Hi Tractorowner!

*i have to agree with you mark,but im not saying it was impossible,but from 1912 shots of titanic and olympic,they were both different in the pattern of the side panels ,and in 1929 shots of olympic they have the same type as they did in 1912,and i seem to remember reading that titanic had extra windows fitted starting from the bridge to 3/4 along its length,and the brittanic was the same if i remember.*

Yes, Britannic did have the enclosed promenade deck as well, although – in turn – her window arrangement differed from Titanic. In my view, post-1912 and post-1920 photos of Olympic are consistent with the pre-1912 Olympic. These are good points.

Hi Bell!

*that there was no conspiracy and it was just a bad accident , but am not convinsed. For one thing correct me if am wrong but the part of the atlantic which the wreck lies in is called the 'devils hole' know for ice bergs and it is not the quickest way after all they where trying to beat olympics record of crossing the atlantic. Why did smith go fast and why did the ship not just smash into the berg. *

I’ve not seen a primary source as regards the ‘devil’s hole,’ but I do believe that the Titanic was attempting to better the Olympic’s maiden voyage performance. That was why Captain Smith was going so fast.

In terms of smashing into the iceberg, Titanic did after all sink due to the damage caused. If you go to ET’s homepage, www.encyclopedia-titanica.org and look at the ‘research articles,’ then you will see a White Paper by David Brown and Parks Stephenson. They explain what they feel the collision was – partly a grounding on the iceberg.

*Sounds crazy i know but if they did that (acording to a test i read) only compartments 1 and 2 would have been damaged she could stay afloat with that damage. *

I don’t think we can blame Murdoch for trying to miss the berg completely. He had shown his skills on the Arabic in 1903 when his efforts avoided a collision with another ship.

*Also why did they run the engines back this is the same as a car braking while turning. It causes understeer and ships are no different this slows it turning speed. *

If you look at the testimony from Trimmer Thomas Dillon (I think it was) or Greaser Fred Scott, Titanic’s engines were not reversed prior to the collision. All the evidence they gave pointed to a ‘stop’ order coming down from the bridge. Indeed, prior to the collision there was none of the vibration you would associate with the engines being run ‘full astern.’

*Also why did the tests of Titanic not find there was a fire on board *

Who said that the crew were unaware of the coal fire?

*and correct me if am wrong but the tests did not last the 2 days and the reason given was because it is almost identical to Olympic.*

Titanic’s sea trials were delayed, but the delay was due to bad weather on April 1st 1912, and then after sea trials on April 2nd 1912 they had only eight days to get ready for the maiden voyage. FWIW, Britannic’s trials did not take long either.

I have to disagree on the 50-50 issue. As I think my post has demonstrated, in some respects Gardiner has simply got facts wrong or interpreted them in a flawed manner. Indeed some ‘facts’ just seem to be added in to create a general sense of ‘conspiracy.’ For instance, you mentioned elsewhere the supposed ‘explosion’ hole above boiler room 6. If you look at the deck plans of the ship and compare that with Ken Marschall’s wreck paintings, you’ll see that the hole is in fact alongside the cargo holds, not boiler room 6. And most sources attest that the fire was out by April 13th 1912.

To return to the 50-50 issue again, I do maintain that it was impossible to have ‘switched’ the ships in the time available. If I may, I’d like to direct you to this thread: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/85285.html#POST111659 In it, Parks Stephenson writes: ‘The Marconi Room in Titanic was in a different location than on Olympic…The configuration and equipment of Olympic's Silent Room is completely different from what is seen in the wreck. On this basis alone, I am convinced that the wreck on the bottom of the ocean is that of Titanic. Multiply this isolated case at least a hundredfold and you will have an overwhelming amount of concrete proof that the wreck at the bottom of the Atlantic is that of Titanic.’

Gardiner has never even mentioned that the Marconi rooms were entirely different. Indeed, he has never mentioned a host of differences between the two ships. I wonder why…But, my point has always been that by missing out facts such as these, it’s possible to create a ‘theory’ that may appear impressive, but in fact is riddled with problems.

*Oh and by the way mr chirnside did u write a book on olympic and appear on a few documentaries*

Yes, my Olympic book was published in November. I haven’t appeared in any documentaries, but I was interviewed for the switch documentary on June 22nd 2004. In the end that footage did not make the final version, but I assisted with questions behind the scenes, as it were.

Best wishes for the Bank Holiday!

Now, I’m off out!

Best wishes,

Mark.