Titanic Truth "Revealed"
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
Hmmm. Flogging a book and a blood relation.
Not too sure we'll be getting any more truth here than we've already (or not) had.
Good point. I saw a science show that used the Titanic blueprints to show how a design flaw actually caused the ship to sink as fast as it did. So far, I still believe that story.Not too sure we'll be getting any more truth here than we've already (or not) had.
Lucas CAV said:
I thought it was decided that it was crack propagation through steel made unexpectably brittle by the low temps?
and the fact that the bulkheads didn't go all the way to the top deck as originally specified so that water just poured over the top and filled each compartment in turn.
ETA I also saw a program a few years ago that "proved" that if the captain had put the ship full astern it would have lessened the water entering the hull and would have closef the distance between him and any rescue ships.
Also it was suggested that they could have got people off of the ship and onto the iceberg(!)
The iceberg was still floating long after the ship had gone down and while they would have risked hypothermia on the ice, they would have lasted longer that going into the water.
20:20 hindsight is sooo cool!
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 23 September 08:49
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 23 September 10:46
Article states:
Louise Patten, a writer and granddaughter of Titanic second officer Charles Lightoller, said the truth about what happened nearly 100 years ago had been hidden for fear of tarnishing the reputation of her grandfather.
So the woman decides to do it now instead because theres a few $$$ in it.
And its a non story.
Louise Patten, a writer and granddaughter of Titanic second officer Charles Lightoller, said the truth about what happened nearly 100 years ago had been hidden for fear of tarnishing the reputation of her grandfather.
So the woman decides to do it now instead because theres a few $$$ in it.
And its a non story.
I seem to remember reading that if the ship hat hit the iceberg head on it would have survived, as the bulkeads whould have worked as intended and only a couple would have filled with water. By glancing the iceberg more cells were pierced, and more water was allowed in.
As is said above, hindsight is always 20/20...
As is said above, hindsight is always 20/20...
ShadownINja said:
The shocking bit was how many people watched the film starring Leonardo Di Whathisface knowing full well what would happen in the end. 
I thought it was well worth the entry to fee to watch him drown. Kate Winslet in a wet clingy dress was just a bonus.Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 23 September 10:43
ShadownINja said:
The shocking bit was how many people watched the film starring Leonardo Di Whathisface knowing full well what would happen in the end.
No one cared if the ship sank in the film, they all just wanted to make sure he died as well 
.As for the book, well as my grandfarther died last year I can now reveal he was a close personal friend of Hitlers, and can also reveal that Hitlers was controlled by an army of undground supermutant moles who were trying to make a brake for the surface. Its all in my book coming to a bargin bin near you soon.
at replies to my post.Alfa numeric said:
I seem to remember reading that if the ship hat hit the iceberg head on it would have survived, as the bulkeads whould have worked as intended and only a couple would have filled with water. By glancing the iceberg more cells were pierced, and more water was allowed in.
As is said above, hindsight is always 20/20...
This was my understanding of what happened as well. As is said above, hindsight is always 20/20...
just read the article. what they're saying is that the titanic wouldn't have sunk had it hit the iceberg. well no s
t sherlock.
ships sink every year. the titanic story is only such an event because it was the largest ship of it's time, was claimed unsinkable, yet wasn't. the steering is a factor, but not an explanation as to why it sank.
t sherlock.ships sink every year. the titanic story is only such an event because it was the largest ship of it's time, was claimed unsinkable, yet wasn't. the steering is a factor, but not an explanation as to why it sank.
nonplussed said:
Alfa numeric said:
I seem to remember reading that if the ship hat hit the iceberg head on it would have survived, as the bulkeads whould have worked as intended and only a couple would have filled with water. By glancing the iceberg more cells were pierced, and more water was allowed in.
As is said above, hindsight is always 20/20...
This was my understanding of what happened as well. As is said above, hindsight is always 20/20...
ie not going so fast, look outs with glasses, questions over the rivets used, bulkheads not being capped, hitting head on rather than glance, the twin stearing issues, having enough lifeboats for all, other ship(s) not responding to rockets/sos.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff