 Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index Titanic historic  Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank?
|
Browsing this Thread:
21 Anonymous Users
 Bottom  Previous Topic  Next Topic |
|
|
|
|---|
Topic options
Flat
Newest First| Poster | Thread | Rated: 2 Votes |
|---|
|
Re: Where the water tight bulk heads closed when Titanic sank? | #1 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users  |
Hello,
Quote:
It’s certainly relevant to a debate as to the nature of the damage caused by the iceberg. However, I don’t see how it’s relevant to the opening of watertight doors far aft, which is what we had been discussing. I am aware of the suggestion that damage was caused to the Titanic’s hull even aft of boiler room 5, but the open watertight doors we had been discussing in this thread were even further aft than that. Your recent posting, and replies to me, seem to be moving onto a much larger discussion about the various theories in existence as to the nature of the damage from the iceberg, and the interaction of the iceberg and the Titanic (and vice versa). Yes, that is important, but in my view that should form part of a seperate thread. Quote: If you prescibe to the common belief Titanic collided with the iceberg and the rivits and steel plates were buckled running down the side of the Titanic which averaged a total 12 sq cubic feet of damage then the results would be very much more different than the "GROUNDING THEORY" that Capt. Wood, Capt Weeks, Captain David G. Brown and LCDR (ret) Parks Stephenson all have written and published papers on. I agree, and would have thought that this would have been perfectly obvious. I certainly haven't said anything to the contrary in this thread. Quote: If you say you know Capt Wood's work than you must be aware of his 2004 article "Damage to Titanic: A New Scenario" As I said I have that report he emailed/refered to me and I would forward it to you to read since you apparently haven't. It closely relates to Capt Brown's theory and both shared common variables. I am aware of his 2004 report. Indeed, I provided some of the information in that article, that you can find under the paragraph on ‘similar incidents’ for instance. I find it interesting that you think you can presume to know what I have and haven’t read. Quote: It is impossible to discuss this topic in one dimension, you must consider watertight door positions, type of damage received and where on the Titanic and other varibles all in their totalities. I’ve never said that the issue of the Titanic’s sinking was a one-dimensional issue, even if you appear to presume to think that that is my opinion. Quote: You can nit pick at my post all you want but if you are not aware of the grounding theory and door position I can't see how you can argue the matter! What makes you think I am nit-picking? I’ve tried to respond to your points, and I haven’t put forward any substantial argument with regard to the grounding theory. My original post in this thread was as follows: Quote:
As you should be able to see from my re-post of my original post, I joined this thread to highlight the fact that the float mechanism should have closed the watertight doors in the after part of the ship before any substantial quantities of water passed through them. This in response to your apparent suggestion that water simply flooded aft through the ship’s open watertight doors. Glen clearly understood what I was saying, and highlighted an apparent simulation of the Titanic -- and how long she would have floated had watertight doors been open heading far aft. Again, it’s interesting that you assume ignorance on the part of the other contributors to this thread – such as myself – when you make the apparent implication that others are not aware of the grounding theory. Quote: These are your words' It’s not a question of not having access to his arguments. I am aware of, and have seen, the material. At the moment, I don’t have enough free time to do justice to his material by giving it the lengthy, detailed and considered reading that it deserves. I have read that article before, although not recently. However, I am broadly aware of the thrust of his research, and unless you believe that the Titanic was damaged along the majority of its length (which as I understand it, Captain Wood doesn’t), I really don’t see how you believe that his theories are relevant to the open watertight doors far aft – which I thought we had been discussing. You posted again, saying: Quote: I think you will find interesting and will then see the issue of the watertight doors is really very relevant to the debate about the collision/allision/grounding with the iceberg. It is what the entire theory is based on. Perhaps this highlights my confusion. You speak about the 'issue of the watertight doors,' without specifying whether you mean the doors further forward (in the vicinity of the iceberg damage) or those much further aft (apparently away from iceberg damage even if you believe that the damage was more extensive than is often believed). You comment extensively on the 'allision' theory -- if I may call it that -- and don't address the issues of the float mechanisms on the watertight doors further aft, which is what we'd been discussing originally. Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2005/5/17 9:57
  |
  |
|||
Mark Chirnside
Visit Website
 Top Previous Topic Next Topic |
 |
|
You cannot start a new topic.
You can view topic.
