Aaron, we need to stick to the facts rather than imaginative speculation.
Agreed, but when it comes to the Titanic disaster the facts are mostly limited to what the survivors said. She described what she believed happened in relation to her proximity to the main engines and described them as coughing and rumbling and attempting to move again. Rather than dismissing her account because she was not a mechanical engineer or was not inside the main engine room I would prefer to make sense out of her account by comparing what she may have experienced before the voyage and why she believed what she believed. In the same manner that researchers have tried to make sense out of other key events of the disaster i.e. What caused sparks to fly into the air when she broke apart, and the wide range of "imaginative speculation" that members have provided to deduce what may or may not have occurred when she broke without actual evidence. All we have is a badly damaged wreck on the sea floor and a limited number of survivor accounts. Not much to work with I admit.
Last edited by a moderator: