 Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index Titanic historic  who's fault was it that the titanic sank?
|
Browsing this Thread:
220 Anonymous Users
 Bottom  Previous Topic  Next Topic |
 3 ... |
|
|
|
|
|---|
Topic options
Threaded
Newest First| Poster | Thread | Rated: 30 Votes |
|---|
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #21 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users  |
For one thing It can't be proven Ismay actually did have that meeting with Smith, although it does seem very plausable, since we can only speculate no blame can be directed at him. Any blame that rest's with him is the life boat problem, but again, he was not the only one that vetto'd the idea of more than the law required.
On board a vessel knowone has higher authority than the captain, so if the meeting did take place then I suppose you are justified in what you say that smith was to blame. However I my self have always been skpetical of that meeting, the faster a ship goes, the more expensive it is to run. Titanic's return to the UK would of still been on the same date, so for all there work and money all they would acheive is Titanic sitting in new york harbour an extra day. Plus, all those first class passenger's with there reservation's for hotel's trains and what have you would be messed up, if anything it would of just been a huge in convience for the sake of a headline, 'TITANIC ARRIVES EARLY'. The path you speak of is true, to an extent, there are two main route's through the atlantic, and depending on the season or condition's, they travel in one or the other. Smith knew there was Ice so, he actually descided to go more south (the longer of the two route's) in order to try and avoid berg's. Even if they remaind in the north, it was a freak condition's night, they would still have berg's to worry about and who know's maybe there was a berg in there northen path to. It's all very well with hindsight saying they should of done this instead, but at the time, they where justified in how they navigated and operated the ship. Martyn |
|||
|
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P |
||||
Posted on: 2006/10/20 12:10
  |
  |
|||
Martyn
Visit Website
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #22 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/10/31
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Quote:
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Ive not been on this site for a while but I read it often. Martyn you seem to be about the most knowledgeable person here about the ship tell me who do you think was to blame for the sinking????????// xx |
||
Posted on: 2006/10/20 12:20
|
|
||
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #23 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Very flatering lol, I thank you for your words
 . To put the blame souly on one individual is not going to acheive anything, it is very easy to blame the vilinised Ismay, or even smith for the sinking. It was a catalogue of many error's but one of the most major failings I feel was that of the calafornian's operator. As the operator's on the Titanic where busy working, being interupted wouldnt go down well, however for emergency message's there should be an encryption (or something like that as far as I know), to show how urgent the message is. He failed to do that, so if anyone is to blame it was his incompitence not doing his job properly. But again, that's a bit harsh, and he could not forsee a huge ice berg infront of the Titanic now could he? The loss of life was a series of error's which began at harland and wolf and ended that night. All coming together to sink the ship. So to my mind atleast, no single figure is to blame.Martyn |
|||
|
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P |
||||
Posted on: 2006/10/20 16:23
|
|
|||
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #24 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/4/12
From British Columbia, Canada
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
You cannot blame one person for the sinking. OK. It was a group of different events that occured at the same time that led to the tragedy. Fate, act of God, bad luck call it what you will but please don"t put the blame on someone who is alreay dead and can.t deffend themselves. Sure it is easy to sit back almost 100 years later and critasize the actions of Captain Smith and others. Where any of us realy there do we realy know what happened.
Think about it people. |
||
Posted on: 2006/10/22 3:17
|
|
||
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #25 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2004/4/27
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Salaam, Martyn.
>For one thing It can't be proven Ismay actually did have that >meeting with Smith, I'm afraid you're mistaken, since Elisabeth Lines testified at the Limitation of Liability hearings that she heard Ismay conferring with Smith about the early arrival. > Titanic's return to the UK would of still been on the same date, >so for all there work and money all they would acheive is Titanic >sitting in new york harbour an extra day. She would merely have spent an extra four or five hours in New York Harbor, since she would have arrived in New York shortly before midnight on Tuesday night instead of at 5 a.m. on Wednesday morning as originally scheduled. > Plus, all those first class passenger's with there reservation's for >hotel's trains and what have you would be messed up, As you know, White Star passengers were permitted to spend the night on board White Star ships if they arrived in port early, so the passengers would have spent Tuesday night on board the ship and then debarked at exactly the same time on Wednesday morning as they would have done if the ship had arrived exactly on schedule. > if anything it would of just been a huge in convience for the >sake of a headline, 'TITANIC ARRIVES EARLY'. There would have been no inconvenience at all, and White Star would have been able to boast that Titanic was even faster than her sister ship, the Olympic -- which was excellent publicity for a brand new ship. You might wish to read one of Mark Chirnside's books about the Olympic or else read "Titanic: Safety, Speed and Sacrifice" by George Behe if you want access to all of the evidence regarding Titanic's projected early arrival in New York. Achmet |
||
Posted on: 2006/10/22 12:35
|
|
||
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #26 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Although I my self have little research on the enquiries, I still hold the belief the eye witness testimony of the passenger's are at best flawed.
'Did you have occasion to consult with the captain about the movement of the ship’ Question asked in new York to Mr. Ismay. 'Never' was Ismay's swift rebuttal. Now, although I would not like to say Elisabeth Lines was lying, but I see no reason to hold her testimony above that of Ismay's. Of course he is not going to admit to it, yet we would like to believe there innocent till proven guilty and that evidence is only one person's word against another's. However I can not really argue with the rest of your post as I my self am not in a position to debate about the rest, I may read Mr. Chirnside's, or Behe's when I get the time, thanking you for pointing them out to me. Take care Martyn |
|||
|
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P |
||||
Posted on: 2006/10/22 13:39
|
|
|||
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #27 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2004/4/27
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Salaam, Martyn.
>Although I my self have little research on the enquiries, I still hold >the belief the eye witness testimony of the passenger's are at best >flawed. Don't forget that Bruce Ismay regarded himself as being "just a passenger," too. >Now, although I would not like to say Elisabeth Lines was lying, but >I see no reason to hold her testimony above that of Ismay's. Of >course he is not going to admit to it, yet we would like to believe >there innocent till proven guilty and that evidence is only one >person's word against another's. Ismay also claimed that he didn't know if new boilers were going to be connected to the engines on April 14th, but it was demonstrated at the Limitation of Liability hearings that he was lying; a number of different passengers testified how Ismay had told them (independently) that new boilers were going to be connected to the engines that day. Since we know that Ismay was lying about that subject, we have no particular reason to trust his similar claim that he did not consult with Captain Smith about a Tuesday night arrival. (As you yourself said about Ismay, "of course he is not going to admit it.") I'm sure you'll enjoy Mark Chirnside's books when you read them -- they're truly excellent. Take care, Martyn. Achmet |
||
Posted on: 2006/10/22 22:11
|
|
||
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #28 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/10/23
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
i dont think its a case of whose fault was it that titanic hit an iceburg, i think its a case of whose fault it was that so many people died and i personally put it down to the californian. so close but did nothing!
|
||
Posted on: 2006/10/23 9:45
|
|
||
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #29 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/10/23
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Quote:
That's wrong ok so this guy was talking to the captain of the Titanic and he said "We need to go faster so we can arrive early" and they even have pictures of that guy I might show ya one sometime. |
|||
Posted on: 2006/10/23 12:41
|
|
|||
|
Re: who's fault was it that the titanic sank? | #30 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2006/7/7
From New Mexico, USA
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
You could say it was all of humankind's fault.
Walter Lord stated that the message of Tianic is her legacy of "if onlys" if only she had enough lifeboats if only her compartments were higher if only the Californian came to help if only the Carpathia was nearer if only they had sighted the iceberg sooner if only she had slowed down if only the captain recieved the last iceberg message and so on, and so on, and so on....... These "if onlys" apply to many different people in the story . |
||
|
_________________
"Why is it the ship beats the waves when the waves are so many and the ship is one? The reason is that ship has a purpose". Sir Winston Churchill www.mrmarshall.proboards62.com |
|||
Posted on: 2006/10/23 14:46
|
|
||
 Top Previous Topic Next Topic |
3 ... |
 |
|
You cannot start a new topic.
You can view topic.
