Titanic to be raised and sailed again


Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
880
563
Easley South Carolina
<groan>
lame.gif
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Jun 1, 2000
1,244
14
313
58
West Sussex, UK
At least it's being open and honest in that the story admits it is a spoof!

If only I could post the Viz spoof-Titanic story... but that would get me into lots of trouble.
 
May 14, 2007
9
0
71
I have been a member of THS for 13 years, have a huge collection of everything TITANIC. Anyone that has done any research on TITANIC should know that the TITANIC weighed 66,000 tons, spanned 882 feet 9 inches and was 90 feet tall. These factors taken into consideration not to mention she also broke in two ( between the #3 and #4 funnels) she lies 2 1/2 miles down and has been at rest for 95 years!! All of these factors make it impossible to raise her. I think that Dr. Ballard( my idol) states it the best " you will never raise it, you will never do anything with it, but put a wreath on it, which is what we did. AMEN !! TITANIC is my passion and I am so excited to find this board.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
Paula, you'd better add a more accurate book to your collection!

Titanic didn't weigh 66,000 tons. That's an ancient error that researcher Mark Chirnside has traced back to 1910.

Titanic actually was designed to weigh, or more correctly displace, 52,310 tons.

Titanic's designed deadweight was 13,550 tons. It is likely that in 1910 somebody added the designed displacement to the deadweight and called it 66,000 tons. However, the deadweight is already included in the displacement.
 
May 14, 2007
9
0
71
Thanks Dave for correcting my weight error!I have a great library and I think my books are quite reliable! Do YOU have a 1912 copy of the Sinking of the Titanic, or the 1915 edition? Sometime wrong facts stick in my head!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
880
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Do YOU have a 1912 copy of the Sinking of the Titanic, or the 1915 edition?<<

I think you'll do a lot better with primary sources as the "quickie books" of that time, even in revision, are notoriously inaccurate and little used among Titanic researchers except perhaps in a study of cultural reactions.

See http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepTitanic.php for the information given to the Mersey Wreck Commission and http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/USReport/AmInqRep03.php#a1 for what was given to the U.S. Senate.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
The Sinking of the Titanic by Jay Henry Mowbray is available online. Google and ye shall find.

As Michael says, it's not much good as a source.
 
A

Anna Mcpherson

Guest
What? This is a waste of thread pace. I have had threads (on other forums) that have been lock with more meaning about Titanic than this thread had. I am going too sigh.
By the way,what were you actually talking about in you're link? Ps,there is nothing on you're link that mentions anything about the titanic,and I must add that you're thread heading suck me in so much lol.

Take care.
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
7
183
Aly/Allie/Anna, the first post in this thread was made five years ago. Presumably the link was valid then--internet links tend to change or go dead over a period of time.

--Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads