I've been a novice avid historian of the Titanic since I read about it in the 3rd grade. (aka 1980) I've read books upon books about it. I'm not sure you'd call it a hobby, but when I'm willing to read both of the British and US documents about what happened (both over 40 pages of wrote gov't 1930's speak), you might say I'm a tad obsessed. I do have 3 coffee table books about the ship, along with several books on the matter. In fact, I recall my fascination with the idea of raising her back in the 80's with ping pong balls. (both were deemed impossible: ping pong balls can't stand the pressure at that depth, and this was before we found the Titanic had split in two.) Which brings me to my thesis: Titanic never split in two, as the movie suggests. My reasoning? If you have ever watched scuba diving, you know about pressure. ie. a can filled with enough water will sink, eventually crushing the part filled with air. Had Titanic split in two, both part would've filled with water, causing both parts to remain intact. I believe that Titanic filled with 2/3rds water and her bow sank, causing the remaining air-filled part of her stern to go down with her. Normally, this wouldn't cause a problem. But Titanic sunk to such humongous depths, that the air-filled part of her had to explode. And, in my opinion, that is why you still can visually recognize the front 2/3rds of Titanic, but the back half is unrecognizable and scattered over several miles of the ship's final resting ground. Any other thoughts?
There is quite a debris field between the bow and stern, but I don't know if I'd call it "unrecognizable".
Wasn't there eye witnesss reports saying that the stern did indeed split from the partially sunken bow while mid-air like it's always been theorized?
Yea...I have some thoughts. I don't believe you and your argument doesn't compel me to rethink how the ship went down. They have done repeated computer models of the sinking and the conclusion is that the forces exerted on the ship when she rose in the air while sinking were too much for the ship to remain intact. Plus, as was said, some survivors said they saw it split. Also, James Cameron said it split. Last, I don't give a crap what happened. It was 1912.
Uhh..how long have you looked into this? 1. The movie did not "suggest" a split, they just went with what everyone already said. 2. There are recorded eyewitness statements recalling the split (and the extra death/screams that resulted) 3. Computer models have re-enacted a split based on the physics. 4. The only real challenge to what everyone concerned believes is a recent "Titanic historian" claiming that it split in three, not two.
Actually, only a couple of the 1300 survivors said they saw a "split". If it truly had occured, the lifeboats were certainly close enough for a somewhat unanimous opinion, rather than just a few. In fact, only after the Titanic was found did the theory of the ship splitting come into play. Before that, there was a broad consensus that the ship would be fully intact. Look up the book "Raising the Titanic" if you doubt that.
Well that is a problem with both of our positions...the eyewitness accounts have been sketchy and contradictory at best (as such things always are) I was only talking about your implication that the movie suggested it. Titanic was found in, what, 1980? So I was saying that the vast majority sided with the "it split" theory before the movie existed. I would also hope that finding the wreckage and the ensuing decades of research and tecnhology would be more reliable than what they thought from 1920-1979. Again, just about everyone who has spent any real time as an "expert" with Titanic now advocates the splitting of it. I have worked with marine salvage/conservation people and they tend to be cautious and throrough so I trust the majority view. If new evidence comes into light then it would certainly be important and could change everything.
The famous battle of hindedburg. Where the North Poleans battled off the Mayan indians led by none other.... Chuck Norris
Well even if the ship was filled with air as it went down (which seems highly unlikely considering the flood control walls didn't run the entire heighth of the ship which would support the splitting in two theory as the water would slowly fill the bow, raising the stern in into the air to the point where the ship would break in two under all that weight) when it reached a certain depth the ship would have imploded, not explode...therefore there wouldn't seem to be a large debris field right?. Plus, there is still a very recognizable bow and stern seperated by a debris field, which would seem to suggest that indeed the ship split in two and fell apart as it went down. Why don't you just ask the mythbusters to test your theory.
