Titanic was doomed before it set sail

[133724]

Research suggests that, even if the ocean liner had not struck an iceberg during its maiden voyage, structural weaknesses made it vulnerable to any stormy sea.

...


However, the findings of the new research project, a collaboration between the History Channel and Lone Wolf Documentary Group, an American film company, suggest that the Titanic broke in half when its stern had reached an angle of just 10 degrees - a scenario that could have occurred in heavy seas during any severe storm, never mind in the aftermath of hitting an iceberg.

Rushmore DeNooyer, who led the project, said: "Titanic broke at a very shallow angle, yet ships experience shallow angles like this in storms, when they are tilted up by large waves. So perhaps Titanic wasn't designed strongly enough. If the force that broke it was no greater than the force it would have faced in a hurricane, ergo, it could have been broken in a hurricane."

...


The team also found parts of the rearmost of the vessel's two "expansion joints" - fitted near the bow and the stern - which were supposed to allow the hull to flex in heavy seas. Analysis, however, suggests that they were poorly designed and may have contributed to the ship breaking up at the shallow 10 degree angle.

Roger Long, a naval architect who worked on the project, said: "The design of the expansion joints in the ship was so unimaginably crude."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/10/nwreck110.xml

[POAS]

1. Damn, I thought this was going to be about Bush........n/t

[JI7]

3. so did I

[shance]

2. Looking at all the false flag, manufactured disasters, it wouldn't surprise me

that someone probably stood to profit from the sinking of the Titanic.

Im not saying it happened that way, however who's to say at this point that it didnt?

[regnaD kciN]

4. One BIG problem with this hypothesis...

...was that, although few people know it today, the Titanic was actually the second ship from the exact same design -- it was merely a carbon copy (with a few cosmetic changes) of the Olympic, launched the previous year. It was built by the same shipyard from the same plans by the same designer. And the Olympic was a model of reliability, lasting almost twenty-five years on the North Atlantic, and could easily have sailed for many more -- it was only retired when the Depression left the shipping industry with too many ocean liners and too few passengers. (During WWI, it also became the only liner to ever ram and sink a German U-Boat.) If, as this project suggests, the design of the Olympic/Titanic was so fatally flawed that it would take only a minor storm to break apart, how does one explain the sturdiness and longevity of the Olympic?

[bluerum]

5. One doesn't. Very interesting. Apparently the Olympic was a lighter ship

even though it was of the same class as the Titanic.

Titanic-Titanic.com

Perhaps the stress caused by the weight of the water taken on by the Titanic as it sank was a factor.