, but I also needed to
document another more important event that I was now sure held the key to
the disaster. Knowing that the ship broke up in an area of its hull that
seemingly escaped damage during its brief but fatal encounter with the iceberg,
it was easy to speculate that that single event was the one responsible for
the appalling loss of life. Had the Titanic not broke up, it is likely that
it would have remained afloat long enough to allow ships steaming to its
rescue to reach the site before the cold North Atlantic waters claimed those
unfortunate enough to not be afforded space in the lifeboats.
My research into the ship’s construction led me to some important
conclusions. There has been much speculation as to the quality of the steel
plating and rivets used in the Titanic’s construction. “Inferior” is
a word often used in scientific reports and some have even gone so far as
to lay the majority of the blame for the disaster on such “defects.” Although
the steels used at the turn of the century could be termed inferior to those
produced today, the idea that Titanic was lost due to alleged defects in
these elements of her construction is rubbish! Her elder sister ship and
almost identical twin, the Olympic, sailed well into the 1930’s and
ended up being recycled in a scrap yard after a career dotted with mishaps
that would have surely revealed such construction defects.
Amazingly, the Titanic’s problems were the result of her newness
at the time on the accident. Having been launched less than a year before
her hurried sea trial and departure on her one and only voyage, the Titanic
had spent the majority of her brief life floating in the brackish waters
of the builder’s quay. As was the practice for building steel ships
in the early twentieth century, Titanic’s hull was constructed of overlapping
steel plates held together by iron rivets. A little known fact is that ships
of this type of construction are weakest when they are first launched and
actually become stronger as they age. This phenomenon is due to the fact
that the shear strength of the rivets holding her plates tightly against
one another at each of the lapped joints is the primary basis of hull integrity
of a new ship employing this type of construction. New steel plates have
clean smooth surfaces and remain that way until sea water has the opportunity
penetrate the tightly lapped areas held together by rivets. This water penetration
is facilitated by a process known as “capillary attraction” and
is aided by the normal flexing of the hull over a period of service in a
seaway. Until this penetration and resultant surface corrosion is allowed
to occur, the coefficient of friction between the mated surfaces of overlapping
plates is relatively low. However, once these surfaces become slightly corroded,
the coefficient friction is vastly increased and thus inhibits the possibility
of plate movement when subjected to lateral stress. Within the axiom of this
phenomenon, lies the basic cause of the Titanic disaster.
The Titanic was constructed with two “Expansion Joints” in its
superstructure, one occurring just behind the first funnel and the other further
aft between the third and forth funnels. The purpose for these joints as well
as their locations were both logical and simple. The ship’s designers
realized that a ship’s hull, particularly one as long and narrow
abeam as Titanic, would naturally flex in a seaway, particularly when pushing
through heavier seas. The logical location of the first joint would be
just aft of the bow, the portion of the ship which would first encounter
the forces of the sea. The location
of the second joint was subjective and was placed at a location that would
be
more
subject to flexural stress due to the ship’s construction . The second
joint was placed in the area of the ship directly above its machinery space.
Whereas the Titanic had eleven decks that ran from stem to stern, many of
these decks were necessarily interrupted to allow for the two towering triple
expansion steam engines that drove its two outer propellers.
To allow for this hull movement on the attached superstructure, expansion
joints were provided to allow for this transmitted movement, thus preventing
damage to the superstructure. Of course, in no case did the designers of
the Titanic anticipate the hull movement that might occur in a grounding
at almost full speed.
With the preceding knowledge , I thought back through the chain of events
that commenced during the late evening hours of April 14 , 1912. First, the
grounding occurred as First Officer Murdock successful avoided crashing into
the above water portion of the iceberg only to strike the Titanic’s
relatively flat bottom on the hidden ice shelf that sloped away underwater
from the base of the exposed berg. As the Titanic’s massive hull rode
up on the shelf tearing away bottom plating, its weight caused the shelf
to be pushed down, levering the above water portion of the iceberg towards
its passing starboard bow, brushing off loose chunks of ice unto its forward
well deck.
But something much more sinister was occurring during those few seconds
of contact...... the ship’s hull was twisting to port as its flat bottom
rode up on the underwater shelf’s transverse incline. At the first
contact, the ship’s bow made a quick flex to port causing the superstructure
in the area of the forward expansion joint to move with it. The airfoil effect
and stabilizing inertia acting on the leading funnel, held in place by a
series of support cables anchored to the superstructure both fore and aft
of the expansion joint, caused it not to move in complete relationship with
the hull and superstructure twist. This served to compromise the cable fastenings
on the port side of the funnel.... an event that became apparent a few hours
later when that funnel tipped forward and fell to starboard as the ship was
level abeam sinking by the bow.
But
the real death blow was starting to happen further back, in the area of
the second expansion joint. When the hull twist occurred in this area adjacent
to the machinery space, hull plates started to move against one another.
The corrosive forces previously mentioned had not sufficient time to dampen
or prevent this movement and plates located on the sides of the hull in
this location started to move. Their movement created an action much like
a set of
bolt
cutters on the rivets holding those plates together. Many rivets were snapped
in the process and most being above the water line did not signal their compromise
with an immediate ingress of seawater. No
doubt these breaking rivets emitted considerable noise but it was masked
by 55,000hp and the clanking of connected machinery running at close to full
speed. The fact that the occupants of this area of the ship....the engineering
staff....were not among the survivors, left no one to testify on this event.
The answer was now apparent as to why the Titanic broke
up at a location far aft of the iceberg contact damage. Unlike
wooden sailing ships that had come before, the Titanic did not possess a
keel as had been previously known and described. Instead of having a single
main timber at the lowest point of its hull as a foundation onto which all
the other members of its hull skeleton were attached, the sheer size of this
vessel demanded other considerations.
As long as three football fields, this ship was treading
new ground in the facets of marine engineering. The ship’s “keel” was
basically a flat sandwich of steel plates composed of its outer bottom and
the “tank top” of its double bottom, separated by a series of
longitudinal and transverse girders..... an assembly which in of itself,
possessed minimal longitudinal strength. If there
had been a way to lift this “keel” from any single point during
that early phase of the ship’s construction, it would have surely crumpled
under its own weight. This consequence can be easily demonstrated by lifting
a single unfolded sheet of paper from one end.
However, once the vertical sides of the hull were attached
to this “keel,” longitudinal strength was achieved by virtue
of the “U” beam effect provided. The middle photograph demonstrates the longitudinal strength imparted to a sheet of paper folded in this shape. And that strength would remain....but
only as long as vertical sides of the hull remained uncompromised. The afore
mentioned twist that occurred as the Titanic rode over the underwater shelf
laid waste to that hope. Referencing the previous demonstration with a folded sheet
of paper ……. Now cut the vertical
sections of the folded piece of paper, mimicking what happened to the Titanic’s hull sides when the stresses of sinking by the bow compromised those remaining rivets in the area of the second expansion joint…… those that were not sheared as it twisted over the submerged ice shelf. The bottom photo aptly illustrates the loss of longitudinal integrity of the ship’s hull which resulted in the early break up which occurred at 2:18 AM on April 15, 1912.
While there has been much speculation over the years following
the disaster, there was an instance that occurred in late1916 that should
have guided experts to the correct answers concerning Titanic’s break
up and sinking. In
November 1916, Titanic’s sister, the Britannic provided an example
which should have put to rest the idea that the Titanic was lost due a brush
on its starboard bow by an iceberg. Ironically, the Britannic was sailing
along in a smooth sea and encountered a German mine. As fate would
have it, the contact with this mine was in the same area on its starboard
bow as so-called experts would have us believe that Titanic encountered a
submerged ice spur which resulted in a 300 foot gash or parting of a riveted
seam just under its waterline along its starboard side. The mine blew a hole
in the Britannic’s starboard bow and although this hole was not 300
feet long, it was large enough to compromise the integrity of the surrounding watertight compartments and the force of the explosion prevented some of the compartment doors from fully closing, resulting in a situation similar to Titanic’s hull breach less than 5 years before.
Like Titanic, Britannic quickly began to sink by the bow. However,
unlike Titanic, the Britannic also began to list heavily to starboard….after
all, that was where the hole in its hull was located. The Britannic
continued to sink by the bow and like Titanic, this action
caused Britannic’s stern to lift free of the ocean’s surface,
exposing all three of its propellers. Survivor reports tell of the
stern lifting high in the air and then sliding away under the surface with
hardly a ripple.
Sound like a familiar story? You bet! But something is dramatically
different….the Britannic did not break up! The reasons that
it didn’t are simple. Although the Britannic suffered its injury
in virtually the same spot as experts claim occurred on the hull of Titanic,
the documented results were markedly different with both vessels. The
Britannic suffered a breach in its starboard bow just below the waterline
in the same area that many students of the Titanic disaster have claimed
as the fateful location of Titanic’s fatal injury. If this claim
had been correct, the events of Britannic sinking in 1916 would have produced
important collaborating evidence to support that belief. Instead, the
sinking of the Titanic’s sister ship clearly contradicted virtually
all of the established expert theories that had been developed relative to
the physical causes of the Titanic sinking. And even more surprising, with
this rock solid evidence to the contrary, there are still those possessing
intelligent minds who continue to hold the belief that Titanic foundered
as a direct result of sustaining a hole in her starboard bow.
Let us quickly review some of the important contradictions:
If the Titanic also sunk as the direct result of
a hole or crack in its starboard bow which allowed thousands of tons
of seawater to enter through that side, why didn’t it immediately assume the dramatic starboard
list exhibited and maintained by the Britannic until it sank? The
Titanic didn’t maintain a starboard list for the simple reason that
the damaging hole allowing seawater to enter was located in its bottom
and not in its starboard side.
Although the hulls of both the Titanic and
Britannic were holed in their forward sections, resulting both to sink
by the bow, lifting their respective sterns clear of the water,…..only the Titanic broke up in the process. Why?
Titanic: As described in this article, the Titanic
grounded at speed on a transversely inclined ice shelf and the resulting
torsional effect exerted on its hull resulted in the compromise of its
riveted hull construction, effectively “breaking its back” (Keel,
a.k.a its double bottom).
Britannic: The ship hit a submerged mine and although
this contact created a shudder felt throughout the ship, the resulting
forces created only a hole and not a twisting effect on the ship’s hull. However, the hole
created (by virtue of its location on the starboard bow below the waterline)
breached not only the outer hull but also the deck that formed to top of
the ship’s double hull, thus allowing seawater to enter virtually unimpeded
. Although Britannic escaped the fatal hull twist damage experienced
by Titanic, the rapid entry of seawater due to the compromise of its double
bottom forward (not to mention that many forward cabin portholes had been left open) caused it to sink much faster. Britannic sank in 55
minutes whereas Titanic took 2 ½ hours. Still, the Britannic
did not break up for the simple reason that its double bottom breach occurred
in one of the strongest locations of the ship…its bow, whereas
Titanic hull was compromised in its weakest locations, at its expansion joints
Olympic: The twin sister of the Titanic was launched a year earlier and ended up in a scrap yard in 1934. It the years between, the Olympic collided with a British warship, rammed a German U-Boat sinking it, and ran down the Nantucket Lightship sinking it with nary a rivet pop.
Early in 2005, I made preparations to participate in the
2005 expedition to the Titanic, hoping to find evidence to support my expanded
theory. The plates I had seen to 2003 were still there and I now knew their
location from comparing the time line contained in my dive profile data sheet
and the digital time log on the video cameras taken with me on that dive.
However, in the period since that dive, more and more who had made the Titanic
disaster a study were also beginning to accept the possibility of grounding.
The realization that creating the same dive scenario which had enabled me
to venture away from the main wreck site would be difficult to duplicate
on the upcoming dive caused me to realign my priorities. My emerging belief
that the hull twist had been the major contributor to the disaster made me
realize that it might be more practical for me to secure proof in that regard
rather than trying to structure a dive to merely photograph the hull plates
I had seen previously...... after all, I knew where those plates were and
knew that they would not be going anywhere any time soon.
What I needed as evidence of hull twist was feature that could only occur
when such an action took place. There are a lot of broken pieces of hull
and sheared rivets littering the Titanic debris field but none of these in
and by themselves could offer the evidence I needed.... Or could they?
When the Titanic broke up shortly after 2 a.m.
on the morning of April 15, 1912, plates moved and rivets sheared as
would have been the case when the hull twist occurred at 11:40 p.m.
the previous evening.... But with one important difference. When the
Titanic broke up, the movement of plates and consequential shearing
of rivets would have occurred in a “lateral” fashion.
Rivet holes in plates would have been elongated in the process, and those
elongations would have been horizontal as a consequence. xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxHorizontal ElongationsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxVertical
Elongations
On the other hand, the elongation of rivet holes that would have occurred in the vertical sides of the ship’s hull as the hull twisted during the collision would necessarily had to have been vertical in nature. Having made this determination, I was now left to figure how I might be able to correctly orient any piece that I found at the wreck site that might contain evidence of rivet hole elongations. I was sure that they existed but I also knew that the piece I needed to find would necessarily have to come from the vertical portion of Titanic’s hull in the break up area of the ship . Even if I was able to find a hull plate exhibiting elongated rivet holes, the more difficult challenge would be establishing the correct and unmistakable orientation of that piece when it was still part of the ship. Without being able to determine the direction of the rivet hole elongations, I would be back to ground zero. But luck was on my side this time. In 2003, a young fellow who had previously been a member of the RMS Titanic (RMST) artifact restoration team happened to trip upon my website. RMST is the Salvor in Possession of the Titanic wreck. Tarn Stephanos‘ lifelong dream is to dive to the site and he has been like a sponge absorbing all of the information I provide to him. He has been preparing for the day he too will board a MIR submersible and by living vicariously through my experiences as well as others he has come to know who also have also had the good fortune of visiting the wreck.. Perhaps thinking that he needed to reciprocate somehow for my time, he began sending me photographs that he had taken of artifacts retrieved from the wreck site during the time he was associated with the task of preserving them. Of particular interest were photos he had taken of the "Big Piece," a
large section of the Titanic’s starboard side hull retrieved from the
ocean bottom by RMST in 1998. The "Big Piece" originated from
the area of the aft expansion joint and likely had been subjected to both
the twist of the hull as the Titanic's bow rode over the sloping ice shelf
and also the stresses of the ultimate break up. Most importantly, this
was a piece that could be clearly oriented as to what
was
up, down, sideways, etc. because it has portions of the ship’s vertical
ribbing still attached
to it. If those orienting features were not enough, it also contains a couple
of cabin portholes. This was a piece that likely had horizontal rivet hole
elongation because of its proximity to the break up that occurred in Titanic’s
final moments but, if I was correct, might also exhibit the vertical elongations
that would substantiate the hull twist.
After
closely examining the photos supplied, it became apparent that this piece of
wreckage possessed the tangible evidence that I had been seeking. Vertical
elongations were clearly visible!
Having now secured the proof demonstrating that the hull twist
did
in fact occur, another important mystery had finally been solved!
Realizing that securing this evidence was the primary
reason for joining the 2005 Titanic expedition, I made the decision to
instead make the deeper dive to the German Battleship Bismarck in 2005.
That adventure is described on another page on this site. But I still
wanted to make at least one more dive to the Titanic! I was scheduled
to participate as both a diver and lecturer in the 2006 Titanic Expedition
organized by Deep Ocean Expeditions but at the last minute the expedition
was scrubbed due to the by the Russian government to recall the MIR’s
and their mothership, the research vessel Keldysh, back to the Baltic
Sea to undertake emergency undersea pipeline repairs. It is my
fervent hope that the years ahead will again offer the opportunity for me to secure
additional evidence of what really occurred on that fateful evening in
April 1912.
Coinsiding with the recent 96th anniversary of the sinking, yet another book has been released claiming to have finally solved the mystery of the disaster….. inferior rivets. As I have previously stated, although the metallurgy of all the Olympic class ships of the era can be called into question against the backdrop of present day technology, there still remains ample evidence that construction quality issues were not the primary contributing cause of the Titanic disaster.
The authors of this latest work provide opinion as to why those who have offered theory before must be discounted but interestingly fail to make any comment as to theory I have just presented to you. Their research in writing their book either did not take them to this website or, more likely, their scope of marine knowledge and single minded focus did not allow them to consider what happens when a long, thin flat surface encounters and partially slides over a transversely inclined surface.
Although this new work contains a wealth of information, it is truly unfortunate that its conclusion leads the reader in the wrong direction.
**Reference Materials:
Transcripts- 1912 Senate investigation
Transcripts- British Wreck Commission
White Paper on the Grounding of the Titanic by David G. Brown and Parks
E. Stephenson
"The Last Log of the Titanic" by David G. Brown
Transcripts from the "Sphere newspaper", circa April 20,1912
Titanic Ships, Titanic Disasters by William H. Garzke Jr. & John Woodward