Square portholes? Are you sure about that? I just did a 30-second google research (rolleyes), and all the images I came up with showed the regular circular portholes, except for the ones right up on the promenade deck, which are far to high to have made any difference. All the portholes down near the waterline were round, as far as I can tell. There do appear to have been a large-ish number of hatches (or ‘doors’) with straight sides, but even they seem to have had rounded corners, the key to limiting stress.
(No problem with the rest of your post, just that one item which really stood out.)
I agree. The only thing she really said in regards to the Titanic was that the rivets had impurities and the icy waters affected the hull’s steel, albeit she didn’t really explain how. The hull assuredly did not shatter when it hit the iceberg, so her examples didn’t really have anything to do with the Titanic.
Now we know that metals become more brittle when in contact with water at sub zero temperature, so most transatlantic journeys are taken by air and most voyages take place in warmer seas. Iceberg related loss of ships has been dramatically reduced. Science!
I might be wrong on that one. I was going from memory from an article I read several years ago. It might not have been the portholes, but something else that had sharp edges down lower on the Titanic. I remember it was a big deal because White Star Lines didn’t talk about it at the time, but historians comparing old pictures noted that Britannic (a sister ship to the Titanic) fixed that particular flaw.
There were no square portholes on the Titanic. Also the urban myth about the captain racing to win a bet has long been debunked. The Cunard lines ships were faster no matter what and there was no chance of beating them. Bruce Ismay, White Star owner, wanted to set a new speed record, but even that was acknowledged to be impossible because of an unusually strong headwind that started on the second day. The speed record claim comes from some gossip overheard by some first class passengers on deck but as far as anyone can tell has no basis in reality, and, according to the myth, it was Ismay, not Captain Smith, who’d allegedly wanted to win the bet, as Captain Smith was excessively cautious and objected to pushing his ship even a little bit. You might add other factors were a moonless night and a lookout who’d left his binoculars below decks, as well as a burg that had turned topsy-turvey and was showing the smooth, dark side normally underwater, instead of the frosty white top.
Hull thickness, water temperature, construction integrity, mass of object during collision. It is all speculation and conjecture at this point of time.
There are two rather interesting thing about the voyage, one is the passenger manifest, many influential persons were on board. Two, the insurance coverage of an unsinkable ship. It is possible too speculate intentional sabotage for two gains. One collecting on the insurance of the ship its self and two the fortunes that became up for grabs, too put it bluntly.
One passenger in particular was a rail road baron of the Grand Trunk Railway, Charles Melville Hays . After his death on the titanic, which could of been from the elements or out right assassination, the GTR was dissolved and competitors eventually seized the railway as it seemed he was not on the up-and-up during the decade leading up too the voyage. Ismay, VP of White Star Line invited Melville on the maiden voyage, Ismay survived although Melville is credited with prophetically says during the voyage, “The time will come soon when this trend will be checked by some appalling disaster.”
I speculate an elaborate assassination, at great cost of lives, for the fortunes reaped from the demise of a few wealthy philanthropies might of be well worth the venture. I have no evidence and scant reason to prove, although, it is not impossible. Coincidental is this thread posting on the anniversary of 9/11, another great tragedy that lead too a few making gads of money from the incident all in the name of improved safety in the after math.
Just saying… it could of been intentional sabotage.
No one ever mentions this bit but the position of the ship as it struck the giant iceberg was at a latitude similar with New York or the Vatican. Perhaps 100 years ago iceberg’s floated south well pass a 41degree latitude. Sank at 41.43.6 lat 49.56.8 or about the middle of europe or top mid range of USA. Iceberg collision might explain the ships shutter or it may have been triggered by explosive sabotage.
It is possible an iceberg was towed by submarines south and set on a collision course with the Titanic.
The mass difference between a sub (which is the size of a destroyer) and an Iceberg makes this difficult to take seriously. It’s like saying a moped pulled a dumptruck full of gravel out onto the highway and got it up to cruising speed so it could crash into your car.