Mr Titanic
Spirit of the Night
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1355
Rivets: 13 (+13/-0)
|
 | 
|
|
 New Titanic Theory?
A team of explorers has released an article after discovering hull peices from the Titanic wreck that they say were not discovered when the ship was found in 1985. They believe the Titanic sank quicker then first thought, and their History Channel Program will air on Febuary 26th, to present the new information regarding the Titanic's sinking. Their article can be found here . 
Last edited by Mr Titanic, Dec/10/2005, 9:03 am
|
|
Dec/10/2005, 9:02 am
|
|
MurdochsAid
Lady of the Sea
Posts: 1968
Rivets: 15 (+21/-6)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Titanic Theory?
Is this where, Mr Titanic, that they think that Titanic broke up in to three different sections, instead of as previously thought to be two sections?
I'm asking, because Ellen, my church friend, told me this only this last Tuesday, about her reading this in a newspaper. 
MA
|
|
Dec/10/2005, 9:44 am
|
|
Mr Titanic
Spirit of the Night
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1355
Rivets: 13 (+13/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Titanic Theory?
Yes MA, this is indeed that theory, which also was in our newspaper. I believe the Titanic broke in two major sections, with debris to accompany them due to the breaking.
|
|
Dec/10/2005, 9:55 am
|
|
MurdochsAid
Lady of the Sea
Posts: 1968
Rivets: 15 (+21/-6)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Titanic Theory?
Quote:
Mr Titanic Wrote:
Yes MA, this is indeed that theory, which also was in our newspaper. I believe the Titanic broke in two major sections, with debris to accompany them due to the breaking.
Ditto! Me2. I wonder how they managed to come up with their above theory, when Robert Ballard, in 1985, proved them otherwise, when he discovered Titanic?
|
|
Dec/10/2005, 10:31 am
|
|
Mr Titanic
Spirit of the Night
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1355
Rivets: 13 (+13/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Titanic Theory?
Barely any of it makes any sense to me as of yet. The Article stated the stern took 20 minutes to sink! If the stern took 20 minutes to sink after the breakup, it would have caused many complications, the smoking room itself was on fire... And when the ship broke in two, the keel was still attached for a period of time, which also, I believe lead to a quicker sinking.
Notice Dr. Ballard's quote. When he discovered the Titanic he stated that she lies in two [main] pieces. That is why he may have taken offence. Just another idea to consider. Not to mention the idea that Dr. Ballard has endured a lot these past years, and since Titanic he has been known to get rather territorial. Keep in mind as well that he always wished the Titanic wreck peace, clearly something Titanic has not yet been provided with since the discovery. The differing opinions regarding this theory play a major role in how well this is accepted and all the reactions it is expected to cause. The media makes a big deal about something it hardly understands, and it can be quite frustrating. I can't help but take a little offense to the statement, but I do see the logic in it when considering the aspects of this new theory. I'd also like to note the word "likely" in the article...
I like to think Titanic broke in two large sections, with debris to accompany it due to the breakup.
Funny thing is, according to Dr. Pellegrino's website Titanic broke apart around 2:16-17 AM, and the stern went down at about 2:20. That is about 3 or 4 minutes difference, how is 20 any less than 4?
|
|
Dec/10/2005, 12:36 pm
|
|
MurdochsAid
Lady of the Sea
Posts: 1968
Rivets: 15 (+21/-6)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Titanic Theory?
Quote:
Mr Titanic Wrote:
A team of explorers has released an article after discovering hull peices from the Titanic wreck that they say were not discovered when the ship was found in 1985. They believe the Titanic sank quicker then first thought, and their History Channel Program will air on Febuary 26th, to present the new information regarding the Titanic's sinking. Their article can be found here .
If it had happened the way they think it would have happened, then there would be no survivors whatsoever. Which bowls down to this fact...they're *all* wrong!!!:roll:
So therefore--*only* Robert Ballard, and his findings are right on.  :heyy:
MA
|
|
Dec/10/2005, 12:54 pm
|
|
Mr Titanic
Spirit of the Night
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1355
Rivets: 13 (+13/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Titanic Theory?
 You may have a point there. Just keep in mind they believe the Titanic sank 20 minutes after it broke apart (the stern section) which really only took 5 minutes or less.
Last edited by Mr Titanic, Dec/10/2005, 2:13 pm
|
|
Dec/10/2005, 2:10 pm
|
|
MurdochsAid
Lady of the Sea
Posts: 1968
Rivets: 15 (+21/-6)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Titanic Theory?
Quote:
Mr Titanic Wrote:
You may have a point there. Just keep in mind they believe the Titanic sank 20 minutes after it broke apart (the stern section) which really only took 5 minutes or less.
As we were watching this event in James Cameron's film...isn't this the way even he timed it, as we were all sitting in pins 'n' needles watching those scenes play out?
MA
|
|
Dec/17/2005, 10:00 am
|
|
Mr Titanic
Spirit of the Night
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1355
Rivets: 13 (+13/-0)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Titanic Theory?
I always thought James Cameron was near accurate really, he put a lot of dedication, time and research into his movie. The initial break up though, occured a bit more aft than depicted in the film. Right over the Aft Grand Staircase to be exact, which yawned open (according to witness accounts) and the dome disintegrated as the staircase was torn. That was an honest shame.
|
|
Dec/17/2005, 9:30 pm
|
|
Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
 TSOLD's time is: Nov/26/2009, 11:49 pm
|
|
|
Topic 