Comments by "TombWraith" (@Tomb-Wraith) on "Oceanliner Designs" channel.

  1.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  As discussed previously, this is not true.
    1
  2.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  That's not what I'm talking about. Not only was the Californian closer to 12-15 miles away, the tired notion that the ships could see each other is not true. He didn't ignore Titanic. He made an active choice to not act.
    1
  3.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  You can literally look it up. Its not my job to change your mind. I've provided links in previous conversations that you have ignored, and its not my job to convince you. But I will correct your misinformation.
    1
  4.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  I have given you links to my sources before, and you've always not believed them. So the point is moot. The bottom line is, no one really knows. I'll believe my evidence. You believe yours.
    1
  5. No.
    1
  6.  @nosferatut9084  If you believe that bull, you're an idiot.
    1
  7. She had more lifeboats than were necessary at the time, not to mention that more lifeboats would not have helped. They couldn't even launch the ones they had.
    1
  8. This never happened.
    1
  9. I think he means the nearest ship that responded.
    1
  10. 1. Because lifeboats in 1912 was based on on tonnage, not passenger capacity. That was the standard of the time period. 2. They didn't. Titanic could have survived with 4 compartments flooded. The iceberg unfortunately opened 5. 3. There were 0 billionaires on that ship that opposed the Federal Reserve. Astor and Guggenheim had no opinion on it, and Strauss was an open SUPPORTER of the Federal Reserve. You're just a moron.
    1
  11.  @dovetonsturdee7033  don't believe they were concerned, more or less curious. Lord didn't investigate, nor did he have to. At the end of the day, his duty was to himself and his crew, as the Titanic was to hers. I don't personally believe one should have to risk their life for others unless they choose. I think Lord is unfairly villified.
    1
  12.  @dovetonsturdee7033  don't really believe in Traditionalism in any sense of the word. You have no obligation to help someone, even if you believe to be in danger. I honestly believe the confusion stemmed from the fact that Titanic not only did not fire the flares in correct intervals, they were the wrong color. If it is true that the officers aboard the Californian were worried, I don't blame Lord for writing off their worries, even if that's not what I or most would have necessarily done.
    1
  13.  @dovetonsturdee7033  That is an extremely disrespectful and rude thing to say, considering the positive conversations I've had with you in the past. It is not "self-centered" to not feel obligated to help someone, especially at the risk of dozens of people who you command. No. Red is, and has always been, the traditional standard for distress. Not white. I don't really care who supported him. The fact is we know that even IF he had taken action, he would not have made it in time, and then would have been villified for other reasons, especially if he had gotten into an accident as well. The Californian was a cargo steamer, not a passenger liner. She could hold 54 passengers.
    1
  14. Except no one actually said that.
    1
  15.  @janethefriend-awakened33  Proud of a ships capabilities is not the same as calling her unsinkable. I would love to see a source for that quote, because the closest we get before the disaster is her designers calling her "practically unsinkable."
    1
  16. Total bullshit. Binoculars would not have helped, she was more that adequate for maritime law at the time, and water only rises to the waterline. What sank Titanic in 1912 was an incredibly rare, freak occurrence. It's true that some decisions regarding bulkheads and lifeboats were driven by Titanic ultimately intended to be a luxury liner, but the prevailing wisdom of the time was ship design was adequate and no major issues were likely to occur.
    1
  17.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  What evidence is there that binoculars made a difference? I have found literally 0 evidence of this. Binoculars only help to see things that you have already seen with your eyes. Please explain to me how binoculars would have helped Titanic's lookouts see an iceberg. I also never said that anyone was to blame for Titanic's sinking.
    1
  18.  @sdferh  No he didn't. And he couldn't have even if he wanted to. The ships are not the same.
    1
  19.  @sdferh  No they weren't, and anyone who says that has never seen pictures. The entire A deck of Titanic was enclosed, where as the Olympics was only have closed. Titanic's wheelhouse was flat, whereas Olympic's was curved Guess what we see in pictures of the wreck?
    1
  20. Are you saying kept going after she had side swiped the iceberg or are you saying kept going straight through the iceberg?
    1
  21. It wouldn't have saved them. Hypothermia was the main killer.
    1
  22. Series of slits. Not a huge hole. It buckled her rivets.
    1
  23. This is false information. No one was trying to break a record to get to New York. Titanic could have never competed speed wise with either the Lusitania or the Mauratania. Smith took the ship farther south out of know areas of ice. It wasn't protocal to slow down but for fog. Errors were made yes, but they followed the protocols at that time. Smith believed, even if they encountered more ice, the lookouts would see it long enough for then to act. Unfortunately the conditions were just right for that not to be the case. She had more lifeboats than was standard at the time, and none of her crew called her unsinkable. The papers and magazines did.
    1
  24. Funny thing...they did take a more southernly route to avoid known areas of large ice. The iceberg that sunk Titanic traveled much farther than anyone knew possible. Also, Titanic never hit her top speed.
    1
  25. You are joking right?
    1
  26. Would not have helped. Drowning wasn't the issue. Hypothermia was. They had bigger priorities than trying to figure out buoyancy issues.
    1
  27. Then what, pray tell, is at the bottom of the ocean?
    1
  28.  @DankePlace  Sooo scathing
    1
  29. Because that wasn't the standard thing to do for ocean liners.
    1
  30. No. They were lowering the lifeboats that way because they were unprepared for an emergency like this, and were inexperienced with lowering them.
    1
  31. The only ones who claimed it as "unsinkable" were magazines and newspapers because they spun "practically unsinkable."
    1
  32. Nope, untrue. Astor and Guggenheim had no opinion on the Federal Reserve and Strauss was an avid supporter of it.
    1
  33.  @tiahenry4743  Except they never had a opinion on it, and several were actively in favor of it.
    1
  34. No. No it wasn't.
    1
  35. The Californian was not in sight. She was 15 miles from Titanic.
    1
  36. Except there is no historical evidence that this was ever said. This was only mentioned in magazines and the newspaper based on some of Titanic's crew calling her "practically unsinkable".
    1
  37.  @djgynee  Multiple magazines ran the story that Titanic was unsinkable so no, plural would be correct. Also, no. Just because a magazine published it, doesn't mean it was said. Because it wasn't.
    1
  38. So apparently everyone on Titanic who was white was a racist? Slavery hadn't been a thing for hundreds of years by this point...
    1
  39. There was no hatred of the poor, and while they were separated based on class, no one intentionally tried to kill the lower class.
    1
  40. This isn't true. No one was held intentionally below deck.
    1
  41. That wouldn't have saved you. A door would not have kept you out of the freezing water.
    1
  42. Why does everyone think this is possible...? How would that have helped the hypothermia issue...? Or slipping? This is sinply not how icebergs work.
    1
  43. Mistakes were made by everyone, but ultimately, no one is to blame.
    1
  44. She was 24 km away, actually. 15 miles.
    1
  45. Uhh no...? Titanic took a far more southern route in order to avoid the large flows of ice. The iceberg that sank Titanic traveled farther south than even thought possible. You're full of crap.
    1
  46. They never rushed to finish it. The rivets used in her hull were not standard because the standard rivets of the time had to be hammered in with a machine, which was too aggressive to be used on her hull. Impurities can actually strengthen rivets in on direction. It just unfortunate weakens them in the other.
    1
  47. Californian still wouldn't have got there before Titanic sank.
    1
  48.  @fmyoung  We can agree that Lord should have woken up the wireless, but the Californian was not a passenger liner. Her capacity was 54.
    1
  49. Absolutely incorrect. Even at max capacity, there was enough space on the lifeboats for about half of the passengers.
    1
  50.  @PinkyakaAJ  Something that needs to be understood that lifeboats in 1912 were not based on passenger number. They were based on tonnage of the ship. There actually is no historical evidence, other than very early designs of Titanic by Carlisle, that she ever intended to have more than the legally required amount of lifeboats, let alone that they were scrapped because of cluttering the deck.
    1