So it was the universe getting at the entire boat because of that? Who are you, Pat Robertson?

Word of the day: 'Titanicologist'

Urban legend. No evidence that he tried to book passage or that a British company would have cared about how inter-racial relationships were viewed in America. Afterall, Mr. Johnson had sailed to Europe with his white girlfriend on someone's ship or there wouldn't have been a need to sail back.

And how does Kharma balance one afront against a thousand lives?

Funny, Skip in OK, you should mention Jack Johnson (with or without karma). The song is "Fare Thee Well Titanic." It was written by Leadbelly (black bluesman for those who don't know):

"Jack Johnson went to get on board
Capt'n said, "I ain't hauling no coal.
Fare thee, Titanic, fare the well."

and

"When he heard about the mighty shock,
You should have seen Jack Johnson do "The Eagle Rock,"
Fare thee, Titanic, fare thee well."

"The Eagle Rock" was apparently a well known dance (or dance tune - not sure which) of the period.

And I'd been humming that song ALL morning, even before your post.

Thanks for mentioning that. And yeah, karma will always bite you in the patootee.

Jack Johnson...Jack Johnson. James Earl Jones won a Tony and lasting fame playing him on Broadway and in the movie. JACK JOHNSON. Sorry for the mistake.

Oh, and I'm not the first to see "god's hand" in the destruction of the Titanic.

Another period song about the sinking goes,

"The built the ship Titanic to sale the ocean blue,

And they thought they had a ship that the sea could not leak through.

But the lord almighty's hand said that ship could never stand.

It was sad when that great ship went down.

Oh it was, oh it was sad

It was sad when the great ship went down.

All the husbands and wives, little children lost their lives

It was sad when that great ship went down."

Yep, I sing that one, too!

However, the Wikipedia entry on Jack Johnson sez: "It should be noted there is no convincing evidence that Johnson was in fact refused passage on the Titanic because of his race..."

But...never let the truth interfere with a good story (or song).

Have to go along with Radical. It is all blah, blah and BS. Running too fast in an iceberg infested sea. End of story.

All the other things are only causal factors that do not change the outcome at all. They just made some things, sinking, faster than expected. No ship overcomes the impact at that speed without going under.

Chris,

Are you a performer? I'm an old "folk-singer" from back when there were such dinosaurs. Now I guess I"m a singer of "traditional music" whatever that is.

My last band was THE PRAIRIE LAND STRING BAND. Ill health took out two of our members and we're pretty much retired now.

Good to talk to you.

Skip

Long (long) time "folkie" on guitar, autoharp, hammered dulcimer, jews harp and (aaargh!) musical saw. No band but I still make noise that some consider music (others, not so much). Know more songs than I can remember so I guess that means I don't "know" them. Generally if a well-known someone does the song, I don't. I relish in the obscure (like Fare Thee Well Titanic).

Keep pickin',

Chris in NM

i may only be 16 but i do know somethings about the titanic sinking. for starters yes it was a mistake for the captin to make a stop then full reverse. It is simple to explain because if the propellers where still going clockwise and moving the boat forward then they could have done a better job of turning the boat. But when the propellers where stopped then started moving counter clockwise it was pulling water the opposit direction in the way of the rudder. so therefor the boat went right when it should have went left. So it sunk because of the fact they tryed to put the very very heavy boat in reverse to stop it. the stopping distance even at 20 knots is 850 yards or 777 metres.

"Kharma".... Is she related to Dharma? Greg's sister-in-law? The origin of the Foundation?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/karma?s=ts

You need to ask your school for a refund.

It's all in the name. It was a TITANIC Disaster!

不管说什么，人都沉了，多说无益，

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City

You forgot the number one reason: Kharma.

The owners refused to allow Boxing Champ Jim Johnson to sail on the Titanic because he was a Black Man traveling (as was his custom) with a White Woman.

That's a fact and there is even a period song about Jim Johnson dancing with joy that he wasn't on board when the Titanic sank.

Kharma. Or the iceberg. Take your pick.

Ill go with iceberg. Kharma is nothing nothing tangible, nor does it have any influence on anything. Just as chance has no influence or tangibleness to influence an outcome. So iceberg is the only reason. If kharma did exist and it was going to pay back the person who did the wrong deed, then it would havemade the person who refused a black person to fall over some railing to their death , or drown in a pool of spit.

DamonWV

If Karma is nothing tangible and has no influence on anything and only works against the person who did the dastardly deed, then why is it that when a tornado kills a whole town some people say it was God's vengeance. And people seem to believe that horse crap. And if one person survives their reason is always "God was watching over me." And the others? Pieces of @!$%#e, I guess, huh.

Other things that they forgot to mention was that the lifeboats that left the Titanic (the first few boats) were not filled to their capacity. Along with the fear of returning to pick up any people in the water might cause their lifeboats to be swamped with those in the water trying to save their lives. Never label anything unsinkable or indestructible because they are man made and they will do both, sink and be destroyed

Of all the stuff they listed I noticed the 2 CRUCIAL factors werent listed.

1. the name of the ship, the UNSINKABLE TITANIC, meant that the universe would unquestionably be forced to test that theory.

and

2. The D^MB@$$ engineering. Seriously guy!!! Whoever engineered this thing wasnt too bright. I mean really, who here thinks an ICE CUBE tray is unsinkeable?????

This story, as usual misses the REAL crime, which is not why the ship sank, but why ONLY 715 people survived, when the life boats had a FULL capacity for 1200, AND, given conditions, the water was universally described as glassy calm (no doubt because of the proximity of field ice) it would have been VERY easy to OVERLOAD the boats with as many as 20 people a boat, with 20 boats, 20x20 equals 400.

In other words, but for the rank incompetence of the officers of the Titanic, from the captain on down, the numbers that day could have been REVERSED, 1600 ALIVE, 600 DEAD. That's the REAL tragedy.

Kharma huh? How about sometimes bad things just happen.

also a design change; originally the marine architect had designed the water top bulkheads, to also be capped off, instead the builders decided to only install large pumps, , the spill over only took a couple of hours to bring her under .

I love it that we are blaming God now for the deaths on the Titanic. Yes God was having a fit that the Titanic was so big he would kill a bunch of people by making it sink. Makes sense to me. People are just too big for their boots you have to keep them in their place.

Subliminal

It is all blah, blah and BS. Running too fast in an iceberg infested sea. End of story. All the other things are only causal factors that do not change the outcome at all.

Comprehend Much? You misunderstood the whole article, then contradicted yourself, I am a professional investigator and I can tell you that Causal Factors do EXACTLY as what their names suggest, they are Factors that DIRECTLY AFFECT the outcome of the disaster. The article is not about what caused the sinking, but what mitigated the outcome, and you don't think the idea of not having enough lifeboats would have made a difference, or the fact that many lifeboats sailed less than half full because men were not allowed in them, only women & children. These ARE situations (Causal Factors) that affected the outcome directly, definitely made it worse. All items listed above were Causal Factors, the Root Cause to all of it was an arrogant Captain or a Cruise Company that pushed him to be that way.

Brandon (#1.24): Population control may very well be "necessary" for the well-being of the planet, but that doesn't make tragedies any less important or less heartbreaking. If all of the people you care about the most die in horrible tragedies, I wonder if you'll still be spouting such words.

HUH?

Brandon, you feeling a bit crowded? Or is it just your opinion of the quality of the people around you that bothers you? Well, I personally believe that each person on this earth matters; and any person's death is a tragedy. Though people are always talking about overcrowding on this earth, no one has proven to me that we are TRULY overcrowded. In fact, industrial countries are actually declining in population due to decreasing birth rates for the most part. It is in the developing world that populations are increasing. Pushing for decreasing population appears to me like it would affect them the most and would be rather discriminatory against poor and disadvantaged nations. Brandon, you seem to approve of Hitler, who got rid of the groups he was most able to exploit in Europe. You also approve of a disaster like the Titanic. So what populations should we be decreasing, exactly, Brandon and others? Would you have it come to true survival of the fittest-pure Darwinism to weed out the weak among us?

Can we in the developed world not help those in the developing world with their problems? As our populations decrease or hold steady, can we not help those with increasing populations; or must we greedily hoard what we have while decrying overpopulation and proposing ways to decrease the number of people? We in America act like we are so poor, but even our poor are rich compared to most nations on earth. For example, there are at least dumpsters with cast off food in America-not that that is not terrible-but in Haiti, there are no dumpsters; the poor have to eat dirt to stave off hunger pains. Not a popular idea, I know-helping other countries-we're supposed to look after ourselves. Time was when people would help each other, though, even when they only had a little to share. Isn't that what being human is all about?

不管说什么，人都沉了，多说无益

Correct

There is only 1 reason: Iceberg.........take that out, everyone lives.

The quote about the ship turned the wrong direction is BS. Only a season veteran would be allowed to take the wheel; and any command given is directly affected UPON the wheel, not the direction you want the ship to go - so "hard to starboard" means "turn the wheel TOWARD starboard", not the ship. By the way, the Titanic was like most cruise liners in that it was reverse linked; so if the wheel was turned to Starboard, the rudder turned the opposite direction so the ship also turned to starboard (this is the difference between a Rudder and Tiller). A tiller is a SAIL mechanism where to push left to go right and vice-versa. Probably why this BS was never publicized as any Navy man would laugh upon hearing...

I still think that instead of firing distress rockets, had Captain Smith decided to attempt to steam in reverse toward the distant light of the California, he would have had close to an hour worth of steaming time before the situation became critical enough to force the launch of the lifeboats. That hour could have produced 6-8 nautical miles, which would have left the Titanic within a couple of NM from the California, more than close enough for their bridge watch to visually see the depth of Titanic's problem and respond in time to save the vast majority of those who perished.

Certainly the California would not have been provisioned to offer anything more than a few hours worth of temporary floating shelter for the Titanic's 2000+ passengers and crew, but the Carpathia, a mid-sized modern ocean liner, would still have arrived within that time frame too.

Yes, the Titanic was damaged, and steaming her in reverse once damaged might have caused even worse damage too, but within 15-20 minutes after the accident it was already well-known among the bridge crew that 1000 or more people were going to die unless the distress rockets were able to alert the crew of the nearest ship in time or some other miracle occurred.

Perhaps another of the unlucky events to befall the Titanic was that she was a new first-rate ship from which the crew was entirely confident in the use of their wireless equipment for communications purposes, while the crew of the California, an older cargo ship, were more familiar with the use of their Morse lamp instead, which they are said to have tried to use to communicate with the Titanic too.

Even if the crew of the older and slower California had immediately started steaming toward the Titanic at full speed once Captain Smith ordered his distress rockets fired, she would have only arrived within a half hour of the Titanic's final plunge, so anything that Captain Smith could have done to decrease that amount of time when he still had the steam necessary to do so should have been attempted anyway.

It may have taken some time for the realization that the unsinkable ship would eventually sink to fully set in among the Titanic's top officers, but once the grave reality of their situation became known, they still had enough steam to try to move the ship most if not all of the distance closer to the possibility of saving far more people than were saved by taking no action other than launching the lifeboats instead.

On the subject of the capacity of the lifeboats vs the passenger capacity of the ship, the Titanic actually exceeded the British Board of Trade regulations for the sheer number of lifeboats required (16) because it carried the four extra collapsible lifeboats too, all of which contributed to the number of people saved.

Another thing that might have been tried but wasn't was having the ship's carpenters try to hastily build some rafts on the foredeck, from which some of the steerage passengers might have ridden to safety too. The Titanic's cargo manifest listed a dozen bales of cork, 16 "hogsheads" of wine, (at a capacity of 80 to 90 gallons each), and even hundreds of "casks" of wine at a capacity of 9-12 gallons each too. Each of these items (once drained of wine) could have provided enough flotation to build rafts capable of carrying dozens of passengers each, and the Titanic carried plenty of lumber and the necessary hardware to build at least several such rafts too.

There were a whole number of errors that contributed to this disaster, another of which was the belief that the ship was unsinkable, which led to them steaming at full speed through a known ice field. There is also a theory that the Titanic had a coal bunker fire going too, and that Captain Smith was desperately trying to rush to port when the iceberg got in his way.

I am sure that we could come up with many more errors, unfortunate events, and design flaws that caused the Titanic disaster to be as bad as it was. Watertight bulkheads only as high as E-deck, which basically makes the watertight compartments large open-top tubs, as once the sea reaches E-deck, it just overflows into the next compartment rearward?

The Titanic was a disaster waiting to happen from the outset, something that we might all learn something from.

Walt, you sound like a man who could answer a question that has been troubling me all my life: Why on earth did mariners invent the terms "port" and "starboard" when we have had "left" and "right" available the whole time? At the age of 62, even though I could easily afford a boat large enough to sleep aboard, I still have to endure the privations of weather and perilous beachings to complete my annual summer circumnavigations of Vancouver Island, because the largest craft that can be operated without your overly complicated explanation is a 10-foot Walker Bay dinghy. I push the tiller away from me, I turn left, I pull the tiller toward me, I turn right.

I've always wanted to sail to Hawaii, but this tub won't carry enough grub. Is it the Navy we have to blame for this? And don't tell me it's an ancient custom: the Romans had "sinister" and "dexter," and all the prior seafaring nations had words for "left" and "right" as well. What's up with that?

Left and right are independent of which direction a person is facing. If two people are facing each other, one person's right is the other person's left. Starboard and port are used in reference to the front of the vehicle being traveled in (regardless of the direction it is moving. Thus, starboard is the right side of a boat or plane, as you face forward on the boat. Port is the left side of the boat as you face front. That way, no matter which direction someone is facing on the boat, when a direction is indicated (starboard or port), everyone goes the same direction. Likewise bow or stern indicate the front and rear of the vehicle (on a plane they use nose and tail).

Nice try. But whether it's vertical (a sail) or horizontal (a wing), an airfoil only provides lift when going forward. My boat has a pointy end (the bow) and a square end (the stern) and only an idiot would face backwards to determine left and right. If what you claim were true, those blue highway exit signs would say "Rest Area Next Starboard." And automobiles actually CAN back up, unlike aircraft in flight or sailboats under sail, absent a headwind.

WHO CARES? I love history, but this is....way overboard.... as far as coverage and info goes. Let the damn ship have some peace......

In many ways the Titanic was a Republican ship:

1.) It killed the middle class passengers

2.) It's all play and no work

3.) After it crashed they wouldn't take responsibility. I have no doubt they would have blamed Obama if he was around at that time

4.) They ripped off the Middle Class. Those poor shmucks thought they were paying for one thing, when in reality they were only paying for a 1 way ticket.

5.) They half assed the building of this ship...so they probably exported the building of the Titanic to sweatshops in China like current day Republicans do with our jobs.

See? The Titanic was a Republican ship.

Newswinner101 probably believes that Goerge Bush's great grandfather was responsible for the sinking of the Titanic!

The Titanic Disaster is what it is a Disaster The Ship was Built Better then any today as if you look at any cruise liners that have sunk they roll to one side making there life boats in accessable Fact Titanic didnt have enough but was able to use them all where other cruise liners of today had more but could only use half!It has been proven that there was nothing MAN built better then the Titanic its own designer gave it an hour to stay a float it stayed 2, it is claim it was just the sheer force of impact and weight that caused its tear along side of boiler 8 nothing more man has built nothing that could have taken the force Titanic took still today there is Nothing,... It's a mass grave yard where it lies nothing more and should be left that way,..Enough said..

Now that I think about Joe, you could be right. Conservativism is a plague, a disease, a virus...Bush's grandfather could very well have been responsible for the Titanic sinking. Maybe he spread his conservative stupidity onto the captain and his crew and that caused all the failures and losses of lives. We all know how rightwingers love for people to die horribly...

is around 8 billion people on earth now

7 billion. 6.8 billion to be exact. Sorry to nit pick.

Sandstoney maybe you don't miss the few who died but someone does! They had family and friend that are mourning them.

We passed the 7 billion mark months ago. Sorry to nit-pick.

Woody, you can't possibly say that there are 6.8 billion "to be exact". While we may be able to estimate closely, we do not know the 'exact' number. Sorry to pick.

I agree with Doug - the word of the day -titanicologists. I'm going to find a way to work that word into a conversation.

And - I heard somewhere that the rudder was undersized for that size of ship (882.5 ft) and therefore the ship was not responsive enough to turn in time to avoid the berg.

Being the queen of useless information (I don't know why I know some of the things I know lol)

the rudder was 78 feet high and weighed 101 tons, tests and standard design ratios have shown that the rudder was slightly smaller (less than 2%) than it should have been. This, however was not enough to have affected the outcome of the collision with the iceberg.

同意，Agree。

I like hearing factual and relevant information, thank you 1SGFitzWife4ID. As for sandstoney - what is wrong with you??? It doesn't matter if people die, nobody misses them because there are so many? You must be thinking of bugs, not people.

btw, while I am lauding factual information, what is it with journalists who fail, time after time, to put information into context. "The ship was going too fast..." How fast is too fast? What is the standard for that? And all that information about the ship turning starboard mixed with references to right/left - what side of the ship scraped the iceberg? Is that the starboard side (not everybody knows)? How is it that anybody in the chain of communication didn't understand (they're all sailors for cryin' out loud). And then there's all that ungrounded technical information supported by 3rd party speculation. Like someone else said, it all adds up to "blah blah blah... iceberg" - because that's the only thing that needs no explanation. It's a worthless article :\

So you wouldn`t remember a cruise ship story where most of YOUR family died because of a major mistake?? Your COLD

The bulkheads was a major design flaw for sure and they actually pulled up pieces of the ship several years ago and ran some test on the rivets and steel and found them to be much weaker then what was actually required by law. Another thing they have found is the Titanic didn't split at the high angle that people reported. On the History Channel they had several different experts look at the original expansion joint in the blueprints of the Titanic as well as doing another dive on the Titanic and noted that the expansion joint was indeed where the ship broke apart at. The problem they suspected was the expansion joint was designed wrong basically it ended on each side in a square end. To see if the designers thought that might have been the problem the team went and dove on the Britannic, which was a sister ship built after Titanic, to see how the expansion joint looked and sure enough it looked more like a thermometer. They also went to a renown research facility where they put the actual blueprints into a computer so they could test the actual breakaway point and found that the stern didn't have to come out of the water very much before it broke unlike the reports of it rising high into the air basically they concluded that couldn't have happened.

Had the ship not broken apart might have meant enough time for many more passengers to escape. In the end though to many factors were stacked against the ship from the get go arrogant owner and captain, design flaws, material weaknesses and much more that she was doomed before she ever set sail.

A question for Alan Boyle: OK, we all know the Titanic sank at about 2:20am...but what "time zone" was that. Or put another way, I assume that was "local" time for the middle of the ocean SE of Newfoundland but what was the GMT or Eastern Standard Time for the collision and sinking? Just wondering... thanks!

OK, two time zones east of NY sounds about right. Thanks. I'll light a candle here in NM at about about 10:20 Mountain Time on the 14th (2:20 on the 15th, Titanic Standard Time). Fare the well, Titanic, fare the well.

In the U.S., the Standard Time Act wasn't enacted until 1918 (although the railroads adopted time zones much earlier). So, when it is mentioned that the ship was 2 hrs and 2 minutes from New York time, it's apparent that this is given from the perspective of all time being local, when New York time was slightly different than, say, Boston or Philadelphia time.

@The Evil Tessmacher, actually, the damage would have been the same. 5+ compartments breached. But with the bulkheads reaching to the upper decks, it would have stayed afloat. Could have stayed afloat with 6 compartments breached with that in mind. Her sister ships Olympic & Brittanic had the bulkhead modifications after the sinking making that possible. Unfortunately for Brittanic, there were a few other issues leading to her demise.

'Watertight' bulkheads or compartments still are not so watertight. Those ones in the Costa Concordia aren't or weren't sealed at the top either, and she went down, too, although in water shallow enough that she's resting on a reef edge rather than a mile deep. Of course, my comprehension of this could be incorrect, so someone please correct me if I err.

Why are they called watertight when they're no such thing? When one fills will water, it spills into the next compartment over the open top, and so on and the ship sinks. IMO they should be called something else other than watertight. If they had tops and were truly sealed or sealable, they would be watertight compartments.

ARROGANCE!!! That's what sunk it.

What I learned by television yesterday was that the watertight bulkheads were not all-encompassing either. So it wasn't just water flowing over the tops of the bulkheads from caompartment to compartment. It was also increasing pressures on the sides of weaker bulkheads. The example used was the boiler rooms. As I understand it, the boiler rooms themselves were within the watertight bulkheads, but the coal bunkers were not. According to the tv documentary, this meant that water was not only overflowing the tops of the watertight bulkheads, but was also finding ways around the sides putting undue pressures on the side walls that were between the boiler rooms and the coal bunkers, which were not watertight.

"Had the ship not broken apart might have meant enough time for many more passengers to escape. In the end though to many factors were stacked against the ship from the get go arrogant owner and captain, design flaws, material weaknesses and much more that she was doomed before she ever set sail."

This is known as a chain of events. A chain comprised of links which, if any one link were broken, would prevent the ensuing accident.

Looking at the track of the Titanic, it looks like the captain began the voyage taking a great circle route (the shortest distance between two points on a globe). This would make for the quickest crossing everything else being equal.

The Titanic could not remain on a great circle route as it would run into Newfoundland well before it reached New York. About midway across, the Titanic began taking a more Southerly route and, by the time they hit the berg, it appears that they were back on a more typical track.

Who knows? If they had stayed on a great circle route longer they may not have hit an iceberg. Certainly they wouldn't have hit THAT berg.

Ed, you bring up some great points but I do have a clarification,

Lower carbon steel is more ductile. Higher carbon steel is less ductile but stronger. From what I have read in the past, while the steel used in the hull plating would be considered somewhat inferior by today's standards for the application, it was quite good for its day. The reason for that is mainly because manufacturing processes have been refined just like anything else, allowing a reduced number of "interstitials" (imperfections in the crystalline structure) to form during cooling. Additionally, while the water and air were cold that night, the temperatures were above the threshold where that particular alloy would have reached its "ductile to brittle transition." In general, at temperatures below that point steel shatters (for lack of a better term) rather than elastically and then plastically deforming in that order.

I cannot speak to the varying grades of rivets however, as I was unaware of that possibility. It is interesting for sure though.

I contend that Titanic could have stayed afloat much longer if mattresses, clothes and other similar items had been thrown overboard with the purpose of being sucked into the holes and plugging them in a similar manner as food blocks the sink strainer.

I agree, I was telling my husband that yesterday. Could the mattresses have helped? Would they have floated? I wonder that myself.

Actually the failure wasn't the hull plates but the rivets holding them together. Also not sure I'd chalk up the inferior steel to cost cutting alone, it simply could just have been how it was made, most steel made 100 years ago is significantly inferior to that made today, so it could have been inherent in the process, and therefore a unknown quantity to the engineers. So much of Titanics design was left to situations not thought of, e.g. the height of the water tight bulkheads, size and shape of the rudder, the centerline propeller, and that she broke up. All indicitive of thoughts not carried through. Remember that this ship was built in a time when airplanes were made of wood and fabric, and when automobiles could barely be called reliable, even the battleships of the mighty RN were dwarfed by Titanic, she displaced over 46,000 tons. The third class accommodations on the Olympic class ships were the best in the world hands down. And the rest of her, well one only needs to watch the movie to see how fine that was. They simply didn't think this could happen. Everything had to line up perfectly for the first four comparments to be breeched, because with out that occurance the ship stays afloat, if any event leading up to the collision is changed even slightly the ship makes New York the next day. That it could happen was simply unfathomable, and if it did, then either help would arrive soon, or the damage wouldn't cause it to sink. The idea that nearly two thirds of the ships company would ever perish was as alien a thought as it would be today to consider a ship unsinkable. Which by the way wasn't a term used by her designer, or used much before the sinking. Speaking of terms, starboard comes from the norse term steerboard, which on norwegian clinker built vessels was a device similar to a rudder but placed on the right side of the craft, to protect their steering gear they tied up on the left side, which is why its called port. Referring to things as port and starboard on the ship (i.e. the port anchor windlass) referes to their placement relative to the head of the ship and so you know where to find it even if you are facing aft, the reason this doesnt translate over to driving cars is first usually the references are to objects that are outside the car (i.e. rest stop next right, which would be refered to similarly on a ship as in iceberd to starboard), and second you are very very rarely if ever facing aft while driving a car even if the car is in reverse. So yes nautical names for things like right and left have meanings and reasons that certainly don't make sense at first to your average lubber, but that doesn't lessen the validity of their meaning at all. The idea that Captain Smith could have put Titanic in reverse and driven her over to the Californian is an interesting one, and technically certainly doable, but I think it was beyond any one onboard, the shock of the collision and the news from below that the ship was doomed crippled his ability to find solutions to the problem (and his officers, who were barely up to the task of manning and launching lifeboats), its not certain that he even knew that ship was so close, as it is certainly possible that the radio operator didn't tell him. That is actually a better than fair certainty, because the trasnmitter that interrupted Phillips last was the Californian's radio operator who was rudely told to 'shut up I am working Cape Race'. If Californian's ice report didn't make it to the Captain than her presance probably was entirely unknown to him, and therefore steaming over to her in reverse to ask for a lift to New York after my boat sinks was not really a viable option.

Coal Bunker Fire

So there are two conflicting stories - the chief in charge says it was out by the time of the collision, and one of the fire-fighters says not.
I know who I'd believe - the one NOT needing to do CYA.
I'll have to check my son's book to see who they cited - much of the book relies on interviews with passengers soon after they disembarked.

yes1fan I have a similar book and it states that the fire had been smoldering for a week (since it was loaded in Belfast) it took them that long to get enough crew members to reach the bottom of the pile, and because they didn't have enough coal (due to the shortage at the time) they didn't want to waste it by dumping it.

Coal fires start spontaneously under pressure. The height of the coal bunkers causes pressure at the bottom of the pile, and, when conditions are right, will create heat that ignites the coal. It is a common problem and happens on land as well wherever coal is stored, such as at power plants.

Right: blame the crew.

I'm going to go with the Iceberg Theory rather than the men who remained at their stations keeping the lights on so passengers could be rescued. They died at their posts, shoveling coal, you see. There was no other way to keep the generators and engines going but to keep the fuel feeding them.

Think about that. They knew they'd be likely to die if the ship went down but stayed there to be blamed by their employers.

Nice work, White Star. Not.

If any of you watched the PBS docudrama on the sinking, you'll recall that the fact was brought up that the coal fueling the Titanic was low-grade, highly flammable, coal -- evidently all that was available at that time (due to the coal strike). I wonder whether in fact, had the White Star Line execs not been so cheap, there might have been a better grade coal -- less combustible -- for purchase at a higher price but they cut costs there, too?

According to this video, Titanic's low-grade coal was dangerously smouldering from the launch throughout its truncated voyage. The point was made that this burning weakened the (brittler than it should have been, if the comments here are correct) outer sides of the boilers, thus rendering them susceptible to breaking.

That was one reason. Another was that while Capt. Smith ordered the lifeboats swung out, he never formally ordered the ship to be abandoned. Without formal orders, the crew basically accepted only volunteers who wanted to get into the lifeboats, and made no effort to fill the boats.

Only after the Titanic was well down at the bow and it was obvious that it was going to sink did the last few remaining lifeboats get filled to capacity.

Ah, the famous "Birkenhead Drill" misinterpretation. I had forgotten about this, but it is a significant reason the loss of life was so high. It certainly didn't contribute to the foundering, but it was a major reason for the death toll. In addition to not enough boats, of course. It amazes me that the discussions on MSNBC can run in these directions. I think it's a direct result of the caliber of Mr. Boyle's core of readers.

I read someone's graduate thesis a few years ago, and it contained one of the most profound statements I've ever read. It was simple, direct, and a clear indication that humanity rarely gets it. The statement stuck with me, even though I'd heard variations of it before.

"If the lessons of History teach us any one thing, it is that no one learns the lessons that History teaches"

One account (Lord's "A Night to Remember?) that I read said that the boats were supposed to be filled with women and children from steerage. That would mean that the boats would have women and children loaded on the upper decks, then lowered to some of the doors (?) lower down to take the steerage women and children.

For some reason, the lower doors were never opened.....

I have heard that another ship "The California" recieved the distress signals, which their captain ignored, even though they were close enough to watch the Titanic sink. Any truth to it? How many hundreds of lives could they have saved? I find it hard to believe. To watch the giant ship sink, and make no effort at rescue. If true, why isn't the incident more publicised?

The Californian was stopped about 15-20 miles away due to the ice. Her wireless radio only had one operator for the entire voyage. This operator had shut down their wireless for the night and their Captain (Stanley Lord) was in bed for the night. The Californian's night watch saw a ship and saw rockets. they attempted to signal but got no response. They informed the captain and that was that. the next morning the wireleass operator heard about titanic and they went to help.

For many years Captain Lord insisted that the "Californian and it's crew said that the ship they saw didnt seem in ditress. it had been sugested that their was a 3rd ship between the two ships that ignored both sets of signals. It has since been put forth that the 3rd ship possibly did exist. a swedish or norwegian ship was engaged in whaling activities (illegal or otherwise and didnt want to get caught.

the story about captain lord is in many books about titanic.

The California's captain, Stanley Lord, was vilified for the rest of his life and blamed for the loss of life on Titanic.

The problem was Titanic wasn't sending company distress signals but firing rockets. They signaled to Titanic with their Morse lamp but received no response. They did not wake their captain but spoke to him while he was sleeping. Later Lord said he had no recollection of the conversation.

In the scramble to assign blame, Captain Stanley Lord was a convenient target. Although he was asleep and his crew never woke him to assess the situation on deck, his career was ruined so White Star could avoid blame for their egregious mistakes.

Had he responded the most he could have done would have been to have saved 300 lives. There still would have been a large loss of lives in the Titanic disaster, according to a later investigation. The greatest responsibility for loss of life goes to the crew of the Titanic, for launching lifeboats half-full of passengers.

That error is the proximal cause of the greatest loss of life in maritime history up until that time. Had those lifeboats been overloaded by 50% they still would have floated on that sea of glass and perhaps everyone could have been saved. It was an act of human error piled upon mistake upon sheer human hubris that killed all those people...and still it wasn't to be known that they died of the freezing cold temperatures for another 25 or so years until Nazis did despicable experiments on human beings.

There were many pieces to that puzzle and they've all come together now, 100 years later, for our understanding and comprehension.

The empty seats argument is valid, but distracts from one sad truth:

Even if there were more than enough lifeboat capacity for every passenger and the crew, there was nowhere near enough time to load and launch all of them. The last 2 boats actually were floated off the ship, and that was the full compliment of 20. Lifeboats in that day were very large and heavy, and needed real equipment and skill to put into service.

Look at how long it took to evacuate Costa Concordia. The Titanic had 2 hours, and even less by the time the gravity of the situation was understood, and the needed actions became clear.

Regarding the Californian, it is my understanding that the ship's wireless had been shut down for the night and that it's crew mistook the Titanic's rockets for some type of celebration.

As for the amount of time needed to evacuate a ship, it seems to be a generally accepted fact that even today, in regards to the Costa Concordia, that had it been in deeper water, there would have been a far greater loss of life. And even though the Costa Concordia passengers had not yet had their lifeboat drill, they were all lined up at their 'muster stations' prepared to enter lifeboats when the order given.

I was wondering why some of the passengers couldn't have been dropped off ON the iceberg that the Titanic hit, but as there are no actual pictures I have no knowledge whether there would have been any room/size of iceberg to do such a task, or due to the time constraints/panic involved.

@fantomdog. i can only guess, but there are factors there too. Passengers were not dressed to be standing on ice, for one. Another is that the ship didn't stop on the iceberg when it hit. Another is that, after stopping briefly, Captain Smith was strongly urged("ordered") by Mr. Ismay to restart the engines and move on, which they did briefly.

@rugbymom: I have to admit that I would today take "women and children first" to mean the same as "women and children only." I would take either to mean that only after all women and children have beeen evacuated from the ship can men fill any remaining lifeboats, if there are any boats left to fill.

IF what you say is true about "women and children first," and crew members should have allowed men to fill vacant seats, then Mr. Ismay should not have been scrutinized so for filling a unused seat on a lifeboat. After all, no lifeboat is said to have been filled to capacity. AND, he was not the ship's captain, just one of the owners...just another passenger on the ship. No laws said the owner had to stay onboard. Even Captain Smith allegedly said something similar directly to Mr. Ismay, that while at sea, the Captain, and only the Captain, is in charge; that even a ship's owner is just another passenger.

Alan:

'...illustrated that some lessons still haven't quite sunk in.'

cute...and quite right.

@Alan Boyle;

From my perspective---and I'll disclaim it that way---the answer to your question is yes and no. As an erstwhile naval historian, I will say that some lessons DID make it into people's collective grey matter. Ships are inherently safer than they were 100 years ago; modern navigation has made travel at sea easier to manage. Modern ship construction actually gets its origins from TITANIC and other preceding disasters, and is still some of the best work there is (although as a traditionalist I'm bound to say that I think overlapping steel plates with riveted joinery is still better than welded butt-jointed plates---just my opinion and nothing more. I invite you to do your own research and form your own opinion.)

But the flip side is that some folks just didn't pay attention in history class; I'm willing to bet that Captain Schettino never read about Captain Smith. To borrow from an aviation maxim, the prudent mariner never places himself or his ship in situations requiring the use of his superior skills. Both captains failed miserably in that regard. The only thing that I can offer in Captain Schettino's defense---and I AM reaching for this---is that not as many people died on COSTA CONCORDIA as did on TITANIC. In the cold clinical analysis, that says that our modern safeguards work. At the human level though...I can't help but feel for the families that lost loved ones.

Nice article Alan. Thank you.

WBQ,

One reason that few people died in the Costa was that it wasn't in the cold North Atlantic mile from land. The Costa hung up on rocks and didn't fully sink, giving people time to get off. The next morning there were people still getting off the ship....

Have you ever gone without eating for most of the day .... ??

Ernest Lee Frank ....

Actually a growler refers to the sound made when an object rubs along a vessels hull .... like an ice burg rubbing against it ....

A grower is a small iceberg only a meter or so in length. Here's a bit about them.

Stupid edit button... http:// www. athropolis. com/ arctic-facts/ fact-bergy-bits. htm

"I've been land-locked my whole life. The article mentions "icebergs, sea ice, and growlers". What are growlers?"

I'm not gonna say it...

I'm not gonna say it...

I'm not gonna say it...

GOOGLE!

Well, I said it.

The Evil Tessmacher knows his stuff. I grew up on the east coast in Portsmouth, Va. We are surrended by water. And then Norfolk is close by.The largest navel ship yard in the world. This has nothing to do with icebergs what so ever. We can guess all we want but we were not there. I can not imagine what they went through, especially in that freezing ocean. Families lost from each other. I sat and cried when I saw how selfish some , especially the rich were. They decided they would go first. But the sea knows no difference between the rich or the poor. I do not know how strong I would have been. We need the past to help us with the future so we do not make the same mistakes. We should learn from our mistakes if we choose to. That has to be our decisions.

Thanks,

Thanks for the descriptions.

Hey Alan ....

Turning me into a big fan ....

I loved astronomy , sciences , lab work ect ....

Your articles are very enjoyable ....

I have to always thank you for the pleasure ....

An honor ....

Add to friends on your home page if you wish ....

On Facebook, one of the commenters noted that reason No. 2 would have to be "the ocean." ;-)

Yea , good one .... "LOL"

I guess we could really think of a few more like that as well ....

See how much fun you have with this ....

Nice ....

Looking forward to some more great and unique stuff ....

If you want a true 11th reason, here it is. I don't remember what book I read it in, I'll need to go look but, somebody not to long ago calulated the size of the ship versis the size of the rudder and figured the rudder should have been 10-15 feet longer then what was actually built. In other words, the rudder was to small.

sorry dave the rudder was only "too small" by less than 2% which would've had nothing to do with it.

Heck, most ships these days don't have the double keel either. Seems like the builders of ships these days have outsmarted themselves once again thinking their designs won't fail in such a situation. For a while after Titanic sank, ships were being built much stronger, but after a few decades, corners started being cut, and the lessons of history forgotten. Now we have ships sinking again. Funny thing is, what sank the Concordia was something Titanic would have survived, given the watertight compartment design on both ships.

Two massive things against that argument.

1. Searchlights were not common on cruise liners of that time.

2. Icebergs are hard see, remember is that you're staring at black open sea of nothing for miles and by the time you see it, it'll be too late.

Mouzie,

Regarding your item number 1: Yes, shipboard searchlights probably were less common on ships of the day, but the entire thrust of my comment was to speak to the prevailing lack of foresight and imagination that caused suitable searchlights to not be installed on the Titanic, even when the capability existed to do so.

Addressing your point number 2: As for icebergs not being visible for miles ahead in an adequate searchlight beam, you are most assuredly wrong. I am someone who spends his professional life peering through the darkness in search of distant and faint objects. I do not know how else to explain the enhanced visibility of a highly reflective object against a dark background without taking you out on the water some moonless night to show you. However, that will be a bit difficult for the near future because I am presently surrounded by desert.

Perhaps you have seen distant, snowcapped mountain peaks in the moonlight? The apparent angular size of one of the smaller peaks would serve as a simulated iceberg. In this case though, if the moon isn't bright enough, it is not possible to push more electric current through it for a more dazzling view.

The eyes of nocturnal animals are visible from quite far away in a searchlight beam, in case you ever help a rancher friend to night-hunt (where it is legal) for burrowing animals that dig the holes that cause sheep and cattle to break their legs.

I bring a hefty flashlight with me on my evening walks, the better to illuminate any dark objects deposited by discourteous dogs. Back in the time of the Titanic, people out on evening walks were probably less able to avoid such hazards.

So, it is always a good practice to have enough light to see where you are going.

Since they ignored the warnings in the first place, they probably wouldn't have utilised a searchlight if they had one.... would probably be the same 'attitude complacency' as to why no one bothered to break the cabinet lock open to get the binculars, either.

It's like my dad always used to say: "Why should I bother taking this with me when I already know that I'll have no use for it? That said, I'll not pack it because it is just extra weight..." Used to drive my mum absolutely mad; of course she wanted to pack EVERYTHING (better to be prepared, right?). I wonder if something other than a complacent attitude and the belief in an 'unsinkable' ship may have made a difference on that 1912 April night.....

If there had been a huge searchlight on the bow, then Leonardo DiCaprio wouldn't have had any place to stand and do his "I'm the King of the Worlllllllld!" schtick.

But seriously, if the thing had hit the iceberg head on and not grazed it, it is quite possible that the collision would have been survivable. The additional compartments wouldn't have been exposed to the sea from the huge gash along Titanic's side, and they could possibly have limped into port.

Is it just me, or is it absurd that an essential piece of iceberg-spotting equipment went unused simply because they were in a locked cabinet to which no one had the key? The cabinet was only wood, and there were fire axes and other sharp and/or heavy implements of destruction on the ship. So WHY in heaven's name, with multiple iceberg warnings coming over the wireless, did the captain or some other command crew member not order the cabinet broken open so the binoculars could have been put to the use for which they were intended?!

BlackHillsLaura,

"So WHY in heaven's name, with multiple iceberg warnings coming over the wireless, did the captain or some other command crew member not order the cabinet broken open so the binoculars could have been put to the use for which they were intended?!"

Why, indeed? Why, indeed? The Titanic was a victim of human folly.

The no-binocular-locker-keys situation on the Titanic was similar to the one-ammunition-box-screwdriver slowness of the distribution of rifle ammo at the battle of Isandhlwana on January 22, 1879. The screwdriver problem wasn't the sole cause of the massacre of the British by the Zulus, but it was a contributing factor, just as a number of other adverse factors combined to sink the Titanic.

I tend to agree with you Laura but there were so many f*ck ups along the way that the binoculars were the least of their problems.

And the truth about the binoculars is that nobody is certain that they were on board. The rumor I heard was that it wasn't the key to the cabnet, but the binoculars themselves were taken.

Interesting concept about a spotlight but I don't believe it would have helped and here is why.

Unless the spotlight was constructed in a way where it would illuminate bright light outward from the ship for at least a mile, a spotlight would not have helped. As light is projected outward, it loses it's capability of "lighting the way". Take a flashlight and shine it in a dark area for a few hundred yards. You may be able to illuminate the area close to you, but the light will not be as effective 50 feet away and even less so a few hundred yards away. As big as that ship was, only a spotlight that could shine prominently over a couple of miles might have made a difference as it would have taken at least a few miles to allow time for the ship to steer clear at it's speed.

Perhaps your source was referring to the original design and not what the end result was. According to the British Board of Trade reports (summarized here : on encyclopedia-titanica . org edits won't let me copy/paste the link ) There were enough seats for 1178 people. There were over 2200 on board a ship built for over 3000 people. This was actually in accordance with the British Board of Trade as the number of required lifeboat seats were proportional to the weight of the ship, not how many people were on board. This was a carry-over from the schooner days. The laws did not change fast enough to keep up with steam technology. Using the math on the books at the time, Titanic only needed 16 lifeboats. She had 20 thereby surpassing safety standards as listed by the law.

I don't have the source handy (I'm moving so it's in a box somewhere), but she was designed for significantly more lifeboats, more than enough for everyone aboard. However, the powers that be decided to cut it to the minimum so that the first class could have more deck space. Then, the extra 4 were added. The problem with the extra 4 lifeboats was that they were stored on top of the officer's quarters with no easy way to get them down. That's why one of them floated off of the ship upside down.

Kelly I read the same thing in a book called "1912 Facts About Titanic"

The upside down one was "Collapsible B" 18 people managed to hold onto it and survived.

I always thought that the number of lifeboats coinciding with the size of the ship and not with the number of passengers was just lack of simple common sense who the heck would ever think that was a good idea?

Kelly, I think you misunderstand Josie's post. I believe she means that while there were boats with seats for only 1178 people that they could have put all 2200 people on them anyway and still stayed afloat.

The US Coast Guard was established in 1790, long before the Titanic.

The US Coast Guard was established because of the report made by the Senate committee that investigated the disaster.

The Senate committee authorized the International Ice Patrol, then gave the Coast Guard the authority for operating it (1914 or 15). Except for WWII, the CG has been doing the Ice Patrol ever since, and not a single vessel has been lost due to a collision with an ice berg. I think the Senate committee demanded that all (American) vessels be equipped with wireless radio, and the radio be manned 24/7.

Michaelin is also correct - the Coast Guard was established in 1790 as the Revenue Cutter Service.

Lt CFS

USCG(R)(ret)

Disney cruise ships are allowed to shoot off fireworks... They do it on their pirate night. They boast that they are the only cruise line allowed to do this...

Referring to Annette H. post, I just heard that since the Costa Concordia, that has changed again. Not only are lifeboat drills done on the first day, but now are done before a ship is allowed to leave port.

Yes, I'd heard this "blasephemy" statement before and it certainly fits the "loving God" of christian fundamentalists.

Like any immature, self-obsessed, sociopathic thug on the streets today, God lashes out in a totally disproportionate way when he feels that he has not received the "respect" that he deserves.

Andrew, do me a favor next time your "talking" to your so called God and ask him why he murdered my dad (cancer) when I was three and my alchoholic, depressed mom who suffered a nervous break down had to raise five kids by herself. --------Thanks God your quite a guy. Glad it works for you though.

@Joe: God didn't murder your dad. The cancer did. I see you have a lot of anger going on, and maybe some day, you can get over it. When Adam and Eve sinned, we (humans) had to be punished. What's so different from that to when we do something wrong, and our parents punish us??? Also, you might want to think about this; IF you weren't being so closed minded and selfish, JUST MAYBE, God did a favor by taking him home before some worse fate stepped in. Try being happy that your dad didn't suffer MORE! BTW, your mom DIDN'T HAVE to raise you all by herself. She obviously CHOSE to do so. Get rid of all the hate you have in your heart. I'd like to think you're a BIGGER man than that! I will pray for you, and I wish you all the best.

First off I’m sorry about your Father and your mother drinking and raising 5 kids alone. My Father died at just under 40 years old drunk himself to death, I was 5 going on 6 when he died, I do Not blame God. God did not put the bottle in his hand or make him drink it. I had two brothers and a sister all older than me my mother remarried and I had two step brothers.
I started to drink just after high school in 1968 and got heavier when I went
one year college last semester there I stayed drunk more than not. After I
enlisted in June 13, 1969, I drunk even heavier during my 4 years in the USMC
and for 2 more years afterward. I was married twice, had all 3 of my children died from first marriage (12-1971-1976) and I do not blame God. I have 4 children from my 2^nd marriage (1978-1986 devoiced 1990) I had to raise them
without her after she left Oct. 30^th, 1986. She decided she do better at making money with another man. I did not blame God than either, I forgave her took years . My children were then, my daughter 8yrs old, oldest son 6yrs, middle
son 3yrs and youngest 3 months old and I still DID NOT blame God, in 1986 to
now. I did not go back to drinking and I did not go blaming God, He did NOT
make her leave it was her own self centeredness that did. I saw her only once
since then in 1988 traveling with the man she left with.

I thank God, Him helped me with my children and the drinking problem, God give me victory over drinking in Oct. 1975. It has NOT been a problem since. I’m sorry you feel all your bad problems came from God, I tell you are wrong they did not. Read the book of Job see who is the right one to blame. I’m 62 years old and I do NOT regret my decision to surrender all to Jesus in Oct. 1975. I’m proud of all four of my children and my daughter-in-laws and Grand-daughters my daughters children she is raising her children alone also. But NOT really alone for God is with her always. God can not stop all bad things from happen in this world are no one would really know just how bad sin is and who the real author of sin is, Satan. You have NO idea how many times God has stopped bad things from happening to you to me and my family. For all mankind can think about is the bad sure it is what we see but the day will come and you will know just what all God did for you. First of all His Son died for you too! You can make fun of me all you wish I know who my Saviour is and that is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. If you wish not to believe that is your choice and you will have to face ALL your sins at judgment. I do NOT for I have a Saviour who died for ALL my sins which which have been many and really bad but I need NOT concern myself with them ever again.
So I will say it once more I’m sorry for the lost of your father and what your
mother when through, you can let go of all that bitterness and receive peace from The Heavenly Father for He does love you Jesus death, burial and resurrection is proof 100%. It is not His plan all this has happen, He created a perfect world and perfect humans to enjoy it, Satan messed it up for self centered reasons, Satan wants to be god.

There was this cruiser in WW2 who had her bow ripped clean off in a hurricane (Ummm Pacific... Typhoon?). She was towed backwards back to port...

Don't know if it is the one that you are thinking of but the USS Pittsburgh had its bow torn off....

Nick, if the Titanic had went bow first into the iceburg, she would not have went down. Because the iceburg bounced along the side, it basicily caused a 300 foot long series of buckled plates and popped rivits that was no more the one inch wide.

Nick and Dave, I'd thought the same thing for awhile, and the question was raised and studied at the time and long after. The consensus is that she would have sunk even faster (less than an hour). Collision bulkheads are designed and intended as a safeguard against collision between ships, with the energy absorption that entails, not a relatively immovable object like an iceberg. The shock and stress on the entire hull of a 55,000 ton ship x 22 knots hitting the berg dead on would have buckled hull plates the length of the ship, distorted w/t bulkheads preventing w/t doors from closing, engines and boilers thrown from their mounts, cut steam and electrical lines, hurling passengers and crew into steel bulkheads, and the list goes on. An easy way to think of it is 2 cars with energy absorbing front ends hitting head on at a combined speed of 50mph versus a car hitting a concrete bridge abutment at 50mph. In the one case you have a trip to the body shop and some minor injuries. With the bridge abutment, you've got a totaled vehicle and casualty collection is done with a dustpan and a broom.

I believe that the theory of ramming the iceberg instead of turning and glancing it, may have already been proven prior to the Titanic tragedy. The Olympic had already had it's bow rammed when it collided with the HMS Hawke, a royal naval vessel. The Olympic survived and was repaired

Not surprising, Captain Smith was on the bridge of the Olympic when that incident occurred. The info i have seen on that does not say he was the Captain in charge of the Olympic, just that he was on the bridge. I do know that Captain Smith was Captain for all maiden voyages of every ship for the White Star Line.

To canemah: what I get out of you example with the concrete abutment, is that Titanic should not have sank and 1500+ souls should not have been lost, because the ship just scraped the abutment. i guess that's the difference between using a land-based example instead of another water-based example. I think in either example - car vs. car, or car vs. abutment - the car would sink if the collision happened on water.

http://www.rmstitanicremembered.com/?page_id=282

This explains it better than I did.

I'm thinking that there was a ship during WW II that lost its bow either to a typhoon or enemy action, but they operated the ship in reverse and ran it backwards to Pearl Harbor for repairs. Might have been a carrier. Talk about truth being stranger than fiction.

Good point.

Except Noah's Ark is 100% mythical

Research is beginning to proving otherwise.

Noah's Ark is not only mythical, it is also impossible. The size of it, as described in th bible, is over 50% too large for any wooden boat to be and still hold together, unless the gopherwood was some kind of now extinct wood that is twice as strong as any other wood on this planet.

And, like the Titanic, Noah's Ark also did not survive its maiden voyage, and ended up stranded on rocks.

Jesus H Christ!!! Why do those less informed always have to drag mythical biblical fantasties into intelligent conversation? Oh my God!!!

If believing that Noah's Ark was real gives meaning to some folks' lives, I say to them "Knock yourselves out."

He's just got a funny way of showing it. How many of the 1500 men women and children participated in "not acknowledging" him? As I said before no different from the average thug who shoots you for not showing "respect".

With due respect for all lives lost on the tragedy, may I with all humility state that preserving or taking lives is God's prerogative. We will understand it better in eternity. In the meanwhile we are to live our lives in the here and now in acknowledgement of and dependence on Him who is just and loving.

It would certainly take an eternity to try to reconcile such callous, egotistical and capricious behaviour with the notion of a loving god. You can keep him. I don't intend to spend any time at all engaging in such mental gymnastics.

Andrew, what you just described is not loving behavior. It is passive-aggressive evil.

"Evil forces", Andrew?
You have been watching too many sci-fi movies, my friend.

Us History buffs care, will it change our lives in anyway? Probably not, but there are many people like me who've been fascinated by the Titanic and others like the Edmund Fitzgerald for years and years.

It matters now because we can learn from it. The Costa Concordia shouldn't have happened had we learned *everything* we could from the Titanic disaster. "Stay the course" is a saying for a reason!

We can, and are, doing both. This is not a zero-sum game for attention.

Or are you, B-Realistic, one of those luddites who are incapable of multitasking?

Since you already know that the Titanic sank, why are you reading this article?

B realistic . . .

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Get an education and realize that everything is not about you and what is currently going on in your life. ;) Learn from history!!

We all should still care. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. If you don't learn from your mistakes, you will repeat your mistakes. However you say it, it is important not only to remember, but to learn from it so that is doesn't happen again.

History doesn't contain "lessons". It only contains information. We have to figure out what the lessons are, for ourselves. And, the point of this article is that there are usually different, even competing "lessons", depending on the perspectives of the observers. We all learn from history (its part of our intellectual make up, we can't help it), its just that different people examine things from different perspectives. So, they come to different conclusions about causes. Resulting in recognizing different "lessons". You see your cause, and learn your "lesson". I see my cause, and learn my "lesson". See how it works? You're welcome!

This story was big long before "the" movie. There have been many movies about this disaster! You must be very young if you think it only became a big story because of a movie made about it. . . :(

According to the Titanic Museum in Pigeon Forge, TN, there was a black Jamaican passenger with his white French wife and 2 daughters on board the Titanic. They were booked in second class, as they were not allowed in first class--their usual way to travel. But they wanted the experience of this fantastic voyage, so they accepted 2nd class. The wife and daughters survived.

It's memorable part of history. That is why it's a story. Also, it is a bigger story because it is the 100th anniversary of the trgedy. The movie has nothing to do with it.

dumb comment. there have been 13 titanic movies. even the nazi's made one.(no joke).

it sunk due to the order all back full. they had to completely stop the turn of the props before turning the reverse switch. so for a few seconds maybe more the props became a 93 ton brake. add to that the center shaft was turbine powered and that causes the collision with the iceberg. as water fills the foreward holds and living areas the ship is pulled down by the water's weight and that allows the water to pour over the watertight bulkheads.

ship designer thomas andrews wanted enough lifeboats for all passengers and bigger water pumps and the watertight doors to come up to a higher deck but he was overruled all 3 times by whits star line. he went down with the ship.