Main Menu
Recent News
Latest Articles
Random photos


Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index
   Titanic news
  Titanic iceberg dilema

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users

 

 Bottom   Previous Topic   Next Topic
1
...

  •  Rate Thread
      Rate this Thread
      Excellent
      Good
      Average
      Bad
      Terrible
Poster Thread Rated:  2 Votes
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Titanic iceberg dilema
#1
Guest_Anonymous
Hello there, as anyone ever stopped to wonder about the tragedy involving Titanic.We Know from reports at the time she was "supposed" to have struck an iceberg.Reported facts confirm this,But did the result of this collision with a burg really do all the damage claimed.We now know from underwater photo's the purported gash is not visible,but a hole in the bow is,suggestion, an explosion.Has anyone tried to simulate such a massive lump of steel striking an equally large chunk of ice, to actually see what damage would be caused. I for one have my doubts as to this theory being the real reason Titanic ,if it was the Titanic that sank. your comments would be welcome on this subject As my friend is doing an in depth study on this theme. Neptune
Posted on: 2004/12/11 15:04
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#2
Guest_Anonymous
Hi neptune,
Good theory, i have often wondered myself about this, i feel sure from recent emails that i am not alone in this and on my own site at http://freewebs.com/whitestar-titanic.next week i shall be doing an in depth feature on this same thing.Like you i find it inconcievable that an iceburg could cause such an horrendous gash.OK the berg might have penetrated the hull, but the surely the jagged edges of the steel would have sheared off the berg who actually knows. like you i would be interested to have other members views on this Quote:

Neptune wrote:
Hello there, as anyone ever stopped to wonder about the tragedy involving Titanic.We Know from reports at the time she was "supposed" to have struck an iceberg.Reported facts confirm this,But did the result of this collision with a burg really do all the damage claimed.We now know from underwater photo's the purported gash is not visible,but a hole in the bow is,suggestion, an explosion.Has anyone tried to simulate such a massive lump of steel striking an equally large chunk of ice, to actually see what damage would be caused. I for one have my doubts as to this theory being the real reason Titanic ,if it was the Titanic that sank. your comments would be welcome on this subject As my friend is doing an in depth study on this theme. Neptune
:pint: :pint:
Posted on: 2004/12/11 15:13
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Icestar
      Icestar
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#3

Joined: 2004/12/2
From Helsinki, Finland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
There are evidence that the steel, unlike moder steel, which would have shown evidence of bending in a collision, appeared to have shattered on impact with the iceberg. Further analysis has shown that the steel used to construct the hull of the Titanic was high in sulfur content, and it is known that sulfur occlusions tend to make steel more brittle. There were another analysis made that suggested that the rivets contain three times the expected amount of silicate slag. The high slag content resulted in weak rivets that snapped in large numbers when the collision occurred, mortally wounding the ship.
On the other hand they would have known this before the Titanic disaster, when Olympic crashed with Hawke, but why didn't they react? There must have been some kind of invetigations etc...
_________________
When you know where you came, you'll know where you're going.
Posted on: 2004/12/11 19:40
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#4
Guest_Anonymous
Hi i note your comments,but there are no actual photo's of the gash caused by the iceberg. the hull is sunk into the silt and sand on the acean floor. the only visible hole is near the bow suggesting an explosion. until we actually get photo's of the supposed gash i will remain sceptical, It was a long time ago and from reports at the time describing the gash may be accounts from the time ,we still have no photographic proof of this.booty
Posted on: 2004/12/12 11:52
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#5
Guest_Anonymous
Hi Booty,
You seemed to have said it all here.As you say we will have to wait for more photographic details before we go any futher into this.But what of your last comment where are you going? and why!! by the way i can't recall you site address refresh my memory please.
Nemo
Posted on: 2004/12/12 13:39
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  GooseGrl172
      GooseGrl172
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#6

Joined: 2004/10/11
From Maryland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
I've no doubts in my mind that it was the iceburg that caused it to sink. It's not hard to imagine Titanic, as heavy a she was and moving as she was in the cold waters of the Atlantic (make her more brittle), hitting another large, heavy and hard object (iceburg) and "popping" some rivits loose. Vibrations from the collision would cause more to be "popped" loose and even more damage, since she was not double hulled. To put some perspective on the impact vibrations could have had; any of you who have ever swung an aluminum (without any kind of grip cover on it) bat at a ball can probably recall the uncomfortable feeling after striking the ball. Same principle. And a massive iceburg (and more dense then ice you get out of your freezer) probably weighing more than Titanic, with shelfs of ice below the surface of the water. Why is it hard to believe that colliding with it could cause damage and sink the Titanic? Not so hard to believe you could total your car at 20 mph if you hit a certain stationary object just right. And after reading of the evidence there is no reason to doubt that Titanic sank because she hit the iceburg.

Jessica

Jessica
Posted on: 2004/12/12 13:46
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  Anonymous
      Anonymous
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#7
Guest_Anonymous
No you couldnt total your car at 20mph
Posted on: 2004/12/12 14:11
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#8

Joined: 2004/8/3
From Tallmadge, Ohio
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
I totalled my car ideling. But, the lady that hit me was going about 65.
_________________
I'm not Kate Winslet OR Rose DeWitt Bukater.... please stop sending me fan mail!

My Website.. Titanic: Truth, Myths and Legends
Posted on: 2004/12/12 14:15
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#9

Joined: 2004/8/3
From Tallmadge, Ohio
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
I totalled my car ideling. But, the lady that hit me was going about 65.
_________________
I'm not Kate Winslet OR Rose DeWitt Bukater.... please stop sending me fan mail!

My Website.. Titanic: Truth, Myths and Legends
Posted on: 2004/12/12 14:15
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  GooseGrl172
      GooseGrl172
Re: Titanic iceberg dilema
#10

Joined: 2004/10/11
From Maryland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
<No you couldnt total your car at 20mph>

Sure you could if you hit something just right.

Jessica
Posted on: 2004/12/12 15:08
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
 Top   Previous Topic   Next Topic
1
...


 


 You cannot start a new topic.
 You can view topic.
 You cannot reply to posts.
 You cannot edit your posts.
 You cannot delete your posts.
 You cannot add new polls.
 You cannot vote in polls.
 You cannot attach files to posts.
 You cannot post without approval.



Copyright © 2006-2012 Titanic.com
Home Photos Advertise Link to us Flower Box