Ashley -- During the 1912 British Board of Trade hearings, one of the men who designed the ship testified. He was naval architect Edward Wilding. Based on the speed at which the ship flooded, he calculated that the opening in Titanic was equal to approximately 12 square feet. This number is still generally accepted.
Titanic was not "cut" by the iceberg. Instead, there was a failure of riveted seams. When these seams separated, seawater flooded into the hull. In some instances (Boiler Room #6 for example), there was the appearance of a long "cut." However, it was a seam separation that extended nearly 45 feet into the fifth boiler room.
There is a large "hole" in Titanic's starboard side as it rusts away on the ocean floor. This opening was most likely caused by contact with the ocean bottom. Some writers have speculated that the hole was a result of contact with the iceberg above the waterline. However, that theory doesn't fit the known dynamics of the collision.
Edward Wilding's famous "12 feet" calculation is probably the best estimate at the total area of the openings in Titanic's hull. Nonetheless, it is a sum of all the openings in the hull. That is, the iceberg damage did not extend in a straight line along the lower starboard hull. It was not continuous damage or a continuous "cut".
Nathan's comments are true for the conventional theories, but Parks Stephenson and David G. Brown have recently released the theory that Titanic was not sliced open by the berg, but instead ran over the ice and thus puncuring the bottom. This revolutionary idea is quite credible and I suggest that you read their report. I won't go into too many details though since I wouldn't want to misquote anyone and look stupid.
just a quick comment.the open area's letting in seawater was a combination of busted rivets and broken seams in the hull plates. total area was roughly the size maybe a bit smaller than a garage door single car that is
Maybe your right about the size of the area of the hole, but there again you could be wrong - 12 square feet doesn`t equate to a garage door. A 4 ft by 3 ft fridge door does.
Please remember there are young people reading this site regularly and because of this I would urge you to refrain from using bad language, if you feel bad language is required use eg. S**T or something - we all know what you mean!!
Don`t think I`m an old fuddy duddy, I`m an ex seaman and I can hold my own with anyone when it comes to bad language - (I learnt it from professionals).
I have removed Mr. Sparkmans most recent two posts from this thread for inflammatory remarks, they are safely deposited in safe place. If anybody has any questions please feel free to contact me through the board.
I watched a special on the Discovery Channel sometime back and a sonar scan that would show the hull under the mud, revealed that there was not a single hole as popular myth calls for, rather a few dozen small gaps described as being "finger width" in size where the ice deformed the plating stretching about 250 feet across the starboard bow at various heights. I dont know how accurate this information actually is, but it seems pretty credible tying in all of the theories and evidences.
If you where to contact the Discovery Channel, or the company that performed the scans about obtaining the information that they gathered you would be told that it either didn't exsist or that you couldn't have it. Several attempts have been made by hundreds of independent researchers, different Engineering and Piloting Organizations and all have been denied, using one of the above reasons.
This to my mind puts the side scans that the Discovery Channel (The DC is not known for getting anything nautical remotely correct) claims to have as useless. Because no other researcher has been granted access or the ability to review the material that they presented on there program.