74 replies to this topic

[susieice]

It was a maiden voyage. People knew what ship they were getting on and watching.

[spud the mackem]

freetoroam, on 19 November 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

The difference only existed to those who knew about it. the passengers  and the most of those who watched it set sail, including the media, who none the wiser.

   I dont suppose the Crew knew either eh ! the survivers must have been bought off because I would have known which ship I was sailing on even if it did have a twin. I did sail on two "twin" Shell Tankers, the difference being in the accomodation, my cabin on one ,was on the port (left) side the other was on the same side but 2 down  the alleyway instead of the first at the entrance.Seamen know which is which, The Lifeboats were also in slightly different places.

[freetoroam]

susieice, on 19 November 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

It was a maiden voyage. People knew what ship they were getting on and watching.

Spud the mackem has said it better, but please remember the year. I am open to you proving me completely wrong as I have said before, its just a theory, but your reason above is lame to say the least, the people who paid for the voyage would not have known the difference, their main concern was being the first to travel on it, for most boarding the ship was the first time they actually saw it face to face.
As for the seaman knowing the difference, quite possibly true, there would have been a group who did know about the switch, there had to be, but had the seamen had the time to tell the story after they had arrived, we would have a different type of scandal, ( but a successful trip would not have needed the truth coming out, unless a seaman thought he could sell the story, but even that would have been denied, I would imagine the seamen got a good payoff to keep it quiet) but as it happened,  the ships were swapped not long  before the launch and the poor seamen never returned to tell the tale or truth, and I would imagine those on land who did know, were in no possition to tell the truth now, not now the bloooming thing had sunk.

Edited by freetoroam, 19 November 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[spud the mackem]

freetoroam, on 19 November 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Spud the mackem has said it better, but please remember the year. I am open to you proving me completely wrong as I have said before, its just a theory, but your reason above is lame to say the least, the people who paid for the voyage would not have known the difference, their main concern was being the first to travel on it, for most boarding the ship was the first time they actually saw it face to face.
As for the seaman knowing the difference, quite possibly true, there would have been a group who did know about the switch, there had to be, but had the seamen had the time to tell the story after they had arrived, we would have a different type of scandal, ( but a successful trip would not have needed the truth coming out, unless a seaman thought he could sell the story, but even that would have been denied, I would imagine the seamen got a good payoff to keep it quiet) but as it happened,  the ships were swapped not long  before the launch and the poor seamen never returned to tell the tale or truth, and I would imagine those on land who did know, were in no possition to tell the truth now, not now the bloooming thing had sunk.

  Sorry Buddy but the only ship to sink that night was named Titanic, not Olympic or any other name,I dont know who brought up that there was a sister ship but whoever did is completley nuts.But then some people will argue that Black is White because they are too ignorant or uneducated to know the difference.

Edited by spud the mackem, 19 November 2012 - 11:33 PM.

[freetoroam]

spud the mackem, on 19 November 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

Sorry Buddy but the only ship to sink that night was named Titanic, not Olympic or any other name,I dont know who brought up that there was a sister ship but whoever did is completley nuts.But then some people will argue that Black is White because they are too ignorant or uneducated to know the difference.

The Olympic is no secret in history:
RMS Olympic was a transatlantic ocean liner, the lead ship of the White Star Line's trio of Olympic-class liners, also consisting of the Titanic and Britannic.
So in this case, it is white, Unless you do not believe this ship existed, which would be nuts!

[susieice]

Hi Spuds. Good to see you here. Have some time now as I'm home from work and not leaving. Yes, I'm sure the passengers knew what ship they were getting on. There were other differences in the layout of the ship that were done to increase deck space and luxury. No one is denying that the Olympic and the Britannica existed. Why would any ship company sink one of it's most luxurious and expensive liners, and a brand new one at that, risking bankruptcy to file an insurance claim? Especially with a large shipping monopoly trying to buy out all European shipping companies. JP Morgan was pretty mad at Cunard and White Star at the time for refusing his offer, and I've heard a theory put out that he had the Titanic sunk to get rid of John Jacob Astor and William Stead for being in his way. That's just as absurd. They were out to make an impression, not have an accident that would cause the death of 1500 people, many of whom were the creme da la creme of society at that time, who boarded and died on the Titanic. It was also a blow to Harland and Wolff.  Bruce Ismay and Thomas Andrews were on board. I'm sure they knew the name of the ship and wouldn't have been there if they thought it was going to sink.

Edited by susieice, 20 November 2012 - 01:29 AM.

[coolguy]

Pretty cool video. Anybody ever hear the rumor that a World War 1 german uboat sunk the titanic.

[susieice]

A U-boat did sink another White Star Line ship, the Lusitania.

[spud the mackem]

freetoroam, on 19 November 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

The Olympic is no secret in history:
RMS Olympic was a transatlantic ocean liner, the lead ship of the White Star Line's trio of Olympic-class liners, also consisting of the Titanic and Britannic.
So in this case, it is white, Unless you do not believe this ship existed, which would be nuts!

  What I meant was that the Olympic did not replace the Titanic on its Maiden Voyage,of course I knew the Olympic existed

[spud the mackem]

susieice, on 20 November 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

A U-boat did sink another White Star Line ship, the Lusitania.

   Yes it did and the "LUSITANIA" went down in a very short time, it was full of Nurses ,wounded Troops and Children and a lot were lost.The enemy knew this and still sank her.One of the worst atrocities of Maritime history.

[spud the mackem]

susieice, on 20 November 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Hi Spuds. Good to see you here. Have some time now as I'm home from work and not leaving. Yes, I'm sure the passengers knew what ship they were getting on. There were other differences in the layout of the ship that were done to increase deck space and luxury. No one is denying that the Olympic and the Britannica existed. Why would any ship company sink one of it's most luxurious and expensive liners, and a brand new one at that, risking bankruptcy to file an insurance claim? Especially with a large shipping monopoly trying to buy out all European shipping companies. JP Morgan was pretty mad at Cunard and White Star at the time for refusing his offer, and I've heard a theory put out that he had the Titanic sunk to get rid of John Jacob Astor and William Stead for being in his way. That's just as absurd. They were out to make an impression, not have an accident that would cause the death of 1500 people, many of whom were the creme da la creme of society at that time, who boarded and died on the Titanic. It was also a blow to Harland and Wolff.  Bruce Ismay and Thomas Andrews were on board. I'm sure they knew the name of the ship and wouldn't have been there if they thought it was going to sink.

  Hiya Susie, I studied the History of the British Merchant Navy,and it makes me ROFL at some of the posts on this subject,1 guy has even said that a German U-Boat (Unterseeschiff) sunk the Titanic,more LOL, 6 years before WW1,at that time U-Boats only had a range of about 600 miles,it wasnt until about 1938 that Germany started gearing up for war and Increased the range of their subs and started buiding "pocket" Battleships under an agreement that they wouldnt build them over a  certain size.They didnt have Radar them days,but you can tell when Icebergs are near as the water usually goes oily calm (and looks sinister),the temperature plummets,and there is sometimes a lot of Fog about. Professional Seamen know this and post extra lookouts,because sometimes you get "flat" bergs just showing a few feet above the water,with maybe 10/20 feet underneath,so even Radar can miss them,so you slow right down to maybe only 2/3 m.p.h. until you are clear. (been there,got the T-shirt ha ha ) Regards .

[susieice]

Hi Spuds. I have a question I want to ask you as I've been thinking about this. Maybe you can tell me.
In the 2005 expedition, 2 pieces of the bottom of the ship were found. The divers at that time seemed to conclude that the Titanic was poorly built and broke apart on the surface, sinking within minutes. They wanted to show that the Titanic didn't just hit the iceberg but that she grounded on it, ripping the hull. It will be interesting to read how they concluded that.
The second expedition posted was composed of some of the members of the first team who went back to see what else could be found. They mapped 15 sq. miles and the entire debris field. They found all the pieces of the middle section where the ship came apart. Big pieces. They reached the conclusion that Titanic was build much better than previously thought, even the rivets. The 2 sections of hull show the stretching from the stress of holding the bow before it broke off and sank. It's a good vid. My question is: If the bow sank and then the stern, would the stern have held enough air pockets to cause a blowout when the water pressure around it became too great? Could that have blown out the rivets? Where you can see the rivets are gone, the plate of steel is still attached. It didn't fall off. That would also explain the "explosions" survivors said they heard right after the stern went down.
I'm sure conclusions will be reached now for years to come as the entire debris field is investigated. There is a better chance than ever of learning just what happened to that ship.
The Titanic, 100 year anniversary exhibit just opened at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia on November 10 and we are looking at a date where we can all go now. Be interesting to see what they say also.

[freetoroam]

spud the mackem, on 20 November 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

What I meant was that the Olympic did not replace the Titanic on its Maiden Voyage,of course I knew the Olympic existed

You could have fooled me:

"not Olympic or any other name,I dont know who brought up that there was a sister ship but whoever did is completley nuts"

[Hasina]

freetoroam, on 20 November 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

You could have fooled me:

"not Olympic or any other name,I dont know who brought up that there was a sister ship but whoever did is completley nuts"

It's pretty clear he meant 'the Titanic sank, not the Olympic or any other ship. Whoever brought the sister ship into the conversation is nutso.' That's what I got from his post. And by 'there was a sister ship' I figured he meant 'there that night when the Titanic sank aka it wasn't a sister ship that sank but the Titanic.'

Edited by Hasina, 20 November 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[freetoroam]

Hasina, on 20 November 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

It's pretty clear he meant 'the Titanic sank, not the Olympic or any other ship. Whoever brought the sister ship into the conversation is nutso.' That's what I got from his post. And by 'there was a sister ship' I figured he meant 'there that night when the Titanic sank aka it wasn't a sister ship that sank but the Titanic.'

he had already said he was adament the Titanic was the one which sank, so that was not the issue, did you read his whole post? As for your excuse for him, pretty lame.