the Titanic

[boatdetective]

In 1911, Olympic sustained severe below-the-waterline damage in a collision with a Royal Navy ship. The official inquiry found the Olympic at fault, so insurance wouldn't pay. The theory was that, rather than pay for the very expensive repairs out of their own pockets,  the owners had the shipyard do a quickie patch job, put fresh carpet over the worn linoleum floors, add some fresh paint, minor cosmetic alterations, and send the damaged Olympic out as the new Titanic. By "accidentally" sinking the "Titanic" they'd get the insurance money to replace it with a brand new ship, plus have a new, undamaged "Olympic" without having to pay for repairs. There was actually quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that backed up this theory, but its been pretty well disproven by the discovery and examination of the actual Titanic. Not only are the recovered part numbers correct for the Titanic, but there is no evidence of hull damage consistent with that known to have been suffered by the Olympic.

I grew up with a bipolar brother whose entire life revolves around conspiracy theories. I despise the paranoid and manipulative reasoning behind all conspiracy theorists. Once you get a hang of how they construct a BS theory by cherry picking inconsistent details, you can pretty much fabricate conspiracies about literally anything.

[boatdetective]

The plating damage doesn't appear particularly unconventional. The plate itself- in relative terms is extremely ductile and deforms relatively easily. I know the whole discussion about the metallurgy- but i believe it has to do with the rivets- not the plate.  Based on this type of collision (and I look at plenty of them), I doubt that you could "bend the keel".  Due to the geometry of the ships- the majority of the energy is up at the top of the triangle where the bow of vessel 2 is crushing through the decks of vessel 1.

As for the insurance scam- I did not see the documentary- but I don't understand the initial premise that the White Star line would have a claim denied because Olympic was deemed at fault. The finding of fault is only pertinent when it comes to seeking subrogation against the other party. There's nothing that says your first party carrier can deny a claim purely due to negligence of the vessel master. Just think about it- this means that carriers would be able to deny a claim every time the operator was behaving like a bonehead.  In this particular case, the "insured" is the White Star line. The master is the vessel captain. The Company is not to be punished because of the negligence of the captain/master of the vessel.  I can look it up, but this is a very, very old principle of maritime insurance. Another consideration is the one of comparative fault. Collisions like this are rarely black and white. There is almost always some sort of contributory negligence involved in the case that (quite rightfully) tends to muddy the waters and results in some sort of give and take in the settlement process.   In short, although the carrier for Hawke may decline to pay for damages caused to Olympic- Olympic still has her own insurance that would cover the loss on a first party basis. 

[johnr]

I did not see the documentary

 I would recommend giving it a watch. There is a link above. It is well presented and convincing though as I said above I no longer believe it to be probable.

The thing is with a conspiracy theory is that it is just that, a theory. Some even turn out to be true in the end. But as with scientific theory, to accept as fact every theory one hears would be foolish indeed.

[boatdetective]

John, I don't mean to be argumentative on this (and i fully realize that you just casually put this out there- my statement is against the conspiracy types, NOT you), but the definition of the scientific method is to test your own hypothesis as well as to explore counter theories before settling on what you have proven to be correct. The very foundation of all conspiracy theories is to dodge critical thought and to confuse people with a series of half truths. Their whole method of thought is inherently dishonest.  Debunking conspiracy theories can be time consuming and frustrating- precisely because the conspiracy types do not play by the rules. There's an old saying that you are entitled to your own opinion- you are NOT entitled to your own facts.

I have to investigate failures and develop theories of cause as part of my daily job. Part of the process is to question yourself and assail your own findings as a method of proving your theory. I'm countered all the time by people who resort to ad hominem attacks and weak, anecdotal arguments. One of the essential problems is that most people cannot discuss disagreements logically in the form of a civil debate.  One of the reasons why folks here on Wildguzzi hang together is that, in general, everyone DOES behave civilly and refrain from personal attacks.

[Dogwalker]

As for the insurance scam- I did not see the documentary- but I don't understand the initial premise that the White Star line would have a claim denied because Olympic was deemed at fault. The finding of fault is only pertinent when it comes to seeking subrogation against the other party. There's nothing that says your first party carrier can deny a claim purely due to negligence of the vessel master. Just think about it- this means that carriers would be able to deny a claim every time the operator was behaving like a bonehead.  In this particular case, the "insured" is the White Star line. The master is the vessel captain. The Company is not to be punished because of the negligence of the captain/master of the vessel.

Even more, in this case the Olympic was led by the port pilot. There was no possibility for the White Star Line to avoid this. So, if someone was at fault, if anything, it had to be the port authority.

[johnr]

Jonathan, I wasn't attacking anyone....

[oldbike54]

Jonathan, I wasn't attacking anyone....

 Seems we are having a misunderstanding here . John , I don't believe Jonathon was suggesting there was an attack , and Jonathon , pretty sure John isn't a conspiracy theorist , was simply injecting an interesting piece of alternate history into the conversation . Notice how John studied the new info and became convinced that it was in fact the Titanic that sank , not the normal behavior of a true conspiracy theorist .

 Now , about that funny shadow in the famous pic on the moon 

 Dusty

[cruzziguzzi]

The Titanic remains to this day the only liner ever sank by an iceberg.

Sure, that may be true but I know for certain that it's not the only boat sunk by ice.

Happened in Tennessee back in what... 1992?

Matt (surname deleted) being heartily and irresponsibly distracted by Makers Mark on the rocks, split his boat in two on a bridge jetty. All aboard were rescued. Injuries were minimal and in an ironic twist, the level of intoxication was credited with the limited nature of long term injuries. No other watercraft were harmed in the incident while one rescue vessel did sustain minor damage due to the forceful expulsion of the contents of one's stomach through the mouth and nose.

Too, didn't Teddy-boy sink an Oldsmobile in an ice-related incident?

Todd.

[boatdetective]

Seems we are having a misunderstanding here . John , I don't believe Jonathon was suggesting there was an attack , and Jonathon , pretty sure John isn't a conspiracy theorist , was simply injecting an interesting piece of alternate history into the conversation . Notice how John studied the new info and became convinced that it was in fact the Titanic that sank , not the normal behavior of a true conspiracy theorist .

 Now , about that funny shadow in the famous pic on the moon 

 Dusty

Absolutely, positively did NOT think John was one of "Them" nor that he was attacking anything. First off, based on analysis of past posts, John R is far too nice a guy to suddenly turn into a wild eyed conspiracist

I tried to point out in my last post that no ire whatsoever was directed at our Kiwi friend.  Given my personal background- I'm probably way too sensitive to these controversies.  Depending on intent, alternate theories are healthy and interesting. For example, the research into the plate/rivet failure on the Titanic is fascinating. I should go back and look into the metallurgy of the rivets. As i recall, i think they believe they may have been work hardened so that they popped free with less effort than they should have. Another theory was that the water was cold enough to change the working properties of the metal- yet i believe that one did not "hold water".

JKK 

[canuguzzi]

Okay, who has sailed on some ships of note:

When I was as a kid, the America and the United States. Both were as a relocation overseas because of Dad's military service.

I remember the emergency drills but the thing that sticks most? "7 o'clock, time to get up" as a steward walked down the corridors waking up the families for breakfast.

[boatdetective]

what rock you crawl out from under....

Are you trying to set some record for getting threads locked down due to bad behavior?

[boatdetective]

Okay, who has sailed on some ships of note:

When I was as a kid, the America and the United States. Both were as a relocation overseas because of Dad's military service.

I remember the emergency drills but the thing that sticks most? "7 o'clock, time to get up" as a steward walked down the corridors waking up the families for breakfast.

You actually sailed on the United States?? Very cool indeed. How long did she actually run? I don't believe it was that long.

[canuguzzi]

You actually sailed on the United States?? Very cool indeed. How long did she actually run? I don't believe it was that long.

I was really young, Dad was in the army so we made the Atlantic crossing. I remember being told that one of the other passengers saw sharks and me not wanting to hear that said they had to be dolphins of all things. I think we docked in England? Another memory of was one of those military foot lockers sliding back and forth across the floor before getting secured.

Too young to think about being on a ship that might become historical. It was a fast ship, Dad compared it to a car going a decent clip.

Then President Clinton had a fondness for the ship and tried to get it preserved I think. How I wish I had something from her as a momento. Oh well, the gift of some memories at least.

[leafman60]

This is a minor post in relation to the Titanic but one that sticks in my mind.

A fews years ago, I was in Newfoundland and made a kayak trip out in the Atlantic off the southern coast of Newfoundland.  We were not over the wreckage site of the Titanic but we were in the general part of the Atlantic in which the ship went down.

The purpose of our trip was to paddle among Minke whales and visit a few small islands along the coast before going further out to sea.

While out, we could feel the cold temperature of the Atlantic waters. At one point I held my hand under the water to see how long I could stand it.  In a very short time, my hand actually grew numb from the cold.

I cannot imagine anyone lasting long in that water.

On another trip to Newfoundland a few years ago, the movie director, James Cameron, was in town aboard a Russian Research vessel, the Keldysh. They were doing a deep-dive documentary on the sunken Titanic.

I befriended some of the Russian crew, including a first officer, and was taken aboard the ship several times to see their operation. One of the mementos they gave me was a 16 ounce Styrofoam cup that they had taken to the deck of the Titanic. The pressure of the water down there had collapsed the cup to the size of a sewing thimble.

Any human body that followed the ship to the bottom would have been frozen and drowned and then crushed to an odd form.

The ship is in amazing condition, however.  I followed a photo tour all through it.

[johnr]

For example, the research into the plate/rivet failure on the Titanic is fascinating. I should go back and look into the metallurgy of the rivets. As i recall, i think they believe they may have been work hardened so that they popped free with less effort than they should have. Another theory was that the water was cold enough to change the working properties of the metal- yet i believe that one did not "hold water".

I've seen some docos about the rivets and plating of the ship. None that I have seen was able to show any weakness.

Frankly I doubt there was anything wrong with the hull. Hitting a decent sized iceberg would be akin to walloping a rock and the Titanic was going full speed as well. She would have had a hell of a lot of momentum.  I don't think any hull could have withstood that, even today.  (cf the Costa Concordia)

Speaking of which, check this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZD62OhaDTI

[johnr]

This is topical too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNS4lecOaAc&feature=em-uploademail

[boatdetective]

I've seen some docos about the rivets and plating of the ship. None that I have seen was able to show any weakness.

Frankly I doubt there was anything wrong with the hull. Hitting a decent sized iceberg would be akin to walloping a rock and the Titanic was going full speed as well. She would have had a hell of a lot of momentum.  I don't think any hull could have withstood that, even today.  (cf the Costa Concordia)

Speaking of which, check this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZD62OhaDTI

In the end- I think you are correct. I try to use the same reasoning when looking at damage in small craft collisions- it really is Physics 101. You have an object weighing "X", moving at velocity "Y", hitting gigantic stationary object "Z". The plate is going to lose.

[wymple]

Sure, that may be true but I know for certain that it's not the only boat sunk by ice.

Happened in Tennessee back in what... 1992?

Matt (surname deleted) being heartily and irresponsibly distracted by Makers Mark on the rocks, split his boat in two on a bridge jetty. All aboard were rescued. Injuries were minimal and in an ironic twist, the level of intoxication was credited with the limited nature of long term injuries. No other watercraft were harmed in the incident while one rescue vessel did sustain minor damage due to the forceful expulsion of the contents of one's stomach through the mouth and nose.

Too, didn't Teddy-boy sink an Oldsmobile in an ice-related incident?

Todd.

I guess I should have clarified...ocean liner.  Lots of river boats may have been, I don't know.

[boatdetective]

This is topical too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNS4lecOaAc&feature=em-uploademail

Absolutely Priceless!  You made my day. The link has been book marked and is being shared with family and friends now.

[JeffOlson]

^ That was awesome! "Open your eyes, sheeple!"