The Titanic did not break in half

[Clarissa E. Parks]

The Titanic did not break in half. What people saw was the rudder and 1 propeller fall from the stern before it slid back into the sea. I know i am correct therefore this is not open to debate. this is the final fact as presented on TV the other week. Ballard and most after him were wrong.

 

[Jeffrey Word]

Clarissa, I have to beg to differ.

I don't know where you got your information, or if we're even talking about the same ship, but Titanic DID break in half, and it's propellers AND rudder are both still down in their right places. I'm sorry to have to say that you're wrong on that one, or whatever show you were watching was not about the Titanic. The rudder and all 3 propellers, I believe, are all accounted for and are where they were originally placed.

Am I wrong about any of this anybody?

 

[Clifton Johnson]

I dunno if they are all in the correct places seeing as how the impact could have dislodged a propeller by a few feet, but Jeffrey is totally right. And if I were you Clarissa, I would want to look at the wreck photos, the Marschall paintings and Roy Mengot's Model. And it appears to me that the subject is open for debate after all.

Best Regards
Cliff Johnson

 

[Jeffrey Word]

>> dunno if they are all in the correct places seeing as how the impact could have dislodged a propeller by a few feet<<

I do believe you're right there Clifton. I think one of the propellers is off by a few feet and pointed upwards or something, but still right by the stern.

Clarissa, I would agree that the best thing for you to do would be to get hold of Ken Marschall and Don Lynch's 'Titanic: An Illustrated History', and it will pretty much give you the Titanic story in great detail and some splendid paintings of the interiors.

 

[Dave Gittins]

Have we a troll?

The propellers are still on their shafts, but the ship hit the bottom so hard that the outer shafts were bent.

Clarissa, remember that TV considerably exceeds the requirements of Spurgeon's Law, which I leave you to look up "for exercise", as they say in the navy.

 

[steven p greiner]

Funny how a little erroneous information from left field will generate some "HEY WAIT JUST A MINUTE" responses, but thats what we're here for, eh?
The stern was compressed considerately upon impact with the bottom, that would be the same stern section that is A LONG LONG WAY FROM THE BOW SECTION AND POINTING THE OTHER WAY. The props and rudder are pretty much where they are supposed to be, although several feet out of alignment from hitting the bottom, implosions of steel plates, and god knows what else.

 

[Matthew Lips]

Would be interesting to know exactly which TV show Clarissa is referring to, and how they would like to try and explain what Steven has pointed out in his post.

Whatever it was I wish I'd seen it. A good laugh every now and again is good for the soul.

 

[Paul Lee]

Perhaps she's a refugee from another ill-informed Internet Titanic forum?

 

[David F. Smith]

Or a reincarnation of Alicia Coors perhaps?

 

[Bob Godfrey]

Perhaps she's a he. Female trolls are rare. Unfortunately that doesn't mean the species is dying out.

 

[Ryan McKeefery]

Clarissa...
How could Ballard be wrong? He found the bloody thing - are you suggesting that the mangled mess found 2,000 feet away from the bow is another wreck that just happens to be keel #401, also?
And what about that large section that's missing from Titanic's wreck? I think they call it the stern. Buried in silt, perhaps, when the wreck lies on a plateau and the top deck sits level, 60 to 70 feet above the seabed?
You know you are correct. Have you any idea how stupid you sound?
Regards, Ryan.

 

[Fiona Nitschke]

Bob wrote:

quote:

Unfortunately that doesn't mean the species is dying out.

Agreed. Now let's aid extinction by not feeding 'em - and not sinking to their level.

As posted earlier, a lot of evidence exists as to Titanic's break up, including some rather large physical evidence. Not really anywhere else to go with this one, is there.​

 

[Paul Lee]

I've haven't laughed this much since the good ol'days of Captain Marmaduke Collins!

 

[Jeffrey Word]

Fiona, I'd have to agree that there's not much else to be said here. Although, that was a pretty good laugh as Paul said. I think you all are right that it was someone coming in to do NOTHING but start trouble. There were some other posts made by this particular person that I will not go into...but were definitely NOT appropriate for any of these threads. Takes all kinds huh?

 

[John Clifford]

It would have been interesting to start the debate by saying the ship did not break apart completely, at the surface, as some have theorized. However to say that it did not break apart at all is rather laughable; what would be the reasoning for the stern section being found several yards away, then??

Does "Clarissa", who just registed today, believe that the ship was intact during the entire sinking, and that when it hit the ocaan floor, it bounced up a little ways, causing the stern to then come off, swing around, and then crash down away from the bow section?? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I'm no scientist (science was not my strong subject), but I will wager that a 46,000 ton vessel, filled up with water, and accelerating 2 1/2 miles to the ocean floor, will not bounce back upon impact.