thats what i mean. my post wasnt exactly on the topic.

[quote:6fdf0ee69b="rose89"]this is not exactly on the topic but i think that if they hit the iceberg with the nose of the ship then they wouldnt have sank. but thats my opinion.[/quote:6fdf0ee69b]

Well, if you're going to be citical, your post isn't exactly on topic either..but..I'm nice, so it doesn't bother me...lol :)

this is not exactly on the topic but i think that if they hit the iceberg with the nose of the ship then they wouldnt have sank. but thats my opinion.

I did hear about the fire making the steel weaker. And if you really think about it, it makes perfect sence. Fire makes just about any substance weaker now a days, and back then steel was not as it is today. I also heard that the iceberg made a series of holes in the various departments of Titanic, thus causing water to flood more compartments than she was willing to have and ultimately causing her to sink. I saw the documentary where they used sonar and other equipment on her to prove it. Granted of course, that the "holes" were all different sizes.
Now, about the Russian torpeo. Have you guys ever seen the history Channel?? You should watch it. If a torpedo hits something, what happens? It ALL either blows up, or makes a HUGE hole in it causing it to sink. Now, the Titanic neither blew up, nor did it have a huge hole in it. A torpeo wouldn't make a series of small holes, it would make one large one in the area it hit.
The lights seen by passengers were, as Frietas said, the Californian. But not many people know that there were litterally hundreds of other ships near by. They only know of the one because it was closest and could have made a major inpact on history had it aided the Titanic in it's needed hours.

No it was the ice that sank it fully see the stern wasnt strong enough and the ice just ripped the siding off which the water filled up the boat until it started to tip and then once the water kept filling up on the one side that it just gave up and the pressure just snaped it right in half and then pulled back up and sank to the bottom the bottom just stud there a minute after and went under at 2:20 am as so i heard....but yeah sumtimes i wish i could go back and rearange it cuz those ppl back then couldnt do anything more to wait and wait for an absolution that would never come.

I do believe that the fire weakened the steel and thought I read somewhere that the iceberg not only scraped along the sides but the bottom also? Because most of the berg was below the water.

Yes, I find the Russian sub theory a little far fetched.

I agree. I also think it is rather far-fetched. But i can understand why some people tend to get carried away. The little things that happened, for example the fire , can become suspicious but i really don't think this was a conspiracy and certainly not a Russian sub.

sorry, but not sure the russian have in 1912 the technologie for submarine or other!!!and at the first war any submarine can make long travel in the ocean!!!the titanic is not far of new foundland(400 miles )of canada coast !!!

Hello huntress. Regarding the fire in the coal bunker, I have also heard theories of that fire playing a role in weakening the ships metal but no one knows for sure if it did actually weaken the metal. About the lights see by quite a few people on Titanic the night of the sinking...that subject was investigated in both the US and British investigations. Both committees found Captain Lord of the [i:b761d28686]Californian[/i:b761d28686] to have been negligent in his duties and at fault for not going to aid the Titanic.
The iceberg that Titanic hit left damage that spanned 300 or more feet along the ship's starboard side. The length of the damage, if each tear were to be lined up next to each other to make one large cut, would have been only a small number of feet but because it spanned along so much of Titanic, the small cuts penetrated multiple compartments, causing water to enter into each of them. The iceberg didn't act as a can opener, tearing a gash into the side. It left something like a bunch of paper cuts (or in this case, ice cuts) along the side.

It is impossible that a submarine sunk the R.M.S. Titanic.. many survivors would have remembered hearing more than a low shuddering noise. A torpedo would have been been felt all over the ship most likely. Your first theory is a possibility but I have also read the "attacked by a sub" theory before and I think its totally rediculus. Its a good story for somebody wanting to stir something up but I honestly think it is a impossible one.