the olympic was involved in an accident that required the titanics starboard propeller - also the iceberg damage would not have sunk the ship - maybe the coal bunker exploded

Well, if you think about it... The Captain got a not saying that there was an Iceburg directly in the path of where they were going. He ignored this, so it was possible that they could have intentionally tried it, but I'm thinking it was accidental... :)

ok

wait a second, i saw an unsolved mysteries recently about this (lol, my guilty pleasure) and they DID mention intentional sinkage. and they also made it seem VERY unlikely for the iceberg to be the main cause, SO I'D DEFINATLY investigate this theory!!!

There is a book out about this idea called [i:ada367c5fc]The Titanic Conspiracy[/i:ada367c5fc] by Robin Gardiner. Personally, I think it's one of the biggest piles of hooie I've seen outside of a barn.

Hi,

Let's call this another [i:0bd25ab8bd]faux pas[/i:0bd25ab8bd].

[quote:0bd25ab8bd]What none of you mention is that when Titanic left port she was actually suffering a coal bunker fire. Two of the coal bunkers in the bowels of the ship had caught alight about 2 days before she steamed for France[/quote:0bd25ab8bd]

Could you provide a source for 'two' coal bunkers? And a source for the fire starting on April 8th 1912 rather than Belfast?

[quote:0bd25ab8bd]To keep up this heavy need for coal Titanic had to make maximum speed and as a result the Captains orders were to maintain full steam ahead. This fact is well documented. [/quote:0bd25ab8bd]

Since the single coal bunker was situated in one of the forward boiler rooms, far away from boiler room 2 where the three final main boilers were lit on that Sunday morning, I'd hardly consider the coal fire as a source for the desire for high speed. Nor do I think the ship was at full speed -- 'full speed ahead' in terms of the engine room telegraphs, yet the engines were not making their maximum revolutions and the five auxiliary boilers were not lit *and* connected to the engines either. (Per Alfred Shiers' 1913 testimony, for one.)

[quote:0bd25ab8bd]The final problem was also that her rudder was infact too small [/quote:0bd25ab8bd]

Hardly. That's something that is often cited with no evidence to back it up. In fact Titanic's rudder was quite sufficient (the German built Imperator of 1913 had a smaller rudder yet was a longer ship), at between 1-40th and 1-60th of the vessel's waterline length. According to Parks Stephenson, in the case of rudder design, bigger is not always better; form is equally important.

Kindest regards,

Mark.

Hmmm...seems I'm good at stopping threads in their tracks! :(

Hi Mark (it's Bunky from Ti-Ti) - I always enjoy reading your posts - always informative. How's everything going with the book? Is it still going to be available in April? I'll have to mention it on my little messageboard. I'm sure "lifeboat" and Julie would like to know about it if they don't already. :)

Hi Bunky!

Nice to see you here -- I hope you're well in the run up to the festive season! :)

Thanks for the compliments -- every indication is that the book will be out by April, as scheduled. I'm told by my publisher that everything is going well and that they will expect to reprint it.

Best wishes,

Mark. :D

Yep, all is well here. Glad to hear that everything is on schedule with the book. You must be so excited! I'm looking forward to it.