i know that it says: "where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank?" and the ">(they wrote sumthing in between the arrows)<"

Quote:

Hello,

I've not noticed any changes. What did the two names say?

Best wishes,

Mark.

that's just plain wierd. it was longer just a second ago, but it's normal now. huh.

Hello Captian Jack,

As with George, I'm confused as to how you attach so much importance to the Brown and Wood theories, especially when we had been discussing the watertight doors aft in this thread.

Please see my previous post, at the end of page 2 of this thread, where I have some questions that you might like to reply to if you feel you would like to remedy my ignorance.

I've also posted to the thread about third class passengers and the profit earned; and the Olympic thread. I would appreciate any evidence you could offer to back up what you've said.

Hello Edward9139,

Quote:

I'm not sure how someone changed the title of the forum.

Best wishes,

Mark.

yeah, i know, but someone changed the title of the forum. they made it longer

>.....who changed the title of this >thread and what duz it mean?

The person who created the title of this thread misspelled the word "were" and used "where" instead. He also divided the word "bulkheads" into two separate words -- which further fogs the meaning of the thread's title. It *should* read:

"Were the watertight bulkheads closed when Titanic sank?"

> r u saying that the Titanic didn't sink?

Robin Gardner wrote a book about an alleged Olympic/Titanic "switch" and claimed it was the Olympic that sank instead of the Titanic. It's all nonsense, of course.

sorry to bring u guys off subject, but who changed the title of this thread and what duz it mean? r u saying that the Titanic didn't sink?

"Captian"_Jack wrote:

>Please enlighten us with your "historical facts" how the Titanic really >sank, so we don't waste too much time and effort!

I should have said "historical accounts" instead of "historical facts."

>The sinking of the Titanic is nothing more than a collection of >theories! There is no "proven scenario" for the Titanic.

That's why I couldn't understand why you seemed to attach such extreme importance to the theories of Dave and Erik.

>You can't even get 100% of the people to agree that Titanic was the >ship that struck the iceberg, many still claim it was the Olympic!

That's of course true if you're talking about the general public, but it's not true at all if you're talking about serious researchers.

By the way, have you read either of Mark's books about the Olympic class liners?

Quote:

Please enlighten us with your "historical facts" how the Titanic really sank, so we don't waste too much time and effort! The sinking of the Titanic is nothing more than a collection of theories! There is no "proven scenario" for the Titanic.

You can't even get 100% of the people to agree that Titanic was the ship that struck the iceberg, many still claim it was the Olympic!

There is no fact how Titanic struck the iceberg, no fact how the ship filled with water and sank, no fact how the ship broke in two and no fact why it sank except for basic physics that she was made of steel and that is more dense than water by volume so there is a ship laying on the bottom of the ocean known as the Titanic.

Many of us are familiar with Erik Wood's and Dave Brown's theories, and I've been fortunate enough to meet both men and discuss their theories with them. It's important for everyone here to remember, though, that both men have come up with *theories* instead of with *proven scenarios* and that many of their contentions are only backed up by mere *supposition* (such as Dave's theory that Titanic saw the icefield a few minutes prior to 11:40 and made a 22 degree turn to port before the fatal iceberg even came into view.) I don't know of a single serious researcher who subscribes to that theory except for Dave and Erik themselves (although they're certainly welcome to their own opinions.)

A few of the contentions in Erik's article can easily be shown to be inaccurate, too, such as his apparent belief that Bulkhead D collapsed at 12:45 a.m. I'm unaware of *any* survivor testimony that places the collapse of bulkhead D at 12:45 a.m. Instead, careful examination of survivor testimony demonstrates that the collapse of bulkhead D occurred just a few minutes before lifeboat #13 left the ship. Bill Wormstedt's website (the same one that contains Erik's article) also contains a revised lifeboat launch schedule which demonstrates that boat 13 left the ship much closer to 1:30 a.m. than to 12:45 a.m. -- which of course means that any sinking scenario that is based on a 12:45 a.m. collapse of bulkhead D is fundamentally flawed.

In other words, it pays to know the historical facts before investing too much time and effort in promoting a particular theory about the sinking of the Titanic