This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Attack on Titan is the greatest anime ever
- Practice questions- An inspector calls
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Actors and Actresses
- what are good shows to watch?
- Mr Birling and Titanic
- Favourite anime of all time - remove 4 and add 4 from the last poster
- Is Oceangate now part of Titanic history?
- English as a first language igcse
- Best movies
- Could anyone mark this essay and give me a mark out of 30, English Lit Paper 1 AQA
- An Inspector Calls
- Mr Birling
- What's your favourite theme song/tune for a show?
- Is this paragraph for inspector calls good ?
- Homepage loading issues
- What film deserves a prequel?
- What is your favourite anime/manga?
- how does Dickens show the transformation of Scrooge’s character in A Christmas Carol?
- I don’t know if I should tell my ex I’m pregnant
- Is my mate wrong here?
Should the Titanic ever be raised?
Scroll to see replies
NAH, CAUSE... LIKE, THE TITANIC HAD IT'S NAME SWITCHED IN BELFAST WITH THE OLYMPIC (SISTER SHIP) DUE TO A COLLISION WITH ANOTHER SHIP.
dat der conspiracy.
Good read below.
One of the most controversial[7][8] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?[9] 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 sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.
Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for minor details such as the number of portholes on the forward C decks of the ships, the spacing of the windows on the B decks, and the forward section of the A deck promenade on Titanic that had been enclosed a few weeks before she set sail on her ill-fated maiden voyage.
On 20 September 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy Warship HMS Hawke in the Brambles Channel near Southampton. The two ships were close enough to each other that Olympic's motion drew the Hawke into her after starboard side, causing extensive damage to the liner - both above and below its waterline (HMS Hawke was fitted with a re-inforced 'ram' below the waterline, purposely designed to cause maximum damage to enemy ships). An Admiralty inquiry assigned blame to the Olympic, despite numerous eye-witness accounts to the contrary.
Gardiner's theory plays out in this historical context. As Olympic was found to blame in the collision (which, according to Gardiner, had damaged the central turbine's mountings and the keel), White Star's insurers Lloyds of London allegedly refused to pay out on the claim. 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, Olympic was then converted to become the Titanic. The real Titanic when complete would then quietly enter service as the Olympic.
Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name plates. The plan, Gardiner suggests, was to dispose of the badly damaged Olympic in a way that would allow White Star to collect the full insured value of a brand new ship. 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 uses as evidence the length of Titanic's sea trials. Olympic's trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but Titanic's trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with (Gardiner alleges) no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.
Gardiner maintains that on 14 April, Officer Murdoch (who was not officially on duty yet) was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers who 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 hypothesises 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 she hit. As for the true Titanic, Gardiner alleges that she spent 25 years in service as the Olympic.
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.[7]Author Mark Chirnside has also raised serious questions about the switch theory.[8]
dat der conspiracy.
Good read below.
One of the most controversial[7][8] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?[9] 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 sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.
Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for minor details such as the number of portholes on the forward C decks of the ships, the spacing of the windows on the B decks, and the forward section of the A deck promenade on Titanic that had been enclosed a few weeks before she set sail on her ill-fated maiden voyage.
On 20 September 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy Warship HMS Hawke in the Brambles Channel near Southampton. The two ships were close enough to each other that Olympic's motion drew the Hawke into her after starboard side, causing extensive damage to the liner - both above and below its waterline (HMS Hawke was fitted with a re-inforced 'ram' below the waterline, purposely designed to cause maximum damage to enemy ships). An Admiralty inquiry assigned blame to the Olympic, despite numerous eye-witness accounts to the contrary.
Gardiner's theory plays out in this historical context. As Olympic was found to blame in the collision (which, according to Gardiner, had damaged the central turbine's mountings and the keel), White Star's insurers Lloyds of London allegedly refused to pay out on the claim. 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, Olympic was then converted to become the Titanic. The real Titanic when complete would then quietly enter service as the Olympic.
Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name plates. The plan, Gardiner suggests, was to dispose of the badly damaged Olympic in a way that would allow White Star to collect the full insured value of a brand new ship. 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 uses as evidence the length of Titanic's sea trials. Olympic's trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but Titanic's trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with (Gardiner alleges) no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.
Gardiner maintains that on 14 April, Officer Murdoch (who was not officially on duty yet) was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers who 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 hypothesises 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 she hit. As for the true Titanic, Gardiner alleges that she spent 25 years in service as the Olympic.
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.[7]Author Mark Chirnside has also raised serious questions about the switch theory.[8]
(edited 10 years ago)
We could fundraise for the money to raise Titanic!
This is possible so much
Original post by Josh_Dey
I think it should. It would be very interesting to see and it would be such a waste to history to lose it.
Nah. Just leave it be
Original post by Flexa
NAH, CAUSE... LIKE, THE TITANIC HAD IT'S NAME SWITCHED IN BELFAST WITH THE OLYMPIC (SISTER SHIP) DUE TO A COLLISION WITH ANOTHER SHIP.
dat der conspiracy.
Good read below.
One of the most controversial[7][8] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?[9] 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 sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.
Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for minor details such as the number of portholes on the forward C decks of the ships, the spacing of the windows on the B decks, and the forward section of the A deck promenade on Titanic that had been enclosed a few weeks before she set sail on her ill-fated maiden voyage.
On 20 September 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy Warship HMS Hawke in the Brambles Channel near Southampton. The two ships were close enough to each other that Olympic's motion drew the Hawke into her after starboard side, causing extensive damage to the liner - both above and below its waterline (HMS Hawke was fitted with a re-inforced 'ram' below the waterline, purposely designed to cause maximum damage to enemy ships). An Admiralty inquiry assigned blame to the Olympic, despite numerous eye-witness accounts to the contrary.
Gardiner's theory plays out in this historical context. As Olympic was found to blame in the collision (which, according to Gardiner, had damaged the central turbine's mountings and the keel), White Star's insurers Lloyds of London allegedly refused to pay out on the claim. 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, Olympic was then converted to become the Titanic. The real Titanic when complete would then quietly enter service as the Olympic.
Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name plates. The plan, Gardiner suggests, was to dispose of the badly damaged Olympic in a way that would allow White Star to collect the full insured value of a brand new ship. 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 uses as evidence the length of Titanic's sea trials. Olympic's trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but Titanic's trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with (Gardiner alleges) no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.
Gardiner maintains that on 14 April, Officer Murdoch (who was not officially on duty yet) was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers who 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 hypothesises 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 she hit. As for the true Titanic, Gardiner alleges that she spent 25 years in service as the Olympic.
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.[7]Author Mark Chirnside has also raised serious questions about the switch theory.[8]
dat der conspiracy.
Good read below.
One of the most controversial[7][8] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?[9] 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 sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.
Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for minor details such as the number of portholes on the forward C decks of the ships, the spacing of the windows on the B decks, and the forward section of the A deck promenade on Titanic that had been enclosed a few weeks before she set sail on her ill-fated maiden voyage.
On 20 September 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy Warship HMS Hawke in the Brambles Channel near Southampton. The two ships were close enough to each other that Olympic's motion drew the Hawke into her after starboard side, causing extensive damage to the liner - both above and below its waterline (HMS Hawke was fitted with a re-inforced 'ram' below the waterline, purposely designed to cause maximum damage to enemy ships). An Admiralty inquiry assigned blame to the Olympic, despite numerous eye-witness accounts to the contrary.
Gardiner's theory plays out in this historical context. As Olympic was found to blame in the collision (which, according to Gardiner, had damaged the central turbine's mountings and the keel), White Star's insurers Lloyds of London allegedly refused to pay out on the claim. 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, Olympic was then converted to become the Titanic. The real Titanic when complete would then quietly enter service as the Olympic.
Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name plates. The plan, Gardiner suggests, was to dispose of the badly damaged Olympic in a way that would allow White Star to collect the full insured value of a brand new ship. 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 uses as evidence the length of Titanic's sea trials. Olympic's trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but Titanic's trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with (Gardiner alleges) no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.
Gardiner maintains that on 14 April, Officer Murdoch (who was not officially on duty yet) was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers who 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 hypothesises 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 she hit. As for the true Titanic, Gardiner alleges that she spent 25 years in service as the Olympic.
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.[7]Author Mark Chirnside has also raised serious questions about the switch theory.[8]
Except there were subtle,but identifiable differences between the two ships. The one that went down was the titanic.
No I don't think so. It's basically a grave.
what would the purpose be
Original post by MatureStudent36
Except there were subtle,but identifiable differences between the two ships. The one that went down was the titanic.
I fail to see how fact relates to a conspiracy theory?
Original post by Raving_Hippy
(...)
The thing is, if the ship isn't raised soon it will have decayed to nothing.
I just read that the Titanic wreck will be completely decayed in another 20 years, as it is being eaten away by rust-eating bacteria
The thing is, if the ship isn't raised soon it will have decayed to nothing.
I just read that the Titanic wreck will be completely decayed in another 20 years, as it is being eaten away by rust-eating bacteria
I'm struggling with myself, as both views are good points. But before the sunken ship will be gone forever, I think it should be raised to put the titanic on display. However two questions are left:
1.) Which method can be used to raised the sunken ship? to pump air in the volume of the ship to enable a buoancy?
2.) Which museum is great enough to put such a great ship on display?
Well, if I had the choice to raise a ship, I would raise the Yamato.
[image]http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120601183856/world-war-2/images/8/8b/02_yamato.jpg[/image]
[image]http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120601183856/world-war-2/images/8/8b/02_yamato.jpg[/image]
Its impossible
Original post by Raving_Hippy
We do have sufficient technology today to raise the Titanic. The main problems are the huge cost of doing so - who would put up the money? - and also the wreck is extremely fragile and it would take serious skill and effort to raise it without adding further damage to the already well decayed wreck. I mean, the ship lies 2.5 miles below the surface - you can imagine the sort of pressure the wreck is under from the seawater on top of it.
I was more interested in your perspectives from a moral point of view, not so much a practical point of view - do you think it's morally right to raise it, or should it be left alone as a resting place as respect for those who died?
I was more interested in your perspectives from a moral point of view, not so much a practical point of view - do you think it's morally right to raise it, or should it be left alone as a resting place as respect for those who died?
No we don't. We may have the base tech, but we'd have to create the tools, and spend so much time preparing everything.
It'd literally cost billions to do so, and it would have to come up in multiple [hundreds of] pieces; that's not even considering the stern issues. You couldn't use any of the standardised shipraising or salvage methods either; she's too deep and would simply break apart. Modern wrecks only a fewe hundred feet down are already being chopped into pieces. It's literally unfeasible.
Quite apart from that, there's no pressing or logical reason to disturb what is in effect a mass grave site. The benefits would be very few. Additionally the Lusitania salvage has proven what an absolute nightmare the question of artifacts would be. That's still the primary legal precedent today.
Not quite sure how this is a history question tbh, but that's my thoughts anyway
Original post by Kallisto
I'm struggling with myself, as both views are good points. But before the sunken ship will be gone forever, I think it should be raised to put the titanic on display. However two questions are left:
1.) Which method can be used to raised the sunken ship? to pump air in the volume of the ship to enable a buoancy?
2.) Which museum is great enough to put such a great ship on display?
1.) Which method can be used to raised the sunken ship? to pump air in the volume of the ship to enable a buoancy?
2.) Which museum is great enough to put such a great ship on display?
The standard method for this type of marine salvage is the balloon method. It simply wouldn't work in this case. (depth, degradation, fracture). You could attempt to foil it, but again....it wouldn't work. You'd also need a veritable army of AUV's, and enough operators to power them.
Won't answer 2) as it can't be raised.
let it rot ill news is a ill guest 
The cost of raising it would be extortionate, and practically it's going to come apart like a wet tissue, it's so far down and so worn away. What happened to the Titanic was tragic, but nothing would be gained by raising it.
Nah I can't see the benefit it would bring even if it worked. Imagine the cost of getting it out and restoring it then opening a new museum, the heritage budgets around the world are strained enough as it is on worthwhile projects.
I don't know much around marine based stuff but as an archaeologist i'd rather we leave it in situ.
I don't know much around marine based stuff but as an archaeologist i'd rather we leave it in situ.
Original post by RoflSeal
Well, if I had the choice to raise a ship, I would raise the Yamato.
[image]http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120601183856/world-war-2/images/8/8b/02_yamato.jpg[/image]
[image]http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120601183856/world-war-2/images/8/8b/02_yamato.jpg[/image]
I've heard of that, but I can't remember if there's a story behind it. It's a gorgeous ship.
Why?
Can try to make it available as a tourist attraction under the sea.
Can try to make it available as a tourist attraction under the sea.
Original post by aspirinpharmacist
I've heard of that, but I can't remember if there's a story behind it. It's a gorgeous ship.
It could also never be raised unfortunately due to Japanese culture/beliefs of Kami and it's consecration as both a Shinto and Christian site.
You'd also have similar issues to the titanic one; though possibly some stuff could be raised. See my post about about legal precedence for artifacts.
Original post by samba
It could also never be raised unfortunately due to Japanese culture/beliefs of Kami and it's consecration as both a Shinto and Christian site.
You'd also have similar issues to the titanic one; though possibly some stuff could be raised. See my post about about legal precedence for artifacts.
You'd also have similar issues to the titanic one; though possibly some stuff could be raised. See my post about about legal precedence for artifacts.
I'm not saying I necessarily want to raise it, I scuba dive so I like seeing old wrecks when I can. It's interesting, although sad. And I think it's important to respect a culture's beliefs.
Related discussions
- Attack on Titan is the greatest anime ever
- Practice questions- An inspector calls
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Actors and Actresses
- what are good shows to watch?
- Mr Birling and Titanic
- Favourite anime of all time - remove 4 and add 4 from the last poster
- Is Oceangate now part of Titanic history?
- English as a first language igcse
- Best movies
- Could anyone mark this essay and give me a mark out of 30, English Lit Paper 1 AQA
- An Inspector Calls
- Mr Birling
- What's your favourite theme song/tune for a show?
- Is this paragraph for inspector calls good ?
- Homepage loading issues
- What film deserves a prequel?
- What is your favourite anime/manga?
- how does Dickens show the transformation of Scrooge’s character in A Christmas Carol?
- I don’t know if I should tell my ex I’m pregnant
- Is my mate wrong here?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
