1910 Renault Automobile


M

Matt Pereira

Guest
irrelevant? i dont think so cause your saying that antigravity technology isnt possible but einstein says time travel is possible but difficult to obtain. Einstein also has the antigravity theory along with tesla but tesla was able to make it work, especially at a U.S. State fair which shocked people
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
No i dont care about the dynamics of shipwrecks cause basicly you cant explain why things happend the way they did. just like you claim the bismarcks midsection of the hull is splayed outwards but yet the argo footage dosent show that, plus that was where the armor protection for the side was so i doubt that thick steel could be splayed out when titanics bow didnt cause bismarck was mostly filled with water by time she hit bottom
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>No i dont care about the dynamics of shipwrecks <<

Then we have nothing further to discuss.

>>cause basicly you cant explain why things happend the way they did.<<

Sometimes I can and sometimes I can't, and I have a lot of company including trained shipwrights, naval architects, and some of my fellow sailors who are constantly looking into these issues.

>>just like you claim the bismarcks midsection of the hull is splayed outwards <<

Which is not what I said about the Bismarck. What a pointed to was a section of the hull being caved in and the best theory I've seen about this came from the Cameron expedition which spoke to the hull sliding down a slope for a distance before coming to a stop. The armour did quite well but the shell plating did not.

And if you don't believe that "thick" steel can't be "splayed out" you might want to take a look at the hull plating in the Titanic's bow section. See the following from Roy Mengot's website.

http://home.flash.net/~rfm/BOW/P_1.html
http://home.flash.net/~rfm/BOW/S_1.html
http://home.flash.net/~rfm/BOW/S_3.html
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Well bismarcks plating in the mid section with the armor protection isnt 1" thick like all of titanics plating was. and plus alot of people claim the steel was brittle if thats the case then i wonder why at the break theres nice rolling bends and not jagged fractures and breaks.

Also ive tried to build a wreck model but i have the calmness to take my time but when i cut the model for the foreward bend it wasnt right the angle was all wrong wish there was a site that gives how much of the hull in the bottom should be cut out to make one, i want to make a 350 scale wreck
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
The brittle steel theory evolved in pure hundsight and is a latter day contrivance. It has nothing to do with why the ship sank in the first place.

The fact that the Titanic's steel is bent and in areas, blown out, as well as buckled and torn should be enough to tell anyone just how questionable this theory is. If you're interested in a credible rebuttal to that from somebody who actually knows what he's talking about, go to Marconigraph

Since this site works with a frameset, I can't give you a direct link. Just click on "Titanic" on the side, when the next page downloads, click on "Sparks's Titanic FAQs" and when that downloads, click on "Page 3 - Steel"

If you're interested in the science behind that, go to
Metallurgy of the RMS Titanic
which is the website run by metalurgist Tim Foecke.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Oh i know its not the fact the steel was brittle if it was at the force that titanic hit the berg she would have tore her guts out she did in my opinon damn great on the impact, I agree with the theory of pressure being put on the plates bent them and caused the rivits heads to be sheared off.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Oh i know its not the fact the steel was brittle if it was at the force that titanic hit the berg she would have tore her guts out she did in my opinon damn great on the impact,<<

Curiously enough, she didn't tear her guts out. She could have had the accident itself happened in a different way but the interaction which occured happened in such a fashion that what they suffered were split plates, seams, and...as you mentioned...sheered rivets which allowed water to enter the hull in at least five and possibly six different watertight sections.

In testimony offered to the Mersey Wreck Commission, Edward Wilding opined that the openings amounted to an effective area of only 12 square feet. Having it spead out over six different compartments was fatal. Had it been two less and we wouldn't likely be having this conversation.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Yea and i noticed that Fleet in the testomony he gave he obviously didnt know what he was talking about.

He first said that the iceberg was about 50 to 60 feet tall or alittle bit higher than the forcastle head and the impact was about 20 feet behind the stem. Then when he was recalled

Sen : "You say it struck the port bow, 50 feet from the bow?"
Fleet : "Yes, sir"

So i dont know maybe its an error on the text on the testomony on this site and if its not then fleet obviously was out of it and didnt know what he was saying cause if thats the real question that was asked then he said yes to the berg impacting the port side and 50 feet behind the stem when he orignaly said about 20 feet.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
Well, it's entirely possible that the visible portion of the iceberg was a good 50 feet away. (If I recall correctly, Rowe thought it was more like 10 feet.) However, what you see above the water doesn't speak to the ice shelves and rams *below* the water which can extend out for quite a distance ready to do you dirty below the waterline.

As to Fleet, put yourself in his position. He was not only the one on watch but the lookout who was on watch at the time the accident happened. I don't think his judgement was anywhere near as bad as he might have wanted Senator Smith and Lord Mersey to believe. However, he knew he was one very tempting target for taking the blame and had quite an incentive to be less then candid in his testimony.

That's not to say he lied, but he sure as hell wasn't going to volunteer anything. I wouldn't if I was in his position. The people who were questioning him and or listening in had the sort of influance to make sure he would never be able to make a living at sea again and he knew it. Playing stupid ( "I ain't got no judgement!" anyone?) would be a logical move if he could get away with it.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
well I would belive he would have got caught if he was recalled and said something completely different than he said the first time well he agreed thats what he said but it wasnt they said that he said 50 feet from the stem but he orignaly stated 20 feet, i dont blaim him for not playing dumb but wouldnt getting caught in a lie be just as bad if not worse than taking the blaim?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>but wouldnt getting caught in a lie be just as bad if not worse than taking the blaim?<<

Can you say pur-jur-eee?

I knew you could!
wink.gif


Yeah, getting caught in a blatant lie that couldn't be ignored wouldn't have gone over well and like all the witnesses, Fleet was questioned under oath.

As it stands, I think you can be certain that some of the witnesses weren't the only liars at the inquiries. Lightoller didn't denounce the Mersey Wreck Commission as a "Whitewash" for nothing. In fairness, there were issues of protecting national interests and possibly national security issues as well.

Bad steel or not, think of how it would have been percieved by...say..Germany that Britain's biggest, bestest, most ruggedly built-of-battleship-steel ship had broken up while sinking for no apparant reason. Politicians seldom crunch numbers beyond the superficial and factors such as bending loads imposed on the hull girder greater then any ship could have survived would hardly have been given a single thought.

Having said that, I don't really think Fleet told any lies per se. What he did was a lot more subtle, and he wasn't the only one doing it. He told the truth as he understood it, but as little as possible, only in response to what he was asked, and no more then that. The Wreck Commission didn't seem to mind.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
well They did say port instead of starboard on the testomony transcripts on this site and he said yes he said that maybe they werent paying that much attention to that.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're trying to say there. If you go to http://www.titanicinquiry.org/ and give me a link to the specific testimony you have in mind, maybe we can work this out.

Each of the inquiries had it's problems. Senator Smith had a definate agenda in trying to nail J.P. Morgan's hide to the barn and he was anything but a maritime expert, and that was quite a handicap. That didn't mean he couldn't dig up valuable information. He did, and he got it all while it was still fresh in the witnesses minds.

Lord Mersey's inquiry was far more technical in nature and he was the one who interrogated representatives from Harland and Wolff such as Edward Wilding. Some of the technical information of the greatest value for those interested in the forensics issues can be had from that source.

Having said that his unwritten mandate...in my opinion...was to identify the problems anf fix the problems without ever admitting explicitely that there was a problem in the first place. (Although if sinking a ship in the first trip out and killing nearly 1500 people isn't a painfully obvious indication of some serious problems with navigation and shiphandling practice, I don't know what is.)

If he gave anyone a pass...and I don't think anyone seriously doubts that he was trying to avoid some embarrassing issues...it was with that goal in mind.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Senator BURTON. You say it struck the port bow, 50 feet from the bow?

Mr. FLEET. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. And it was not up as far as the crow's nest, where you were?

Mr. FLEET. No, sir.

Senator BURTON. It was about 50 or 60 feet high?

Mr. FLEET. Yes.

Senator BURTON. That is right?

Mr. FLEET. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. It was about 50 or 60 feet high?

Mr. FLEET. Yes.

Senator BURTON. Did the pieces of ice come over into the crow's nest, where you were?

Mr. FLEET. Oh, no; just on the forecastle head, on the well deck.

Senator BURTON. I think that is all I care to ask him, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SMITH. Senator Newlands, do you wish to ask the witness any questions?


The above was said from Day 5 of the U.S. hearing on the site
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>The above was said from Day 5 of the U.S. hearing on the site<<

Ahhhh...yes...the U.S. Senate. it figures that they would have missed that one. It could make for some quite funny moments from time to time. An example of that would be an exchange between Lights and Senator Fletcher which went like this:

Senator "Windbag" FLETCHER. "I will get you to state, not only from your actual knowledge of the immediate effect, but also from your experiences as a navigator and seaman, what the effect of that collision was on the ship, beginning with the first effect, the immediate effect; how it listed the ship, if it did; what effect it had then, and what, in your opinion, was the effect on the ship that resulted from that collision."

Mr. LIGHTOLLER. The result was she sank.

(Budda Boom! TSSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!)

In fairness, some of the questions posed weren't quite as assinine as they might appear at first blush. The question about whether anyone could still be trapped alive within air pockets in watertight compartments is an example. Senator Smith knew better but the constituants (As in the people whose vote he wanted) didn't, so the question was posed to put that one to rest.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Well ive only got up to day 5 of the us hearings, ive been going through them day by day and i noticed that foul up and was wondering what in the hell is going on asking fleet if the berg impaced the port side and he replied with yes. But in keeping his mouth shut and just keeping his answers to a bare min would protect him from self incrimination by just saying yes.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>But in keeping his mouth shut and just keeping his answers to a bare min would protect him from self incrimination by just saying yes.<<

That's about the size of it. Nothing has changed much since then. When accidents happen, the lawyers move in and "truth" is seldom what they're interested in.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Yep, Only thing is I hope this testmony when I start reading day 6 and the following days, dont have alot of this, will make for a more complicated grasping of what they really saw but still cant beat going to the source hearing how they perceived what happened and went on.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,604
631
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Yep, Only thing is I hope this testmony when I start reading day 6 and the following days, dont have alot of this,<<

Don't count on it. At least not when reading any crew testimony and especially anything from the people on watch at the time of the accident. They were the ones in the position to know things that would be quite damaging, but they were also the ones who made the most attractive targets for scapegoating.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads