“Misleading - there is no evidence that the Titanic is unsafe. These statements by Engineers may cause the public to be reluctant to travel on the Titanic. ”
We titanic had a sister ship call the Olympic. But the latter was in cruddy condition (This is off the top of my head, so I don’t remember whether it was repaired badly or just built badly), so the conspiracy goes that the names on the two ships were deliberately switched because the owners knew the Olympic was not seaworthy and the iceberg was just a cover to justify it sinking and collect the insurance money.
The "real" reason, if there even is a single one, is the regulations of the time.
Ships in the era of the Titanic were physically much larger than they had been a generation before, and regulations hadn't yet caught up to what that meant for seaworthiness - as an example, one of the older-generation ships had struck an iceberg a decade or so before the Titanic's fateful voyage. You've not heard about it because this ship, with proportionately much thicker hull plating compared to the mass of the ship and a different shape that kept the impact away from the waterline, essentially bounced off without major damage.
Titanic, with her vast mass - 50,000 tonnes, more than double the size of the White Star liners commissioned only ten years earlier - slammed her flat sides into the iceberg, and her hull, while thicker than that of her earlier sisters, was still only 3/4 of an inch plate, driven into the iceberg with 50,000t of force behind it.
Regulations of the time were written with collisions between ships in mind, one driving bow-first into another somehow. The ship that rammed the other, per regulation, would stay afloat due to the strong bow bulkheads designed for this, and, if the damage to the other ship was significant enough to risk that vessel, both ships would combine their lifeboat flotillas to transfer passengers over to the ship with the damaged bow, which, thanks to the collision bulkhead, would still be seaworthy.
That's why Titanic was short on lifeboats, and why she was incapable of dealing with having a section of her side carved away.
Half of this is just bernays consumerist theory, as long as a position of authority makes a claim it can be sold as fact. We’ve seen this for a century in nutrition studies, where a meta analysis was hidden because, surprisingly they found the majority of studies were either fraudulent or never actually passed a reproduction. To assume any other scientific field is different is redundant. The only true measure for modern science is how reliant our livelihoods are on the accuracy of the practice, which even then has become consumerized.
Self-reporting food intake is when people fabricate a list of what they vaguely recall eating, while omitting things that "didn't count" and adding things they "should have been eating and totally will so let me write it down anyway".
Nutritionists themselves cannot be trusted to acurately self-report their diet.
Even when you tell people in a study their food intake is monitored independently, so they should report acurately what they eat, they still write total bullshit and/or lie.
It is very, very well established that self-reporting is not remotely reliable and no conclusion can be drawn from it. But researchers keep using self-reporting because "it's more convinient", but a step beyond useless. It's misinformation. And they still draw "conclusioms" from those studies.
Imagine tweeting that a bridge designed by an all-female team of engineers would collapse and kill people and then twitter deletes the tweet and bans you and then the bridge collapses and kills people.
“Misleading - there is no evidence that the Titanic is unsafe. These statements by Engineers may cause the public to be reluctant to travel on the Titanic. ”
Ackshually,
Titanic would be probably fine if they just rammed that iceberg head on.
Experts say that reports of icebergs in the Atlantic are an example of dangerous misinformation.
(!) See how White Star Line keeps ocean travel safe.
the titanic/olympic conspiracy is actually really interesting
Oh it's bigger than that. The Titantic was engineered to assure the dominance of Central Banking. Or so I heard.
Oh, it’s pretty simple:
We titanic had a sister ship call the Olympic. But the latter was in cruddy condition (This is off the top of my head, so I don’t remember whether it was repaired badly or just built badly), so the conspiracy goes that the names on the two ships were deliberately switched because the owners knew the Olympic was not seaworthy and the iceberg was just a cover to justify it sinking and collect the insurance money.
The real reason is that they ran out of rivets and instead of delaying they bought cheaper lower quality rivets.
The "real" reason, if there even is a single one, is the regulations of the time.
Ships in the era of the Titanic were physically much larger than they had been a generation before, and regulations hadn't yet caught up to what that meant for seaworthiness - as an example, one of the older-generation ships had struck an iceberg a decade or so before the Titanic's fateful voyage. You've not heard about it because this ship, with proportionately much thicker hull plating compared to the mass of the ship and a different shape that kept the impact away from the waterline, essentially bounced off without major damage.
Titanic, with her vast mass - 50,000 tonnes, more than double the size of the White Star liners commissioned only ten years earlier - slammed her flat sides into the iceberg, and her hull, while thicker than that of her earlier sisters, was still only 3/4 of an inch plate, driven into the iceberg with 50,000t of force behind it.
Regulations of the time were written with collisions between ships in mind, one driving bow-first into another somehow. The ship that rammed the other, per regulation, would stay afloat due to the strong bow bulkheads designed for this, and, if the damage to the other ship was significant enough to risk that vessel, both ships would combine their lifeboat flotillas to transfer passengers over to the ship with the damaged bow, which, thanks to the collision bulkhead, would still be seaworthy.
That's why Titanic was short on lifeboats, and why she was incapable of dealing with having a section of her side carved away.
Not sure I can figure how, in this scenario, the just-launched Titanic magics over the Atlantic to New York to take Olympic's place...
https://www.historicmysteries.com/titanic-conspiracy-theory/
https://theunredacted.com/titanic-conspiracy-the-ship-that-never-sank/
really interesting in my opinion
Half of this is just bernays consumerist theory, as long as a position of authority makes a claim it can be sold as fact. We’ve seen this for a century in nutrition studies, where a meta analysis was hidden because, surprisingly they found the majority of studies were either fraudulent or never actually passed a reproduction. To assume any other scientific field is different is redundant. The only true measure for modern science is how reliant our livelihoods are on the accuracy of the practice, which even then has become consumerized.
Most nutrition studies rely on self-reporting.
Self-reporting food intake is when people fabricate a list of what they vaguely recall eating, while omitting things that "didn't count" and adding things they "should have been eating and totally will so let me write it down anyway".
Nutritionists themselves cannot be trusted to acurately self-report their diet.
Even when you tell people in a study their food intake is monitored independently, so they should report acurately what they eat, they still write total bullshit and/or lie.
It is very, very well established that self-reporting is not remotely reliable and no conclusion can be drawn from it. But researchers keep using self-reporting because "it's more convinient", but a step beyond useless. It's misinformation. And they still draw "conclusioms" from those studies.
Like with that bridge that collapsed? ?
Imagine tweeting that a bridge designed by an all-female team of engineers would collapse and kill people and then twitter deletes the tweet and bans you and then the bridge collapses and kills people.
Any chance Twitter is basing their decision on the advice of experts?