I'm pretty much sick of everything "Titanic" thanks to the overwhelming, cheesy content on youtube. THIS guy brings a certain type of educational element to the whole thing that's been missing for a long time now. Loved every minute of it. Thank you. No sappy story telling, now crying over found vial of perfume, just pure, raw history.

@giorgiobertucci8216

2 жыл бұрын

Ll

@mrkipling2201

2 жыл бұрын

I believe that there’s room for both but I know what you mean. I appreciate the raw facts of the disaster. I’m not against the sappy, cheesy aspect of the Titanic because a lot of people like that and if they do then fair enough.

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

I think I understand what you mean. The problem is everyone wants to tell a story that is over 100 years old by PUTTING A NEW SLANT on it. Comments like " new found evidence " or " New test tank experiments " or a " new piece of film found in someones attic. My favourite is " mystery of the Titanic - solved " There was never any MYSTERY about it. The ship went out on her maiden voyage and hit an iceberg and sank. Period !! Its what is universally and technically known as an accident. Of course the usual motives for these new bits of information is money. The person making the claim usually has a new book to sell.

@jimreeves1954

2 жыл бұрын

Might feel the same way if I could understand him, accent to thick for this American

@12rwoody

2 жыл бұрын

History AND engineering. Good stuff for sure.

This is a first class traditional lecture presented by a true expert in naval design. A no nonsense straight forward account of the Titanic story told with gravitas.

She was a beauty. The craftsmanship was so elegant and something we don’t see often anymore.

On a side note, I enjoy seeing Cameron's film appreciated. I often find that this is the case with the true academics, but amongst the KZread Titanic enthusiasts the film is constantly bashed, under appreciated. They repeat the same "errors" in the film (I put it in quotation marks because sometimes, they actually aren't errors) or will stare at a picture along with the film set and ignore the overwhelming accuracy of the recreation in an effort to find a small detail that's "wrong"

@Alex-uy7pc

Жыл бұрын

You mean academia backs up Hollywood? Weird... That NEVER happens

@longfade

11 ай бұрын

I believe very much that Cameron’s attention to detail was very sincere. The casting and the screenplay were the problem that critical viewers find abhorrent. It’s really just a high-concept, shallow, soap opera.

Very good lecture , I studied metallurgy at university of Liverpool and have often thought about the metallurgical aspects of the Titanic following reading an article in the Liverpool Alumni magazine regarding ductile to brittle failure? My grandfather and previous ancestors were seafarers so have always been interested in this subject I was fortunate to see the 3 current Cunard liners when they visited Liverpool a few years ago for 175th anniversary, if I live to be 77 I should see something from Cunard for the 200 th !!!! Here's hoping 😂😂😂

The watertight doors could be closed three ways. Electrically by the bridge and manually at each location. In addition, floats located under the floor would actuate the doors in case of undetected water intrusion through the double bottom.

48:15 Note that the Titanic was not the first to use the SOS morse code. The first was June 10, 1909, by the Slovenia, a Cunard ship.

Personally I think that the loss if RMS TITANIC was in time and space were "The Doubt" In British society actually began. It is also worth noting that the "refit" of RMS OLYMPIC in the autumn of 1912 was in fact a major rebuild! She was radically altered internally. With the bulkheads taken up to a new watertight deck. Also the double bottom was extended up to the waterline. A final touch was that the lifeboat numbers was radically increased up to 64! If you ever find yourself in Alnwick a small town in Northumberland, England. Visit 'The White Swan Hotel' as several of the rooms and features of the hotel were purchased from the shipbreakers when the OLYMPIC was being dismantled in 1936.

@jdorney70

2 жыл бұрын

I wasn't aware of The White Swan Hotel having Olympic fittings. I must add a trip on my bucket list. Thank you for this. ✌

@NautilusGoose

2 жыл бұрын

I'm from the North East and did not know this! I intend to visit asap I've seen pictures online and yes looks very similar to what I saw in the movie too

@terracottaneemtree6697

2 жыл бұрын

WTF - the steel rivets were replaced with wrought iron, made with slack, which aided the "unzipping" effect.. 1,000 bodies disappeared - obviously all burned to ashes. Fire 🔥 on board resulted from explosions. The security were pulling their guns out on passengers, telling them what to do. People saw a steamship which never went to their aid - because it was obviously picking up the crooked Ismay/Morgan team that looted the ship and more. The crow's nest didn't have goggles because CPT Smith obviously locked them up and kept the key! He passed the ship for inspection! What about the Lusitania, much smaller, burning 850 Tons a day - couldn't Titanic have run out of coal - maybe it didn't have d the 6,000 tons capacity due to the coal strike - and CPT Smith told them to use wood! There are so.many other suspicious circumstances! Titanic is indeed a mass murder crime scene - and The German NAZI Satanists looked on With "We want what you got" and rigged a Holocaust of Jews - here Hitler was part Jewish! It's all about Deception! 💰 money Wealth - Stealing and getting away with it! Burning bodies was a way to get rid of evidence,!

@ashpollen65

Жыл бұрын

Olympic is clearly on the seabed. Even Cameron ROV video footage clearly shows 'Olympic' impressed into the hull underneath where it had been overplated with 'Titanic' and a few letters had corroded and fallen away. Even the forward porthole configuration on the wreck, match the plans of Olympic and NOT Titanic which were entirely different layout. This was a massive cover up, now easily proven.

Very impressive, really enjoyed this, well put together and narrated.

Great lecture this!

I wasn’t around to contest his assertions, but dearly enjoyed his remarkable narrative.

@d.st.michael4195

2 жыл бұрын

No o didn’t

@scvandy3129

Жыл бұрын

"user-ql4wq1mhSw," As this lecture was delivered on the campus of the University of Michigan in the Engineering Department's auditorium it's not a stretch to say 99.9999% of KZread viewers, as well as all of mankind, could begin their Comment with your "remarkable" phrase, "I wasn’t around . . . " -- but knew not to. Surely you can contact Dr. Stephen Payne c/o the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. Based on his academic and career highlights totally centered on oceanic navigation and transport -- as spelled out in the quite-impressive, three paragraph bio at top -- you best re-check and double down on the validity of your assertions. I agree: "I dearly enjoyed his remarkable narrative" as well as the superb imagery accompanying.

I find it very strange that there are no photos anywhere on the net of the titanic damaged hull... The excuse is that the damaged area and only that area of the ship is buried in 50-something feet of mud. No one thought to dig away the mud to examine the damage? Or have they left it buried to hide something? This is what makes the titanic story so interesting because nothing ads up It was more than just a simple "ship striking an iceberg" story

@dovetonsturdee7033

2 жыл бұрын

Do you have any conception of the costs and complexity involved in mounting such an undertaking? If you think it so important, you fund it. There is comparatively little left to examine after 110 years. Fortunately, photographs of the wreck, showing how the B Deck windows exactly match those of Titanic (which were different from those of Olympic) have been taken, and prove conclusively the nonsense of the switcher rubbish.

@Tboy439

2 жыл бұрын

Don't listen to that idiot doveton sturdee, he's a government schill. There are in fact a couple of photo's, but they show the medal going out as if there was an explosion and not inward that an iceberg would do. Now if you do find photo's and inform that idiot, he will just tell you that they must have been photoshopped, as he believes anything that doesn't fit his narrative is.

@SMHman666

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tboy439 I see you're another conspiracy idiot. All that information and too lazy to read.

@Rubin_Schmidt

2 жыл бұрын

The entire hull has been photographed "sonically" the only damage that was found was four deep scratches on the prow, where she ran over the wreck off the Grand Banks, and the hole at boiler room 6, where the repair was carried out. You can also see the three straps holding on the stern, in a video "The Titanic leaving Southampton". !!!

@winstonviceroy6125

2 жыл бұрын

Dig away 5 stories of mud 2 miles down in a sub... get a grip man. And for what? So you can see some holes? It's kinda obvious water was coming in.

In the fanciful Hollywood retelling, "Rose" mentioned Cunard's Mauretania in one of the early scenes.

I'm enjoying learning about the historical background and context relating to the Titanic, which you don't often hear about. This lecture is fascinating, engaging and educational.

Discovered this in 2021! I watched one new documentary with him recently. Wonderful lecture.

"The Hubris of Man more often than not ends in tragedy" - Ryan Randall

Very informative, thank you

It could well be speculated that Mauritania or Lusitania would have survived the same collision as the Titanic. They were built largely to Admiralty specification which included not only watertight subdivision but also they had longitudinal bulkheads several feet in on both the port and starboard sides. Not all the way along the sides but certain just about the area where the damage to Titanic occured.

The Titan also halved in two too! Great lecture!, interesting from a naval architect's perspective. I learned much more of this amazon disaster. Thank you!

@waclosh

2 жыл бұрын

Amazing, not amazon

@stab74

11 ай бұрын

And now we have another Titan that imploded near Titanic.

Amazing thank you

great presentation

A wonderful lecture! Glad I decided to watch because I now know more about her than before.

@davidraines7901

3 жыл бұрын

Q1 00

@davidraines7901

3 жыл бұрын

@Keaton Nova 9uu67z4 7u4

@861622259

3 жыл бұрын

he got lots wrong...........................

Very well done. Thank you for a very interesting presentation.

In the CGI tour video on youtube of Titanic's interior it showed some rooms with early electric cooling fans.

Super lecture.! Thanks.

You could almost guarantee Titanic would have survived a direct with the iceberg. You can search ship accidents today and see some ships with almost the entire bow gone, some of them around the same time frame as Titanic.

@TGP109

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I believe the surprise of the late discovery of the iceberg caused Murdoch to ''port around'' the 'berg. However, if they had hit it at the speed they were going, there would have been some deaths from the hard shock, even if the bow had held up to the damage.

@raheemnabi2989

10 ай бұрын

Absolutely correct. Her sister managed to survive a direct collision with from what I can remember was a U.S. frigate although someone may correct me on that. Her bow was basically reduced to a mushed lettuce but she manage to limp the rest of her journey to NY.

Britannic was officially named about 6 months before the Titanic sank. There are several discussions about the name, one is that White Star knew that HAPAG was building the Imperator class which were larger than the Olympics.

The Foecke and McCarty metallurgy research team tested the design load of a full-strength steel rivet to 20,000 lb and also revealed that an external pressure of only 9,000 lb would be needed to make a Titanic bow rivet fail (due to wrought iron impurities). However the estimated kinetic energy of the Ship before impact was 2,070,000,000 ft lbs, so a full strength rivet would've still failed: merely deforming momentarily (due to superior ductility) rather than fracturing instantly.

3 questions; 1 ) Was there or was there not video of the letters “Y” and “M” engraved in the hull of the Titanic exposed after a couple of the letters of the Titanic name plate, which was riveted on the hull and not engraved in the hull as The Olympic’s name was ? The letters began to erode and fall from the name plate ? 2 ) Did the hull of the Titanic have the same grey paint beneath the water line as the Olympic did or was the hull painted entirely in black as the Titanic ? 3 ) Is this true.., The numerals 01 are clearly visible on the starboard propeller. A starboard propeller engraved with 401 was removed from the Titanic and installed on the Olympic as part of the repairs after the Olympic collided with The Hawk, causing extensive damage which was the reason to exchange the 2 ships identity ? There are video taped images of All 3 of these captured by Dr. Robert Ballards submersible in 1985.

@dovetonsturdee7033

2 жыл бұрын

1. The crudely photoshopped M & P first appeared on a photograph in 2010 or thereabouts. The provenance is unknown, and no exploration team has ever suggested that it is genuine. Largely because it isn't. 2. Both ships were painted red below the waterline. Both ships had the same colour scheme, closely matching Cunard's. Olympic'd hull received both a coat of grey, and a dazzle camouflage pattern in WW1. 3. Despite manifold claims to the contrary, there is actually no proof that propellers were switched from ship to ship. Firstly, spare propellers were manufactured for both ships, and secondly, the pitch for Olympic's props. were not the same as those for Titanic. Put simply, an OIympic propeller would have worked efficiently on Titanic. All this information is readily available in the Harland & Wolff archive.

@dovetonsturdee7033

2 жыл бұрын

@@danklatt7503 Why would you think that, when the forward B deck window pattern on the wreck shown in photographs matches exactly that of Titanic, and differs significantly from that of Olympic?

@Tboy439

2 жыл бұрын

@@danklatt7503 Don't listen to this idiot doveton sturdee, he's government sheeple who will falsely claim with no evidence that anything that doesn't fit his narrative is photoshopped, while everything that he uses is the gospel truth. The undercoat of the Olympic was in fact gray, while the Titanic was black. and there is absolute 100% proof that a propeller from the Titanic was in fact put on the Olympic.Tell him to explain why a how the Californian was there as this is the real smoking gun. If he gives you any crap, give me a shout out and I will finish taking him to school as I was doing on other videos.

@marerekootautahi174

Жыл бұрын

Brilliant - saw the 1985 documentary - totally loved your questions - thank you

@marerekootautahi174

Жыл бұрын

I smell a coverup -

Love your presentation. thank you.

one thing that is more or less overlooked, is the irony of both the titanic, and the andrea doria. considering the times that both of the ships were built, the most common accident with ships was the type where the hawk collided with the olympic. that being one, and possibly two compartments breached. on the other hand, the andrea doria was built to withstand the kind of collision that happened to titanic, with water tight bulkheads running the length of the ship. to sum up, the titanic was not designed with a side swiping sort of a collision, and sank. whereas the andrea doria was rammed by the collier, and the lateral bulkheads were breached. in effect, both ships sank in collisions, each of a type, that the other was designed to overcome.

Regarding the Californian, he transcripts of the investigation hearings don't mention the rockets being mistaken for fireworks. The blame that was cast on her crew and particularly on her captain stems from the rather elusive answers that they gave (they did say they considered the possibility of them being company signals but except for her captain, they implicitly recognised they understood they weren't such signals but rather distress signals). Their testimonies regarding what type of ship they saw were quite conflicting, some of them mentioning a mid size ship, some a large steamer. It overall gave the impression of a crew uncomfortable with the facts and especially of a captain who might have been keen on not understanding the signals rather than moving through the ice field in the middle of the night.

@IWTBF

2 жыл бұрын

Supposedly they sent ice warnings to the titanic and the titanic controller got annoyed so the Californian turned their transmitter off

@scvandy3129

Жыл бұрын

"It overall gave the impression of a crew uncomfortable with . . . " lying and likely browbeaten by the Captain and executives of the shipping firm to toe the line; recite from the company's manufactured, CYA* 'script'. * cover your ass

WOW! (reading comments). i guess the moral of that story is before you give a presentation on Titanic, you should upload it to youtube first and get everyone's remarks. Kinda like a peer review! LOL i'm surprised no one has published an "Encyclopedia Titanica" :-)

@marcf905

5 жыл бұрын

Awesome comment!!!

@scvandy3129

Жыл бұрын

"sifridbassoon," BEAUTIFUL; you nailed it.

What about all the wireless ice warnings sent that indicated bergs directly in Titanic's path that were ignored as she steamed full speed into their location?

I'm only meters away from many Titanic victims. From where I am sitting in my apt I can see the famous "J Dawson" grave. I am within walking distance of the three main TItanic cemeteries. Kind of a surreal thought when I pause to think about it sometimes.

and now we know that there is no damage on the starboard side… and that the ship very likely run aground on the iceberg rather than directly swiping it.

@stab74

11 ай бұрын

And now we know you are nonsensical.

@honda900000

5 ай бұрын

We know exactly the damage on the starbord side since two decades. With ultrasonic.

Queen Mary 2 has a More Direct Connection to Titanic through the Merger of Cunard & the White Star Line into Cunard White Star, White Star being the Owners of Titanic

"As a result of observing Olympic in the storm, which turned out to be one of the worst of her career, Harland & Wolff decided to make a number of refinements, including changes to Number 1 Hatch. On 13 th. February 1912, Francis Carruthers, Ship Surveyor to the Board of Trade at Belfast, also reported that the shipbuilder was making changes to Titanic as a result of her older sister’s experience. They were fitting a one-inch-thick steel ‘strap’ on the port and starboard sides of the ship ‘in way of no.6 boiler room and extending three frame spaces forward of the watertight bulkhead at the forward end of the boiler room.’ The strap extended from frame 63 to frame 81 at the landing of strakes J and K, at the ‘upper turn of the bilge.’ At this area, the hull frames were spaced thirty-six inches apart (the furthest distance between frames throughout the entire ship)." ...... "the Board of Trade decided to take the opportunity to examine Olympic when she was drydocked for the replacement of a port propeller blade. Accordingly, Carruthers made a detailed inspection and reported on 6 March 1912. The Board were concerned that there might be other signs of stress, beyond the specific riveted joints which they knew were being modified. Carruthers’ report allayed those fears: Below the waterline starboard side forward in way of no. 6 boiler room in the shell landing of J & K strakes from frame 63 to 74, about 160 rivets were slack and were drilled out and & renewed." Board of Trade. Consultative Document LL No. 22818 refers.!!! kzread.info/dash/bejne/d6yNqbOkl8S0hpc.html 0:17:19 mins. in. kzread.info/dash/bejne/c4SHxrKtYMmxpbw.html Amazingly or unbelievably the exact spot were the bunker fires burnt out of control .!!!

Titanic was using "tiller" commands at the helm. Hard to starboard would turn the bow to port which swings most of the starboard side of Titanic into the berg..

@paranoidballoon8190

2 жыл бұрын

The command would be "Wheel" hard to starboard or "wheel" hard to port. or steer a given compass heading .Always repeated back in a loud voice. Full time quarter masters knew what they were doing,

If you put the rudder 'hard to starboard' i.e. hard to the right, the nose of the ship will be steered to port. And vice versa. The instructions given make sense when you think about what the rudder is doing as opposed to what the nose of the ship is doing.

@scabbycatcat4202

3 жыл бұрын

Once again your comment is completely wrong and misguided. During Titanics era Tiller commands were still in operation. The order given would not be " hard to starboard " as is popularly quoted by weekend " experts " . The order would be " Starboard your helm " . The quartermaster would then turn the wheel to the LEFT and the effect would be to push the STERN of the ship to the RIGHT. Hence starboard your helm. Tiller commands were cancelled shortly after .

@catherinespark

2 жыл бұрын

@@scabbycatcat4202 Well, think what you like. I won't stop you and others here can and will judge between us for themselves.

What a site to see it would be with your own eyes the crash at the bottom of the ocean

I'm confused: the speaker says "before Titanic if u said 'turn starboard it turns port," but in Jim Cameron's film, they put the engine in reverse and the speaker supports that. So I've plioted 2 boats a 100 times. If u turn starboard and put it into reverse, that's the quickest way to turn port.

@BillDusty

2 жыл бұрын

The two propellers in reverse had no effect on the ship’s rudder - they were to either side of it. Putting them in reverse only slows the ship. The center propeller - directly in front of the rudder - had no reverse. It just stopped. Back in Titanic’s time, the order to turn “starboard” literally meant “push the tiller handle to your right,” which moves the rudder to the left, which turns the ship to port. (Yes, Titanic didn’t have a tiller, it had a wheel, but the order was a carryover from tiller commands.)

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

@@BillDusty Ah now there's a breath of fresh air- someone commenting on a Titanic site who actually appears to know what they are talking about. A very rare thing indeed. Perhaps you could give catherinespark some lessons !!

I LOVE WATCHING STORIES OF THE TITANIC, BUT THE SPEAKER IN THIS ONE IS LULLING ME TO SLEEP 💤 😴

This is why at the British hearings, Quartermaster Hitchens denied there was a command to turn to starboard. Murdoch was supposed to "port around" the berg by turning the bow to starboard, i.e. toward the berg.The correct command should have been "hard to port." Murdoch did this because Titanic was left of center of the berg and he thought only to turn the bow left of it was all that was needed. At a close but safe distance of the bow from the berg, a second tiller command "hard to starboard" would have thus quickly pointed the bow to port, allowing the starboard side of Titanic to miss the berg.

@bewilderedbrit8928

3 жыл бұрын

Nobody replied.

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

There is no such thing as " turning the bow to starboard"- or even to port either. If you turn a ship to port its not the bow of the ship that turns left , its the stern of the ship that turns right . The correct order would have been starboard your helm which means the quatermaster would turn the wheel to the LEFT and would have the effect of pushing the stern to starboard . Nowdays tiller commands have been abolished and if you wish to turn the vessel to port the order would be hard to port .

Was multicolored lights from rockets not just white. This was debated , multi vs white lights due to contrasting testimonies on. But they actually found the box from the wreckage with some left and was multicolored.

51:40 He says lifeboats were being lowered with only 3 passengers. He must be thinking of Boat 1, which had only 12 survivors when it could have carried 40. But there were 5 passengers in that boat, the Duff Gordons, their secretary, and two first class men. The other seven were crew. I don't know where he gets the "only 3 passengers."

I would not say the rudder had a fatal flaw. Titanic had an excellent turning circle for a ship her size. The flaw was in the orders given, continuing with engines at speed would have made the rudder more efficient. Also know that ships do not steer like cars. Once the bow swung 22 degrees the stern was still on the original heading. In order to miss the berg, Murdoch's intention was to "port around" the berg which would require the helm orders to be hard to starboard, then after the bow turned, hard to port to get the stern to move around the berg. There was just not enough time to complete the maneuver. The turn is more like how a car steers when you are reversing.

@IWTBF

2 жыл бұрын

What could / should they have done?

@falcon664

2 жыл бұрын

@@IWTBF What they did was correct as everything they knew told them to try to avoid it. The only alternative would have been to try to go the other way around. We can only assume that in that instant, based on the position of the ship and the berg Murdoch made the best decision. It has been said that it would have been better to not reverse the engines, but I I'm not sure that was known at the time.

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

" Once the bow swung 22 degrees the stern was still on the original heading." You obviously have no clue at all about what you are trying to comment on .

Alexander Carlisle was pretty heavily involved

What would have happened had the port engine been full astern while the starboard engine remained full forward? Would it have turned faster and perhaps hit the iceberg in a smaller area?

@RobbyHouseIV

7 жыл бұрын

@padepede In fact it's very possible that this was indeed what Murdoch ordered on the engine telegraph as he instructed Quartermaster Hitchens to execute a hard-a-starboard (hard left rudder). Indeed such an engine execution (port propeller reverse/starboard propeller ahead) would have produced a much tighter turn rate than by only relying on the rudder to turn the ship and it's the same maneuver that Titanic and Olympic used when leaving Southhampton Island given how the port is positioned.

@padepede

7 жыл бұрын

I was under that impression that he ordered full-astern (both propellers reverse) but we will never know for certain.

@GeorgiosD90

6 жыл бұрын

No, because this maneuver causes huge drift of the stern, so the disaster would have been worse. There is to this day no proper official avoidance maneuver for such high speeds. In 1912 the official maneuver was to stop the engines to reduce speed through drag. Emeg. crash stop is not an avoidance maneuver, it is an emergency STOP maneuver. Turning circle with moderate speeds is the recommended maneuver, but noone swears on it. The Titanic had no chance anyway. The speed was too high, the iceberg was too close. There is no proof of the engines going astern, full stop was definitely executed. The crew did everything right.

@richardc7721

5 жыл бұрын

Studies have shown that the type of props Titanic had showed cavitation happened each time a reverse at speed was done, so even if the order was carried out it would have meant little.

He could have mentionened that CQD was a Marconi distress signal because the wireless operators where not part of the ships crew, they where Marconi employees! The new signal SOS was however international and had been established under the second International Radiotelegraphic Convention.

@carolbell8008

3 жыл бұрын

AdurianJ wow! That is very interesting, never knew that!Titanic had also used SOS. They were just reckless to speed through ice.

@kazer117

3 жыл бұрын

Carol Bell it was done at the time captains believed if weather wasn’t poor anything could be seen and steered around in time and that it was better to move through an area of ice to quickly get out of the area. Just bad luck that the weather that night was so clear that the ocean was like glass disguising the berg till she was right upon her

@carolbell8008

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, and her captain hadn’t received the iceburg warnings that had been wired from other ships. It was a remarkable night with all the stars but no moon and sea smooth as you stated!

36:11 half full

How many people disembarked the ship in either Cherbourg or Queenstown?? They have to have been some of the luckiest people going!! I wonder if any of their stories have been told??

@dovetonsturdee7033

2 жыл бұрын

24 disembarked at Cherbourg. 7 disembarked at Queenstown. An 8th, one of the Stokers deserted. Queenstown was his home. None of these had previously signed on for the Atlantic crossing.

@IWTBF

2 жыл бұрын

What’s this ? It stopped ?

@topgrain

Жыл бұрын

That's where they were going. They didn't have some premonition.

55:00 He has the basic facts of the Californian correct, but his explanation that it was not established procedure that rockets meant distress. It was very much established by both tradition and law. The officers on the Californian were questioned about it and admitted that they knew white rockets - rockets of any color at all, in fact - were signals of distress. None of them thought it was a fireworks display. Nobody on the Californian said or thought any such thing, Stone and Gibson, who saw the rockets, were asked that specifically, and said they knew the law was that rockets, white rockets, were used to signal distress. 1st Officer Stewart said the same thing. Capt Lord even said "it might have been" a distress signal. There is no doubt that the officers understood that white rockets at night meant distress. The question is why they didn't respond appropriately, and the answer is that Capt Lord wouldn't get out of bed to see for himself.

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

The book " A titanic myth " by Leslie Harrison , which sets out to defend Capt. Lord spends the first part of the book explaining the use of rockets at sea. Its probably over 30yrs since I read it but from memory he claimed the use of rockets was certainly not a streighforward case of " I am in distress ". The excellent film " A night to remember " by William Mcquitty made in 1958 has the Californian stopped in Ice and two observers on her bridge see rockets being fired. One makes the comment " now why would a ship like that be firing rockets " ? This lends credibility to the ambiguous use of rockets not least because that film is regarded as the most factually accurate depiction of the disaster. When Capt. Lord was initially told of the rockets he seemed particularly pedantic about whether they were coloured ? stating they were probably company signals to another ship. Whilst that book is dedicated to defending Capt. Lord there is another book called " The ship that stood still " by Leslie Reade which is dedicated to condemning Capt.Lord !!

@IWTBF

2 жыл бұрын

Where did you get this information? I’d like to study it . Thanks

@IWTBF

2 жыл бұрын

@@scabbycatcat4202 great stuff. Where do you suggest I start or can look at to get the picture / story from both sides .

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

@@IWTBF I can only point to the two books I have mentioned above . The official enquiries ( American and British ) must be available to read somewhere- perhaps the public records office at Kew ? Also the Curator of the National Maritime museum at Greenwich should be pretty well read on the subject.

Another possiblity that I have never seen mentioned was this. It is an undisputed fact that a light was clearly visible from Titanic of another ship. You can argue till the cows come home about whether or not it was Californian. But what if Capt Smith manoeuvred his ship so that his stern was pointing to the mystery ship and went full speed astern to said ship ? Her engines still capable of steaming for perhaps the 13 or 14 miles towards mystery ship. It was probably a good hour , perhaps more until her propellers lifted out of the water Its pretty obvious the Californian would sooner or later recognised the Titanic as she got nearer???.

@catherinespark

3 жыл бұрын

Don't see why that shouldn't work in theory. I mean, they stopped as standard protocol before lifeboat launch, so that lifeboats wouldn't be drawn into the propellors or overturned in the ship's slipstream or wake upon launch (as would later happen to one lifeboat during the sinking of the Britannic). So the approach you propose would very much have been them putting all their eggs all in one basket by not launching the lifeboats, or else taking a serious gamble by launching them and hoping for the best. In hindsight that would have been far preferable to what did happen, but to them, not knowing that, I can see why they thought doing what they did would be less risky. Of course, full speed astern in terms of speed attainable with all boilers available wouldn't be possible, and the steaming speed would get slower and slower as more and more boiler rooms flooded...but on the other hand, steaming full astern with underwater damage at the head might actually have slowed the rate of water influx through the breached areas a bit as well, by creating a bit of suction of water from within the forward compartments out into the wake streaming out 'behind' her (i.e. in front of her bow when going full astern). So that might actually buy more time from that perspective, too. No more than a few minutes, due to how much water was coming in, and how fast, but perhaps as you say, close enough to at least get recognised by the Californian and signal more clearly for help. Hopefully her being able to steam wouldn't create a false sense of 'all is ok' on the part of the crew of the Californian (yep, I'm one of the ones who believes it was her they saw, and that it was Titanic that the staff of the Californian saw from their decks, though they didn't recognise her at the time). But even if it did create that sense for a moment, I suspect Titanic would look strange enough once close enough, soon enough that this would be temporary and they would quickly twig that this wasn't normal type of steaming, or a normal situation. Yeah, I think this could have stood at least a chance :)

@clearsailing7993

2 жыл бұрын

Send a row boat halfway to the mystery ship and then fire rockets straight at them.

@BillDusty

2 жыл бұрын

Send a row boat halfway to the Californian? It was 14-20 miles away. How fast do you think row boats go?

Only matter of time before the idea that you could and should rely on the goodwill of passing ships, to greatly inconvenience them, as if it were a fact that they would be available...would be tested. Question, was the Carpathia reciprocated in any way with a bounty put forth by White Star or it's insurance? If not, more evidence cost savings was a culprit. Better to have embarked with literally two ships, the Titanic, and another, that could pay for itself with fares, but also be used as the life boat they expected to be there close enough to use each small life boat at least three times, round trip, to ferry all the passengers off. Short of this, the Marconi room attendents needed special instructions never to be rude to other ships while passed through an ice zone at night.

He seems to have a lot wrong. He states at around 20:28 that the ships couldn’t have been swapped because only Titanic had the closed promenade deck. He illustrates this by showing a picture of this enclosed deck. It has the caption “Olympic B deck prom”!

@Rubin_Schmidt

2 жыл бұрын

He also leaves out the fact that the ship was on fire when it left Belfast, and over a hundred firemen and stokers left the ship at Southampton. ???

@alexandros8361

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rubin_Schmidt I didnt know it was as many as a hundred. Must have known something huh? Even more than the coal fires. Cause it seems to have been a deliberate scuttling of the ship. (Which ship still eludes me, but Im not convinced that they hit an iceberg either.) To kill primarily, the male passengers on board. And therefore explain away the deaths of the super rich men on board. Steerage passenger deaths were just incidental. Which might explain why they were so incredibly lucky to sink in such calm waters. The water temperature and the lack of lifeboats (removed beforehand) guaranteed that all left on board would die, despite lifejackets. Regards.

@Rubin_Schmidt

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexandros8361 They used to call them coffin ships, it was a common practice at the time. Halifax. N.S. April 16 th. Capt. Peter Johnston, Inspector of Lights for Nova Scotia, and one of the most experienced mariners on the coast said he could not credit the story that the Titanic struck an iceberg. He held to the view that it was a submerged wreck, it is very rare that a berg is found in latitude 41. 46 north as early as this. Capt. Johnston says ice only gets down as far as this in July or August, for the ice to be this far South at this time of year, he figured that 420 miles East South East of Sable Island, 400 miles from Halifax was too far .... 426. (The Commissioner.) How soon after you saw the bridge level with the water did the ship disappear? - Well, I cannot say as regards the time, but when it got there the ship went with a rush, and you could hear the breaking up of things in the ship, and then followed four explosions. To the best of my recollection that is the number of the explosions. According to some statements there was an explosion before she broke in two, several explosions some Witnesses say. According to others, she plunged head down into the water with her stern standing right up, and was in that position for some few minutes (it is impossible, of course, to gauge the time accurately), and then disappeared. Which is the correct version of those three statements, of course it is not possible to say, certainly at the present moment, but there is undoubtedly evidence that as she began to settle, apparently by the head, there came a moment at which there was a great rush aft, which seems to indicate it was quite clear that something was taking place in the fore part of the vessel, apart altogether from the sinking, which caused persons to rush to the afterpart of the vessel. That somewhat suggests that there had been some breaking of the vessel which caused them to make this rush; but it might be because it also became apparent that she was going down by the bow. Whatever the reason was, undoubtedly a large number of persons who were left on board the vessel rushed aft and remained there until the vessel went down. Now, my Lord, the shock, so far as one knows from the evidence, taking it generally, does not appear to have been a severe one; that is, according to the accounts of the survivors. I am not saying there are not some who take a different view; but (I am only dealing with the evidence so far as I am able to at present), speaking generally, it does not appear to have been as severe perhaps as one would have imagined. However, your Lordship will hear all about that. Apparently, part of the starboard side of the vessel below the waterline was struck, and possibly also (although this is to a certain extent speculation or deduction from what happened afterwards) part of the bottom of the vessel was ripped up. Now, almost immediately after this had happened, water was observed to be pouring into the fore hatch. ...... 18. What was the message? - To keep a sharp look-out for all ice, big and small. 19. How did the message come to you? - On the telephone; we have a telephone in the crow’s-nest. 20. That was telephoned up to the crow’s-nest, and where was the telephone from? - From the bridge. 21. Then it would be the officer on the bridge who would telephone to you? - Yes. 22. Do you happen to know who it was - which officer it was? - I could not say. I think the second officer was on watch at the time. 23. Up to that time, up to the time you got that message, had you seen any ice? - *No* . 24. And after you got that message until you went off duty, did you keep a sharp lookout? - Yes, and passed the word along. 25. And did you see any ice? - *No* . 195. (The Solicitor-General.) I will just ask you this: Had you seen any ice after the accident and before your boat was launched? - *No* . The Commissioner: *He saw a little, as I understand, on the deck* . (The Commissioner is leading the witness.) 196. (The Solicitor-General.) I meant really in the water. (To the Witness.) Did you see any icebergs when you were in your boat? - When it became daylight. 335. Shortly before the ship struck the iceberg did you hear the bell strike in the crow’s nest? - Yes. 336. What did you hear? - Three bells. 337. Do you know what time that was? - Not to be exact I do not, but it was round about half-past eleven. 338. Shortly after that did you feel anything? - Yes. 339. What did you feel? - *Well, I did not feel any direct impact, but it seemed as if the ship shook in the same manner as if the engines had been suddenly reversed to full speed astern, just the same sort of vibration, enough to wake anybody up if they were asleep* . 340. Did you feel anything besides that? - *No* . 341. *Did you feel the ship strike anything? - *No, not directly* . (London Enquiry) 14283. You did not observe any haze. Is it possible that the man in the crow's-nest would have a better opportunity than you had of observing whether or not there was a haze? - No. 14284. You say you would have as good an opportunity where you were stationed on the bridge? - Better. 14285. I suppose you know that we have it from other evidence as well, from the look-out man, Lee (this is on page 72, My Lord.), that it was hazy that night. He is asked, "What sort of a night was it?" and his answer was: "A clear starry night overhead, but at the time of the accident there was a haze right ahead." Then he is asked, I think by the Attorney-General: "Did you notice this haze which you say had extended on the horizon when you first came on the look-out, or did it come later on? - (A.) It was not so distinct then, not to be noticed." Can you explain if these men are truthfully giving their evidence how it is that they could have observed a haze while you on the bridge would not have observed it? - *No, I could not* . 14286. If an iceberg loomed up ahead of you, would the person on the bridge have as good an opportunity of observing it as the man in the crow's-nest? - *Quite*. 14287. Does it strike you in any way as a singular circumstance that when the iceberg did appear and was sighted, the observation of it was by the man in the crow's-nest, and not by the men on the bridge? - Have we any conclusive evidence to that effect? The Commissioner: The evidence is that attention was drawn to it by the three bells. As far as I know, the first indication of it was the ringing of the three bells from the crow's-nest when the man in the crow's-nest sighted it. 14288. (Mr. Scanlan.) Yes, My Lord, and all the evidence we have had up to the present goes to establish that view of the matter. (To the witness.) Now, you did state yesterday that you yourself had used binoculars for the purpose of detecting ice. Do you not think it would have been - The Commissioner: I do not think he said that. What he did say, to my recollection, was that he would much prefer his eyesight for the purpose of detecting an iceberg. The Witness: That is right, My Lord. The Commissioner: But that having seen the iceberg with his eyes, he then would probably take the binoculars for the purpose of examining it more particularly. Mr. Scanlan: Yes. !!!

@alexandros8361

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rubin_Schmidt Thats fascinating! Thank you. That does sound as though no icebergs were involved really. Which ships were those that were called “coffin ships” and why were they called that? And why was it common practice? Insurance? I thought previously that the explosions were ice water hitting the boiler rooms. I do know that it was exceptionally cold that year 1912 (Capt Scott and his men died that year). But those testimonies aren’t three really. They are different views on the ship going right down in the bow, and then breaking in half- the positions they were found in, at the bottom. The real mysteries in my mind are - Which ship was she? (Cause although it would be natural to scuttle the damaged Olympics, (wall in A deck promenade, change room fittings, carpets etc) they might not have, too. The original Titanic looks really shoddily decorated and furnished to me, (cane chairs, hospital type bunks etc) even for 1912. As though it didn’t matter if she sank either. Did she hit anything at all? A submerged wreck sounds very coincidental and would have to be wooden to be just sitting there under the water. (Actually funnily enough, the haze on a clear night and a possible collision sound very much like the hundreds of documented reports of the sinkings in the Bermuda triangle).Id thought “Yeah right, totally different area” but then realised it was the Atlantic Ocean too, and not that far away. (Though there are probably more than enough suspicious events and deceptions involved in this sinking, to need to bring that scenario in) Were explosives used to scuttle the ship? All the stokers and firemen getting off, is suspicious. (Jobs were hard to get). The super rich men getting free tickets was suspicious. And then JP Morgan himself getting off at the last minute was suspicious. This sinking happening in very calm waters is suspicious. Removing the extra lifeboats (“because they cluttered the deck”) and the captain ‘cancelling the boat drill’ is suspicious. Nearby ships not responding to telegraph or flares, is suspicious. All the ‘silence clauses’ demanded of survivors was suspicious. The court hearings were completely suspicious. I think a film of the real events would be more interesting than the unending false histories always now being forced on us.

@Rubin_Schmidt

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexandros8361 COBH, Ireland - During Ireland’s Great Potato Famine of 1845-49, they called them “coffin ships.” They were named for the accommodations provided the passengers as well as the fate that befell many on board. An emigrant escaping the famine for North America was crammed with three others into a 6-foot-square berth--"less room than in a coffin.” The berths were stacked three high in the holds of sailing ships that took five to seven weeks to cross the Atlantic. Some ships carried 1,200 steerage passengers, who were seldom allowed on deck. “Stowed away like bales of cotton and packed like slaves in a slave ship,” wrote the novelist Herman Melville, who was a deckhand on an emigrant ship out of Liverpool in 1849. “We had not been at sea one week when to hold your head down the hatchway was like holding it down a cesspool.” The Irish were “paying ballast” on the return voyages of aging vessels that brought over cotton, tobacco, timber and, ironically, American corn to feed the starving. Paddle-wheel steamers, recently introduced into transatlantic service, made the crossing in two weeks but the fare cost more than twice as much. After the first potato crop failure in the fall of 1845, perilous winter crossings became common. Many coffin ships fulfilled both definitions of their macabre pseudonym: In April, 1849, the brig Hanna, sailing from Newry to Quebec, hit an iceberg, as did the brig Maria out of Limerick in mid-July. In the same month, the brig Charles was run down by the Cunard steamer Europa with a loss of 134 lives. The Queen buried 137 of its 427 passengers at sea “from famine dropsy and fever"--cholera or typhus. The Larch counted 108 dead in a passenger manifest of 440. The Avon, with 552 aboard, reported 236 dead. The Virginius, carrying 476, had 267 deaths. The Ceylon consigned to the deep 45% of its steerage passengers, the Loosthank 33%.

1 week to refill her coal supply?! These tid-bit facts I hear just make me love her even more deeply! The stokers were amazing human beings, to shovel endlessly for hours. I would love to know if there is a story out there relative to this profession, and what would be especially cool is if a depiction of this job was accounted for by an actual survivor. Does anyone know? If my memory serves me, every single stoker perished.

@taraswertelecki3786

3 жыл бұрын

That fact was why Olympic was converted to use fuel oil after WW-I. Fuel oil has twice the energy density as coal, and it eliminated the need for the "black gang" who fed coal to 159 fireboxes in Titanic's 29 boilers 24 hours a-day. Fuel oil was moved around with transfer pumps just like ships I work on today.The conversion to oil also eliminated the need for the ash disposal systems the Olympic class ships. Olympic became know as "Old Reliable," and operated until the mid 1930's when she was retired, then scrapped. Her ornate wooden interiors were removed and now live on in a famous hotel in England.

@penelopejoann

3 жыл бұрын

@@taraswertelecki3786 very awesome. Can you please now tell us which hotel?

@nicholaskelly6375

2 жыл бұрын

@@penelopejoann The White Swan in Alnwick Northumberland England.

@georgesenda1952

2 жыл бұрын

Remember there was also a coal strike at the time & the Titanic did not have enough stokers.

@bexhill8777

2 жыл бұрын

@@georgesenda1952 coal strike,unemployed stokers,no unemployment pay, yet stokers were hard to find ????

Don’t agree that Smith was blameless

That was very interesting but I just heard some of the inquiry transcripts of the time and they placed the California about 20 miles away, not 10-- it has been discovered that there were other smaller ships in the area, like a Norwegian steamer with an illegal cargo that was between Titanic and California, blocking California's view... also a Titanic crew said that no one could mistake what rockets meant--they were a universal distress sign. This chap says they were not at that time... guess he didn't read or hear the transcripts.

@nicholaskelly6375

2 жыл бұрын

Quite The Norwegian Whaler/Sealer was never precisely identified.

@Tboy439

2 жыл бұрын

From what I recall the name of the ship was the Samson, that was in the process of illegal seal hunting, and the white flairs seen by the Californian were flairs from the Samson who were signaling the smaller boats searching for seals to come back to the ship. The truth is disgusting..

@IWTBF

2 жыл бұрын

Where can I find this transcript? Thanks

Unfortunately the evidence does point to the ships being swapped as an insurance scam that went wrong. The olympic had two accidents that had caused damage so bad, giving her a pronounced list to port, she was to be scrapped. The "Titanic" on her maiden voyage was recorded as having a pronounced list to port that a number of passengers had noticed. Plus a load of other evidence like the SSCaladonian waiting in the same waters full of nothing but blankets. Very interesting stuff.

@catherinespark

3 жыл бұрын

*Californian?

@kennywowie

3 жыл бұрын

Californian. T listed to port because of coal having been moved away from the fire.

@Tboy439

2 жыл бұрын

@@catherinespark ....Have you learned about the California since this comment, or would you like me to explain. I call it the ultimate smoking gun.

did he say mitch-a-gin (rhyming with "bitch-a-gin") LOL

Might it have been possible to save the Titanic ? For example had they flooded say 3 or 4 of the STERN watertight compartments the Titanic would have simply sunk lower into the water on an EVEN keel and perhaps reached the level of the sea BEFORE breaching the height of the watertight compartments ? Has this situation ever been considered ?

@taraswertelecki3786

3 жыл бұрын

No, it was impossible, because of the height of the bulkeads and a 500 foot long passage way on F-deck allowed seawater to flood one compartment after another. Water was coming in at 400 tons a minute, and when the bow was driven underwater, more water was surging in through portholes, doors and vents.

@scabbycatcat4202

3 жыл бұрын

@@taraswertelecki3786 " Water was coming in at 400 tons per minute " well it would STOP coming in once the internal level of the water had reached the level of the sea. Water does not flow uphill !!

@catherinespark

3 жыл бұрын

I think it's a good question. But I don't think it would have saved her. For the benefit of Taras: imagine an ice cube tray floating in a sink of water. The bottom of the ice cube tray sits below the waterline in the sink. The outside edges of this ice cube tray are considerably higher than the partitions between the separate squares, but both the outside edges and the partitions are above the waterline. This ice cube tray plays the role of Titanic. Now imagine that the first square is somehow breached below the waterline. Water flows in until its level inside that square equalises with the level of water in the rest of the sink. Then it stops flowing in because the gravitational gradient causing it to flow in is no longer there. The front of the ice cube tray is now lower in the water than the back, but the water inside the first square still hasn't gone over the partition, because of how high the partitions reach. Titanic worked like this - any six of her 'squares', with those including up to four of her most forward ones, could be fully flooded, and she would not be pulled down so low in the water that it would flow over the bulkheads between them. Nor would she be pulled so low that portholes, doors and vents would let water in from outside, or transmit the water between the watertight compartments. So far so good. But the iceberg caused the first six forward compartments to be breached - too much front flooding. This weight of water pulled her bow down so low that the tops of her forward bulkheads ended up below the waterline, so the gravitational gradient was maintained until those compartments overflowed. As the ones behind them then filled, the bow was pulled down still further, causing more bulkheads to dip below the waterline and overflow, and so on, back and back. Had it not been for this fact, she wouldn't have sunk so low in the water that the water would have reached Scotland Street, as you mention. Nor would she have sunk so low that it started to flood through doors, portholes etc. Now imagine the ice cube tray in the sink again, except this time, you breach two cubes - one at each end. Each fill fully once again before the water level gradient in both disappears. The ice cube tray now sits lower in the water all over, but again, the water in its two flooded squares doesn't pull the tray down so far in the water that the partitions between squares end up below the waterline. Thus the water can still be contained within the breached squares. Again, Titanic worked like this - she could float with any four of her watertight compartments breached anywhere in the ship, because the total water weight would not pull the tops of her bulkheads below the waterline. But if you flood enough of the ice cube trays - wherever they may be - the tray will be pulled so low in the water that the partitions between squares - any squares - will dip below the waterline, and therefore the water level gradients in the breached squares can't equalise before the water rises up past the tops of the petitions. Water therefore flows between the squares because of how low it's sitting in the water due to water weight inside it, not just due to water inrush, or to any incline from front to back or back to front. I think with twelve watertight compartments fully flooded (six in the front from the iceberg, and six in the back to balance the front ones out), and with the iceberg damage still allowing water in at the front, the whole ship would simply be pulled down too low in the water for the bulkheads to remain above the waterline. Thus the gravitational gradient would not be able to equal out in the breached compartments, water would begin to flow in again down the waterline gradient, bulkheads would spill over, and she would sink like the ice cube tray. HOWEVER...I think there could have been a similar way the ship might have been saved, or at the very least, the sinking very much slowed, enough to allow rescue by another ship. Due to the coal fire that had burned for much of the voyage, all the coal had been shifted to the left of the ship, giving it a 2 degree list to port for much of its voyage. This makes me wonder, if they'd moved all the people (and possibly a good deal of moveable furniture too) to the very back of the ship and kept them there for the rest of the voyage, might have been enough to seesaw the bow higher in the water, enough to bring the bulkheads of the six breached compartments back up above the waterline? If so, then providing all portholes and doors could be kept above waterline, that would have made those breached compartments watertight again, thus arresting the water in-rush and therefore also the sinking process. Somehow though, I don't think people pack nearly as tightly, or are as heavy as six fully-flooded compartments'-worth of water, so I doubt enough weight could have been shifted to achieve this (let alone the other logistical problems - if passengers wouldn't get into lifeboats because they didn't believe there was a need, would they cooperate with such shifting?) What fascinates me, though, is that if Titanic had broken in two cleanly, instead of the bow hanging off the double bottom for a while and pulling the stern down and then vertical, her rear compartments would have remained un-breached and watertight, and only the foremost rear one would have been a total wreck and fully flooded. Does this mean that if the breakage had happened like this, thus shedding the weight of the fully flooded bow, her stern would then have achieved equilibrium on its own in the water? Would rescue ships have found a ton of debris and dead people in the sea, and a ton of alive and terrified people in the lifeboats, and on the deck of little more than the rear end of a ship with a mangled break at its foremost end, and a strong forward list, that was surreally bobbing there in the water all on its own? Will half an ice cube tray with just half a foremost square still float, if all the other squares in it are all in-tact?

@ytcoleman

2 жыл бұрын

I imagine every educated scenario and re-enactments have been made in the past. Regardless of changes made. All the same result. Easy to speculate a simulation inside you’re own home. Imagine being in this situation out in the middle of the ocean with 2200 souls in you’re hands. Decisions was made and none of them were prepared for the tragedy at hand. God bless all souls onboard

@rosshoover6986

2 жыл бұрын

@@catherinespark the ice cube tray is not a sealed container. Bad analogy.

if i had the designers, builders etc. ive got a plan to build a ship that not only will make titanic etc history but i have an idea and plan to build a cruiseliner so big it'll dwarf any city skylne incl qm2 with no expense spared and unlike titanic god rest her soul, i wont be cost-cutting like they did.

@GeorgiosD90

6 жыл бұрын

There has never been a safer ship since the Titanic, dude.

Ja Ja, leaving out facts and taking a wonderful story 🤗

British novelist Louise Patten and grand daughter of Charles lightoller, the most senior officer that survived the titanic disaster, claimed In a book and in news articles that Mr lightoller kept a family secret, he was informed by the captain and 1st officer after hitting the iceberg that the quartermaster Robert Hitchens steered the ship TOWARDS the iceberg using tiller orders instead of rudder orders like steam ships were supposed to because he panicked, and by the time 1st officer realised the mistake he made it was too late, lightoller went on to say he lied in the enquiries because he was concealing the truth to protect "reputation of his employer, white star line"

True fact, Titanic & her sisters was named after the Greek Mythology!

@borninjordan7448

2 жыл бұрын

Even Britannic?

Unfortunately a lot of the reasons you hear behind the sinking can be a very unorganised story of distraction from organising the priorities right. There should've been more contingencies and precautions so you don't end up sailing into a reported iceberg at full speed without binoculars. Seems there was a certain amount of attention taken to performance, a certain amount to ceremony and entertaining, a certain amount to dealing with the coal strike all on an operational level and safety was largely presumed. You see the same thing at the building stage with the cutting back on lifeboats to 1/4 the original proposed quantity. The Captain even cancelled lifeboat drills on the day, and it's not surprising bad mistakes were made such as different implementation of the women and children order on port and starboard that kept healthy men off the ship. The flares weren't sent up in the proper signal. And it is actually crazy to think the telegraph operators responsible for coordinating the ship were prioritising accounts and customer messages. That they were allowed to do this seems wrong, but that they actually did it shows no one in authority set a tone of absolute priority for safety. All this is just looks like careless contingency planning. I don't see a tale of any sort in how the disaster happened what happenes when overconfidence and high demands meet bad fortune. That's what I get from everything I've read and seen, the sad reality is it was a total disaster for very boring reasons of focusing on the wrong things. Does anyone know to what extent all this was a White Star Line problem? I've read they emphasized comfort and lost other ships too.

I am surprised it is not comment on more often how modern the Olympic class were. Not from an engine point of view but notice how uncluttered her deck spaces were. There were very FEW ventilators which , even as late as 1936 were a major incumberancy on the decks and passenger spaces of the Queen Mary ! Just compare the RMS Aquitania just 2 years later than Titanic. Her decks and funnel areas are LITTERED with ventilator cowels. Also the stanchions of her lifeboats were of the old fashioned kind and were all the way down the promenade deck. Other than steam turbines, Harland and Wolf seemed well ahead in technology over John Browns on the Clyde

@falcon664

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, the ventilators scattered all over the place are very distracting to the design and take up a great deal of space. Much of the ventilation on Titanic was accomplished by electric fans. The lack of steam turbines, though, I do not think was due to a deficiency in technology. White Star made a conscious decision in favor of efficiency and controlled operating costs. The Olympic class low pressure steam turbines operated on waste steam that otherwise would have been sent directly to the condensers. The ships burned about 600-650 tons per day at service speed. The Lusitania and Mauretania, smaller ships, would burn up to 1000 tons a day which also required more firemen.

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

@@falcon664 600-650 tons per day....... I wonder if you could tell me the source of that information?.

@falcon664

2 жыл бұрын

@@scabbycatcat4202 Sure. Samuel Halpern wrote a study named, "Titanic Prime Mover - A Study of Propulsion and Power." He examines the system from coal to propeller. The difference comes from the required horsepower needed to drive the ships at their designed service speeds. Lusitania/Mauritania needed 68,000 HP for 25 knots, Olympic/Titanic needed 46,000 HP for 21 knots. As the higher speeds are reached much more power, (and coal) is needed. Included is one comparison of trips from Queenstown to New York shows the Lusitania using 1,090 tons per day averaging 24.25 knots. Olympic used 629 tons per day averaging 21.43 knots. Of course, Olympic took longer, as she was scheduled, but overall used 1,436 tons less in that comparison. It is a great read if you like detail, it's on the internet.

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

@@falcon664 Thanks for that valuable information. The problem I have is when you start serious research on any subject you come upon conflicting evidence. I have just completed a recent study on the supposed inefficiency of those "oil guzzling" ( as described by the Americans ) KGV class battleships. Scratch beneath the surface of any subject and things ain't quite what they seem! The most valuable lesson I have learned is you have to consider perhaps 4 or 5 different reports to get a feeling of what is PROBABLY true. Dennis Griffiths " The Power of the Great Liners " puts the efficiencies of the following ships;- Titanic 1.4lb/SHP/ per hour Aquitania 1.38lb/SHP/per hour Lusitania 1.43/lb/SHP/per hour. This equates to 690 imperial tons for Titanic and 1041 tons Lusitania which is perfectly consistent with the report you mention . I have read various other reports which put Titanic at anything from 700-850 tons per day. Reading comparisons of other ships of the same era my conclusion is Titanics probable consumption was about 700 tons per day.- Regards

@scabbycatcat4202

2 жыл бұрын

@@falcon664 The Halpern report is indeed a very good read and contains much in depth information. Thanks for the recommendation. Yet this report demonstrates exactly the type of problem you come up against whilst researching because that report itself contains inconsistancies. Firstly in one part it states ;-The ship's coal bunker capacity was over 6,600 long-tons, enough for 8 days of steaming at full speed. This would equate to 825 tons/day WHICH TALLIES WITH OTHER REPORTS . Secondly the calculations he states do not seem to add up. Its 3155 miles from Queenstown in Ireland to New york Harbour. The average speed given is 21.43 knots or 24.64 miles per hour This equates to 128 hours steaming. The fuel consumption given is 3540 tons which works out at 663 tons/ day So the said report gives us THREE DIFFERENT daily consumptions. 825 tons/day 663 tons/day 629 tons/day Which is the correct one ??

👍

Can anyone tell me of ANY design feature which was unique to both Olympic and Titanic which would make them any more unsinkable than every other passenger liner before them ??

@catherinespark

3 жыл бұрын

Not exactly new unique features, it was a combination of unique honing/adaptation of existing features: 1. Superior watertight doors, in that most of them could be closed instantly from the bridge rather than having to each be closed on-site individually 2. Double bottomed keel that meant if she hit rocks, one bottom could potentially be breached and the other potentially stood a chance of remaining in-tact, thus meaning that in the event of striking rocks in storms etc. she had a greater chance of remaining watertight 3. Extreme manoeuvrability in terms of turning (she could do a full 360 degree turn with less than a mile's diameter) and coming to a stop (when at full speed, her engines having been thrown into reverse, she could come to a full stop in under a minute). 4. Four times the number of below-water-level watertight compartments required by board of trade regulations (which required four) 5. Any six of her watertight compartments could be fully flooded and she'd still stay afloat (think about that in relation to most ships at the time having ONLY four compartments in total) 6. All four compartments in the front could be fully flooded and the ship would still float 7. The watertight compartment floodability distribution meant that, theoretically, if cut in the right places, ship could effectively be cut into three pieces and each piece would stay afloat independently. The reason her stern sank at all is that after she split, the bow hanging off the double bottom pulled the stern up at a sharp angle, which allowed the watertight compartments in the stern to simply flood immediately straight over the E-deck divides. This would not have happened if her bow had just snapped cleanly off and then sank on its own, since the exposed watertight compartment in the stern would have flooded but the rest of the stern's compartments would have remained watertight, and as none of them were breached by the ice berg, if the break had been clean it could have floated on its own. 8. Watertight compartments going up to higher levels than most others of the time 9. More pumps, that were also more powerful 10. Wireless (wireless being a new feature on ships) - could allow for iceberg warnings that would prevent sinkings 11. 24 hour wireless watch (almost none of the few ships with wireless at the time had 24 hour wireless watch) - potential for more iceberg warnings 12. Built with walls of the strength of a battleship at that time rather than a passenger ship (most modern battleships would still have sustained the damage that Titanic sustained in her type of collision). 13. The new davits put into Titanic could take an extra row of lifeboats inside the ones provided - so even though she didn't actually carry those extra rows of boats, that was a feature of safety capability, at least, that was superior to most ships on the sea 14. Best engineers of the day had the best chance of fighting flooding and keeping the ship afloat in the event of breaches

@scabbycatcat4202

3 жыл бұрын

@@catherinespark "The ship could come to a stop in under a minute"..... You nearly had me thinking you knew what you were talking about until I read that !! Also the Titanic was noted for being very un MANOEUVRABLE rwith a rudder too small. A Battleship could have armour up to a foot thick in 1912 so stood a good chance of bouncing off the berg. Dr Robert Ballard stated that Lusitania and Mauritania were " much better built ships " . All things considered you have not answered my question at all. Regards

@catherinespark

3 жыл бұрын

@@scabbycatcat4202 Nope, all the things you've cited have, in the last few years (therefore possibly rendering Dr Robert Ballard's conclusions obsolete unless he's updated them in recent years too based on new evidence), been confirmed as myths, with very good evidence to back up their debunkings - evidence that I have examined in depth, and my above comment is my conclusion (which you are free to disagree with, though you are doing so rather unnecessarily aggressively). Look at the Titanic sinking in real-time livestream from April 14th-15th, put together by the authors of the book 'On a Sea of Glass' (The KZread channel is called 'Titanic Animations'). They, and their incredibly well-referenced aforementioned book have explicit and in-depth discussions/passages dedicated to debunking the 'rudder too small' and 'un-manoeuvrable' myths. Meanwhile, the KZread channel 'Historic Travels' gives sourced quotations on Titanic's sea trials. These include the distance in feet that she took to come to a full stop from full speed when the engine was thrown into reverse, and when you calculate full stopping time in feet at that speed, it works out at just under half a mile, which works out at just under a minute for full speed. Then you've got the 'Titanic: Case Closed' documentary, and the book 'A Very Deceiving Night', both by Tim Maltin, which talk about the battleship-like plating that Titanic had. This is not me making these things up or exaggerating - I am quoting sources from extremely experienced experts - sources who share their processes and methods of research, along with their grounds for their conclusions, and their primary sources from the time. Sources that you can check for yourself just as easily as I did, with the information I've given you in this comment. If you want to dismiss those sources without checking them out, or on rather flimsy grounds having checked them out, that's up to you, although if you do that then no matter how wrong I may be, for that reason alone your comments will lose credibility relative to mine, in the eyes of just about everyone on this comments thread. I choose to believe those sources. I think I have good grounds to do so. You can make up your own mind and believe what you like.

@scabbycatcat4202

3 жыл бұрын

@@catherinespark If you were any good at maths you would clearly understand you are talking nonsense. You say the ship would stop in just under half a mile ? Well instead of relying on these dubious sources have you ever done the calculation yourself ? because for the ship to even travel at Just under half a mile a minute she would have to be steaming at approx 30 mph over the full half mile !! Let alone SLOWING DOWN. You have proven yourself a bit of a DUNCE on this subject and I would strongly suggest the rest of your sources are equally flawed. Also some of the sources you have quoted from documentaries etc , I suppose you will be stating that Titanic never sank it was Olympic !! Have a nice day.

@catherinespark

3 жыл бұрын

​@@scabbycatcat4202 24 knots = her top speed, and she was going at full speed when she hit, having lit the last boilers the afternoon before the collision. 24 knots = 26 mph, so yes, nearly 30mph over the full half mile as you so correctly state, even with the slowing down, which was started after hard-a-starboard was ordered and carried out - so yes, that is at least one correct thing you've said. As for throwing around claims of dubious sources with nothing objective to justify such an opinion of them, along with unfounded, unevidenced suppositions about my other 'beliefs' (you suppose incorrectly, by the way), and calling me a 'dunce', that's exactly the kind of response and tone I expected from a commenter with an agenda like yours. Without anything else to go on I am inclined to believe said dubious sources I have cited over anything you say. I believe any other sensible people who read this thread will do so, too. Anyone can check the sources I have cited, and then check your channel for comparison, and anyone who does so will see that you have uploaded nothing, let alone anything ship related or indeed anything that implies you're an expert in anything or have in fact done any real research at all. So why should anyone consider you NOT dubious by comparison, when your lack of content provides much more evidence for you being a dubious source over them. You may have done tons of research, you may not, but as far as we're concerned, right now, you look like a much less credible source than them - and you come across as a rude, opinionated, presumptuous, uninformed armchair commenter determined to make enemies and stick to what you think no matter what, insulting anyone who differs from what you think, without sufficient knowledge or proper grounding to justify said insulting. So ok then, yes, you go ahead and hold your opinion (which appears to be backed up by insults), I'll likewise hold mine (which is at least backed up by checkable facts). And others who read this thread will in turn decide and/or hold to theirs. But I guarantee you, more people will agree with me than with you unless you actually provide a bit more substance to your channel and stop the gratuitous, personally insulting, urban dictionary language. That's not the language competent historians or indeed humans use. And if you come back with another comment full of empty personal insults and unsubstantiated dismissals, that will only prove my point - I'll simply reply to that with "I rest my case" and block you. Unless you wish to do the honours in that department first, which I for one would welcome.

Titanic one of the best stories in human history

@marerekootautahi174

Жыл бұрын

One of the biggest lies

@topgrain

Жыл бұрын

The most shameful, perhaps.

The Olympic had a fire inside and the keel was bent. How the bloody White Star Line allowed such a voyage with a dangerous ship? 🤷🏻

@borninjordan7448

2 жыл бұрын

Titanic.

@Dizzy19.

2 жыл бұрын

Why do you imagine the keel to be bent?

@ernestkovach3305

2 жыл бұрын

Titanic.

@Tboy439

2 жыл бұрын

Nope...Olympic

Not a conspiracy type person, but ... more i look into it, i believe it was actually the Olympic that was meant to be purposely sank. Too many "why would they do that?" instances to be coincidence.

@Rubin_Schmidt

2 жыл бұрын

On 9 October 1912 White Star withdrew Olympic from service and returned her to her builders at Belfast to be refitted to incorporate lessons learned from the Titanic disaster 6 months prior, and improve safety. The number of lifeboats carried by Olympic was increased from twenty to sixty four (per Carlisle's original number), and extra davits were installed along the boat deck to accommodate them. Also, an inner watertight skin was constructed in the boiler and engine rooms, to create a double hull. Five of the watertight bulkheads were extended up to B-Deck, extending to the entire height of the hull. This corrected a flaw in the original design, in which the bulkheads only rose up as far as E or D-Deck, a short distance above the waterline. This flaw had been exposed during Titanic's sinking, where water spilled over the top of the bulkheads as the ship sank and flooded subsequent compartments. In addition, an extra bulkhead was added to subdivide the electrical dynamo room, bringing the total number of watertight compartments to seventeen. Improvements were also made to the ship's pumping apparatus. These modifications meant that Olympic could survive a collision similar to that of Titanic, in that her first six compartments could be breached and the ship could remain afloat. At the same time, Olympic's B-Deck underwent a refit, which necessitated eliminating her B-Deck promenades - one of the few features that separated her from her sister ship. The refit included extra cabins (the parlour suites which proved popular on the Titanic were added to the Olympic), more cabins were fitted with private bathing facilities, and a Cafe Parisian (another addition that had proved popular on the Titanic) was added, offering another dining option to first class passengers. With these changes, Olympic's gross tonnage rose to 46,359 tons, 31 tons more than Titanic's. In March 1913, Olympic returned to service and briefly regained the title of largest ocean liner in the world, until the German liner SS Imperator entered passenger service in June 1913. Following her refit, Olympic was marketed as the "new" Olympic and her improved safety features were featured prominently in advertisements. !!!

@IWTBF

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly

Interesting that he does not mention the fire that was burning inside Titanic probably for a week before it left port, compromising the bulkhead between the 5th and 6th boiler rooms.

@stephaniejames6672

5 жыл бұрын

Coal fires were common. The only difference it made was the 3* list to port that the coal made when Barrett shoveled tons of it away from the smoldering, cheap coal. That list may have helped keep her steady as she slowly foundered. I wish people would stop giving their attention to these money-grubbing conspiracy theorists. They are so stupid and disrespectful.

@nicholaskelly6375

3 жыл бұрын

It would appear that there were actually two bunker fires when she sailed. I have often wondered where the coal actually came from. As at the time in 1912 there was as noted a coal shortage due to a national miners strike. As has been noted bunker fires were not that uncommon on coal burning vessels. That said I have often wondered if the coal had come from the North Welsh Coalfield. Specifically from Black Park Colliery or Brynkinallt Colliery in Chirk, Denbighshire. Later these two collieries were integrated into the Ifton Colliery complex situated just over thr border in Shropshire. Ifton Colliery eventually closed in November 1968. As a child I lived not far from Ifton and I remember just how volatile and prone to spontaneous combustion the coal from the southern sector of the North Welsh Coalfield was. A very good friend of mine whose uncle worked at Ifton told me that you had to be very careful when stacking the coal and that it could not be placed in stacks of more than 6 feet high. For if it was then it was likely to spontaneously combust! In fact that was the main reason for the National Coal Board closed the pit in 1968. As spontaneous combustion had caused a number of underground fires. Possibly the coal could have come from Gresford Colliery near Wrexham which had opened in 1907. It was the 5th largest Colliery in Wales. Again the coal was quite volatile. This fact being catastrophically demonstrated on the morning of the 22nd September 1934 when the 'Dennis Deep Section '(The "29's") of the colliery exploded killing 266 men. As I said I have often wondered about this.

16 watertight doors!!!!

A new theory that's out and as to why the Berg was so hard to see up to the last minute was that the iceberg had turned/rolled over, which bergs do, do. And instead of a white mass. It's a dark blue. You can watch bergs turn on KZread. Kinda makes sense though.

@myopiniongoodyouropinionbad

4 жыл бұрын

HAHA! You said do do

@nicholaskelly6375

3 жыл бұрын

Another issue Scott that has never been satisfactorily resolved concerns the Night Glasses cabinet. Due to the unexpected crew change just before she sailed. The officer who had the keys to the cabinet went to the Olympic and took the keys with him. Quite why the ships carpenter wasn't ordered to simply get the cupboard opened has never been explained. Now had the men in the Crow's Nest had the correct night glasses they would have seen the iceberg earlier. This could have made a critical difference.

@catherinespark

3 жыл бұрын

@@nicholaskelly6375 Depends if a cold water mirage (as hypothesised in the documentary, 'Titanic: Case Closed') had anything to do with rendering the iceberg less visible. If it did have something to do with it, then the right night glasses would not have made much difference in that respect. After all, looking at a mirage through binoculars doesn't make it dissipate.

@nicholaskelly6375

3 жыл бұрын

@@catherinesparkThat is not the point I was making. More it shows the rather lax arrangements on TITANIC I asked a deck officer friend of my father about this and he had mentioned this factor. But added that had they been equipped with night glasses they would have seen the ice field etc etc. Like the lifeboat drill issue (there weren't any) It would appear that a very considerable degree of complacency surrounded the whole voyage.

@catherinespark

3 жыл бұрын

​@@nicholaskelly6375 Fair enough that it wasn't the point you were making. And I agree with the point you WERE making. However, your comment inspired that thought from me, and I think that's fair enough, too. Regards the point you were making, the commentary from the documentary "Titanic: Case Closed" examines testimonies from multiple sailors both from the time and from the present day, all experienced in both the mirage effects of cold water at sea, and in icebergs. On the other hand, officers Fleet and Lee did testify later in the Titanic inquiries that had they had binoculars they thought they would have seen the iceberg sooner. So yeah, their feelings match the expert opinion of your father's deck officer friend. To me, taking all those things into account, I'd personally settle on it being 50/50 as to whether binoculars would have made a difference. As to lifeboat drills, I can see that would have made a HUGE difference, especially when combined with having enough lifeboats for everyone. Drills would have meant more uniform approach from officer to officer, more efficiently and completely filled boats, and faster boat launch times (meaning the extra boats required to have carried everyone might have been able to be launched in the same time window as the eighteen that were launched from the davits in the intended way).

he's wrong about some things tho.. Watching it in 2022

@Rubin_Schmidt

2 жыл бұрын

The "unzipping rivets" , faulty rivets and the 200ft. gash theories , have been debunked. The only breach of the hull was in the area of boiler room 6 at the site of the "repair". The fire had spread from bunker 9 to 10, and was out of control at the time of the sinking. The Olympic had survived a collision with a concrete pier, attached to America, in New York harbour, which resulted in three buckled plates. No surviving passengers or crew saw an iceberg but did report four "terrible explosions". Think about it, two massive bodies should drift together, not drift apart. The Titanic had sailed for New York on the 5th or 6th. April, empty, and, as far as I know, returned empty passing the wreck site and going into dry dock for a makeover, and was relaunched as the "New Olympic" on the 13th April 1913. !!!

Titanic only had 11 watertight doors that were controlled by the bridge, not 15.

@ph89787

5 жыл бұрын

No she had 12 doors. 16, compartments divided by 15 bulkheads.

Poppycock but 1986 photos of MP

Nice lecture, but here and there few incorrect statements were made. At 19:15, the Olympic didn't collide with the Hawke in March 1912. That happened much earlier, in September 1911, and at that time the Titanic looked way different, in much early stage of her fitting. The reason why the both ships were photographed together in March 1912 was because the Olympic lost a blade of one of it's propellers. At 42:12, about the design of the Titanic's rudder. The rudder was very well designed, in fact in WW1 the captains that traveled on the sister ship Olympic said that they've never seen a such responsive ship. And that's because the rudder was just behind one of the propellers. That wasn't the case with the other large ships. who had either 2 or 4 propellers with only one rudder. The Olympic class ships had uneven number (3) of the propellers, so one of them was in the middle of the ship just before the rudder, and that made the rudder more effective. At 42:42, the engines were not put in reverse, they were just stopped. This is one of the myths about the Titanic, that the engines were put in reverse. That was simply not possible for such short period of time (around 37 seconds), to put them from Full Ahead to Stop, and then to Full Astern. That would damage them, apart the fact that it would make the ship less responsive. At 46:04, another incorrect statement. The ship could stay afloat with the first 4 compartments flooded. Not 5. At 54:38, not exactly true. From the Californian, they saw a ship in the distance, that because of the optical illusion (similar to that one that caused the late seeing of the iceberg), it looked closer and smaller. The length of the object at the horizon was right, but not the height (because of the illusion), so the ship seemed closer (because of its fake height, it looked higher that it actually was) and smaller (because of the fake ratio between the height and the length, the ship seemed shorter than it actually was, thus smaller). And since what they were seeing didn't look like the Titanic, the only ship around on that day with wireless according to the Marconi diagram they had, they concluded (wrongly) that the ship on the horizon was not the Titanic and didn't have a wireless, and that's why they didn't wake up Evans, their wireless operator. At 1:00:19, another myth, that the sister ship Britannic was planned to be named the Gigantic. That was not true. At 1:01:01, the Britannic sank because the bulkhead doors were not closed (as it was recommended sailing in dangerous waters), the force of the explosion twisted and jammed some of the doors, and they couldn't be closed. So instead of only 2 flooded compartments, with in minutes she had 6 flooded compartments. And when she started to list, the open portholes did the rest. At 1:04:40, aaaaaaand another myth, the story about the Morgan Robertson's book about the fictional ship Titan. The original book had another name (Futility), and the original Titan was so different from the Titanic. The Titan was smaller and reminded more of a Cunard ship, being also the fastest ship in the world, not only the biggest. And she was not in her maiden voyage, travelling in the opposite direction (from New York to England), it collided with the iceberg head on, sank very fast, and very few people were saved, from very few boats. Among the survivors were the captain and his main officers, who were in conflict with the main protagonist of the book. When the real ship (the Titanic) sank, from the publishing company remembered that they have a book, in which something similar was mentioned: the largest ship in the world collided with an iceberg in an April night and sank, and the ship's name was Titan. So they changed the dimensions of the fictional ship (to remind those of the real ship), changed the name of the book (from "Futility" to "The Wreck of the Titan"), republish the book and said: "Look, we have a book that predicted the sinking of the Titanic." You know, the sinking of the Titanic was one of the first world wide spread news in peace time, the interest of the readers were very very big, and some people (or companies) tried to gain a profit from it.

Titan + ice = Titanic

@NautilusGoose

2 жыл бұрын

No

"last return trip before retirement" There is NO primary sourced evidence to back up that claim. It is just another myth.

if i got millions in payouts from the insurance i would say it was the titanic as well! only problem with that is one had black paint on the bottom one had gray paint on the bottom! the one found on the bottom had grey paint so i ask you which ship was known to have a grey bottom!!!???

@dovetonsturdee7033

2 жыл бұрын

What make you think that Olympic was painted grey below the waterline?

@Tboy439

2 жыл бұрын

@@dovetonsturdee7033 ...Because it was dipshit!!! Check the records, or were they photoshopped too.

It wasn't 15 it was 16 watertight Compartments on titanic get ya facts right I say

Clive Palmer, the Australian who had ambitions to build a replica of the Titanic kzread.info/dash/bejne/pmqOzdian9S7aNI.html, couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery. He put a whole bunch of ghastly dinosaur figures around a world-class golf resort at Coolumn in Queensland and managed to run the business into the ground. A complete and utter fool.

If anyone didn't fall asleep during this please raise your hand. Bueller.....Bueller...

Iceberg Wrong Ahead!

O no.........Thomas Andrews didnt design the Olympic class of liner

A roadside worker is leaning on his shovel when a Rolls Royce drove up and stopped beside him. Winding down his window the occupant in the Rolls Royce was asked by the Roadside worker, “Gee Mister you’ve got yourself a pretty flash car!, how did you get to buy a car like this?” The occupant replied, “I work for Cunard!!” To which the Roadside worker replied,” I work fucking hard too and I ain’t got a car like this”

PierPONT not POINT. Common mispronunciation but it's aggravating. 😁 Alexander Carlisle was the chief designer of the Titanic as well as the first of the trio, RMS Olympic. Thomas Andrews took over after Carlisle's departure from H&W in June 1910.

At 27min he claims 7,000 people were on Titanic. Bull$hit! There were 2300! 1,000 SHORT of reaching capacity!

@winstonviceroy6125

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong. That is not true.

@dovetonsturdee7033

Жыл бұрын

He actually said 'several thousand.'

Not even 10 seconds in you hear a covid cough in the background lol

@ernestkovach3305

2 жыл бұрын

No. I was there. It was a regular non corona virus type cough.

This guy is a great sleeping pill

@ernestkovach3305

2 жыл бұрын

...but in a nice soothing way....like the artist who said you can put as many trees in your painting as you want.

Idiots with money down there ruining the site. Nothing down there to see anymore. Let it go!!!!!

Once I learned JP Morgan own titanic the switch theory became believable. jP was a demon. You should have a lecture on the awesome people that died and survived the tragedy. The ship itself albeit beautiful, wouldn’t be as important as it would without the souls aboard.

@scvandy3129

Жыл бұрын

How can you miss the dozens and dozens -- hundreds even -- KZread videos, non-fiction books, scholarly and mass-market magazine articles, television and film documentaries, newspaper articles, etc. full of interviews, q & a's, endless biographical and anecdotal material, 'you-are-there' remembrances of survivors and their descendants, and profiling the victims and dedicating for all time the memories of them; the "awesome people" as you put it? Just on KZread I've spent hours enthralled with just such documentation by the involved parties and kin in addition to at least a dozen books in my study. If you take the time to read all of three paragraphs -- that being, at the very top: Mr. Payne's illustrious academic and professional career solely devoted to oceanic navigation and transport -- it becomes obvious the focus of his near-peerless Titanic presentation would be the content we saw in these 68 minutes. "You should have . . . " Says who? -- using an old cliche.

This man has got some serious points absolutely wrong.........William Pirrie..../ Alexander Carlisle

Nice lecture but the ship surround by ice which they saw was not Californian but Mt. Temple. Californian was futher way.

@BillDusty

2 жыл бұрын

No it wasn’t.

It wasn't "The Titanic" that Sank... It was her Sister Ship, "The Olympic." "Oh what Webs we Weave... When We Practice to Deceive."

@dovetonsturdee7033

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed. Why are you trying to deceive people with such nonsense?

@Tboy439

2 жыл бұрын

Correct!!! Don't even listen to that sheeple, doveton sturdee

The 300 foot gash is a myth, this guy has got that wrong. The damaged area of the hull lies beneath the ocean bed and cannot be seen.

@honda900000

6 жыл бұрын

Gazza1912 he said that the ship got damaged over 300 ft. He didn't say that it was one big split.

@GeorgiosD90

6 жыл бұрын

The damaged area of the hull lies beneath the ocean and cannot be seen, that is why, we do not know, if that damaged area is really damaged. Speculation! It does not matter where the area is. The damage through the hull has been calculated to 1 qm in total.

@bruceghent8776

6 жыл бұрын

If it had been a gash and not a series of plate rivets being sheared off, I think the ship would have sunk much more quickly, say in less than an hour with possibly a near total loss of life. Some sonar work was done back in the 90's that supposedly proved that the total amount of surface area affected by the collision was a mere 12 square feet, about the surface area of a single human being. However, as you have stated, the readings were taken from areas below the mudline. The collision with the ocean bottom could have caused it.

@honda900000

5 жыл бұрын

In 1996 the damaged area of the hull were examined by ultrasonics. They know since 22 years pretty exactly which damage the iceberg did.

@stephaniejames6672

5 жыл бұрын

We have know for decades now that the damage was over 300 feet. Harland and Wolff got it right when they presented their calculations to the inquest in 1912. Tiny openings over 300 feet, no more than 3/4” wide, were fatal to Titanic.

im very sorry for my comment so i removed it

@Dizzy19.

2 жыл бұрын

Why don't you get off youtube and research that properly, instead of believing exactly what you have been told.

@dovetonsturdee7033

2 жыл бұрын

Surely you are not gullible enough to believe that nonsense. I assume it would be pointless telling you that nothing on that video has any facts to support it? If you were actually interested, why not try investigating for yourself, as it isn't hard?