Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Who Sank The Titanic? - The Secrets Behind the History | Free Documentary History" video.

  1. 1). She carried more lifeboats than BoT regulations demanded. 2). She was designed to stay afloat with four of sixteen bulkheads compromised. Six were actually compromised. 3). No sea officer at the time would intentionally create a head-on collision. You are being wise after the even. 4). Wireless messages were not ignored. As the testimony of several master mariners at the British Inquiry confirmed, they would have acted exactly as Smith did. 5). What? 6). Californian's operator switched off at his usual time. One operator did not work 24 hours per day. The supposed 'rude comment' actually DDD in morse shorthand, merely meant 'clear the frequency.' Californian's operator, in later testimony, even confirmed that he did not regard the signal as 'rude.' 7). For what reason? Smith had taken the usual precautions (see 4). 8). Irrelevant, and even contradicted by your own 9). Binoculars were used to identify items which had already been spotted. 9). & 10). True. 11). Olympic used exactly the same construction materials, and was a successful liner for almost 25 years. No ship was likely to have survived what happened to Titanic. 12). She didn't. Five boilers were not connected.
    12
  2. There was a small fire in one of Titanic's 13 coal bunkers, which had been extinguished at least 24 hours before the collision, and which did not damage the hull of the ship. Moreover, the area of collision was well forward of the affected bunker.
    5
  3. There is no evidence for anyone conneted with Titanic or White Star ever making such comments. Do you really believe that, had someone actually said that, God would really have thought it a good idea to kill 1500 people who hadn't?
    5
  4. I suppose you can remember the name of this programme, as it contradicts the reports from every actual expedition team?
    4
  5. No, there weren't. Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their views about the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus was a supporter. You have been suckered into believing a myth invented in the 1990s.
    4
  6. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak, and remove all doubt. Alas, too late in your case.
    4
  7. 'Small missile?' In 1912? What planet do you live on?
    4
  8.  @Kalus_Saxon  Olympic was fully repaired and back at sea by late November, 1911. The inspection reports from the time make no suggestion that her keel was damaged, largely because she had a 92 feet beam, and HMS Hawke's bow penetrated no more than 6-8 feet into Olympic's side. Subsequently, she was repaired in about 7 weeks by Harland & Wolff, and, fully certified by the Board of Trade, was back on her Atlantic duties about five months before Titanic was completed. 'They painted titanic on it and sent it out to claim the insurance..' 'They' would need to do rather more than that. 'They' would need to re-build the forward end of 'A' & 'B' decks, as there were differences between the two ships. 'They' would also need to do this without the H & W workmen not knowing what they were doing. 'Prof is the amount of port holes on the bow. 14 on Olympic and 16 on titanic…' Oh dear, the greatest Canard of all. Both ships were designed with 14 portholes. After Olympic's first voyages, a number of improvements and modifications were made. Aside from 'A' & 'B'' decks mentioned above, the need for extra light & ventilation at the forward end of the port side was also identified, which resulted in the installation of two extra portholes. This happened to Titanic during her building, in late December 1911 or early January, 1912. The portholes were added to Olympic as well, at the time of her first refit. Surely you don't think that a ship at the time of her launch is the completed object, do you? White Star in 1911 was far from bankrupt. In fact, the company was the star in IMM's crown. Do you really believe that a company in financial difficulties would have just placed an order for the third ship in the class, as White Star did in November, 1911? Moreover, your whole insurance scam depends on your wrong assumption about Olympic. Without that, your scam claim falls apart. Certainly, a number of people did cancel their bookings for Titanic's maiden voyage. Almost as many, in fact, as had cancelled for Olympic's in 1911. What conclusions would you falsely draw from that? Moreover, if you have thought up a secret 'cunning plan' is it really a good idea to tell all and sundry all about it?
    3
  9. 'The three richest men in the world ,who opposed the set up of the federal reserve, were on board ?' Only if you believe a conspirasist video from the mid 1990s. Actually, Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst in October 1911 Straus had spoken in support of the idea. Also, the idea of the switch, invented by Robin Gardiner in the late 1990s, has alsu been proven to be nonsense so many times by so many people that it is unworthy of response. You shouldn't believe everything you see in a switcher or conspiracist video.
    3
  10. Olympic never had a damaged keel. The claim originated in a book written in the mid 1990s. No contemporary evidence supports this nonsense. The post collision survey carried out by the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star does not refer to any such damage. Moreover, Olympic was repaired in less than two months, and was back on her Atlantic run by late November 1911, at a time when Titanic was still several months away from completion. There are even photos. of the two ships together in Belfast in October, 1911. Titanic is the one with parts of her superstructure not yet in place, unpainted, and with only one funnel fitted. Olympic, by the way, was at sea, returning from New York, when Titanic sank. How would you explain that? You really should not watch switcher videos and swallow them so foolishly.
    3
  11. Good idea. Paint over the name. That would work. After all, no-one would ever notice the many other differences between Titanic & Olympic, would they!
    3
  12. Five of Titanic's boilers were never connected. She was not, as several Master Mariners at the British Inquiry later testified 'going too fast.' Two lookouts in the Crow's Nest was the norm. There wasn't, ny the way, room for four anyway. Binoculars (or 'glasses') would probably actually have delayed any warning, as these were used to identify things already spotted with naked eye. The lifeboat drill was postponed, not cancelled. 18 of 20 boats were successfully launched, and the other two, both collapsibles, did float off the ship as she sank. Californian was stopped, but Carpathia wasn't. The mystery is where the hell did you get so much wrong information from.
    3
  13. Certainly there is a degree of idiocy involved. Most of it is in your post.
    3
  14. Was it a time-travelling U-boat. The first diesel-engined boat with even the theoretical possibility of reaching Newfoundland was U19, commissioned a year later. Even WW2 U-boats could not catch ocean liners steaming at 20+ knots. I won't even bother to ask you why a U-boat would attack a liner in 1912, of course.
    3
  15. Oh please! The iceberg was not visible because of flat calm conditions, at night. There is even a climatic condition called Cold Water Mirage which may have added to the problem. If Olympic was no longer insurable after being repaired following her ONE collision, how is it that she was at sea at the time of Titanic's sinking, and replied to her distress call, although too far away to help. Are you suggesting White Star sent an uncertified, uninsured, atlantic liner full of passengers to sea, and neither the Board of Trade nor Lloyds noticed? CaliforniaN was a cargo liner, carrying a mixed general cargo from Liverpool to Boston, in order to re-load from New Orleans with cotton bales. That was what Leyland Lines ships did. She had stopped because of sheet ice, and for no other reason. Lloyds actually paid out $5 million to White Star. The Olympics had cost $7.5 million to build. This is documernted. No propeller was ever taken from Titanic and fitted to Olympic. Firstly because the blades of the outer propellers on the two ships had different pitches, but secondly because Olympic's propeller was not damaged in the Hawke collision, only her propeller shaft, which was replaced using parts from the incomplete Titanic, and which is documented. The propeller swap was only claimed when switcher fanatics needed to explain the inconvenient presence of a Titanic propeller on the wreck of Titanic. The letters M & P are of course conclusive. Always assuming that images which first appeared in the 2000s, without any provenance, which haven't been claimed by any of the several expeditions to the wrecksite, and which are so obviously computer generated, may be taken as proof, that is. Did you actually get anything right? Yes, the manner in which you repeated, parrot-fashion, something you swallowed from a switcher video, was quite good.
    3
  16. It is still early, but that is the daftest comment of the day so far. Congratulations!
    3
  17. 1). There was no-one aboard who anyone sought to assassinate. 2). The number of people who cancelled their bookings was around the same as those who cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911. Nor did they cancel at 'the last minute.' 3). Did you even bother to look at the list of wealthy people who did die? 4). Try to think. If you have created a cunning plan ro kill someone, would you really tell many other people about it? I refer you to the Gunpowder Plot for further information. 5). In general terms, don't be gullible enough to watch a conspiracy video and swallow it whole. Try, for once, to think for yourself.
    3
  18.  @Ununpentius  You mean the photographs of the forward end of 'B' deck on the wreck, which show a pattern of irregular rectangular windows matching exactly known photographs of Titanic, and which are different from the more regular, square windows of Olympic in the same area, also from contemporary photographs? Or perhaps the number 401 on one of the propeller blades, also diagnostic of Titanic, when compared to the 400 of Olympic? Those photographs, old chap? Don't you think, just possibly, that one of the several diving expeditions to the wreck might perhaps have noticed had there been something 'odd' about the wreck? Or perhaps, as a confirmed switcher, you choose not to think at all?
    3
  19. A good try, but you need to be aware that the half-baked conspiracists who infest these sites are not interested in facts or reason. They have simply watched a video or two, have appointed themselves experts, and are impervious to discussion or debate.
    3
  20. You believed that silly switcher video, then? How remarkably gullible of you.
    3
  21. You are mistaking something from a movie with reality.
    3
  22. Perhaps you might tell us which navy had a submarine capable of catching Titanic, or with the endurance to reach her? Titanic was insured for two thirds of her building cost, and was following the normal course for liners of the day. You really cannot be as gullible as you present yourself, surely?
    3
  23. Perhaps you are unaware that Olympic had been back at sea since late November, 1911, when Titanic was far from complete? Or perhaps you have simply watched a switcher video and swallowed it whole, as a number of other ill-informed fools have done?
    3
  24. Only if you believe the movie rather than the facts.
    3
  25. Hello, Mr. Swithin. Still fantasising away, then?
    3
  26. Then enlighten us all.
    3
  27. Not correct. The Board of Trade specified the minimum number of lifeboats, not the maximum. Titanic carried more than the minimum. Her original designer, Alexander Carlisle, expected that the Board of Trade would amend the regulations, and designed the Olympics with the CAPABILITY to carry 48 lifeboats. The BoT did not introduce any change in regulations, so only 20 were carried. To use modern terms, the Olympics were equipped for, but not with, 48 boats.
    3
  28. Nonsense. You have been suckered in by Conspiracist drivel.
    3
  29.  @stanhelsing4995  Odd how people who urge others to 'do the research' tend to be the ones who have done the least themselves. My old University professor, M.R.D. Foot, used to say that when people resort to insults, it generally means that they are unsure of their argument. Thanks for proving old Michael correct.
    3
  30.  @mich6425  That is the problem. I have, as a maritime historian, done a considerable amount of research over many years. On thing I have discovered is that people like you, who urge others to 'do some research' have usually done the least themselves.
    3
  31. You really shouldn't watch conspiracy videos and believe them unquestioningly. 1). Morgan never intended to sail on Titanic. He intended to be in Venice on 23 April, and couldn't do both. There was a news item in the New York Times from March, 1912, confirming the Venice visit. 2). Of the three financiers lost on Titanic, two had never stated their opinions about the FR, and the third was actually in favour. As the typical conspiracy theorist might say. 'I don't like the facts, so I will invent some new ones.'
    3
  32.  @alvarovega2487  Why do you take offence at people with more knowledge than you educating the less well informed?
    3
  33.  @rollcall-  Drivel. What 'watch tower crew?' What 'Captain smiths personal Olympic crew?' Nonsense. What do you mean by 'all wireless activity was refused?' Californian only had one operator, who simply went off duty. There was, at the time no requirement for trhe comparatively few ships with wireless to maintain a 24 hour watch. Titanic's operators continued to transmit distress calls until the power failed. 'The wireless controller murdered his workmate when his workmate "tried to put a life jacket on"... more like... tried the contact the ships beside them.' Insanity! You are either an idiot, a lunatic, or mentally affected. Perhaps a combination of the three?
    2
  34. Ah yes! RMS Olympic. The 'Old Reliable' which experienced a wonderful career, in peace and war, spanning 23 years.
    2
  35. You are, presumably, unaware of the flawed sterns of most WW2 German heavy surface warships?
    2
  36. Isn't impressive how, the dafter a comment is, the more people like you use exclamation marks and capital letters? 1). J. P. Morgan was never tried for anything. 2). Olympic and Titanic were both at sea when Titanic hit the iceberg. Olympic was en route from New York to Southampton. 3). There is no proof that either Astor or Guggenheim opposed the Fed. That is a myth invented in 1995. If you can provide a contemporary source, kindly provide it. The third financier, Straus, by the way, had gone on record as a supporter of the Fed. Go on, prove me wrong.
    2
  37. 'Someone will shed light on this hopefully soon.' You do know that Titanic sank around 110 years ago? Don't you?
    2
  38. What is fact is that Olympic, after being repaired, was back at sea in late November, 1911. She had Board of Trade certification, and was insured by lloyds of London. Without either, she could not have put to sea. Titanic in November, 1911, was still some five months from completion. All these facts are readily available to check. A shame that you seemingly chose not to look them up.
    2
  39.  @donaldmarcus9655  But a start can be made by disregarding the nonsense touted by obsessive switchers and conspiracists, and simply looking at the evidence.
    2
  40.  @denniswhite7736  Having read all your posts, might I urge you to get out more often?
    2
  41.  @SuperGiantGeckosLLC  Oh look! Immediately resorting to what you believe are insults. A sure sign of lack of confidence in the strength of your argument. How sad. I had hoped for a real debate, as I find conspiracists vastly entertaining.
    2
  42. Why would God confuse a phrase used in a movie with fact?
    2
  43.  @backsweet  In the British Inquiry, questions 18224-19073 were addressed to Ismay. There was never any suggestion that he had any influence over the design. The design of the ship was the responsibility of Alexander Carlisle, and then Thomas Andrews after Carlisle retired. In his evidence to the British Inquiry, Carlisle stated that he expected the Board of Trade to require a greater of lifeboats for ships the size of the Olympics, but no such instruction was forthcoming from the Board, even though Carlisle's design could accommodate 64 lifeboats. Carlisle never suggested that White Star attempted to influence that decision. In the US Inquiry, Ismay was questioned on days 1 & 11. With the same outcome. Ismay was a businessman, not a marine architect
    2
  44. Nionsense. Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their views on the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus had spoken in support. You have been watching conspiracist videos, haven't you?
    2
  45.  @russcooke5671  No. I will continue to post proven and verifiable facts about the sinking of Titanic in response to anyone, like you, who writes claims which border on lunacy, and then squirms in his seat trying to avoid the issue.
    2
  46. Actually, more people cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911 than did for Titanic's. The insurance fraud is another myth. Lloys paid out £1 million for a ship which cost £1.5 million to build. Thus, White Star lost, in addition to their safety record, £500,000. There were many binoculars aboard. As lookouts only used them to identify something they had previously seen, they would have made no difference. Why Californian failed to act, after her captain had been alerted to Titanic's rockets by his officers, is a question for Captain Lord.
    2
  47. Why do you people insist upon writing from a position of ignorance? At the time of Olympic's collision with HMS Hawke, both were in the Solent. Olympic was in the charge of a Solent Pilot, who was judged responsible for the collision. Smith's role was also considered, and he was exonerated of any blame.
    2
  48.  @JohnS-il1dr  No, he didn't. He never intended to travel on Titanic, as he was committed to attend an event in Venice on 23 April. There is an article in the New York Times of Thursday 28th March 1912 revealing that i "J. Pierpont Morgan has written a cordial letter to the committee, announcing that he will be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, April 25, and dedicate the new Campanile of St. Mark's." This means Morgan would certainly have no reason to return early on April 10 especially when he was due in Venice by April 23. Put simply, Morgan's alleged cancellation is merely an unsubstantiated urban myth, created to support a false conspiracy theory. As Titanic historian Mark Chirnside has written, 'When the Titanic sailed on her maiden voyage in April 1912, the number of passengers that she was carrying was very similar to the number that was booked onto Olympic for her maiden voyage the year before. It’s natural that there would be cancellations and while more than fifty might sound like a high number it’s hard to see that there is much significance in this fact. If a number of people had cancelled because of some sort of fear of a switch or insurance scam going on, it seems very likely that someone would have spoken out after the disaster. There is no record of anyone doing so.'
    2
  49.  @prmath  The owner of White Star was fully aware that the Lusitanias, with four turbines, were at least four to five knots faster than the Olympics, which had two propellers powered by reciprocating engines, and a centre shaft working from a low power turbine. That was why The Olympics were designed for luxury, rather than speed. At the time of the collision, Titanic was not even close to the record set by Mauretania in 1909, of 26.06 knots. This record stood for 20 years. The top speed of an Olympic was 23 knots.
    2
  50. @UCk8kuU12U6EZJKSpcKZTJmQ 'Admitting?' No, STATING. There has never been any dispute that parts of the incomplete Titanic's propeller SHAFT were used. Harland & Wolff said as much in 1911. The Admiralty Report, issued in November 1911, referred to damage to the shaft, but not to the propeller, and certainly not to the keel. Perhaps you didn't know of the Admiralty Report. No, of course you didn't. The intention was to speed up Olympic's return to sea, which H & W achieved in late November, 1911, several months before Titanic was completed. - Another fact, by the way, which proves any switch was impossible. Do you understand the difference between a propeller and a propeller shaft? Seemingly not. Not that it is relevant to the switch, but the Olympic/Hawke collision was the result of an error of judgement by the man in charge of Olympic at the time. No, not Edward Smith, but a Solent Pilot, who was in command of Olympic in the restricted waters of the Solent, as determined by the official Inquiry. I assume you know what a Harbour Pilot is? Perhaps not.
    2
  51. Nonsense. Don't believe everything you see in conspiracy videos, without any actual evidence to support them.
    2
  52.  @Tozzpot500  'Everything about this statement is laughably false.' I disagree. Unless you were to replace 'laughably' with 'idiotically' of course.
    2
  53. Actually, riddled with inaccuracies. The people who produce these things rely on them being swallowed wholesale by those who are either too gullible or too lazy to question anything.
    2
  54. There was barely time to lauch the lifeboats Titanic did carry.
    2
  55.  @DontBeAWollyy  So? Unable to provide any proof for your fantasy, then? Isn't it odd how people like you urge others to 'do some research' when your original infantile comment demonstrates that you have done precisely none yourself? Where do 'boosters' apply to any reference to Titanic, by the way?
    2
  56.  @brngranny4djt662  Isn't it odd how those who urge others to ' DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH!!! ' are invariably the ones who have done little or none themselves? I hope, however, that you enjoyed the conspiracist video you swallowed whole? Much better than thinking, I suppose. By the was, festooning a post with capital letters and insults doesn't reduce in the slightest the idiocy of the post.
    2
  57. Odd then that Olympic, built in the same yard at the same time, was a successful liner for 24 years, and still in sound condition when scrapped.
    2
  58. Why was this 'Human Folly?'
    2
  59. The binoculars belonged to David Blair, who was supposed to have been Second Officer of Titanic. However, he was replaced by Henry Wilde, Olympic's Chief Officer, because Wilde had more experience aboard the Olympic class of ship. Blair was transferred to Olympic, and took the 'glasses' which were, apparently, his personal property with him. Certainly, Titanic's lookouts were aware that no binoculars were available. One gave such evidence at the enquiry. Your suggestion about Smith getting 'Olympic to run into a war ship as a test, to determine how to sink the Titanic' is ludicrous. Firstly, HMS Hawke ran into Olympic, not the other way round, secondly Smith was not in charge of Olympic at the time, a Solernt Harbour Pilot was, and thirdly, Olympic comfortably survived the incident. Olympic and Titanic had exactly the same propulsion systems, although Olympic had a four bladed and Titanic a three bladed centre propeller. On both ships the 4th funnel was for ventilation purposes only, and because, for aesthetic reasons, White Star wanted a four funnelled design to match Cunard's Lusitanias.
    2
  60. Californian's officers were alarmed about the distress rockets, and alerted their captain. Why he acted ( or, rather, didn't act ) as he did will never be known. Californian's Marconi operator did not consider that Phillips was being rude. He simply took it as a request to clear the frequency. He then switched off his set at the end of his shift. Do you really think operators of the day were such shrinking Violets?
    2
  61. Dropping survivors off where?
    2
  62. Olympic was a successful liner for 23 years. She used exactly the same materials. Would you care to explain that away?
    2
  63. Quite correct. When later asked as part of his evidence Californian's Marconi operator stated that he did not regard the so-called rude message from Titanic as anything of the sort. He heard it as morse shorthand for 'clear the frequency' and as nothing more.
    2
  64. What do you thing that 'they' are covering up? Perhaps you don't appreciate the concept of an estimate, where the berg's displacement was concerned? I doubt anyone had scales big enough to get an accurate figure.
    2
  65. No, it wasn't. Don't believe everything you see in unsubstantiated switcher videos. Oh, and explain how sinking a ship which cost $7.5 million to build in order to claim $5 million from insurance is a smart fraud.
    2
  66. No it isn't.
    2
  67. Didn't work very well with Bismarck, Tirtpitz, Scharnhorst, Graf Spee, Blucher, Karlsruhe, or Konigsberg, to give a small number of WW2 examples did it?
    2
  68. Olympic was repaired and back at sea by late November, 1911. There is a photograph of Titanic & Olympic together in Belfast in late October, 1911. They are easy to tell apart. Olympic is the one in full White Star paintwork, Titanic is the one with parts of her superstructure, and three of her funnels, still nit in place, and still largely unpainted. Even a switcher should be able to tell them apart. Oh, and when Titanic sank, Olympic was also at sea, returning to Southampton from New York. Perhaps you might explain that? Marconi didn't sail on Titanic because he had sailed three days earlier on Lusitania, and Morgan never intended to sail on Titanic because he had an appointment to be at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April. This was reported in the New York Times in March, 1912. You really shouldn't be gullible enought to swallow every half baked conspiracist or switcher video you stumble across.
    2
  69. Nonsense. Photo comparisons show beyond doubt that the wreck is indeed Titanic. The photographs of the wreck clearly show the rectangular, unevernly spaced, windows at the forward end of 'B' deck, which were characteristic of Titanic, when compared to the even, square, windows of the Olympic of the same period. I suspect you have viewed a switcher video and simply swallowed it whole?
    2
  70. Perhaps you aren't aware that no-one from White Star or Harland and Wolff ever made such a claim?
    2
  71. The Olympics cost more or less the same as the Mauretanias to build. For a badly designed ship made of cheap materials, Olympic didn't do that badly, did she?
    2
  72. Californian only had one marconi operator. He closed down at his usual time. Titanic's marconi operator was not rude to Californian's. He simply used a morse shorthand widespread among operators at the time, asking him to clear the frequency.
    2
  73. What fire which had been burning for a few days before the launch? Titanic was launched eleven months before she sank. Moreover, the only fire aboard Titanic was in one of her 19 coal bunkers, and had been extinguished around a day before the sinking.The only reported damage was scorched paintwork in the interior of the bunker. Indeed, the bunker concerned was directly below the swimming pool, and there were no reports of the water in it starting to boil. Olympic was built of the same materials, and was a successful liner until 1934, by the way, and all Titanic's Marconi operator did was to ask Californian's to clear the frequency. At least, so Californian's operator later reported in his testimony.
    2
  74. Which German U-boat might that have been? The first one with even a diesel engine was not commissioned until July, 1913.
    2
  75. No one actually said that. It is a myth.
    2
  76. How was it, then, that Olympic, built in the same yard from the same materials, was a successful liner until 1934.
    2
  77.  @scottwarren4998  Yes, she did. But the point is that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with either design or materials. Had a Lusitania had the same misfortune, her fate would have been exactly the same as that of Titanic. No ship in existence could have survived what happened to Titanic.
    2
  78.  @scottwarren4998  'Would haves' without proof count for nothing. No one has ever questioned the materials used to build Lusitania yet, after sustaining arguably less serious damage, she sank in 20 minutes.
    2
  79.  @scottwarren4998  Why do you think Titanic was built to fail? Do be kind enough to provide any evidence at all to support your absurd fantasy.
    2
  80.  @scottwarren4998  Don't be silly. Are you suggesting that Harland & Wolff did not know how to build ships properly?
    2
  81.  @scottwarren4998  I haven't removed anything. Largely because it is still there, from twelve hours ago.
    2
  82. The Olympics were well constructed vessels. Olympic herself was a successful liner for almost 25 years. What exactly do you think 'the keel of the bow' is supposed to be? I urge you not to seek employment as a maritime architect.
    2
  83. Nonsense. You have been watching too many conspiracy fantasy videos. They rot the thought processes if left unchecked.
    2
  84. Titanic, without doubt. The window pattern on the wreck matches that on known photographs of Titanic exactly.
    2
  85. But according to the Board of Trade, there were enough lifeboats. Five of Titanic's boilers were not even in use. What 'information' was mishandled? Accouding to the Master Mariners who gave evidence at the British Inquiry, Smith behaved exactly as they would have done in similar circumstances.
    2
  86. We do know what happened. A series of circumstances led to Titanic striking an iceberg, and sustaining damage far beyond her survival capability. The rest, the alleged switch and the disastrous internal fire, are simply invented modern myths.
    2
  87. Because it is a myth.
    2
  88.  @COOLDUDERBALD  Always a delight to read a post from an intellectual. Sadly, this clearly doesn't apply where you are concerned.
    2
  89. Which US submarine was involved? You don't know? Why am I not surprised? The rest of your comments suggest that your disconnection from reality is steadily increasing.
    2
  90. As I wrote in my earlier comment, 'demented nonsense unworthy of comment.'
    2
  91. Well, as recently as 2007 a cruise ship, Explorer, sank after colliding with an iceberg. Fortunately without any loss of life.
    2
  92. Titanic carried more boats than BoT regulations required. The fire is irrelevant. It had been dealt with at least 24 hours before the sinking, without damaging anything other than paintwork. Do try to think. Had there been a fire more serious than a small smouldering one, caused by spontaneous combustion, would Titanic really have sailed? Do modern Transatlantic Airliners set off with engine faults?
    2
  93.  @liatmarmur4368  The fire was a minor one, and had been detected during one of the daily inspections carried out by Titanic's engineers, as required by IMM regulations, when Titanic was in Southampton. Joseph Bell, Titanic's Chief Engineer, set a team to work, and the fire had been dealt with well before the collision. Stoker survivors who testified at the Inquiry confirmed this, and the only damage reported was to paintwork inside the bunker. Certainly, the bulkheads were not affected. The affected bunker, by the way, was well aft of the initial impact point. I doubt that any senior White Star manager even knew of it. Certainly it didn't stop Ismay or Andrews sailing. Moreover, do try to think. Had Joseph Bell felt that the fire was a serious one, and reported it to Captain Smith, would you really suggest that Smith might have said 'Don't worry, Joseph. We'll sail anyway. After all, it's only the North Atlantic in April. With a bit of luck we might survive it.' Seriously?
    2
  94. You are 100% wrong. Fascinating how those who refer to their 'research' are generally the ones who haven't actually done any, isn't it? You believed that silly switcher video, then? How remarkably gullible of you.
    2
  95.  @Lorne.StormTracker_Hayden  I take it you haven't troubled to look up the facts about Astor, Guggenheim, or Straus, then? Indeed, Morgan was a supporter of the Federal Reserve. Indeed, he didn't sail in Titanic, and indeed he was a towering figure in the financial world. But there is a world of difference between those facts, and the entirely unsubstantiated claim that he had Titanic sunk in order to dispose of three alleged business opponents who actually don't seem to have opposed him at all. As you are unwilling to look up these three for yourself, answer this question :- How could Morgan be sure that his enemies would all, independently, book passage in Titanic, how could he ensure that the ship would actually sink, and how could he be sure that all three would have the good manners not to board one of the lifeboats? By the way, The United States House of Representatives approved the Federal Reserve bill by a vote of 298-60 on December 22, 1913. The United States Senate followed suit in a vote of 43-25 on December 23, 1913. Despite what the conspiracists might like to suggest when they invented their fantasy in the 1990s, the Fed. was not brought into being as a result of the assassination of three individuals, however prominent.
    2
  96. Indeed. You should say no more, unless you can produce supporting evidence, which of course you cannot. A conspiracist video, even when swallowed whole as you have evidently done, does not come into that category, by the way.
    2
  97. Simply untrue. Astor and Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions about the Federal Reserve. Straus (only one 's' by the way) was in favour, as two articles about his speeches in the NYT of October, 1911, by the way, make clear. They can still be read. Perhaps you should look at them? If you are so confident about Astor's views, please refer me to a contemporary source.
    2
  98.  @popaflare  I don't feel able to 'keep in mind' something which isn't true. Morgan never intended sailing in Titanic, as he had a previous appointment to attend an event st St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April. There is even a news item about this in the New York Times from March, 1912. I observe that you haven't supplied any evidence concerning Astor from a contemporary source. Largely because none exists, I assume? The Fed. claim first saw the light of day in a book written in 1995. Oh, and I am sure that Morgan was annoying when he learning that the sinking of Titanic meant a loss to one of his companies of £500,000 Titanic had cost £1.5 million to build, but was insured for only £1 million. Again, this fact is fully documented.
    2
  99. Most idiotic comment of the day so far. However, it is still early.
    2
  100. Was it? odd then that Olympic, built in the same yard at the same time, was a successful liner for 24 years, and still in sound condition when scrapped.
    2
  101. Nonsense.
    2
  102. Which no one did, except in a movie.
    2
  103. Why do you people make such idiotic claims? Olympic was back at sea, fully repaired, from late November, 1911. This is clearly documented, and you can even read for yourself details of her voyages between then & April, 1912. White Star were actually paid £500,000 less by the insurers than Titanic had cost to build, and lost their reputation for safety at the same time. The switch myth was invented in the late 1990s by an author, Robin Gardiner, who grossly exaggerated Olympic's damage to justify his claim.
    2
  104. No, it wasn't. Olympic used the same materials, and sailed successfully for 23 years.
    2
  105. How does a hospital ship sunk by mining during wartime lead you to believe that it was a crime committed by the UK government?
    2
  106. Olympic used the same materials, and sailed successfully for 23 years.
    2
  107.  @sodamncutestud2  Isn't it obvious? That your original post is full of errors.
    2
  108. There was only just enough time to launch the lifeboats which were fitted. In fact, the last two collapsibles floated off as she sank.
    2
  109. Good to note the depth of your knowledge. OlympIC was not severely damaged. She had been back in service on her Atlantic run since November, 1911. At the time of Titanic's sinking, she was en route from New York to Southampton. Smith had been a Master since 1887, and Commodore of the line since 1904. He was intending to retire, but what makes you think the idea of suicide particularly appealed to him? No one aboard Titanic particularly required to be 'eliminated.' The insurance cover for Titanic was for £1 million. She had cost White Star £1.5 million to build. Explain how that equates to a cunning plan?
    2
  110. You must have watched a conspiracist video and swallowed it unquestioningly. Much easier than actually thinking, I suppose.
    2
  111. Shouldn't you be at your nursery school?
    2
  112. Brilliant! Build a ship for £1.5 million, sink it in order to claim £1 million from Lloyds, and lose your reputation for safety at the same time. You really shouldn't swallow switcher videos whole, as repeating them makes you look such a fool.
    2
  113.  @raymondbogert7880  You are, but not to worry. Your apology reflects great credit on you.
    2
  114. Because the phrase is sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information, and thus requires a ? No, you shouldn't say Olympia. Unless, of course, you are simply an ill-informed person.
    2
  115. No, the vests did float. What they also did was rise up swiftly in water, often breaking the necks of those wearing them.
    2
  116. So daft you wrote it twice.
    2
  117.  @kodyadams5561  So, clearly you haven't read the testimony, then? I suspected as much. I would concentrate on getting the caps lock on your lap tap fixed if I were you. Although, fortunately, I am not.
    2
  118. Rubbish. There is precisely no evidence to suggest that the ships were swapped, and a whole host of evidence to prove that they were not. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic. He had a prior engagement at St. Mark's in Venice. There was even an article about it in the New York Times from March, 1912, which may still be read. Agreed, the two ships were almost identical, ALMOST being the relevant term. Titanic had a partially enclosed 'A' deck, and the forward end of 'B' deck had been modified to include additional first class cabins. As a result, the window pattern was different from that of Olympic. Titanic had rectangular, unevenly spaced, windows, whereas those of Olympic were square, and evenly spaced. Perhaps you might explain how it is that the window pattern on the wreck matches that of Titanic, and differs markedly from that of Olympic? Perhaps you might also explain how 'money' was involved? Cmon now. Try to think for yourself, instead of believing the unsubstantiated nonsense the switchers seek to shove down your throat.
    2
  119. Was that before or after she was torpedoed by a German (or American, or British) submarine, then bombed by a Black Ops. flight of Wright Flyers, led personally by J. P. Morgan?
    2
  120. Oh dear, another berk who has swallowed a conspiracist video whole and unquestioningly, despite the idea only being made up in the 1990s. Who were these 'opponents', and what actual proof do you have?
    2
  121. No one did. She was scrapped in the 1930s.
    2
  122. Watched a conspiracist video, I observe. Far easier than thinking for yourself, isn't it?
    2
  123.  @stanhelsing4995  'conspiracy, a word created by the cia.' Oh, dear! The word originated in the mid 14th century :- , "a plotting of evil, unlawful design; a combination of persons for an evil purpose," from Anglo-French conspiracie, Old French conspiracie "conspiracy, plot," from Latin conspirationem (nominative conspiratio) "agreement, union, unanimity," noun of action from past-participle stem of conspirare "to agree, unite, plot," literally "to breathe together" (see conspire). 'Conspiracy theory' is much more recent. "Explanation of an event or situation involving unwarranted belief that it is caused by a conspiracy among powerful forces" emerged in mid-20c. (by 1937) and figures in the writings of, or about, Charles Beard, Hofstadter, Veblen, etc., but the degree of paranoia and unreasonableness implied in each use is not always easy to discern. The phrase was used from 19c. in a non-pejorative sense "the theory that a (certain) conspiracy exists," especially in court cases. Its use in general reference to theories of hidden cabals pulling wires behind the scenes of national or global events is by 1871.
    2
  124. Thirty people, not 'thousands' died when Britannic was mined in the Aegean whilst serving as a hospital ship in WW1.
    2
  125. 1). The number of lifeboats complied with, indeed exceeded, the number required by Board of Trade regulations. 2). The design of bulkheads was intended to ensure that the ship would float with four compromised. Six were compromised. 3). If the rivets were inferior, how is it that Olympic was a successful liner for 23 years?
    2
  126. So, reports from many survivors were all part of a mass hallucination, were they?
    2
  127.  @PinkoKane  'Sorry. Smart people. I should've specified so you wouldn't get confused and insulted because you don't understand and then come at me with a personal attack.' Sorry, but you post a highly contentious comment, and when someone tells you that you are wrong, you claim 'personal attack?' What is in any way 'personal' about the comment?
    2
  128. Thankfully, it isn't left to you.
    2
  129. Absolute bloody nonsense. You need to be cautious about those voices in your head.
    2
  130. Is there something about Titanic which causes her loss to generate more than the usual number of idiotic comments? As such a commentator, perhaps you might explain?
    2
  131.  @alvarovega2487  Your post is simply incomprehensible drivel, unworthy of response.
    2
  132.  @alvarovega2487  I generally do. Correcting nonsense is simply an added bonus.
    2
  133. 'Get rid.' Get rid of whom, precisely. Don't those conspiracy videos make you look a fool when you watch and repeat them?
    2
  134. Brilliant! Scuttle a ship for two thirds of the construction costs, and lose your reputation for safety at the same time. Is that what you think? By the way, there is no evidence to support the 'switch' myth, invented as it was in the 1990s.
    2
  135. Nonsense. Olympic (not Olympia) had never had a boiler fire, and she had been fully repaired by late November, 1911. There are even photographs of her and Titanic at Harland & Wolff's yard in October, 1911. Olympic is the one in full White Star livery, Titanic being the other one with parts of her superstructure not yet in place, largely unpainted, and with only one funnel fitted. Morgan didn't 'invite' anyone to board Titanic. Nor did the 'rich men' who you believe opposed the Federal Reserve actually do so. Have you any proof of your claim? No? I thought not. Morgan never planned to travel aboard Titanic, either. He had an appointment to attend an event at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April. There was even a piece about this in the New York Times in March, 1912. Both ships had their names engraved in their hulls, and the name painted in. There is a single piece of made-up footage from early in the 21st century purporting to show the letters M & P. It has no provenance, no expedition has ever claimed it, or even referred to it, perhaps because it is so badly made. Oh, and once again, Titanic's older sister, the one which was scrapped in 1934, was called OLYMPIC, not Olympia. 'I wouldn't put it past Ishmay that he probably drugged Captain Smith so his thinking was impaired.' Drivel. Oh, and Ishmay's name was Ismay. 'Heavily insured?' Both ships, at 1910 money rates cost £1.5 million to build. Both were insured for £1 million. Your cunning insurance scam cost White Star £500,000 and wrecked their reputation. Not, I submit, a good idea. 'THE REAL TITANIC SAILED A NUMBER OF YEARS THEN WAS SCRAPPED IN A SHIPYARD SOME 12 YEARS LATTER.' No, Olympic was scrapped 22 years later, after the Wall Street crash, when White Star & Cunard, but struggling financially at the time, were obliged to merge. Olympic's old rival, Mauretania, was scrapped at the same time. In short, you appear to be either an idiot, or at least a gullible fool.
    2
  136. What do you think would have happened to the officer on Titanic's bridge who, instead of steering to avoid the iceberg, deliberately chose to ram it? A huge payment from a grateful company and immediate promotion? Guess again.
    2
  137.  @arbjful  How was it, then, that Titanic's older sister Olympic, built of the same materials, was a successful liner for almost a quarter of a century, and was still in sound material condition when withdrawn from service? There was a small fire in one of 19 bunkers, which, according to the testimony of stoker survivors, had been extinguished around 24 hours before the collision, and which damaged nothing more than paintwork in the affected bunker. Try to think for yourself, rather than simply swallowing whole a conspiracy fantasy. If Joseph Bell (Chief Engineeer) had really reported to Captain Smith that there was a fire 'raging' below decks, would Smith really have said ' Never mind Joe, we'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. With a bit of luck, we might get there.' Seriously? By the way, White Star had posted profits in excess of £1 million in the most recent financial year, and had confirmed their order for the third Olympic in November, 1911. Does that sound like a company in financial difficulties?
    2
  138. Simply not true. If the 'real' designer of Titanic quit, please tell us who he was, and why he didn't quit when Olympic was built a year earlier? Bruce Ismay did not know anything about shipbuilding, let alone liner design, and in any case the Olympics fully complied with Board of Trade regulations in force at the time. If they hadn't, they would not have received Certification. In point of fact, the Olympics both cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. Morgan and Ismay's cunning plan would, had it actually existed, have lost White Star £500,000 and ruined the line's reputation for safety. The rest of your post is simply demented nonsense, and unworthy of comment.
    2
  139. What evidence might that be? 'The theory that it was sunk for the insurance.' You mean how a ship was sunk in order to claim £1 million from the insurers, when it had cost £1.5 million to build? Brilliant!!
    2
  140.  @michaelcipriano1713  Sorry, mon brave. I am, actually, something of an expert.
    2
  141. Why do you think binoculars would have helped?
    1
  142.  @rollcall-  There were no 'free tickets' given to anyone. The ship below the 4th funnel was not 'hollow'. Why do you think Titanic, and every other liner of the period, had a number of qualified watchkeeping officers? Do you think that the captain remained on the bridge 24 hours a day for a voyage lasting several day? In fact, where did you get any of this nonsense from?
    1
  143. Why?
    1
  144. Why does it seem liked a planned event? Because you have been gullible enough to believe a conspiracy theory video?
    1
  145.  @elliottgregory9539  I merely asked you to explain why the sinking seemed 'like a planned event.' Apparently, you have an opinion without any knowledge or arguments to justify it.
    1
  146. The Federal Reserve allegation first saw the light of day only recently, and has precisely no evidence to support the claim. Why do you believe it?
    1
  147. I wonder how many times you people need to be told that no-one from Harland & Wolff or White Star ever made such a statement before it finally sinks in?
    1
  148.  @carolynwarner1469  So, the source of the claim to unsinkability on which many foolish peaple have latched was 'a deckhand?' How many deckhands do you think were familiar with the intricacies of liner design and construction in 1912? I have read Lord's excellent book, by the way.
    1
  149.  @carolynwarner1469  The White Star line never said that Titanic was unsinkable. Neither did Harland & Wolff. If you believe either of these companies really did make such claims, please direct me to a contemporary source. Certainly Rostron may not have believed that an Olympic class ship would sink, but that does not suggest that he, or any other mariner believed that one couldn't sink. Titanic was made of metal, and displaced over 52,000 tons. If any seaman of the time was asked, he would confirm that of course she could sink. Who are these 'everybody' who said that Titanic was unsinkable? Certainly, no one with any actual knowledge of the sea. Lord's book is excellent in general terms, but in this he is using rather lax language.
    1
  150. Who do you think called her 'unsinkable?' Certainly not White Star or Harland & Wolff. Are you suggesting that God is both vengeful and misinformed?
    1
  151.  @shirlzitting647  Vengeance for what? The passengers who died had never claimed that Titanic was unsinkable. In fact, no one had.
    1
  152. Who was arrogant?
    1
  153. To be strictly accurate, ' full of German refugees, troops, and U-boat crews.'
    1
  154.  @brngranny4djt662  The origins of the Federal Reserve are well documented. I don't intend to explain them when you can read them for yourself. However, one indisputable fact is that they did not involve the sinking of a liner carrying two men who had never expressed their views about it, and a third who actually supported it.
    1
  155. What do you think he would say?
    1
  156.  @petrichor499  He would probably actually say, 'Why would I invest £1.5 million in building a ship in order to claim £1 million back from Lloyds, whilst at the same time harming the reputation of one of my companies? I might be seventy-five years old, and in failing health, but I am not a bloody idiot!'
    1
  157. If the design was weak, how did Olympic manage an illustrious, 23 year, career?
    1
  158. Except of course that this is not true. Operators of the time used a form of Morse shorthand. The message to Californian was a request to clear the frequenct, and neither intended to be, or was taken, as rude. At least, that is what Californian's Marconi operator stated in his evidence.
    1
  159. No one made any such claim.
    1
  160. The obsession about the binoculars is a total red herring.
    1
  161. Nonsense. In his evidence, Californian's marconi operator never claimed that Phillips had been 'rude' to him. He stated that Phillips had simply used Marconi shorthand for 'clear the frequency.'
    1
  162. Except, of course, that Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus was a supporter and had spoken in favour. Any false claims to the contrary were invented in the mid 1990s.
    1
  163. Idiot? Titanic was insured for one third less than she cost to build. OlympIC was at sea when Titanic sanki. There is precisely no evidence that the bankers were opposed to the Fed., although there is evidence that one was a supporter.
    1
  164.  @ericstrattendgtmy  Well done! At least you have got the name right. You haven't addressed my comment. How was it that both ships were at sea in April, 1912? OIr rthat there is no contemporary records suggesting that Olympic had sustained any keel damage?
    1
  165. No one from White Star or Harland & Wolff made such a claim.
    1
  166. Using capital letters doesn't make your comment any less half-witted.
    1
  167.  @jeff5882174  Morgan never intended to be aboard Titanic. He had an engagement at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April, which was mentioned in an article in the New York Times of March 28, 1912, which may still be read in the NYT archives. There were indeed three prominent financiers, Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, aboard Titanic. The nonsense about them originated in the mid 1990s. The first two had never expressed any views about the Fed., whilst the third was a supporter. Indeed, there are two further news items in the NYT from October, 1911, reporting a speech he made confirming this which, likewise, may still be read. You have simply swallowed a conspiracist video,, which invents 'facts' because no actual supporting ones exist. You have my sympathy, as you must feel an awful fool for posting such nonsense.
    1
  168.  @jeff5882174  Obviously. A conspiracist one devoid of genuine facts. Your mistake is swallowing it unquestioningly.
    1
  169.  @jeff5882174  Drivel. At the time Titanic sank, her sister was around 500 miles away from her, heading for Southampton from New York. She had been back as sea since late November, 1911, when Titanic was mowhere near complete. Both ships cost £1.5 million to build. Both were insured for £1 million, which is the amount Lloyds paid out. What you are claiming is that White Star carried out a scam which lost them £500,000 as well as their reputation for safety. How does that make any sense at all?
    1
  170. Only if you believe a myth invented in the 1990s. Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus had already spoken in support. Did you enjoy the conspiracist video you swallowed whole?
    1
  171. 1). Ismay did not remove half of the lifeboats. He had no input into the design. He was not a marine architect. 2). Smith knew about the ice warnings. He had already altered to a more southerly course, and, in accordance with the procedures of the time, warned his lookouts about the need to be particularly vigilant. 3). What 'corners' do you think were cut?
    1
  172.  @bondalero0074  Actually, my comments are based upon known, verifiable, facts, not on comments some scriptwriter or other chose to put into the mouth of a character for dramatic effect. Just as Ismay had no involvement in the interior design of the bulkheads, whose minimum height was dictated by Board of Trade regulations. The Olympics were designed by Harland & Wolff, who submitted a tender to White Star. A businessman with no shipbuilding design or experience could not start interfering in such issues. Oh, and if the rivets were so sub standard, how was it that Titanic's sister was a successful liner for 23 years? I see your problem. You believe unquestiongly everything you see on screen? Have you seen any of the 'Star Wars' movies? It might distress you to learn that they are not real either.
    1
  173. If that is the answer, what is the question?
    1
  174.  @richardstrachmesserschmiti4979  Morgan didn't cancel. Another myth. An article in the New York Times from 28 March 1912 confirms that he intended to be in Venice on 23 April. It reads, "J. Pierpont Morgan has written a cordial letter to the committee, announcing that he will be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, April 25, and dedicate the new Campanile of St. Mark's." If he intended to be in Venice on 23 April, he couldn't have sailed in Titanic and got back in time. I have, by the way, 'thought about it.' Perhaps you need to?
    1
  175. Not an iceberg, then?
    1
  176.  @badgirlgoodwomen6585  'The Titanic never sunk it was an insurance job on the Olympic.' Absolute nonsense. No documentary has ever been banned on the subject, although 'Titanic -The shocking Truth' should perhaps have been, so outrageously are the claims it contains, and so easy to prove wrong are the invented 'facts' it alleges. As to the very idea of an 'insurance job.' The Olympics cost £1.5 million each to build, and were insured for £1 million each. What sort of cunning plan seeks to lose £500,000 from an insurance fraud?
    1
  177. White Star did not gag anyone. Clarke may well have believed that Titanic (just likier Olympic, Lusitania, and Mauretania) carried insufficient lifeboats to accommodate every member of passenger and crew, but as an employee of the Board of Trade he was equally well aware that she carried more than the Board of Trade Regulations in force at the time required. Consequently, Clarke did grant Titanic certification. Largely because she complied with all legal requirements. 'He felt he could not go go public or make his views known to the powers that be because the owners had made it clear that he wasn't allowed to. 'Had he done so, in his words he would have been shifted, which I think would mean moved position or demoted.' Do you have any actual proof for either of these statements, or are they simply assumptions on your part? 'In hindsight, there was a very strong case to bring charges of corporate manslaughter against White Star Line over the disaster.' Sorry, but simply not so. Unless of course you can state which regulations White Star breached. Moreover, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, only became law in 2007, by the way.
    1
  178. Because lookouts only used glasses to identify objects already spotted.
    1
  179. Odd that they didn't have the same effect on her sister ship Olympic, built of the same materials and a successful liner for almost 25 years.
    1
  180. Why? How was he at fault?
    1
  181. No, he didn't. Unless you believe the myth created in the 1990s.
    1
  182. Well, it is as convincing as the many conspiracy fantasies that appear.
    1
  183. No. That is simply a myth. Astor and Guggenheim had never expressed any opinions about the Federal Reserve. Straus was actually a supporter, and there are newspaper reports from October 1911 confirming this.
    1
  184. No one from White Star or Harland & Wolff ever made such a comment. Don't believe everything you see in movies.
    1
  185. Odd, then, that the same rivets used to build Olympic functioned uncomplainingly until Old Reliable was scrapped in 1934, don't you think?
    1
  186. Nonsense. Why do you fools insist upon making such things up? Seriously? ' Your husband has died horribly, and you have lost all your possessions. Here's $800 to shut up about it.' Would that work today? Why are you willing to believe it might have then?
    1
  187. Yes, women could.
    1
  188.  @johnking5174  Probably because people see a switcher video, and swallow it hook, line, & sinker. Switchers seem to rely on people being either too gullible or too lazy to think for themselves.
    1
  189. The guy who caused Californian's operator to turn off the set? That would have been Cyril Evans, Californian's Marconi operator, who simply turned off the set at the end of his shift, and not because of any imaginary insult. Evans was Californian's only operator, and did not work 24 hour shifts.
    1
  190. Aside from the fact that that the claim that there were bankers aboard Titanic who opposed the Federal Reserve is a modern myth, dating from a silly 1995 book by one Robin Gardiner, are you aware that the rest of your post is gibberish?
    1
  191.  @turtlegrams6582  Easy. Straus is reported in two articles in the New York Times. One dated 16 October, 1911, headed 'Isidor Straus Urges New Banking Plan' and a second dated 18 October, 1911, headed 'Straus Defends them and Argues that the New Monetary System will give them Stability.' The 'them' is the National Reserve Association. I can refer you to a site where you might read the articles in full, by the way. Astor and Guggenheim never publicly expressed their opinions, of course. Incidentally, you are the one claiming their opposition to the Fed. Shouldn't you be the one providing contemporary evidence? Oh, sorry. I forgot. You can't!
    1
  192.  @turtlegrams6582  But I thought you said the bankers (Straus, Astor, & Guggenheim) for whom in your imagination the NYT was working, OPPOSED the Federal Reserve? Make your mind up. Alternatively, of course, you might explain why you are seemingly unable to explain why you cannot supply any evidence at all in support of your silliness?
    1
  193.  @msidc1238  The fact is that two of the financiers who died, Astor and Guggenheim, had never expressed their opinions about the FR. The third, Straus, actually supported the idea. Unfortunately, these inconvenient facts don't please the conspiracy theorists, so they change them for false ones that do!
    1
  194. There is no question. There is precisely NO evidence to suggest that the ships were swapped. The idea originated in a silly book from the mid 1990s.
    1
  195.  @richardsoult5678  'We all have been lied too just dig deeper. J.P Morgan.' The fact that you write such a thing is ample demonstration that, despite your claims, you have obtained what you believe is your knowledge from a conspiracist video or two, which you have watched, and swallowed whole. You are fooling no-one with your claims of 'expert' knowledge.
    1
  196. Really? What lies have been involved in the Titanic sinking?
    1
  197.  @kko8603  1). The same rivets were used to build Olympic. A successful liner for 23 years, 2). & 3). Smith was aware of the iceberg danger, and had previously altered to a more southerly course. 4). Smith acted in accordance with the usual procedures followed at the time. At least, that was the opinion of the several Master Mariners who gave evidence at the subsequent British Inquiry.
    1
  198. Er, No one did.
    1
  199. 'There was only one iceberg in the whole ocean???' Who claimed that?
    1
  200. Clearly you are steeped in detailed knowledge! Titanic's sister ship, the one which was scrapped in 1934, was named Olympic. Lloyds paid out two thirds of the building costs in insurance. What sort of insurance fraud is designed to lose money?
    1
  201. No, it wasn't. How would sinking a ship which had cost £1.5 million to build in order to claim £500,000 from Lloyds have been a good idea?
    1
  202. Nonsense. Simply a myth of modern origin. Two of the three financiers aboard had expressed no opinions, whilst the third actually supported the Federal Reserve.
    1
  203. Precisely. 'TITANIC' victims. Supporting the deeply silly switch theory is an insult to the memory of every one of them.
    1
  204. Olympic had been repaired by 20 November, 1911, and was actually at sea, en route from New York to Southampton, when Titanic sank. The three financiers aboard Titanic were Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus. The first two had expressed no opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken in support. Accounts of his speech may be read in newspapers from the time. The suggestion that they opposed the Fed. dates from the mid 1990s. Olympic, as I wrote, had been back in service since November, 1911. She later served as a trooper during WW1, but was scrapped in 1934. The shallowness of your knowledge is quite remarkable. You have watched a switcher video, and swallowed it totally, haven't you?
    1
  205. Congratulations! The most idiotic post I have read so far today. Mind you, it is only 7.40 am.
    1
  206. Absolutely. Bruce Ismay was a Tsarist agent. Many survivors saw him with snow on his boots.
    1
  207. Smith had nothing to do with the officer transfer. The decision was made by White Star's higher management, in order to have a senior officer aboard, other than Smith himself, with experience of Olympic class ships. David Blair, who was originally intended to be Titanic's second officer, was thus transferred to Olympic, with Henry Wilde moving to Titanic. As a result, Murdoch and Lightoller moved down one level in rank. Blair took his property with him, of course, and this included the binoculars, which were his personal ones, not the property of White Star. Aside from that, Smith was not in command of Olympic when she collided with HMS Hawke, a Solent Harbour Pilot was, as the subsequent court case made clear. In fact, your post is almost entirely nonsense.
    1
  208. Try explaining that to the Board of Inquiry. 'I thought I would ram the iceberg rather than steer to avoid it.' Good luck.
    1
  209. Philips was not rude. He simply used morse shorthand for 'Clear the frequency.' Not my opinion, but that of Californian's operator in his later evidence.
    1
  210. Odd, then, that Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, built of the same materials in the same yard at the same time, sailed through those same 'cold waters' for 23 years with no ill effects, isn't it?
    1
  211.  @Charles-7  Additional lifeboats were added to the Lusitanias as well following the Inquiry, when the Board of Trade finally got around to locking the stable door. The oil conversion was post WW1. An inner hull was also added, but that doesn't explain why the outer hull you described as 'brittle' was unaffected by 23 years at sea.
    1
  212.  @Charles-7  Olympic followed the same course as Titanic did, and followed it largely unchanged for 23 years. Are you aware that Harland & Wolff knew how to build ships?
    1
  213.  @Charles-7  Olympic was 500 miles away. She survived an 8 knot collision with a Royal Navy protected cruiser, and was still able to return to Southampton unassisted.
    1
  214. You are correct about the centre propeller, but why would 'they' feel the need to sink the ship in a location where the wreck couldn't be investigated for 70 years?
    1
  215. Actually, there is no evidence to suggest that Astor & Guggenheim opposed the Fed., whilst there is convincing evidence that Straus was a supporter. This particular myth appears to date from the mud 1990s.
    1
  216. No, 'he' didn't. Ismay did not interfere in the design of the ship, and Titanic carried more lifeboats than regulations required.
    1
  217.  @backsweet  Perhaps you should read more? Bruce Ismay did not build the ship, Harland & Wolff did. Nor did he board the first lifeboat. Eye witnesses said that he helped load passengers into boats, and only boarded one himself when it was being lowered with spaces still available. Lifeboats were not left off. The Board of Trade dictated the number of boats, and the Olympics exceeded that number.
    1
  218. Who do you think called her 'unsinkable?' Certainly not White Star or Harland & Wolff.
    1
  219.  @dolphfren  I believe a small circulation magazine, called 'The Engineer' or something similar, made a similar claim.
    1
  220. There wasn't such a fire. There was a bunker fire in one of Titanic's 13 bunkers, which witnesses at the Inquiry confirmed had been extinguished some 24 hours before the collision. The suggestion that the hull had been compromised was made by a journalist in a documentary and a book from 2017. The affected bunker, by the way, was 50 feet aft of the area the journalist claimed had been affected. Do you seriously think that Smith would have taken his ship to sea had there been any possibility of the hull being damaged in such a manner? He had been a Master Mariner since 1887, and was not an idiot.
    1
  221. Except no corners were cut, and no records were sought.
    1
  222.  @spikenomoon  Californian was primarily a freighter. She had passenger cabins, but no passengers aboard when she sailed. She had one radio operator (most ships still didn't have radio at all at the time) whose shift ended at midnight. Moreover, the operator when later giving evidence said that he regarded the signal from Phillips simply as a request to clear the frequency and not offensive. It was simply morse shorthand to that effect, and that was how he interpreted it. Do you work 24 hour days for an extended period, by the way? No? Neither did Cyril Evans.
    1
  223.  @spikenomoon  What 'interrogation notes?' If you mean the evidence given at the American & British Inquiries, then yes, I have copies of both. Perhaps you are referring to this, from the British Inquiry. Part of Evans'evidence? 8989. Did you call up the "Titanic"? - Yes. 8990. Can you give me the time? - It was 9.5 p.m.. 8991. New York time? - Yes, 11 o'clock ship's time. 8992. What did you say? - I said, "We are stopped and surrounded by ice." 8993. Did you get an answer from the "Titanic"? - They said, "Keep out." 8994. Just explain to us, will you, what that means? - Well, Sir, he was working to Cape Race at the time. Cape Race was sending messages to him, and when I started to send he could not hear what Cape Race was sending. 8995. Does that mean that you would send louder than Cape Race to him? - Yes; and he did not want me to interfere. 8996. That would interrupt his conversation with Cape Race? - Yes. 8997. So that he asked you to "keep out"? - Yes. 8998-9. In ordinary Marconi practice is that a common thing to be asked? - Yes. And you do not take it as an insult or anything like that.
    1
  224. Don't believe everything you see in ludicrous switcher videos.
    1
  225.  @lynsay31  Believe what you choose, but there is a mountain of actual evidence which proves that Titanic really is Titanic.
    1
  226.  @russcooke5671  'the torpedo was invented in 1864.' Indeed. But don't you need a delivery system? The first U-boat with a diesel engine, and even the theoretical capability of reaching Nova Scotia, was U19, commissioned in July, 1913. Surely even you can see a problem here?
    1
  227.  @russcooke5671  'The worlds biggest moving object would not be hard to find.' Really? How was it then, that the Kriegsmarine in WW2, with more, and more advanced, boats, failed to find any of the large liners, such as Aquitania, Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth which were used as troopers throughout? Moreover, perhaps you might care to produce a scintilla of evidence in support of your fantasy?
    1
  228.  @russcooke5671  'are you saying all ships that are it by a torpedo sink in twenty minutes.' No, he isn't. You, however, are clearly trying to change the subject.
    1
  229.  @russcooke5671  U19 was launched in October, 1912, in Danzig. There are even photographs of the event, as the design marked an advance on the earlier, more primitive, paraffin engined boats the German navy had produced. You haven't explained, understandably, why the Germans would seek to bring about war with the Triple Entente, and perhaps the United States as well, in 1912, but feel free so to do. I eagerly anticipate the amusement of reading your response. At the same time, you might care to address a specifically technical matter. Assuming that your imaginary submarine, and a U19 class boat had a surfaced maximum speed of 15 knots, compared to Titanic's 20+, managed to reach Nova Scotia, how was it even able, in the pitch darkness, to locate the target. Using her radar or air reconnaissance, perhaps?! I agree, you will never make sense to me. Nor to anyone else reading your nonsense, I suspect.
    1
  230.  @russcooke5671  Is that really the best you can do?
    1
  231. Yes, of course he did.
    1
  232. No one ever made such a statement.
    1
  233.  @carolynwarner1469  The fact is that no-one in authority from White Star or Harland and Wolff ever made such a statement. The only such claim was made in a small engineering periodical with no connection to the ship, the builders, or the owners. You seek to base your claim on a comment allegedly made by a DECK HAND to a passenger? Seriously?
    1
  234. No. A collision with an iceberg sank the ship.
    1
  235. How do you explain her successful sister, Olympic then?
    1
  236. Why?
    1
  237. There had been such a drill in Southampton. These drills involved the crew only.
    1
  238. What number of portholes? Presumably those on the port side forward? Titanic had 16, as did Olympic. What repairs to the bow? The only repairs to Olympic were to her starboard quarter, just aft of her 4th funnel.
    1
  239. 'The truth will come out someday.' It has had 110 years. The fact is that the truth came out at the time, and the fanciful conspiracy theories began to appear in the mid 1990s. Odd how those who demand that others do their research, are the ones who have done the least themselves. Unless watching a conspiracist video and swallowing it whole counts, in their minds, as 'research,' I suppose.
    1
  240. Olympic was not as badly damaged as the switch fantasists pretend to believe. The Admiralty inspection report, issued on 10 November, 1911, and supported by reports from Board of Trade and White Star inspection teams referred to “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” No mention of any damage to the keel, which was a pure invention by the switchers. Nor, indeed, was there a propeller swap, although parts of Titanic's propeller SHAFT were used. Titanic was insured for $5 million. She had cost half as much again to build. Are you really so gullible that you are happy to swallow the total falsehoods that the switcher people peddle unchecked?
    1
  241. Of the three prominent bankers lost aboard Titanic, Guggenheim and Astor had given no opinions either way, and Straus had spoken in favour of the Federal Reserve.
    1
  242.  @sirvilhelmofyonderland  Do you think so? The Germans tried it some two years later, and it didn't end well for Kaiser Bill and his lads, did it?
    1
  243. Possibly. But making such an assumption is not necessarily accurate.
    1
  244. Nonsense. Five of Titanic's boilers were never even connected up. Moreover, how could anyone force the captain of the ship into taking such action?
    1
  245. As White Star lost their safety record, a major asset, and £500,000 when Titanic sank, the only people who might possibly have gained from it were the Board of Cunard.
    1
  246. Pedantic fool. Only one person is embarrassing himself here. Ships are almost universally referred to as 'she.'
    1
  247.  @jasonthomas196  Don't be silly!
    1
  248. You cannot simply put a large ship into reverse. It takes some time.
    1
  249.  @Dizzy19.  Just wait. Someone will be along to tell you that the number 400 in the hotel in Alnwick just shows how cunning the switch really was.
    1
  250. You need to look up Tiller Steering. The Royal & Merchant Navies still used such orders until 1933.
    1
  251. No ship is unsinkable. Nor did either White Star or Harland & Wolff ever make such a claim.
    1
  252. You mean the bunker fire which had been extinguished at least 24 hours before the collision.
    1
  253. Why are you daft enough to believe this myth. None of the three financiers aboard Titanic had expressed oppositionn to the Fed. One, indeed, had expressed his support.
    1
  254. Nonsense.
    1
  255. Ishmael (I assume you mean Ismay) had no actual authority over the Captain. Smith was intending to retire after the return to Southampton, and in any case no owner could order a Master to ignore safety precautions.
    1
  256. Once the hull had been compromised, the water could not be stopped. No one actually 'let' the water rise.
    1
  257. Perhaps because he didn't? He worked for the United States Navy, and locating the wrecks of lost US Navy submarines was part of an agreement which gave him the opportunity to dearch for Titanic. Ballard was a commander in the US Navy and a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The Navy offered him the funding and opportunity to search for the Titanic, but only if he first explored the USS Thresher and the USS Scorpion, two American nuclear subs that sank in the 1960s.
    1
  258. Whereever did you get such idiotic ideas? Both Olympic class ships were at sea when Titanic sank, and Olympic remained a successful liner until 1934.
    1
  259. The conspiracy about the Federal Reserve was created in the mid 1990s, of course. In the real world, it has always been known that Straus was a supporter, whilst Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions.
    1
  260. Either explain yourself, or go away.
    1
  261. The look out who was relieved by Fred Fleet gave evidence at the US Inquiry that he had asked Lightholler before going on duty about 'glasses' and Lightholler had told him, after speaking to another officer (probably Murdoch) that there were none available.
    1
  262. Why? Both ships cost £1.5 million to build, and were insured for £1 million. How would losing £500,000 and a reputation for safety benefit White Star?
    1
  263.  @johnbovay8353  The problem I have is that, in many years as a student of maritime & naval history, and as an author on the subject, I have found no credible, concrete, support for these theories.
    1
  264. A brilliant one. Pay £1.5 million (in 1910 terms) to build a ship, then claim back £1 million when it sinks. Where did you acquire your degree in Economics?
    1
  265. Just a small point. HMS Hawke was far from being a 'little bitty' warship. She was an Edgar class protected cruiser, displacing over 7,700 tons.
    1
  266. Don't be silly. Do you really think that there was only one set of glasses aboard Titanic? Fleet in his evidence to the US Inquiry stated as follows :- Senator SMITH. Are you given glasses of any kind? Mr. FLEET. We had none this time. We had nothing at all, only our own eyes, to look out. Senator SMITH. On the Oceanic you had glasses, had you not? Mr. FLEET. Yes, sir. Senator SMITH. Each of you? Mr. FLEET. There is one pair in the nest. Senator SMITH. One pair of glasses? Mr. FLEET. Yes, sir. Senator SMITH. What kind of glasses are they; strong, powerful glasses? Mr. FLEET. No, not always, sir. Senator SMITH. What were those on the Oceanic? Mr. FLEET. Very poor; you could see about from here to that looking-glass (indicating). In other words, the glasses he had had in Oceanic were useless. Generally, glasses were used to identify objects which had already been seen by the naked eye. If Fleet had had such glasses, and used them to identify the berg, notification might actually have been delayed by a few seconds.
    1
  267. Smith had been Commodore of the line since 1904, and had taken every new White Star Liner on her first voyage since them. Oh, and he wasn't in charge of Olympic at the time of the collision with HMS Hawke. Olympic was in the Solent. Look up 'Solent Pilot' for further education on this point.
    1
  268.  @JOHNSMITH-ym2dk  What 'more deaths?' There hadn't been any. He had one or two minor groundings, hardly surprising for someone who had held a Master's Ticket since 1887, I suggest. White Star were one of the two leading shipping lines in the world at the time. They and Cunard had their pick of any captain they might choose. If he was as inept as you (falsely) allege, please explain their continued faith in him.
    1
  269.  @petrichor499  Actually, no, he hadn't. Olympic had been in a collision with HMS Hawke in the Solent, when she was in the charge of a Solent Pilot. The subsequent court case did not attribute any blame to Smith. Seriously, the more you post, the less you seem to know. Do you know what a Solent Pilot even is?
    1
  270. Nonsense.
    1
  271. That wasn't a fault. The Olympics actually carried more lifeboats than Board of Trade regulations required.
    1
  272.  @scottwarren4998  I wrote 'Olympics' because Olympic was Titanic's older sister. There were differences of detail, but in terms of design and of lifeboats, the ships were very similar.
    1
  273.  @scottwarren4998  Because Titanic carried more lifeboats than Board of Trade regulations of the time required. More, by the way, than the Lusitanias.
    1
  274. The number of lifeboats was not lowered. Alexander Carlisle, the original designer, who retired in 1910, testified that he had designed the Olympics for, but not with, 48 boats, as he expected the Board of Trade to alter their regulations. When they did not, the original number (16, plus 4 collapsibles) was fitted to both ships.
    1
  275. Oh dear. Another adherent to the myth created in the 1990s. Just to educate you, neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst in October, 1911, Straus had spoked in support of it. Why not look this up for yourself?
    1
  276. Not the iceberg, then?
    1
  277.  @justinthomas7222  Then explain how Pride, arrogance & greed were responsible.
    1
  278. Nonsense. The Binoculars myth was proven wrong as early as the 1912 Inquiry.
    1
  279.  @nora22000  How do you know the Inquiries were 'whitewash exercises' when you clearly haven't read either. If you had, you would have known that the lookouts who were replaced just before the collision, Symons & Jewell, had given evidence to the effect that, when they asked Mr. Lightoller about 'glasses' he apparently checked with Mr. Murdoch, who said that none were available. Despite your confidence, there was no locker into which they had been placed. Moreover, look outs used 'glasses' to determine the identity of an object which had previously been observed, rather to to search for one in the first place. By the way, how did these comments recorded in the US Inquiry amount to any form of 'Whitewash?' You could learn a lot about the actual events were you to read the evidence presented by the survivors.
    1
  280.  @nora22000  You've read 'all' the Inquiries? There were two. Perhaps you mean both? In point of fact, the glasses were not stored in a locked compartment, they were the property of the Second Officer, David Blair, who left the ship at Southampton when Henry Wilde, an officer with experience of the Olympics and who had served under Captain Smith, replaced him. The change of watch is most relevant. Fleet was told by the men he replaced that there were no 'glasses' available. If you had truly read the records, you would have known this. Indeed, if you had read my post, you would have known this.
    1
  281.  @nora22000  Please try to understand. The glasses were Blair's property, not the property of White Star. I kinow, by the way, what the lookouts said. In fact I told you earlier. Why would it be 'dumb' to go on duty without glasses? Their job was to alert the bridge should anything be spotted, not to waste further time trying to identify what had been spotted.
    1
  282.  @Dizzy19.  Barmiest response of the month award for September. I wonder where to send the official certificate?
    1
  283. Really? In 1912? Fool!
    1
  284. You should not believe everything you see in a movie.
    1
  285. Congratulations. You saved yourself from viewing over an hour of demented drivel.
    1
  286. It appears that you have mistaken the novie for the truth.
    1
  287.  @MichaelEdgington-z5s  The nearest anyone got to making the claim was that it was said that Titanic was as near to unsinkable as modern shipbuilding techniques could make her. Which isn't, of course, quite the same thing.
    1
  288. Indeed. The African tribal leaders who happily sold off their own people in exchange for profit have a lot to account for. As, of course, have the Arab slavers who had been profiting from the trade for centuries.
    1
  289. Actually, the Olympics were the safest liners around at the time. Olympic had already survived a collision with a cruiser. No ship could have been expected to cope with the damage Titanic received, but even then she floated for well over two hours.
    1
  290. Neither ship was called 'unsinkable' by either White Star or Harland and Wolff. It is simply a myth.
    1
  291. Never heard of Wilhelm Gustloff?
    1
  292. But not enough time to launch them.
    1
  293.  @mianawoods8965  There simply wasn't time.
    1
  294. Simply search for 'Titanic Passenger List.' You can do it for yourself.
    1
  295. Nonsense. Blair was transferred to RMS Majestic as First Officer, in 1913. This was a promotion from being Second Officer aboard Titanic. Blair recorded his disappointment at not being part of Titanic's maiden voyage, but seems, from his subsequent career, to have been a rather more mature individual than you seem to think.
    1
  296. Indeed. Almost as many as cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911. What do you think that proves? Don't you know that a nefarious secret plot tends to fall apart when lots of people are told about it in advance? I refer you to the Gunpower Plot for further information.
    1
  297. He didn't cancel, as he intended to be in Venice on 23 April to attend an event at St. Mark's. There is even a newspaper article from March, 1912, confirming this.
    1
  298. Ismay would need to have been a complete idiot if he really believed that an Olympic, with two propellers powered by reciprocating engines and a third powered by a low pressure turbine, giving a maximum speed of 23 knots, could cross the Atlantic faster than a Lusitania, with four turbine driven propellers and a maximum speed of 25 knots. Of course, he wasn't, and there is no actual evidence to suggest that he made any such demand, although he does make an easy target for those keen to find a scapegoat and not much interested in facts.
    1
  299. There isn't actually much in the video that does stand up to examination.
    1
  300.  @keithammleter3824  Thanks for your sensible (and accurate!) remarks. The problem is that conspiracy theorists are not able to accept reality, but prefer to believe in vast, all embracing, and totally unprovable, plots.
    1
  301. There wasn't a rush to build Titanic. She was laid down in March, 1909, and completed almost exactly three years later. There wasn't a rush to cross the Atlantic, any more than Olympic, or Lusitania or Mauretania, had been 'rushing' since they went into service. What do you even mean by 'rush to make appointments, rush to read, rush to send messages' by the way?
    1
  302.  @Green_Roc  What do you mean 'rush?' He simply asked Californian's operator to clear the frequency in order that he could use it. In other words, he was doing, or trying to do, his job.
    1
  303.  @Green_Roc  You haven't explained at all. Do you think that the operator was in some way to blame for the collision? He wasn't. You seem to have some obsession with the word 'rush' without the ability to explain your reasoning.
    1
  304. Then you have swallowed whole too many switcher videos, as there is precisely no credible evidence to support the idea, and a considerable amount to prove it nonsense. This particular myth was created in the mid 1990s. How, by the way, does sinking a ship for £500,000 less than it cost to build, and losing a reputation for safety at the same time, amount to an 'insurance job?'
    1
  305. No-one aboard Titanic had expressed opposition to the Federal Reserve. It is a myth of recent origin, without any evidence at all to support it.
    1
  306.  @petrichor499  I certainly know that Straus was in favour of the Federal Reserve, and that Guggenheim & Astor had never expressed their views. Didn't you know that? Oh well, that is what comes of believing every conspiracy video on the subject you come across, I suppose.
    1
  307. Speed was never relevant, as the Olympics were some 4 to 5 knots slower than their Cunard rivals, the Lusitanias. Ismay had no need to justify the cost of the Olympics. Indeed, five months earlier, Harland & Wolff had been awarded the contract for construction of the third, Britannic. Making such a claim does provide a suitable pantomime villain, but it isn'tr based on anything other than myth.
    1
  308. I think that the Marconi Room fight is a memory of a scene from 'A Night to Remember.'
    1
  309. The influential people of whom you write, Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, had either not expressed their views on the Fed., in the case of the first two, or supported it, in the case of Straus. The views of Straus, by the way, were expressed in two newspaper articles from October, 1911, which may still be read, although clearly you haven't. This unsubstantiated claim first appeared in a book from 1995, by the way.
    1
  310. In view of the recent White Office report on Afghanistan, it is only a matter of time before Joe's carers announce that Trump has been to blame for everything since the Black Death.
    1
  311. No one from White Star or H & W ever made such a statement. A small engineering periodical said the Olympics were unsinkable, and a few newspapers took up the idea. Don't believe everything you see in a movie.
    1
  312. Which might explain why no one from White Star of Harland and Wolff ever said it?
    1
  313. Who do you think actually said that?
    1
  314.  @petrichor499  Yes I have watched the video. I have also identified the host of errors it contains. No one from Harland & Wolff, or White Star, was ever identified as making such a claim. You really should not believe every myth fed to you.
    1
  315. I observe, as I had suggested earlier, that you are simply an ill-informed person.
    1
  316.  @Dizzy19.  Have some pity! Referring to Titanic's older sister as 'Olympia' simply shows the vast extent of this person's knowledge.
    1
  317. If you believe that then you are a fool, who has gullibly swallowed switcher videos. Olympic (not Olympia) had been fully repaired and was back at sea by late November, 1911. She was at sea, returning from New York to Southampton, when Titanic sank. Smith was not in charge of Olympic at the time of the collision. She was in the Solent, and a Solent Pilot was giving the orders. As she was not damaged beyond repair, the rest of your comments are largely irrelevant. However, binoculars are also irrelevant, as lookouts only used them to identify objects already spotted. Their use might, ironically have delayed any warning being given. Yes, some people did cancel their bookings. Almost as many as had cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911. What conclusions may we draw from that. dId the changes, apparently 'very late at night' involve altering the partly enclosed 'A' deck, rebuilding the forward end of 'B' deck, modifying the bridge wings, and swapping a propeller as well? Must have been a hive of activity, yet none of the workmen involved ever mentioned it! You shouldn't unquestioningly believe the nonsense you see in switcher videos, as it can make you look such a fool Alas, however, rather too late in your case.
    1
  318. Drivel. Do you think that people in 1912 just knew that WW1 was scheduled to start in 1914? Moreover, the first German U-Boat with a diesel engine, U19, was only commissioned in 1913. There have been numerous other ships sunk by ice. The most recent was in 2008. Have you always been this daft, or did you go on a training course?
    1
  319. Whether he was or wasn't is irrelevant to what happened to Titanic.
    1
  320. The fire in a coal bunker had been extinguished at least 24 hours before the collision, and no witnesses alleged that it had caused any hull damage. Do you seriously think that, had there really been a major fire aboard, Smith and his officers would have been determined to kill themselves, and most of their passengers and crew? Do try to think. Olympic, built of the same materials, was a successful liner for 23 years.
    1
  321. Odd that none of the Master Mariners who testified at the Inquiry would agree with you. Smith had altered to a more southerly course, and warned his lookouts for the need for vigilance. Binoculars were not usually used by lookouts. There role was to watch out for objects, and warn the bridge, where officers with binoculars would identify what the object was. Had Fleet or his colleague used binoculars, that would have actually delayed the alarm being given.
    1
  322. Yet another person who believes the myth that anyone in authority from H & W or White Star made such a claim.
    1
  323. Yes dear, of course it was. Now sit down and watch that switcher video you like so much again.
    1
  324. Odd how the people who say 'do your research' tend to be the ones who haven't done any themselves, as your post so convincingly demonstrates.
    1
  325. Perhaps because the sinking of a 50,000 ton brand new ocean liner, with the loss of 1,500+ lives, in the North Atlantic, was not an everyday occurrence?
    1
  326. 'Talk about stupidity.' I assume you refer to your comment? Board of Trade requirements said Titanic should carry a minimum of 16 boats. She carried 20. The designer of the Olympics, Alexander Carlisle, who retired in 1910, testified that he had designed the ships to be capable of carrying 48, should Board of Trade rules change, which he expected they might. But they didn't.
    1
  327. Do you really believe this drivel?
    1
  328. Do you really believe this drivel?
    1
  329. No one in authority from Harland & Wolff or White Star ever made such a comment.
    1
  330. Then your understanding is flawed. Olympic had been fully repaired by late November 1911, and had been back on the Atlantic run since then. She was actually at sea, returning to Southampton, when Titanic sank. He captain had no such record of accidents. White Star had their pick of the best captains in the service. Why do you trhink they chose Smith, who had been Commodore for eight years? White Star was an extremely successful company, and had recently ordered a third Olympic class ship, Britannic. Hasn't it occurred to you that the sinking of a prestige liner would adversely affect business? Why would White Star intentionally plan it?
    1
  331. Do try to explain the connection, presumably as explained to you by the conspiracy video that you watched & swallowed whole? If you do, I will be happy to explain your error.
    1
  332.  @gman4074  You assume that there is any connection between Titanic sinking and the creation of the Federal Reserve, which there wasn't. The people aboard Titanic who the myth (invented in the 1990s, by the way) claims opposed the Fed. were Astor, Guggwnheim, & Straus. Instead of simply swallowing the fantasy and insulting people who correct you, why not simply look up these three for yourself? You will find that the first two had never expressed their views, whist the third had gone on record as being in favour of the Fed.
    1
  333. Why? He gave the alarm. He wasn't steering the ship.
    1
  334. Indeed! The only thing missing is actual evidence to confirm this claim.
    1
  335. He was not being rude. Wireless operators at the time used their own form of shorthand, which was understood by all parties.
    1
  336. Rubbish. The M/P images are poorly photoshopped efforts, first appeared in 2010, have no provenance, and have never been claimed, or even acknowledged, by any expedition. Oh, and the names of the ships were engraved and then painted, not merely painted.
    1
  337. Once again. Nonsense.
    1
  338. J. P. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic. He intended to be in Venice at St. Mark's on 23 April, and there is a newspaper article to this effect dating from March, 1912. What 'much more sinister' reason was there?
    1
  339.  @MileinaJuarez  Simply untrue. Gustloff was an armed German naval auxiliary, with a naval escort and carrying military personnel as well as refugees. She was, however unpleasant the idea might seem, a legitimate target.
    1
  340. She had been back on Atlantic duty since November, 1911. Please don't tell the switchers, however, as they are easily upset by facts.
    1
  341. Actually, anyone interested in doing more than simply watching a switcher video knows beyond any doubt that the ship on the sea bed is Titanic.
    1
  342. 'Coincidences?' Such as?
    1
  343. Odd how people who have done the least research always urge it upon others, I suggest.
    1
  344. 1). How was it that Olympic, built of the same materials, was a successful liner until 1934? 2). The Olympics carried more lifeboats than Board of Trade regulations specified. In fact, more than the Lusitanias. 3). According to Californian's operator, Phillips did not 'cuss.' He simply used a form of morse shorthand, probably 'DDD' which meant 'clear the frequency.' Californian closed down simply because she only had one operator, who could not remain on duty 24 hours per day. 4). There was a fire in one of Titanic's 13 bunkers, which witnesses confirmed had been extinguished some 24 hours before the collision. No one, until a journalist in 2017, suggested that there had beern any hull damage.
    1
  345. Because Board of Trade regulations specified how many lifeboats a ship should carry. The Olympics carried more than was specified.
    1
  346. please don't be silly.
    1
  347. Then you thought wrong.
    1
  348.  @leelajapheth4051  Perhaps what you believed was a 'documentary' was actually simply a switcher or conspiracist video, devoid of accurate, verifiable, facts? Try this : Both Olympics cost, in 1910 terms, £1.5 million to build. Both were insured for £1 million. Therefore, what you seem to think was an insurance scam, actually resulted in a loss for White Star of one third of Titanic's building cost, and caused a scandal which adversely affected the hitherto second-to-none reputation for safely of White Star Line. To those who, unlike switchers or conspiracists, are actually able to reason, the 'Insurance Scam' makes precisely no sense at all.
    1
  349. Except, of course, that Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus was a supporter and had spoken in favour. Any false claims to the contrary were invented in the mid 1990s. Oh, and by the way. A newspaper article from March 1912 confirms that Morgan intended to be in Venice, at St. Mark's, on 23 April. He never actually intended to sail aboard Titanic.
    1
  350. Caps lock still playing up, I observe. Still, at least it warns people that you are posting nonsense from start to finish. 1). Morgan cancelled any idea of sailing in March, not because of illness, but because of problems obtaining clearance to ship his art collection to the US. Instead, he intended to go to an event at St. Mark's in Venice. His intention was publicised in newspapers in March. Ismay occupied his suite instead. Do you suggest that Ismay was not aware of the wicked (and imaginary) plot? 2). Astor & Guggenheim had never stated their views about the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus was a supporter, as newspaper articles from October 1911 made clear. THe Federal Reserve myth was invented in the late 1990s. You might look up these three financiers for yourself, but I expect you will not. 3). The bunker fire had been extinguished a full day before the collision. It had damaged paintwork, but bulkheads were not affected. You might read the minutes of the British Inquiry, but of course you will not. 4). No, it wasn't Olympic. Olympic had been repaired and was back at sea from late November, 1911, when Titanic was around five months short of completion. She had been damaged once, not three times, and Harland & Wolff repaired her in six week. You could of course check this for yourself, but of course you will not. You might also look up Olympic's sailing between November 1911 & April, 1912, but I doubt you would do that either. Have you ever thought of believing in a more credible myth, like the Cottingley Fairies?
    1
  351.  @gman4074  How is that relevant? The Boer War ended in 1902, and the first powered flight was in 1903. Does that mean that the end of the Boer War and the first powered flight were connected? Of course not. The usual myth promoted by the conspiracists is that the Titanic was sunk to kill three leading financiers, Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. Why don't you look up these three individuals? You will find that Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their views on the Fed., whilst Straus had gone on record, and spoken in support, of the concept.
    1
  352. Er, Who do you think did that?
    1
  353. 1). No liner at the time had such bulkheads. Liners were not dreadnought battleships. The design was intended to cope with four bulkiheads compromised. Once this number was exceeded, she was doomed. 2). Odd, then, that her sister, made of the same materials, was a successful liner for 23 years, then, wasn't it? 3). She carried more lifeboats than the BoT regulations in force at the time required, and certainly more than Cunard's Lusitanias. 4). Smith was acting exactly as any other liner captain from the time would have done. Read the statements given to the British Inquiry by several Master Mariners for yourself. 5). Glasses were used to identify objects already spotted. Their use might actually have delayed the alarm being given. 6). Titanic carried 36 state of the art Socket Signals, used for giving distress signals. 7). Correct.
    1
  354. No, it doesn't. A fire in a coal bunker was extinguished by 13 April, but had no effect on the structure of the ship. Seriously, do you think that Smith, if told that Titanic had a serious internal fire raging, would have said, 'Never mind, we'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic. What could possibly go wrong?'
    1
  355. No one from H & W or White Star ever said that in the first place, in point of fact.
    1
  356.  @petrichor499  He didn't. But H & W built the ship, and White Star owned and operated it. They were the only authorities in any position to make such a claim, and neither of them did.
    1
  357.  @rhysfuuma4640  Then you should read the actual Morse signal, not the subsequent interpretation of what was actually transmitted.
    1
  358.  @rhysfuuma4640  What Californian's operator wrote down as 'Shut up,' was actually DDD, which could also have been read as 'Clear the frequency.'
    1
  359. Because it wasn't relevant. There was a bunker fire in one of Titanic's 13 bunkers, which was extinguished at least a day before the sinking, and which was well aft of the collision point in any case.
    1
  360. The olympics carried more lifeboats than were required by Board of Trade Regulations from the time, and certainly more than the Lusitanias.
    1
  361. Quite correct. Don't mention the smouldering fire in one of 19 bunkers, which had been extinguished a day before the collision, and damaged nothing more than paintwork inside the bunker. Good point.
    1
  362. Shouldn't you be at your nursery school?
    1
  363. It is at odds with the accounts of almost every survivor who left one.
    1
  364. If you are going to put forward that false narrative, at least get the name of Titanic's sister ship correct. You might then look up Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus for a few more actual, as opposed to conspiracy fantasy, facts.
    1
  365. Which, of course, is why no one from Harland & Wolff ever did.
    1
  366. No. There was a fire in one of her thirteen bunkers, which was extinguished a day before the collision.
    1
  367. Is God really so vindictive? Expecially whren no one from Harland & Wolff of White Star ever said such a thing in the first place?
    1
  368. 1). The reputation of the Olympic design was actually enhanced by the collision. Olympic had withstood a collision with a protected cruiser, albeit a slow speed one (Hawke was moving at eight knots) with comparatively minor damage, consisting of two flooded compartments, a 6-8 feet penetration of the hull (she had a 92 feet beam) and a buckled propeller shaft. The myths about the buckled hull and the need to swap a propeller from Titanic emerged for the first time in 1995, to justify a nonsensical book by a writer called Robin Gardiner. 2). Marconi may have used the incident as a means of touting the importance of wireless. It is a long way from that to suggest that the sinking was staged to benefit him. I do find gullible people like you, who simply believe, unquestioningly, nonsense as devoid of factual support as the switcher nonsense, vastly entertaining. Willing to swallow such things hook line & sinker, and too lazy to check whether the claims have any foundation in fact.
    1
  369.  @petrichor499  In fact, no he didn't. Perhaps you are thinking of the movie rather than the history?
    1
  370. On what evidence do you base your opinion? Surely not Mr. Molony's book?
    1
  371. Of course it wasn't true. Which is why no one actually said it, of course.
    1
  372.  @scottwarren4998  All the woman investigator is saying, in effect, is that had Titanic not collided with an iceberg she wouldn't have sunk. Quite correct, but hardly an astounding revelation. Ther other one clearly has an axe to grind, as he makes a series of allegations without any supporting arguments.
    1
  373. A brilliant one then. Build a ship for $7.5 million, then sink it in order to recoup $5 million.
    1
  374. Odd, then, that a sister ship built using the same materials performed successfully until 1934.
    1
  375. No. At least not according to the operator, Cyril Evans. His testimony was that Phillips asked him to 'keep away' because Titanic's transmissions to Cape Race were being blocked. Evans did not see it as any insult, that is a modern interpretation, and he simply switched off his set at the end of his shift. There was only one operator aboard Californian.
    1
  376.  @stevemurphy470  'You could be right, I too wouldn't take kindly to being told shut up and butt put either.' Perhaps you are unaware of the morse shorthand used by wireless operators at the time? Or the fact that Cyril Evans sid not claim to have beeh offended?
    1
  377.  @stevemurphy470  As you probably haven't read them, you might look at the minutes of the British Inquiry, where a similar error was made. But, of course, you won't as you seem to prefer to post insults rather than to debate a subject.
    1
  378.  @stevemurphy470  I implore you to read Evans' testimony. Then perhaps you might read a little about morse shorthand?
    1
  379. There was no requirement for ships to maintain constant wireless monitoring at the time. Californian only had one operator, who needed to sleep from time to time.
    1
  380. 'only 16 life boats were just for the 1st class passengers.' Simply not true.
    1
  381. Are you really daft enough to believe this nonsense? Isn't it well known that Titanic was dragged to her doom by a sea monster, on a day trip away from Loch Ness? Just as plausible!
    1
  382. Gustloff wasn't a 'Red Cross refugee ship.' She was an armed naval auxiliary, carrying military personnel. The German authorities crammed civilian personnel aboard at the last minute.
    1
  383. What about J. P. Morgan?
    1
  384.  @himonwillard5088  Oh dear. You have watched a conspiracist video, and swallowed it whole. I would ask you for supporting arguments, but won't bother as there are none.
    1
  385.  @himonwillard5088  Well. Now you have ample opportunity to expound your theory about J. P. Morgan. You don't actually seem to be doing very well, however.
    1
  386.  @himonwillard5088  Well, old chap. You certainly haven't educated me. Nor, it seems from your comments, yourself either.
    1
  387. Oh yes. J. P. Morgan. The Federal Reserve myth invented in the mid 1990s.
    1
  388. Actually, no-one who actually knows anything about the subject, and isn't blinded by the false claims of conspiracists, believes anything of the sort.
    1
  389. The ship was designed to survice the loss of four compartments. Had that happened, he bow would not have sunk far enough for the water to spread further aft. Once five were lost, that would no longer be the case. The reality is that, had all compartments been fully sealed, then the ship would have been of little use as a liner, as large numbers of people needed to be able to move comparatively easily about the ship.
    1
  390. Why? Because he was Chairman of White Star, and had the shameless audacity not to die in a shipwreck?
    1
  391. Because Board of Trade regulations lagged behind the rapid expansion in ship size.
    1
  392. It is false. Titanic's designer, Alexander Carlisle, later testified that he had designed the Olympics to carry additional lifeboats as he expected the Board of Trade to change the regulations for the very large liners entering service. They didn't, so both White Star ships carried 20 boats (more than required). He denied that he had ever been pressurised into reducing the numbers of boats.
    1
  393. Exactly why would they do that?
    1
  394.  @petrichor499  How would building a ship for £1.5 million, then sinking it in order to claim £1 million from Lloyds, and at the same time harming the reputation of the Line, have been profitable?
    1
  395. Some also believe in the Loch Ness monster.
    1
  396. I was born on the same day (not year) as King George III. Does that prove anything? Hmmmm.....
    1
  397. No, he didn't. This is simply nonsense.
    1
  398. When the iceberg displaced around one billion tons, yes it was.
    1
  399. No. An iceberg did. If you believe you comment, why didn't 'man's arrogance' sink Olympic?
    1
  400. Where on earth did you hear that nonsense from? A switcher video, doubtless. Firstly, Titanic's sister ship was called Olympic. Secondly, at the time of the sinking, Olympic was also at sea, on her way to Southampton from New York. Both ships had, at the time, full Board of Trade certification. Thirdly, Olympic had been damaged in a collision with a RN cruiser, Hawke, but had been repaired by Harland & Wolff by late November, 1911, and had been back on her regular Atlantic service since then. Fourthly, the bankers supposedly lured aboard Titanic were called Guggenheim, Astor, and Straus. They had not been 'lured' aboard, they all had booked passages. Moreover, the first two had never expressed any views about the Federal Reserve, whilst the third was on record as being a supporter. The suggestion that this was not the case can be traced back to a book from 1995, but not earlier. So, 'Conspiracy right??' Indeed. A rather silly one as well.
    1
  401.  @TRUENEPHILIM1  Unlike you, I check my typing, and my facts, before posting. I thought the subject under discussion was Titanic? Why do you feel the need to muddy the waters?
    1
  402. Nonsense. . Of the 466 women on board, 339 survived. Of the 843 men on board, only 161 survived
    1
  403.  @thereisnocarolinHR  Perhaps I misunderstood. I assumed the reference was simply to passengers. Including the crew, of which 885 of 907 were men, the numbers seem to be :- Aboard Survived Children 79 58 Women 402 296 Men 805 146 Crew (Women) 23 20 Crew (Men) 885 192 Other sources vary slightly, but not by much.
    1
  404. No, he didn't. You are believing a myth of recent origin.
    1
  405. You mean the 2017 book by Senan Molony? One photograph with a smudge on it which could equally be a mark on a negative, or the result of a 'close encounter' when docking the ship? The mark which is forward of the bridge, nowhere near the bunkers or engine rooms, and well away from the bunker which was actually the subject of a fire which had been extinguished at least 24 hours before the collision? That imaginary 'burn mark?'
    1
  406. No. The idea is absurd.
    1
  407. You have been watching a conspiracist video, and swallowed it whole. Those bankers had either expressed no opinion on the Federal Reserve, in two cases, or were in favour, in the case of the third. The ludicrous claim originated in the late 20th century, and has precisely no basis in fact.
    1
  408. Isn't it easy to make condemnatory comments from the comfort of an armchair, 110 years and more after the event? What a brave person you are!
    1
  409. I hesitate to ask, but why?
    1
  410. We know nothing of the sort. Unless you believe in such myths. A smouldering fire in a bunker had been extinguished around 24 hours before the collision. Witness testimony made no mention of any hull damage.
    1
  411. No, 'They' didn't. Survivors, such as Dan Buckley, gave evidence at the US Inquiry, and did not make such claims. It is a myth which was invented well after the sinking.
    1
  412. Olympic was built of the same 'cheap metal.' She was a successful liner for 23 years. Odd that. I hope you never go near a steam engine. If you put too much coal in the boiler, all that happens is that the safety valves lift, to ensure that the boiler pressure does not exceed the safe level. In Titanic's case 215 psi. Explain how the Titanic was going to challenge the record crossing time of a turbine driven ship which was 4 - 5 knots faster, as Mauretania & Lusitania both were.
    1
  413. I refer you to MV Explorer.Sunk following collision with an iceberg in 2007. The iceberg which sank Titanic probably displaced around one billion tons. Of course it could sink a steel ship. By the way, where, in 1912, did your imaginary torpedo come from, who launched it, and why?
    1
  414. Cunning Plan, Baldrick! Build a ship for £1.5 million, in order to claim back £1 million from the insurers, and lose your reputatioin for safety at the same time. In my haive innocence, I thought that such scams were supposed to MAKE money.l Indeed, a number of people cancelled their bookings. Almost as many, in fact, as had cancelled their bookings for Olympic's maiden voyage almost a year earlier. You really shouldn't believe everything you see in conspiracist video, such as the 1990s created myth that Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus opposed the Federal Reserve, as it makes you look extremely silly when you post as you have just done.
    1
  415. Why?
    1
  416.  @GODS_OUTLAW  There is a simple way to prove who is right and who is wrong. All you need to do is provide a 1911 or 1912 source which proves that Astor and Guggenheim actually had opinions which opposed the Federal Reserve. Then you must explain why the New York Times included two articles, as follows :- Monday 16 October 1911, page 10, revealing that Straus actually supported the forming of a federal reserve bank. The Article is headed :- 'Isidor Straus urges new banking plan.' Just a few days later, another headline in The New York Times, Wednesday 18 October 1911, page 14, reveals that Straus defended the forming of a federal reserve bank. :- This Article is headed 'Isidor Straus defends them, and argues that the new monetary system will give them stability.' Odd comments, I suggest, for someone who, in your imagination, was murdered because he opposed the Federal Reserve? I can refer you to a site which reproduces the actual articles if it would help? Feel free to ask. In point of fact, these absurd claims first appeared in a book by Robin Gardiner in 1995, and have been taken up, without actually being checked, by conspiracy theorists and gullible fools since that time.
    1
  417. No.
    1
  418.  @Lorne.StormTracker_Hayden  No, it wasn't. Before you repeat such nonsense, perhaps you need to look up Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus for yourself. You may be surprised to discover that neither of the first two ever expressed their views about the Fed., whilst the third had gone on record as being a supporter. You are falling for a myth created in the 1990s.
    1
  419. If the steel used on Titanic was not fit for purpose, isn't it odd that Olympic, built by the same builder, using the same steel, sailed those same seas without any problems for over 20 years?
    1
  420. No one made any such claim.
    1
  421. It would have been something indeed if there had been an aircraft carrier in the area in 1912!
    1
  422. You shouldn't believe everything you see in conspiracy videos. Astor and Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions about the Federal Reserve. Straus had. He was in favour of it.
    1
  423. Binoculars, or glasses, were used to identify an object which had already been spotted. If Titanic's look outs had had them, it might actually have resulted in a few more seconds delay before raising the alarm.
    1
  424. Why?
    1
  425. That rather presupposes that there was any 'crime' and there wasn't.
    1
  426. Because there was barely time to launch the lifeboats in any case. The last two collapsibles floated off as the ship sank.
    1
  427.  @dcossi1  For an excellent article by a researcher which explains the facts, as opposed to the myths, concerning Titanic's lifeboats, read :- 'The forgotten drills aboard Titanic.' A search will locate it easily. It is remarkable how, where Titanic is concerned, myths and legends become 'facts' in the minds of many people.
    1
  428.  @djorion7245  There is a whole host of evidence which proves that the switch was a myth, invented by an amateur historian in the 1990s. However, this is not how these things work. If you believe in the switch, the onus is on you to provide proof of it.
    1
  429. 'Headlight?' Oh dear!
    1
  430. Not correct for early 1912. There were no rules concerning the colours of flares, which was why Titanic carried 36 Socket Signals, all of which were white with explosove heads.
    1
  431. What did they use to induce Smith to kill himself, and most of his crew and passengers?
    1
  432. Olympic had been repaired by late November, 1911, apart from a brief visit to Belfast to replace a lost propeller blade in early march, 1912. She was actually at sea, on her way to Southampton from New York, when Titanic sank.
    1
  433.  @petrichor499  You really are clueless. Olympic was in Belfast for six weeks until late November, 1911, undergoing repairs after the Hawke collision. When she left, Titanic was a semi-complete vessel, unpainted and with only one funnel in place. There is even a photograph, which shows the two together and demonstrates exactly how impossible a swap would have been. The only other time they met was for five days in early March, when Olympic had a broken propeller blade replaced. 'Slienced?' Can you provide evidence of such 'silencing?' Or do you simply believe every myth spoon fed to you?
    1
  434. He wasn't fired. He was simply transferred to Olympic.
    1
  435.  @popaflare  'Frank Browne, S.J., who boarded at Southampton.' That is a straight lift from Wikipaedia. This claim comes from a single unsubstantiated letter in the 'National Catholic Register' of April, 2012, written by one Jennifer Roche. There is no evidence to support her claim, and, for the rest of his life, Father Browne never seems to have made any such reference. In short, I suggest that it is simply an invention. Unless, of course you, unlike Jennifer Roche, can supply confirmatory supporting evidence?
    1
  436. 1. The failure not to see the iceberg was a result of unusual; climatic conditions, not a mistake. 2. Doesn't really make sense. 3. Titanic was designed to survive with four bulkheads compromised. Once this number was exceeded, she could not remain afloat. The damage she sustained was greater than anything for which she had been designed. Her bulkheads were actually higher than Board of Trade Regulations demanded. You seem to forget she was, first and foremost, a ship intended to transport passengers. These passengers, and crew, needed to be able to move fairly freely around the ship. You might as well criticise the design of Lusitania for not incorporating anti-torpedo bulges.
    1
  437. Why would White Star want to sink one of their greatest assets?
    1
  438. No one from H & W or White Star ever made such a claim.
    1
  439. You mean like the 'cheap rivets' used to build Olympic, which was a successful ocean liner until 1934.
    1
  440.  @jowaite8889  Precisely. In other words, the rivets used were perfectly satisfactory. Only when faced with circumstances totally beyond her design parameters did Titanic's hull fail. Presumably, you would argue that, because her hull likewise failed after being hit by a torpedo, Lusitania was also badly built. After all, she wasn't even fitted with anti-torpedo bulges!
    1
  441.  @jowaite8889  Any ship faced with such damage would succumb in a similar manner. The materials used were not the cause of the sinking.
    1
  442.  @jowaite8889  Aside from the fact that Harland & Wolff were White Star's shipbuilder of choice, and were hardly likely to seek to imperil that relationship, the fact is that the rivets were more than adequate for the role intended for them.
    1
  443.  @jowaite8889  I don't write anything without comfirming the facts first. Only switchers or conspiracy theorists do that.
    1
  444. Of course Titanic was carrying a full load of coal. She was setting out on a transatlantic voyage. There was indeed a fire in one of Titanic's thirteen bunkers, which had been extinguished a day before the collision, by stokers and trimmers who had precisely nothing to do with the deck crew. Lloyds had the ship (in fact, both ships) insured for £1 million each, and duly paid out after the sinking. What makes you think that they would have insured an unseaworthy ship? There weren't enough lifeboats on Olympic, Lusitania, or Mauretania either, but there were more than enough aboard all four to comply with Board of Trade regulations. It does indeed sound like a set up, to people like you who don't actually know the true facts.
    1
  445. This isn't even nonsense. It is simply drivel.
    1
  446. There were severalpairs of binoculars aboard Titanic. Lookouts however were required to spot objects, after which bridge officers would use binoculars to determine what they were.
    1
  447.  @zenfernando6067  Wrong. There were several pairs of binoculars aboard Titanic. At the time, as testified at the British Inquiry, lookouts rarely used binoculars in any case. Theor job was to report sightings immediately, after which the bridge officers would identify what the sightings were.
    1
  448.  @zenfernando6067  As I explained. Lookouts were employed to spot objects, and report them to the bridge. Bridge officers then used binoculars to identify those objects.
    1
  449. Why aren't you taking your medication?
    1
  450.  @gman4074  As I have written elsewhere, the Boer War ended in 1902, and the first powered flight was in 1903. Does that prove that they were connected. If you choose to believe a fantasy invented in the 1990s, then please provide actual evidence that Astor & Guggenheim opposed the Fed, when in fact they had been silent on the subject. Then explain why it was that the third, Straus, had gone on record as being supportive of the concept.
    1
  451. Actually, Californian stopped because she was surrounded by sheet ice, not as a result of icebergs.
    1
  452. He sent it when he was told to do so by Captain Smith.
    1
  453. Olympic's operator switched off? That's a new one.
    1
  454.  @a.d.clarke4990  Californian only had one operator, and he switched off at the end of his shift. Cyril Evans gave evidence, and did not regard Phillips' message as anything more than a request to clear the frequency. He certainly was not offended by the morse shorthand of the day.
    1
  455. No one from H & W or White Star ever did.
    1
  456.  @13sinaloko1  Odd how the people who have actually not done any themselves always urge others to do 'research.' Perhaps you might provide a credible source, from the time, which proves my earlier comment to have been a false one. By the way, referring to a scene from the movie wouldn't qualify as a 'credible source'.
    1
  457. Why would the owner do that, and why do you think Titanic was not seaworthy?
    1
  458. 1). What changes to staff? One officer was transferred to Titanic because he had experience of the class. 2). What cheaper equipment? 3). What rush to get the ship to sea?
    1
  459. He wasn't fired. He was transferred to Olympic, and a senior officer from Olympic, more experienced in the operation of that type of ship, was transferred to Titanic. Blair, of course, took his personal property, including HIS binoculars, with him. The myth of the 'Glasses in the locker' is just that, a myth, as the evidence of the lookout survivor at the US Inquiry made clear almost 110 years ago.
    1
  460. Why? Because he was CEO of the Company?
    1
  461. Simply not true. The inspection reports after the Hawke collision made no reference to any keel damage. Neither did Harland & Wolff. The first mention was actually in a book by Robin Gardiner, dating from the mid 1990s, and with no credible evidence to support the claim.
    1
  462. Smith had already altered to a more southerly course, and the actions he took were supported by other captains who testified at the Inquiry.
    1
  463. The marconi operator was not rude. He simply used a form of morse shorthand common at the time to ask Californian's operator to clear the frequency. It has been made to seem rude by people who either don't know the facts, don't wish to know the facts, or merely seek a convenient villain. I doubt Californian's operator felt any guilt. The ship only had one marconi operator aboard, and even in those days people tended not to work 24 hour shifts.
    1
  464.  @Stardust_7273  Californian only had one marconi operator, who ended his shift as usual. Even in those days, people didn't work 24 hours per day.
    1
  465. Odd how those who urge others to 'do your research' are invariably the ones who have done the least themselves. Morgan, for example, did not 'invite' anyone aboard Titanic, and in March had already stated that he would be in Venice on 23 April.
    1
  466. No, it wasn't. Bunkers were inspected on a daily basis because of the danger of spontaneous combustion. In this case, the fire was detected, a team set to work, and it was extinguished.
    1
  467. Who dared God? Moreover, why do you think that God would be so petty-minded?
    1
  468. How many 'missiles' do you think were around in 1912?
    1
  469. The glasses, or absence thereof made no difference, as they were used to identify objects which had already been spotted by the Mark 1 eyeball. Smith was aware of the iceberg warnings. He had followed a more southerly course, and had instructed his lookouts to be especially vigilant. Titanic carried more lifeboats than the regulations from the time required. The bulkheads were higher than required by Board of Trade regulations.
    1
  470. You can, I assume, substantiate this allegation?
    1
  471. The number of lifeboats actually exceeded the requirements of the Board of Trade. If the rivet quality was so poor, how was it that her sister ship crossed the same waters without any problems until 1934. The reality is that what happened was totally beyond anything for which the ship was designed. You might as well criticise Leonard Peskett for not incorporating anti-torpedo bulges into the Lusitanias.
    1
  472. Really? What makes you say that?
    1
  473. I believe that 'Newfindland' is how it is pronounced by Newfoundlanders.
    1
  474.  @Dizzy19.  Stop confusing people with facts. Most would prefer to believe Cameron's anti-Limey agenda!
    1
  475. The number of lifeboats was in accordance with Board of Trade regulations in force at the time. By the way, it is doubtful that a fully laden lifeboat was capable of standing the unsupported strain of being lowered into the sea. The idea was that, once afloat, the boats would return to load further survivors.
    1
  476. Totally unconnected. Unless you believe a 1990s myth, of course.
    1
  477. The minimum number of lifeboats was determined by the Board of Trade, and the Olympics, like the Mauretanias, exceeded it. Perhaps you should look what the purpose of lifeboats was perceived to be in 1912?
    1
  478. There was no weakening of the hull, and using the same rivets, Olympic had a long and successful 23 year career.
    1
  479.  @mickeywicked478  Am I? News to me. If you have a problem with my comments, why not address me directly, instead of making false allegations?
    1
  480.  @mickeywicked478  As long as creatures like you infest the planet, I respectfully submit that the title of 'lowest form of subhuman in existence' is clearly yours by right. If you want to talk about Titanic, do so. If, of course, you even can.
    1
  481. Odd, then, that a sister ship built at the same time in the same yard never experienced any rivet problems, despite being in service for 23 years? Oh, and the fire had been extinguished a day before the collision.
    1
  482. Olympic was in the Solent at the time of the collision. She was in the charge of a Solent pilot who was deemed at fault in the subsequent court case. Smith was exonerated of any blame.
    1
  483. No one made any such claim.
    1
  484.  @CARLPHILLY  The problem is, I know the history. Perhaps someone might have said trhat in a movie, but no one from either White Star or Harland & Wolff ever said it in the real world.
    1
  485.  @CARLPHILLY  Indeed you should. If you are reliant upon google for your information, then that explains why you are in error.
    1
  486.  @CARLPHILLY  You want me to prove that something didn't happen? Don't be silly. You made the claim, therefore the onus is upon you to provide a verifiable source which shows that it did. Put simply, provide a reference to any contemporary source which demonstrates that anyone in authority from White Star or Harland & Wolff made such a statement. Good luck with that.
    1
  487.  @CARLPHILLY  No, you haven't shown me any proof. You have simply said 'google it.' In fact, the claims that people had said that Titanic was 'unsinkable' only appeared after her sinking. Ask anyone to provide any documentary evidence, in the form of newspaper articles or comments by White Star or H & W in technical documents and they, like you, will be unable to supply it. They will instead, as you have done, choose to resort to insults.
    1
  488. Morgan bought control of White Star in 1902, as part of his ambitious plan to dominate the Atlantic sea trade through his IMM company. Certainly not because White Star was bankrupt. In fact, quite the opposite, because along with Cunard, she was a leading player in the business, and had recently introduced a number of new vessels. By the way, 1902 was well before the three Olympics were even a twinkle in Bruce Ismay's eye. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic. A newspaper article from March, 1912 states that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice, on 23 April, which would have rendered it impossible for him to sail in Titanic and return in time. Certainly, a number of passengers did cancel their bookings. Almost as many, in fact, as had cancelled their bookings when Olympic sailed on her maiden voyage a year earlier. 'But vocal opponents of central banking and the movement for a U.S. central bank, such as Isador Strauss and John Jacob Astor, were on the ship and died.' Sorry, but this is simply false. Isidor Straus was a supporter of the Federal Reserve, as two articles in the New York Times from October make clear. Astor (and Guggenheim) had never expressed their opinions on the matter. You have appearently been fooled by a myth of recent origin. Californian, actually a Leyland line ship under the umbrella of IMM, was a small freighter ( 6200 tons gross) with accommodation for 47 passengers. She had sailed from Liverpool, before Titanic left Southampton, for Boston. Her manifest, along with that of almost all freighters from the time, is long gone, but when she arrived in Boston on 19 April, the shipping newspapers recorded that she carried a 'mixed, general' cargo Thus, your comment that 'However, they happened to have 3,000 blankets and life jackets, and provisions enough to feed as many,' has precisely no evidence to confirm it. Unless, of course, you can provide some? 'To say that it's entirely possible that Morgan and the other banking cartels set up the entire accident in order to get rid of their opponents is an understatement.' No. In view of the total lack of supporting evidence, it is a gross overstatement. Unless, again, you can supply some confirmatory evidence in support of your remarkable allegations? I recall asking you precisely this question previously on another site. You did not reply. I wonder why that might have been?
    1
  489. 'The US & other countries including England had the Titanic sank by a submarine.' Don't be a fool. Survivors overwhelmingly reported seeing the iceberg, and who had a submarine remotely capable of reaching Titanic's position, let along catching a 20+ knot liner, in 1912? Oh, and who were these families who needed to be removed, and why? Capital letters and multitudinous exclamation marks are a poor substitute for facts and reasoned argument.
    1
  490. Odd that Olympic used the same materials, and sailed successfully for 23 years, don't you think?
    1
  491.  @scotsman555  Yes, but isn't that the point? The materials used to build the Olympics were completely adequate, except in totally extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. You could equally criticise Leonard Peskett, designer of Lusitania, for not allowing for the possibility that she might be torpedoed.
    1
  492. There were more 'poor people' than 'millionaires' aboard.
    1
  493. Nonsense. Olympic was repaired and back at sea by late November, 1911. Five months or so before Titanic was completed. White Star received £1 million from Lloyds, but as they had lost a prime asset which had cost £1.5 million to build, as well as their reputation for safety, it was hardly a good deal. All these simplr facts are readily checkable. It puzzles me why you 'switchers' never bother.
    1
  494.  @SamTaylor-HealthMediaandSpirit  'You don't know you weren't there' is the usual response of the simple-minded when challenged. What money would you wish to follow? Unlike you, I am able to read statements by witnesses, records & minutes of both Inquiries, and archive documents. It is called the study of history. Perhaps you might consider trying it?
    1
  495.  @SamTaylor-HealthMediaandSpirit  It appears that you never actually started learning
    1
  496. 'Two whole hours?' How fast do you think ships steamed. A ship like Carpathia could probably cover around 28 miles in that time, at most. Carpathia didn't turn off her wireless.
    1
  497. Because it is a model, perhaps?
    1
  498. At the time, Tiller steering orders were still the norm. Ordering the helm to starboard would turn the ship to port, and vice versa.
    1
  499. That is quite enough. What a silly boy you are.
    1
  500. A real historian would have known that Titanic was not at full speed for any part of her voyage, as five of her boilers were never connected. Incidentally, how would steering into the iceberg help to make the voyage 'as quick as possible?'
    1
  501. Binoculars were irrelevant, except that they might actually have delayed the alarm being given slightly. They were used by lookouts to identify objects which had already been spotted.
    1
  502. What do you believe Harland & Wolff did wrong? Where was there 'whitewashing?'
    1
  503.  @veritas41photo  Harland & Wolff were the designers. 'Of course it was a whitewash.' I asked for examples. 'Of course it was' doesn't come into that category.
    1
  504. Your last post doesn't seem to have appeared, except in my inbox. However :- "The whitewashing was by both the Board of Inquiry and British Board of Trade" aren't examples? You continue to disregard what I say, so that marks the end of it." Examples? You haven't yet given one single example of 'whitewashing.' You keep merely saying 'Of course it was.' I doubt that you have even read the minutes & findings of the Inquiry at all. Of course I continue to disregard what you say. Largely because you don't seem able to say anything relevant.
    1
  505. Nonsense.
    1
  506. It isn't true. Titanic had a bunker fire well aft of the collision point, and it had been extinguished around 24 hours before the collision in any case.
    1
  507. A fully laden lifeboat would not have been able to withstand the unsupported strain of being lowered into the sea. The idea was that the boats would stand off, and return as quickly as possible, after avoiding the downward suction as the ship sank, in order to pick up further survivors from the sea.
    1
  508. You mean Phillips? The Operator who died in the sinking? Or Evans, Californian's Operator, who didn't do anything wrong?
    1
  509. Except that White Star hadn't, of course.
    1
  510. What was it then?
    1
  511. How many people do you think take their own personal lifeboat with them when they go on a cruise nowadays?
    1
  512. Why?
    1
  513. No, he didn't. At least, not according to his testimony. He stated that he designed the Olympics to be capable of carrying extra boats, but only in the event that the Board of Trade amended their regulations to cater for the much larger liners entering service. The Board didn't.
    1
  514. Nonsense.
    1
  515. White Star lost £500,000 on their insurance claim, as well as their reputation for safety. Do you think the idea was given to them by the Board of Cunard?
    1
  516.  @gman4074  Except the Federal Reserve and Titanic were totally unconnected. Those who invented this absurd nonsense (in the 1990s, by the way) claim that three leading financiers aboard the ship were opponents of the Fed., but have not a shred of evidence. Of the three men involved, two Astor & Guggenheim, had never stated their opinions on the Fed., whilst the third, Straus, had gone on record as being a supporter. Don't believe me? Then simply look the three up yourself, instead of simply swallowing whole a fantasy.
    1
  517. 1945.
    1
  518. Odd that her sister ship, built of the same materials, was a safe and successful ocean liner for almost 25 years, don't you think?
    1
  519.  @philslaton7302  Thank you for demonstrating that the rivets were more than up to the required standards under normal circumstances. No ship, riveted or welded, could have been expected to survive after her hull had been compromised to the extent that Titanic's had been.
    1
  520. How may times? No one from White Star or Harland and Wolff ever made such a statement.
    1
  521. Really? Please explain.
    1
  522. Why?
    1
  523. You do know what Watchkeeping Officer do, I assume?
    1
  524.  @stronzer59  Try to understand. The Captain has overall responsibity for the ship, but cannot be expected to be permanently on the bridge throughout the duration of the voyage. In the case of Titanic or Olympic, some 5.5 days. That is why there are qualified subordinates, or watchkeeping officers, who oversee the operations of the ship in the absence of the Captain.
    1
  525.  @stronzer59  Oh well. Obviously you haven't read the testimony of several Master Mariners and Liner Captains given to the British Inquiry. Perhaps you should?
    1
  526. I have encountered 'Academy of Natural Justice' before. He appears to be a fanatic, for whom facts seem to be irrelevant, which is why he makes up his own.
    1
  527.  @Patriot-hz8xk  I don't explain it. It is precisely the argument I put to switcher half-wits on a regular basis, and for which those fools never seem to have an answer.
    1
  528. Ignored what warnings? Phillips passed ice notifications on to Titanic's command staff, and Smith was well aware of them. He had even altered to a different course.
    1
  529. The ship's name was 'Californian' and she only had one wireless operator, whose shift had ended.
    1
  530. You mean the bunker fire extinguished a day before the collision? What about it?
    1
  531.  @Dizzy19.  To be pedantic about it, her port of registry, on her stern, as well.
    1
  532. No he wasn't because no he didn't.
    1
  533. Titanic carried more life boats than Board of Trade regulations required. Indeed, more than the Lusitanias carried.
    1
  534. Nonsense.
    1
  535. As they weren't in any other liner of the time. The height of the bulkheads, however, exceeded Board of Trade requirements,
    1
  536.  @stevemurphy470  'Lovey Dovey has an excuse and an answer for everything.' I simply post known facts, little chap. You could always check them for yourself, of course?
    1
  537.  @stevemurphy470  'Looks like everything exceeded the Board of Trade's requirements.' Had Board of Trade regulations not been met, the ships would not have received certification, could not have been insured, and thus could not have sailed. It really was that simple.
    1
  538.  @stevemurphy470  'Yeh, sure, like your "boiler" facts.' Indeed. I was wrong about that. Quite how relevant it is to the Board of Trade is unclear. Perhaps you might explain?
    1
  539.  @stevemurphy470  'Maybe the Board of Trade should have been indicted for its ineptitude and gross incompetence then.' There was no 'unsinkable ship' nonsense, unless you refer to the myth that either White Star or Harland & Wolff made such claims? What exactly do you think that the 'motives' of the Board of Trade actually were?
    1
  540.  @stevemurphy470  'Not sure really.' Of course you aren't, which perhaps explains why your posts have degenerated into nothing more than insults, I suppose? Yes, I can tell you, and so can every other sensible person with any knowledge of the subject. The BoT had no motive at all. They were simply a ponderous Government established body, dealing with a large array of matters, not simply shipping, which reacted much more slowly to the dramatic increase in liner sizes than they ought to have done. As, of course, Alexander Carlisle more or less said.
    1
  541. 'GUESS WHAT.' Other than that you must be seriously 'odd' Guess What?
    1
  542. You don't think that eye witness accounts, archives and documents from the period, and the numerous later expeditions to the wrecksite, shed any light on the sinking, then ?
    1
  543. Why? Moreover, why didn't the same happen to Olympic, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth or any of the numerous modern cruise liners?
    1
  544. The Olympics were very well compartmentalised. They xcould remain afloat with four of them compromised.
    1
  545. No-one from H & W or White Star ever made such a comment. It is simply false.
    1
  546. How then would you explain the fact that, at the time of the sinking, both Olympic class liners were at sea? Olympic herself was on her way to Southampton from New York. She actually replied to Titanic's SOS, but was too far away to help. Olympic had been damaged in a collision in 1911, but had been repaired in six weeks by Harland & Wolff, and had been carrying out regular Atlantic crossings since late November, 1911, when Titanic was far from complete, rendering the idiotic idea of a swap impossible. There is even a photograph of the two together in Belfast in late October. Titanic is the unpainted one, with parts of her superstructure, and three funnels, still not in place. As to insurance, both Olympics cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. What sort of idiot schemes to lose £500,000 as part of a fraud?
    1
  547. Joseph Bell said nothing of the sort. Indeed, neither did anyone else, except in a movie.
    1
  548. He wasn't 'kicked off' the ship. A management decision was made to replace him with an officer with more experience of the operations of an Olympic class liner
    1
  549. Why do you think it was the Germans?
    1
  550.  @astitvayaduvanshi312  As the first German boat with a diesel engine, U19, wasn't commissioned until a year later, it is academic in any case.
    1
  551.  @scorch33  If so, you wouldn't have lasted five minutes at the Old Glasgow Empire.
    1
  552. Indeed. A shame that it is made up.
    1
  553.  @paulcharlo9346  1). Every Master Mariner who gave evidence at the British Inquiry confirmed that Smith's actions were appropriate, and in accordance with the actions that they would have taken 2). The Olympics carried more lifeboats than Board of Trade regulations required.
    1
  554. How exactly did 'THEY' firstly ensure that the three financiers who died would be on the ship, and how did 'THEY' guarantee that the three would die? Aside from the inconvenient fact that two of the three hadn't commented on the Federal Reserve idea, and the third was a supporter, of course.
    1
  555.  @symonmakata938  No one from H & W or White Star ever called Titanic unsinkable, in point of fact. You haven't explained why the three should choose Titanic, when the equally luxurious Olympic was an alternative. Neither have you explained how the evil plotters could have been sure that all three men would board. But most of all, you haven't addressed the fact that none of the three 'targets' had expressed opposition to the Fed. Indeed, Straus was in favour.
    1
  556. Californian only had one Marconi operator aboard. He did not work 24 hour days. Have you considered how many times he had signed off at his normal time, and a passing liner had NOT collided with an iceberg?
    1
  557. Odd how people who post 'DO THE RESEARCH' are the ones who have done the least. If you think J. P. Morgan had any involvement, why not show us your actual evidence for this belief?
    1
  558.  @raymondbogert7880  You mean how the Olympics both cost £1.5 million to build, and were both only insured for £1 million? So, White Star lost £500,000 and their reputation as a safe carrier. That sort of insurance? J. P. Morgan was 75 years old at the time and in declining health, but I haven't read of any suggestion that he was in the early stages of dementia, as he would need to have been to have come up with a half-baked idea like this one. Yes, that is how much I know. As I wrote, 'Odd how people who post 'DO THE RESEARCH' are the ones who have done the least.'
    1
  559. No there aren't. At least, not until one Robin Gardiner wrote a nonsensical & largely fact free book in the 1990s.
    1
  560. Yet her sister, Olympic, built of the same materials, was a much loved and successful liner until the mid 1930s. Odd, that.
    1
  561. So daft you wrote it twice.
    1
  562. The absence of binoculars played no part in the sinking of Titanic.
    1
  563. Perhaps you might refer me to the source which claimed that Titanic was unsinkable, and which representative of Harland & Wolff or White Star said it?
    1
  564.  @malikkimanimaasai3703  Do try harder, or at least read what I wrote. The news media of the day knew about as much about the design and construction of the Olympics as the average London tram driver.
    1
  565.  @malikkimanimaasai3703  Franklin's response was made AFTER Titanic had sunk, and was a knee-jerk reaction. Actually, you added it to your post after I had replied to you. Rather disreputable of you, I suggest? In fact, the only semi-authoritive suggestion that Titanic, or, rather, the Olympic class, were unsinkable which appeared BEFORE Titanic's sinking was in a small circulation magazine called 'The Universal Engineer' I believe. I am not sure why you are so exercised about this, as it was then and is now obvious to anyone that a 52,000 lump of metal is perfectly capable of sinking without aid. Moreover, where does arrogance come into it?
    1
  566.  @malikkimanimaasai3703  Perhaps the word 'practically' escaped your notice? Name one of the 'influential people of that era..' who said that. Indeed, an exercise in futility. I really wonder why you started it.
    1
  567.  @malikkimanimaasai3703  'It all means the same thing.' You mean like if someone is described as 'practically dead,' that means the same as 'actually dead?' I hope you aren't a doctor! Thomas Anderson? Who? I suspect you mean Thomas Andrews. Not that it matters, because neither Andrews nor Smith ever described Titanic as 'unsinkable.' If Thomas Anderson had existed, I doubt he would have either. 'Check the Time Line.' You should, mon brave. The first post on it is :- 'Man's arrogance is what sunk the Titanic when they said it was unsinkable.' And it wasn't from me, as I already knew better.
    1
  568.  @malikkimanimaasai3703  No source at all refers to Thomas Andrews as Thomas Anderson. You say that 'Anderson' described the ship as 'unsinkable.' Refer me to the source please.
    1
  569.  @malikkimanimaasai3703  I don't recall you providing any reference to Andrews being referred to as 'Anderson.' Perhaps because no-one, except you, ever has? I thought you were going away? Well, in view of the nonsense you feel it necessary to post, I think I will, as there are many more rational people around with whom conversation is more interesting.
    1
  570.  @malikkimanimaasai3703  I observe that you feel the need to edit out your most obvious howlers retrospectively. It says rather a lot about your integrity. Or, rather, your lack of integrity. Goodbye, little chap.
    1
  571. Olympic (the real Olympic) was around 500 miles away when she received Titanic's distress call.
    1
  572. There was nothing 'cheap' about the Olympics. In modern values, each cost over £219 million to build.
    1
  573.  @bumfluffmcregor3730  Odd, then, that the same type of rivets, as used in Olympic, served in a safe and trouble-free manner for 23 years.
    1
  574.  @bumfluffmcregor3730  If you base your knowledge on videos like this, no wonder you misunderstand. Titanic would not have sunk had she not collided with an iceberg. Once more than four compartments were compromised, she was doomed. Simple as that. The rivet issue is a total red Herring.
    1
  575.  @bumfluffmcregor3730  Precisely, I prefer archives and the views of historians to what I believe are called 'Clickbait Videos.'
    1
  576.  @bumfluffmcregor3730  'this video has done lots of researcg.' Perhaps. A pity about the flaws in it.
    1
  577. Only if you have the advantage of retrospect.
    1
  578. Odd, then, that a photograph of Harold Bride in middle age shows him with dark hair.
    1
  579. Well, it was incorrect.
    1
  580. Perhaps you haven't read the testimony of several Captains & Master Mariners from the time, as given at the British Inquiry? Each confirmed that he would have, in the same situation, have followed the same course of action that Smith did. By the way, Smith had altered to a more southerly course. Why do you think an 'INFLATED EGO' came into anything. Your caps lock seems to be faulty.
    1
  581. Well, you heard wrong. The myth was invented in the 1990s, and has precisely no evidence to support it.
    1
  582. The 'glasses' nonsense has been given far more mileage that it deserves. Using them would probably have delayed the alarm being given, because they were normally used to identify an object which had already been spotted with the naked eye.
    1
  583. You mean the compartments which were significantly higher than Board of Trade Regulations required?
    1
  584. No. Ismay was a business not a marine architect. The ship was designed by Harland & Wolff.
    1
  585.  @chrismaccool9097  Because it is a scene in a film, and not accurate.. I don't need to explain it, any more than I need to explain a scene from 'Lord of the Rings.' The only actual account by a survivor of a (possible) conversation between Ismay and Smith was of a comment allegedly made by Ismay to Smith that Titanic was making better time on her maiden voyage than Olympic had on hers. No suggestion of a speed increase at all. By the way, 25 knots? The Olympics had two propellers driven by two triple expansion reciprocating engines and a third driven by a low power turbine. The maximum speed was, at best, 22 knots. Do you think that Ismay mistakenly thought he was aboard a turbine driven Mauretania, which was capable of 25 knots. Or do you simply not deal in facts at all?
    1
  586. I suspect that you aren't aware of what the role of lifeboats was perceived to be before the Titanic sinking?
    1
  587. Five of Titanic's boilers were not even connected at the time of the collision.
    1
  588.  @stanhelsing4995  'Conspiracy?' 'A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.' Such as sink Titanic in order to remove opposition to the Federal Reserve. Only has any credibility if, firstly, there is the slightest piece of evidence in support of the claim, and secondly if the supposed opponents actually DID oppose the Fed. in the first place. Neither of which applies where Titanic was concerned.
    1
  589.  @stanhelsing4995  Relevance to April 15, 1912 being?
    1
  590.  @stanhelsing4995  I don't bother with American documentaries, as I have access to archives and accurate histories. Perhaps you could provide proof of your claims? You might start by explaining how Morgan persuaded Straus, Astor, and Guggenheim to board Titanic?
    1
  591.  @stanhelsing4995  I'm sure you do little chap. I imagine you hear Bruce Ismay's voice in your head all the time.
    1
  592.  @stanhelsing4995  Oh dear. A deluded troll. Still, good to see that your carers allow you to play on the laptop.
    1
  593.  @stanhelsing4995  Nothing to believe or not believe, little chap. You haven't provided one single shred of evidence about J. P. Morgan as yet.
    1
  594.  @stanhelsing4995  What a deeply strange person you are.
    1
  595.  @stanhelsing4995  Exactly what do you believe the Freedom of Information Act revealed about the sinking of Titanic? I keep asking you, and you keep replying witrh insults rather than answers. By the way, the Act to which you refer was enacted in the United States on 5 July, 1967. Where does Trump come into that?
    1
  596. But no one from Harland & Wolff or White Star actually did. Moreover, do you consider that God is really so petty-minded and cruel?
    1
  597. What are you rambling about? There was no White Star ship called 'Britannica.' There was a Britannic, launched in late February, 1914. There had just been a General Election, in December, 1910. The next one was not due until 1916. White Star had produced huge operating profits in the most recent financial year. The cost of repairs to Olympic was an inconvienence. but nothing more. Indeed, the order for the third Olympic class liner was placed in the same month that Olympic returned to sea after her repairs. Insurance Money? Each Olympic class ship was insured for £1 million, yet each had cost £1,5 million to build. Thus, White Star lost a major asset, their reputation for safety, and £500,000 when Riranic sank.
    1
  598. Greed? How exactly? Cheesy materials? Olympic, built of the same materials, was a successful liner for 23 years.
    1
  599. Incorrect. At least, according to the testimony of Cyril Evans, Californian's wireless operator. Who was in a position to know.
    1
  600. Ships fly the flag of the country they are visiting as a sign of respect, as part of "flag etiquette". The port state flag will be flown from the mainmast. The "house flag", or flag of the line, is typically flown at the mainmast along with the port state flag, with the house flag being flown outboard of the port state.
    1
  601.  @Tigerrfeet  Good of you to mention a fine ship, which gave 23 years of excellent service in peace and war. Truly, she was 'Old Reliable'.
    1
  602. Who are these mysterious 'they?'
    1
  603. It would be difficult to send any sort of morse message to Californian when her only operator was off watch.
    1
  604.  @khalliddo1385  No. Californian only had one Marconi operator, and at the time there was no requirement for ships with wireless to maintain a 24 hour listening watch.
    1
  605. What role do you think binoculars might have served?
    1
  606. The bankers were not opposed to the Fed. Or, at least they did not express any opposition, and one had already spoken in favour. No one knew about this supposed opposition until it was invented by conspiracists in the 1990s.
    1
  607.  @matevzrantcater  'Not sure where you got the not going full speed part, they were going 21 which is their normal service top speed. And not sure if you event watched the documentary, there is a whole scene where they talk about how if they had binoculars in crows nest they would certainly see the iceberg sooner.' From the fact that five boilers were never connected, perhaps? The binoculars are a Red Herring. Very few lookouts were equipped with them, because the role of lookouts was to scan the whole of the horizon, not selected parts of it. Any sightings were reported to the bridge officers, who determined what the object was with their own binoculars, and took the necessary action. Not my words, but those of several experienced officers who gave evidence.
    1
  608.  @matevzrantcater  'But despite every possible record saying they were going top speed you still make up your own facts?' Had you actually read the minutes of the British Inquiry, you would know it for a fact that five boilers were never connected. Frederick Fleet might have said it, but the evidence at the Inquiry, given by several sea officers, rather contradicts him. Frankly, Fred was hardly likely to have said otherwise, as it gave him an opportunity to escape what he might have believed (actually, wrongly) was implied criticism of him. Who was being 'wise after the event?'
    1
  609.  @matevzrantcater  The 'so called experts' were experienced officers with many years knowledge of the operations of large liners at sea.
    1
  610. 'They' didn't. The signal was, according to Californian's operator, as given in his subsequent evidence, was simply morse shorthand for 'clear the frequency.' Probably 'DDD.' It was not insulting, and he did not take it as such. The claim that it was is of recent origin, largely invented by people keen to find someone to blame, and ignorant of the way early wireless operators worked.
    1
  611. We do know. It wasn't Olympic.
    1
  612. Who do you think did that?
    1
  613. Gustloff was an armed naval auxiliary sunk in time of war. She was carrying U-boat crews and troops as well as refugees.
    1
  614. Almost as many cancelled their bookings for Titanic's maiden voyage as had cancelled for Olympic's the previous year. Do tell us what that proves. Who do you think 'they' got ride of? Astor & Guggenheim, who had never voiced their opinion about the Federal Reserve? Or Straus, who was a supporter of it? That is the true story, as you term it.
    1
  615. Where does greed come into it?
    1
  616. How so?
    1
  617. Nonsense. Simply a myth of modern origin.
    1
  618.  @mich6425  What 'selfish reasons' do you seriously believe I might have for 'twisting' the truth. Perhaps you might explain why these 'important people' were killed? Might I also point out that, in a discussion, insults come a distant second to arguments.
    1
  619.  @mich6425  Why didn't these Jesuits of yours cunningly plan to sink Olympic, a much better known ship at the time, instead? Guggenheim, like Astor, had never expressed his views about the Fed. Straus, the third financier to die, however, had. He was in support of it, as two articles in the New York Times from October, 1911, which can be read, demonstrate. The rest of your comments are simply too half-baked for me to waste my time upon.
    1
  620. Name one ship from the period which did.
    1
  621. No. Simply a fact-free myth from the 1990s.
    1
  622. Read it. Gardiner was the inventor of the 'Titanic was Switched' myth, and his writings have been utterly discredited. Even the co-author of the original book, Van de Vat, quickly distanced himself from it. Oh, and who considered Smith to have been 'brash & cavalier?' Smith actually had an excellent safety record, having been a Master Mariner since 1887 and White Star's Senior Captain since 1904, after which he had commanded the maiden voyage of every new White Star Liner.
    1
  623.  @logotrikes  There is also the furniture in the White Swan hotel in Alnwick. Their Olympic Restaurant features many items bought when Olympic was being scrapped in Jarrow in 1935 -1937. Harland & Wolff Build numbers may be seen on the reverse of many of these pieces. There are several 400s (Olympic) but no 401s (Titanic).
    1
  624. Ocean liners don't have handbrakes like automobiles.
    1
  625. Why would the UK government wish to sink Titanic? You say you don't 'do' conspiracy theories, then dive right into one. Olympic was not under Smith's control when she collided with HMS Hawke, by the way. She was in the Solent, and under the command of a Solent Pilot, the same one who had taken her into and out of Southampton on several previous occasions, by the way, as the subsequent court case made abundantly clear. Moreover, if this was some nefarious 'test' why was Hawke managing only eight knots, when, even though an old ship, she could manage at least eighteen? Smith, by the way, had been Commodore of White Star since 1904, and had taken every new liner on her maiden voyage. There was nothing odd about him taking Titanic. The rest of your post verges on insanity. Why do you think that a nurse and a stoker were part of Smith's conspiracy team? Titanic had over 100 stokers, leading stokers, and trimmers aboard. Moreover, what evidence have you that Smith escaped? Your post started off almost reasonably, then you contradicted your claim that you do don't conspiracy theories by posting one of the most ludicrous ones I have ever read.
    1
  626.  @truthandreality8465  Smith was not in charge of Olympic at the time of her collision with Hawke. She was in the Solent, and her movements under the supervision of a Solent Pilot. Blair was Second Officer. He had far more responsibilities than you seem to realise, but he was replaced because Henry Wilde had much more experience of the operations of an Olympic class liner than Blair, having been Chief Officer of Olympic, under Smith, since August, 1911. Do you really think that there were no glasses aboard Titanic when she sailed, even though such items were not generally used by look outs? The financiers aboard Titanic were not, as you imply without stating, opponents of the Federal Reserve. Two had never expressed their opinions, and the third was a supporter. The idea that the sinking was brought about because the British already assumed that a war was coming, and believed that 'their enemies wanted to fill those waters up with their own ships' is not only totally barmy, but shows a remarkable ignorance about the relative strengths of the British, German, & French navies of the period. oh, and recouping £1 million in insurance for a ship which cost £1.5 million to build, wilst at the same time losing a hard-won reputation for safety, was hardly a rational, let alone profitable, scheme, especially since White Star had only just placed their order for the third Olympic class ship. 'There have been several credible reasons brought forth for anyone wanting such a disaster in The North Atlantic.' Such as? Do tell. Keep these comments coming, please. I am unsure whether you are trying to be serious, or humorous, but you surely provide a degree of hilarity for those of us who know some actual history.
    1
  627. Who was careless?
    1
  628. In a word, No he didn't.
    1
  629. Why is it that people who make idiotic comments either do so in capital letters, or with plenty of exclamation marks?
    1
  630.  @stevereed8786  He actually didn't write that at all. Only that there were some inaccuracies in the movie.
    1
  631. Odd, then, that the NYT in late March contained an article saying that Morgan was intending to attend an event in Venice, at St. Mark's on 23 April. How would the newspaper have known that, if Morgan didn't yet know himself?
    1
  632. What makes you think that?
    1
  633. 1). The minimum number of required lifeboats was 16. Titanic carried 20. 2). The standard procedure at the time was to maintain course and speed and maintain vigilance. As several Master Mariners testified at the British Inquiry. 3). Smith had altered to a more southerly course because of iceberg warnings. 4). Binoculars would have been of no assistance. Their use by lookouts might even have delayed the warning being given by a few seconds. 5). The same rivets were used for Olympic, a successful liner for almost a quarter of a century. 6). The bulkhead heights comfortably exceeded those required by Board of Trade regulations.
    1
  634.  @JohnDoe-tx8lq  1168 died in the Sultana sinking, and the number of deaths on Tek Sing is not precisely known, although it may indeed have been as many as on Titanic.
    1
  635. : "Not even God could sink this boat!" No, it wasn't, except perhaps in the movie? Do you seriously believe that God would be so cruel and vindictive? Not to mention so ill-informed?
    1
  636. 'All the rich made it into the lifeboats.' No, they didn't.
    1
  637.  @gman4074  Ah, the Federal Reserve Myth. The one invented by conspiracists in the 1990s, claiming that Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus opposed the Fed., when the first two had been silent on the issue, and the third had spoken on the record in support. If any one of them opposed the Fed., prove it.
    1
  638. 'Those men opposed the bank being centralized and for them to not have that power. They stood against the central bank.' You shouldn't believe everything you see in a conspiracist video. Astor and Guggenheim had never expressed opposition to the Federal Reserve, and Straus had made speeches in favour of it. You are repeating an outright lie, dating from 1995.
    1
  639. Actually, no they didn't. Some witnesses claimed to have heard rumbling noises.
    1
  640. Odd then that the rivets used in Olympic lasted for her full 23 years in service, wasn't it? What did the Marconi Operator do wrong? Despite the nonsense less well informed people claim, all he did was ask Californian's operator to clear the frequency. Californian's operator simply switched off his set at the end of his shift. Binoculars were only likely to have delayed the alarm being given. The role of a lookout was to alert the bridge officers to an object, after which the officers would determine what it was and what action to take. Five of Titanic's boilers were never connected. No sea officer, then or now, would allow a collision to take place when swift action might have avoided it completely.
    1
  641. Whereas you, I suppose, are merely ignorant?
    1
  642. No, he didn't There is precisely NO contemporary source which made such a claim. Unless you have found one, of course?
    1
  643. The number of lifeboats aboard Titanic exceeded the minimum required under Board of Trade regulations. Ismay was Chairman of White Star, but not a ship designer. What about the rivets? Those used in Olympic lasted until 1935, and would have gone on longer had she not been withdrawn. Many of the crew who delivered Titanic to Southampton were not part of the crew recruited by White Star. Most of White Star's men came from Southampton, whereas many of the delivery crew were Belfast men, and returned to Belfast.
    1
  644. What had they to gain? No-one aboard the Titanic had expressed any opposition to the Federal Reserve.
    1
  645.  @yvonnesmith6152  You must have seen a conspiracy video, and appointed yourself an instant expect. Just to clarify the facts, three leading financiers died on Titanic. Of these, Astor and Guggenheim had expressed no opinions on the Fed., whilst Straus had publicly spoken in favour, and his speech had been reported in the New York Times in late 1911. Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong.
    1
  646. Why? what did either do wrong?
    1
  647.  @toddgardnerii2489  'Research ... Look at the evenly & unevenly spaced windows .... Also when the TITANIC was being built it had 14 portholes but when it was time to depart it had 16 portholes ... The OLYMPIC had 16 portholes .... Do some research.' Why is ut that those who urge others to do 'research' have done the least themselves? Both ships were launched with 14 portholes forward on the port side. Titanic was modified during construction following recommendations after Olympic had made a few voyages, and two extra were added, in late 1911. A similar change was made to Olympic in 1912. Photographs from the period provide all the evidence necessary. Olympic at the time had evenly spaced square windows on 'B' Deck. Another of the modifications to Titanic saw the forward end of 'B' deck altered to include more cabins and the Cafe Parisien. This resulted in a revised forward end pattern of uneven, rectangular, windows. Just like the pattern on the wreck, in fact. There you are. Some actual 'research.' You might learn from it, perhaps?
    1
  648. Duh!! Certainly sums up your comment.
    1
  649. It was Titanic, beyond any reasonable doubt.
    1
  650. There was a fire in a bunker which had been extinguished late on 13 April. Do you really believe that Smith would have sailed in a ship which had a serious internal fire, and a compromised hull?
    1
  651.  @Tanks518  Don't be a fool. Titanic had an engineering crew, including stokers and trimmers, of around 200 men. What possible inducements could have been used to keep them quiet, and why would they agree? A similar question applies to Smith and his officers. Why do you think they would take such a risk? You must have been reading Molony's poorly researched nonsense.
    1
  652.  @Tanks518  Isn't if amusing that people like you, who say 'do your research' are invariably the ones who haven't done any themselves? What research have you done? Read a book and accepted it unquestioningly? The 'serious internal fire' nonsense has been rejected by those people, such as myself, who actually do know the facts. Perhaps you would care to answer the question I posed in my previous reply, as I observe that you have seemingly chosen to ignore it? 'What possible inducements could have been used to keep them quiet, and why would they agree?'
    1
  653.  @GrumpyOleMe  No, it wasn't. The idea of a scam is brilliant. Both ships cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. White Star thus lost £500,000 as well as their reputation for safety. Genius.
    1
  654. The lifeboat drill was not cancelled. It was postponed.
    1
  655. No. There were suggestions that 'rumblings' were heard. Quite probable, as internal fittings & machinery broke loose.
    1
  656. Based upon what evidence?
    1
  657. Which might explain why no-one actually did?
    1
  658. You really shouldn't believe everything you see or hear in Switcher or Conspiracist videos. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic. He had already announced that he intended to attend an event at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April. This was even the subject of a short article in the New York Times in March, 1912, which may still be read. A number of people also cancelled. Almost as many as cancelled from Olympic's maiden voyage, in fact. A secret plot, by the way, doesn't work out very well if a large number of people are informed in advance. I refer you to Guy Fawkes and 5 November, 1605, for fuller information. In short, don't be silly.
    1
  659.  @MrDaiseymay  'You really shouldn't believe everything you read and hear.' Quite. Why haven't you taken your own advice? You have simply believed a created myth, used by conspiracists in lieu of any real evidence, akin to the 'Californian's cargo of blankets' and 'Federal Reserve plot' nonsense. Firstly, provide any evidence at all that Morgan did this. Secondly, if, as you suggest, Morgan 'might have known in advance, then why have them loaded in the first place? Do please provide evidence (other than claims in a conspiracy video) that Morgan actually did what you suggest.
    1
  660. You think Bruce Ismay designed the Olympics? Do you think that the CEO of Boeing personally designs the aircraft? Do you understand the difference between 'Businessman' and 'Marine Architect?'
    1
  661.  @simonbaker2501  Perhaps, but what happened to Titanic was totally beyond anything which had been considered possible when the Olympics were designed. It would be just as easy to say that the Lusitanias should have been fitted with anti-torpedo bulges in view of what happened to Lusitania. The Olympics actually carried more lifeboats than Board of Trade requirements dictated, and, by the way, four more than the Lusitanias.
    1
  662.  @simonbaker2501  The same could be said of all the wonderful old liners, but even those which survived until the 1930s and 1940s were broken up. Maintaining such a vessel as a museum ship is horrendously expensive. I believe even Queen Mary is in danger at the moment.
    1
  663. How could the shipas have been switched when Olympic had left Southampton for New York on 3 April, 1912, and Titanic arrived in Southampton from Belfast just before midnight on the same day? Morgan was never booked to sail in Titanic, as he had an appointment to be at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April, an appointment which had already been announced in the newspapers in March. The three financiers of which you write, Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, had either not expressed their views on the Fed., in the case of the first two, or supported it, in the case of Straus. The views of Straus, by the way, were expressed in two newspaper articles from October, 1911, which may still be read, although clearly you haven't. 'A deeper investigation into this tragedy?' You mean you watched a switcher video, swallowed it unquestioningly, and then appointed yourself an instant expert, I assume.
    1
  664.  @michaelcipriano1713  Oh dear. A conspiracist video. Swallowed it totally, have you? Why not check a few actual facts?
    1
  665.  @michaelcipriano1713  No, but experts do know when Olympic sailed from Southampton, when Titanic arrived at Southampton, that Morgan never cancelled a booking on a ship aboard which he never intended to sail, and that the three financiers who died were either supportive of, or never expressed any opinions about, the Federal Reserve. All documented facts which seem to have come as total surprises to you.
    1
  666.  @michaelcipriano1713  'guess the world is run by experts,' I don't know about the world, but I do know that a First in Modern History and a number of published books and articles on 20th century Naval & Maritime History do entitle me to the claim in this particular field. Odd how, when people like you begin to flounder, they abandon the subject, and resort instead to insults of a personal nature.
    1
  667.  @michaelcipriano1713  I don't seem to have received anything.
    1
  668. Do you really believe in so vindictive a God, who would act in such a manner in response to a comment which was never actually made?
    1
  669. Er. No one from the builders or owners ever said anything of the sort.
    1
  670.  @dalenikolitch4627  I think you will find that it wasn't. Unless, of course, you are able to provide a source?
    1
  671. Ridiculous!! I assume you refer to your post?
    1
  672. Don't be a fool. None of the three leading financiers who died aboard Titanic had expressed opposition to the Federal Reserve. Indeed one, Isidore Straus, had spoken in favour. Don't believe everything you read in conspiracy videos.
    1
  673. What makes you claim the US Inquiry consisted of 'criminals?' None of them, by the way, were Titanic survivors.
    1
  674. Except, of course, that Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus was a supporter and had spoken in favour. Any false claims to the contrary were invented in the mid 1990s.
    1
  675. There is no such evidence.
    1
  676.  @fraserthomson5766  Several accounts say that Smith may have been seen in the water near the overturned Collapsible B during or after the sinking. Colonel Archibald Gracie reported that an unknown swimmer came near the capsized and overcrowded lifeboat and that one of the men on board told him "Hold on to what you have, old boy. One more of you aboard would sink us all". In a powerful voice, the swimmer replied "All right boys. Good luck and God bless you.".Gracie did not see this man, nor was able to identify him, but some other survivors later claimed to have recognised this man as Smith. Another man (or possibly the same) never asked to come aboard the boat, but instead cheered its occupants saying "Good boys! Good lads!" with "the voice of authority." However, Lightoller, who survived on Collapsible B, never reported seeing Smith in the water. Whether survivors on Collapsible B would have been able to verify an individual's identity under such dimly lit and chaotic circumstances is doubtful. It is more likely based on wishful thinking, that the person they saw was indeed the Captain. Captain Smith's fate will probably remain uncertain.
    1
  677. 'Arrogance?' Was that really the name of the iceberg?
    1