The Edmund Fitzgerald sunk in one of, or a combination of four different ways.
First, The hatches were not properly secured
and the ship took in massive amounts of water
into the holds, filled and sunk. I believe this to be unlikely since the Fitz's 4 bilge pumps were capable of pumping out 14,000 gallons of water per minute.
Second, the ship hit bottom along the shoals
at Carribou island. Perhaps it tore a whole in the ships hull, it filled with water and sunk.
Third, the ship was overloaded. The Fitz typically carried loads between 20,000-24,000
tons. Maybe it was overloaded and the huge waves caused more stress to the ship than it could handle. The metal fatigued and she broke apart.
Fourth, a combination of these things. This load of 26,000 tons was more than the Fitzgerald normally carried. The violent storm probably caused the Fitzgerald to suffer a combination of the above scenarios.
Regardless, I agree with Watchman. After nearly three decades, it doesn't really matter. I would only want the Coast Guard to discover the truth if it was to prevent further disasters. If they find out what really happened, it's going to open a pandora's box and someone is going to be blamed.
When Cousteau dove to the wreck in '76 and
stated he felt like she broke apart at the surface, the ship builders didn't like it one bit and voiced their displeasure. I'm just saying that the truth at this point is going to hurt somebody. It would open wounds that have beeen trying to heal for twenty-eight years now. I stick to my original statements that it doesn't matter why it sunk.
|