Thomas andrews isnt guilty just like ismay. All ismay wanted to do was to see what the ship was really capable of by lighting the reaming boilers which then we would of seen how much more quicker the ships colud really be pushed.

Aswell andrews helped in saving the titanic for aslong as possible by shutting all the port hole windows and aswell ismay halped aswell by helping with the loading of the lifeboats aswell althourg ismay survived the incedent it dosent mean it was his fault because ismay got iped appart byb the eyes of the public he was more welcomed than he was in the eyes of new york public he had newspaper articles calling him brute ismay.

no one can be really blamed for the incident its an act of god an ice berg you see the captain as doing what he was thourght best for the ship and ismay was doing tests the nexts day and andrews he was just a passanger but taken notes for the nrittanic orr yard number 433 at the time known as. you see andrews isent guilt at all no one can be blamed for the incident at all. There is parts that could of been changed at the time but wasent change. no one in my oppion can be blamed for the incident!

First of all MGY...You are fantastic...you have actually done your research on Ismay. and brought up a great point about Andrews...what people don't understand...is that Titanic did not speed up in its journey either. Titanic went the same speed as her sister ships did in that same path. Ismay merely questioned if they were able to make it to NY Tues night instead of Wed. Morning. And Ismay did help in the aide of passengers to their life boats. Ismay felt horrible the way the papers described him...and the 1997 movie didn't do any better. It was many things that led to the destruction of Titanic and the loss of lives...you can't just blame one person.

Other than the constructing of the ship I dont see any diffence between the 2 besides that ismay wanted to get into a lifeboat and andrews wanted to stay on the ship he built other than I dont c any other diffencies

nnooo it's not.
i mean it might have to do with the spanish or watever but who cares?
i'm learning bout it in history i think i'd kno there bud.
i'm not stupid. i even looked it up and that's the definition i got. i just summarized it alittle.

Umm yes it does have to do with it. Just look up Yellow Journalism...It has everything to do with it. That wasn't Yellow Journalism...that's propaganda.

no... yellow journalism is journalism that exploits and or exaggerates the news and other media to attract the public.

it has nothing to do with the spanish. besides i should kno becuz i'm learning about it in history. and we've been talking about it alot. so i def kno wat it is. and it's still fresh in my memory. i don't have to think about it.

Umm no....Yellow Journalism dealt with how the Spanish were treating the Cuban's in the late 19th/early 20th century....If my memory serves correct.

Perhaps you just mean propaganda?

it seems as tho the media exaggerates EVERYTHING. it was the same even way back when. but back then they called it yellow journalism...

makes sense...media exaggerates claims, etc.

good point.