spud the mackem Posted November 20, 2012 #26 Share Posted November 20, 2012 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 . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+susieice Posted November 20, 2012 Author #27 Share Posted November 20, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #28 Share Posted November 20, 2012 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted November 20, 2012 #29 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) 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 November 20, 2012 by Hasina 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #30 Share Posted November 20, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted November 20, 2012 #31 Share Posted November 20, 2012 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. Yes I did, and? Care to point out to me what I missed? And it's no excuse, it's my interpretation of what he said, so my interpretation is lame. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #32 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Yes I did, and? Care to point out to me what I missed? And it's no excuse, it's my interpretation of what he said, so my interpretation is lame. You read it your way, i read it mine, thats how text goes sometimes, end of the day, if you input on the Titanic sister ship theory, I am all ears, as for Spuds comment and my reply, what you missed was the smilie I added on at the end of the post...no hard feeling and i respect his views. Now stop making trouble and interfering in someone elses 'banter'. Anyway, what are your views on the Titanic sister ship, or do you not have any! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted November 20, 2012 #33 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) You read it your way, i read it mine, thats how text goes sometimes, end of the day, if you input on the Titanic sister ship theory, I am all ears, as for Spuds comment and my reply, what you missed was the smilie I added on at the end of the post...no hard feeling and i respect his views. Now stop making trouble and interfering in someone elses 'banter'. Anyway, what are your views on the Titanic sister ship, or do you not have any! Well that was a pretty belittling way to get things back on topic. I'm sure you meant nothing by it. Anyway, my view is simple and in line with the majority. It was a freak accident that sunk the Titanic, it could have been prevented but I see no conspiracy here, just assumptions connecting points made. Edited November 20, 2012 by Hasina 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #34 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Well that was a pretty belittling way to get things back on topic. I'm sure you meant nothing by it. Anyway, my view is simple and in line with the majority. It was a freak accident that sunk the Titanic, it could have been prevented but I see no conspiracy here, just assumptions connecting points made. if i came across abrupt, sorry, but i also probably was. as for the Titanic sister ship theory, I have said that it is just a theory and there are some good points to back it up, not my points, but i can actually see this as a possibility, but i am not saying it if the be all and end all of it,. Some conspiracy theories are just down right ridiculous, but this theory isn`t if you look at all the points surrounding it. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted November 20, 2012 #35 Share Posted November 20, 2012 if i came across abrupt, sorry, but i also probably was. as for the Titanic sister ship theory, I have said that it is just a theory and there are some good points to back it up, not my points, but i can actually see this as a possibility, but i am not saying it if the be all and end all of it,. Some conspiracy theories are just down right ridiculous, but this theory isn`t if you look at all the points surrounding it. Peace. It does seem ridiculous. 'Let's sink a ship! Just not this one... This one can't possibly sink.... Grab that one! Everyone will buy it! Plus it can also sink! Now we'll make all the money from all that insurance mulah.' It is an interesting theory, I will say that, though if I thought there were a conspiracy I'd put my money on the German U-boat one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #36 Share Posted November 20, 2012 It does seem ridiculous. 'Let's sink a ship! Just not this one... This one can't possibly sink.... Grab that one! Everyone will buy it! Plus it can also sink! Now we'll make all the money from all that insurance mulah.' It is an interesting theory, I will say that, though if I thought there were a conspiracy I'd put my money on the German U-boat one. No, they did not intend to sink the ship at all. had the ship arrived then returned with not problems, then no-one who did not already know would have been none the wiser, obviously there were some who knew about the swap, but can you imagine the money they would have lost if the ship did not set sail when planned? repost: There are roumours that it was not even the Titanic, apparently it was the sister ship because they could not insure the Titanic, they renamed the sister ship the Titanic so the trip would not be cancelled. As for the German u-boat, well, now that is taking the P! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted November 20, 2012 #37 Share Posted November 20, 2012 No, they did not intend to sink the ship at all. had the ship arrived then returned with not problems, then no-one who did not already know would have been none the wiser, obviously there were some who knew about the swap, but can you imagine the money they would have lost if the ship did not set sail when planned? repost: There are roumours that it was not even the Titanic, apparently it was the sister ship because they could not insure the Titanic, they renamed the sister ship the Titanic so the trip would not be cancelled. As for the German u-boat, well, now that is taking the P! I never did make it as a top notch reporter... But yes, my tongue in cheek joke was meant to be inaccurate. I do wonder though, are there blueprints of the Titanic and the Olympus that can be compared? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #38 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I never did make it as a top notch reporter... But yes, my tongue in cheek joke was meant to be inaccurate. I do wonder though, are there blueprints of the Titanic and the Olympus that can be compared? http://www.abratis.de/sources/pictures/blue.html The olympic was the 1st of the olympic class liners, also consisting of the Titanic and the Britannic. the ships were virtually identical, obviously some differences like cabins and certain layouts, but this would not have been known to people who had not been on the Titanic or Olympic before. Above are the blue prints: Olympic/Titanic. The german u-boat theory is not actually wrong, but it is, the "olympic" was in the war had played a part in sinking a german U-boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted November 20, 2012 #39 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I believe Spud touched on this earlier but I'd rather get into this part of the conversation fresh and not refer back to past banter. Wouldn't the crew have known about the switch or would they have 'been in on it'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #40 Share Posted November 20, 2012 PS: you reporting skills are just fine, there were rumours that it was an insurance scam to claim the money, which I completely dissagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #41 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I believe Spud touched on this earlier but I'd rather get into this part of the conversation fresh and not refer back to past banter. Wouldn't the crew have known about the switch or would they have 'been in on it'? Some of the crew could have been in on it, but as pointed out, we will never know, cos they went down with the ship. I would have imagined the ones to know were those who worked on the technical side. in those days the extra payput to say nothing would have been a blessing to those crew members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasina Posted November 20, 2012 #42 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Some of the crew could have been in on it, but as pointed out, we will never know, cos they went down with the ship. I would have imagined the ones to know were those who worked on the technical side. in those days the extra payput to say nothing would have been a blessing to those crew members. Very good point, money can tie a lot of tongues. I guess another detail I'll have to look for is the records for where the Olympus was when the Titanic was being built, where it was when the Titanic was completed, where they both were during the time frame of the 'switch', etc and so forth. True, there might not be good records, and the more you and I chit chat about this the more I'm inclined to at least give it a small tip of the hat in the 'it's possible' category. Edited November 20, 2012 by Hasina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #43 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Very good point, money can tie a lot of tongues. I guess another detail I'll have to look for is the records for where the Olympus was when the Titanic was being built, where it was when the Titanic was completed, where they both were during the time frame of the 'switch', etc and so forth. True, there might not be good records, and the more you and I chit chat about this the more I'm inclined to at least give it a small tip of the hat in the 'it's possible' category. Apparently it was moored nearby when the "Titanic; was launched. But as i said before, it is just a theory and i am not 100%, but its a possibilty. please note the Olympic had already had a couple of collisions so was at the dock after having been repaired again, this may explain why it did sink, it is still possible that had it been the Titanic, it would not have sank. As the "titanic" set sail that day, it nearly did exactly the same thing the Olympic had done before, it nearly collided with another ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted November 20, 2012 #44 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Apparently it was moored nearby when the "Titanic; was launched. But as i said before, it is just a theory and i am not 100%, but its a possibilty. please note the Olympic had already had a couple of collisions so was at the dock after having been repaired again, this may explain why it did sink, it is still possible that had it been the Titanic, it would not have sank. As the "titanic" set sail that day, it nearly did exactly the same thing the Olympic had done before, it nearly collided with another ship. Looking back ,it was YOU who brought up the sister ship nonsence,argueing for the sake of it,winding people up,back off mate you're becoming a sad nuisance,if you feel you cannot go away maybe a guy called Saru can sort you out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted November 20, 2012 #45 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Looking back ,it was YOU who brought up the sister ship nonsence,argueing for the sake of it,winding people up,back off mate you're becoming a sad nuisance,if you feel you cannot go away maybe a guy called Saru can sort you out. yes, I did bring it up, I threw in a theory, as i keep on saying. As for winding people up, and becoming a sad nuisance, well, if that`s how you debate a theory, having to resort to insults because you have no other opinion or nothing else to say on the topic, well you are quite sad. End of debate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+susieice Posted November 21, 2012 Author #46 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) I never did make it as a top notch reporter... But yes, my tongue in cheek joke was meant to be inaccurate. I do wonder though, are there blueprints of the Titanic and the Olympus that can be compared? Yes. And the architect of both ships (all three really) was on board the Titanic and lost in the sinking. The blueprints are in the archives of Harland and Wolff, the builders. He knew every inch of those ships. It is also known that the Olympic had set sail from New York and was on it's way back to England when the Titanic sank. She recieved the messages from the Carpathia to relay to the White Star Line. She offered to help, but was told by the Carpathia that all that could be done was under control. http://en.wikipedia....iki/RMS_Olympic Edited November 21, 2012 by susieice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted November 21, 2012 #47 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) A U-boat did sink another White Star Line ship, the Lusitania. Maybe also Titanic's other sister ship, HMHS Britannic (aka Gigantic)? http://www.titanicandco.com/britannic.html Edited November 21, 2012 by Likely Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+susieice Posted November 21, 2012 Author #48 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Britannic couldn't be mistaken for the Titanic or the Olympic. It was still in drydock and hadn't been launched yet. Just making sure. And yes, It was used as a hospital ship during WWI and was sunk by an explosion. http://en.wikipedia..../HMHS_Britannic Edited November 21, 2012 by susieice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted November 21, 2012 #49 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Interesting link - Violet Jessop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Jessop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+susieice Posted November 21, 2012 Author #50 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Thanks LG. That is an interesting link. Poor lady. That's a string of bad luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now