Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Did the Titanic's Coal Fire Cause the Disaster? The Burning Question." video.

  1. Olympic had been back at sea since her repairs had been completed in November, 1911. At that time, Titanic was nowhere near completed. Both ships were each insured for £1 million, having each cost £1.5 million to build. When Titanic sank, White Star lost £500,000 and their reputation for safety. Would you care to reconsider your asinine comments?
    7
  2. Have you ever noticed that those who say 'do your research' are invariably the ones who have done the least themselves? Unless, of course, watching a conspiracist video and swallowing it unquestioningly can be considered 'research' perhaps?
    5
  3. Careful now! Molony made a lot of money out of his nonsense, I expect.
    5
  4. “Titanic: the shocking Truth” is awful. Riddled with false facts and instantly debunkable claims. Only a totally gullible fool, or a switcher fanatic, would do anything other than laugh at the nonsense it excretes.
    4
  5. If by 'shut down' you mean their conspiracy beliefs are proven wrong by use of facts and evidence, then what would you expect? The relevant point is that these people, once presented with actual argument, proptly disappear, generally of their own accord. If you question the arguments on this video, why not simply say why, instead of simply complaining?
    4
  6. Olympic sailed the same waters for 23 years, without any steel 'problems'. The binoculars made no difference. As glasses were used to identify objects already spotted, their use may well have delayed the alarm being given. The captain was not on the bridge at the time of the collision. Life boat drills had been postponed, not cancelled. There were more lifeboats aboard Titanic than Board of Trade regulations required. The Marconi operators transmitted the position which had been given to them by the command staff.
    4
  7. Actually, after late November, 1911, she had 16 when a further 2 were fitted. The same improvement was made to Olympic in 1912.
    4
  8.  @eliel_360  Tragically, there are lots of half-wits around who do. Normally, the accuse J. P. Morgan, of course.
    4
  9. Nonsense. Olympic had been back at sea since her repairs at Harland & Wolff, which had completed in late November, 1911. The repair costs had nothing to do with the Government, as White Star were a private, commercial, company. There are indeed photographs of the two ships in Belfast in October, 1911. Olympic is the ship in full White Star paintwork. Titanic is half painted, has parts of her superstructure still not installed, and only one funnel in place. Only an imbecile or a dedicated switcher could possibly mistake one for the other.
    4
  10. 'the insurance job version.' Do you mean the one where a ship costing £1.5 milllion to build in 1911-12 was scuttled in order to claim £1 million back in insurance, which destroying White Star's reputation for safety at the same time? It would have been cheaper to shovel pound notes rather than coal into the boilers.
    3
  11.  @grahamcampbell400  The collision was with a protected cruiser, at low speed (8 knots). Olympic's starboard quarter was damaged. Two compartments were breached, and a propeller shaft bent. Repairs were completed in seven weeks.
    3
  12. Careful. The berks out there will believe you.
    3
  13. Didn't you actually watch the video. Titanic had 19 large bunkers. There was a smouldering fire in one. It was never uncontrolled, never a threat to the ship, and had been extinguished around 24 hours before the collision.
    3
  14.  @dezmondw7927  You have watched three videos? Good for you. I have read countless books on the subject, as well as examining documents and archives from the period. I also have copies of the minutes of both the American & British Inquiries. Actually, 20th century naval & maritime history is what I have done since leaving university.
    3
  15.  @dezmondw7927  The point I am making, mon vieux, is that I have far more, and wider, knowledge than could possibly be gained by watching one or two unnamed videos. Sorry if my correcting of your obvious and egregious errors has annoyed you, by the way.
    3
  16. Why would a coal strike which lasted for 37 days, ending in early April, 1912, affect the quality of rivets used in a ship which had been launched in late May, 1911? Moreover, why wasn't 'Old Reliable' (Olympic) similarly affected?
    3
  17. No, it didn't. Do you seriously think people in 1912 were idiots? No sea officer would have set sail had there been the kind of damage Molony claimed to his ship.
    3
  18. Actually, this is the first site I have encountered which demolishes Molony's nonsense in so forensic a manner.
    3
  19. Smith had altered to a more southerly course.
    3
  20. Actually, the evidence for your comment is notable only by the absence of any. However,it is quite likely true that most of the Belfast 'delivery trip' crew would choosenot sign on for Titanic's maiden voyage, even if asked. There is a very simple and logical reason for this, which does not necessitate a conspiracy. The voyage from Belfast to Southampton was a short one, while the North Atlantic route (Southampton to New York) was much longer. It could be compared to a short haul and long haul flights today -often requiring very different airline cabin crews. 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 those of White Star and Cunard were based, thus the crew based in Southampton were experienced, international men. It makes complete sense that the local Belfast runners did not sign up for a transatlantic maiden voyage, when they were not experienced or interested in such a trip, which would result in them losing all the local jobs they preferred when local Southampton crew were used to such "long-haul" trips. Incidentally, had there been the slightest bit of credibility in your comment, wasn't it odd that there wasn't a spate of 'told you so' comments from these men after the sinking?
    3
  21. Titanic never saw Liverpool. Members of the stokers of the delivery crew left the ship when she arrived at Southampton. They were, by and large, Belfast men who had been hired simply to take her to Southampton. They had never been intended to be part of the permanent crew, and wanted to return to Belfast as soon as possible.
    3
  22. Presumably, you would argue that history prior to 1950 or thereabouts cannot be studied? The 'you weren't there so you can't know' argument is often put forward, but only by fools.
    3
  23.  @sledgehammerk35  No, it doesn't. The 'smudge' was above the waterline, in an area where third class accommodation was situated, and well forward of the coal bunker which di have a smouldering fire. However, the claim was not made by any expert, but by a journalist on the make, seeking to promote his book.
    3
  24. Where did you hear that idiocy from?
    3
  25. Well, people have published books and made money out of Titanic claims almost as daft.
    2
  26.  @munchkinsmunchkin  Again, what evidence, if any, have you to support such a vague, nebulous, comment?
    2
  27.  @munchkinsmunchkin  Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion. But you shouldn't be so alarmed when you are asked a simple question concerning what led you to that opinion. When, by the way, did I seek to tell you your opinion?
    2
  28.  @iamhungey12345  The 'Morgan Conspiracy' has been proven false so many times by so many people that it would serve no purpose to discuss it. The fact is that some people simply insist upon believing it, largely because they want it to be true, and facts proving that it wasn't mean nothing to them
    2
  29. I hope the people who think that nonsense about shovelling vast amounts of coal into boilers never take it into their heads to volunteer for work at a heritage steam railway. Just imagine, a small industrial tank engine reaching 140 MPH before exploding!!!
    2
  30.  @ballasog  I was being sarcastic about people who make comments about Titanic without having a clue. The sort of people who have no concept of the safety valve.
    2
  31. Five boilers were never even connected, in point of fact.
    2
  32. You do realise, I hope, that the barmpots who believe this nonsense will take you seriously?
    2
  33. There is a more basic question. If there really had been a serious fire, what would possibly have persuaded Smith and his officers to set sail in the first place?
    2
  34.  @donise8406  I don't recall saying that you accused him of being an idiot. Only that those who are convinced that Titanic set sail with a serious fire aboard seem to think that he was.
    2
  35. Funny how any video about Titanic always bring out the conspiracy theorists, isn't it? Did you enjoy the switcher video you swallowed unquestioningly?
    2
  36. Perhaps you should consider the different pressures being exerted on both sides of the bulkhead? To quote from a basic 'Introduction to Oceanography,' 'At the surface we experience one atmosphere of pressure (1 atm = 101.3 kPa) due to the weight of the atmosphere above us. As you descend into the ocean, pressure increases linearly with depth; there is an increase in pressure of 1 atm for every 10 m increase in depth. So at 1000 m depth the pressure would be 101 atm (100 atm of pressure due to the 1000 m depth, plus the 1 atm that is present at the surface).
    2
  37.  @N1gel  If you object, take it up with the author of 'Introduction to Oceanography.' The author has explained the rate at which water pressure increases. Put simply, because water is nearly incompressible. Its density remains constant, so pressure is directly proportional to depth. In seawater, that is about 1 atmosphere/10 meters. I really do not know how much clearer this can be explained. Perhaps you would seek to deny Pascal's Law as well? Pascal’s Law, by the way, explicitly determines the pressure difference between two different heights (or depths) within a static liquid. Incidentally, the 'visible burn mark' probably imaginary, to which you refer, is well above the waterline in any case. Thus rendering your comment meaningless in any case.
    2
  38. 'What is not terribly debatable is the many eyewitness accounts from stokers that multiple bunkers ignited from radiant heat through the plates partitioning them. During liability hearings after the sinking, they were forcibly silenced.' Simply not true. Surviving stokers gave evidence, and there is no suggestion that they were 'forcibly silenced.' What, indeed, does that phrase even mean? 'What is absolutely not debatable is the "doosie"; calling for more speed to dispose of the coal, which was allegedly burning in a chain as the fire spread from bunker to bunker, and, even if it did not.' Again, simply not true. Titanic had 19 bunkers, only one of which ever reported a fire, which had been extinguished 24 hours or so before the collision, by using the coal from Bunker that bunker first. Simply shovelling coal into a boiler might increase boiler pressure, which will be dealt with by releasing the excess through safety valves. It will not cause reciprocating engines to operate more quickly. 'Boilers cannot operate on seawater.' Correct, which is why Titanic carried fresh-water tanks in the ship's double bottom. These were located under the reciprocating and turbine engine rooms and had a total capacity of just over 1000 tons. She also carried distillation plants to convert sea into fresh water. As her stokers were not frenziedly shovelling coal in vast amounts into her boilers in any case, however, your point is irrelevant. 'Theblaze precipitating the collision and subsequent sinking is actually quite compelling, indeed.' Indeed not. There was no significant blaze, which makes this comment, indeed your entire post, meaningless.
    2
  39. Because no Titanic propeller was ever fitted to Olympic, perhaps? Aside from the blades being set at different pitches, Olympic's propellers were not damaged in the collision with HMS Hawke. The subsequent inspection report, produced by the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star, referred only to damage to the propeller shaft, and part of the Incomplete Titanic's shaft was fitted in order to get Olympic back to sea as quickly as possible. The propeller swap myth originated shortly after the number 401 was detected on the propeller at the wrecksite. Switchers were initially perplexed, but quickly came up with an entirely imaginary explanation in order to maintain their nonsense. You have fallen for it, mon vieux.
    2
  40. You shouldn't believe everything you see in a movie. The only, possible, conversation overheard between the two was reported by a survivor who claimed to hear Ismay tell Smith that Titanic was making better time than Olympic had. No suggestion of demanding increased speed at all. Even that, however, is open to question, as the survivor also reported that Ismay and Smith drank a glass of brandy together, when Smith was a teetotaller.
    2
  41. Smith was a lifelong teetotaller, in point of fact.
    2
  42. Far from denying facts, he is actually using them to prove that the fire nonsense is precisely that. I assume you haven't read the evidence given by stoker survivors at the British Inquiry? The evidence which stated that the bunker fire had been extinguished around a day before the collision? The smudge on the photograph, touted from 2017 so enthusistically by Senan Molony, is well forward of the affected bunker, well above the waterline, and in the vicinity of the third class accommodation. It has no relevance at all, even if it is anything more that a flaw on the negative.
    2
  43. I hope you included the fact that 'Tiny Tim,' known to have been working for the CIA & J. P. Morgan, had his code name changed by his handlers after the original, 'Big Eric' was considered not likely to generate sufficient sympathy.
    2
  44. There was a smouldering fire, caused by spontaneous combustion of damp coal, in one of Titanic's 19 bunkers. The engineering staff dealt with it and it had been extinguished around a day before the collision. It is highly unlikely that it played any role in the operation of the ship.
    2
  45. Why would anyone claim that?
    2
  46. It certainly isn't documented, largely because IMM, White Star's parent company, required daily inspections of the bunkers on their ships. The fire was actually discovered in Southampton, and extinguished at least 24 hours before the collision. 'Titanic was also turned around in Southampton, so that the side of the ship with the fire , wasn't visible to the passengers.' That simply isn't true. Do try to think. Had there really been a serious fire aboard the ship, would the ship really have sailed? Might Smith really have told his Chief Engineer, 'Never mind, we'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What could possibly go wrong?'
    2
  47.  @davidl1969  Don't be a fool. The turbine-driven Mauretanias were some 4-5 knots faster than the Olympics. The Blue Riband (not Ribbon) was never a remote possibility for either Olympic. Do you think that Smith was intent upon suicide? He would need to have been had he sailed with a ship in the kind of state you suggest. As, of course, would need his officers to have been as well.
    2
  48.  @davidl1969  'Different standards' didn't make the Mauretanias any slower, nor the Olympics any faster. Nor were people in 1912 noticeably stupider than they are today. In fact, I suspect the reverse applies.
    2
  49. Well done. Silliest comment of the day. It is still early, however.
    2
  50. Perhaps you didn't know that IMM had regulations which meant that the bunkers of their ships were checked on a daily basis. Why also the smouldering fire caused by spontaneous combustion, in one of 19 bunkers had been dealt with at least 24 hours before the sinking?
    2
  51. Olympic was damaged once, when in collision with HMS Hawke. She returned to Harland & Wolff, and was repaired and back at sea by late November, 1911. So desperate for cash were White Star at the time that they ordered construction of the third Olympic, Britannic, at the same time, by the way. You do understand that the damaged plating was fully replaced in Belfast, do you? Hence, your comments about paint marks are simply nonsense. Both Olympics cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. Thus, the insurance scam you imply cost W hite Star £500,000 as well as a reputation for safety. I thought such things were intended to make money? 'We all know he ( J. P. Morgan) was scheduled to be on the ship for its "maiden" voyage but cancelled last minute.' No, 'we' actually know that he intended no such thing. The New York Times of 28 March 1912 contains an article, still available in their archives, which states that Morgan intended to be in Venice, at St. Mark's on 23 April, to dedicate the new Campanile and attend an Art Exhibition. How might he have managed that, had he intended to sail aboard Titanic, do you suppose? You may now accept yourself to be proven wrong. Swallowing switcher videos completely and unquestioningly does make you look such a fool when the real facts are explained, doesn't it?
    2
  52.  @buckchesterfield8886  Isn''t it fascinating how people who comment on a subject that they don't actually know much about generally feel the need to resort to insults at the first opportunity? This video, by exposing the fire theory for the nonsense that it is, efficiently proves how little credibility Molony's nonsense has. As I wrote, you really should watch it before calling it 'A load of Nonsense.'
    2
  53. He was half right. Everyone knows that Titanic & Hindenburg were swapped, that the wreck on the bottom of the atlantic is Hindenburg, and it was Titanic which erupted in flames at Lakehurst in 1937. It was all planned by J.P. Morgan, by means of a Ouija board. Do your reesearch, people!
    2
  54. Name any vessel of the period which did have such compartments.
    2
  55. The ship was designed to survive with four compartments compromised. In the event, five, or possibly six, were flooding. The bulkheads were higher than required by Board of Trade Regulations in any case. She sank because she was subjected to damage well in excess of anything that had been predicted. The lifeboat myth is just that. The Olympics carried more than Board of Trade Regulations required.
    2
  56. You shouldn't simply watch conspiracist videos and swallow them unquestioningly. It makes you look such a gullible fool when you post silliness like this.
    2
  57. Where did you get the myth of the hull plating from? Titanic, like Olympic before her, was designed by Harland & Wolff, who presented White Star with a tender for the cost of construction. The ship did not sink quickly. Compare her sinking to that of Lusitania, for example. Ismay was not a marine architect, and had precisely no say in the type of steel used. Smith acted exactly as any other captain would have done. He altered to a more southerly course, and warned his lookouts to be particularly vigilant. I don't make this claim, but several Master Mariners who gave evidence at the British Inquiry did. When did Smith run a ship aground entering New York? I am sure you will immediately provide chapter and verse on this! Phillips did not send 'shut up' to California. At least, Californian's operator said he didn't, in his evidence. He said that Phillips simply asked him, in Morse shorthand (probably DDD) to clear the frequency. The operator then switched off his set because his shift had ended. He was Californian's only operator, and did not work 24 hours each day.
    2
  58. Evidently not. I often visit Heritage Railways, and look forward to the day that a team of firemen feed coal into a boiler so eagerly that the engine romps along in excess of 150 mph.
    2
  59. There was. A comparatively small fire, extinguished around a day before the collision.
    2
  60. According to the various Master Mariners who testified at the British Inquiry, Smith acted in accordance with the usual procedure of the time. He had already altered to a more southerly course, and he maintained his speed, whilst warning his lookouts to be especially vigilant. The expert witnesses endorsed his actions.
    2
  61.  @DerpyPossum  Well, look on the bright side. No doubt this spectacular 'discovery' helped Molony sell a few books.
    2
  62. No. She was destroyed by torpedoes, dropped by a secret Black Ops. flight of Wright Flyers, owned and operated by J. P. Morgan. Good heavens! I feel a book coming on. Possibly even a movie?
    2
  63. It doesn't matter how many times that nonsense is proven false. The fools who believe it will continue to believe it, simply because they want to believe it. Facts and evidence are irrelevant to them.
    2
  64. The CGI which pretends to show Olympic's name on Titanic is a poorly made fake. It first appeared around the year 2000. It has no provenance, no exploration has ever claimed it, or even acknowledged it, and even the author of the 1995 book which started all this nonsense off, Robin Gardiner, condemned it as false. Oh, and to make Olympic look like Titanic, it would be necessary to do rather more than paint a different name on the ship. Especially since both ships' names were engraved in the metalwork, not simply painted on.
    2
  65. No point. The Morgan nonsense has been proven false almost limitless times. Those who believe it continue so to do because they simply prefer conspiracist myths to mere facts.
    2
  66. The company was far from bankrupt, or facing bankruptcy. The third Olympic had been ordered less than six months earlier, and the accounts for White Star for the previous financial show a company in an excellent financial state.
    2
  67. The Olympics burned between 600 & 800 tons of coal per day. That is an indisputable fact. The Olympics were designed to carry a maximum load of 6611 tons of coal.
    2
  68. It could, but if Mr. Molony had mentioned that, it might have harmed his book sales.
    2
  69. It constantly amazes me that these people who wax lyrical about a 'raging, uncontrollable fire' seem to believe that seafarers in the Edwardian period were astonishingly stupid. Imagine a conversation in early April, 1912, between Captain Smith and his Chief Engineer, Joseph Bell :- Bell: 'Captain Smith. I have to report that there is a raging, uncontrollable fire below decks, which is damaging the hull plating. Smith : 'Never mind, Joseph. We will sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What could possibly go wrong?' Seriously?
    2
  70. Nothing is to be said about it, largely because it is nonsense. There was no shortage of coal aboard Titanic. Moreover, if you overfill a boiler, all that happens is that, once the safe working pressure is reached, the safety valves lift.
    2
  71. When Andrews returned from his inspection and advised Smith that his ship was doomed, it is difficult to see what alternatives the captain really had.
    2
  72. It would have needed remarkable pumps to cope with the ingress of water, estimated at 400 tons per minute.
    2
  73. I assume you enjoyed the switcher video you watched and swallowed whole and unthinkingly, did you? Such productions do seem to be popular with the idiots of this world.
    2
  74. Especially when IMM regulations required that the bunkers of their ships be inspected on a daily basis precisely because of the known risks of spontaneous combustion.
    2
  75. It is always amusing to read the thoughts of conspiracists. Especially when they are totally oblivious to facts. Do you seriously suggest that Captain Rostron had men refusing to pick up survivors until they had signed NDAs? Especially since the first NDAs didn't appear until the 1940s? In fact, are you even able to think at all?
    2
  76. I hesitate to ask what evidence, if any, brought you to that conclusion?
    1
  77. Well, doubtless it sold a lot of books.
    1
  78. Be a bit tedious. The scene would simply involve Joseph Bell reporting to Captain Smith that the bunker fire had been put out, and Smith replying 'Thank you, Mr. Bell. Carry on.'
    1
  79. Pinch of salt? a barrel full would be needed where some of the nonsense about Titanic excreted by switchers and conspiracists are concerned.
    1
  80. Unfortunately, the switchers and conspiracists will not accept facts or evidence, even when explained as cogently as they have been in Mr. Brady's video. The plain fact is that they simply do not wish to accept these facts, and no amount of evidence or argument, however convincing, will persuade them.
    1
  81. It never will be, because the people who believe if do so because they WANT to, and facts mean nothing to them.
    1
  82. Ah, but accepting that the smudge might have been a flaw on an old photograph or a fault on the negative might had adversely affected sales of the book!
    1
  83. You mean the coal strike which had ended on 6 April? That coal strike?
    1
  84.  @donise8406  Which doesn't equate to being an idiot. Smith had been a Master Mariner since 1887, and knew the ways of the sea. It is academic in any case. Despite Molony's claims, there was no fire in the area of the 'mark' however much the suggestion might have helped sell his book.
    1
  85. Stop using common sense! Those who promote the fire nonsense demand that you suspend common sense.
    1
  86. You didn't watch the video, did you?
    1
  87.  @N1gel  I am more than ever convinced that you are writing through your posterior. Who has ever suggested that the draft of an Olympic was as you bizarrely state, when as rational people are well aware it was 36 feet. Perhaps you have either misunderstood completely, simply do not understand the mechanics behind Titanic's sinking, which was a rusult of several watertight compartments being compromised, or you do not know why Titanic sank. The flooding had precisely nothing to do with compression, and everything to do with iceberg damage to the hull. Were you to watch the video again, perhaps you might appreciate the point he is making? Oh, and the location of Molony's alleged burn mark has never been questioned by anyone, although the nature of the mark has been, and by many. I really do not understand why you think compression played any part at all in the sinking. The point made in the video was that a coal bunker was not designed to withstand the weight of water it would receive from a flooded compartment. You do understand that there is no suggestion that the bulkheads themselves failed, but that the compartments they protected were flooded as a result of a line of holes punched into them by the iceberg. Again, compression is not a relevant factor. I am perplexed that you have, assuming you actually viewed it, misunderstood the argument being presented in the video. I will not waste any further time and effort replying, by the way.
    1
  88. Had your fictional fire actually existed, what do you think motivated Smith to give the order to sail? A death wish perhaps?
    1
  89. You should have watched the video before commenting. The hull had not been weakened.
    1
  90. A false analogy. The large quantity of coal was needed to propel an Olympic at 23 knots. Had the ships been duilt to cross the Atlantic at, for example, 13 knots, far smaller engines would have been sufficient. Compare the size of the engines used to power, for example, HMS Hood at 31 knots, with HMS Warspite at 24.
    1
  91.  @Matt..S  'You didn't get on the Titanic just to have a heated, lighted room with a meal.' Indeed. If you were 1st or 2nd class, you expected a fast crossing. Which is why an Olympic burned 600-800 tons of coal per day. Surely you understand the correlation between speed and engine power? Warspite, as built, generated 75,000 shp, on a displacement of 32,000 tons, with a maximum speed of 24 knots. Hood, when built, generated 144,000 shp, on a displacement of 46,800 tons, at a maximum speed of 32 knots. Both ships had four shafts, and similar armament and armour. The extra 69,000 shp, and the extra 14,800 tons, were almost entirely due to the huge extra engine power needed to generate the extra 8 knots. Compare these figures with Titanic & Lusitania :- Titanic :- Displacement 52,000 tons, 3 shafts, 46,000 shp, maximum speed 23 knots. Lusitania :- Displacement 44,000 tons, 4 shafts, 76,000 shp, maximum speed 28 knots. Thus Lusitania, with four turbines compared to two reciprocating engines and one low power turbine, still required 30,000 more shp, on a lower displacement, in order to achieve five extra knots.
    1
  92.  @Matt..S  Isn't it obvious? In order to be competitive, White Star's ships needed to cross the Atlantic at a reasonable speed, or they would lose their market share. To reach that speed, they needed to have engines capable of reaching it. What you describe as 'insanity' was considered normal in 1912.
    1
  93. Did you not bother watching the video before commenting?
    1
  94.  @donaldmcauliffe3120  Perhaps you simply didn't understand what the video said, then? The smouldering fire in Bunker W, extinguished around a day before the collision with the iceberg, did not damage the bulkhead. The supposed fire about 40 - 50 feet further forward, imagined by Mr. Molony on the basis of one mark on one photograph, did not actually happen. The mark was well above the waterline, where 3rd class accommodation was located. Did any 3rd class survivors report any blazing inferno in that area? No, of course they didn't.
    1
  95. The conspiracy is an invented one, dating all the way back to the distant past! Actually, to 1995. Every actual record states that Olympic was returned to Harland & Wolff, repaired by late November, 1911, and immediate returned to sea. It can be safely assumed that, the less a person actually knows about Titanic, the more likely he/she is to believe conspiracy nonsense.
    1
  96. Perhaps the sinking of an armed auxiliary warship carring military personnel in wartime does not generate as much sympathy?
    1
  97. Correct. It is about 40 feet forward of it. Moreover, it is also well above the waterline. Still, it has helped Mr. Molony make a few quid out of his book.
    1
  98.  @titan-1802  It may not convince anyone with any actual knowledge or understanding, but it certainly helped Mr. Molony sell a book or two.
    1
  99. Apparently the construction was cancelled some time ago.
    1
  100. Congratulations! A masterful destruction of Molony's ill informed nonsense. Not, of course, that the people who believe his rubbish will pay the slightest attention to mere facts, of course.
    1
  101. This 'brittleness' never seems to have troubled Olympic much.
    1
  102. The ships each had a coal capacity of 6611 tons.
    1
  103.  @iamhungey12345  You should remember that these people watch a switcher or conspiracist video, swallow it unquestioningly, and regard themselves immediately thereafter as experts.
    1
  104. No. The coal fire didn't breach any compartments. The bulkheads and the much thinner steelwork comprising the ship's 19 bunkers were totally different.
    1
  105. No. Serveal watertight compartments had been compromised by a whole series of puncture holes.
    1
  106. Except that this video, which you presumably haven't watched, demonstrates one of those crackpot theories.
    1
  107. I would suggest that Harland & Wolff did know something about how to build coal-fired ships.
    1
  108. The bunker is not the issue, as it was neither designed nor intended to cope with the pressure in any case. That was the purpose of the series of bulkheads within the ship, and there is no suggestion that the bunker fire affected any of them.
    1
  109.  @iamhungey12345  Or, as most of them do, simply not reply.
    1
  110.  @iamhungey12345  I think that they fell for it because they wanted to believe it, and were happy to suspend disbelief.
    1
  111. Actually, I know 'an awful lot' about it, and I agree with his conclusions.
    1
  112. A smouldering fire, caused by spontaneous cumbustion, in one of 19 bunkers, and being addressed bt the engineering staff, was never a threat to the ship. It had been extinguished around a day before the collision, and was irrelevant to the sinking.
    1
  113.  @merafirewing6591  There were no tugs anywhere near, and certainly no divers.
    1
  114. Probably a similar career to her older sister. A trooper in WW1, then years as a transatlantic liner, before being scrapped at the same time as Olympic and Mauretania in the early 1930s after the Cunard/White Star merger.
    1
  115. Invented in the mid 1990s.
    1
  116. Nonsense. There was never any such danger.
    1
  117.  @prestonbacchus4204  Be careful before committing yourself. When Titanic left Southampton, she had precisely 5892 tons of coal in her bunkers. Olympic, when she completed her maiden voyage to New York, had consumed 3540 tons. Why not check for yourself? The testimony of stoker survivors was actually that the fire had been extinguished around 24 hours before the iceberg collision, and that the only damage was to bunker paintwork. I have read the minutes of both Inquiries. You obviously haven't. Similarly, Master Mariners and Liner Captains who gave evidence at the British Inquiry supported Smith's actions, and confirmed that his actions accorded with how they would have behaved. Stop making things up.
    1
  118. The theory of a major fire aboard Titanic has no credible evidence at all, but it did help Mr. Molony sell many books.
    1
  119. Titanic's bunkers were huge. Using up the coal quickly was a far more practicable solution.
    1
  120. Olympic had received such damage in September 1911 when the ram bow of a RN protected cruiser penetrated her starboard quarter to a depth of around six to eight feet. Two compartments were compromised, by she was never in any danger of sinking.
    1
  121. As I said to your earlier post. Thanks for confirming my opinion. How is it that no-one ever reported a bunker fire in Bunker 1? Perhaps because, unlike boiler rooms, bunkers were lettered, not numbered. The only bunker with any reported fire was Bunker W, in Boiler Room 5.
    1
  122.  @Tozzpot500  Apart from the buildin costs for the Olympics (£1.5 million each, and each insured for £1 million) you are quite correct. Don't expect the switcher fools to take any notice, however, as facts have never really interested them much anyway.
    1
  123. No point. The same people will not believe any accurate facts, however convincing they might be to normals, because they simply do not want to accept them.
    1
  124. It seems to be in the area of 3rd Class accommodation, yet no-one ever reported a raging fire in that area. I supspect that it was a mark on an early negative, or perhaps even the result, if it actually did exist, of a close encounter with a dockside fender. It is only seen on one photo., as far as I know, and the author pushing the claim, Mr. Molony, was more eager to sell the book than to answer criticism.
    1
  125. Amazing how sensible videos like this seem to attract more than their share of absolute fools. You, for example.
    1
  126. Perhaps you might look up how big these bunkers were?
    1
  127.  @ChaplainDMK  Titanic was flooding at a rate of 400 tons of water per minute. You would need a remarkable pump to cope with that rate of ingress.
    1
  128.  @ChaplainDMK  The ship was flooding at a rate of 400 tons per minute. You understanding was incorrect. One of the accurate scenes in the Cameron movie was when Andrews tells Smith, 'The pumps will buy you time, but minutes only.'
    1
  129. Didn't you even watch the video?
    1
  130. The fire was not resolved prior to departure, but had been around 24 hours before the collision. There was no suggestion that using this coal resulted in the ship accelerating.
    1
  131. Mount Temple? Wasn't that another one of Molony's?
    1
  132. Because it was simple common sense to use up the coal from the affected bunker first.
    1
  133. Both the insurance scam and the Federal Reserve nonsense were invented in the mid 1990s. Neither have a shred of evidence to support them.
    1
  134. What makes you believe the structure was weakened?
    1
  135. Very few lookouts at the time even used 'glasses' as they adversely affected their ability to watch the horizon as a whole. Their job was to detect objects, and notify the bridge officers, who would identify them and decide a course of action. Had Fleet had binoculars, it might well have delayed the alarm being given by a few seconds.
    1
  136.  @egm8602  You haven't actually read the minutes then, I observe.
    1
  137.  @egm8602  Evidently, you haven't read the minutes at all.
    1
  138. His latest is the Mount Temple nonsense.
    1
  139.  @charlesdarnay5455  'What, that the Mt Temple was there, and not the Californian? ' Yes. That is the one.
    1
  140. Perhaps understanding the stress placed upon the structure of Titanic as her bow sank and her stern rose from the water, which was far in excess of anything for which she had been designed, rather escaped you?
    1
  141. I wonder what it was you read which was so choc full of errors and inaccuracies?
    1
  142. Everything about Titanic met Board of Trade regulations in force at the time. As you say, had this not been so, she would not have received BoT certification. Without this, insurance would not be available, and without she would not have sailed.
    1
  143. Gustloff was an armed auxiliary warship, carrying troops & U-boat crews as well as refugees.
    1
  144. Actually, the use of RMS dates back to 1840. Encyclopedia Britannica is not infallible.
    1
  145. What is even more important is to understand that you have simply watched a conspiracy video and swallowed it whole.
    1
  146. Be fair to the late Robin Gardiner. The book might have been total drivel, but he sold a lot of them. Perhaps this is what gave Dan Brown the idea for the equally ludicrous 'Da Vinci Code?'
    1
  147.  @j.whiteoak6408  I think it is a matter almost of faith with them, much like those who accept the 1990s invented myth about the sinking intended to help the creation of the Federal Reserve. Facts, however compelling, mean nothing to them. Da Vinci Code? Entertaining but absurd, in three words.
    1
  148. Perhaps a little research here might have answered your question before you posted it. The delivery crew who took Titanic to Southampton from Belfast were never intended to be the operational crew, nor did they wish to be. The Belfast men wished to return to Belfast as quickly as possible, whereas the operational crew took over the ship in Southampton. Clear now?
    1
  149. Well, it seems fairly well argued to me.
    1
  150.  @buckfaststradler4629  Fair enough! I misunderstood. You are, of course, correct. It is.
    1
  151. Photographic evidence of what, precisely? You haven't actually watched the video, have you?
    1
  152. I wonder if he actually believes what he claims, or is simply there for the money?
    1