View Full Version: Alternative Titanic sinking theory

Clive Cussler Forum > Sea Stories and Special Projects > Alternative Titanic sinking theory



Title: Alternative Titanic sinking theory


Captain Nemo - February 26, 2006 05:21 PM (GMT)
Titanic legacy questioned
Local author's research used in History Channel program
By DAN DEARTH
Staff writer


PORT CLINTON --A Port Clinton man recently added his expertise to help forge a History Channel documentary that questions the theory behind one of maritime history's most infamous disasters.
With two critically acclaimed nautical books to his credit, David G. Brown, 62, 1853 S. Bay Drive, said he helped trace the final hours of Titanic for the documentary, "Titanic's Final Moments: Missing Pieces," which airs at 9 p.m. Sunday.

Titanic was an ocean liner that sank with about 1,500 people aboard during its maiden voyage in April of 1912.

Most people believe Titanic sank after sideswiping an iceberg in the North Atlantic, Brown said. The ice is thought to have ripped a hole in Titanic's right side, causing the vessel to slowly take on water in its bow until the stern stuck straight out of the water. Once the ship became vertical, Titanic started its two and a half mile descent to the ocean floor, splitting in half along the way.

But evidence in the documentary shows Titanic grounded and then freed itself from an immersed piece of ice. In addition, the ship never reached a vertical position before sinking, Brown said. He maintains a 90 foot piece of steel supporting Titanic's bottom snapped shortly after the stern lifted out of the water.

"Titanic broke when the

bow was tipped down at an angle of (about) 11 degrees," Brown said. "The ship did not break apart because it sank. It sank because it broke apart."

Brown said divers in a miniature submarine found the 90-foot beam in two 45-foot pieces last year near the wreck. Although Brown concedes his theory is just that, he said the two pieces of steel on the ocean's bottom help support his claim.

"The edges of the (steel) indicate it broke under tension -- not compression of being tipped up (vertically) in the air," he said. "We are talking about a substantial piece of steel."

To further uphold his hypothesis, Brown said Titanic would have stopped sinking after water filled the bow and reached the height of the hole in Titanic's side, leaving enough buoyancy to keep the stern above water.

Titanic's rather quick submergence, he said, shows the ship probably split in half before sinking.

"It's a matter of physics," he said. "There was no time for the people on board to be rescued. (Titanic) was fatally wounded."

In all likelihood, Brown said survivors who testified that Titanic didn't split had a view of the ship's deck rather than its side, creating the illusion that Titanic was in one piece before going to its watery grave.

Brown said he became interested in Titanic's story after watching "A Night to Remember," a 1958 film that attempted to recreate the tragedy.


http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/apps/.../602230302/1002

oswalder - February 26, 2006 05:39 PM (GMT)
It's blasphemy! Right Liz? :lol:

Dear_Heart05 - February 26, 2006 10:18 PM (GMT)
Interesting....I wonder what his explaination is as to how exactly the Titanic split in two before sinking. :huh:

loren1 - February 27, 2006 11:50 AM (GMT)
The show was very interesting and brought up alot of good points in his theory. The underwater pictures were amazing. It really raises more questions than it answered. We will never know what really happened but I believe he is on the right track. There are more to icebergs underwater than what is showing on the surface. All said it was a very good special.

Dear_Heart05 - February 27, 2006 07:43 PM (GMT)
Hey, is it based on the book A Night To Remember??? I have that sitting upstairs in my room. :)

rowan - February 28, 2006 02:07 PM (GMT)
This theory makes sense in that the weight and speed of the ship would have caused it to keep moving even if it scraped the berg hard enough to do seroius damage to the keel. The ship breaking where it did could have been due to the stress of sailing onto the ice and the damage done to the hull from the impact. The impact would not be very noticable from inside the ship.

loren1 - March 1, 2006 07:22 PM (GMT)
Good points Steve. it all comes back to speeding through an ice field was just plain stupid. j:

boissee - March 2, 2006 04:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (oswalder @ Feb 26 2006, 12:39 PM)
It's blasphemy! Right Liz? :lol:

Right Erik!

However, I think it will be under constant scrutiny and subject to may theories as long as her memory is kept alive. The one thing that has not changed is that there was great loss of life due to seemingly poor seamanship. The tragedy that changed life as it was known forever. Class was no longer a barrier. The poorest died, the richest died. When it's your time to go, you better be ready! t:


Beccaboo - March 6, 2006 05:56 AM (GMT)
I watched this last night (sunday). It was VERY interresting the way they put forth the evedince. The finding of the two bottom hull pieces and the explination of the way the damage looks and how its different from how you would expect it to look, very plausable. I watched it twice. It reran at 1:00am. I'm a night owl. But I think you all know that by now. ;)




Hosted for free by InvisionFree