Comments by "TombWraith" (@Tomb-Wraith) on "Final Plunge: Titanic's HORRIFYING Last 5 Minutes" video.

  1. Probably from the thousands of source published based on records of the time?
    6
  2. Nope. Two different ships that looked really not as alike as people seem to think.
    6
  3. There's one in Pigeon Forge Tennessee as well.
    6
  4. Not mentioned because it isn't true. 3rd class was not intentionally kept below deck. The reason many of them struggled to get to the boat deck was because they did not speak English, and could not understand the officers instructions.
    5
  5. Coal bunk fires were extremely common on ships and was extinguished before she left harbor. Also, not sure how smart of an insurance scam it could be, considering she was vastly under insured. You conspiracy nuts will believe anything, won't you?
    5
  6. Absolute bullshit. For starters, the ships were fundamentally different. No one would have mistaken Olympic for Titanic. Secondly, the damages that Olympic had were fixed before Titanic even set sail in September of 1911. Please stop with the stupid conspiracy theories
    5
  7. Because thats not true? She was tested for 12 hours.
    5
  8. In reality, no one ever said that.
    4
  9. Wrong. They had more lifeboats than was required by law at the time, and more lifeboats wouldn't have saved more lives. Titanic didn't have enough time to launch all the boats she had.
    4
  10. No one did.
    4
  11. Yeah...except that was never said.
    4
  12. No.
    4
  13. ​ @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY This is so pathetic. You get upset over JP Morgan's innocence, and then go on the blame a bunch of innocent men. You know who was to blame for Titanic. The fucking iceberg.
    4
  14.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  It has nothing to do with being rude. Its you slandering men's names who did nothing different than anyone else would have at that time. You're implying negligence.
    4
  15.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  Then you clearly don't know the protocals of passenger ships during that time period. That is not my fault. Research your history, then. The Californian was not a passenger liner. She was a steamship. The two aren't comparable. Again, binoculars are only useful to enhance an object that has already been spotted. If binoculars were used, which I am not denying, they were used after spotting icebergs with their eyes. That would not have helped in Titanic's situation. Literally, google it. They had already taken in 6 iceberg warnings and had taken the ship farther south and out of the known iceberg fields. I can absolutely agree with you that in hindsight, they should have been more catious. As someone who works for the criminal justice system, any 1st year criminology class will tell you testimony is the weakest form of evidence. That's not an opinion. People lie. People have false memories. Where is a single piece of evidence that Isamy cooberated Lines story? I certainly couldn't find it. It is seriously ridiculous that you can not be bothered to use Google.
    4
  16. Uh huh. Then tell us what's at the bottom of the ocean?
    4
  17. Debunked lies.
    3
  18.  @blackkitty420  There is no evidence that it was even said at all. In fact, a quick Google search would tell you that it was never said at all. So no, the articles given state it was never said at all.
    3
  19. If that was true, it would be a terrible insurance scam.
    3
  20. Because her rivets buckled and allowed water to rush in. Thickness of her hull means nothing if her rivets are of poor quality.
    3
  21. That wouldn't have helped. Staying afloat was not the problem. It was staying out of that frigid water.
    3
  22. And what proof would this be, considering the ships have vast differences?
    3
  23. No he wasn't. You're conspiracy theories mean nothing.
    3
  24.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  So we start again with the lies. Titanic was going a speed that was normal at the time. It was only during low visability and fog that ships slowed down. She had also gone farther south in order to avoid known areas of ice. No having proper lookouts? She had her lookouts. If you're referring to the fact that they didn't have binoculars, binoculars would have made no difference. The "shut up" that Jack Phillips sent is highly out of context, and was literally equatable to a joke. Wireless operators were paid based on sending passenger messages, and by this time, they had already changed course due to the ice. That was more of "yeah I get it you can stop telling me". Also, literally 0 evidence they were "trying to beat another ship". This is such a tired lie.
    3
  25.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  Nope. I'm not the one with inaccurate information. We can argue in hindsight that she was going "too fast" in the iceberg field, but in reality, she was doing nothing different than any other ship did in that time period. The point of speed in ice fields is to get out of them as quickly as possible. The standard at the time was two lookouts. I have no idea why you think there should have been more. Also, no. Binoculars are designed to spot things you have already seen with your eyes. They narrow your field of vision. The lookouts didn't even spot the iceberg until right before impact. Binoculars on a moonless calm night would not have helped them see it sooner. His job was to send passenger messages, not to continuously deal with iceberg warnings. He had already alerted the Captain to multiple warnings, to which the Titanic's course was changed. The iceberg that sunk Titanic wasn't even thought possible because of how far South it was. Ahh, yes. I'm going to believe survivor testimony, which is literally the weakest form of evidence. That's the same nonsense people were saying about the Titanic trying to set a speed record to New York. Considering we know that Titanic was built for luxury and not speed, I have no reason to believe she was trying to "race" anyone.
    3
  26. Titanic had more than the required number of lifeboats at that time because lifeboat number was based off tonnage and not passenger capacity. However, more lifeboats would not have saved more lives. Titanic couldn't even successfully launch the ones she had. They did take place. Within 15 minutes, Smith ordered for lifeboat evacuations. Passengers did not want to get in them. Also, no. It really isn't. If you're referring to Andrews, he was one of the first to help with evacuation efforts. Quit using the movie as a reference source...
    3
  27. He was referring to her builders and designers. None of them survived.
    3
  28. Pretty bad insurance scam considering both the Olympic and the Titanic were under insured. JP Morgan was never set to sail on Titanic. He was in Paris during her maiden voyage. Astor and Guggenheim didn't have an opinion on the Federal Reserve and Strauss was an open supporter of it. Funny how stupid you people are.
    3
  29. Except the supposed "Bermuda Triangle" is located in the Western Atlantic Ocean. The Titanic sank in the North Atlantic Ocean. They're thousands of miles apart.
    3
  30. @brianc1481  The water the Titanic sank in was around 28 degrees and the iceberg was close to 2 miles away from where it actually went down.
    3
  31. Not entirely true. She had WI 4 rivets in that part of the hull because the machine used to hammer in 3 rivets would have damaged her. The coal fire had nothing to do with her sinking.
    3
  32. Having lifeboats for every single person on board ultimately wouldn't have made a difference, but that's not really Titanic's fault. Lifeboats back then were based on ships tonnage, not passenger capacity. That was just the standard.
    3
  33. No. In 1912, lifeboats were based on the ships tonnage, not her passenger count.
    3
  34. I believe they mean the nearest ship that responded to the wireless
    3
  35. No. It wasn't. There were blatent differences between Olympic and Titanic. The decks, the wheelhouse, the propellers.
    3
  36. And when you actually look it up, you'll find that 2 of these 3 men had no opinion on the Federal Reserve and one was actively openly in favor of it. Do you look up the crap you say?
    3
  37. This was never claimed until after the sinking. Passengers believed she was unsinkable because of her watertight compartments, but White Star Line never called her unsinkable.
    3
  38. Because people also lived and gave their testimony.
    3
  39. You know we have...pictures of the iceberg right? Ships implode as pressures and conditions change...
    3
  40. Funny, considering Titanic was under insured.
    2
  41.  @blackkitty420  There is literally no documented evidence of that. So you're the one with the burden of proof
    2
  42.  @blackkitty420  That literally makes no sense. Saying something didn't happen is not a positive claim that needs evidence. If I go to court, it is not my job to prove the defendant is innocent. It's the prosecutions job to prove the defendant is guilty. You can't "prove" a negative. By the way, you don't even prove things in science. You prove things in math. There is 0 historical evidence this quote was ever said, and therefore, the honest thing to do is to not believe it.
    2
  43. This conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked. The damage to Olympic was fixed before Titanic set sail, both ships were under insured, wreckage pieces have Titanic's number (401) and above all, the ships didn't look that much alike. Morgan was never set to sail on Titanic. And not only did Astor and Guggenheim not have an opinion on the Federal Reserve, Strauss was an active supporter of it.
    2
  44. Nope untrue.
    2
  45.  @heyjude57  It was the Titanic. This switch theory has been continuously debunked. No one rational believes the ships were switched.
    2
  46. No. The iceberg, the conditions of the night, and the rules of the time are to blame.
    2
  47. Uhh...water has surface tension. You are more likely to survive if you hit concrete than water.
    2
  48. I think you are confusing the Titanic with the Lusitania.
    2
  49. The Californian actually did contact the Carpathia, to which the Carpathia responded that Titanic was gone and they should continue their business.
    2
  50. And yet there are dozens of other testimonies that say otherwise. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
    2
  51. Its almost like we have historical survivor testimony, and that is what is being used.
    2
  52. @pedrovillafan  We as in the historic community. Like...do a little bit of research.
    2
  53. Was never said.
    2
  54.  @nickidrew5113  No, only in headlines. Her crew did refer to her as "practically unsinkable" but the tired "God himself could not sink this ship" was never said.
    2
  55. ​ @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY Physics don't work that way. Not only are icebergs near impossible to scale without correct equipment, that would not have helped the hypothermia issue.
    2
  56. Ismay survived. Titanic was literally his idea.
    2
  57. Untrue. Astor and Guggenheim had no opinion of the Federal Reserve and Strauss was openly in favor of it.
    2
  58. Titanic had more than the required number of lifeboats than needed. That has nothing to do with hubris. More lifeboats would not have saved more lives. Wow, the amount of misinformation here is staggering. Ismay never pressured Smith to alter speed and Titanic never even hit her top speed. It was common at the time to only slow down in thick fog or visual impairments. Binoculars would not have helped. Binoculars are useful for resolving details on things you've already spotted, but they're not useful for actually spotting things in the first place because they narrow your field of vision quite significantly. So binoculars wouldn't have helped the lookouts see the iceberg sooner - if anything they might have hindered things. Stop applying today's knowledge to 1912. While no one is saying there weren't mistakes made, the crew is not to blame for the disaster.
    2
  59. No it didn't, and no it wasn't. The Olympic's collision with the HMS Hawke did about 125,000 in damages, damages that were repaired before Titanic was even launched. Also, makes no sense when you under insured your ships. They would have been out millions of dollars.
    2
  60. In Titanic's case, more lifeboats would not have helped. Therey didn't even have time to launch the ones they had.
    2
  61. I...I don't think I've ever read two more idiotic comments. Its quite clear neither of you have an basic understanding of how physics works. First off, in regards to "rushing to another ship" that is what caused Brittanic to sink FASTER. Which is NOT what you want. The Titanic would have went down in HALF the time she did had she kept moving. Secondly, this has been debunked numerous times. Very few pieces of furniture that went into the sea would have been buyoant enough to keep people out of the water. No, you wouldn't have survived. You still would have frozen to death.
    2
  62.  @majorwedgie8166  The problem isnt about buyoancy. The problem is the weight of you would still cause your body to be mostly in the water. The problem wasn't drowning. The problem was hypothermia. Its not me "believeing" anything. Mythbusters even tested this.
    2
  63. Jacob Astor was not opposed to the Federal Reserve. He had no opinion on it one way or the other. Isidor Strauss, another victim on the Titanic, was also radically in favor of the Federal Reserve.
    2
  64. If it were actually true. But it's not. Neither Astor nor Guggenheim had an opinion about the Federal Reserve, and Strauss was an avid supporter of it. One of these days, you people will have to live in reality...
    2
  65. That line was never said. It was a fabrication made up from the movie.
    2
  66.  @Mark16v15  Show me research that shows evidence that line was ever mentioned. Because a simple google search will literally tell you it's not.
    2
  67. ​ @crowbar_the_skull Kinda falls apart when no one (other than media) claimed Titanic was unsinkable.
    2
  68.  @crowbar_the_skull  Its not untrue. The line "God himself cannot sink this ship." has no historical truth behind it. The closest thing was her builders calling her "practically unsinkable."
    2
  69. I would love the article to that, because all of that is nonsense.
    2
  70. I think they meant the closest ship that responded to the wireless.
    2
  71. We now know that isn't true. While it is true that the Californian was the closest ship, she was still 12 miles from Titanic. By the time Lord saw the flares (around 1 a.m.), the Californian simply wasn't close enough to help. Lord, on top of not being entirely clear at the time if what he had seen was distress, decided not to put his crew in danger for a fruitless endeavor.
    2
  72. You would have died long before you made it
    2
  73. Several things. Lord did not receive word about rockets until 1:00 am. The few rockets that were seen from Titanic were neither the correct color nor fired in the correct intervals to signal distress. No. They could not see each other. In reality, while it was the closest ship, the Californian was nearly 15 miles from Titanic. The lights that were supposedly seen was nothing more than a mirage caused by the conditions.
    2
  74. The Californian had shut off its wireless. They did not ignore Titanic. They were confused by the flares and would not have been able to help anyway.
    2
  75.  @pc_buildyb0i935  Thank you for the correction!
    2
  76. No. No it wasn't.
    2
  77. No. More lifeboats would not have mattered. Titanic didn't even have time to launch all the lifeboats she did have.
    2
  78. That line was never said. Sounds like your God is a pretty vile and petty person.
    2
  79. Kinda hard to put people on lifeboats...when they refuse to get on. Also, floating on something wouldn't have mattered. The main issue was hypothermia, not drowning.
    2
  80. In real life, this was never said.
    2
  81. That's not what happened. They didn't deny anyone who wasn't first class. First class was just closest to the boat deck, so they got the first seats. Loading them half full was a combination of a) passengers refusing to get in them and b) the time it took to lower each boat.
    2
  82. Yet it sits broken 600 feet apart, and physics, not to mention other testimony, disagree. There is absolutely no way a nearly 900 foot long ship would go down whole.
    2
  83. No idea where you got that information. Titanic was, by all accounts, the safest ship of the time. Not to say there weren't problems, but they were relatively few compared to most ships.
    2
  84. Icebergs don't work that way.
    2
  85. This was never said.
    2
  86. The problem was the series of slits, not one gash or hole.
    2
  87. @Sepl12345  How about you do yours? Olympic was even out the night Titanic sank. She responded to her distress
    2
  88.  @Sepl12345  Ridiculous
    2
  89.  @Sepl12345  Insurance fraud for a ship that was $2 million under insured? Sounds like bad fraud to me.
    2
  90. Because that would have made the Titanic sink faster.
    2
  91. No...Titanic was most certainly an accident.
    2
  92. Riviting was the most common technique of the time and the rudder was not too small. This has been thoroughly debunked. Also, the captain was NOT going full steam (Titanic never even hit her top speed) and more lifeboats would not have mattered.
    2
  93. "In it for greed" Kinda hard to do when Titanic was under insured, and thus would have cost more money. Do you idiots really believe the nonsense you say?
    2
  94.  @almightywhitey6955  Show me one source that says that. Oh right. They didn't. That line was supposedly said by an officer, but no one has ever been able to corroborate it. Because it never happened
    2
  95. That's strange considering the last survivor of the Titanic died in 2009.
    2
  96. This tradition relates to the idea of a female figure such as a mother or goddess guiding and protecting a ship and crew
    2
  97. 1906 was the prototype. 1917 was the first working SONAR.
    2
  98. They did. The iceberg that sank Titanic was further south than thought possible.
    2
  99.  @PinkyakaAJ  you misunderstood. I'm not at all arguing that it could hold more lifeboats. It certainly could. But lifeboats were based on the tonnage of a ship, and Titanic actually had more lifeboats than was legally required.
    2
  100. Can we stop pushing this false narrative of 3rd class not being allowed in lifeboats by 1st class and that the crew were incompotent arrogant assholes?
    2
  101. There are plenty of testimonial evidence stating that the band did indeed play as the ship was sinking and the lifeboats were being launched.
    2
  102.  @Fearzero  And there are also survivor testimony that speak the opposite. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
    2
  103. More lifeboats would not have saved more people. They couldn't even fill the ones they had.
    1
  104.  @jamesflake6601  Just use Google.
    1
  105. No evidence for this. Makes even less sense when one of those to eliminate was openly in favor of the Federal Reserve.
    1
  106.  @blackkitty420  If there is no evidence of this ever being said, then to state that it was is a claim that requires proof. Since no proof exists, the honest thing to do is to reject this statement.
    1
  107.  @blackkitty420  The main one is encyclopedia titanica. That quote is attributed to a news magazine about Ismay calling Titanic "practically unsinkable." But no where in any historic records, nor from first eye witnesses was those words ever spoken. If there's no evidence for that quote, why on Earth would anyone believe it? It's just a way for the hyper religious to say Titanic's fate was because "God was mocked", which is outright disrespectful.
    1
  108.  @blackkitty420  I perhaps should have stated better that I do not believe it was said. In reality, I wasn't there and I do not know. All I know is that there is no evidence for this quote, and it has been used to be absolutely awful to the victims.
    1
  109.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  Bullshit. It was JUST an accident.
    1
  110.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  How?
    1
  111. Take into account that some of the lifeboats left half full because passengers refused to board them.
    1
  112. Nobody said she couldn't sink.
    1
  113. Because they wrote and told stories about what they witnessed.
    1
  114. One, it's *Olympic*. You can't even get the names of the ships right. Two, no. Your conspiracies are stupid.
    1
  115.  @heyjude57  The ship was never called the Olympia. It was the Olympic, Titanic, and the Gigantic (eventually renamed to Brittanic) Never insulted you. I said the conspiracy is stupid. Because it is.
    1
  116.  @anthonyromeo1988  Titanic never hit her top speed during her maiden voyage, so no. She wasn't going "full speed." Smith, by this point, had already taken her farther south and out of the known ice fields at the time. The iceberg that sank Titanic was never expected because of how far south they were.
    1
  117. No, hypothermia is/can be a pretty painful process.
    1
  118. The water was so cold, you would not have been able ti swim to a lifeboat
    1
  119. This is untrue. Coal fires were quite common and the fire was out out days before she reached the iceburg.
    1
  120.  @Lebowski333  I hope you are joking.
    1
  121. Except that never happened...
    1
  122. That was because of the iceberg damage, not because of the compartments. They were watertight, until the rivets buckled. An iceberg sunk this ship
    1
  123.  @adamirishconundrum851  That was never said
    1
  124. It was common to continue at pace unless vision impaired. Binoculars also would not have helped.
    1
  125. Risked capsizing.
    1
  126. She also wouldn't have sank if she hadn't gone full stop. Or if she hadn't tried to turn out of the way. Hubris doesn't play as much of a roll as you think.
    1
  127.  @pedrovillafan  You are such an idiot.
    1
  128. Nobody but newspapers and magazines called her unsinkable. The closest you get is one designer calling her "practically unsinkable." More lifeboats would not have helped. Titanic had 4 more lifeboats then were legally required and didn't have enough time to launch the ones they did have. Please do some real research.
    1
  129. A deck that forms the roof of a cabin built in the rear, or "aft", part of the superstructure of a ship.
    1
  130. No, they wouldn't have been saved. In fact, Mythbusters tested this. Buyoancy would have still kept most people in the water, which would have subjected them to hypothermia. Those doors may have supported children, bust most adults would have been out of luck.
    1
  131. @anthonyromeo1988  Then you're being extremely unrealistic.
    1
  132.  @JayKarpwick  Ahh. I love 4 a.m. spelling. Thank you
    1
  133.  @vanillacreem816  There is literally no mention of Smith ever saying that. Simply google it. No, there were more lifeboats than required, because in 1912, lifeboats were based on tonnage of the ship, not passenger count.
    1
  134. He didn't ignore the ice warnings. He told the lookouts to carefully watch for bergs, and took the ship farther south in order to avoid areas of large ice. Lord also didn't ignore the rockets. He was just unsure of what they were. They were neither the right color, nor fired at the right intervals to indicate distress. Californian couldn't have done anything anyway. Do some actual research before you spout nonsense.
    1
  135. 1. Because they were too far away from the iceberg and 2. That's not at all how icebergs work.
    1
  136. "God himself cannot sink this ship" is an entirely ficticious line.
    1
  137. Titanic had 16 watertight compartments, more than any other ship of her time.
    1
  138. That's because in 1912, lifeboats was based on tonnage, not passengers capacity.
    1
  139. This is a myth.
    1
  140. This is misinformation. Titanic was going a normal speed for the conditions that night.
    1
  141.  @stormbornapostle5188  True.
    1
  142. Funny thing is the only people who called it unsinkable were media outlets, and only after the disaster. She was however called "practically unsinkable", but that's more of a description than a belief.
    1
  143. No one said that.
    1
  144. Assuming you're referring to Ismay, why did he deserve to die?
    1
  145. This is absolutely not true. While the Californian was indeed the closest ship to the Titanic, she was still 12 miles away. Lord was not even made aware of the distress rockets until 1 am. At a dead stop, it would have taken her close to half an hour to move again, and even at her top speed, would have arrived at Titanic's location nearly an hour after she sank. Lord is unfairly villified because of Titanic's mistakes.
    1
  146. More lifeboats would not have helped.
    1
  147. It may not be them. YouTube will sometimes just put adds on videos.
    1
  148.  @sm1135ster1  If you actually did the research, then you would see statements from these men concerning the federal reserve. Its not gaslighting. Its correcting misinformation
    1
  149. This was never said.
    1
  150.  @marshallwilliams81  No it wasn't. This was a line made up for the movie. There is no historical evidence of this ever being said.
    1
  151.  @marshallwilliams81  A magazine is hardly a reference. And what was actually said was that the ship was "practically unsinkable." There is 0 historical evidence of the line "God himself cannot sink this ship."
    1
  152. That is such bullshit its laughable. While there was a class divide, most lifeboats were not filled to capacity simply because people would not get in them.
    1
  153. If that were the case, no 3rd class passengers would have survived.
    1
  154. This is not true. None of her designers claimed that. That was a line in James Cameron's movie based on the belief that her designers believed her to be "practically unsinkable."
    1
  155.  @ron2280  This has no evidence behind it and has continuously been debunked. These were seasoned sailors. They knew ships could sink. Due to her design, she was called "practically unsinkable." No where is there any evidence of anyone saying "God cannot sink this ship." There was human error, but the fact that everyone blames nothing but arrogance is ignorant.
    1
  156. @ron2280  It isn't a matter of belief or what you remember. It's a matter of fact of what is known through evidence and testimony.
    1
  157.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  Nope. I've simply corrected your misinformation and then provided sources of evidence, which you then refused to acknowledge because they disagree with your beliefs. That's called cognitive dissonance. You'd literally rather blame dead men who did the best they could with the knowledge of the time than accidental human error and the iceberg.
    1
  158. @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  Exactly as I said. I present you with evidence that your belief is wrong and you choose to disregard it. That's not my problem. If you want to continue believing theories from the 90's, that's fine. But I will keep correcting your misinformation. I have provided you with multiple sources. I started telling you to look it up when you stated my sources weren't good enough or you weren't going to read them. I even went back and checked comments (that YouTube didn't delete). In fact, the only 2 things I can find that we have severely disagreed on is that binoculars would have saved Titanic, and the Californian being able to save a great loss of life. I have never understood why you have been so hostile towards me, because we share a lot of them same viewpoints. Especially on correcting conspiracy theorists.
    1
  159.  @ron2280  Actually sick of YouTube deleting my replies. One simple Google search yields dozens of articles proving that line false. The quote "God himself cannot sink this ship" is considered a fake quote often attributed to someone associated with the RMS Titanic, representing the hubris of the time that believed the ship was "unsinkable" due to its advanced design, despite the fact it tragically sank on its maiden voyage after hitting an iceberg; no confirmed record exists of anyone actually saying these exact words. I am old enough to not take at face value things that are not recorded. I would love to see your evidence where it was said by an employee. Because it doesn't exist. The closest we get to that line comes from a magazine at the time. And it was an opinion of a journalist. Again, please provide the source you got yours from, and I'll happily provide mine as well.
    1
  160. @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  And yet not one record of it can be found. Gee, wonder why that is. Actually sick of YouTube deleting my replies. One simple Google search yields dozens of articles proving that line false. The quote "God himself cannot sink this ship" is considered a fake quote often attributed to someone associated with the RMS Titanic, representing the hubris of the time that believed the ship was "unsinkable" due to its advanced design, despite the fact it tragically sank on its maiden voyage after hitting an iceberg; no confirmed record exists of anyone actually saying these exact words. I am old enough to not take at face value things that are not recorded. I would love to see your evidence where it was said by an employee. Because it doesn't exist. The closest we get to that line comes from a magazine at the time. And it was an opinion of a journalist. Again, please provide the source you got yours from, and I'll happily provide mine as well.
    1
  161. This whole comment is a testament to false history. No one believed she couldn't sink, especially after it was confirmed she was.
    1
  162. Mostly untrue. Titanic did not ignore ice warnings. The ship was even steered farther south to avoid known ice flows. It was common practice to continue at a steady speed unless impeded by fog. Part of the reason for the empty boats is people would not get on them. Not within rescue distance. The Californian was between 12-15 miles away and was at a dead stop. She also was a steamship, and was not designed to carry passengers. She could have maybe held 50 passengers. Rockets were not only the wrong color but were fired at the wrong intervals. No one on the Californian ever stated to be able to see Titanic, other than what was known as a "false horizon" created by the conditions. In reality, the ships weren't that close.
    1
  163. Nothing but nonsense debunked decades ago.
    1
  164. That is not remotely how icebergs work...
    1
  165.  @crowbar_the_skull  What would me being an atheist have anything to do with this? Please provide one credible source that says any of Titanic's designers thought she was unsinkable.
    1
  166.  @crowbar_the_skull  You are the one making the claim. Therefore you are the one who needs to prove this was said. I could list you countless sources that refute this claim.
    1
  167.  @crowbar_the_skull  What would you deem credible then? Why won't you list sources backing this claim up?
    1
  168.  @crowbar_the_skull  And why is that, since you know absolutely nothing about me?
    1
  169.  @crowbar_the_skull  Well how am I supposed to fix the problem if you don't know what the problem is?
    1
  170.  @crowbar_the_skull  So you're telling me to kill myself? For what reason exactly? Not sure why being corrected about history makes you so angry.
    1
  171.  @crowbar_the_skull  Really? I like to think I've done quite a bit of good for the world. I'm proud of my life, even if it's hard sometimes. And yes. You were corrected about history, as the builders and designers of Titanic never "challenged" God.
    1
  172.  @crowbar_the_skull  I do my best to help those at their lowest through my career, so yeah. I do think I'm pretty great. You just seem like a bitter person who doesn't practice what they preach.
    1
  173. You fail to take into consideration how long it took to actually lower the lifeboats They didn't even have enough time to launch the boats they did have!
    1
  174. He's referring to her designers.
    1
  175. The Californian was still 15 miles from Titanic. Even if Lord had made the order to head towards Titanic, it would have taken him 90 minutes to get there, a full 10 minutes after Titanic sank.
    1
  176. ​ @CJ-zp7qj The iceberg Titanic hit broke off a glacier off the coast of Greenland and traveled much farther south than was thought possible.
    1
  177. This is not true. The Californian was not close enough to the Titanic to save her passengers, even had she fired up when she saw the flares. The Californian was also not a passenger ship. She was a cargo steamer with enough room for 54 passengers. The misinformation surrounding the Californian astonishes me.
    1
  178. No one said that.
    1
  179. You mean his role in working to get as many people on board the lifeboats as possible?
    1
  180. No one was liable. It was an accident.
    1
  181.  @OMADRevolution  They had more lifeboats than required.
    1
  182. The type of technology that you are probably thinking of wasn't even invented yet and would have actually made it harder to see.
    1
  183. It's not a matter of fitting on things. Its a matter of buoyancy. Mythbusters proved this years ago. Most of what could have been used to float on would not have saved people from hypothermia.
    1
  184. In 1912, lifeboats were based on tonnage. Not passenger count. They were designed to act as ferries to another ship, not to be stayed in.
    1
  185. Segregation was common on all vessels during this time, and the empty seats have a lot more to them. No one was intentionally trying to kill 3rd class.
    1
  186. It would have sank quicker. The Britannic tried to do this when she struck a mine, and it only forced in more water.
    1
  187. ​ @lovelysosweet8386 Yes, they believed Titanic was unsinkable. But it was never stated that "God himself can not sink this ship."
    1
  188.  @adamirishconundrum851  Lies
    1
  189. Not at all going to mention that passengers refused to get in them?
    1
  190.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  As discussed previously, this is not true.
    1
  191.  @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
  192.  @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
  193.  @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
  194. No.
    1
  195.  @nosferatut9084  If you believe that bull, you're an idiot.
    1
  196. 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
  197. This never happened.
    1
  198. I think he means the nearest ship that responded.
    1
  199. 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
  200.  @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
  201.  @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
  202.  @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
  203. Except no one actually said that.
    1
  204.  @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
  205. 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
  206.  @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
  207.  @sdferh  No he didn't. And he couldn't have even if he wanted to. The ships are not the same.
    1
  208.  @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
  209. Are you saying kept going after she had side swiped the iceberg or are you saying kept going straight through the iceberg?
    1
  210. It wouldn't have saved them. Hypothermia was the main killer.
    1
  211. Series of slits. Not a huge hole. It buckled her rivets.
    1
  212. 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
  213. 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
  214. You are joking right?
    1
  215. Would not have helped. Drowning wasn't the issue. Hypothermia was. They had bigger priorities than trying to figure out buoyancy issues.
    1
  216. Then what, pray tell, is at the bottom of the ocean?
    1
  217.  @DankePlace  Sooo scathing
    1
  218. Because that wasn't the standard thing to do for ocean liners.
    1
  219. No. They were lowering the lifeboats that way because they were unprepared for an emergency like this, and were inexperienced with lowering them.
    1
  220. The only ones who claimed it as "unsinkable" were magazines and newspapers because they spun "practically unsinkable."
    1
  221. Nope, untrue. Astor and Guggenheim had no opinion on the Federal Reserve and Strauss was an avid supporter of it.
    1
  222.  @tiahenry4743  Except they never had a opinion on it, and several were actively in favor of it.
    1
  223. No. No it wasn't.
    1
  224. The Californian was not in sight. She was 15 miles from Titanic.
    1
  225. 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
  226.  @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
  227. 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
  228. 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
  229. This isn't true. No one was held intentionally below deck.
    1
  230. That wouldn't have saved you. A door would not have kept you out of the freezing water.
    1
  231. 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
  232. Mistakes were made by everyone, but ultimately, no one is to blame.
    1
  233. She was 24 km away, actually. 15 miles.
    1
  234. 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
  235. 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
  236. Californian still wouldn't have got there before Titanic sank.
    1
  237.  @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
  238. Absolutely incorrect. Even at max capacity, there was enough space on the lifeboats for about half of the passengers.
    1
  239.  @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
  240. That's because it is a lie. The reason that mostly 3rd class passengers died was not because they were intentionally kept away from lifeboats, but because they were mostly immigrants who didn't understand English.
    1
  241. That line was from the movie. There is 0 evidence that line was ever said in real life. "Pratically unsinkable" is the closest thing you get.
    1
  242. The problem wasn't drowning unfortunately. It was hypothermia. Outside of finding something buoyant enough to withstand your weight, you would have died.
    1
  243. Look up "debunked and baseless conspiracy theories".
    1
  244. They were not left to die. Where does this crap come from?
    1
  245.  @Woodman-Spare-that-tree  That's not true though.
    1
  246. This is fiction. No one was trying to set a speed record.
    1