Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

page: 36
22
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 



Sea water originally entered into the ship through a small hole in the hull that was only about three by four feet across

This assertion is now beyond annoying and simply a lie. This has been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept the truth about it. A 3' x 4' hole was created by your imagination. Not one of your sources reference a hole of those dimensions. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that 12 sq ft was the total of the damage area open to the sea along the length of the hull.

You posted this many times earlier


"Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening,the size of a refrigerator,in the hull allowing water inside the ship"... Hmmmmm...I knew it! www.eszlinger.com... < look under collision/damage... A 12 foot hole equals torpedo damage imo,not from scraping against a gigantic ice berg...

Now explain how a 12 sq ft opening over 200 feet long is 3' x 4'. You can't, it's a lie.

Also why were there NO explosions reported by anyone BEFORE striking the iceberg. If you blame a torpedo for causing the ship to "suddenly veer off course" and strike the iceberg the torpedo explosion should have been heard.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 
The Myth Of The 300ft Gash > www.rmstitanic.net...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


What part of TOTAL AREA of 12 square feet are you having trouble understanding? Not one person here is saying that there was a 300 foot long gash in the hull. It was a series of small holes, bent plates, and split seams. If you took them all, and made them into one big hole, it would total up to 12 square feet in area. If they were hit by a torpedo, then it would have been a LOT larger than a 12 square foot hole, and it wouldn't have been a series of split plates, and small holes. Unless somehow the torpedo hit the steering, didn't cause any damage to the hull, spun them into the iceberg, which caused all the damage that led to the sinking.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 
The Myth Of The 300ft Gash > www.rmstitanic.net...



Where is the 3' x4' hole in this?


It wasn't until 1996 that ultrasonic probes conducted by Paul Mathias were able to conclusively establish that there was no gash: the damage done was indeed a series of bent plates, split seams and small holes--the total area open to the sea being just a little over 12 square feet.


Can you read?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 
I wonder how frequently icebergs large enough to sink a passenger liner are seen within the same area as where the titanic supposedly encountered one?

Just how massive would an iceberg have had to be,in order for it to be able to tear apart steel?

Would'nt the floating and moving iceberg needed to have been heavier than the ship itself,much more than the 52,310 ton titanic?

Go outside and try smashing a 3/4 inch thick piece of steel against a block of ice,or drop that piece of steel onto a block of ice from high above,or even shoot that piece of steel out of a cannon against a block of ice and watch what happens,steel wins,ice loses,everytime...
edit on 29-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Stop deflecting and answer the question. Where do you have evidence of a 3' x 4' hole in the ship? It is your misinterpretation of the information presented. Do you know what total area means?
edit on 29-6-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 
This link says that the 12ft square hole,that originally allowed sea water into the ship,was the size of a refrigerator and it doesnt say that 12ft square hole represented the total area damaged > www.eszlinger.com...

edit on 29-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Not when the steel has a lot of impurities, and has been submerged in extremely cold water for awhile. You can't seriously compare a block of ice to an iceberg that can weigh up to several million tons. The largest iceberg ever recorded weighed several BILLION tons. No ship ever built is going to be able to survive that.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 





it doesnt say that 12ft square hole represented the total area damaged > www.eszlinger.com...

Yes it does, If you know how to read with comprehension.

Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening (the size of a refrigerator) in the hull allowing water inside the ship.


It does not say the area was shaped like a refrigerator, that comparison is used to illustrate the total area open to the sea. Again from www.rmstitanic.net...

It wasn't until 1996 that ultrasonic probes conducted by Paul Mathias were able to conclusively establish that there was no gash: the damage done was indeed a series of bent plates, split seams and small holes--the total area open to the sea being just a little over 12 square feet.

Your sources do not support your imaginary 3' x 4' hole, they contradict you. YOU ARE WRONG. Learn to deal with it.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 
This link says that the 12ft square hole,that originally allowed sea water into the ship,was the size of a refrigerator and it doesnt say that 12ft square hole represented the total area damaged > www.eszlinger.com...

edit on 29-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


... have you actually, you know, read your source? At all? Even a little bit? Thought not.....



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by Zaphod58
 
I wonder how frequently icebergs large enough to sink a passenger liner are seen within the same area as where the titanic supposedly encountered one?

Just how massive would an iceberg have had to be,in order for it to be able to tear apart steel?

Would'nt the floating and moving iceberg needed to have been heavier than the ship itself,much more than the 52,310 ton titanic?

Go outside and try smashing a 3/4 inch thick piece of steel against a block of ice,or drop that piece of steel onto a block of ice from high above,or even shoot that piece of steel out of a cannon against a block of ice and watch what happens,steel wins,ice loses,everytime...
edit on 29-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


Ten seconds on Google and I found this lovely list of vessels that had collided with and in some cases been sunk by an iceburg - researchers.imd.nrc.ca...
Blocula, you have heard of google.... haven't you?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The History Channel had some docs on the Titanic based off video from manned rovers.

If anyone gets a chance to see it, it is interesting to see the research and how a possibly sub par expansion joint most likely caused it to sink so quickly. Also how many were lost because of partially filled lifeboats and people neglecting to pull people from the water.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
BLocula,

It's well known that the Titanic didn't turn fast enough because in a panic the captain ordered the boat to go in full reverse. The titanic had three screws. THe two outer ones could run in reveres. The center one didn't have that ability. It was a forward only gearing. So when the captain ordered the motors to go full reverse trying to stop the boat from sideswiping the iceberg he actually cut off the water flow going to the rudder.

It's been argued that if the captain had simply attempted to steer out of the way without putting the screws in reverse the boat would have faired better. Some even argue that the best thing to have done was put the motors to full throttle and tried to steer out of the way. It's been argued that if the titanic hit dead on, the boat would have not sunk. In a panic the captain with all of his years of experience did the exact wrong thing although it was an understandable order to give at the time.

The damage to the hull of the titanic as it appears now was achieved by two main forces.
1. the ship ripped in half near it's rear expansion joint. it was the weakest part of the keel.
2. the now free stern section sank straight down like a rock. it slammed into the sea floor at high speed and the decks pancaked on themselves. the bow glided nicely and landed much like a plane and burrowed it bow into the sea floor. the bow did pretty well and only was slightly buckled due to the impact with the sea floor.

THe damage created by the ice berg however was not effected by any of this. THe hull integrity although not what it once was is still plenty strong to preserve the iceberg damage.

Why the titanic sank is no mystery.

Oh and boilers. yeah they explode when hot and submerged with ice cold water. It's well known. Cool anything too fast and it tends to shatter in a explosive way. The explosions heard below decks has been known to have been the boilers bursting, the hull buckling and tearing apart and also the sound of the boilers popping loose and rolling out the bottom of the now taring apart keel. It was messy to say the least. but not a mystery.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Also, witnesses on board the titanic say they saw passengers topside playing football with the chunks of ice that were littered all over the deck.

The very next day they even got a photograph of the iceberg they think was the culprit. It had red paint all along its water line.

You know what. I weigh 220 pounds. But yesterday I slipped and fell on some gravel. would you believe that tiny half ounce piece of gravel ended up cutting my skin! How'd that happen since I out weigh that little rock by several magnitudes. It wasn't even sharp. there had to be a weak link in the equation somewhere. Oh yeah thats right. my skin!

You see just because the titanic displaces 42,000 tons doesn't mean that it's 4 x 8 hull plate can with stand the impact of a several hundred ton block of ice.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 
I would certainly think that design experts and workers,planning and constructing with what were at the time,state of the art ship building technologies,would not have thoughtlessly used brittle steel for the ships hull,or any other part of it and they were well aware of the fact that the titanics maiden voyage was planned to voyage through cold northern atlantic waters and not within the warm water tropics somewhere else and judging by the no expenses spared interior of the titanic,surely the exterior was designed with adequate care and concern ...

edit on 29-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Um. they sure would use cheap steel to build the titanic. wanna know why? Cause it's cheaper and rich folk don't like spending money that doesn't help their bottom line. nobody's going to know we laid the keel using inferior metal. Hull plates neither! besides they will be in too much awe of our luxury linens, dishes, furniture and woodwork through out the ship to notice.

So yeah they would use cheap metal for parts of the ship not seen or considered by the paying passengers and public.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Uhm, they certainly would. They didn't have access to ultrasound, and other testing that we have now that will show the impurities in the steel that were there. Steel is a very interesting metal to work with. The amount of carbon in the steel is very important. Too much, and it becomes brittle. To all appearances it's normal steel, and even in testing it can appear as normal steel. But when you combine very cold temperatures, and a high carbon content, you get even more brittleness in the steel.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I love it when people deploy lots of facts against the drivel that Blocula spouts. Hang on, I'll get my chair and open a cold beer...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Um. they sure would use cheap steel to build the titanic. wanna know why? Cause it's cheaper and rich folk don't like spending money that doesn't help their bottom line. nobody's going to know we laid the keel using inferior metal. Hull plates neither! besides they will be in too much awe of our luxury linens, dishes, furniture and woodwork through out the ship to notice.

So yeah they would use cheap metal for parts of the ship not seen or considered by the paying passengers and public.
Makes no sense to me at all that the designers and owners of the titanic would allow the use of brittle steel for the ships hull and wherever else,to save money? but then build the titanics interior so lavishly and expensively...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Because at the time they didn't KNOW it was brittle steel. To test steel requires all kinds of equipment they didn't have back then. It was a kind of mix and hope method to make steel. They knew what the approximate measurements for different things in the steel were, but they couldn't test for impurities, or if they got the right amounts.


The steel used to build the Titanic was not as "impact-resistant" as modern steel, according to Dr. H.P. Leighly, a professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at UMR. But it was the best steel available at the time, says Leighly, who studied some 200 pounds of steel from the wreckage.

Leighly's paper, co-authored by UMR metallurgical engineering student Katie Felkins, will appear in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals, the publication of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers.

Inferior steel wasn't the only reason the luxury ocean liner Titanic sank in the early morning hours of April 15, 1912. Other factors -- such as flaws in the ship's design, the crew's negligence and the lack of lifeboats -- also contributed to the disaster, Leighly says.

"The naval architects can point their fingers and say, 'It was bad steel'" that caused the Titanic to sink, Leighly says. "It's easy to point a finger and say, 'Bad steel.' But it's uncomfortable to point at yourself and say, 'Bad design.'"

www.sciencedaily.com...


When the Titanic collided with the iceberg, the hull steel and the wrought iron rivets failed because of brittle fracture. A type of catastrophic failure in structural materials, brittle fracture occurs without prior plastic deformation and at extremely high speeds. The causes of brittle fracture include low temperature, high impact loading, and high sulphur content. On the night of the Titanic disaster, each of these three factors was present: The water temperature was below freezing, the Titanic was travelling at a high speed on impact with the iceberg, and the hull steel contained high levels of sulphur.

The Hull Steel. The first hint that brittle fracture of the hull steel contributed to the Titanic disaster came following the recovery of a piece of the hull steel from the Titanic wreck. After cleaning the piece of steel, the scientists noted the condition of the edges. Jagged and sharp, the edges of the piece of steel appeared almost shattered, like broken china. Also, the metal showed no evidence bending or deformation. Typical high-quality ship steel is more ductile and deforms rather than breaks [Gannon, 1995].
Similar behavior was found in the damaged hull steel of the Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, after a collision while leaving harbor on September 20, 1911. A 36-foot high opening was torn into the starboard side of the Olympic's hull when a British cruiser broadsided her. Failure of the riveted joints and ripping of the hull plates were apparent in the area of impact. However, the plate tears exhibited little plastic deformation and the edges were unusually sharp, having the appearance of brittle fractures [Garzke and others, 1994].
Further evidence of the brittle fracture of the hull steel was found when a cigarette-sized coupon of the steel taken from the Titanic wreck was subjected to a Charpy test. Used to measure the brittleness of a material, the Charpy test is run by holding the coupon against a steel backing and striking the coupon with a 67 pound pendulum on a 2.5-foot-long arm. The pendulum's point of contact is instrumented, with a readout of forces electronically recorded in millisecond detail. A piece of modern high-quality steel was tested along with the coupon from the hull steel. Both coupons were placed in a bath of alcohol at -1°C to simulate the conditions on the night of the Titanic disaster. When the coupon of the modern steel was tested, the pendulum swung down and halted with a thud; the test piece had bent into a "V." However, when the coupon of the Titanic steel was tested, the pendulum struck the coupon with a sharp "ping," barely slowed, and continued up on its swing; the sample, broken into two pieces, sailed across the room [Gannon, 1995]. Pictures of the two coupons following the Charpy test are shown in Figure 1. What the test showed, and the readout confirmed, is the brittleness of the Titanic's hull steel. When the Titanic struck the iceberg, the hull plates did not deform. They fractured.

www.writing.eng.vt.edu...





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join