Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The First Titanic Inquiry Was a Confused Mess" video.

  1.  @wrichard11  Nonsense. Lightoller left on the last collapsible, which floated away, upside down, when Titanic sank.
    24
  2. The Olympics were at least three knots slower than the turbine driven Lusitanias.
    5
  3. Only one official said that, and, ironically, after the event.
    4
  4.  @Tozzpot500  Many, many thanks. You have saved me from going to the trouble of a lot of typing, and my fingers are already getting sore!! The building & insured figures, however, were at 1912 levels, not those of today, and there had been a lifeboat drill, in Southampton prior to sailing.
    3
  5.  @Tozzpot500  Good thought. A standard, covers all, reply might well be a good idea!
    3
  6.  @dungeonsanddobbers2683  Odd, then, that the 'impetuous' Captain Smith didn't have five of Titanic's boilers even connected, then. Indeed, where in his record is there any suggestion of impetuosity?
    3
  7. Why would you ask such a discourteous question? Perhaps he is simply interested in the subject and, unlike many, has actually bothered to research it?
    3
  8.  @ronaldschultenover8137  Then why even bother to comment at all?
    3
  9. You don't actually know much about White Star, Harland and Wolff, or, indeed, the circumstances in general, do you?
    3
  10. You think that Stanley Lord was a member of the aristocracy? Lord was born on 13 September 1877 in Bolton, Lancashire, England. He began his training at sea when he was thirteen, aboard the barque Naiad, in March 1891. He later obtained his Second Mate’s Certificate of competency and served as Second Officer on the barque Lurlei. Do you see anything aristocratic there?
    3
  11.  @Tozzpot500  Don't you just love these people who watch a conspiracy theory about Titanic, swallow it whole, and then immediately pronounce themselves authorities on the subject? I love the idea of the bomb in the hold. Far more entertaining than the idea of an attack by Black Ops Wright Flyers led by J. P. Morgan himself. I personally thought that one up. Perhaps the basis for a book?
    3
  12. I see the problem here. You would rather believe scenes from the movie than evidence from the time. I fear that you are not alone in that.
    3
  13. Really? Explain what was 'whitewashing' about it?
    3
  14. I suspect that you haven't actually read the minutes, or the findings, of the British Inquiry at all.
    3
  15. Why? He simply switched off his set at the end of his shift.
    2
  16.  @fiachramaccana280  Got off 'Scot-Free?' Apart from resigning as Chairman of White Star, living the rest of his life as a virtual recluse, and suffering unjustified and false vilification for the vindictive William Hearst? There is no evidence that he discussed the issue of speed with Smith, as the only witness to any conversation stated that Ismay simply said that Titanic was making better time than Olympic had on her maiden voyage. Indeed, five of Titanic's boilers were never connected. He didn't 'pretend' to be sick. The reports from Carpathia's doctor and the one other person who visited him both confirmed his mental state. By the way, apart from two obvious 'crimes', those of being Chairman of the White Star Line, and shamelessly not dying in the disaster, how do you think he was liable?
    2
  17.  @vitordebruim8634  Lightoller was 4th in the chain of command, behind Smith, Wilde, and Murdoch. I don't really see what difference it makes whether Titanic broke up on the surface, or as she sank. It is simply a detail of the sinking process, and Lightoller was rather busy at the time. How would him 'lying' about this detail have been of benefit to White Star, in any case? Certainly, his interpretation of Smith's 'women and children first' order is open to question, and to criticism, but, his answers do not fall into the category of falsehoods.
    2
  18. How do you know that Ismay didn't simply assume that the inevitable inquiry would be in Britain, and that he simply wished to have the surviving crew, and himself, returned there as soon as possible in order to testify? There is precisely no evidence that Ismay, nor any other White Star official, sought to put pressure on the surviving crew. Unless, of course, you give to James Fenton's letter a credibility it really does not deserve.
    2
  19.  @Titanick9-1912  Mrs. Lines' account of the conversation between Ismay & Smith, which may be read in full in her statement to the Limitation of Liability Hearings, having been given in Paris on 22 November, 1913, states that Ismay simply said to Smith that Titanic was performing better than Olympic had on her maiden voyage. Indeed, she repeated this comment more than once. What she specifically did not say was that she heard Ismay press Smith about Speed. Ismay's first telegrams used his name. Why the later ones were signed 'Yamsi' neither I, you, nor anyone else knows. If it was code, it was a pathetic one, I suggest. Moreover, when it was put to him, apparently by Lightoller, that the idea was an inappropriate one, nothing more was heard of it. At the time, Lightoller was Second Officer, effectively 4th in the Chain of Command. He was 38 years old, compared to Captain Smith (62) or Captain Haddock of Olympic (51). Put simply, he was rather young to be considered for command. Moreover, no other White Star officer survivor ever received a White Star command, either. Although unspoken, having been aboard Titanic seems to have been regarded as a Black Mark against the survivors, of whatever rank. Lightoller served in RMS Oceanic after the sinking, and became her First Officer after her conversion to an Armed Merchant Cruiser in WW1. He later served in the same role aboard the early aircraft carrier HMS Campania before receiving his own command, in 1915.
    2
  20.  @JedRothwell  Feel free, then to explain why RMS Olympic sailed the same waters with total success for 24 years, when she was built using identical materials.
    2
  21.  @keithammleter3824  'Harland & Wolf were a bit dodgy back then, focused on saving costs. It has been found in old records that they knowingly put cheap rivets in parts of the hull they thought should see less stress. Which was where the berg hit.' I'm sure that you have an unimpeachable source for this allegation. You do, don't you? You should view the documentary 'Titanic 100 : Mystery Solved, ' which would inform you of the following :- Parks Stephenson and Dan Butler also tested the weak rivet theory. They reproduced Titanic’s seams using original blueprints and the exact same materials. When they performed their tests, the steel bent much further than 5mm. The rivets didn’t fail until around 20,000 pounds of force. Even then, the seam was still watertight. But there was another test to perform, on a newer and bigger seam. In January 1912, Olympic ran into a very heavy storm. A storm that Captain Smith described as the worst he’d ever experienced. During this storm, some of Olympic’s hatch covers and railings became loose. But also some rivets became loose. This resulted in her returning to the dry dock between January 1912 and the maiden voyage of the Titanic. Harland and Wolff had to prevent this from happening to the Titanic. So they drilled old rivets out, added a new strap of metal over the original seam and inserted newer rivets. This also included steel rivets. According to original drawings, this was done on all seams under the Titanic’s waterline. With this, the seams were now quadruple riveted, not tripled. When they tested the new seam, it began to fail at 25,000 pounds of force. Yet it was still more watertight that the original seam. Thus to conclude, the Titanic was NOT a weak ship and the materials used to build her were not cheap or defective. Even though she could have been stronger, she was still not weak. The answer why she could have been stronger lies in why Harland and Wolff ordered Grade 3 iron and not Grade 4. The exact reason is unknown, as there are no official documents, letters or memoirs containing a reason. If there is one, it is buried somewhere in a private collection. If she was made with Grade Number 4 wrought iron rivets, the seams would still have failed, but not as much as they did. This means she could have stayed afloat longer than she actually did. But whether she would have stayed afloat long enough for help to arrive is still questionable and always will be. But the Titanic was NOT a weak ship.
    2
  22.  @SlamHerClam  I cannot tell you how delighted I am to observe that you have accepted your errors.
    2
  23. Really? What did they know?
    2
  24. No it wasn't. The answer from LilyRose37 is correct.
    2
  25. Ismay had precisely no say in the design of Titanic. He was a businessman, not a marine architect.
    2
  26.  @joeyjojo5986  'How can you say he wasn't involved in the design?' Put simply, because he wasn't. Aside from absurd claims in some of the sillier conspiracy theory videos, there is no evidence to support your nonsense. Alexander Carlisle designed the Olympics, and gave evidence to the Inquiry after the sinking. He stated, under oath, that no-one from White Star attempted to influence him. The whole idea is absurd. Do you seriously think that, for example, the Chairmen of British Airways, Qantas, Emirates, or Luftsansa had any involvement in the design of the A380? They, like Ismay, were businessmen, not designers, and thus left the design to the professionals. The minimum height of bulkheads, in any case, was dictated by Board of Trade regulations.
    2
  27. However, Third Officer Groves of Californian estimated the distance from the large steamer to have been 10 to 12 miles, and there was, of course, no independent third party estimate. Lord was rightly vilified for his inexplicable inaction, but the paucity of evidence would suggest that any attempted prosecution of him would have failed,. Or, in the old phrase from Scottish law, have remained 'not proven.'
    2
  28. Clearly, you haven't read the minutes from either Inquiry? Fred Barrett was extensively interviewed over two days, during the British Inquiry (Q & A 1834 to 2075), and George Beauchamp, similarly, gave evidence over one day ( Q & A 652 to 892). On 25 May, 1912, Barrett also gave evidence to Senator Smith, actually aboard RMS Olympic, ironically in RMS Olympic's 'fireroom' when she was in New York. Barratt was hardly 'cut short' by Lord Mersey. Where did you get that idea from?
    2
  29.  @soniaellis163  Basically, that the doors of the coal bunker failed. Not surprising really, as the bunkers were not intended to be capable of resisting the pressure of water to which they were subjected. They were, unlike the bulkheads, never part of the compartmental structure designed to protect the Olympics. Indeed, the nonsense written about the fire is of very recent origin, and Barrett's explanation that he had been part of a group of stokers & firemen who had been dealing with the fire since Titanic had left Southampton, and who had dealt with it some 24 hours before the collision, seems to have been (intentionally?) ignored. As has been the fact that the only damage was to paintwork inside the bunker.
    2
  30. Really? Which 'lies' in particular?
    2
  31.  @thurin84  The only passenger who claimed to have overheard any conversation between Ismay & Smith was a Mrs. Elizabeth Lines, who gave her oral testimony to the Limit of Liability Hearing, on 22 November, 1913. You might perhaps read it? She Simply said that Ismay commented to Smith that Titanic was performing better on her Maiden Voyage than Olympic had on her Maiden Voyage in June 1911. There was no suggestion that Smith should increase speed. If Ismay was really so concerned about speed, why were five boilers in Titanic not connected?
    2
  32. Of course they didn't. They didn't mention the cunning attack by a secret but highly advanced U-Boat either. Perhaps because both, in common with the myth of the Federal Reserve connection, were idiotic inventions of the 1990s.
    2
  33. Really? Why do you think that?
    2
  34. The saddest thing of all is that you may well actually believe that nonsense.
    2
  35.  @of1300  Yes, I have read the transcripts, and done much research. The Inquiries were not trials, as for a trial there would need to be evidence of criminal intent, and neither Inquiry concluded that there was. When you make comments like ' freemasons are not allowed by solemn oath to implicate any other freemasons, and since most people of notable position in politics, law and media at that time were freemasons, the whole charade of these hearing actually makes total sense' you can hardly expect to be taken seriously. I was not intending to insult, but simply to express my bewilderment that someone who is, presumably, an adult, could cling to such bizarre ideas.
    2
  36. No.
    2
  37. Utter nonsense. A myth created by conspiracists as late as the 1990s.
    2
  38. Indeed. They would have known at once that the rivets were not responsible for the sinking, and much nonsense spoken to the contrary, albeit only from the 1990s, could have been avoided.
    2
  39. No wireless technology, of whatever origin, would have given any warning to any Bridge if the set was switched off.
    2
  40. That is why you shouldn't place any credence in anything apparently said in a movie.
    2
  41. Quite why he would even have asked is a mystery.
    2
  42. 'Smith's apparently "stupid" questions were deliberately asked in response to enormous public pressure about the possibility of survival in trapped air pockets.' Really? How would asking what an iceberg was made of be relevant to that? 'Trapped in Air Pockets' at a depth of 13,000 feet? I doubt anyone at all thought such a thing. Events like this occur when a Senator whose expertise is in Railroads and Railroad Finance grabs control of an Inquiry far outside his area of competence. By the way 'Further, his list of witnesses was much broader in scope than the British inquiry.' Really? :- US Inquiry - 18 days, 86 witnesses. British Inquiry - 36 days, 98 witnesses. Did the US Inquiry interview expert witnesses, such as Alexander Carlisle, designer of the Olympics, or Leonard Peskett, designer of the Lusitanias, or John Pritchard, retired Master of Mauretania, or Joseoh Ranson, Master of Baltic, or Harold Sanderson, Vice President of IMM, or Ernest Shackleton, or William Stewart, Master of Empress of Britain? The British Inquiry was far more detailed, and far more exhaustive, involving people from all levels, from surviving Greasers to the Vice-Chairman of IMM. By the way, which newspapers screamed 'WHITEWASH!!?'
    2
  43. Exactly how was it a 'Cover Up?'
    2
  44. 'You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.' Sir Francis Urquhart. RIP Ian Richardson.
    2
  45. Presumably because such material from the time was much thinner on the ground. There is, for example, only about 50 seconds of newsreel footage of Titanic.
    1
  46. Which 'wealthy influential people' do you think were at fault?
    1
  47. The University of Pennsylvania holds the John Thayer archive, which contains these letters. It comments on them in the following words:- 'Mr. Ismay survived the disaster, but resigned as Chairman of the White Star Line. In the aftermath of the disaster, Mr. Ismay sent Mrs. Thayer a dozen letters attempting to console the grieving widow.' Clearly, they must have been very raunchy. At least in your imagination.
    1
  48. Fortunately, Captain Rostron followed the Law of the Sea where Titanic was concerned. Do you seriously wish to argue than any mariner of the time would really have said ' So what if a large liner is sinking. Let's just not bother.' If Lord really thought his actions were justified, why was his evidence so disingenuous?
    1
  49.  @pop5678eye  'It also had much more limited resources for rescue since it was far far smaller than the Titanic.' That really doesn't apply, as during the Dunkirk evacuation, vessels half the size of Californian were able to transport eight or nine hundred troops back to Britain. Moreover, it was known that other ships were on their way, so the crowded conditions, on a calm sea, by the way, would only have applied for three or four hours. Given the choice between standing on a crowded open deck, or dying of hypothermia, I suspect I could guess which people would have chosen. ' My argument is that even if the Californian had heard the distress call it could not arrive in time safely to save those who went down with Titanic or those already freezing in the waters.' That wasn't what you argued in your first comment, when you wrote ; 'The duty of a captain first is to ensure the safety of his own ship. The obligation to rescue another ship in distress is secondary to that,' was it? Whether Lord could have saved any of those who died, moreover, is not the issue. The crux of the matter is that he was made aware of a situation, and chose not even to investigate it.
    1
  50.  @pop5678eye  'Exactly what was he made aware of that would have obligated him to investigate? The only data he had was that the Titanic was at some distance from his ship, previously ignoring ice warnings and telling his radio operator to shut up and finally shooting rockets that are normally used for celebrations into the air.' What more data did he need? His own officers had told him of their concerns, which he ignored. Firing rockets was the usual means of signalling a ship in distress. That is why Titanic carried 36 Socket Signals. Whereever have you acquired this strange and unsubstantiated belief that there were commonly used for 'celebrations?' Your second paragraph entirely misses my point, which is not whether Lord could actually have done anything to help Titanic's passengers and crew, but that he simply chose not to investigate what events were unfolding. Alone of the ships in the area, Californian sat motionless, as Carpathia and others effectively busted their guts trying to get to the site. How can you justify that? Actually, Carpathia was at full speed, and Rostron deployed additional lookouts. Her normal maximum speed was 14 knots, but it seems she managed just over 17 as she raced towards Titanic. Changing a fact or two to justify your claims is really unworthy of you. By the way, Californian's radio operator could also have been at his set, if Lord had bothered to wake him up. 'Here's a hypothetical to you as a demonstration.' Still you miss the point. Lord was vilified, not because he failed to rescue anyone from Titanic, but because he simply refused to find out what was happening. Can you really not grasp that simple fact? 'And again I can remind you that even into modern times rescuers frequently suspend searches when conditions are too hazardous for themselves and wait until daytime or for weather to clear or for seas to calm. You read about this in the news all the time. These are standards of rescue to this day.' Very good. The part you missed is the word 'suspend.' Usually, rescue ships reach the area, and carry out their searches. Only when it is becoming increasing evident that further effort would be futile is any search suspended, as, inevitably, it has become an attempt to recover bodies, rather than to find survivors.
    1
  51.  @DrDoohickey  'Sure, but if witness testimony is to be believed, there is the matter of the overheard conversation.' You really should read what Mrs. Lines actually said. She denied that there had been any comment about increasing speed. All Ismay (assuming it was Ismay) actually said was that Titanic was performing better than Olympic had on her maiden voyage in June, 1911. Those who allege that speed was mentioned need to read the 'DEPOSITION of Mrs. Elizabeth L. Lines, taken upon oral interrogatories, pursuant to Commission granted October 27, 1913, at the American Consulate-General, 36 Avenue de l'Opera, at the City of Paris, Republic of France, on the twenty-second day of November, One thousand nine hundred and thirteen.'
    1
  52. But there is no doubt that the flares from a 'Large Steamer' were seen and reported to Lord by his officers. Whether Californian could have reached Titanic in time is a moot point, but Lord was, rightly in the view of almost every Titanic researcher or historian, vilified for his failure even to try to find out what events were unfolding.
    1
  53.  @jeanie6936  So now you are seeming to defend Captain Lord, simply because of my criticism of him? Odd, that, isn't it? By the way, it is irrelevant whether Titanic drifted or not, as Captain Lord made not the slightest effort to find out what was actually happening around him.
    1
  54.  @likeisaid1947  Yes, he did, but Third Officer Charles Groves of the SS Californian testified that he saw the lights of another ship 10 or 12 miles away from the Californian. The ship would certainly have been Titanic. Lord, I suggest, deserved all the criticism and contempt which he subsequently received, but there was simply not enough solid evidence to justify a successful prosecution.
    1
  55. It would be, had it been even remotely true, but the fact is that the claim is a total invention, dating from the rise of social media in the 1990s. If you have any credible proof that Astor or Guggenheim said anything in opposition to the concept of the Federal Reserve, or that the reports of Straus' support for it, as recorded in the New York Times' account of his speech of October, 1911, was false, please feel free to supply it. You have, I fear, simply watched a conspiracy video and swallowed it whole.
    1
  56. What do you think he was 'malicious' about?
    1
  57.  @willnill7946  No, he didn't. Smith gave the order of 'Women & Children first.' Moreover, Lightoller was only second in command of the boats on the port side (the even numbered boats) after Chief Officer Henry Wilde. Indeed, in view od Smith's present, he may well only have been third. Of these boats, Lightoller was certainly not responsible for the loading of boats 10, 14, & 16, and at best only partly responsible, along with Wilde, for boat 12. The tally of survivors in each boat was as follows :- Boat 2 18. Boat 1 12. Boat 4 30. Boat 3 32. Boat 6 24 Boat 5 36. Boat 8 27. Boat 7 28 Boat 10 57 Boat 9 40. Boat 12 41 Boat 11 50 Boat 14 40 Boat 13 55 Boat 16 52 Boat 15 66 Col. B 28 Col. A 13 Col. D 20 Col. C 43 Collapsible B was the overturned boat upon which Lightoller and the rest stood, after Lightoller had managed to launch it five minutes before Titanic's final plunge. Several additional people from Collapsible B died of exposure during the night. Lightoller's boats therefore, carried 99 people. Compared to 108 in their opposite numbers on the starboard side. In terms of numbers did Lightoller really do anything much different to Murdoch? Moreover, both Smith & Wilde spent their remaining time on the port side of the ship. Lightoller had two superiors probably directing his actions. Many people seem to think that Lightoller's greatest crime was in surviving at all, I suggest.
    1
  58. ' ISMAY had full intentions of getting into a lifeboat from the moment he set foot on the deck that night.' William Carter did claim that he and Ismay were ordered into the boat. Certainly, Carter was probably attempting damage limitation, as I believe that his wife alleged that he had abandoned her and his children, and divorced him soon afterwards. Ismay, however, made no such claim. Indeed, he specifically denied that any such order was given, in his testimony to the British Inquiry :- 18557. Did you see how many passengers were put into this collapsible? - No, I did not see at the time. 18558. Did she appear to be full? - She was very fairly full. 18559. Would you tell us what happened after you got the women and children in? - After all the women and children were in and after all the people that were on deck had got in, I got into the boat as she was being lowered away. 18560. There was no order to you to get in? - No, none. 18561. Did any other passenger get in? - One. 18562. That is a Mr. Carter? - Mr. Carter. 18563. Am I right, then, in this, that there were women and children and some members of the crew to man the boat and two passengers, yourself and Mr. Carter? - Yes, and four Chinamen were in the boat. 18564. Four Chinamen who, we have heard, were discovered after the boat was lowered? - Yes. I submit that your assumption that Ismay always intended to get into a lifeboat is based on your personal opinion of him, rather than on any verifiable facts.
    1
  59.  @charliefarley9658  Perhaps, then, you might answer a simple couple of questions? 1). If Ismay always planned to escape on a boat, why did he leave it until the last, almost full, collapsible? 2). When he was bowled an easy half volley outside off stump, by which I mean :- '18560. There was no order to you to get in?' Whey didn't he drive it to the boundary by saying something like : ' The officer supervising the loading, Mr. Murdoch I believe but I am not sure, told me to board the boat as there was still space.' Instead of simply saying : 'No, none.' Wouldn't the former answer, which could not be disproved, have shown him in a far more positive light than the latter? Moreover, wouldn't it actually have been the kind of answer 'a cowardly weasel and a clever cunning one at that' would really have given in an attempt to justify his survival? The fact that there were many other passengers still aboard, alkthough not locked in steerage, doesn't really apply, as the boat was, apparently, in the process of being lowered. A collapsible had a capacity of 47. This one had 44 aboard when picked up by Carpathia. In point of fact, I suggest that most people with much knowledge of Titanic no longer subscribe to the W. R. Hearst 'J. Brute Ismay' version of events.
    1
  60.  @heresjohnny7579  True, but not really relevant to Ismay's actions.
    1
  61.  @charliefarley9658  'Do you think that Murdoch was going to tell the boss of WSL to f off?' No, but as Murdoch died, Ismay had a golden opportunity to justify himself by claiming, when asked a specific question, that Murdoch ordered, or at least, suggested, that he should board the boat as it was being launched. No one could have gainsaid Ismay had he answered in the affirmative Yet, he specifically denied that any such suggestion had been put to him. Odd that, for such a devious individual, I suggest? Moreover, as Murdoch knew that he had minutes left to live, I doubt that protocol would have meant much to him. As Sherlock Holmes said '“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” You are, frankly, twisting facts by attributing motives of your own devising, to suit your belief that Ismay was fundamentally wicked.
    1
  62.  @alexandros4703  I didn't write that anyone did. But, of course, Hearst's newspapers did refer to him as 'J' Brute Ismay.'
    1
  63.  @alexandros4703  It hardly matters who was supervising Collapsible 'C' in any case, as Ismay was adamant that no-one ordered him into it. As there were no witnesses to gainsay him, he could have made the claim with impunity in order to explain his actions, but did not do so. As to your reference to 'twisting facts' in your earlier post, isn't suggesting that anyone was held back at gunpoint to allow Ismay into the boat a blatant fact-twisting comment?
    1
  64.  @youcannotbeserious1940  I know Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character although I am impressed that you do. The opinion was that of his creator, Conan-Doyle, and it doesn't make it any the less relevant, nor any the less valid.
    1
  65.  @alexandros4703  Just to add to my earlier post. The reference to 'wicked' was part of this comment of mine: 'You are, frankly, twisting facts by attributing motives of your own devising, to suit your belief that Ismay was fundamentally wicked. ' It was addressed to one 'charliefarley' and related to his earlier comment, where he opined that 'ISMAY had full intentions of getting into a lifeboat from the moment he set foot on the deck that night.' Followed by 'Men with integrity and a backbone with nothing to hide don't have these problems.' Moreover, I don't see where any fact has been twisted.
    1
  66. 'Mount Temple' A journalist, Senan Molony, made the claim in a supposed 'documentary' from late 2020, called 'Titanic: A Dead Reckoning'' The show repeated some old claims about Mount Temple and its role in the disaster, and made some new ones. Among these claims, it was said that Mount Temple was much closer to Titanic when the SOS was received, that Mount Temple approached to within five miles (8.0 km) of Titanic when Captain Moore decided to retreat after encountering the ice field in an attempt to avoid risk to his own ship, and that Mount Temple matched the appearance of the "mystery ship" that was being observed from Titanic because of the distance between her four masts, as later observed by the commander of the raider which sank Mount Temple in World War I. Unfortunately, Mr. Molony did not bother to mention that the generally-accepted 'mystery ship' SS Californian, was very similar in appearance to Mount Temple. Just look up photographs of the two. Obviously, he wouldn't have mentioned that, as it rather scuppered his claims.
    1
  67. ' Royal Environmental Inspectorate' What is that, then?
    1
  68.  @stanislavkostarnov2157  'a colloquialism built on an amalgamation of the various names it had over time... but basically, the part of the Royal Navy/environmental-police/River-Police/Home-office that would give the papers a vessel is safe & free to leave port.' Whereever did you get this nonsense from?
    1
  69.  @stanislavkostarnov2157  Oh, not from actual sources at all, then?
    1
  70. The sinking of Titanic had precisely nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. This is a myth created in the 1990s with the rise of social media fantasists. 'A few Senators were oppose to that Idea, but they were among the victims of drowning.' Really? Who might they have been, then?
    1
  71. 'they found that the rivets were defectively made and installed.' Actually, no they didn't. Now please explain RMS Olympic, made of the same materials at the same time, and a successful liner for 24 years. Odd, that, don't you think?
    1
  72.  @JedRothwell  Oh dear, the usual 'would haves' of course. Don't you even realise what you are writing? Which is, essentally, that the Olympics were a sound design, and that Titanic sank only because she encountered circumstances far beyond anything which could have been anticipated, and for which she had been designed. Would you criticise Leonard Peskett for failing to design Lusitania with the possibility of her being torpedoed several years after construction in mind?
    1
  73.  @keithammleter3824  Then you must not have seen their analysis of the rivets and the steel.
    1
  74.  @keithammleter3824  'The conclusions, that the ship was not weak, spoken right at the end of the film "Titanic 100: Mystery Solved" are not supported by established facts, and not even supported by the facts shown within the film. The NIST showed very clearly that the ship had faulty rivets in the area of iceberg damage. The ship was indeed shoddily built and weak.' Well, metallurgists and oceanographers disagree with you. Moreover, if the ship was 'shoddily buily and weak' how do you explain the success of Olympic, built at the same time, in the same yard, and of the same materials? The rest of your comments seem to be of the 'I don't want to believe the conclusions so I'll just rubbish the content instead' variety. Unworthy of comment.
    1
  75. Senator Smith was an authority in Railroad Law and Railroad Financing. He was simply not sufficiently qualified in Maritime affairs.
    1
  76. Bear in mind that Eva Hart was only seven years old at the time of the sinking. Her recollections might well have been influenced by things she read or heard later in life.
    1
  77.  @barbarajackson7824  As I now know the source of your comments ( I hope you had a Happy New Year, Alexandros) I will not respond again. I will, however, point out that I have not disagreed with you, but have simply pointed out that Eva Hart was seven years old at the time of the sinking. Wasn't she? Don't trouble to respond. The delete key is very easy to tap.
    1
  78. No. It wasn't.
    1
  79. They weren't. Unless you believe the myth created by conspiracy fantasists in the 1990s. Who do you think these 'most of the people' were, by the way?
    1
  80.  @Tozzpot500  Do you have the same bruise on your forehead from banging it against the same wall of ignorance that I have? Gets a bit tedious after a time.
    1
  81.  @SlamHerClam  Tell you what, little neo, simply look up any source on Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus, for their real opinions about the Fed., instead of simply swallowing whole any conspiracy fantasy video that you have stumbled across.
    1
  82.  @SlamHerClam  As a matter of interest, do you actually know anything about Titanic, or do you just get some sort of perverse pleasure out of making moronic attacks on people who do?
    1
  83.  @SlamHerClam  Apart from posting insults, you haven't actually challenged any of the points made in the original reply by Tosspot. Perhaps because there is only one error, the spelling of 'Strauss' which should actuallbt be 'Straus.' This is hardly relevant, however.
    1
  84.  @SlamHerClam  The fact that you don't even know say more about you than any further comment of mine could.
    1
  85. 'So many questions remain unanswered, and even the craziest conspiracy theories are still within the realms of possibility.' Only if there is some credible evidence to support them. But, however, there never actually is.
    1
  86. Not according to people who actually witnessed it.
    1
  87.  @logotrikes  Robin Gardiner's books, and his fantasy about the Titanic 'swap' are total and absolute nonsense.
    1
  88. You do know that Ismay was not the only survivor to give evidence, do you?
    1
  89.  @thurin84  Don't you recall what you actually wrote? :- 'That captain smith never discussed the ships speed with him. passengers overheard him having such a conversation with the captain.' Mrs. Lines states that she heard a conversation about Titanic's performance concerned to that of Olympic. Nothing more than that. As Mike Brady correctly stated, the decision about the speed of the ship was Smith's, and Smith's alone. As I wrote earlier, you should actually read her testimony before commenting upon it. Just as you should clear your mind of William Hearst's personal antipathy towards Ismay, and the subsequent attacks he made upon him through his newspapers.
    1
  90. Even though some, at least, had experience of Olympic?
    1
  91.  @barbarajackson7824  Well, the Captain and the Chief Officer, for a start. By the way, there was nothing particularly revolutionary about the Olympics, which were traditional ships built to a larger scale. The Lusitanias, with their all-turbine drive, were far more groundbreaking.
    1
  92. I suspect that the idea of 'Trauma' or PTSD did not really exist in 1912.
    1
  93.  @LeraResan  The British inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic found several issues, including: Lifeboats: There were too few lifeboats, and they were not properly filled or staffed with trained seamen. Speed: The Titanic was traveling too fast for the icy conditions. Lookout: The lookout was inadequate. Californian: The inquiry concluded that the Californian could have come to the Titanic's aid by pushing through the ice to open water. Officers: The inquiry marked officers as complacent. Design: The Titanic's design made it more vulnerable to sinking than expected. Which of these were inaccurate? Lightoller's opinion needs to be treated with some caution, as he later had something of a jaundiced view of White Star. Understandable, considering the manner in which the Company treated him.
    1
  94. What happened? Woodrow Wilson became US President, or King Otto of Bavaria was deposed by his cousin, Prince Regent Ludwig, who assumed the title Ludwig III, or Ford Motor Company introduced the first moving assembly line, or Crete was annexed by Greece, or Aston Villa defeated Sunderland in the English F. A. Cup final? Clear evidence of an inside job to sink Titanic. The families of the Aston Villa players should be ashamed.
    1
  95. Senator Smith was an authority on Railroad Law & Finance. I too fail to see the relevance.
    1
  96. Why?
    1
  97.  @fmyoung  But the conclusions of the British Inquiry were not dissimilar to those of the US Inquiry. There were no efforts to hide the lifeboat shortage. Indeed, Alexander Carlisle was thoroughly questioned about the subject.
    1
  98.  @jeanie6936  'We just knew you'd disagree. It was the British Board of Trade who gave the nod for only 16 lifeboats. Is there something about that which you're having a hard time interpreting?' Is that the Royal 'WE' you are using, Your Majesty? With what have I disagreed? 1). Weren't the conclusions similar? 2). Wasn't Carlisle questioned in detail about the lifeboats? 3). Where was the effort to conceal the inadequate number of lifeboats? 4). Was there any attempt to conceal the fact that BoT regulations had not been updated? Didn't Alexander Carlisle say exactly that in his evidence? 5). Wasn't one of the main recommendations of the British Inquiry that 'Ships should have enough lifeboats for every person on board. Lifeboat drills should be held for each voyage?' Are you simply blindly typing out a script given to you by someone else, perhaps, rather than actually reading anything I write?
    1
  99. 'He stalked Marian Thayer on the voyage, wrote love letters to her, he cheated on his wife, etc.' Actually, after the sinking, he confided, in writing, to Mrs. Thayer, after His wife went so far as to ban any conversation about the Titanic from taking place in Ismay's presence, but Ismay still had a lot to say about it. So instead of confiding in his family, he turned to another survivor, Marian Thayer, an American who had lost her husband when the ship went down. "[Thayer] wrote to [Ismay] gentle, forgiving letters and Ismay just poured his heart out to her," Wilson says. "So as his marriage was crumbling in England in the year after the Titanic went down, he was becoming more and more and more emotionally dependent on Marian Thayer." Proof of infatuation, or of infidelity, Where? I am confident, of course, that you have a totally unimpeachable source. Haven't you?
    1
  100. Yes, but in minute quantities.
    1
  101.  @jeanie6936  No. But I have read accounts from those who are. Are you an iceberg expert yourself, by the way? Again, confrontation rather than discussion. Very sad. To quote from one such authority :- 'Icebergs are made up of frozen freshwater, with only trace amounts of nutrients and metals. The ice in an iceberg can vary in its iron concentration, with some ice containing much more iron than others.'
    1
  102.  @jeanie6936  If you are going to continue to post insults rather than replies, at least try to make them proper insults.
    1
  103. Really? I suspect that you actually haven't read the minutes, nor the conclusions, of either Inquiry.
    1
  104. At the British Inquiry, Ismay stated that he was not ordered into the lifeboat. As Neither Wilde nor Murdoch survived, it would, had he been as cunning as you imply, have given Ismay an ideal opportunity to justify himself by saying that he had been so ordered. Why didn't he do so? Moreover, had he been the 'escape artist' you claim, wouldn't waiting until the last boat was being lowered, almost full, have been just a little risky?
    1
  105.  @sucharee801  I didn't misunderstand, but it is fairly evident that you have.
    1
  106. Do they? I suspect you refer to the British Government, not we 'Brits' There is, in fact, a considerable difference in opinion between the two groups.
    1
  107.  @Will46666  I believew that they are available on line. Cheaper than buying a book!
    1
  108.  @Will46666  True.
    1
  109. 'And he was far more thorough than Lord Mersey and the British Board of Trade, who were mostly invested in applying the whitewash brush.' Let's see. The British Inquiry last twice as long, and had a greater number of witnesses, from a much wider group of involved persons, than the American one. Perhaps you should read the minutes & the findings before commenting upon them? In detail, US Inquiry - 18 days, 86 witnesses. British Inquiry - 36 days, 98 witnesses. Did the US Inquiry interview expert witnesses, such as Alexander Carlisle, designer of the Olympics, or Leonard Peskett, designer of the Lusitanias, or John Pritchard, retired Master of Mauretania, or Joseoh Ranson, Master of Baltic, or Harold Sanderson, Vice President of IMM, or Ernest Shackleton, or William Stewart, Master of Empress of Britain? The British Inquiry was far more detailed, and far more exhaustive, involving people from all levels, from surviving Greasers to the Vice-Chairman of IMM. By the way, what do you consider was 'whitewashed?'
    1
  110.  @jeanie6936  The ratio of lifeboats to passengers had nothing to do with any alleged, but unfounded, claims about unsinkability, and everything to do with the Board of Trade regulations in force at the time. Alexander Carlisle's evidence at the British Inquiry made that clear.
    1
  111.  @jeanie6936  I will simply repeat what Carlisle said at the Inquiry, which was that he expected the Board of Trade to amend their rules concerning lifeboats to take account of the much larger ships entering service. Mauretania entered service in November, 1907, two months after Lusitania. Carlisle designed the Olympics to be capable of carrying an enhanced number of boats, but as he retired at the end of June, 1910, and Olympic was not even launched until late October, 1910, he was not in post to make any recommendations. However, you might find the following relevant, perhaps? Question 21267 at the British Inquiry relates to a previous interview given by Carlisle which was as follows The questioner was Mr. Butler Aspinall, who was quoting from a statement Carlisle had given to a British newspaper which read :- "When working out the designs of the 'Olympic' and the 'Titanic' I put my ideas before the davit constructors, and got them to design me davits which would allow me to place, if necessary, four lifeboats on each pair of davits, which would have meant a total of over 40 boats. Those davits were fitted in both ships, but though the Board of Trade did not require anything more than the 16 lifeboats 20 boats were supplied." You might also wish to consider the following. The questions are from the Commissioner, and Mr. Aspinall, and the answers from Mr. Carlisle :- 21275. (The Commissioner.) Where did you get them (the davits) from? - From the davit constructor. We made a rough design in Belfast ourselves, and then I sent it to him to draw the kind of davit he would recommend, seeing that prior to that he had designed one for the Union-Castle Line to carry two boats. 21276. Is that the same design as the smaller one? - The first you have in your hand was got out about the middle of the year 1909. That was the original thing before the plan was made. 21277. Which was? - That small one. That is the one for consideration which I put before Lord Pirrie and the directors of the White Star. Then when I pointed out that I expected the Board of Trade and the Government would require much larger boat accommodation on these large ships, I was authorised then to go ahead and get out full plans and designs, so that if the Board of Trade did call upon us to fit anything more we would have no extra trouble or extra expense. 21278. You would be ready to go on with it? - Yes. 21279. How many boats does this represent? - That represents 32 boats - 16 doubled. There they are as fitted in the Union-Castle Line. That was done in 1909. That was on the "Edinburgh Castle," I think. (The witness pointed on the plan.) When I saw that one I thought we would improve upon that, and this is the plan I got out. (The witness explained the plan to the Commissioner.) 21280. (The Commissioner.) What I understand Mr. Carlisle to say is this: He was of opinion, or thought it possible, that, having regard to the size of the "Titanic," the Board of Trade might require greater lifeboat accommodation; and he mentioned this to Lord Pirrie and to other people connected with Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and he was then told to prepare plans for the instalment of larger lifeboat accommodation, and he accordingly prepared this plan. Now this plan provides for, as I understand, four boats upon one set of davits. (To the witness.) Is not that so? - Yes. 21281. Later on he prepared another plan, which is this, which provides for two boats to each set of davits, instead of one, but neither plan was utilised because the Board of Trade did not require any increased accommodation beyond that which was originally contemplated before these plans came into existence. That is right? - That is so. At 21288, Carlisle continued : I came over from Belfast in October, 1909, with these plans that were worked out, and also the decorations, and Mr. Ismay and Mr. Sanderson and Lord Pirrie and myself spent about four hours together. 21289. Did Mr. Sanderson discuss those plans? - Mr. Sanderson, I think, never spoke. 21290. Did he sit for four hours without speaking? - No; but that was over the whole of the decorations; we took the entire decorations of that ship. 21291. Never mind about the decorations; we are talking about the lifeboats? - The lifeboat part I suppose took five or ten minutes. 21292. Then, am I to understand that these plans which you are now producing were discussed, at this four hours interview for five or ten minutes? - That is so.' 'What do you have to say about that, Albert?' I assume that is addressed to me? If so, I have nothing to say, because I have left the talking to Alexander Carlisle, Seriously, why do you not simply read the minutes, or is it that you prefer argument to debate?
    1
  112. The fire which had been dealt with around 24 hours before the collision?
    1
  113.  @barbarajackson7824  No. The fire was inside a coal bunker.
    1
  114. The intention of any Inquiry is to determine the details of what happened.
    1
  115. Feel free to explain precisely what was whitewashed by the British Inquiry.
    1
  116.  @LeraResan  Exactly why should a sailor be expected to know details of the composition of an iceberg in any case? Smith was, apparently, an expert of railroads and their finances. I wonder if, when asked, he could explain how a steam locomotive was designed and constructed?
    1
  117.  @LeraResan  Are you seriously suggesting that Lowe's alleged ignorance about the composition played any part in the events? Lowe was Fifth Officer. Appointments to officer positions at sea tended to be based on ability & qualifications, rather than knowledge of more esoteric questions. How about :- Smith : Tell me, Mr. Lowe, who won the English FA Cup in 1909? Lowe : I'm sorry. I don't know. Smith : You didn't know that it was Manchester United? I am shocked. No wonder Titanic sank. That question would have been just as irrelevant as the actual one Smith asked.
    1
  118.  @LeraResan  'So the composition of what the Titanic ran into is completely irrelevant when it comes to making ships safer?' What matters is the mass of the iceberg compared to the mass of the ship. Titanic had a gross weight of about 50,000 tons. The iceberg was in the order of about 100 X 100 X 100 m giving a volume of 1,000,000 cubic meters and a mass of about the same number of tons (although possibly about twice that size, given the reported height). And 90% of that mass was sat deep in water which is remarkably good at resisting sudden accelerations. So, at best, Titanic was 1/20th the mass, and by far the more fragile and deformable object. Whether or not the berg contained small pieces of soil or rock is indeed completely irrelevant. Ice of this mass does not break up on impact, whether or not the ice in a frozen bucket does.
    1
  119. As Californian's officers saw Titanic's rockets and her lights, the probability is that Titanic's officers, from a higher vantage point, also saw Californian.
    1
  120.  @Tozzpot500  Have you ever noticed how these people never actually reply to you after the facts have been explained? It would be annoying, were it not so laughable.
    1
  121.  @Tozzpot500  As my wife said to me after I started talking to her about conversing with these assorted loonies, 'If you have been secretly working for 'them' for all these years, isn't it about time the cheque arrived?'
    1
  122. Where do you get the idea that White Star charged anyone for anything?
    1
  123. Generally, six officers would undertake watch duties in turn on the navigation (or command) bridge. There would also be other members of the crew, particularly the Quartermasters. Capotsin Smith, like any other captain, did not stand a watch, although of course he was qualified so to do.
    1
  124.  @barbarajackson7824  But, as a number of liner captains & master mariners were to testify, that was nor the usual procedure at the time.
    1
  125. Californian's officers reported seeing a large liner firing rockets. They told her captain, who chose not to act. Not even to the extent of awakening his radio operator in order to check for wireless signals. Mount Temple is an obvious canard, seemingly the imaginative creation of Senan Molony.
    1
  126.  @aj6954  'However, this is disputed by those who say Californian was 20 miles away, did not move and had no idea what was going on.' Had that been so, when Californian's officers alerted Captain Lord that they could see a 'large steamer' firing rockets, what were they actually seeing? I doubt that area of the Atlantic was crowded with ships behaving in such a manner. The only person to claim the Mount Temple was the nearest ship seems to have been one Senan Molony. The same person who discovered remarkable burnt patches on photographs of Titanic's hull, but failed to mention that they were well above the waterline, and not near any bunker. Molony based his Mount Temple claim on the fact that she was a distinctive ship with a single funnel and four masts. Again, he didn't mention that Californian also had a single funnel and four masts, of course.
    1
  127. How is someone a 'piece of work' simply because he failed to die in the sinking? Ismay was not a US citizen, A US subpoena would not have been binding in any case.
    1
  128.  @onzygule5638  He did co-operate with both Inquiries. At the first, American, one he was still in a state of shock.
    1
  129. Why do you consider it a 'circus?'
    1
  130. No. But it does probably mean that we know more about the sinking than was know in 1912.
    1
  131. Mr. Brady can answer for himself, should he so choose. However, I am sure that he will have read the minutes of the British Inquiry, the relevant sections being from this part of Ismay's testimony :- 18387. With whom would you discuss this question of driving her at full speed on the Monday or Tuesday? - The only man I spoke to in regard to it was the Chief Engineer in my room when the ship was in Queenstown. 18388. Is that Mr. Bell? - Yes. 18389. The Chief Engineer? - Yes. 18390. Can you tell me on what day it was that she first made the 75 revolutions on this voyage? - I think it would be on the saturday. 18391. And when was it that you discussed the question of putting her at full speed on the Monday or the Tuesday? - On the thursday when the ship was at anchor in Queenstown Harbour. 18392. Will you explain that. It is not quite clear why you should discuss the question in Queenstown? - The reason why we discussed it at Queenstown was this, that Mr. Bell came into my room; I wanted to know how much coal we had on board the ship, because the ship left after the coal strike was on, and he told me. I then spoke to him about the ship and I said it is not possible for the ship to arrive in New York on Tuesday. Therefore there is no object in pushing her. We will arrive there at 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning, and it will be good landing for the passengers in New York, and we shall also be able to economise our coal. We did not want to burn any more coal than we needed. 18393. Never mind about that, that does not answer the question I was putting to you. I understand what you mean by that, that you did not want to get there till the wednesday morning at 5 o'clock, and that therefore it was not necessary to drive her at full speed all the time? - No. 18394. But the question I am putting to you is this, when was it that you discussed putting her at full speed on the Monday or the Tuesday? - At the same time. 18395. You have not told us about that? - That was when Mr. Bell was in my room on Thursday afternoon, when the ship was at anchor at Queenstown. 18396. But what was said about putting her at full speed? - I said to him then, we may have an opportunity of driving her at full speed on Monday or Tuesday if the weather is entirely suitable. 18397. Then you did know on the Sunday morning that in the ordinary course of things between that and the Monday evening you might be increasing your speed to full speed? - I knew if the weather was suitable either on the Monday or the Tuesday the vessel would go at full speed for a few hours. 18398. And I suppose you knew that in order to get the full speed of the vessel, the maximum number of revolutions, it would be necessary, presumably, to light more boilers? - I presume the boilers would have been put on. 18399. Do you know in fact that they were lighted on the Sunday morning? - I do not. Where in that is there any suggestion that 'he told Joseph Bell at Queenstown how fast he wanted the ship to go every day?' Indeed, where in that is there anything which contradicts anything Ismay said at the American Inquiry?
    1