Anonymous wrote:Hopefully these extensive rescue efforts will help locate survivors not just from the tourist sub, but the original Titanic disaster. You never know how many people are still waiting to be rescued from then. Bless them all.

Do you honestly believe intact bodies/skeletons remain from the Titanic? Over 100 years ago, 2 miles under the North Atlantic? Honestly?

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t understand the point of this. It’s not a sales office, right? Doesn’t it make sense that it would be in a marina? It’s not like if it had mahogany and leather that would really mean anything either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the same excess of wealth, hubris, and reliance on flawed, yet cutting edge technology that led to the sinking of the Titanic. The parallels give me chills. What an unnecessary nightmare. I hope for a good outcome.

[b]Although well-intentioned, this kind of tourism should stop. The parallels drawn in other posts to Gettysburg, etc., aren't the same because those are far more accessible- no great wealth required.

The bolded seems to suggest that "this kind of tourism should stop" simply because it requires great wealth to participate. Tourism should only be allowed if it is "accessible." Do I have that right?

[/b]

No. If you get lost on Little Round Top, you are probably not going to die, and it's not going to be a multi-country rescue effort costing tons of money. That's what I mean by "accessible". It's not always about you-sometimes your actions affect others!

Anonymous wrote:My two cents given they've lost all comms and location? Structural failure or accident leading to one (there is another story circulating about one of these a few years back. Strong currents blew the submersible under the Titanic's stern and they almost couldn't get out) and the thing imploded.

I hope I'm wrong but I can't see how I am.

A few years back it didn’t implode, it shimmied it’s way out and everyone survived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the same excess of wealth, hubris, and reliance on flawed, yet cutting edge technology that led to the sinking of the Titanic. The parallels give me chills. What an unnecessary nightmare. I hope for a good outcome.

Although well-intentioned, this kind of tourism should stop. The parallels drawn in other posts to Gettysburg, etc., aren't the same because those are far more accessible- no great wealth required.

Why should it stop? These people spent their own money and went in voluntarily having assessed the risks and resolved them to their satisfaction. Presumably, with the kind of money the spent on a frolic, they were pretty sophisticated.

If it turns out they guessed wrong, that’s on them. People have a right to decide things for themselves.

Great, but what about the people who are rescuing them? and the taxpayers paying that bill? It's not all about the people who went.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we wasting our resources on these idiots?

We try to rescue people. Usually because they did something dumb. Because it's the right thing to do.

Nobody tried to rescue those 700 migrants currently sitting on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. I wonder why.

$$$$, those migrants families won’t sue anyone like these entitled goons’ and families

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the same excess of wealth, hubris, and reliance on flawed, yet cutting edge technology that led to the sinking of the Titanic. The parallels give me chills. What an unnecessary nightmare. I hope for a good outcome.

Although well-intentioned, this kind of tourism should stop. The parallels drawn in other posts to Gettysburg, etc., aren't the same because those are far more accessible- no great wealth required.

The bolded seems to suggest that "this kind of tourism should stop" simply because it requires great wealth to participate. Tourism should only be allowed if it is "accessible." Do I have that right?

No, they don’t like that if there is trouble, a lot of effort by someone other than the company who books these tours is needed to stage a search and rescue/recovery.

I dont have an opinion either way.

That isn't what the bolded says, though.

Anonymous wrote:I hope my death is never discussed on this site, because NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE, internet posters finds a way to blame the victims.

You are seriously calling people who made the massively gluttonous decision to spend 250k for something so recreationally risky, "victims?"

Are you insane?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised at all of these comments from people horrified that someone would want to see the wreck of a ship where a thousand people died. Has no one been to the World Trade Center or visited the ruins of Pompeii or the Gettysburg battlefields? All different circumstances of course but its a pretty human thing to come to do this sort of thing and consider your own mortality.

Side note: I have a 7 year old who has a mild Titanic obsession (he will not be hearing about this recent news) and we have read far too many books and seen too many documentaries about the Titanic. Interest in the Titanic is a thing!

It seems to be a common childhood phase, both of mine went through it. Unfortunately the movie Titanic is too old for young kids who are really into the Titanic. Strange mismatch.

As an engineer, I think the Titanic is one of a series of tragic events that need to be told. The Lag Megantic is another one. The Shuttle Columbia and Challenger are some more examples. Regardless of the safety protocols you design into a system, they are only as good as the people operating them.

Hopefully these extensive rescue efforts will help locate survivors not just from the tourist sub, but the original Titanic disaster. You never know how many people are still waiting to be rescued from then. Bless them all.

Anonymous wrote:I hope my death is never discussed on this site, because NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE, internet posters finds a way to blame the victims.

that may be -- but this is sort of an extreme situation where people literally risked their lives intentionally.

Anonymous wrote:Is the Pakistani Navy steaming to the rescue?

Is that supposed to be a joke? Making fun of countries that have less resources that the US?

If so, it is distasteful and xenophobic.

I hope my death is never discussed on this site, because NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE, internet posters finds a way to blame the victims.

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised at all of these comments from people horrified that someone would want to see the wreck of a ship where a thousand people died. Has no one been to the World Trade Center or visited the ruins of Pompeii or the Gettysburg battlefields? All different circumstances of course but its a pretty human thing to come to do this sort of thing and consider your own mortality.

Side note: I have a 7 year old who has a mild Titanic obsession (he will not be hearing about this recent news) and we have read far too many books and seen too many documentaries about the Titanic. Interest in the Titanic is a thing!

Do people pay $250,000 to see those sites, and post gleeful Instagram shots about their "adventure" to go see a mass graveyard? There are victims' clothes and shoes still visible on the ocean floor, and possibly bones scattered around depending which scientist you ask. I get the fascination. I can be very morbid myself and went through an intense Titanic obsession as a kid. But there is no respect or reverence to this "mission." They're not visiting a memorial. Gettysburg, the World Trade Center, etc. all allow people to visit and contemplate their own mortality but also to think about the causes of why those places are there and work to ensure it doesn't happen again. A bunch of rich yahoos with inadequate regard for safety, going to gawk at a shipwreck caused by rich yahoos with inadequate regard for safety, is just irony and folly. I don't know, to me it's very different than going to other sites.