|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 23, 2018 7:10:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 23, 2018 8:07:06 GMT
This actually makes a lot more sense to be honest since I never understood why there were not enough life boats and why several of the first lifeboats were sent not completely full. It's like they were not worried. Why not?
I never was into history since people can feed you whatever they want too Shrug
|
|
fashtag
New Member
Posts: 43
Likes: 27
Ethnicity: German/English
Country: Texas, USA
Politics: Right
|
Post by fashtag on Jul 2, 2018 16:47:20 GMT
I didn't watch the video but I've read about conspiracy theories involving the titanic. Does this one claim that it was a ploy to get rid of opposition to the federal reserve? Anything is possible, but it could also be that they just happened to be on board. Whatever the case, the result has been horrible for America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jul 2, 2018 16:48:48 GMT
It was obviously a shitty ship..its effectiveness has been exaggerated!
|
|
|
|
Post by drpeper23 on Sept 22, 2018 5:24:30 GMT
Yup, everything is a ploy, people cant just be cocky and do stupid things. Also the Federal Reserve already partially existed in the US before 1913.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 22, 2018 5:37:16 GMT
Yup, everything is a ploy, people cant just be cocky and do stupid things. Also the Federal Reserve already partially existed in the US before 1913. So the Titanic story is a bit fishy to you too? I think the video clip seemw very realistic about the real story behind titanic Shrug |
|
|
|
Post by drpeper23 on Sept 22, 2018 5:57:21 GMT
its silly, the entire conspiracy is based on that the Olympia was in bad shape and they switched it with the titanic. It still doesnt make sense. It isnt that the Olympia might have some slight health violation and not be able to sail. It, according to the video had major structural problems that needed to be fixed. Why would White Star Line risk losing the ship. The Olympia and Titanic were insured and the repaired would have been covered by the insurance, so literally no need to switch the ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 22, 2018 6:03:52 GMT
its silly, the entire conspiracy is based on that the Olympia was in bad shape and they switched it with the titanic. It still doesnt make sense. It isnt that the Olympia might have some slight health violation and not be able to sail. It, according to the video had major structural problems that needed to be fixed. Why would White Star Line risk losing the ship. The Olympia and Titanic were insured and the repaired would have been covered by the insurance, so literally no need to switch the ships. So titanic was just renamed since the letters came off a bit to show the name Olympia under it in the water? |
|
|
|
Post by drpeper23 on Sept 22, 2018 6:08:46 GMT
Yeah, CGI is a wonderful thing isnt it
|
|
flow3
Full Member
Posts: 147
Likes: 82
|
Post by flow3 on Sept 22, 2018 7:31:06 GMT
A couple of days ago I saw a video where the group of scientists explained it was really small gap, like 1 meter square which is why it was sinking for 2 and a half hours
|
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Sept 22, 2018 15:13:04 GMT
its silly, the entire conspiracy is based on that the Olympia was in bad shape and they switched it with the titanic. It still doesnt make sense. It isnt that the Olympia might have some slight health violation and not be able to sail. It, according to the video had major structural problems that needed to be fixed. Why would White Star Line risk losing the ship. The Olympia and Titanic were insured and the repaired would have been covered by the insurance, so literally no need to switch the ships. For one, the ship wasn’t fully insured, and it was determined the the Olympic was at fault in its accident with the British warship. The owners were screwed, it was going to cost them exorbitant amounts of funds to cut the ship in half and redo them entire aft end of the ship, and adding the losses up in down time(because a ship isn’t making money in dry dock, it’s losing tons more not being in operation). |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 28, 2018 6:35:17 GMT
This is one ship that shouldn't have sank though like it claimed it wouldn't. It had too many people so needed to make sure it had enough lifeboats and that it was safe in every which way. This is the requirement of the ship's captain. But ship's captain failed which is why he stayed with the ship as was accepted through history for the caption to die in the ship while helping others. Or he didn't die? It my little memory he did. Not that I support his suicide, but I don't support his actions of not making sure ship was as safe as could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Sept 29, 2018 21:08:49 GMT
This is one ship that shouldn't have sank though like it claimed it wouldn't. It had too many people so needed to make sure it had enough lifeboats and that it was safe in every which way. This is the requirement of the ship's captain. But ship's captain failed which is why he stayed with the ship as was accepted through history for the caption to die in the ship while helping others. Or he didn't die? It my little memory he did. Not that I support his suicide, but I don't support his actions of not making sure ship was as safe as could be. Yea, there claims made up and down that the ship was unsinkable due to its watertight doors and compartments. Before the Titanic set sail it was inspected by Captain Maurice Clarke who was a board of trade safety and emigration official. He was the one who should have said something about the number of lifeboats onboard, but he didn't. He claimed in his testimony that it was not his responsibility to check if the number of lifeboats was adequate for the voyage... MR. THOMAS SCANLAN(Attorney for plaintiff)- Was it your duty to see whether all the lifeboats on the "Titanic" were equipped in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulations made by the Board of Trade under the merchant Shipping Acts? Captain Maurice Clarke- That had already been done at Belfast. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- It did not fall to your duty? Captain Maurice Clarke- No, it did not fall to me. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- Have you any idea as to what would be an efficient method of drilling crews to man lifeboats in case of accident? Captain Maurice Clarke- Yes; I think that all hands that form the crew should be exercised in handling the ship's boats, both firemen and stewards. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- I take it that up to the time of the "Titanic" disaster that had not been the practice? Captain Maurice Clarke- Not in the White Star Line. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- Not in the White Star Line? Captain Maurice Clarke- No. Attorneys went on to ask him about the number of people each lifeboat would hold, to which he said he noticed it wasn't enough as did the Board of Trade in Britain, but nothing was done about it. Though, as you said, the captain of the ship should have taken responsibility for his ship, but it seems nobody wanted to take responsibility sad Yea, the captain went down with the ship. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 29, 2018 22:02:03 GMT
This is one ship that shouldn't have sank though like it claimed it wouldn't. It had too many people so needed to make sure it had enough lifeboats and that it was safe in every which way. This is the requirement of the ship's captain. But ship's captain failed which is why he stayed with the ship as was accepted through history for the caption to die in the ship while helping others. Or he didn't die? It my little memory he did. Not that I support his suicide, but I don't support his actions of not making sure ship was as safe as could be. Yea, there claims made up and down that the ship was unsinkable due to its watertight doors and compartments. Before the Titanic set sail it was inspected by Captain Maurice Clarke who was a board of trade safety and emigration official. He was the one who should have said something about the number of lifeboats onboard, but he didn't. He claimed in his testimony that it was not his responsibility to check if the number of lifeboats was adequate for the voyage... MR. THOMAS SCANLAN(Attorney for plaintiff)- Was it your duty to see whether all the lifeboats on the "Titanic" were equipped in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulations made by the Board of Trade under the merchant Shipping Acts? Captain Maurice Clarke- That had already been done at Belfast. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- It did not fall to your duty? Captain Maurice Clarke- No, it did not fall to me. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- Have you any idea as to what would be an efficient method of drilling crews to man lifeboats in case of accident? Captain Maurice Clarke- Yes; I think that all hands that form the crew should be exercised in handling the ship's boats, both firemen and stewards. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- I take it that up to the time of the "Titanic" disaster that had not been the practice? Captain Maurice Clarke- Not in the White Star Line. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- Not in the White Star Line? Captain Maurice Clarke- No. Attorneys went on to ask him about the number of people each lifeboat would hold, to which he said he noticed it wasn't enough as did the Board of Trade in Britain, but nothing was done about it. Though, as you said, the captain of the ship should have taken responsibility for his ship, but it seems nobody wanted to take responsibility sad Yea, the captain went down with the ship. Ok so who's responsibility was it to ensure they had enough lifeboats? He was the safety guy so should have been him to check it |
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Sept 29, 2018 22:34:10 GMT
Yea, there claims made up and down that the ship was unsinkable due to its watertight doors and compartments. Before the Titanic set sail it was inspected by Captain Maurice Clarke who was a board of trade safety and emigration official. He was the one who should have said something about the number of lifeboats onboard, but he didn't. He claimed in his testimony that it was not his responsibility to check if the number of lifeboats was adequate for the voyage... MR. THOMAS SCANLAN(Attorney for plaintiff)- Was it your duty to see whether all the lifeboats on the "Titanic" were equipped in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulations made by the Board of Trade under the merchant Shipping Acts? Captain Maurice Clarke- That had already been done at Belfast. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- It did not fall to your duty? Captain Maurice Clarke- No, it did not fall to me. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- Have you any idea as to what would be an efficient method of drilling crews to man lifeboats in case of accident? Captain Maurice Clarke- Yes; I think that all hands that form the crew should be exercised in handling the ship's boats, both firemen and stewards. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- I take it that up to the time of the "Titanic" disaster that had not been the practice? Captain Maurice Clarke- Not in the White Star Line. MR. THOMAS SCANLAN- Not in the White Star Line? Captain Maurice Clarke- No. Attorneys went on to ask him about the number of people each lifeboat would hold, to which he said he noticed it wasn't enough as did the Board of Trade in Britain, but nothing was done about it. Though, as you said, the captain of the ship should have taken responsibility for his ship, but it seems nobody wanted to take responsibility sad Yea, the captain went down with the ship. Ok so who's responsibility was it to ensure they had enough lifeboats? He was the safety guy so should have been him to check it It was the inspectors because he was inspecting on behalf of the Board of Trade who is responsible for making sure all ships were equipped with adequate lifeboats. He said it was already done in another city, pretty much pushing off the responsibility onto whoever did it in that other city. |
|
