this question might have been asked before, but i wanted to ask it anyway. although i already know the answer anyway, i wanted ur guys' opinion too just to see if they were different than my answers.

The only way I have heard that they (possibly) could have missed the berg was if Murdoch turned to port and did not reverse the engines.

That is going under the assumption that there was enough time to actually reverse the engine.

It almost seems in some theories and accounts that Titanic was too close to the berg anyway to do any type of meneuver to clear the danger. (For example, lookout Fleet stated that the ship started turning to port when he was still on the phone warning the bridge about the berg).

i know another...
they could've hit the berg head on and only flooded 1 or 2 compartments. which would mean that Titanic prolly wouldn't have sank! also, they could've kept all engines going forward at full speed still turning "hard-a-starboard". this is because it's said ship's turn faster when going full speed. and if they would've turned to prot they prolly would have hit the berg harder making the ship sink faster (i think).

The big question is about those wathertight bulkheads really worked..? In 1915 (I think) Titanic's sister ship, Britannic was damaged in the bow and caused only two of her compartments floated and she sank even though the bulkheads was improved after the Titanic disaster.
But I sure do agree with you, titanic fanatic, that they should have kept sailing with full speed and turned away. We're talking about inches..

the Titanic prolly would've sank if the Bulkheads went higher than E deck! they should've went up way farther!