edit:

See next post.

Tom

edit:

I've worked it out...instead of confusing you all again I'll post it later when i research it a bit more.

Happy New Year! I am new to the board, but found this discussion very interesting. I check on the ins. claim and this is what I found:

(Truro Daily News, April 23, 1912 p.1)
Insurance Losses by Titanic Disaster Are $15,000,000
Despatch to Daily News - New York April 23
Insurance men say that local losses to be paid by various life, accident, and marine companies, as a result of the Titanic disaster, will reach $15,000,000. Two thirds of this will fall upon marine insurance companies.
The journal places the whole amount of insurance of all kinds at $14,406,000.


I realize this comments only on the passangers' claims, but considering Mrs. Harris's claim was almost one million (1912 $'s) and the marine ins. co's were expected to pay out, why would the co's then ins. any other White Star or IMMC line every again? It doesn't seem to make sense that they would do it for the ins. money. Plus, Mrs. Harris's claim was settled for far less because American liability laws limited the amt. I have never come across any evidence concerning the actual ins. claim for the ship from IMMC and would be very interested if someone could clue me in. Just another question, what is this about the Jesuits and the American Federal Bank theory? Maybe that's a totally different thread.

Best Wishes

I myself am sceptical there is a greate mass of evidence to say the switch is rubbish. But there was to many coinsidenses one of witch being on the wreck there is a greate hole where the metal is pushed outward. This suggestes that there was an explosion wich would tie in with many occounts. But the best coinsidense was the fact that the crew of the ship all had to sign the british secrecy act. A mean what for my guess is that they would notice the ship was't new

i have heard suggestions for an explosion happening on her, but so far i havent seen any proof of it.

in relation to when people sat that they could't of been switched they should relise that on the run up to the disaster Olympic was getting repaired so all 3 members of the trio where in belfast granted Britannic was in early production. There is a point in witch olympic was in to get a propeller replaced it should of taken a day or so but it was there for a wekk. Also the promanade decks where different granted but if they where switched titanic was't ready and its promanade deck was't in so it would just get olympics design and olympic could be focused on so the change would't take long to do. All the things such as menus had the name white star line infact all that would be changed was the life boats. Also mr morgan promissed to go on the voyage but he cancelled at the last minute, now this would be fine were it not for the fact he said he was ill but was seen a week after the disaster fine in monte carlo.

i agree with you

Hi!

Welcome to the board! In terms of some of the points you've raised, the third sistership was only laid down in November 1911, so it was simply Olympic and Titanic together at Harland & Wolff.

*There is a point in witch olympic was in to get a propeller replaced it should of taken a day or so but it was there for a wekk.*

Many people who've researched some of the detail in the Olympic's return to Belfast in February-March 1912 would disagree with that. One of the reasons for the ship's delay was the tide, while Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall cover this in their book. The details of Olympic's delay are by no means as 'suspicious' as Robin Gardiner's 1998 book would have us believe.

*Also the promanade decks where different granted but if they where switched titanic would just get olympics design and olympic could be focused on so the change would't take long to do maybe a week.*

If you're referring to the B-deck suites as well -- is that what you're saying when you speak about 'Olympic's design'? -- then I think most people with a technical knowledge of the vessels would disagree. The 'improvements' to Titanic were major structural alterations in comparison with the Olympic, and a matter of changing them in a week is pretty much impossible. Dan Butler, author of 'Unsinkable,' Bruce Beveridge, author of 'Olympic and Titanic: The Truth Behind The Conspiracy', Cal Haines, Scott Andrews, and many others have gone into detail on this question in the past. Mr. Beveridge believes that Mr. Gardiner has 'not done his homework,' to use that cliche.

*Also mr morgan promissed to go on the voyage but he cancelled at the last minute, now this would be fine were it not for the fact he said he was ill but was seen a week after the disaster fine in monte carlo.*

Most historians accept that Mr. Morgan cancelled because he wanted to spend time with his mistress in France. Any suggestion that he was missing the voyage owing to a conspiracy to sink the ship is simply speculation, IMHO.

Best wishes,

Mark.

It doesnt take a week to change a propeler blade

Hi Superbowl!

superbowl Posted on: 2005/1/2 20:34:

*It doesnt take a week to change a propeler blade*

If you re-read my post, directly above yours, I did not say that it did take a week to change the blade, although your post seems to imply that I did.

What I said, when referring to the fact that Olympic spent about a week at Belfast, was:

*One of the reasons for the ship's delay was the tide,*

before continuing:

*...Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall cover this in their book. The details of Olympic's delay are by no means as 'suspicious' as Robin Gardiner's 1998 book would have us believe.*

Why don't you read the Beveridge and Hall book if you are interested? Or, you could go to www.titanic-model.com 's Titanic forum and ask the two authors this very question.

Best wishes,

Mark.