Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. I'm sure you can explain which 'corners' were cut? Harland & Wolff weren't regarded as one of the premier shipbuilders in the world because they cut corners.
    1
  2.  @Damiansweldingshortz  I assumed that you would be able to explain how these 'corners' were cut. It appears that you cannot. I am sure that engineers speak about little else than the construction methods used to build the Olympics, of course.
    1
  3.  @Damiansweldingshortz  Indeed she did. So have many other ships. Were they also the victims of 'cprners being cut?'
    1
  4.  @Damiansweldingshortz  I don't know of any welding at all in either Olympic or Titanic. As far as I know, the first welded ship in the UK was M.V. Fullagar, built by Cammell Laird in 1919.
    1
  5. It is one of the deep water exploration craft. That is why it is shining bright lights onto the wreck.
    1
  6. Au contraire. There is much concern about immigration in the west.
    1
  7. You mean like they did after 1995, when this absurd myth was invented in order to sell a book?
    1
  8. Have you always been a fool, or did you go on a special course to learn the job?
    1
  9. You won't seen any name on the ship, because Titanic has been slowly decaying for 110 years, and is covered in rusticles. However, you can see build numbers on furniture & fittings sold off when Olympic was scrapped in the1930s. These numbers are, exclusively, 400, which was Olympic's H & W build number. Do try to explain that.
    1
  10. Did you really enjoy the switcher video you watched and swallowed whole? Shame about the actual lack of supporting evidence for your nonsense, isn't it?
    1
  11. No-one actually said that.
    1
  12. @HealthyClimate Prove that someone didn't say something? Very good, but the onus is actually upon you to prove that someone actually did, I suggest.
    1
  13. @HealthyClimate I know that you can't, but thanks for confirming it.
    1
  14. Yes, all the half wits have scurried out from under their rocks. As they generally do when Titanic is mentioned.
    1
  15.  @MaryBrownIsTheBlairWitch  Correct. The switchers claim that Olympic's keel was damaged, which of course it wasn't. As a comparison, when the cruiser HMS Belfast's keel was damaged, in November, 1939, she was not back in service until November, 1942.
    1
  16.  @MaryBrownIsTheBlairWitch  I don't recall saying that Olympic had not been damaged, only that the damage was quickly repaired and the ship back at sea by late November.Permit me to quote from the summary of the Admiralty inspection report, supported by inspection teams from The Board of Trade & from White Star :- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” This is not serious, irreparable damage, which explains how the ship was fully repaired and back at sea so quickly.
    1
  17.  @MaryBrownIsTheBlairWitch  I appreciate that it must be a difficult experience for you, encountering someone who has considerably more knowledge about the subject.
    1
  18. No. Only ill-informed fools think that.
    1
  19. We have known since 1912.
    1
  20. Morgan did not decide not to board minutes before sailing. He had a prior engagement at St. Mark's in Venice, which had already been announced in the New York Times in March. Astor, Guggenheim & Straus were not 'invited' aboard. They each, independently, booked. The first two had never expressed their view abou the Fed., by the way, whilst the third was a supporter, as two newspaper articles from October, 1911, which may be read, prove. There is no evidence of any 'bomb.' Nor has the technology to lift a shattered wreck from 12,500 feet down ever existed. Have you watched a conspiracist video and simply swallowed it whole and unquestioningly? Unwise, as it makes you look such a fool.
    1
  21. No, it wasn't. That was a falsehood used to explain why a Titanic propeller was on a ship believed to be Titanic. The olny thing transferred from Titanic to Olympic was a part of a propeller shaft, in October/November, 1911. How is an insurance scam which could only claim back two thirds of the building costs a crafty scam. Not an accountant are you, I suspect?
    1
  22. What insurance ledgers?
    1
  23. Nonsense. Do you really believe that the ship would have sailed had there been such a fire? Unlike people of today, it seems, those long gone sailors were not stupid. There was indeed a small smouldering fire, caused by spontaneous combustion of wet coal. It was monitored, and efficiently dealt with, by the engineering staff, and had been extinguished around 24 hours before the collision, without causing any damage to any bulkhead. At lease, that was what witnesses at the Inquiry said. Perhaps you think you know better? You don't.
    1
  24. It was possible to determine that well before the myths were invented in the 1990s. The wreck is that of Titanic, and there was no insurance fraud.
    1
  25.  @eliel_360  Isn't it annoying constantly to be banging one's head against a wall of impenetrable stupidity?
    1
  26. Why?
    1
  27. No, they don't.
    1
  28. No, they didn't. The original crew actually mainly joined at Southampton. The crew which brought Titanic down from Belfast were Belfast men and the delivery crew. The crew aboard Titanic from Belfast to Southampton were (except for the deck officers) local operators (or "runners") who mostly worked on voyages that were made locally, and did this with a number of ships, not just Titanic. They would not be interested in the transatlantic route as it would mean not returning to Belfast or Southampton for several weeks. They would only be interested in shorter crossings. However Southampton, (which had replaced Liverpool as a major international hub) was where transatlantic liners such as what White Star and Cunard operated were based, and hence the crew based in Southampton were experienced, international crew. Incidentally, if they all knew of this strangely unsecret 'secret' plot, why did none of them ever mantion it after the sinking?
    1
  29. You must be easily shockable.
    1
  30. Actually, it is fully documented that the only part of Titanic transferred to Olympic was a section of propeller shaft, taken to speed up Olympic's repairs at a time when Titanic was months away from completion. Aside from the inconvenient fact that the blades of the propellers for the two ships were set at different pitches, the whole claim was conjured up after the number 401 had been detected on a blade at the wrecksite. Only in switcherworld could a Titanic propeller blade on Titanic's wreck be presented as proof that the ship was really Olympic!
    1
  31. There was no last minute insurance policy. Titanic, like Olympic, cost £1.5 million to build, and was insured for £1 million, which is what Lloyds paid out. Olympic was not damaged at the time. She had been repaired, and been back in service, since late November, 1911.
    1
  32. It appears that you believe the myth. The claim was never made by either owners nor builders.
    1
  33. A shame about the total lack of facts to support your nonsense, isn't it?
    1
  34. Yes, it was. Which other ship do you think that was?
    1
  35. You perhaps haven't looked at the state of the wreck. Or perhaps you are simply daft?
    1
  36. Nonsense. Morgan never intended to travel in Titanic, as he had an engagement in Venice, which was referenced in the newspapers in March. The claim of his 'treasures' being removed has never been substantiated. White Star were paid £1 million for a ship which cost them £1.5 million to build, and, of course, why would Lloyds have any part in a fraud which cost them £1 million? Still, I imagine you enjoyed the conspiracist video you watched and swallowed totally and unquestioningly, didn't you? Much easier thsn trying to think, I suppose.
    1
  37.  @konaken1035  Nonsense. Titanic's name, like Olympic's was engraved into the steelwork of the bows, and the only trace of a name ever found is that of Titanic. There was an amateurish CGI image which appeared from nowhere in 2000. It has no provenance, and no exploration team has every claimed it, or even referred to it. Olympic (please at least get the name right) had been in collision with a RN cruiser in September, 1911, but had been repaired and was back at sea by late November, 1911. All this is easily checkable, I wonder why you twerps don't bother. The myth about the three financiers opposing the Fed, dates from the mid 1990s. That too is easy to check, but I assume, once again, you couldn't be bothered.
    1
  38. No, 'they' didn't. Simply a myth.
    1
  39. Because the stern section is a mangled wreck, whereas the bow section is still recognisable.
    1
  40.  @eliel_360  Good try, but you will get nowhere with these people. They simply wish to believe in their conspiracy fantasy, and choose to ignore the host of facts against it.
    1
  41. An insurance claim which lost the company £500,000 and a reputation for safety. How does that work?
    1
  42. Oh dear. Did you enjoy the conspiracist video you swallowed whole? A pity there is precisely no evidence to support your nonsense, and vast amounts to debunk it.
    1
  43. If you actually believe that nonsense, perhaps it is as well you didn't say any more.
    1
  44.  @shaheemshakur6719  Amazing how, when people have no arguments, they immediately resort to insults instead. Well done for proving it.
    1
  45.  @Galatopia  I have seen comments on sites like YouTube saying things like the World is Flat, or Queen Elizabeth was a Lizard. The fact that idiots are able to comment doesn't make their comments any less idiotic.
    1
  46. THey do, and have more or less consistently since 1912. However, since conspiracists & switchers began inventing evidence-free myths in the 1990s, many gullible fools prefer them to the truth.
    1
  47. No, it won't, because she wasn't.
    1
  48. 'It’s crazy because a lot of people that survived said it was an explosion.' No, they didn't. A small number reported hearing 'rumblings,' probably caused by items breaking loose within the ship. A much larger number reported an iceberg, in any case.
    1
  49.  @AuPairChina  It looks like his posts have been removed? I wonder if the twerp who supported him would care to comment? How about it, garrison lad?
    1
  50. A 'single iceberg' which displaced around one billion tons.
    1