What current commenters fail to appreciate is the time period, the prevailing attitudes. They judge 1912 people with 100 more years of experience. First off, there was an absolute confidence in "modern technology". While certainly there had been loss of life as technology advancements were introduced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, nothing even close to the scale of the Titanic sinking had ever occurred. There was no thought that sht happens. It was just inconceivable. Second, the Titanic & her sister ships were so much larger than any previous ship they really had no experience with something so large. Just learning how to maneuver her in harbour provided many surprises. Thirdly, as to the lack of sufficient lifeboats, the designer originally provided for enough lifeboats. However the Board of Trade had adopted the policy of having ships designed to be their own lifeboat, as it were. To stay afloat long enough so that one or more rescue ships would arrive before the ship in trouble sank. Large ships were not to be absolutely unsinkable, just unsinkable long enough. The lifeboats were only intended to ferry passengers from the ship in trouble to one or more rescue ships, so they were to be used as ferry boats rather than hold passengers for days or weeks. It was the Titanic sinking that shocked a complacent first world society. One could say that the unwarranted confidence in technology that started with the Industrial Revolution ended with the sinking of the Titanic. Thereafter a whole sea change in engineering thought commenced. An acceptance that sht does happen, that it must be planned for as best as possible. While WWI marked the end of an era in many things, it was the sinking of the Titanic that ended the first era of applied technology to began our modern era of applying technological advances to everyday life. Since then, whenever an engineer seemed overconfident in their design, there was someone around to remind them of the Titanic.

"I will say that I cannot imagine any condition which should cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that."

• Capt. Smith.
  That's certainly Capt Smith's mindset as the "commander" of the Titanic. And here's a tidbit which I read and found interesting. Capt Smith prior to the Titanic voyage had I believe two close calls where his ship could have sustained bad damage either to his ship or another while he was in charge of piloting. He apparently wasn't "taking care" as he should have. I think that quote of his possibly underlies those near misses he almost had.

Quote time!
"in the event of an accident, or at any time when it may be considered advisable, the captain can, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly close the doors throughout and make the vessel practically unsinkable."

The Shipbuilder
, a trade journal, in an article about the Olympic class ships.
"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe that the boat is unsinkable."

• Philip Franklin, vice-president of White Star Line.
  "I will say that I cannot imagine any condition which should cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that."
• Capt. Smith.
  So yeah. Speaks for itself really.

You're only supposed to blow the
doors off!

This message has been deleted.

I don't know. Why don't you ask Andrews and Smith?
But they are on record as saying that they thought the Titanic was invincible. This isn't just hype generated post-disaster to play up the irony.

This message has been deleted.

It would have been interesting to speak with the designers on that one. What was it about 4 compartments rather than say 5 or 6 or 7 etc on that issue? Probably had to be cost concerns. From the looks of it Titanic just had real bad luck when it came to those compartments. If those guys on lookout could have seen the berg much sooner say a couple of 1000 yards earlier who knows maybe only 2 compartments would have been sliced.

This message has been deleted.

"there is no evidence that the notion of Titanic's unsinkability had entered public consciousness until after the sinking"
And if you read the link that I posted, it is clear that even Captain Smith and Thomas Andrews were sure of the Titanic's invincibility before she foundered.

This message has been deleted.

Read this:
http://home.comcast.net/~georgebehe/titanic/page2.htm

• then theres the crewman who spoke to Mrs.Caldwell on the day she left Southampton: God himself could not sink this ship:
  http://www.paullee.com/titanic/scaldwell.html

This message has been deleted.

"The fact that the Titanic happened to sink made it stand out from the rest. ;-)"
And obviously the reason nobody ever dared call a ship "unsinkable" ever since.

This message has been deleted.

Thats a very clever idea as this was a preventable accident whereby for the most part it is inexcusable to ever hit a stationary object.The Titanic was moving to fast for conditions with the Captain most certainly right behind the eight ball as to the safety for all concerned.It was the Titanic that struck the iceberg with as it were with fewer lifeboats than was necessary to off load all ships passengers.The Titanic was unsafe irregardless of the unsinkable hooey.It also left England with the Captain aware of the fate off all concerned if the unthinkable happened.The Unthinkable did happen with a significant loss of life occurring as a result.The Captain knew it was an unsafe voyage.

They may not have known the old rodeo saying "Ain't a Horse made can't be rode, ain't a man made can't be thrown."
Ain't an ocean made can't be sailed on - ain't a ship made can't be sunk."

• Not necessarily-! If the Titanic had hit the iceberg head-on, only one or two compartments would have flooded and that would have been it. The ship would have sat a little lower in the water, but as long as the flooding was CONTAINED the ship would have survived.
  It has been pointed out that the Titanic could have survived the damage that sank the Andrea Doria
  Not true. The
  Andrea Doria
  collided with another ship, not an iceberg, and wasn't moving 46,000 tons at 22 knots. That is a huge difference.
  Titanic
  was designed to survive a ship-to-ship collision, where the other ship will absorb half the energy. The iceberg, being completely solid, is going to absorb almost none of the energy of the collision, which, given the speed and size of the ship would be immense. If the
  Titanic
  had collided head-on (which, by the way, is virtually impossible due to the irregularity of the two objects), the damage would almost certainly extend farther than just the first two compartments. Almost all the energy is going to travel back into the ship, which would open seams across the length of the ship, dislodge engine machinery, and break spars from the keel. If the entire forepeak is collapsed, then the foremast would collapse as well, which takes out the wireless. So now you have a ship, likely sinking faster, that cannot call for help (the
  Californian
  incident shows how ineffective the socket signals and Morse lamp were).
  All that aside, there is NO WAY a ship's officer would intentionally ram his ship into an obstruction, especially when he believed he could avoid it.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

"Practically any leak that the pumps could not keep up with would have sunk her in time."
That's not quite right. If only four compartments were flooding, the ship wouldn't flood enough to pull the decks to which the bulkheads didn't extend below the waterline, therefore the water wouldn't have spilled over. The ship would have been crippled, but wouldn't have sunk.

Though some touted the Titanic as 'unsinkable' they were wrong because there was a fatal flaw in the design of the waterproof bulkheads that did not extend high enough when the bow compartment flooded. Practically any leak that the pumps could not keep up with would have sunk her in time.

This message has been deleted.

The Titanic and the Olympic were both marketed as unsinkable:
http://www.printwand.com/blog/how-unsinkable-marketing-campaign-led-titanic-disaster

I also read, that they never advertised the Titanic as being unsinkable. They did tell the media about the design with the watertight compartments, and it was the media that said, the Titanic was practically unsinkable.
I believe the designers and White Star did in their hearts know, that you cannot build an unsinkable ship. They did design the ship to be able to withstand a serious accident and remain afloat. In a collision with another ship, I think the Titanic would have survived. The problem was, that they did not think they were ever going to experience an accident as serious, as the one that happened.