Hi Bell!

*exactly stating the obvious it was there for a week but why, what problem did they have *

Why don't you check out some of the sources I've listed? As I've said, the tide was one of the problems IIRC and resulted in quite a delay. Naturally this influences a ship of the Olympic's size.

*It was switched ave just made ma mind up these coinsidenses are too and far between that boat layin at the bottom of the atlantic is olympic why else was olympic becomin more like titanic.*

Since you've already made up your mind I don't know why I'm continuing, but I'll do so anyway. Why not read the Beveridge and Hall book I've suggested, or go to www.titanic-model.com 's Titanic forum with these questions? You appear willing to give credence to the pro-conspiracy authors, so where's the harm in giving the same credence to those anti-conspiracy authors, especially when a number of respected historians have pointed out many flaws in Robin Gardiner's work?

*It could't been cause they thought it liiked better if that was the case britannic would have had them also.*

Had what, exactly?

*This secrecy act thing is too strange. Why did the crew take a dislike to titanic on its voyage and resign . This theroy is as old as the disaster and it is time the british government told the truth*

The act you mentioned would indeed be strange, if it was true. But it isn't, as authors other than Gardiner have established. Dave Gittens has debunked that on the Encyclopedia-Titanica message board at www.encyclopedia-titanica.org -- there's a wealth of information on the conspiracy theory there if you are interested.

Here are some of those pages:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/49072.html#POST118634

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/85064.html#POST113184

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/10269/91390.html#POST131659

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5671/90262.html#POST128671

I've made no secret of my own opinion that the switch theory is rubbish, which I came to from my own research; but it certainly is interesting how many people have heard of the theory. For instance, some strengthening plates were fitted to Olympic's engines in July 1911, in order to ensure the engines' continued good performance; this work was still visible in the Olympic's engine room in 1927, and 1933, according to maintenance reports. There's a whole host of differences that those pro-conspiracy authors never seem to mention. Yet, for each one it's possible to say: 'Well, Harland & Wolff could have changed it,' but then eventually you get to a situation where the conspiracy theory becomes illogical, since it ultimately destroys the proposition that the ships were as similar as the conspiracy theorists make out.

I suspect it may be one of those discussions where we should agree to disagree, but discussions should always be based on a fair hearing to both sides, and historical accuracy. I'm sure most members of this forum would agree with us on that.

Best wishes,

Mark.