Customer Discussions > action discussion forum

Book (Did these stories really happen?) shows Lusitania more important than Titanic


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 699 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 5 Nov 2012 22:48:41 GMT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 6 Nov 2012 09:02:01 GMT
RAB says:
Been through this before. Dreadnought.

Posted on 6 Nov 2012 09:50:50 GMT
Tugboats FTW!

Posted on 6 Nov 2012 10:26:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Nov 2012 10:29:17 GMT
K. A. Newton says:
The Titanic is important as its sinking caused the required quantity of lifeboat passenger space previously calculated by the tonnage of a ship to be changed to the number of passengers and crew on a ship.

That aspect alone has saved many lives since.

Various other ship building arrangements changed.

The Lusitania was said to have brought the US into WW1. though this has been denied. It did however change the views of a lot of the World populations against the German endeavours.

The Germans claimed that the ship carried armaments. Three german speaking men were found hidden in a pantry on board and arrested and it was rumoured they had planted a pipe bomb.

A second explosion after the torpedoe has been put down to various causes, including a pipe bomb to the the exploding of armanents secretly on board.

Also see both :

http://www.vincelewis.net/lusitania.html and
http://www.lusitania.net/deadlycargo.htm

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Nov 2012 13:46:10 GMT
Ken O'Neill says:
The second explosion has also been mooted to be a dust explosion in areas used as bunkerage. Since the Lusitania was coal-fired, and based on damage to the hull, this is at least plausible.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Nov 2012 14:05:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Nov 2012 14:10:02 GMT
K. A. Newton says:
I have read somewhere that divers have found cartons and crates marked as butter and other items that should have been stored in suitable areas were found away from those areas.

Not that it makes any difference so many years since. A pity that the papers about the three men arrested went down with the ship. May be records of radio messages about them are stored somewhere forgotten.

I was very lucky to view some original drawings of the Titanic before they were passed to a museum and I spotted notes about replacing the things that held/moved lifeboats (sorry forgotten the name) that were marked in red ink as were the actual apparatus.

I watched the film of the first discovery of the Titanic and noticed the "things" on the wreck looked like the newer ones noted on the drawings so probably more lifeboats could have been stored and used had they been available.

I also read of someone whose grandfather or great grandfather was paid to paint over the name "Titanic" on some lifeboats which were then marked with the name of another ship. If these lifeboats were not ready in time for the launching surely they could have borrowed some off another ship and replaced those with the belated ones.

Sorry I can't tell you where I saw the statement about the painting of the lifeboats. I'm into family history so I could have read about that anywhere.

I saw the drawings in the Publicity Department of Lewis's Limited, Manchester. My boss in the early 70's was Liverpool born and was to take them to Liverpool and hand them in.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Nov 2012 15:36:35 GMT
Ken O'Neill says:
"I was ...replacing the things that held/moved lifeboats (sorry forgotten the name) that ... actual apparatus."

The word you've forgotten is "davits". But that's not my main point; my main point is that I've recently heard (radio broadcast) a claim that the Titanic was originally designed to carry 50% more lifeboats than she actually sailed with and your 14:05:08 seems to back up that claim.

Posted on 6 Nov 2012 16:58:11 GMT
K. A. Newton says:
Yes Davits, that is the word.

After seeing the drawings I went to the library and looked them up. I made a little drawing (this was pre January 1974 as I left that job then and went into hospital - and compared the two sorts of davits.

Years later I saw the first film on tv after they found the wreck and although I had lost my little drawings of the davits they looked like the newly designed ones. I wonder if someone could get to see the drawings of the sister ship which was built alongside the Titanic and left later.

The story I read said that they wanted the decks clearer for passengers to be able to stroll. If they had left lifeboats behind marked with ss.Titanic they would have had to hide them or reuse them quick.

If you get chance to see the first film taken when they first found the ship and look at the davits you will see they are like the more modern ones.

Posted on 6 Nov 2012 22:45:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Nov 2012 22:51:49 GMT
K. A. Newton says:
Ever since seeing those drawings in 1973/4 I have been interested in the davits.

http://www.shipslife.com/lifeboats-of-the-titanic/

Titanic Davits on the ocean floor
http://pinterest.com/mummie/the-titanic-100th-yr-anniversary-1912-2012/

US Inquiry mentions the modern davits. (Note later that UK Inquiry denies them.)
http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/USReport/AmInqRep03.php

Whiter Star Line modern davits can be seen but this is 1932
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EATr6kO9DT0

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/rms-titanic/images/5704386/title/welin-davit-detail-photo

U-tube memorial see at 4 mins 46 seconds - davits attached to Titanic under ocean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6LocEZXcaI&feature=watch_response

Posted on 29 Nov 2012 06:11:06 GMT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 30 Nov 2012 09:32:32 GMT
Wodawick says:
Yeah but Leonardo (highly overrated) DiCaprio died on the Titanic anything featuring him dying instantly gets a raise in importance in my book.

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 05:47:12 GMT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 5 Dec 2012 00:06:32 GMT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Dec 2012 08:04:33 GMT
G. Hanks says:
Congratulations, you have won the award of the internet's biggest bore. May you be happy in the knowledge that you've shown the world that human beings can get this dull.

Posted on 11 Dec 2012 21:12:10 GMT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012 09:40:53 GMT
G. Hanks says:
"Lus is at least 40 times more important than Titanic!"

Only 40? I'm pretty sure it's around 62 times more important. You clearly aren't very informed when it comes to the importance of the Lus. Any sensible thinking person knows it's 62 times.

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 10:27:40 GMT
I knew a girl called lusty tania once.......

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 10:43:52 GMT
G. Hanks says:
I've heard she's pretty prudish, only goes down once and never again.

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 10:51:59 GMT
Wodawick says:
but she still goes down even when she is completely full of seamen, that my friends is why she is > Titanic

Posted on 15 Dec 2012 22:16:06 GMT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 15 Dec 2012 23:34:06 GMT
gille liath says:
Yes, that is a valid result using the universal importantness quotient formula.

Posted on 31 Dec 2012 03:43:37 GMT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 2 Jan 2013 01:17:39 GMT
Man of truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jan 2013 11:01:40 GMT
G. Hanks says:
"The Titanic is worthless historically."

So would it be like the 2 of diamonds, or perhaps the 3 of clubs? I've never liked the 3 of clubs, I find it a pompous card of little value.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jan 2013 14:06:56 GMT
Luddite Joe says:
How odd ! I find the 3 of clubs one of my favourite cards of all time. It's the 7 of diamonds I can't stand - all smug and self righteous - the Piers Morgan of playing cards.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 28 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  action discussion forum
Participants:  39
Total posts:  699
Initial post:  5 Nov 2012
Latest post:  4 hours ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions