Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index Titanic historic What Really Happened When She Went Under? |
Browsing this Thread:
18 Anonymous Users
Bottom Previous Topic Next Topic | 1 |
|
|
|
---|
Poster | Thread |
---|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #2 |
|
---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/1/25
From NY
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Very good question Goosegrl and very interesting research sought. Though you have much of it down you must know that the bow of the ship was lighter than the stern in weight measurements. The ship did break at the 3/4 mark when the balk heads had become filled up and the ship started going under. The ship then started the process of the stern to rise and with this, it broke in "half". It would be impossible for a ship to break under the surface. The air in the bow of the ship began to release and made the bobbing of the front of the ship short, as you said. But like I said the stern of the ship was made to be heavier because of the bouancy and the displacement of the water when the ship settled in the water. I hope this information ahs helped you in a great way and if any more questions feel free to ask, I know many of us on here have our own theories of the sinking of this great vessel. Have a good day and hope this helped you.
NYMedic130 |
||
Posted on: 2005/1/31 6:23
|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #3 |
|
---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2004/10/11
From Maryland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
well I stated that the stern was heavier, but at the same time it still had a lot of air in it. And what I meant by seperation further under water, was that the bow and stern seperated further down, since they were still attached by a "thread". Not that the ship actually broke under water. Models and articles show the two pieces seperating just under the surface, but I think the stern was dragged under with the bow a short distance before they seperated. Once they did seperated, the bow went away immediately with speed. The stern started decending slowly because air was still exploding out, but as it filled more and more with water, it decended with more speed. To put my theory more simply; The ship broke, the bow went under and pulled the stern down with it, before they seperated further down under the surface. I just find it really hard to believe that the stern could have gone down the way it did all by it's self when it was still almost completely filled with air. Even despite it's weight. I think this theory explains partly why the stern is so severly damaged in comparison to the bow. The air trying to escape and all.
Jessica |
||
Posted on: 2005/1/31 15:42
|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #4 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
It was the fault of the Keel. The keel was Titanics spine if you will, then there where struts going up the the steel over that. Very much like how a human body is designed. The Titanics hull was not designed to allow half the ship to be in the air so after the stell gave way the ship split into 2. But the keel which is super strong though damaged is still holding on so now as the bow went down the keel brought the stern up as at this point it was still attached. When the stern was up in the air the keel could no longer take the weight of the bow and si seperated. Basically the keel kept Titanic up as long as possible. If it was purley up to the stell the ship would of bent. As the stern was upright the water finally took over and the bouency was lost and it sank. The bow section goes down and crashes into the floor. The reason the bow is still recogniseiblr due to the fact it was full of water other wise the water pressure would of crushed it.
This would be plosible if you believe the film version. But I think it sepereted under the water and the stern twisted which would explain why the stern section is more mangled up. |
|||
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P |
||||
Posted on: 2005/2/1 17:14
|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #5 |
|
---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/2/13
From Scotland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
some crazy guy told me that the titanic reatached itself
he was a loonatic but |
||
Posted on: 2005/2/17 16:05
|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #6 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Quite
|
|||
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P |
||||
Posted on: 2005/2/20 18:36
|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #7 |
|
---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/2/13
From Scotland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
the main point is that the ship was mangled , and i don't see a way of reconstructing her
|
||
Posted on: 2005/2/21 15:13
|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #8 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/1/2
From United Kingdom
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
We would't, just the bow probably, but it's a flawed plan, so am not sure.
|
|||
_________________
Where the hell did my 1800 posts GO!!!!????? :P |
||||
Posted on: 2005/2/21 16:08
|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #9 |
|
---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2005/2/13
From Scotland
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
i don't think we should make a titanic 2, but a replica , same design as a tribute
|
||
Posted on: 2005/2/23 17:03
|
|
Re: What Really Happened When She Went Under? | #10 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2004/11/24
From Santo domingo,DR and New york
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
its a waste of movie to make titanic 2.
|
|||
Posted on: 2005/2/23 20:06
|
Top Previous Topic Next Topic | 1 |
|