Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "How did the Iceberg Sink the Titanic?" video.

  1. So all the survivors who reported it were the victims of a mass hallucination, were they?
    5
  2. IMM regulations required that bunker condition be inspected on a daily basis, because of the possibility of spentaneous combustion. A smouldering fire was discovered in one (of 19) bunkers in Southampton. An engineering/stoker team were allocated to it, and it was extinguished around a day before the collision, causing damage only to the internal paintwork of the bunker, and none at all to the hull or the bulkheads. If extreme cold weakened the metal, how was it that Olympic was a successful liner for 23 years?
    4
  3.  @DerpyPossum  It is strange how myths created in the 1990s and later are often allowed to obscure known facts. When even Gardiner's co-author later denounced the book as fiction, you would have thought people might have noticed.
    3
  4.  @Pianissimo1970  Titanic had 19 coal bunkers. and used up to 850 tons of coal per day. Using the coal from one bunker was simply the easiest way of dealing with the problem. Indeed.it was the usual way of resolving a bunker fire aboard a large ship. Something which, given the tendency of wet coal spontaniously to combust, was a regular event. If Titanic really had to 'sail faster' why were five boilers never connected? The coal strike had ended several days before Titanic left Southampton. The temporary shortage of coal had already ended.
    2
  5. None at all. It was a myth about three financiers, Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, invented in the mid 1990s. The first two, in fact, had never expressed their opinions, whilst the third was in favour of the Fed.
    2
  6. I hesitate to write this, but go on then. Prove it.
    2
  7. There was no 'massive coal bunker fire.' There was a fire in one of Titanic's 19 bunkers, which was never remotely out of control, and had been extinguished some 24 hours before the collision. There was no damage to the hull of the ship, and the only action taken seems to have been to have painted over the scorched area. The photograph so imaginatively interpreted by Mr. Molony is some 40 feet forward of the affected bunker, and shows a smudge which does not appear on other similar photographs, and, even if real and not a flaw in the negative, could just as easily have been the result of a close encounter with a dockside fender. Moreover, it is well above the waterline. I thought ships generally only sank when holed BELOW the waterline? 'The coal bunker was so hot that water just turned instantly to steam.' Really? I assume you have a contemporary source? In point of fact, the bunker was directly below the ship's swimming pool, yet there were no reports of that beginning to boil, or the metalwork around it heating up. Odd, that? To suspend disbelief for a moment, try to think for yourself, and consider this :- Chief Engineer Joseph Bell reports to Captain Smith that a 'massive coal bunker fire' (your words) is raging uncontrollably below decks, and is damaging the hull of the ship. Smith, a Master Mariner since 1887, and Senior White Star Captain since 1904, remember, replies, 'Never mind, we'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What can possibly go wrong?' Is this really credible?
    2
  8. She was built in Ireland, which in 1911/2 was part of Great Britain. It may have escaped your notice, but Northern Ireland still is.
    1
  9.  @christinamcilwaine350  She was a British ship, built in Ireland. Do you deny the existence of Northern Ireland? Odd.
    1
  10.  @christinamcilwaine350  When Ireland was part of Great Britain, as Northern Ireland still is.
    1
  11. Once again, so many errors here. 1). There was no change in hull sheet thickness in the design. Titanic's hull sheets were as thick as those of a 1910 built Southampton class cruiser, or come to that a modern oil tanker. They compared favourably with those of the Lusitanias. 2). The same rivets were used in her sister ship Olympic, which plied the same waters, successfully, for 23 years. 3). no binoculars were left behind on any dock in 'Irland.' 4). Frantically shovelling coal into boilers has no effect on speed. It simply raises the boiler pressure above the safe working one of 215 lbs psi., at which point the safety valves raise to protect the boiler. Doubtless you will immediately delete your post, as you have already done several times. A shame that you lack the integrity to discuss, never mind defend, your errors. As a former professor of mine used to say, 'the only thing more amusing than someone who does know what he is talking about is someone who doesn't know that he doesn't know what he is talking about. If you really believe what you claim, why not simply try to prove anything I have written to be inaccurate? Good luck with that.
    1
  12.  @Drymarro  Just as if Lusitania had been fitted with anti-torpedo bulges, of course. Isn't hindsight wonderful?
    1
  13. Odd, then, that Olympic, using the same type of rivet, was a successful liner for 23 years, wasn't it?
    1
  14.  @Pianissimo1970  That is the problem. People who use their common sense, or at least have actually looked into the circumstances surrounding the sinking, know beyond reasonable doubt that the bunker fire and the sinking were unconnected.
    1
  15. Olympic?
    1
  16.  @eliel_360  Quite right. The allegation is a total myth, dating from the 1990s. Don't tell the conspiracists or switchers, however, as they get annoyed very easily.
    1
  17. Don't be silly. Can you name any liner, or indeed any ship, at the time which had any such headlights? Why make such nonsense up?
    1
  18.  @sashadala346  Perhaps that is the problem. You don't quite grasp the difference between a road and an ocean. However, do you know any vehicles with headlights that can reach 15 or so miles ahead? And, of course, you can't answer my original question.
    1
  19.  @sashadala346  As you have apparently been reduced to insults rather than arguments, at least try to spell them correctly. The word you seek is asinine. You still haven't named any liner, then or now, which was fitted with the kind of imaginary headlights you describe, by the way. Furthermore, there has never been any suggestion that such things were ever intended to be fitted, in New York or anywhere else. Do feel free to provide a credible source. That would be far more interesting than simply making things up.
    1
  20.  @felixbeutin8105  Isn't it odd? When you ask these people to provide any evidence at all to support their lunatic ideas, they either :- 1). Become insulting. 2). Go away. or 3). Become insulting, then go away.
    1
  21.  @marlonbrando9279  Titanic did list to port because of what was called Scotland Road After the collision and flooding, as she was sinking, the port list developed because the main passage on E Deck that ran fore and aft was to Port side (Scotland Road it was referred to). This allowed the water to flood along the port side faster than to starboard. Your claim that the Titanic’s seacocks were deliberately opened to hasten the sinking has absolutely no evidence to support it. There is no evidence from any survivor testimony, or the wreck, that this was ever the case. Firstly, how do you explain that none of the 350 strong engineering and stoker crew noticed this water rushing into the ship, and secondly, the nearest responder to Titanic’s distress signal, Carpathia, was 2 hours too far away. So why would they want to hasten her sinking? Are you suggesting that they were Japanese Kamikaze sailors, getting into practice for 1944??!! Where did the ice scattered around the foredeck come from? Was it cunningly concealed for use at the right time, or did it simply dislodge from the iceberg? Were the survivors who reported seeing the iceberg simply suffering from mass hallucination? As to the insurance scam. Titanic & Olympic both cost £1.5 million to build.and both were insured for £1 million, which is the figure Lloyds subsequently paid out. I am not an economist, but setting up a scam which loses White Star £500,000 and a reputation for safety does not seem to be a successful one. I thought scams and frauds were supposed to make money? Finally, the invented claims about Astor, Guggenheim & Straus as opposed to the Federal Reserve date back as far as the mid 1990s. In fact, neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus was a supporter, as two articles in the New York Times from October, 1911 recording one of his speeches, which may still be read, prove. Sorry. All you have proved is that, where Titanic is concerned, people are able to let their fanciful imagination run riot.
    1
  22. How was it, then, that Olympic, Titanic's slightly older sister, had no stability problems in her almost 25 years in service?
    1
  23. Whether Californian would have been in time or not is not the issue. Carpathia was not in time but, unlike Californian, at least she tried.
    1
  24.  @zeddeka  Has it really taken you a year simply to misunderstand my two line comment? I said that that was the issue with Californian. Surely that was plain enough. I don't recall mentioning you at all.
    1