Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Cal Haines, post: 218063, member: 136875"] Gentlemen, Sorry about not holding up my end of the discussion. I've been very busy of late. David, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Barrett was assigned to boiler room #5. In BOT #1838-1851 [url="http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Barrett01.html"]<a href="http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Barrett01.html" target="_blank">http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Barrett01.html[/url]</a> Barrett testifies that he was in boiler room #6, which the stokers referred to a section 6. Section 6 is divided into two stokeholds, #10 and #11. Regarding Barrett being 2 feet from the side of the ship, I don't read his BOT testimony that way. At 1875 he is asked if water came in above or below where he was standing and he replies that it was two feet from where he was standing, that is two feet above. We have to remember that 90 years, an ocean and other factors separate Barrett's dialect from ours. The business about the third stokhold to the forward end makes sense as well. The third stokhold from the bow would be the forward half of BR#5. In his US testimony he also states that the water came in two feet above the plates and again puts himself on duty in #6. [indent] As to a cooling break. I don't think it would be any cooler in the fireman's tunnel, probably the opposite. If you needed to cool off, the best place to be would be under one of the fan discharges. With the fans blowing 29 degree air into the boiler room they may have been a bit much that night! )I've often wondered what it would be like to have the 400 degree boiler in front of me and the ice cold blast of the fan's on my back.) I think that if Barrett had left his post for some reason he would have said so. He admits abandoning his post when the water came in; he has nothing to lie about. Beauchamp is another matter. I can't get Barrett and Beauchamp on the same sheet of paper. Yes, Beauchamp says the water did not rise in #6 until the fires had been drawn, but this directly contradicts Barrett and Hendrickson who independently testify that BR#6 was flooded when they tried to enter, shortly after the collision and around the time that the lights went out (an event that Beauchamp seems to have missed). I think Beauchamp was "helped" to remember something that he may have done in BR#5 as if it had happened in #6. Why? Simple, Barrett had testified that he and the senior engineer then on duty had abandoned BR#6 when the water came in; not very British, what with all the engineers dying so bravely that night and all. [i]OK, so Barrett and Hesketh ran, the lowly stokers stuck around and took care of business...[/i] If you believe that, I have some ocean front property here in Arizona that I would like to sell you. Cal[/indent] [/QUOTE]

Verification: In which year did the Titanic sail?