Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Scan of Titanic reveals wreck as never seen before - BBC News" video.

  1. Not rumours. Simply myths, dating from the mid 1990s.
    6
  2. You mean the sixteen port holes on Titanic's port side forward? Or the sixteen port holes on Olympic's port side forward, after she had been similarly modified? Well, I am convinced. That you are a fool, that is.
    5
  3.  @digitaal_boog  Ah, but you are missing the point. Switchers don't believe in evidence, they believe despite the evidence, simply because they want to.
    5
  4. Actually, all the data from 1911-1912, by which I mean documents, archives, records, and even photographs, is still readily available and easy to examine. You wouldn't wish to see it, of course, as it proves beyond any doubt at all that Titanic really is Titanic, and the switch theory, if I may dignify it with such a term, is arrant nonsense, dating from the mid 1990s. You really shouldn't swallow whole everything you see in switcher videos. It do rather make you look a fool when you do.
    4
  5. Odd that there were so many witnesses to the Iceberg then, isn't it? How do you explain that, mass hallucination? Oh, and the suggestion that the sinking was to facilitate the creation of the Fed. is a fantasy created in the mid 1990s. Two of the three supposed oppenents of it who died in the sinking, Astor & Guggenheim, had never expressed their opinions either way, whilst the third, Straus, was a supporter, and can be proven to be so by reference to reports of his speeches in newspaper articles from the period. Do feel free to try to prove me mistaken, of course.
    4
  6. What happened to the ship has been known since April, 1912.
    4
  7. Not in terms of today's cruise ships, but by 1912 standards she was enormous.
    4
  8. Whoever said people were either intelligent or wise?
    4
  9.  @Dizzy19.  Clearly, LMD Ashley has done many years of 'research.' Bear in mind that some of those switcher videos can be an hour long. Clearly placing significant demands on the attention spans of such 'experts.'
    4
  10.  @thegorn  'Plus the captain bet a small fortune that he was going to reach New York by a certain time so wanted to win a bag of cash.' I'm sure you must have an unimpeachable source which proves that claim? What? You haven't? What a pity.
    3
  11. It won't. It will merely show, in more detail, the condition of the wreck.
    3
  12. Why demonstrate your ignorance, when you could simply have read about the 'Middle Passage?'
    3
  13. We know you are silly. You don't need to tell us.
    3
  14.  @digitaal_boog  Unfortunately, things like that happen when refugees are loaded onto an auxiliary warship already carrying troops & U-boat crews.
    3
  15. Isn't it odd how any article about Titanic brings iniots like you out from under your rock?
    3
  16. 'Why would you blurt out such a nonsensical angle?' Because it keeps the story rolling. Frankly there is nothing more to learn, unless some previously unknown archive of personal material comes to light.
    3
  17. There were no locked gates to find.
    3
  18. What is it about Titanic which triggers idiots like you? Presumably you simply saw a switcher video and swallowed it whole? If Olympic (her real name, although you have clearly 'done your research') was scrap. how was it that she had been repaired and was back at sea from November 1911 onwards, when Titanic was months away from completion? You could easily have checked this for yourself, had you had the brains, couldn't you? Who were these '600 financiers' by the way?
    3
  19. Why would you want to sea them?
    3
  20. The iceberg didn't. The stresses on the structure as the ship's stern rose from the water did.
    3
  21.  @alialias3913  I really don't care what you think. How was it that no-one reported an explosion, yet many people reported the iceberg? Mass hallucination, perhaps?
    3
  22.  @MaryBrownIsTheBlairWitch  Admit what? Olympic was not badly damaged. She was repaired in around seven weeks by her builders, and was back at sea in late November, 1911. She then had a long and successful career as an ocean liner and troopship, even sinking a U-boat in WW1. Her nickname was 'Old Reliable.' Switchers have to invent a reason for the switch, and do it by making such claims. There is, of course, no evidence from contemporary records, or in Harland & Wolff's archives, to suggest such major damage. The claim itself was invented by an author in 1994/5 in order to sell a book. Even his co-author later denounced the book as a hoax.
    3
  23.  @JayFitNurse  Absolutely not. There is no credible evidence for the swap, and a vast quantity against it. The whole idea dates from a sensationalist book written in 1995.
    3
  24. Brilliant scam. Also called 'How to lose £500,000 in one easy lesson.'
    3
  25.  @johnm3845  'A fire was raging before it launched.' Really? A fire had been raging inside the ship for 11 months, for most of which Titanic had not even been coaled? 'They backed the ship in with the burnt black spot facing the ocean so it wasn't visible to people on shore.' Really? Then how do you explain the photograph which shows a mark on the forward part of Titanic's starboard side? The part nearest the quay? Moreover, how do you explain the fact that this mark is well above the waterline, and in the area of third class cabins, nowhere near any bunker? How do you explain away IMM regulations, which required daily inspection of coal bunkers? How do you explain evidence at The British Inquiry, which stated that a smouldering bunker fire had been identified and dealt with at least a day before the collision, causing damage to internal paintwork within the bunker only? As you cannot explain any of the above, try a simple question? If there was such a fire 'raging' as you describe it, why would a captain as experienced as Edward Smiith sail in the first place? 'I think this new 3d scan will reveal there was no iceberg damage.' Your comments suggest that you cannot think at all. The £D scans show precisely nothing which has not been seen many times before. 'I think they sacrificed the people on the Titan to cover the headlines about the new findings about what truly sunk it.' You should be ashamed of yourself for making so offensive a comment. Are you not even aware that Titan was a tourist vessel, not part of any exploration team? You really are beneath contempt.
    3
  26. You shouldn't watch switcher videos, swallow them whole, and then repeat them. It makes you look such a fool.
    3
  27. Sorry, but those of us who know, know that you don't know what you are talking about.
    3
  28. No, you don't.
    3
  29.  @Maximus-HK  Congratulations on selecting possibly the worst of a number of silly conspiracist & switcher videos as 'support' for your beliefs. Is that truly the extent of your 'research?' I can refer you to an excellent site which analyses the nonsensical claims in that video, but will stick to the porthole silliness for now :- This is one of the most popular pieces of 'evidence' of a switch but also the easiest to disprove. Quite simply, Titanic had 14 portholes on the port side C deck (bow) when launched, but in the following months she received 2 additional ones for better light and air, following recommendations for improvements following Olympic's early voyages. In fact both Olympic and Titanic were launched with 14 portholes on the port side forecastle on C-Deck and 15 portholes on the starboard side of the same area. However, in December 1911, during Titanic's fitting out, she had 2 added to light the crews galley and wash room which resulted in a total of 16 as seen in the maiden voyage photographs. Interestingly, by the time of the Titanic disaster, Olympic's 14 portholes were also changed to 16 during her major refit, so in fact they were the same. Hence post-Titanic-sinking images of Olympic also have this 16 porthole configuration Perhaps you aren't aware that, when Titanic was launched, she was basically a shell, and definitely a work in progress. After she was launched then she was 'fitted out' i.e. everything else was added. Ships were not launched in a finished state. Why do you think there was a nine months gap between launch & completion? This misunderstanding may be one of the reasons why this particular 'theory' holds fast despite its obvious answ According to Titanic researcher Ioannis Georgiou, "the two additional portholes on Olympic were added about March 1912 during her short stay in Belfast and before the maiden voyage of Titanic. So by April 1912 both ships had 16 portholes. (This is something I have noticed.)" By December 1911, Titanic was fitted with an additional 2 portholes, giving her a total of 16. Courtesy Steve Hall. Hall summarises the porthole historyas follows: "At the time of the Titanic's launch there were 14 portholes in the port side plating between the fo´c’sle deck and the sheer line of the hull, but by December the same year, the ship was fitted with an additional 2 portholes, giving her a total of 16. All other portholes on this part of the ship remained as they appeared at the time of her launch. Although the ship had 14, then later 16, portholes on the port side, she had 15 on her starboard side, and this number remained consistent throughout. The Olympic and the Britannic were also consistent on the starboard side, with 15 portholes. The Olympic, like the Titanic, was fitted originally with the same 14-porthole arrangement on the port side of her fo´c’sle, but 2 additional portholes were later fitted; they were there in March 1912. The Britannic, when launched, had 16 portholes, consistent with the later port side configuration of the Titanic and the Olympic." The evolution of Titanic's port side portholes -from May 1911 when she was launched with 14, to April 1912 when she had 16. There is nothing here that reveals a 'switch'. To give the spurious 'switch' claim more credibility than it deserves - if those behind the 'switch' were so clever so as to be able to switch absolutely everything aboard Olympic/Titanic as to include the numbers 400/401 etched onto the back of wooden panels in all the state rooms, then how is it they would overlook something as simple as the number of portholes on the outside of the ship? Oh, and the insurance scam. This would only have even the slightest credibility if Olympic had indeed been damaged beyond repair, but the fact is that she returned to Harland & Wolff and was repaired, and back at sea, by late November, 1911. Thus, White Star had, in April, 1912, two huge, state of the art, Atlantic liners available to them. At 1911-12 monetary values, both cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured with Lloyds for £1 million. Thus, when Titanic sank, and Lloyds duly paid out £1 million, White Star lost both £500,000 and their reputation for safety. I thought insurance scams were intended to make money, not lose it in large amounts? If you would like me to correct any more of your apparent misunderstandings, please feel free to ask.
    2
  30. Absolutely. A missile. Indeed. In 1912. Of course.
    2
  31.  @luckyjames2530  They couldn't. They were never intended to. The assumption at the time was that lifeboats did not represent a place of safety, but were a means of transferring people from a damaged vessel to a nearby one which had arrived to assist. Why do you find facts so difficult? I will try again. The British Board of Trade specified the minimum number of lifeboats an Olympic class liner should carry. Both Olympics exceeded that number. By 'cars' you must mean 'car.' Only one was loaded aboard Titanic, a 1912 Renault Type CB Coupé de Ville.
    2
  32.  @nobodyspecial4702  Certainly not the fastest. Thev turbine driven Lusitanias were at least 4-5 knots faster.
    2
  33. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free switcher video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    2
  34. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free switcher video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    2
  35. Amazing how many people still believe the myth that Titanic was ever called 'unsinkable' by anyone from H & W or White Star.
    2
  36. No. Simply one item among many which confirms the identity of the wreck.
    2
  37. Brilliant idea. A scam which costs the company £500,000 at 1912 monetary values. How does that work exactly?
    2
  38. Titanic wasn't that big when compared to modern cruise liners, but she was the biggest liner of her time.
    2
  39. Actually, there have been ten.
    2
  40. Perhaps you don't know that this was a myth invented in 1995, to sell a book? Or perhaps you are simply a gullible fool?
    2
  41. There were far more emigrants than 'wealthy' people aboard Titanic.
    2
  42. 1). A small bunker fire had been dealt with 24 hours or so before the collision, without damaging anything other than paint in the bunker. 2). The bulkheads went higher than Board of Trade requirements demanded. 3). Weather conditions helped make the iceberg less visible than it would normally have been. 4). Californian's operator switched off at the end of his shift, before Titanic collided with the iceberg. Titanic's stayed on duty until the end. 5). There was no such pressure. The Olympics were some 4-5 knots slower than the Lusitanias, so speed was irrelevant. 6). The same rivets served Olympic well for 23 years. 7). Binoculars were used to identify objects already spotted, Not as a means of spotting them. 8). Children were told the truth. If you have any other errors you would like me to correct for you,please feel free to let me know.
    2
  43. No, it hasn't. Quite the opposite in fact. Every suggestion of a swap can be disproven by a mountain of evidence.
    2
  44. Titanic, beyond any reasonable doubt.
    2
  45. No, because Titanic was always Titanic.
    2
  46. The BBC didn't produce the scans.
    2
  47.  @svezanovac2  What new evidence? All this shows is the current condition of the wreck.
    2
  48.  @svezanovac2  In 1912, the Germans didn't even have a U-boat with a diesel engine. Those in service had unreliable paraffin engines, and were only capable of operating at short range.
    2
  49. You mean to cover up the fact that Lloyds paid out £1 million, the full amount for which Titanic was insured, to the owners of a ship which cost £1.5 million to build? Or the rivets? The same rivets which served Olympic well for 23 years?
    2
  50. Mo. They are utter nonsense, spread by conspiracist extremists. Just don't ask them for any evidence, as it is a matter of faith with them, and evidence is irrelevant.
    2
  51. The depth of your knowledge, by which I mean how shallow it is, is astounding. Details on the wreck prove her identity as Titanic, and prove also that the wreck could not possibly be her sister. OLYMPIC, by the way.
    2
  52. Congratulations upon picking out possibly the daftest of the many daft conspiracist or switcher videos around. A totally fact free zone.
    2
  53.  @expattaffy1954  Hello Mr. Swithin. That is the problem with your dementia, isn't it? It doesn't reverse itself. Your photograph of Titanic in Belfast in 1912, just before completion, was very interesting, although widely available. But it is hardly Olympic in Jarrow in 1935, is it?
    2
  54.  @Tozzpot500  Don't waste your time. The poor old chap is demented, and deserves pity, not contempt. You might try to view his video, but everyone who makes any critical comment is immediately blocked.
    2
  55. 'Nameplate?' After 110 years on the sea bed, and with a hull covered in rusticles? No possible. Simply check the forward windows layout on photos. of 'B' deck, and the 401 number on the propeller. Both unique to Titanic and different from Olympic. That is more than enough evidence.
    2
  56. Well, we have been waiting for 110 years. Do you mean Astor & Guggenheim, who had remained silent about the Fed., or Straus, who was a supporter. I can prove the latter. Can you provide evidence to support your nonsense?
    2
  57. Did you enjoy the Switcher video you watched and swallowed whole? A pity about the total lack of supporting facts, of course.
    2
  58. Scrapped in the 1930s, although some of her fittings were auctioned off, and may still be seen.
    2
  59. Probably the same day 'they' announce that the earth is flat, and carried around on the backs of four Elephants. One is as believable as the other, after all.
    2
  60. No, but it might be able to detect the nam 'Titanic' on the bow.
    2
  61. An insurance scam which lost White Star £500,000 and their reputation for safety? How does that work, please?
    2
  62. Really? Who would have launched this torpedo, and where from?
    2
  63.  @bidensucks2922  Whyever not? It is such fun!
    2
  64. As 'they' didn't, no, no-one would have.
    2
  65. He was a lifelong teetoaller.
    2
  66. What makes you think black people were not allowed aboard Titanic?
    2
  67. Brilliant! Pay £1.5 million to build a ship, then sink it in order to claim £1 million from the insurers. Not an accountant, are you?
    2
  68. Relevance? How about this? 1902 - Boer War ended. 1 year later the first powered flight. Isn't that suspicious? Or, not?
    2
  69. Oh dear, yet another gullible fool who has watched a conspiracist video, and fallen hook line and sinker for a myth invented in the mid 1990s.
    2
  70. Olympic never had a 'bent keel' as the inspection report issued by the Royal Navy, and confirmed by teams from the Board of Trade & White Star, confirmed in November, 1911. The extent of the damage was summarised as :- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” The first claim of a bent keel arose in a book written in the mid 1990s by one Robin Gardiner. His co-author, Dan van der Vat, later dissociated himself from the book.
    2
  71. Which expeditions have made the sort of claim that identifies Titanic as Olympic? None that I know of. As for insurance, Titanic cost £1.5 million to build, but was insured for £1 million, which was what Lloyds paid. Incidentally, it seems that you are unaware that Morgan didn't scam anyone of anything after 31 March, 1913, When he died. You have watched a switcher video, clearly, and swallowed it whole. Very unwise, as repeating a myth invented in the mid 1990s does mark you look something of a berk!
    2
  72. I am astounded by the depth of your knowlesge. By which I mean, how shallow it is.
    2
  73. Compared to today's cruises liners she was. But by the standards of 1911-2, the Olympics were huge.
    2
  74. 'No detail?' You mean apart from the layout of the windows at the forward end of 'B' deck, unique to Titanic, or the propeller blade with the build number 401 (Titanic) on it?
    2
  75. Had you actually done any research, instead of simply being a berk, you would not have referred to 'Columbia.'
    2
  76. Oh dear. Another gullible twerp who watched a switcher video and swallowed it whole.
    2
  77. Where from, and why?
    2
  78. Perhaps you don't know that this was a myth invented in 1995, to sell a book? Or perhaps you are simply a gullible fool?
    2
  79. Nonsense. 'Titanic' means, according to my dictionary, 'of exceptional strength, size, or power.' Not that the designer named the ship anyway, of course.
    2
  80. No, it isn't. Why do you feel the need to believe in a myth invented in the mid 1990s by an author eager to sell his book?
    2
  81. Nonsense. Don't believe everything you see in switcher videos, especially when they are fact free zones.
    2
  82. Yes, so terribly designed that her sister was a successful and popular liner for 23 years, in peace & war.
    2
  83.  @nr12345  Whereas apparently your information is derived entirely from Google. Titanic was constructed in order to survive with four compartments compromised. The collision affected five, or possibly six. The damage was far beyond anything which could have been anticipated. You might as well accuse Leonard Peskett for designing a flawed design because he did not incorporate anti-torpedo bulkheads into the Mauretanias. Howwever, 'You cant even get the Britannic history correct. It performed only marginally better than the Titanic, it didn't last even 4 years before it sank and killed more people but feel free to believe it lasted 23 years, lmao.' I didn't realise that you were a qualified idiot until I read that comment. Presumably, you have never heard of RMS Olympic? Look her up on Google, which appears to be your only source of information. Then just go away, you fool.
    2
  84. When you 'connected the dots' did you use a crayon because your carers won't let you get hold of anything sharp?
    2
  85. Amazing how any reference to Titanic brings out idiots like you. Presumably you watched a switcher video and swallowed it whole? 1). There were three major financiers aboard Titanic. Astor & Guggenheim had never commented on the Fed., whilst Straus was a supporter. This is actually supported by two newspaper articles reporting a speech he made in October, 1911. 2). Olympic had been fully repaired and was back on her Atlantic run for late November, 1911. 3). White Star ships had their names engraved in the hull, not painted on. If any exploration team had made any such discovery, why would they keep it a secret, as any media outlet in the world would have sold the family silver for the exclusive? The fact is, the 'O' you refer to does not exist. 4). The pattern of windows at the forward end of the wreck matches the modified pattern applied to Titanic, and differs significantly from Olympic's pattern at the same period. 5). What about the windows? Titanic had sixteen portholes forward on her port side, after two extra had been added during building. The Olympic of the same period had the original fourteen, until two more were added during refit. What do you think that proves?
    2
  86. Really? Despite the total lack of any evidence to suggest that a swap was even possible?
    2
  87. The conspiracy theory is a myth, invented by an author in the mid 1990s. Similarly, the bunker fire had no effect on the bulkheads.
    2
  88. No.
    2
  89.  @lindarogers8994  Using lol is unwise, as it tends to suggest a lack of intelligence. There is precisely no evidence to support your contention, and a vast quantity which proves it false. I assume you watched a switcher video & swallowed it whole?
    2
  90. The three financiers were Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. The first two had never expressed their views about the Fed., whilst the third supported the idea. You should not believe a myth invented in the mid 1990s. Simply do a fact checker to determine the truth.
    2
  91.  @ascendantindigo271  So what you are actually saying is that any fact which proves you fantasy wrong must be a false fact, simply because it proves your fantasy wrong? As original approach, if not entirely a sane one. Out of interest, here is a Statement I came across fro Reuters. I reproduce it here as it parallels more or less exactly the findings of my own delvings into the matter over many years as a maritime historian. It does not, however, mention that this myth was created in the mid 1990s. "A widely-shared meme has taken several facts about the Titanic out of context to make unsubstantiated claims that  imply the ship’s sinking was a deliberate act. This is not true – experts widely agree the sinking of the Titanic was an accident.   The meme was posted to Facebook  and has been shared many times. It consists of two images: one of the ship and a second of American financier John Pierpoint (J.P.) Morgan. These sit alongside a wall of text that suggests Morgan had motive to sink the Titanic because it was hosting three powerful people who opposed his idea for a centralised banking system, ie: the U.S. Federal Reserve. The post reads:- “DID YOU KNOW? The man who funded the building of the titanic, J. P. Morgan, cancelled his long-awaited journey just hours before its proposed departure,” the meme reads. “3 of the wealthiest men on earth, whom (sic) were against the creation of the federal reserve bank, happened to be invited aboard for its maiden voyage (John Aster, Isador Strauss & Benjamin Guggenheim). “It then headed full speed into a known iceberg-field, with less than half the required lifeboats, no red signal flares, no Rothschild or Rockefeller on board, and sank to the bottom of the north Atlantic Ocean. Less than a year later, now that the wealthy opposition was out of the way, the federal reserve was created and USA was turned into an incorporated business, with its own business ID number, ’28 U.S.C. 3002 15.” J.P MORGAN CLAIMS  While it is true that J.P. Morgan owned the Titanic and did not sail on its doomed maiden voyage, there is no evidence to suggest he deliberately missed the trip because he knew the ship would sink. Historians have debated several reasons for Morgan to cancel his trip, but none is related to the Federal Reserve. “I've never been able to find an authoritative 1912 source explaining the exact reason why J. P. Morgan cancelled his passage on the Titanic, but he definitely didn't do so mere ‘hours’ before the ship's departure,” Titanic expert George Behe said in an email to Reuters.  Meanwhile, Don Lynch, a historian at the Titanic Historical Society (THS), said: “One of J.P. Morgan's biographers said that France was changing its laws to prevent Americans from exporting art treasures from that country, so Morgan went to Paris to oversee getting his purchases out of the country before the new laws went into effect.”   Also from THS, advisory board member Ray Lepien, said that as well as the art treasures theory, “the ‘official’ explanation was that he (Morgan) fell ill and wanted to take the ‘cure’ at a spa in France with his mistress.” Lepien added: “It could have been both reasons.”  STRAUS, ASTOR AND GUGGENHEIM’S OPINIONS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE PROPOSAL  While it is also true that Isidor Straus, Macy’s Department store owner; John Jacob Astor, a property tycoon, and Benjamin Guggenheim, a mining boss, died in the 1912 disaster, there is no evidence to suggest they were the target of deliberate sabotage. There is also no evidence that these three men were against Morgan’s centralised banking ideas.  Firstly, Titanic’s maiden voyage had attracted many prominent names, and was dubbed the “Millionaire’s Special” as a result.  Secondly, George Behe told Reuters he was unable to find any documents in his 45 years of researching the Titanic that proved the three men opposed the Federal Reserve. In fact, a Washington Post investigation found that while Astor and Guggenheim did not take a public stance on the matter, Straus reportedly spoke in favour of the proposal.
    2
  92. Nonsense. Do you think people in 1912 were as stupid as some are today? Do you think that when Titanic's chief engineer reported the fire to Captain Smith, Smith said 'Never mind, we'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What can possibly go wrong?' Actually, there was a smouldering fire, caused by spontaneous combustion of damp coal, in one of 19 bunkers. It was extinguished 24 hours or more before the collision, without damaging the bulkheads. at least, not according to witnesses at the British Inquiry, that is.
    2
  93. You watched the wrong video. No Titanic propeller was ever fitted to Olympic, although part of a propeller shaft was, in order to get Olympic back to sea as quickly as possible. Titanic at the time (November, 1911) was months away from completion, which meant that a replacement shaft section could be manufactured for her. The supposed images of Olympic's name under that of Titanic are poor quality CGI fakes. They first saw the light of day in around 2000. They have no provenance, and no expedition has either claimed them or even referred to them. Different colours were not used for the two ships. Olympic, the first of the class, was painted in white (or light grey) because Cunard's Mauretania had been similarly painted at the time of her launch a few years earlier, and had shown up well in newsreel footage. White Star simply followed suit, after which Olympic was repainted in black before entering service. Both Olympic & Titanic had base coats of primer. Do not simply believe the things you see in switcher videos.
    2
  94. Nothing much to say. Titanic's number on Titanic's propeller. That's all.
    2
  95. In the real world, everyone knows that it is. You should try visiting the real world, as it is an interesting place.
    2
  96.  @johnsmith-rs2vk  It appears that your attempt to insult another commentator rather lost credibility when you demonstrated your inability to spell the word 'stupid.' Unless 'stuid' means something to you unknown to the world at large?
    2
  97.  @johnsmith-rs2vk  It did the job, though, didn't it? You have deleted your two word, wrongly spelled, insult, I observe,
    2
  98. Both ships cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. White Star received £1 million from Lloyds when Titanic sank.
    2
  99. Would you like me to send you details of a factchecker site which proves with an idiotic comment that is?
    2
  100. No, there weren't.
    2
  101. FUN FACT: Bruce Ismay, or indeed anyone at the time, never said anything of the sort.
    2
  102. Sorry, but simply not true.
    2
  103. Not really. The first German boat with a diesel engine, U 19, only commissioned in 1913. Previous boats had unreliable paraffin engines, and were unsuitable for anything other than short range voyages.
    2
  104. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free switcher video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    2
  105. Yes. Look at the windows, and especially the forward end of 'B' deck. Symptomatic of the modified Titanic windows, and different from the Olympic's window pattern in 1912.
    2
  106. Because the stern imploded during the sinking process, whereas the bow, which had filled with water, didn't. A few survivors claimed to have heard 'rumblings' rather than explosions, possibly pieces of machinery breaking loose. However, the vast majority reported the iceberg.
    2
  107. Watch it, indeed. Then actually check the claims, and be shocked to discover that it is nothing but nonsense and falsehoods.
    2
  108. Ocean liners continued to be built, generally larger, ending with Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth, etc. With the later widspread availability of air travel, cruise ships, much larger than the Olympics were, and continue to be built instead.
    2
  109.  @bottomrung5777  'A pic of her leaving Port had a close up of the coal bin area and it was quite dark. Actually, the picture of what appears to be a smudge, is well above the waterline and well forward of the bunker which was affected. Moreover, it is in the vicinity of the third class accommodation. As far as I know, no third class survivors ever reported seeing anyone burned alive. Do try to think. Had there really been an serious fire at all, would the captain, officers, & crew have sailed? They were White Star employees, not members of a crazed suicide cult.
    2
  110.  @bottomrung5777  Where did I use the phrase 'foregone conclusion' out of interest? I have stated proven facts. If you think I haven't, please show me where. As your first post read 'If the decision was to embark knowing the fire would destroy the hull causing catastrophic failure, then mass murder was committed to benefit from an insurance payout rather than abort the voyage leaving many aristocrats upset and having to do major repairs or even trashing the Titanic before it's first voyage,' you are hardly in any position to suggest that anyone else 'take it easy.'
    2
  111. Oh dear. Another fan of switcher videos. Olympic had been repaired by late November, 1911, and back on her Atlantic run since then. The claim from insurance following her accident was because she was deemed at fault, although in the charge of Solent Pilot. That was water under the bridge, and Olympic was fully insured when she returned to sea in November, 1911. J.P. Morgan did not 'jump ship.' He never intended to board, as he intended to attend an event at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April. This intention had already been announced in a newspaper in March, 1912, and the announcement may still be read. The supposed opponents of the Fed. have never been demonstrated to have been anything of the sort. Straus had publicly announce his support, again in newspaper articles which may still be read, whilst Astor & Guggenheim had never spoken about their views. Read Robin Gardiner's book, certainly. Just check every false 'fact' proclaimed within it.
    2
  112.  @Qskeeee-Q  Ever thought of trying to communicate in some form of known language?
    2
  113. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic as he had a prior appointment in Venice at St. Mark's. It was actually in the newspapers in March, 1912. The Federal Reserve myth was invented in the 1990s. Did you enjoy the conspiracist video you swallowed whole?
    2
  114. You refer to a smouldering fire in one of 19 bunkers? Already being addressed by the engineers & stokers, and extinguished some 24 hours before the collision? The fire which damaged nothing except paintwork inside the bunker? That fire?
    2
  115. You mean where the name Titanic was still faintly visible?
    2
  116. The damage was below the waterline and is not visible. Nothing funny about it.
    2
  117. No. H & W records say three. Olympic had four, and H & W were trying an alternative to see which configuration was more efficient. Olympic was later fitted with a three blade prop. for a time, befor switching back to four. Britannic had four from the state, so the evidence must have favoured a four bladed centre prop.
    2
  118. It was on the Hull of RMS Olympic until she was scrapped in the 1930s.
    2
  119. Don't be an idiot. Bombed with what, and from what? A black ops Wright Flyer, perhaps?!
    2
  120. Indeed, Titanic's eminent older sister. She had a long and illustrious career before being scrapped in the 1930s when White Star & Cunard were merged.
    2
  121.  @stephenbate933  Brilliant! Pay £1.5 million to build a ship, then claim back £1 million when it sinks. Thus, you lose £500,000, as well as your record for safety. Who came up with that one? Baldrick from Blackadder?
    2
  122. No, he didn't. You have a source for you claim? No, of course you don't.
    2
  123. Presumably you are very young, very stupid, or very gullible. Perhaps a combination of these three?
    2
  124. Idiot.
    2
  125.  @eliel_360  After a while, I begin to feel a degree of sympathy for these people. They watch a switcher video or two, pronounce themselves instant authorities on the subject, but run for the hills when presented with actual facts. It seems to be an issue of faith, not one of knowledge.
    2
  126. They won't, because there was no explosion and Titanic was not Olympic.
    2
  127. No, it wasn't sabotage.
    2
  128. 'Those who know.' You mean those who look at the actual evidence, and not at half-baked switcher videos, and know that Titanic sank in 1912, whereas Olympic was scrapped in the early 1930s? Those people?
    2
  129. Astor & Guggenheim never expressed their opinions about the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus was known to be a supporter. You have been fooled by a myth created in the mid 1990s.
    2
  130. They disappeared long ago.
    2
  131.  @Twiddlers  Olympic had the original, square, evenly spaced windows of the original design. Titanic had been modified with extra cabins and a cafe, resulting in an uneven pattern of rectangular windows in the same location. The same pattern as can be seen on the wreck.
    2
  132. Of course not. The images, however interesting, simply record the current condition of a 110 year old shipwreck. Anyone who suggests anything more is simply misleading people.
    2
  133.  @eyeamgod2734  Seriously, don't be a fool? Titanic is only where she is because she sank in the first place. She is in several pieces, and is 13,000 feet down. Had she sunk last week, modern technology wouldn't be able to raise her. How could Lloyds claim anything back in any case, as the ship did sink, didn't it? You cannot possibly be as stupid as you present yourself as being, surely?
    2
  134. Instead of googling, why not read a few facts about Titanic, to disabuse yourself of this strange delusion?
    2
  135. Yes dear, of course we do. Now take your medication and stop annoying normal folk.
    2
  136. Swallowed the 1990s myth on the switcher videos, have you? How saidly naive.
    2
  137.  @djp1lly830  What we actually know is that Olympic was returned to Harland & Wolff in Belfast, fully repaired in about seven weeks, then returned to service in late November, 1911, when Titanic was still several months away from completion. By the way, Olympic was not on trials, she had been in service since June, and was setting off for New York. Although White Star lost their claim in court, they were not required to pay for HMS Hawke's repairs either. At the time, they were a very successful & profitable company, as demonstrated by the fact that, at the time Olympic was being repaired, they also ordered the third Olympic, RMS Britannic, from Harland & Wolff. I have never understood why people who claim a switch are blissfully unaware of the fact that this nonsensical claim dates from 1995, or that they cannot be bothered to find out the actual facts for themselves.
    2
  138. Oh look! An idiot. The name 'Olympia' has never been seen on the Titanic. Her sister was actually called Olympic, by the way. 14 tons of coal? Another demonstration of idiocy. The Olympics burned 600-800 tons of coal per day. 'little cargo & no pasengers.' Apart from 3,500 bags of mail and 750 packages bound for the United States. Also headed to America was a vast array of goods, including five grand pianos, 1,500 bottles of wine, 800 cigars and 50 cases of toothpaste. That is a sample, not a complete list. Not bad for a ship which was not primarily a cargo carrier. Oh, and 1316 passengers. I fear you are either very young or very stupid. Or both, perhaps?
    2
  139.  @oliverpohlproductions8291  No need to prowl. There are hordes of them!
    2
  140. Certainly deserves a mention. 'Old Reliable' was a successful liner for 23 years, in peace and war. Even sinking a U Boat in WW1. Much mourned when she was scrapped.
    2
  141. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free switcher video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    2
  142.  @digitaal_boog  Maximus rather gave himself away when he referred to 'Titanic - The Shocking Truth', probably the worst of a whole host of inept switcher & conspiracist videos, supposedly on the subject. It seems that these people view one of those videos, swallow it whole, and appoint themselves 'experts.' Much easier, I suppose, than actually finding out a few facts.
    1
  143.  @digitaal_boog  To be honest, I have always felt some sympathy for the presenter, who seems to look in desperate need of a good feed! Perhaps he made it in exchange for a three course meal?
    1
  144. The condition of the wreck should make that obvious.
    1
  145.  @ifixboats5066  Would your ten men have had time to rebuild the forward end of 'A' deck, fitting the extra cabins and the cafe, and altering the window pattern? How long would it have taken them partly to enclose 'A' deck, as well? These features are well known from images of the wreck, and are unique to Titanic. The Olympic of 1912 had the original pattern 'B' deck windows, and retained an open 'A' deck. in 1912. Oh, and how do you explain the further inconvenient (to you) fact that furniture sold off when Olympic was scrapped, and in use to this day in the 'Olympic Restaurant' in the White Star hotel in Alnwick, has the Harland & Wolff build number, 400, marked on it, whilst no piece yet found bears the number 401? Did your ten men have time to change all those as well?
    1
  146.  @ifixboats5066  Oh? I see you have no actual answer, then?
    1
  147. Presumably God didn't have a similar problem with her sister, Olympic, or with the many much larger ships which followed?
    1
  148.  @wdsththeal6846  White Star did not formally 'christen' any of their ships. Olympic had a long & illustrious career. She was not christened either. By the way, no one from either Harland & Wolff, nor White Star, ever made the 'unsinkable' claim. It is simply a myth which, paradoxically, came into being after the sinking.
    1
  149. They never did in the first place.
    1
  150. Stop posting switcher nonsense, presumably based on you unquestioning acceptance of a switcher video or two. I am, however impressed by the depth of your knowledge. By which I mean how shallow it is. Titanic's older sister, the ship with an illustrious 23 year career, was named OLYMPIC.
    1
  151. Nonsense. That is a myth invented in the 1990s, with no supporting evidence. Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?
    1
  152. 'It's amazing that the inquiry and strong evidence of there being fires in the coal stores on board the Titanic before departing Southampton, are never really spoken of, even now!?' They are, frequently. However, there is no evidence to suggest that a bunker fire harmed the bulkhead structure of the ship, and the fire itself had been extinguished 24 hours before the collision.
    1
  153.  @jemmace2586  I don't recall discounting anything or, indeed, commenting on the video at all. I simply posted to correct your erroneous claim about the fire.
    1
  154.  @jemmace2586  'I know all about the blue ribbon record's, doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.' What you apparently don't know is that the Blue Riband was never a possibility. The Lusitanias were turbine driven & four to five knots faster. You should read the comments made by several liner captains & Master Mariners at the British Inquiry. All agreed with Smith's actions, of changing to a more southerly course and alerting his lookouts. They confirmed that they would have acted in a similar manner. You haven't actually read the minutes, of course. Have you?
    1
  155.  @jemmace2586  go away. Eronius haha. I have never understood why people like you feel the need to comment when your actual knowledge is superficial at best. Perhaps you might explain?
    1
  156. 'Do the research.' Odd how people who say this are invariably the ones who have done the least themselves, isn't it? I assume you have watched a switcher video or two, and pronounced yourself an instant expert? 1). Olympic had been fully repaired and returned to her Atlantic duties by late November, 1911, when Titanic was months away from completion. 2). Both ships cost £1.5 million to build. Both were insured for £1 million. Thus, the loss of Titanic cost White Star £500,000 and their safety record. 3). There is no evidence that wo of the three bankers who died opposed the Fed., whilst there is considerable evidence that the third supported it. I assume your switcher videos didn't mention any of the above?
    1
  157.  @Beesechurgerplease  All any scan would prove would be what photos. have already proven, which is that the wreck is indisputably that of Titanic, despite the fantasies of idiots determined to believe a nonsensical myth invented in 1995.
    1
  158. How were God' affairs medelled?
    1
  159. 'The titanic sank because it was overloaded.' Oh dear! Passenger capacity First class: 735 Second class: 674 Third class: 1026 Crew: 885 Total :- 3320. Losses 815 passengers 688 crew 712 survivors. Total :- 2215 Overloaded?? She was two thirds full.
    1
  160. 'This actually makes so much sense!' Only if you are profoundly ignorant of any actual facts, I fear.
    1
  161.  @luckyjames2530  No, she didn't. Why do you people feel the need to posts outright lies, rather than simply accept your errors?
    1
  162.  @luckyjames2530  She carried 20 lifeboats. Which was more than the Board of Trade required, and had nothing to do with the number of passengers she actually carried. Just look at any responsible site to confirm what I have said, for Heaven's sake.
    1
  163.  @luckyjames2530  'The facts were after the accident, to cover the truth and coarse the insurance people to pay, my friend, we are talking about money, money that would be running upwards of 1b dollars in today's money.' No, mon brave. You are talking about money. I am writing about known facts. You don't actually have any real knowledge ot the subject, do you?
    1
  164.  @luckyjames2530  'consult the Wikipedia.' You use Wikipedia? That explains a lot. I simply stick to known and accurate facts. You should try it.
    1
  165.  @luckyjames2530  'you forgot to add the automobiles.' Don't you mean 'the autombile?' The single one that was aboard Titanic. Not that it was relevant to anything at all.
    1
  166.  @luckyjames2530  Yey anyone whjo wishes, however wrongly informed, can contribute to it. That is why I base my comments on archives, records, fact, and the minutes of the Inquiries, rather then the fantasies of poorly informed people.
    1
  167. Nonsense.
    1
  168. By the standards of modern cruise ships, the Olympics were comparatively small. But, at the time they were built, they were huge.
    1
  169. ' Did you know the coal room was on fire when it left Belfast? ' No, it wasn't. ' Did you know that JP Morgan had booked a room on the ship but changed his mind at the last minute to stay with his 17 year old mistress? ' No he didn't. He had an engagement in Venice, at St. Mark's, which ment he could never have sailed. It was actually in newspapers from March 1912.
    1
  170. @ko7577 Californian was close enough to see Titanic's socket signals.
    1
  171. After all this time, no there aren't.
    1
  172. Feel free to fund it yourself.
    1
  173.  @Blablablabla1ify  Because after recent events, a 'snarky' comment is the least you deserve.
    1
  174.  @Blablablabla1ify  I simply pointed out that your suggestion would come at a considerable cost, both financial, and possibly personal. If you can't grasp that, then no wonder you get upset by having it pointed out.
    1
  175. Really? you can tell that from images of a ship which sany over 110 years ago? You must be very clever. Or you have simply watched a conspiracist video and swallowed it unquestioningly? My money is on the latter.
    1
  176.  @hughlevett-yeats401 'No...potato head!..You just don't have the info!' Where did you get this drivel from? A switcher video, perhaps? Olympic in 1912 retained her original layout, Titanic had been modified during building. The forward section of 'A' deck had been enclosed, whilst the forward end of 'B' deck had been modified to include extra cabins and a Cafe Parisien, resulting in a different window pattern when compared with Olympic. The same window pattern, subsequently found on the wreck, by the way. The 'useless' Olympic had experienced neither fire nor structural issues. She had been involved in a low (8 knots) collision with a RN cruiser, HMS Hawke, but had been repaired and been back at sea since late November, 1911. When, incidentally, Titanic was still five months away from completion. She was, of course, fully certified by the Board of Trade, and insured with Lloyds for £1 million. She was actually en route from New York for Southampton when Titanic sank. No propeller was changed, 'huge' or otherwise. The 1911 Inspection Report, from the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, & White Star, confirmed damage to a propeller SHAFT, and parts from the incomplete Titanic's shaft were fitted to speed up repairs. The propeller swap was simply invented by your switcher friends to explain why a Titanic propeller was discovered on Titanic's wreck. Your imaginary rivetted name is simply that. A dodgy image appeared from nowhere in around 2000. It has no provenance, and no exploration team has either claimed it, nor even acknowledged it. Perhaps because it is so amateurish? When the creator of the myth, Robin Gardiner, himself denounced it as fake, you are on seriously dodgy ground. As to insurance, each Olympic was insured for £1 million, or two thirds of the building cost for each ship. £1 million is what Lloyds paid out. I, by the way, have the information, which doesn't involve switcher videos. If you believe this nonsense, then if you allege stupidity, you might look closer to home?
    1
  177.  @hughlevett-yeats401  'Do you think one of the biggest financial insurance frauds wasn't covered in minute detail by the owners of the White Star Line?..huge rich and powerful people! ' Do try to understand. The ship cost £1.5 million to build, and was insured for £1 million. Thus, this brilliant insurance fraud lost White Star £500,000 as well as their reputation for safety. Who do you think thought it up? The directors of Cunard, perhaps?
    1
  178. Well, Astor & Guggenheim never expressed opposition to the Fed., whilst Straus supported it. Still, don't the fact that these claims were invented in the mid 1990s spoil your fantasy.
    1
  179. It is only so claimed by people who either do not wish to know the facts, or are simply ignorant of them.
    1
  180. The captain said nothing of the sort. Nor did the builders or White Star. Do you really believe God is so callous and ill-informed?
    1
  181. No one was 'locked up.' At least, notb according to the testimonies of third class survivors.
    1
  182.  @tommurphy4307  You mean just like Olympic, Mauretania, Aquitania, Queen Mary, & Queen Elizabeth. Some of the finest & most successful Atlantic liners ever built?
    1
  183.  @andreabrindesi6526  You mean like 'The ships were swapped' or 'It was an insurance scam?' Indeed, these fictions are disrespectful to the dead.
    1
  184. Nonsense. You really should not simply watch switcher videos, however entertaining they might be, and swallow them whole. It makes you look such a fool when you repeat from them things which have long ago been proven false.
    1
  185. You must be really sad that there is not a single shred of evidence to support your naive belief in a myth invented in the mid 1990s.
    1
  186. No Titanic propeller was ever fitted to Olympic, although parts of a shaft were.
    1
  187. Did you enjoy the conspiracist video you watched, and swallowed whole and unquestioningly, then? A shame about the total lack of supporting evidence for your nonsense, isn't it?
    1
  188. Damn! TombWraith beat me to the answer. Try, however, looking up your nonsense on any factchecker site.
    1
  189. This might interest you. A statement from Reuters referring to the nonsense people like you post :- A widely-shared meme has taken several facts about the Titanic out of context to make unsubstantiated claims that imply the ship’s sinking was a deliberate act. This is not true – experts widely agree the sinking of the Titanic was an accident.  The meme was posted to Facebook  and has been shared many times. It consists of two images: one of the ship and a second of American financier John Pierpoint (J.P.) Morgan. These sit alongside a wall of text that suggests Morgan had motive to sink the Titanic because it was hosting three powerful people who opposed his idea for a centralised banking system, ie: the U.S. Federal Reserve. The text reads :- “DID YOU KNOW? The man who funded the building of the titanic, J. P. Morgan, cancelled his long-awaited journey just hours before its proposed departure,” the meme reads. “3 of the wealthiest men on earth, whom (sic) were against the creation of the federal reserve bank, happened to be invited aboard for its maiden voyage (John Aster, Isador Strauss & Benjamin Guggenheim).  “It then headed full speed into a known iceberg-field, with less than half the required lifeboats, no red signal flares, no Rothschild or Rockefeller on board, and sank to the bottom of the north Atlantic Ocean. Less than a year later, now that the wealthy opposition was out of the way, the federal reserve was created and USA was turned into an incorporated business, with its own business ID number, ’28 U.S.C. 3002 15.” J.P MORGAN CLAIMS  While it is true that J.P. Morgan owned the Titanic and did not sail on its doomed maiden voyage, there is no evidence to suggest he deliberately missed the trip because he knew the ship would sink. Historians have debated several reasons for Morgan to cancel his trip, but none is related to the Federal Reserve.  “I've never been able to find an authoritative 1912 source explaining the exact reason why J. P. Morgan cancelled his passage on the Titanic, but he definitely didn't do so mere ‘hours’ before the ship's departure,” Titanic expert George Behe said in an email to Reuters.  Meanwhile, Don Lynch, a historian at the Titanic Historical Society (THS), said: “One of J.P. Morgan's biographers said that France was changing its laws to prevent Americans from exporting art treasures from that country, so Morgan went to Paris to oversee getting his purchases out of the country before the new laws went into effect.”    Also from THS, advisory board member Ray Lepien, said that as well as the art treasures theory, “the ‘official’ explanation was that he (Morgan) fell ill and wanted to take the ‘cure’ at a spa in France with his mistress.” Lepien added: “It could have been both reasons.”  STRAUS, ASTOR AND GUGGENHEIM’S OPINIONS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE PROPOSAL  While it is also true that Isidor Straus, Macy’s Department store owner; John Jacob Astor, a property tycoon, and Benjamin Guggenheim, a mining boss, died in the 1912 disaster, there is no evidence to suggest they were the target of deliberate sabotage. There is also no evidence that these three men were against Morgan’s centralised banking ideas.  Firstly, Titanic’s maiden voyage had attracted many prominent names, and was dubbed the “Millionaire’s Special” as a result.  Secondly, George Behe told Reuters he was unable to find any documents in his 45 years of researching the Titanic that proved the three men opposed the Federal Reserve. In fact, a Washington Post investigation found that while Astor and Guggenheim did not take a public stance on the matter, Straus reportedly spoke in favour of the proposal.
    1
  190.  @driftwood8613  'No it doesn't.' Perhaps you are unaware that the blades of the Olympics were not cast with the propeller boss, but bolted on. The pitches of Olympic & Titanic were set at slightly different pitches. Consequently, the yard number of the ship was cast into the individual blades. Do explain how the cast number 401 (Titanic) on the blade on the wrecksite is not proof of the identity of the wreck.
    1
  191.  @driftwood8613  I agree that dishes, furniture, etc., did not have the yard number on them, as they weregeneral to White Star ships. However, large items such as propeller blades did. Moreover, panelling etc., was marked up as appropriate to each ship. As a result, when Olympic was scrapped, and many of her interior fitments auctioned off. many of these bore the number 400 on the reverse. A number of these, still marked 400 to this day, may be viewed in the Olympic restaurant of the Whit Swan hotal in Alnwick. Fascinatingly, no item marked 401 has yet come to light. Perhaps you would care to explain this oddity?
    1
  192.  @djp1lly830  Brilliant! Pay £1.5 million to build a ship, then sink it in order to claim £1 million from the insurers. Not an accountant, are you?
    1
  193. Perhaps some were. However, not aboard RMS Titanic.
    1
  194. 50,000 tons. Massive, in 1912 terms.
    1
  195. Please stop posting sensible comments. The fools on here, by and large, don't want sensible comments. They simply want to believe in the conspiracist fantasies which they mindlessly repeat.
    1
  196. They knew where Titanic was, unlike MH370.
    1
  197. Indeed. You mean Astor & Guggenheim, whose actual opinions were never expressed? Or Straus, who was on record as a supporter of the Fed? You have fallen for a myth dating from the 1990s.
    1
  198. Her own, with her build number on it.
    1
  199. No one said that.
    1
  200.  @masonpyle5929  I am sure you will be able to peovide an impeccable source for that claim?
    1
  201.  @Alfred5555  No. It is an invented myth from the 1990s.
    1
  202. No, there wasn't. Don't believe the fact-free nonsense you see in switcher videos. Oh dear. In your case, it seems, too late.
    1
  203. 'Capt Smith was influenced by J Bruce Ismay to speed thru the night knowing how difficult it would be to see the icebergs! It was his retirement voyage.' There is no proof that Ismay influenced Smith in this manner. Indeed, the only overheard comment made by him was that Titanic was making better time that Olympic had. It is possible that Smith, as White Star's senior captain, intended to retire after taknig Britannic on her maiden voyage. Binoculars would have made no difference, except possibly delaying the warning by a few seconds. The norm at the time was that lookouts reported sightings, and Bridge Officers with binoculars determined what they were. Olympic was built using the same materials, and was a successful liner for 23 years. 'Turning the ship away from the iceberg was another fatal mistake they should have hit it head on !' Easy to say in retrospect, but do you really believe a ship's officer would allow a collision, when a swift helm change might have avoided one completely? 'Originally scheduled to have 40 + lifeboats on board which was later reduced to only 16 by ismay.' Not true. Alexander Carlisle's evidence was that he designed the Olympics to be able to carry 48 lifeboats, in the event that the Board of Trade changed their regulations. However, as they didn't, the ships were equipped with 20, actually more than regulations demanded. There is precisely no evidence that Ismay or any other White Star official interfered in the design process.
    1
  204. No. Far too fragile and far too broken up.
    1
  205. Astor never expressed any opinion about the Federal Reserve. At least, he didn't until one was invented for him by conspiracists in the mid 1990s.
    1
  206.  @peterbarton9856  If you don't know anything about the subject, why bother posting at all? Insults are a poor substitute for facts, old chap.
    1
  207.  @peterbarton9856  Fair enough. It appeared in my personal inbox, which is why I assumed it was aimed at me. It clearly wasn't, and I apologise.
    1
  208. No, no-one did. At least, no one from H ^ W or White Star.
    1
  209. Look at the images. That should explain the reason.
    1
  210. Fascinating how people like you urge others to 'Do your own research' when you have obviously done none at all yourself.
    1
  211. Apart from the statements of most survivors, you mean?
    1
  212. Perhaps you missed the news? We have known that since April 1912.
    1
  213.  @svezanovac2  What, if not Titanic, do you think the wreck is? AQ mass hallucination?
    1
  214.  @svezanovac2  This is going round in circles. 3D studies will shed no light at all on events behind the sinking.
    1
  215. Good attempt, but futile, I fear. The loons who believe in the swap or the scuttling theories do so because they simply want to. No facts, however compelling or however indisputable, will sway them
    1
  216. Unfortunately, pay was stopped when the ship sank. That was not a White Star rule, it was maritime law in Gret Britain, and still applied to merchant seamen in WW2. Olympic's crew did protest at the condition of extra lifeboats loaded aboard her after the sinking.
    1
  217. Even in Spanish, that is a stupid comment.
    1
  218. Not quite as many who cancelled from Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911. Do explain what that proves.
    1
  219. Oh dear. More drivel.
    1
  220. Honest people know that the wreck is that of Titanic, and do not promote a ludicrous myth invented in the 1990s.
    1
  221. Actually most German warship construction from WW1 & WW2 ended up on the sea bed.
    1
  222. Fool! 'They' won't because there wasn't one.
    1
  223. Why mention something which isn't true. Titanic had a large engineering crew, and one of their duties was to inspect the conditions of the coal bunkers on a daily basis. Perhaps they missed this because it didn't happen, of course.
    1
  224.  @dammitmandy1166  “Molony believes that the fire had started as early as three weeks before the Titanic set out for its maiden voyage, but was ignored for fear of bad press and the desire to keep the ship on schedule” Then Molony is wrong. Although, as a reporter, he perhaps didn't wish to let mere facts get in the way of a potentially profitable book sale. Molony hasn't actually managed to prove that there was even a fire in the area of the 'smudge' as yet. let alone that it had been burning for three weeks, without any of the engineering staff noticing it. Which would be wrose for publicity, by the way. A delay of two or three days, or passengers being burned alive? The 'smudge' by the way was well above the waterline, well forward of the actual area of the bunker fire, and actually in the region of the Third Class accommodation. Odd that no third class survivor noticed that his friends or family were being incinerated, isn't it?
    1
  225. This would be the Federal Reserve which there is no actual evidence to suggest that Astor (or Guggenheim) supported, would it? Still, not to worry, as there is considerable documentary evidence for the views of the third financier, Straus, proving that he was a supporter.
    1
  226. Not in terms of 1912 it isn't.
    1
  227. Except that Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their views about the Fed., whilst Straus can be shown to have been a supporter. You have rather gullibly believed a myth invented in the 1990s.
    1
  228. The images prove nothing, except that Titanic really was Titanic.
    1
  229. Well, this 'conspiracy theory' invented in 1995 in order to sell a book, has precisely no evidence to support it.
    1
  230. Just shows how appearances can deceive.
    1
  231. Yes dear, of course it was. All those witnesses to the iceberg were bribed, of course. No take your medicine and sit back down.
    1
  232. Idiot. Those who say 'do some research' are, as in your case, the ones who have not actually done any themselves. By the way, swallowing a switcher video whole does not count as 'research.'
    1
  233. No. Because it wasn't.
    1
  234. Nonsense. Strange how any reference to Titanic tends to bring out the idiots, isn't it?
    1
  235. 'Coincidence?? I don’t believe in coincidences' It seems you don't much like facts, either. Like the facts that neither Astor nor Guggenheim had commented on the Fed, whilst Straus was in favour of it.
    1
  236. THe BBC didn't make the video.
    1
  237.  @johnscott8739  'Actually those are called barnacles.' The depth, or rather shallowness of your knowledge, astounds me. Two dictionary definitions :- Barnacle :- A type of arthropod constituting the subclass Cirripedia in the subphylum Crustacea, related to crabs and lobsters. Rusticle :- A rusticle is a formation of rust similar to an icicle or stalactite in appearance that occurs deep underwater when wrought iron oxidizes. Of course, those who urge others to 'do a little research' are almost exclusively those who, like yourself, have done little or none themselves. For example, had you bothered to check, you would have found out that no Titanic propeller was ever fitted to Olympic, for two reasons. :- 1). The angle of pitch of Olympic's propellers was different from that of Titanic's. 2). There was no need, as Olympic's starboard propeller was not damaged in the collision with HMS Hawke. At least, not according to the Admiralty inspection report of 1911, supported by other teams from the Board of Trade & White Star. It was published in November, 1911. Perhaps you missed it? Part of a propeller shaft was transferred to Olympic, in order to get her back to sea as quickly as possible, at a time when Titanic was many months away from completion and a new part could be fabricated without delaying this. You have fallen for a switcher invention, intended to explain away the inconvenient fact that there is a 401 Titanic propeller on the wreck. Only in the bizarre world of the switcher fanatic could a Titanic propeller be seen as proof that the ship is really Olympic!
    1
  238. We have actually had a good idea since 1912. Until the conspiracists, with their evidence-free inventions, arrived in the 1990s.
    1
  239. No, I din't remember that. Largely because he actually said no such thing.
    1
  240.  @PSimon-xr3pw  I suppose that you can provide a contemporary source confirming that? No, of course you can't.
    1
  241.  @PSimon-xr3pw  I prefer to rely on archives, newspapers and records from the time. None of which agree with your claim. 'No, I don’t get paid to do all that.' Which I presume means that you don't actually have any such source?
    1
  242.  @Nemenis  Nonsense. 400 kms? or 249 miles?!!
    1
  243.  @Nemenis  Well. It is wrong.
    1
  244. 'Like the Ship were over 10,000 Refugees and People Fleeing WW2 in Europe who were sunk by a German U-boat, Killing Everyone Onbaord.' No, there wasn't.
    1
  245. Brilliant! Pay £1.5 million to build a ship, then deliberately sink it in order to claim £1 million back, thus losing £500,000 and your reputation for safety. You probably aren't an accountant, are you?
    1
  246. Perhaps the descendants of the African tribal leaders and Arab slave traders who profited greatly from the Trade might make a major financial contribution?
    1
  247. Please don't be silly.
    1
  248. There is nothing to investigate. The wreck has been known to be Titanic since April, 1912. Despite what a myth invented in 1995 might claim.
    1
  249. Are you really that stupid? Please explain why the commanders of a ship with a serious fire aboaed would even set sail. As no-one from H & W or White star ever made any 'unsinkable' claim, are you suggesting that God is both vindictive & ill-informed?
    1
  250. Aren't those conspiracist videos entertaining? A shame they are unable to provide any evidence to support them. Or, at least, none which stands up to scrutiny.
    1
  251. Brilliant! Sink the ship and lose £500,000 on the insurance claim, as well as your safety record. Not an accountant, are you? By the way, how do you order someone to kill himself? Oh, and Titanic really did sink, as the overwhelming evidence has proven countless times.
    1
  252. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free conspracist video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    1
  253. Compared to modern cruise liners, she was.
    1
  254. Of course they didn't, largely because only a combination of switchers and their associated idiots believe that nonsense. You may decide for yourself which group you inhabit.
    1
  255. It appears that you believe the myth. The claim was never made by either owners nor builders.
    1
  256. 'All those high ranking passengers onboard who were against the creation of a Federal Reserve, dead.' Except they weren't. At least, not until the myth was invented in the mid 1990s. I am confident you can cite supporting evidence for this nonsense?
    1
  257. As Olympic returned to Harland & Wolff in October, 1911, and was fully repaired by late November, 1911, what would you expect to see?
    1
  258. No. Harland & Wolff records suggest that Titanic had a three bladed centre propeller, whilst Olympic's had four blades. The intention was to test which was more efficient. After the sinking, Olympic was fitted with a three bladed propeller for a short period, before the four bladed one was re-fitted.
    1
  259. Not interesting, simply nonsense. Californian was carrying a 'mixed general' cargo, at least according to the Boston shipping papers when she docked. White Star lost £500,000 and their safety record as a result of this supposed 'scam.' Still, all is not lost. At least you mush have enjoyed the conspiracist video you watched and swallowed whole.
    1
  260. What about the wreck, which actually tells us nothing new by the way, calls anything survivor statements said incorrect?
    1
  261. Names of White Star ships were engraved into the hull. After 110 years, the remains are a mass of rusticles, so nothing will be visible. The fact that the window pattern at the forward end of 'B' deck, and the 401 number on the propeller blade are unique to Titanic is adequate proof to all except the fanatical switcher extremists.
    1
  262. Then you are guessing wrong.
    1
  263. I suppose you have sources which confirm this? No, of course you don't. You simply watched a switcher video and you lack the gumption to check any of the false claims within it.
    1
  264. Why? It wasn't. White Star received £1 million from Lloyds for a ship which cost £1.5 million to build. What sort of a clever scam is that?
    1
  265.  @adrianrangel1497  'gullible.' Yes, we know you are. You needn't confirm the fact.
    1
  266. What fraud might that have been? Do tell.
    1
  267.  @Superbustr  1). What structural damage do you think that might have been? 2). What was 'deliberate' about the collision? 3). What 'botched' rescue mission? 4). What insurance? The one which paid out 2/3rds of the building cost? 5). Why don't you have the slightest idea what you are writing about?
    1
  268. That's it. Rub it in, why don't you? Actually, from a third generation Man United fan, congratulations. You have a very fine team and an admirable manager.
    1
  269. No, but H & W records say that Titanic's centre propeller was three bladed.
    1
  270. Indeed. I expect the same ones that believe the earth to be flat, and carried round on the backs of four large elephants.
    1
  271.  @TheRealDerekL  The image of the build number, 401, has appeared in several photographs. What do you think might have changed? Perhaps you are also unaware of the photos. of the forward end of 'B' deck, where the windows correspond with the modified Titanic pattern, and are different from the Olympic of 1912? Perhaps you simply refuse to accept the rather mundane truth? I observe that you have ignored my original question, which was 'Which expeditions have made the sort of claim that identifies Titanic as Olympic?' I wonder what might be the reason for that oversight on your part?
    1
  272.  @TheRealDerekL  I assume you don't know who Doveton Sturdee was? Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
    1
  273.  @TheRealDerekL  The article about Titanic was on a public Daily Mail site. It was not something I found 'at random.' I haven't 'tried' to do anything; I have simply corrected your errors, and your only response so far seems to have been a combination of insults and refusal to dispute any of the points I made. Perhaps you don't understand what a 'discussion' is? An exchange of differing opinions. What have I 'refused to acknowledge' and what 'video evidence?' Do please enlighten me.
    1
  274.  @TheRealDerekL  Who is being 'cryptic?' I simply wish to retain my anonimity. Why don't you try proving me in error, by revealing your evidence that the wreck is that of Olympic? I assume that you believe it would be easy to do, although you have been very coy about it to date.
    1
  275.  @TheRealDerekL  What is? You don't actually know much about the Titanic sinking, do you?
    1
  276.  @TheRealDerekL  Is English your second or third language? I merely said that I saw the item on the Dail Mail online site, presumably as you did. I then responded to some of the idiotic and ill-informed comments which followed, as they always do, from people such as you. Please show me when I suggested that it was 'verified researched information?' You appear to be making things up, as you are unable to debate sensibly.
    1
  277. Why?
    1
  278. No, there is no reference to Olympic on the ship. Moreover, details revealed by several expeditions from Ballard onwards match those of Titanic from 1912 & are different from details of the Olympic of the same period. However, none of this matters to conspiracists or switchers, as they insist upon clinging to their fantasies in defiance of evidence, however overwhelming it might be.
    1
  279. Gustloff was sunk in the Baltic, whilst carrying troops and U boat crews as well as refugees. As an armed auxiliary warship, she was a legitimate target.
    1
  280. Olympic had been damaged when, in the charge of a Solent Pilot, not Captain Smith, she collided with HMS Hawke. However, she had been repaired, and was back on her Atlantic run, from late November 1911. Your imaginary scam resulted in White Star receiving £500,000 less than Titanic cost to build. What sort of a scam was that?
    1
  281. 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
  282.  @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
  283.  @Damiansweldingshortz  Indeed she did. So have many other ships. Were they also the victims of 'cprners being cut?'
    1
  284.  @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
  285. It is one of the deep water exploration craft. That is why it is shining bright lights onto the wreck.
    1
  286. You mean like they did after 1995, when this absurd myth was invented in order to sell a book?
    1
  287. Have you always been a fool, or did you go on a special course to learn the job?
    1
  288. 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
  289. 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
  290. No-one actually said that.
    1
  291. @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
  292. @HealthyClimate I know that you can't, but thanks for confirming it.
    1
  293. Yes, all the half wits have scurried out from under their rocks. As they generally do when Titanic is mentioned.
    1
  294.  @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
  295.  @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
  296.  @MaryBrownIsTheBlairWitch  I appreciate that it must be a difficult experience for you, encountering someone who has considerably more knowledge about the subject.
    1
  297. No. Only ill-informed fools think that.
    1
  298. We have known since 1912.
    1
  299. 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
  300. 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
  301. 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
  302. 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
  303.  @eliel_360  Isn't it annoying constantly to be banging one's head against a wall of impenetrable stupidity?
    1
  304. Why?
    1
  305. No, they don't.
    1
  306. 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
  307. 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
  308. 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
  309. It appears that you believe the myth. The claim was never made by either owners nor builders.
    1
  310. A shame about the total lack of facts to support your nonsense, isn't it?
    1
  311. Yes, it was. Which other ship do you think that was?
    1
  312. You perhaps haven't looked at the state of the wreck. Or perhaps you are simply daft?
    1
  313. 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
  314.  @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
  315. No, 'they' didn't. Simply a myth.
    1
  316. Because the stern section is a mangled wreck, whereas the bow section is still recognisable.
    1
  317.  @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
  318. An insurance claim which lost the company £500,000 and a reputation for safety. How does that work?
    1
  319. 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
  320. If you actually believe that nonsense, perhaps it is as well you didn't say any more.
    1
  321.  @shaheemshakur6719  Amazing how, when people have no arguments, they immediately resort to insults instead. Well done for proving it.
    1
  322.  @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
  323. 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
  324. No, it won't, because she wasn't.
    1
  325. '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
  326.  @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
  327. A 'single iceberg' which displaced around one billion tons.
    1
  328. Perhaps you don't realise that parts of the ship which flooded were effectively equalised in pressure with the water outside, hence the fact that the bow section is recognisable. By contrast the stern section, whic did not flood so quickly as it sank was crushed & badly distorted.
    1
  329.  @YTPREO  No. Simple common sense.
    1
  330. You can tell that from images of a 111 year old shipwreck, can you? You must be either very clever or very deluded. I know where my money would be placed.
    1
  331. Be careful. The idiots who infest sites like this are likely to add another conspiracy theory, that the Hammers sank Titanic.
    1
  332.  @snakejuce  Feel free to prove me wrong by providing your source. When do you think Ismay made the claim, and to whom?
    1
  333.  @snakejuce  Fine. Then simply state the details of your 'source' without trying to share any URL.
    1
  334.  @snakejuce  Not 'may not be 100%.' Actually is 100% false.
    1
  335. Perhaps because Gustloff was an armed auxiliary warship, carrying troops & U-boat crews as well as refugees crammed aboard at the last minute. In fact, a warship sunk in time of war.
    1
  336. A glance at the state of the wreck is all the reason you need.
    1
  337.  @JonBanJudah813  Who is to say? Well, the German military & naval archives at Freiburg, for one. Britannic was sunk (by a mine, not by a torpedo, by the way) after more than two years of war. Germany was rather eager not to involve Britain in any European war, by the way. The German U-boat campaign began in August, 1914, by the way, and attacks on shipping, as opposed to warships, began in February, 1915, and even then initially only in waters close to the UK, which does not apply to Newfoundland. Sunk by a U-boat? Why? Sorry, but out of the question.
    1
  338. Near Newfoundland there are. What do you think the International Ice Patrol has been monitoring for over 100 years?
    1
  339. No, largely because it never said OlympIC on Titanic's bows.
    1
  340. Nonsense. Both used identical materials and were built in the same yard at the same time. Olympic was a successful liner until withdrawn in 1934.
    1
  341. No, Serial number on the propeller was 401 (Titanic). Because the wrecked ship was, and still is, Titanic.
    1
  342. Why? Nothing has changed, except the wreck is slowly deteriorating.
    1
  343.  @nicholasmaude6906  I have not questioned, nor even commented upon, the validity of the project. I have simply suggested what I believe the opinions of those worthies might be.
    1
  344. 'Real ones' actually know that the name of Titanic's older sister was Olympic, of course. The depth of your research and knowledge is stupefying shallow.
    1
  345. Try again. At least try to get the name right.
    1
  346. Because it didn't happen, perhaps?
    1
  347. Because the stern imploded during the sinking process, whereas the bow, which had filled with water, didn't. A few survivors claimed to have heard 'rumblings' rather than explosions, possibly pieces of machinery breaking loose. However, the vast majority reported the iceberg.
    1
  348. Those who urge people to 'do the research' or in your case, 'GO INVESTIGEATE PEOPLE !!! are of course, inevitably those who have done little or none themselves. Except, of course, for watching a switcher video & swallowing it whole.
    1
  349. Just as if Titanic had had radar, she wouldn't have hit an iceberg. So what?
    1
  350. Which sister ship was that? The one which was a successful liner, in peace & war, for 23 years? That sister ship?
    1
  351. Only if you believe a myth dating from the mid 1990s.
    1
  352. Nobody profited. White Star lost £500,000 at 1912 monetary values, as well as their safety record.
    1
  353. Who do you think said that, and why do you think God is so vindictive & so badly informed?
    1
  354.  @skipmartin84  Edward Smith never said anything of the sort. Please provide evidence for this nonsensical allegation. You seem to have a rather 'Old Testament' image of God, I observe.
    1
  355. Of course it is. That was never in question.
    1
  356.  @bottomrung5777  Which of my facts do you want me to reference? The location of the mark, well above the waterline? The position of the Third class accommodation? The actual location of the affected bunker? You can check those yourself simply by referring to a plan of the ship. Do get back to me if I am incorrect.
    1
  357.  @bottomrung5777  Of course a passenger ship could leave port with a bunker fire aboard. Bunker fires were not unknown. Indeed, IMM had regulations in place requiring that the condition of the bunkers aboard their ships be inspected on a daily basis. Which is precisely what happened, the smouldering fire was discovered, a team allocated to it, and it was extinguished around 24 hours before the sinking. What you suggested, however, 'If the decision was to embark knowing the fire would destroy the hull causing catastrophic failure, then mass murder was committed,' borders on the lunatic. No New York team was allocated because there was no need. As every contemporary source, and in particular, the statements of the engineer & stoker survivors at the British Inquiry, made clear was that the fire had caused no damage beyond scorched paintwork inside the bunker. Thus, your claim that correspondence between the Captain and the New York repair facilities is, unambiguously, a lie. Quite what motivates you fools to behave in this manner is beyond reason, I fear.
    1
  358.  @bottomrung5777  I prefer accurate, factual, comments, to nice ones. 'You could have AT THE START given a brief background of yourself to try and qualify your take.' You mean, just as you didn't? I don't need to justify myself to anyone. My opinions, just like anyone else's stand or fall on their own merits, However:- After leaving University with a First in Modern History, alongside my business career I chose to specialise in Maritime & Navay History, and in particular that of the 20th Century. I have had a number of books and articles published on the subject. I am fortunate enough still to have access to a range of research facilities, such as the National Archives at Kew. Does that help? 'I gave opinion on a line of research that may be appropriate to help victim families get closure.' Really by suggesting to families two or three generations apart from their forebears that these forebears may have been murdered, even though you have precisely no supporting evidence? 'The hulk on the bottom of the sea may show evidence of paint discoloration or ? where the coal bunker was located to possibly help in the entire matter. POSSIBLY.' Actually, no. Definitely not. You think it might be possible to examine the quality of paint on metal which has been deteriorating for over 110 years, let alone the condition of that same metal? Seriously? Take as much exception as you like. Truth is more relevant than good manners, and your suggestion that there might have been questionable decisions made, once again with precisely no evidence, is insulting to those who died aboard Titanic, as well as to the people who built & operated the ship/
    1
  359. No. But there is a vast amount of evidence to prove that Titanic was really Titanic, and that there never was any insurance fraud.
    1
  360. Such a comment was never made by anyone from H & W or White Star. One thing ship owners & shipbuilders have always known is that no ship is unsinkable.
    1
  361. Indeed. Just as the ones who 'know' that are sadly deluded.
    1
  362. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free switcher video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    1
  363. The name was engraved into the hull, and then painted in. The ship is so badly decayed that it is highly unlikely that such detail will still be visible. We must therefore rely on the overwhelming weight of evidence which proves beyond any rational doubt that the wreck is that of Titanic, and that the 1990s invented myth of the swap is precisely that. A myth.
    1
  364.  @epyle100  The scan will show nothing that isn't already known. It will certainly not provide any informatin about Astor, Guggenheim, Straus, or Morgan. The following is the text of a New York Times newspaper article of Thursday 28th March 1912, which states that "J. Pierpont Morgan has written a cordial letter to the committee, announcing that he will be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, April 25, and dedicate the new Campanile of St. Mark's." The reference that Morgan unloaded 'art works' hours before sailing seems to be simply an urban myth. There is no contemporary evidence in support. Astor might have been outspoken but, like Guggenheim, not on the subject of the Fed., on which both kept their opinions to themselves.
    1
  365.  @epyle100  Then cancelling his trip at the last moment would not have been a good idea, would it. Not that it matters, because he did no such thing. The supposed M & P letters being exposed was in a poor quality CGI attempt which appeared in 2000 or so, entirely from nowhere. No exploration team ever claimed it, nor even acknowledged it. It has, simply, no provenance at all. Indeed, Robin Gardiner, who started this trail of nonsense off, himself announced it to be faked.
    1
  366. We already know what happened, and have done since 1912. Pretty images of the wreck, however expensively obtained, add nothing to that knowledge.
    1
  367. No. He didn't.
    1
  368.  @ThrersaSmalls-yg5qt  Can you supply a credible source for your claim? I rather suspect that you cannot. Who are 'they?'
    1
  369. You could also report that more passengers cancelled their bookings on Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911 than did for Titanic in 1912 at the same time. Seriously, if you really had a cunning and secret plan such as you describe, would you tell lots of influential people about it? Do try to think.
    1
  370. What a brilliant scam. Losing £500,000 (1912 values) on the sinking. Morgan was 75 years old at the time and in poor health, dying less than a year later. Despite this, there is no suggestion that he was senile, as you seem to think.
    1
  371. Except for the inconvenient fact that the Mauretanias were driven by turbines, and were four or five knots faster, of course.
    1
  372. Do explain why you say that, if only to enable me to correct your errors.
    1
  373.  @kdmatt1  Odd how people who clearly don't know what 'research' is generally urge others to do some, isn't it? I assume you refer to Morgan and the alleged elimination of those financiers who opposed the Federal Reserve, the myth invented in the 1990s. Here is what Reuters have to say about that nonsense:- A widely-shared meme has taken several facts about the Titanic out of context to make unsubstantiated claims that imply the ship’s sinking was a deliberate act. This is not true – experts widely agree the sinking of the Titanic was an accident.  The meme was posted to Facebook  and has been shared many times. It consists of two images: one of the ship and a second of American financier John Pierpoint (J.P.) Morgan. These sit alongside a wall of text that suggests Morgan had motive to sink the Titanic because it was hosting three powerful people who opposed his idea for a centralised banking system, ie: the U.S. Federal Reserve. The text reads :- “DID YOU KNOW? The man who funded the building of the titanic, J. P. Morgan, cancelled his long-awaited journey just hours before its proposed departure,” the meme reads. “3 of the wealthiest men on earth, whom (sic) were against the creation of the federal reserve bank, happened to be invited aboard for its maiden voyage (John Aster, Isador Strauss & Benjamin Guggenheim). “It then headed full speed into a known iceberg-field, with less than half the required lifeboats, no red signal flares, no Rothschild or Rockefeller on board, and sank to the bottom of the north Atlantic Ocean. Less than a year later, now that the wealthy opposition was out of the way, the federal reserve was created and USA was turned into an incorporated business, with its own business ID number, ’28 U.S.C. 3002 15.” J.P MORGAN CLAIMS  While it is true that J.P. Morgan owned the Titanic and did not sail on its doomed maiden voyage, there is no evidence to suggest he deliberately missed the trip because he knew the ship would sink. Historians have debated several reasons for Morgan to cancel his trip, but none is related to the Federal Reserve. “I've never been able to find an authoritative 1912 source explaining the exact reason why J. P. Morgan cancelled his passage on the Titanic, but he definitely didn't do so mere ‘hours’ before the ship's departure,” Titanic expert George Behe said in an email to Reuters.  Meanwhile, Don Lynch, a historian at the Titanic Historical Society (THS), said: “One of J.P. Morgan's biographers said that France was changing its laws to prevent Americans from exporting art treasures from that country, so Morgan went to Paris to oversee getting his purchases out of the country before the new laws went into effect.” Also from THS, advisory board member Ray Lepien, said that as well as the art treasures theory, “the ‘official’ explanation was that he (Morgan) fell ill and wanted to take the ‘cure’ at a spa in France with his mistress.” Lepien added: “It could have been both reasons.”  STRAUS, ASTOR AND GUGGENHEIM’S OPINIONS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE PROPOSAL  While it is also true that Isidor Straus, Macy’s Department store owner; John Jacob Astor, a property tycoon, and Benjamin Guggenheim, a mining boss, died in the 1912 disaster, there is no evidence to suggest they were the target of deliberate sabotage. There is also no evidence that these three men were against Morgan’s centralised banking ideas.   Firstly, Titanic’s maiden voyage had attracted many prominent names, and was dubbed the “Millionaire’s Special” as a result.  Secondly, George Behe told Reuters he was unable to find any documents in his 45 years of researching the Titanic that proved the three men opposed the Federal Reserve. In fact, a Washington Post investigation found that while Astor and Guggenheim did not take a public stance on the matter, Straus reportedly spoke in favour of the proposal.   Soory, but it seems you will need to find another imaginary conspiracy theory to fantasise about. Or, alternatively, rejoin the real world?
    1
  374. No. Unless you believe the myth invented by Robin Gardiner to push his silly book, in 1995.
    1
  375.  @berniegreen  Whether you have heard of Gardiner or not, he was the originator of this nonsense, in his book, Titanic, The Ship that never sank, published in 1995. It was something of a tour de force on the part of someone who never a maritime historian, and had no access to archives or records of the event. Sadly, his co-author, Dan van der Vat, later distanced himself from the book, and confirmed it as a hoax. Actually, your opinion has little relevance. You may choose to believe the fantasies produced in switcher videos, but until you actually examine the existing documents, archives, and records from the period, as I have been fortunate enough to do, you will always be proven wrong by the actual facts. I would be interested to know what evidence you might think might 'point me in the right direction.'
    1
  376.  @fakenewsisthenews3542  Yes. I am sure.
    1
  377. True, but the Olympics were 'huge' by the standards of 1911-2.
    1
  378.  @Rexbuttholes777  'Mabey i know more about it than you' Or, more probably, you have simply swallowed a conspiracist video whole. Certainly you seem ignorant of the views expressed by a number of Liner Captains & Master Mariners at the British Inquiry. Or the actual facts about the bunker fire? Or the irrelevance of the binoculars?
    1
  379.  @Rexbuttholes777  'So why wasn't jp Morgan on it or Rockefeller who said he got held up at customs.' Morgan had a prior appointment at St. Mark's in Venice. It was even mentioned in the newspapers in March, 1912. Rockefeller? What is your source for this allegation? In any case, so what? A number of prominent people also cancelled. In fact, almost as many as cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911. I am sure you can explain that, can't you? Only one ship, Californian, actually stopped. The remainder simply continued on course. No one was 'invited' aboard. Passengers of all classes simply booked. Moreover, Astor & Guggenheim never expressed any opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus was actually a supporter. Indeed, his speeches in support were recorded in newspaper articles from October, 1911. Seriously, if you have developed a 'cunning plan' to remove business rivals, would it really involve:- 1). Hoping that they will book passage in the first place? 2). Hoping that the ship will collide with an iceberg badly enough to sink it? 3). Hoping that your targets will simply not leap into a lifeboat and survive? The rest of your post is little more than a crazed rant, of course. Unworthy of a response.
    1
  380.  @Rexbuttholes777  'yes i had heard that also but i believe he had changed his views on it once it became apparent that the currency could be over inflated and was going to be privately owned by foreign bank whos identity was to be unknown.' Where did you hear that from? One of those pesky voices in your head? Aren't they a nuisance? Sorry, being sarcastic. I am sure you will provide us with an impeccable source. 'You have to admit it has some strange situations like the fire right where it hit burning for days, no distress flares but having the white celebration flares that where seen but means nothing to other boats.' The bunker fire was actually well aft of the initial collision point, and had been extinguished around 24 hours before it happened in any case. Oh, and white was the colour for distress flares at the time, because it could be seen at a greater distance. Titanic carried 36 Board of Trade recommended 'Socket Signals' which were white, with explosive heads. For someone with your opinions, you don't actually seem to know anything, I fear. 'water tight doors being left open allowing power to be blown out making it sink hours early than if they secured boiler rooms. That information i just heard recently. Its from rov that took a ride into it. Something else you 'heard?' Do you have a source. Then you might explain why Titanic's crew would wish to speed up the sinking, in view of the unfortunate fact that it was going to kill most of them?
    1
  381. You mean three 'millionaires.' Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. The first two had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken in support of it. You have brainlessly chosen to believe a myth invented in the 1990s. Almost as many people cancelled for Titanic's maiden voyage as had for Olympic's in 1911, by the way. Explosion? Do me a favour! How do you explain the large number of survivors who reported an iceberg/ Mass hysteria, perhaps?
    1
  382. Nonsense. I suspect you are referring to the amateurish CGI images which appeared around 2000? They have no provenance, neither has any exploration team either claimed, nor even referred to them. Don't you think that, if there had been an ounce of credibility to your nonsense, an exploration team might, just possibly, have mentioned it?
    1
  383.  @orion7763  And carried around on the backs of four large Elephants?
    1
  384. What would be found? Images of a 110 year old shipwreck, slowing deteriorating. That's all.
    1
  385. You should be pleased, as removal prevented you from showing yourself as a total idiot.
    1
  386. Yes, a scam which loses the scammers £500,000 and their safety record is a really smart one, isn't it?
    1
  387. Don't be an idiot. You have fallen for the nonsense excreted by a fact-free conspiracist video.
    1
  388. No, it isn't. Just look at the pictures.
    1
  389. Then you should do a little more reading.
    1
  390. Apparently it even accordianed on its brief maiden test trial before its departure. an interesting, if entirely invented, comment. Of course, you have no proof, have you? How do you explain Olympic's long and successful career, by the way? Britannic sank because she was mined in the Aegean whilst serving as a hospital ship. Are there many icebergs in the Aegean?
    1
  391.  @frozenflyify  'I read a book on the subject.' Oh good. Why do you people seem to think anything which questions you must be confrontational? You made a false claim about Britannic. I simply refuted it.
    1
  392.  @frozenflyify  'My car is made with high quality steel also but I don't think I'd cross an iceberg field with it.' I have really tried to work out the relevance of this comment, but cannot.
    1
  393.  @frozenflyify  'I read a book on it many moons ago'. Are you sure you simply didn't view one of the half-baked conspiracy videos which appear in places like this? The original designer of the Olympics testified at the British Inquiry that no-one had attempted to interfere with the design. The Olympics had higher internal bulkheads than any other ships of the time, as well as having more lifeboats than Board of Trade regulations required. Probably just as well you cannot remember the name of the book.
    1
  394.  @frozenflyify  The lifeboats are relevant because many of those who allege skimping in Titanic's design & construction claim this as evidence of penny-pinching, when it was nothing of the sort. The myth about the connection with the Federal Reserve, claiming that three major financiers were 'removed' to ease the creation of the Fed. dates to the 1990s, but no earlier. There is precisely no supporting evidence. In fact, Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions, whilst Straus was a supporter, and newspaper reports of a speech he made in October, 1911, make abundantly clear. Incidentally, Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus were not offered free trips aboard Titanic. Again, yet another myth.
    1
  395. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free switcher video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    1
  396. Really? I thought a number of the 'world's elite' died when she sank?
    1
  397. If the 'real' Titanic never left Southampton, what was the other Olympic class ship on her way from New York to Southampton at the time of the sinking? Good heavens! Yes, it was Olympic herself, which had been fully repaired after her collision in September 1911, and had been back on her Atlantic run since late November, 1911. You do know that the Federal Reseve plot myth was invented in the mid 1990s, do you? Or that Astor & Guggenheim never stated their opinions about it? Or that Straus was a supporter, and this can be documented? No, of course you don't. You have watched a switcher video, and swallowed it whole.
    1
  398.  @andreabrindesi6526  'it s awesome to tell yourself lies not to see the truth like it is i' ve been in that hell for many years..' I agree, it is awful. You should ask yourself why you do it.
    1
  399.  @andreabrindesi6526  'So if you have documents about it and for the fact that is all invented please let me have real documents..' You are the one making outlandish & absurd claims. Why don't you provide proof of them? A number of people did cancel their bookings for Titanic. But not quite as many as had cancelled their bookings for Olympic's maiden voyage almost a year earlier. What do you think that proves?
    1
  400.  @andreabrindesi6526  'The boat you mean was probably the Carpathia' No, it wasn't. Carpathia was around 58 miles from Titanic. Olympic was 500 miles or so away. The two ships, moreover, were totally dissimilar. Carpathia was a single-funnelled liner, displacing 13,555 GRT. Olympic was a four funnelled liner, displacing 52067 GRT.
    1
  401.  @andreabrindesi6526  It certainly seems to be where you are concerned. Looking at one of your earlier posts, for example, perhaps you might explain the meanings of 'deperting' 'scialups' & 'unaffondable'?
    1
  402.  @andreabrindesi6526  Now I am worried, as I suspect that you are clinically insane. Are you seriously trying to argue that history before 1950 cannot be studied because no one is now alive who was 'there?' What do you think archives, documents, and eye-witness testimonies are? Or do you discount the evidence of the American & British Inquiries because everyone involvec is now dead? 'And the captain did known the boat was going to sank: in fact before the inaugural trip the bells used to inaugurate a new boat didn t sound at all.. This in the Naval world means that the boat has got a problem...' I won't bother to reply to this, as it is utter drivel. In fact, as there is clearly something wrong with you, I won't waste further time on you at all.
    1
  403. Actually, there was a smouldering fire, caused by spontaneous combustion of damp coal, in one of 19 bunkers. It was extinguished 24 hours or more before the collision, without damaging the bulkheads. at least, not according to witnesses at the British Inquiry, that is.
    1
  404. Exactly what could 'they' threaten survivors who in many cases had lost family members and most of their possessions, with? Titanic was heading towards the US, & away from Europe, when she sank. Why would she be taking weapons to the US? Don't bother to answer, as the whole idea is cretinous. Have you thought of seeking psychiatric help for your delusions?
    1
  405. Why would that be? As none of the THREE financiers aboard are known to have opposed the Federal Reserve, although one of them can be shown to have been in favour of it.
    1
  406. Brilliant! Pay £1.5 million to build a ship, then sink it in order to claim £1 million from the insurers. Not an accountant, are you?
    1
  407. No, they didn't.
    1
  408. Or, perhaps, because the ship is a fragile, decomposing, wreck?
    1
  409. How would sinking a liner bring about the Fed.? The conspiracy theory is as silly as the claim, dating from the 1990s, that Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus opposed the Fed., or the nonsense from around the same date that the ships were switched.
    1
  410. Yes dear. Of course they did. Now take you medication like a good little chap.
    1
  411. Nonsense. Who were these 'rivals' and how did he, firstly get them aboard the ship, and secondly ensure that they did not jump into the nearest lifeboat?
    1
  412. Yes, you are.
    1
  413. Odd, then, that so many people reported the iceberg, isn't it?
    1
  414. What information? The images simply show exactly what many other images have shown, but in better detail.
    1
  415. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic. He did not 'bail out at the last minute' as you fantasise. There are even newspaper references from March, 1912, to the fact that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice. The three financiers who opposed the Fed. cannot be proven to have done anything of the sort. Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their views, whilst Straus had spoken in support, and his speeches were described in newspaper articles from October, 1911. You appear to have swallowed whole a fabricated claim invented in the mid 1990s.
    1
  416. Perhaps you rarely encounter people well versed in the facts, and not, as you probably are, simply gullible enough to accept conspiracist nonsense videos at face value?
    1