At first I believed it wasnt unsinkable but when it colided wiv the ice brg i as havin doubts cos of all the water gettin in the ship. it would make it heavy and then it would sink. But on the movie one of the blokes sed 'its irom it can sink' well y say the ships unsinkable if it can sink???

[quote:4653960e70="Adam Went"]I agree. WHat was the point of just having watertight bulkheads that didn't even reach the top . If only the ship had stayed afloat for another 3 hours or so, Carpathia would have been able to save maybe 1,700 lives, instead of 700. [/quote:4653960e70]

well even though there werent enough life boats for everybody.. the life boat was too late becuz it was at night which is hard to paddle cuz there would be waves and the water would be cold... maybe if the ship stayed afloat for a couple of hours the life boat would come back and save more ppl... but it was too late... the crew that sailed the ship should have known that sailing in an atlantic ocean, with a ship this big, with ppl that much, should have been extra life boats... becuz there were so many ppl about more than 3,000!

it did not matter whether the crew closed all of the water tight doors or not. according to the british inquiry the doors would automatically close themselves once the water level reached a certain level that would trigger them to close. also as mentioned by another member that the bulkheads were not watertight and once the affected rooms filled the water spilled over into other levels hence proving the watertight doors as obsolete. however it has been suggested that by opening the watertight doors the water would have filled the ship evenly giving it borrowed time. although according to experts this would not extend the ships life and may even have caused it to founder sooner. using that as an argumentative point the watertight doors were not completely useless.

Well stupid,
Now they have new rules that there can not be iceburgs or the ships couldm't sail duh!!!
So she actually didn't mean it!!!

I agree. WHat was the point of just having watertight bulkheads that didn't even reach the top . If only the ship had stayed afloat for another 3 hours or so, Carpathia would have been able to save maybe 1,700 lives, instead of 700.

Bad luck did play an enormous part, but when you think of the watertight bulkheads there is a big fault. The bulkheads only went as high as e deck so when the water comes in it fills to the rim and then spill over to the nxet compartment. They say it sunk because the water spilt over the bulkheads and keeping moving back and back until it sunk. But if these bulkheads went all the way to the top it would have helped enormously!!!!

can you tell us about these design flaws? i dont believe the design of her made her more liable to sink, i have read a few comments stating that she was made with poor quality materials, but she was made to a fine standard for her time, she was a luxary liner, bad luck is to cause the sinking, not design faults.

Apparently you didn't read your facts too closely. The architects and designers never claimed Titanic to be unsinkable, it was the media. Also, in everything that I have read and seen all of the doors were closed just not in enough time. How do you know that they were'nt. Were you there?

The white star line new it was capable of being sunk but it also knew that the Titanic would require an amount of damage done to it, that had never happened before to a merchant shipping vessel. It was mainly a series of design flaws that made the Titanic very sinkable.

The "Unsinkable" Titanic was never actually called that by the White Star Line-it was dubbed "unsinkable" by media and the magazine "The Shipbuilder" - White Star never made such a comment unlike widely believed. Cheers.