74 replies to this topic

[susieice]

Again, I found a book that has me a little intrigued. I've only started to read it, but it begins with the two men from Shadow Divers going down to the wreck of the Titanic in 2 of the Russian MIR submersibles and mapping a previously undocumented section of the wreck. What they found was 2 large pieces of Titanic's bottom double hull and it's bilge keels. The discovery of these sections changed the forensic evidence of how Titanic broke apart and sank on the night of April 15, 1912. They believe the ship broke apart on the surface and sank very rapidly. Titanic should have had a longer life span after striking the iceberg, but sank in less than 3 hours. I think this book will prove to be quite interesting.

Edited by susieice, 18 November 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[susieice]

This is the link to the History Channel's documentary. It's a different expedition but has many of the same people with them that went on the dive mentioned in the book.

Edited by susieice, 18 November 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[freetoroam]

"Titanic should have had a longer life span after striking the iceberg"

Titanic should never have sung in the first place, but it did, so whether it should have had a longer life span is besides the point.

[susieice]

If you watch the documentary in the second post where all the pieces of the wreckage scattered over 15 sq. miles are mapped and reconstructed, the teams concluded that Titanic was not flawed by design or material. Many of these pieces are very large and had been in previously unvisited locations east of the stern section. Now all the pieces are there and the research will continue to find answers to what really happened that night.

Edited by susieice, 18 November 2012 - 03:55 PM.

[freetoroam]

susieice, on 18 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

If you watch the documentary in the second post where all the pieces of the wreckage scattered over 15 sq. miles are mapped and reconstructed, the teams concluded that Titanic was not flawed by design or material. Many of these pieces are very large and had been in previously unvisited locations east of the stern section. Now all the pieces are there and the research will continue to find answers to what really happened that night.

maybe it was not iceberg proof? doesn`t really matter what they think, it DID sink and was suppose to be sinkproof.
There are roumours that it was not even the Titanic, apparently it was the sister ship because they could not insure the Titanic, they renamed the sister ship the Titanic so the trip would not be cancelled. Will have to google the rest,

If true, maybe this will explain why the "Titanic" did sink, because it was the sister ship instead, which was infact sinkable.
this voyage had to go ahead on the date schedules, they could not cancel it, but could not send the original Titanic..(incase something bad happened,)

Edited by freetoroam, 18 November 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[freetoroam]

One of the most controversial^[7][8] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?^[9] In it, Gardiner draws on several events and coincidences that occurred in the months, days, and hours leading up to the sinking of the Titanic, and concludes that the ship that sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.

[susieice]

You believe the ship was unsinkable? Any ship can sink. There were also structural differences between the Titanic and the Olympic.

[freetoroam]

susieice, on 18 November 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

You believe the ship was unsinkable? Any ship can sink. There were also structural differences between the Titanic and the Olympic.

I didn`t say it was unsinkable, they did.
As for the structural differences, yes there were, the "Titanic" was unsinkable, the "Olympic" was sinkable and did. And so far if this "theory" is correct, then they are right because the titanic didn`t sink.

[susieice]

No, there were major distinctions in the construction between the two ships that made them easily distinguishable.

[freetoroam]

susieice, on 18 November 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

No, there were major distinctions in the construction between the two ships that made them easily distinguishable.

They were sister ships, identical, except one was sinkable and one wasn`t. If they sent the sister ship out with the Titanic name, no-one would have known except those who were in on it. if it happened today it could easily be identified but this happened in 1912, 100 years ago, hence all the new speculations coming out to commomorate it.
it is a theory only, I am not 100% really, but it makes a good debate.

[susieice]

No, Titanic was an improved version. Actually, Titanic was a triplet.
http://www.starway.o...ster_Ships.html

Here are photos of the two ships. The first difference you can spot is that the top promenade deck under the boat deck on the Titanic is enclosed for half the length of the ship. On the Olympic, it is not. Often times, photos of the two ships are confused, but the differences exist.
http://joeccombs2nd....in-photographs/

Edited by susieice, 19 November 2012 - 12:59 AM.

[spud the mackem]

Any ship hitting an Iceberg at 20 knots (about 24 m.p.h.) WILL sink,even an Icebreaker, so whether it was a sister ship or not (which I dont believe) ,its still at the bottom,and it was the Owners fault not the Captains, as he ordered full speed to try and get the Atlantic Blue Riband for the fastest crossing.I rest my case.
I have experience of Icebergs in the Atlantic and believe me its damn scary when you're among them,so you dont go full speed.

[Antilles]

And Smith did not have the Titanic going at full speed. The stokers had recently put out a bunker fire that had been going since the ship left Belfast. It had smoldered while the ship was in Southampton and all the way across the Atlantic until she struck. Smith could not have had the ship going at full speed and he didn't. He took the further southern track because of the ice. He had the lookouts and the watch officers aware that ice was around and his words to Murdoch were that if it becomes at all doubtful, let me know.

The fact the crows nest lookouts didn't have binoculars really didn't make that much difference. There was no moon and they needed moonlight to sight the waves crashing at the base of the berg. Besides which, the ship was travelling around 21 knots at the time. In an unprotected crows nest on that freezing cold night, they would have had to keep turning away to wipe their eyes.

Rostron on the Carpathia had the right idea when he went to help the Titanic. He had some of his lookouts at the front of the ship on deck level so they could see any icebergs looming dark in the sky and spot the splash of the waves at the base.

[Hasina]

The truth:

[freetoroam]

susieice, on 19 November 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

No, Titanic was an improved version. Actually, Titanic was a triplet.
http://www.starway.o...ster_Ships.html

Here are photos of the two ships. The first difference you can spot is that the top promenade deck under the boat deck on the Titanic is enclosed for half the length of the ship. On the Olympic, it is not. Often times, photos of the two ships are confused, but the differences exist.
http://joeccombs2nd....in-photographs/

The difference only existed to those who knew about it. the passengers  and the most of those who watched it set sail, including the media, who none the wiser.