LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 05-13-2009, 03:21 PM   #1
Kthzltje

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
341
Senior Member
Default
i just watched a documentary "claiming" that it was an insurance scam, it wasnt even the titanic that sunk it was her almost identical sister ship which had previously been damaged, so they swaped them so they could get the insurance for it or something like that blah de blah
was well dull and not very interesting, not one alien mentioned
Kthzltje is offline


Old 05-13-2009, 04:27 PM   #2
MinisuipGaicai

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
I'm telling yer, it was swine flu. It ran epidemic across the ship and to contain it, they sank it. [surrender]
MinisuipGaicai is offline


Old 05-14-2009, 03:43 AM   #3
Jackson

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
I'm telling yer, it was swine flu. It ran epidemic across the ship and to contain it, they sank it. [surrender]
Ninja's could've stopped it..........
Jackson is offline


Old 05-14-2009, 04:52 PM   #4
MinisuipGaicai

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
Ninja's could've stopped it..........
Ninja fear Miss Piggie. Fact
MinisuipGaicai is offline


Old 05-14-2009, 05:05 PM   #5
Corporal White

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
495
Senior Member
Default
I'm telling yer, it was swine flu. It ran epidemic across the ship and to contain it, they sank it. [surrender]
Were there Democrats in the White House at the time?
Corporal White is offline


Old 06-06-2009, 03:53 AM   #6
JoesBro

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
368
Senior Member
Default Question on the Titanic sinking
If the Titanic had only reversed her engines, not turned to port and slammed head-on with the iceberg, would she still have sunk?

Could the Titanic have survived even if her entire bow was anihillated by the collision with the iceberg?

(The Titanic sank because her starboard side was slashed by the contact with the iceberg. Too many compartments were flooded - 5 vs max. 4 - and water overflowed the bulkheads, dooming the 'unsinkable' ship.)
JoesBro is offline


Old 06-06-2009, 04:00 AM   #7
Bigroza

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
426
Senior Member
Default
I heard a few years ago that the Titanic would have been much better off had it hit the iceberg directly instead of scraping the apparent sides of it.

It either would have stayed afloat much, much longer or could have limped to the closest port in Newfoundland.

Then there's stories like these which raise even more questions all these years later.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-Titanic.html
Bigroza is offline


Old 06-06-2009, 04:05 AM   #8
blohannaserri

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
386
Senior Member
Default
No, as the bulkheads that make the compartments didn't go all up the ceiling to make each compartment watertight. The water flowed over the edges to fill the next compartment.

Also such a heavy ship don't stop or goes backwards with reversed propulsion. That takes long distance and time.
blohannaserri is offline


Old 06-06-2009, 04:09 AM   #9
Bigroza

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
426
Senior Member
Default
Ah yeah I remember this too, do you know what the reasoning was for the watertight doors not going all the way to the ceiling?
Bigroza is offline


Old 06-06-2009, 04:10 AM   #10
QwOpHGyZ

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
363
Senior Member
Default
True, I have been on three cruises and one of them we actually had someone one board, a worker, who jumped overboard and the Captain decided to slow down and turn around to possibly see if the employee could be found...took several hours to do that.
QwOpHGyZ is offline


Old 06-06-2009, 04:54 AM   #11
PetraCromlich

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
467
Senior Member
Default
Seems to me the bow of the ship would be strongest. Reverse the thrust to help slow down some and hope for the best.
PetraCromlich is offline


Old 07-05-2009, 04:14 PM   #12
MinisuipGaicai

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
They should of taken off, nuked the iceberg from orbit. Only way to be sure....
MinisuipGaicai is offline


Old 07-05-2009, 05:24 PM   #13
Sapremolz

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
356
Senior Member
Default
Ah yeah I remember this too, do you know what the reasoning was for the watertight doors not going all the way to the ceiling?
cost...
[ban]
Sapremolz is offline


Old 07-05-2009, 05:37 PM   #14
LfYaRf1S

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
506
Senior Member
Default
No question - the plates were made of an iron alloy that was brittle at low temperatures - likely the damn thing would have split it's plates and sunk even faster.
In truth, though, no-one can say.
LfYaRf1S is offline


Old 08-05-2009, 04:34 PM   #15
oxixernibioge

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
465
Senior Member
Default
I believe the ship attempted to turn port side to avoid the ice burg but was unable to.....They also set there engines to well I suppose High in an attempt to make the ship turn faster.....[thumbdown]

http://www2.sptimes.com/titanic/How_did_sink.html
oxixernibioge is offline


Old 08-05-2009, 05:07 PM   #16
furious1

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
480
Senior Member
Default
It probably wouldn't have made a difference. Chances are the hull would buckle considerably on impact. This would also likely mean that many of the compartments would be breached.
furious1 is offline


Old 08-05-2009, 05:19 PM   #17
Jimambol

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
503
Senior Member
Default
Now my question is, would those two still had sex.. if it had not sunk ?
Jimambol is offline


Old 08-05-2009, 05:22 PM   #18
MinisuipGaicai

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
Now my question is, would those two still had sex.. if it had not sunk ?
Did Swine Flu exist back then?
MinisuipGaicai is offline


Old 08-05-2009, 06:05 PM   #19
Kthzltje

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
341
Senior Member
Default
They should of taken off, nuked the iceberg from orbit. Only way to be sure....
lol
only way to be sure
Kthzltje is offline


Old 08-05-2009, 06:08 PM   #20
Jimambol

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
503
Senior Member
Default
Did Swine Flu exist back then?
Yes i believe so..
Jimambol is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity