General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Peter \x26 Pete
Oceanliner Designs
comments

Comments by "Peter \x26 Pete" (@PeterPete) on "Oceanliner Designs" channel.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

Imo the Olympic sunk just off the coast of Newfoundland after it allegedly hit an iceberg. I reckon an explosion occured and the ship sank. The ship was a 'write off' after it suffered irrepairable damage following a number of collisions, one with a cruiser Hawke, the other with a Nantucket lightship. It was an insurance job and these corrupt events happen all the time as people see it as a way of not losing money for something that is a 'financial loss'. Edit: I mistook the tug boat incident in New York for the Nantucket Lightship. The lightship collision occured well after the 1912 incident.
1
@OceanlinerDesigns From wiki Hawke's bow, which had been designed to sink ships by ramming them, collided with Olympic's starboard side near the stern,[49] tearing two large holes in Olympic's hull, above and below the waterline, resulting in the flooding of two of her watertight compartments and a twisted propeller shaft. From a post on Quora, communication between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. The impact was more serious than first thought causing £125,000 damage to Olympic including bending her keel which meant she was unseaworthy. Quote - How many differences were there between Titanic and Olympic? Unsure but Royal Carribean International owns the Oasis of the Seas and Allure of the Seas which is 50mm longer and they are similar. Harmony of the Seas is only 8ft longer and looks similar to the previous 2!! I know someone who used to be a Chief Engineer and now works as a marine vessel inspector for an insurance company and he has told me it is quite common for two identical ships to be built and these can be swapped over. I'd imagine that once the Olympic sunk it was impossible to identify whether any insurance crime had been comitted. Quote - How long in your opinion would it take to "switch" the two ships? It's not for me to say but knowing that people are capable of any 'crime' paying off a good number of people, I reckon it could easily be done overnight. Lots of people make bogus claims on their insurance to get a new kitchen, perhaps a new car or carpets, new roof even so there's no reason it doesn't occur on a much larger scale involving business. It is unfortunate that life is a business for many people and all they think about is money!!!
1
@OceanlinerDesigns Thanks for your reply but I'm not espousing the Olympic was switched whilst the Titanic was still being built. I've never stated when it was switched. All I'm stating is that imho the Olympic is at the bottom of the ocean. White Star would have built the Olympic knowing they would be building a sister ship. In fact they were building 3. You state - Removing 600 feet of first class suites and staterooms on Titanic and installing them on Olympic Yet the Olympic and the Titanic would both have had the same interiors - they weren't sister ships for nothing. All they would have had to change were consumables e.g. table ware, posters, promotional material, souvenirs. Remember the Olympic was knackered months before so they had plenty of time to plan. The bent keel could easily have been a result of the the twisted propellor shaft. If they had asked me to help swap the ships for a pretty price I'd have helped out and stayed quiet!!! Every man has a price, even Captain Edward Smith. Lots of people like you would even deny the possibility the ships were switched because you wouldn't want to think your educators and 'mainstream' have lied to you. At the end of the day you cannot prove the ships weren't swapped, you can only 'believe' they weren't swapped based on information that is provided to support that narrative. I've seen NO proof the ships were not switched therefore it remains a possibility the ships were indeed switched. Life is a business I'm afraid where money comes before people.
1
@OceanlinerDesigns Thanks for your reply. Have you got photographic evidence showing the differences of the interiors of both ships or are you just accepting the story that has been built up over 100 years? It's great telling me that I'm wrong and I'm espousing misinformation but until you can provide proof to support the information you provide the switch theory remains a possibility. A possibility that you and many others want to deny. There have been two identical cross channel ferries operating from Dover. If they had both sunk the only things that stood them apart were the names on the bows/sterns!! As far as I am concerned the main core aspects of the Olympic & Titanic were identical, the only differences were superficial. I can understand you don't want to be aware of the full extent of the human condition but money first, people second!!!
1
@OceanlinerDesigns Taken from the link you provided. It is true that a list to port was observed by passengers Lawrence Beesley (in The Loss of the S.S.Titanic) and Norman Chambers (US Inquiry). Photographs taken of Titanic leaving Southampton also reveal a slight port list. The author then goes on to provide reasons to account for the list however these are only the author's opinions. Furthermore the author does not provide comparable information regarding other ships that had a slight list. Also the author does not provide any information about a how a damaged keel cannot cause a ship to list. The possibility still remains the ships were switched and you should accpet that!!!
1
@Dizzy19. Quote - Who decided Olympic was a write off? Remember it's only a matter whether the ship could be insured or not and that was down to its seaworthiness. If passengers noted a 2 deg list and photos showed the ship with a 2 deg list then White Star Line would have known this much earlier and so would have known whether the ship would have been able to have passed it's inspection by the Board of Trade. The collision with the Hawke bent the Olympic's propellor shaft which in turn would have affected the internal and external structure of the ship. It's not difficult for anyone to see an unroadworthy car 'crabbing' along the road because it has a bent chassis. I was only born in 1968 and I've never been to Belfast so when exactly the 'switch' took place I couldn't tell you. If someone asked me to help switch a ship and they would pay me handsomely I'd be up for it. I'm sure many other people would have been up for it too in 1912 especially when the insurer's paid out over £1m. As far as I am concerned, imo the ships were switched. It was an insurance job and people do these things all the time!!
1
@Dizzy19. quote - Olympic returned to service in Nov 1911 after her repair, she would have under gone a B of Trade inspection then to establish her seaworthiness. how do you know this to be true? if a car had an accident 11months before MOT, the vehicle could be repaired just one month before MOT time and still have been on the road during that time! By the way, I also included the cargo within the sum insured!
1
@Dizzy19. show us the BofT certification to show the olympic was seaworthy after the accident!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 yeah I'm aware of that and should have just focused on the Hawke incident because that caused the most damage at the time!! Tks!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 Quote - Which was nowhere near as extensive as switch theory proponents claim and was completely repaired. Were you around at the time to document the damage was nowhere as extensive as switch theory proponents claim? Did you personally inspect the ship and witness no 2 deg list? No you weren't there, you carried out NO inspection. All you've done is read information that has been handed down over the years and you've based your conclusion on that. Human beings are known to cheat, deceive, embezzle, commit crime all in the attempt to make gains from losses. If you think I'm wrong then you're living in a different world to me!! It's more than possible the White Star Line committed fraud to claim the insurance on the Olympic.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 I've never looked at the wreck to confirm or deny that!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 what little fantasy?? You telling me people never lie or are deceitful?? Wow - you must be on drugs or something. Maybe denial or you are a delusional?? People have always carried out insurance jobs! the main cause of fire in UK is arson!! Why? Insurance of course!! You need to stop sleeping!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 thanks for your comment. As far as I am aware the Olympic had 401 inscribed on its propelllor when it sank off the coast of Newfoundland in 1912 after allegedly hitting an iceberg. It had 400 inscribed on its original propellor but that was damaged in the Hawke incident so they used the Titanic's propellor being 401. So the Olympic had a 401 part on it when it sank. You do realise it is easy to fool people because alot of people accept what they're told and many people live in dreamland where no crime and no fraud is committed. Life's a business unfortunately, money before people!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 What investigation have you carried out to determine that two wrenches stamped with 401 were not actually salvaged from the Olympic 'aka Titanic'? You haven't done anything!! You just accept the common narrative. I've looked at underwater footage of the Titanic aka Olympic and have seen nothing to convince me the ship IS the Titanic. To me it could be the Olympic. From the you tube video 'Titanic Wreck overview' it is interesting how the narrator states at 12:31 "It is worthy of note although it should come as no surprise that the Titanic received many warnings of ice prior to collision however given the circumstances at the time, many of the warnings were ignored." I cannot accept how a ship on its maiden voyage costing £1.5m in 1912 and carrying thousands of passengers would ignore warnings of ice, unless of course it's purpose was to sink. As far as I am concerned 2 people witnessed a 2 deg list to port on the Olympic and a photo taken of the Olympic sailing out of harbour shows the ship with a 2 deg list to port. That indicates to me there was a problem with the ship following the Hawke incident so the possibility exists a switch was made. If you don't think people commit insurance scams you are the one who lives in a fantasy world!!! Imo the ships were switched and you can type all you like to the contrary and if you want to convince me, let's go deep down under the ocean ourselves to see the magical '401' stamped on the wreck!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 I'm only expressing my opinion and imo the ships were switched as there exists no shred of information, evidence or proof the ships were not switched.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 I'm not interested in evidence, I want to see proof. How do you know those wrenches enscribed with 401 were actually taken from the sunken ship Titanic?
1
@corneliuscrewe677 In 2006 an alleged 15 ton piece of the Titanic's hull was recovered and is probably now on show somewhere in the world today. It is a 13x30 foot chunk of the hull. Can you show me the 401 stamps on it please?
1
@corneliuscrewe677 Quote - You uterly ignored the fact Olympic and Titanic propeller blades were not interchangeable. You fail to mention what propellor blades you are referring to? The central blades or the port/starboard propellors? According to wiki after the Hawke incident, H&W used a propellor shaft from the Titanic to repair the Olympic. They did not at that time use a Titanic propellor blade as well to fit the replaced shaft indicating the original Olympic propellor blade would have fitted. So it appears propellor blades were interchangeable. Afterall they were sister ships!!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 Quote - The missing blade was replaced after each incident. That's not what wikipedia states. A Titanic propellor was taken and installed on the Olympic after a propellor fell off the Olympic. Quote - As for the interchangeable propellers, you clearly don’t get it. Try to read this bit carefully. The propeller blades of the two ships were different pitches. The pitch of the blades wouldn't matter whether a propellor blade would fit or not. Granted, a different pitched blade would affect the performance so perhaps that's what really caused the 2 degree list? Who knows? But from what I've read, the Olympic and Titranic's pitch on their wing propellors were the same, albeit a 'crossed-out entry' on an H&W notebook, which could have been after the Olympic sunk . Why not go and dig up the 'Titanic's' propellor blades and determine their pitch was an extra 6 inches more than the Olympics. Oh you can't do that because it's buried under tons of sand at the sea floor. You really are clutching at straws. Just admit you have NO PROOF to show the ships we're not switched.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 Quote - You're kidding, right? You are the one who brought up the propeller with the 401 on Titanic's wreck, Genius. Which propeller do you think, moron? I can tell you're losing it, you don't know the difference between the central propellor shaft blade and the port/starboard (wing) propellor blades.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 Quote - There was a list because the coal was not trimmed properly in the bunkers,you ignorant fool. Haha!!! Where is your proof of that? All you do is leave comment after comment without providing any proof whatsoever. Just type and text from a narrative. Just stop and think about the hole you're digging yourself. Would you load a vehicle up unevenly? No you wouldn't, especially if you were carrying fare paying passengers!! Furthermore, from what you say it could be suggested the ship hit the iceberg because the coal was unevenly distributed in the coal bunkers and it hampered its maneuverability in the water. That would make White Star line negligent!!! Haha!! Come on show me the '401' enscripted on those recovered hull plates!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 haha!! I wasn't referring to that page on wikipedia! You have to remember wikipedia is a mainstream source so will always follow the mainstream narrative, irrespective what the topic was about.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 Exactly, there was no improper trimming because the Olympic sailed out from UK with a list to port due to the damage it incurred with Hawke. You stated 401 is inscribed on all hull plates so show me where the '401's are inscribed on the recovered hull plates!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 that's just an excuse. You don't have to paste the entire link, you can type the heading in the comment. Let's see the 401's on those recovered hull plates.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 no, i want YOU to show me the 401's enscribed on the hull plates that were recovered from the 'Olympic' because YOU think 401's are enscribed on those recovered hull plates from the Titanic. I don't mind waiting!!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 I'm talking about a 13x30 foot hull section allegedly taken from the Titanic that should have hull markings of 401 all over it - you still aren't showing me!!! Perhaps there's none to be found!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 just admit you can't show me the 401 markings that you allege should be on the recovered hull plates that identify it to have come from the Titanic.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 haha!! what a load of ***t. You're the one alleging the hull plates recovered from 'Titanic' have been inscribed 401. I'm only asking you to prove it. It's clear you can't. Just admit you really don't want to wake up and realise that human beings would do anything for money, even if it means staging an insurance job!! Interesting read about Captain Lord of the Californian (owned by JP Morgan's company who also had shares in the White Star Line). Looks to me like he was set up. He was waiting for coloured flares - that was the sign for him to steer towards the Olympic and pick up all the passengers whereas Capt Smith was told to fire white flares. Oh dear, the web these people weave when money is at stake!! Life is a business I'm afraid and you and I are just pawns in a rich man's game. Like I've stated before, arson is the number one cause of fire damage to buildings and property in the UK. Why is this? Because the owners claim money on the insurance!!! Next time you see a building on fire, always ask yourself whether it's an insurance job!!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 You're getting boring now because you can't come up with the goods!! Need a tissue? Need a shoulder to cry on? You've stated that all hull plates have 401 marked on them so show me the 401's on the recovered 15 ton hull plates. It's clear you can't and it's clear you won't!! So after 59 comments, my initial comment still stands!! Imho I consider the ships were switched as part of an insurance scam to claim money on an irrepairable ship. Instead of protesting that I'm wrong, why not at least agree there's a possibility that I could be right!!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 63 replies and we're going nowhere. Btw. I'm not a flat eartther but the Earth is a level plane and cannot be proved to be any other shape. You like millions of others are dreamers/believers. You may was well believe in the Cyclops, Centaur and all the other Greek mythological creatures that never existed. What about believing in Big Foot, Yeti or God? Or better still the Titanic hit an ice berg and sank to the bottom of the ocean!! Or if you really want to challenge your dreamworld why not prove water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Why not prove oxygen is 21% of the air we breathe. I've been looking for proof and I can't find any. Modern society is a 'capitalist belief system' where money comes before people and dreams before the real world. It's still a possibility the ship that lies on the sea bed is the Olympic.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 I seem to be discussing a topic with somebody who likes going around in circles! Like I've already mentioned - I've done some research and found 2 photos of the titanic, dated at the same time and yet the ships are different. How is this possible? It seems people are getting mixed up so who knows which ship was the titanic and which ship was the olympic?
1
@corneliuscrewe677 I've got 2 photos of the titanic allegedly taken at the SAME time and date and yet the ships are DIFFERENT! Do you not think this situation is ridiculous?? The ships should be the SAME but they are not! The only reason why they are not is because these photographs clearly depict ships at different times. This means that confusion may also exist regarding all the photos of the titanic/olympic In other words you can't trust the dates and times supplied with each photo of the ships! If you do not agree then explain how 2 sources publish photos of the titanic allegedly taken at the same time/date with clear differences in the ships?
1
@corneliuscrewe677 Please just answer the question - why can I find 2 different photos of the 'Titanic' allegedly leaving Southampton in April 1912 yet the ships are not identical? Have you an explanation for that? To me it is clear the photos of the ships have become 'muddied' over the years where people don't really know what ship was which and don't know when the photos were actually taken, leaving the possibility open that both photos are not of the Titanic even though the articles state they are of the Titanic.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 I've even found a photo of the titanic in dry dock and there are differences of the ship in that photo and another photo! Why are there clear differences of the ship seen in photos of the Titanic??
1
@corneliuscrewe677 thank you - I've got 2 photos of the same ship but there are observable differences of the ships in each photo! it's clear the internet is awash with photos of ships that cannot be truly identified!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 WATCH OUR NEXT UPLOAD - WE'RE RECORDING IN A FEW MINS SO IT SHOULD BE UPLOADED FOR TOMORROW! remember 2 different published photos of the same ship ie titanic yet differences can clearly be seen in the photos!! enjoy!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 sorry we didn't cover a newspaper article that included a photo that was taken on the SAME day 10th apr 1912! the photo was in a guardian article entitled - Titanic: plan scrapped to retrieve radio that sent distress calls as ship sank check it out and compare it with other photos of the titanic on the SAME day and explain why the portholes on the forecastle are different!! Cheers
1
@corneliuscrewe677 I'm waiting for you to explain why the starboard forecastle portholes are different on the titanic than when it was in construction!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 do you not understand that according to the titanic fandom website the rms olympic which carried out its sea trials in may 1911 had the rearranged starboard portholes of 16 on it!! That's at least 8months prior to when you're suggesting the olympic had them re-arranged!!! if the info is correct on the fandom website then your info is bollox.
1
@corneliuscrewe677 i'm not cherry picking, you stated the extra Olympic portholes were added Dec 1911 yet I gave you a link from the Titanic Fandom website to a photo of the Olympic during its sea trials in May 1911 with the extra portholes. Two conflicting pieces of information. Now what else is conflicting? Was it really the Titanic that left Southampton on 10 April 1912 with the extra porthole or was it the Olympic? At the end of the day all you're providing is just your opinion based on information gathered over 100 years. Doesn't mean that information is true. One thing we can agree on is the Olympic had an incident with HMS Hawke that left both ships needing major repairs and WSL was left to pick up the tab for both ships - ouch!!!!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 The reason why links haven't shown up is the comments containing links are held for review!! That's not my fault! You stated the Olympic portholes were altered post Dec 1911 because crews complained about poor lighting. The info on titanic fandom website under RMS Olympic shows a photo of the Olympic during sea trials earlier in May 1911 with the alterations having been made! Are you suggesting the info on the titanic fandom website is inaccurate and you are correct?
1
@corneliuscrewe677 quote - nd you still have not addressed your claim you had photos of Titanic on the same day as that Gaurdian photo on April 10. yeah that's because i got that bit wrong - many apologies! anyway back to the olympic portholes!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 hang on a minute - you seem to be confused here - I've admitted my error so why don't you admit yours? You stated earlier the olympic changed her portholes after dec 1911 and yet there was a titanic fandom website page showing olympic with altered portholes during sea trials in may 1911. Can you address this point plz!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 you told me the Olympic originally had 15 portholes but that was changed because the Olympic crew complained of poor lighting conditions. You stated this happened after Dec 1911. Yet according to Titanic Fandom website, details of the link already provided to you, they show a photo of the Olympic during its sea trials in May 1911 with 16 portholes. It's easy to replace a hull plate with an additional porthole arrangement in the Olympic/Titanic. It was allegedly done with the Titanic as it sailed into Southampton with 16 portholes, oh wait! That could have been the Olympic!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 you're flip flopping from one thing to another. The Titanic Fandom website supports the official narrative. It shows a photo of a ship with 16 portholes and under the photo it reads, RMS Olympic on her sea trials, in May 1911. You stated the additional porthole (to make it 16) on the Olympic was added after December 1911 because crew complained it was too dark in that section of the ship. Your explanation cannot be the case when there is a photo of the Olympic during her sea trials with 16 portholes. If you can't understand this point you clearly cannot understand simplicity!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 Quote - how do you know that’s from her trials? There is no supporting information to indicate the user uploaded the correct information, is there? How do you know that information is incorrect? Were you present at Olympic's sea trials? No you weren't!! You can NEVER know!!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 103 replies and going nowhere!!!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 The main incident was with the Hawke. Back to the Titanic Fandom website - can you please prove or disprove the photo was of the Olympic in 1911 during its sea trials?
1
@corneliuscrewe677 107 replies on this post and yet you've not provided anything of saubstance to make me alter my opinion! Imho the ships were switched!
1
@corneliuscrewe677 my opinion is just as valid as yours! did you answer why the olympic is seen in a photo in may 1911 during sea trials with the new arrangement of portholes when you stated the new arrangement of portholes were made post december 1911??
1

Previous
1
Next
...
All