On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:22:32 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 4/14/2012 4:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:58:02 -0400, "
wrote:

Where is that............plonk
Oh, the poor baby announced to the world that he plonked me. I'm *so* sad!
A Plonkasuarus got me the other day. Was your's a Mormon or a Liberal?

I now-have five people in my kf. He should feel honored.

Oh, I am! Only a two-year-old announces that he's ignoring someone, though.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:22:56 -0400, "
wrote:

A Plonkasuarus got me the other day. Was your's a Mormon or a Liberal?

I now-have five people in my kf. He should feel honored.

Oh, I am! Only a two-year-old announces that he's ignoring someone, though.

People that live in Texas, after moving from Ohio, can be a strange
bunch. I don't even live in Texas! Mormons make public announcements.
I saw it happen right here.

On 4/14/2012 8:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:22:56 -0400, "
wrote:

A Plonkasuarus got me the other day. Was your's a Mormon or a Liberal?
I now-have five people in my kf. He should feel honored.
Oh, I am! Only a two-year-old announces that he's ignoring someone, though.
People that live in Texas, after moving from Ohio, can be a strange
bunch. I don't even live in Texas! Mormons make public announcements.
I saw it happen right here.

Tell your boyfriend that I'm ignoring this sub-thread to so if he wants
to continue this childish obsession with me he'll have to start a new one.

And now for something completely stupid -----

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:02:26 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

People that live in Texas, after moving from Ohio, can be a strange
bunch. I don't even live in Texas! Mormons make public announcements.
I saw it happen right here.

Tell your boyfriend that I'm ignoring this sub-thread to so if he wants
to continue this childish obsession with me he'll have to start a new one.

See how you are? See how people understand liberals change the subject
when the alligators get deep into the pond?

Liberals always change to present words, it may be forgotten.

Example: Liberals no longer say "spending". Now they, and POUTUS call
it "investment".

Do you have a "bromance" with a male friend?

Tell the man himself. I'm not your proxy; nor, can I speak for you.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:02:26 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 4/14/2012 8:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:22:56 -0400, "
wrote:

A Plonkasuarus got me the other day. Was your's a Mormon or a Liberal?
I now-have five people in my kf. He should feel honored.
Oh, I am! Only a two-year-old announces that he's ignoring someone, though.
People that live in Texas, after moving from Ohio, can be a strange
bunch. I don't even live in Texas! Mormons make public announcements.
I saw it happen right here.

Tell your boyfriend that I'm ignoring this sub-thread to so if he wants
to continue this childish obsession with me he'll have to start a new one.

You're supposed to be ignoring me moron, not talking through others. More
two0year-old tactics. Next time hum while you have your fingers in your ears
(and head up your ass).

And now for something completely stupid -----

You certainly have that down pat.

On Apr 14, 7:22*pm, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:
On 4/14/2012 8:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:





On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:28:54 -0400, Home *wrote:

harry wrote:

One hundred years ago today (15 April) the Titanic sank.
I thought it was too big to sink.

Almost 3/4 of the passengers *were drowned including several
American millionaires.
I always found it strange that there wasn't enough wood or other
light-weight materials onboard that could have been scavanged to make
ad-hoc rafts or other floatation aids.

Weren't there enough bathtubs in the staterooms that could have been
used as one-person mini-boats?
I can possibly agree with the wood theory, but removing tubs, plugging
drain holes and getting them launched is quite the fantasy.

If you're going to drown nothing is out of the question. Would a
bathtub float with a person in it?

There have been studies done on "what they could have done" but
unfortunanly that's Monday morning quarterbacking. I think many believed
it wasn't going to sink, until it did.

That was what happened on the Costa Concordia too.

In article ,
Steve Barker wrote:

another major problem is that the situation was downplayed until the
latter minutes and no one actually thought she would sink.

Sounds like the Costa Concordia all over again.

m

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:11:41 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

Have you been in rough 8 foot seas in the North Atlantic?

The sea that night was dead calm.

Define "dead calm".

An 8 foot sea swell is calmer than a 25 footer.

"Dead Calm: A condition of no wind or a wind with a speed of less than 1
knot (1.15 miles per hour; 1.9 kilometers per hour), according to the
Beaufort scale."

In article ,
gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

I can possibly agree with the wood theory, but removing tubs, plugging
drain holes and getting them launched is quite the fantasy.

If you're going to drown nothing is out of the question. Would a
bathtub float with a person in it?
I think the main concern was time to get all that done,
especially since it would have taken time to decide that you weren't
going to get in the lifeboats.
The REAL problem of all those scenarios is, even assuming you can
get it out, lug to the main deck and get it launched, how do you then
get down to it without getting wet?




One idea was to tie all the deck chairs together.

See above (g)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"harry" wrote in message
...
One hundred years ago today (15 April) the Titanic sank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic..._commemoration
Almost 3/4 of the passengers were drowned including several American
millionaires.

Good British quality construction

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I always found it strange that there wasn't enough wood or other
light-weight materials onboard that could have been scavanged to
make ad-hoc rafts or other floatation aids.

The ship was carrying lots of cargo, so I'm sure there would have been
lots of wood crates, etc.

Weren't there enough bathtubs in the staterooms that could have
been used as one-person mini-boats?

I can possibly agree with the wood theory, but removing tubs,
plugging drain holes and getting them launched is quite the
fantasy.

I'm sure the tubs had plugs or stoppers as standard equipment.

And I'm sure there were plenty of axes and other tools on a ship like
that.

And I think the staterooms were on the upper levels of the ship (not far
below decks).

And I think there was enough time to hack or break out the tubs (didn't
the ship take more than 2 hours to sink?).

And - I would think there would have been enough life-or-death
motivation to make all this happen.

The only problem is that survival in arctic waters is a matter of a couple
of minutes
Most if not all of the people who ended up in the water, went down a few
minutes later.
Hypothermia is a very fast killer
http://www.startribune.com/local/146536735.html

"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

I always found it strange that there wasn't enough wood or other
light-weight materials onboard that could have been scavanged to
make ad-hoc rafts or other floatation aids.

The ship was carrying lots of cargo, so I'm sure there would have
been lots of wood crates, etc.

The only problem is that survival in arctic waters is a matter of a
couple of minutes

What part of "finding enough wood or other junk to use as a raft" don't
you understand?

I can't believe the number of people that don't understand the concept
of assembling a pile of floating junk to sit on during the 3 to 6 hours
that the survivors in lifeboats had to wait until they were picked up.

The Titanic hit the iceberg at 11:40 pm, and the stern went under at
2:20 am. The first survivors were picked up at 4:10 am, and the last at
8:30 am.

For the others here that claimed that "people stayed on the ship -
believing it wouldn't sink" - ya, well, when the bow is so low and about
to go under, and you've got maybe an hour to make a crude raft, do you
still think that people on the ship are still thinking that the ship
won't sink???

On 4/14/2012 3:57 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:11:41 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Have you been in rough 8 foot seas in the North Atlantic?

The sea that night was dead calm.

Define "dead calm".

An 8 foot sea swell is calmer than a 25 footer.

a "dead calm" is like a glass plate. it was the reason they didn't see
the iceburg in time. Because there were no waves breaking against it.



--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

In article , Home Guy wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

I always found it strange that there wasn't enough wood or other
light-weight materials onboard that could have been scavanged to
make ad-hoc rafts or other floatation aids.

The ship was carrying lots of cargo, so I'm sure there would have
been lots of wood crates, etc.

The only problem is that survival in arctic waters is a matter of a
couple of minutes

What part of "finding enough wood or other junk to use as a raft" don't
you understand?

I can't believe the number of people that don't understand the concept
of assembling a pile of floating junk to sit on during the 3 to 6 hours
that the survivors in lifeboats had to wait until they were picked up
I can't believe that you would think that would work given the fact
that it isn't fact that people were killed by drowning, but rather by
the cold. How is one supposed to get to the floating junk but swim to
it? Even if it was right next to the ship, how do you traverse the space
between the top deck (or any other deck you could get out of) and stuff
in the water? You think you could rappel maybe?
Then if you could get past that hurdle, if you are sitting on a
whole bunch of flotsam and jetsam, how do you keep it from sinking from
just the addition of your weight?


For the others here that claimed that "people stayed on the ship -
believing it wouldn't sink" - ya, well, when the bow is so low and about
to go under, and you've got maybe an hour to make a crude raft, do you
still think that people on the ship are still thinking that the ship
won't sink???
The timelines don't indicate anywhere near enough to time to do that
after it became that apparent.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I can't believe the number of people that don't understand the
concept of assembling a pile of floating junk to sit on during
the 3 to 6 hours that the survivors in lifeboats had to wait
until they were picked up

(put a blank-line between the lines you're quoting and your first reply
line to make your reply more readable)

I can't believe that you would think that would work given the
fact that it isn't fact that people were killed by drowning,
but rather by the cold. How is one supposed to get to the floating
junk but swim to it?

The ship was easing itself slowing into the water bow-first. There was
plenty of opportunity to assemble a crude raft on deck and then ease it
into the water with you sitting on it.

Even if you get wet, as long as you stay above the water you can easily
survive 3 to 6 hours.

Then if you could get past that hurdle, if you are sitting on a
whole bunch of flotsam and jetsam, how do you keep it from
sinking from just the addition of your weight?

That depends on what you can get for your raft. I don't know how much
cork, life-rings, life jackets, maybe even buoys they had on the ship.

The timelines don't indicate anywhere near enough to time
to do that after it became that apparent.

It took what - 2.5 hours between hitting the ice and going under.
Plenty of time to scavange the ship if you KNOW that you're not getting
into a life boat.

And the lights stayed on until about the last 2 minutes.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:35:13 -0400, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:28:54 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

harry wrote:

One hundred years ago today (15 April) the Titanic sank.

I thought it was too big to sink.

Almost 3/4 of the passengers were drowned including several American
millionaires.

I always found it strange that there wasn't enough wood or other
light-weight materials onboard that could have been scavanged to make
ad-hoc rafts or other floatation aids.

You do know the water is rather chilly in the N. Atlantic in April?

Indeed... plus it was quite a long way down from deck level to the water;
it would have been extremely difficult to launch anything and end up on
top of it without getting soaked in the process, and then odds are pretty
good that hypothermia will get you before someone rescues you.

On Apr 15, 2:55*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

One hundred years ago today (15 April) the Titanic sank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic..._commemoration
Almost 3/4 of the passengers *were drowned including several American
millionaires.

Good British quality construction
There were three identical ships. One struck a mine in WW1 and sank.
The other was scrapped 50 yars later.

Amazingly, a survivor of the Titanic was on the Britannic when it
sank. (Survived again.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Jessop


Never heard of the "SS San Franciso" then?
American ship built in New York sunk on maiden voyage in the same part
of the ocean without even hitting anything.

http://www.maritimeheritage.org/ship...nFrancisco.htm

It too was supposed to be unsinkable.
A gripping story of incompetence.

On 4/14/2012 4:41 AM, harry wrote:
One hundred years ago today (15 April) the Titanic sank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic..._commemoration
Almost 3/4 of the passengers were drowned including several American
millionaires.

Many stories have come to us from the tragic sinking of the great
ship The Titanic...some are not as well known as others.

Most people don't know that back in 1912, Hellman's mayonnaise was
manufactured in England. In fact, the "Titanic" was carrying 12,000
jars of the condiment scheduled for delivery in Vera Cruz, Mexico which
was to be the next port of call for the great ship after New York. To
date the largest shipment ever exported to Mexico.

The people of Mexico, who were crazy about the stuff, were eagerly
awaiting delivery and were disconsolate at the loss.

So much so thatthey declared a National Day of mourning which they still
observe today. It is known, of course, as Sinko de Mayo.

On 14/04/12 4:41 PM, harry wrote:
One hundred years ago today (15 April) the Titanic sank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic..._commemoration
Almost 3/4 of the passengers were drowned including several American
millionaires.

.... because there were not enough escape pods!

--
@~@ You have the right to remain silent.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:49:19 -0400, Frank
wrote:

On 4/14/2012 4:41 AM, harry wrote:
One hundred years ago today (15 April) the Titanic sank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic..._commemoration
Almost 3/4 of the passengers were drowned including several American
millionaires.

Many stories have come to us from the tragic sinking of the great
ship The Titanic...some are not as well known as others.

Most people don't know that back in 1912, Hellman's mayonnaise was
manufactured in England. In fact, the "Titanic" was carrying 12,000
jars of the condiment scheduled for delivery in Vera Cruz, Mexico which
was to be the next port of call for the great ship after New York. To
date the largest shipment ever exported to Mexico.

The people of Mexico, who were crazy about the stuff, were eagerly
awaiting delivery and were disconsolate at the loss.

So much so thatthey declared a National Day of mourning which they still
observe today. It is known, of course, as Sinko de Mayo.

It took 20 days for the news to reach Mexico? Incredible!

Jules Richardson wrote:

I always found it strange that there wasn't enough wood or other
light-weight materials onboard that could have been scavanged to
make ad-hoc rafts or other floatation aids.

You do know the water is rather chilly in the N. Atlantic in
April?

Again, how many times do I have to point out that the idea of making a
raft is to stay above the water???!?!?!

Indeed... plus it was quite a long way down from deck level to the
water;

If the boat is on an even keel.

I don't know if you noticed or paid attention in history class, but the
boat began sinking bow-first. It made a rather shallow and easy entry
point into the water from the deck about an hour after it hit the
iceberg.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:24:18 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Jules Richardson wrote:

I always found it strange that there wasn't enough wood or other
light-weight materials onboard that could have been scavanged to
make ad-hoc rafts or other floatation aids.

You do know the water is rather chilly in the N. Atlantic in
April?

Again, how many times do I have to point out that the idea of making a
raft is to stay above the water???!?!?!

Rafts *don't* stay above the water. Wood will only "float" about 10% of its
weight. If you can't displace water you're not going to stay dry. ...but I
wouldn't expect you to understand any of this, even after many have tried to
explain it to you.

Indeed... plus it was quite a long way down from deck level to the
water;

If the boat is on an even keel.

I don't know if you noticed or paid attention in history class, but the
boat began sinking bow-first. It made a rather shallow and easy entry
point into the water from the deck about an hour after it hit the
iceberg.

Those in the life boats didn't think it was very "easy".

It's truly amazing that you always have all the answers but none who were
actually there did. what a bozo

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:54:25 -0400, "
wrote:

Again, how many times do I have to point out that the idea of making a
raft is to stay above the water???!?!?!

Rafts *don't* stay above the water. Wood will only "float" about 10% of its
weight. If you can't displace water you're not going to stay dry. ...but I
wouldn't expect you to understand any of this, even after many have tried to
explain it to you.

Seems he never built a raft as a youngster. Deprived of all the fun?

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:51:41 +0800, Man-wai Chang
wrote Re OT 15 April Titanic.:

On 14/04/12 4:41 PM, harry wrote:
One hundred years ago today (15 April) the Titanic sank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic..._commemoration
Almost 3/4 of the passengers were drowned including several American
millionaires.

... because there were not enough escape pods!

But there was plenty of room for Bruce Ismay. He was on one of the
first lifeboats launched.

After the disaster, Ismay was savaged by both the American and the
British press for deserting the ship while women and children were
still on board. Some papers called him the "Coward Of The Titanic" or
"J. Brute Ismay" and suggested that the White Star flag be changed to
a white liver. Some ran negative cartoons depicting him deserting the
ship. The writer Ben Hecht, then a young newspaperman in Chicago,
wrote a scathing poem contrasting the actions of Capt. Smith and
Ismay. The final verse reads: "To hold your place in the ghastly face
of death on the sea at night is a seaman's job, but to flee with the
mob, is an owner's noble right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bruce_Ismay
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:07:49 -0500, Caesar Romano
wrote:

... because there were not enough escape pods!

But there was plenty of room for Bruce Ismay. He was on one of the
first lifeboats launched.

After the disaster, Ismay was savaged by both the American and the
British press for deserting the ship while women and children were
still on board. Some papers called him the "Coward Of The Titanic" or
"J. Brute Ismay" and suggested that the White Star flag be changed to
a white liver. Some ran negative cartoons depicting him deserting the
ship. The writer Ben Hecht, then a young newspaperman in Chicago,
wrote a scathing poem contrasting the actions of Capt. Smith and
Ismay. The final verse reads: "To hold your place in the ghastly face
of death on the sea at night is a seaman's job, but to flee with the
mob, is an owner's noble right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bruce_Ismay

Not knowing the exact circumstances, he may or may not have done the
right thing by getting off the ship. As a businessman, he may have
save lives by getting the hell out of the way and letting the heroic
crew do their jobs without his hindrance.

What he was guilty of was reducing the number of lifeboats.

"To accommodate the luxurious features Ismay ordered the number of
lifeboats reduced from 48 to 16, the latter being the minimum allowed
by the Board of Trade, based on the Titanic's projected tonnage."

May have been legal, but it certainly was not the right thing to do.
The laws and thought process were certainly different in 1912, not
just for ships, but for industry in all forms.

But there was plenty of room for Bruce Ismay. He was on one of the
first lifeboats launched.

After the disaster, Ismay was savaged by both the American and the
British press for deserting the ship while women and children were
still on board. Some papers called him the "Coward Of The Titanic" or

Same reason why people invested in Lehman Brothers?

--
@~@ You have the right to remain silent.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora 15 i686) Linux 3.3.2
^ ^ 17:17:01 up 12:15 0 users load average: 0.17 0.17 0.11
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What he was guilty of was reducing the number of lifeboats.

"To accommodate the luxurious features Ismay ordered the number of
lifeboats reduced from 48 to 16, the latter being the minimum allowed
by the Board of Trade, based on the Titanic's projected tonnage."

May have been legal, but it certainly was not the right thing to do.
The laws and thought process were certainly different in 1912, not
just for ships, but for industry in all forms.

The Board of Trade required standard was "16 lifeboats for vessels of 10,000
tons or greater."

The Titantic was FIVE TIMES larger than the maximum on the list. The Board
of Trade SHOULD have specified EIGHTY lifeboats for a ship Titantic's size.

On Apr 16, 7:31*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What he was guilty of was reducing the number of lifeboats.

"To accommodate the luxurious features Ismay ordered the number of
lifeboats reduced from 48 to 16, the latter being the minimum allowed
by the Board of Trade, based on the Titanic's projected tonnage."

May have been legal, but it certainly was not the right thing to do.
The laws and thought process were certainly different in 1912, not
just for ships, but for industry in all forms.

The Board of Trade required standard was "16 lifeboats for vessels of 10,000
tons or greater."

The Titantic was FIVE TIMES larger than the maximum on the list. The Board
of Trade SHOULD have specified EIGHTY lifeboats for a ship Titantic's size.

back then safety glasses, car seatbelts and tons of other safety
devices were unheard of.

besides they thought the ship was unsinkable

On 4/16/2012 8:37 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 16, 7:31 am, wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What he was guilty of was reducing the number of lifeboats.
"To accommodate the luxurious features Ismay ordered the number of
lifeboats reduced from 48 to 16, the latter being the minimum allowed
by the Board of Trade, based on the Titanic's projected tonnage."
May have been legal, but it certainly was not the right thing to do.
The laws and thought process were certainly different in 1912, not
just for ships, but for industry in all forms.
The Board of Trade required standard was "16 lifeboats for vessels of 10,000
tons or greater."

The Titantic was FIVE TIMES larger than the maximum on the list. The Board
of Trade SHOULD have specified EIGHTY lifeboats for a ship Titantic's size.
back then safety glasses, car seatbelts and tons of other safety
devices were unheard of.


My dad was a cop and later a car insurance adjuster. The stories he
could tell. I used to go to the salvage yards with him. Gruesome.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:12:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:07:49 -0500, Caesar Romano wrote:

... because there were not enough escape pods!

But there was plenty of room for Bruce Ismay. He was on one of the
first lifeboats launched.

After the disaster, Ismay was savaged by both the American and the
British press for deserting the ship while women and children were still
on board. Some papers called him the "Coward Of The Titanic" or "J.
Brute Ismay" and suggested that the White Star flag be changed to a
white liver. Some ran negative cartoons depicting him deserting the
ship. The writer Ben Hecht, then a young newspaperman in Chicago, wrote
a scathing poem contrasting the actions of Capt. Smith and Ismay. The
final verse reads: "To hold your place in the ghastly face of death on
the sea at night is a seaman's job, but to flee with the mob, is an
owner's noble right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bruce_Ismay

Not knowing the exact circumstances, he may or may not have done the
right thing by getting off the ship. As a businessman, he may have save
lives by getting the hell out of the way and letting the heroic crew do
their jobs without his hindrance.

What he was guilty of was reducing the number of lifeboats.

"To accommodate the luxurious features Ismay ordered the number of
lifeboats reduced from 48 to 16, the latter being the minimum allowed by
the Board of Trade, based on the Titanic's projected tonnage."

Hmm, didn't the Olympic (Titanic's sister[1] ship) have a similar
(possibly identical) number of lifeboats? As far as I know, nobody kicked
up a stink then; people weren't particularly worried about it until after
Titanic went down.

[1] IIRC, some of the "Titanic" footage from newsreels and the like
immediately after the Titanic disaster is actually of Olympic; the ships
appeared more or less identical.

cheers

Jules

bob haller wrote:

The Board of Trade required standard was "16 lifeboats for vessels
of 10,000 tons or greater."

The Titantic was FIVE TIMES larger than the maximum on the list. The
Board of Trade SHOULD have specified EIGHTY lifeboats for a ship
Titantic's size.

back then safety glasses, car seatbelts and tons of other safety
devices were unheard of.

besides they thought the ship was unsinkable

Well, there you are. Safety glasses, seatbelts, and the like wouldn't have
done the Titantic passengers one sliver of good.

In retrospect, the crew COULD have over-loaded the lifeboats. On a calm sea,
surely you wouldn't need the same freeboard as in 12-foot swells.
Particularily since the crew knew, or should have known, that help was only
a few hours away.

The RMS Carpathia acknowledged Titantic's distress call at 12:11 a.m. and
made maximum speed (17 knots) from 58 miles distance. The captain of the
Carpathia rousted a second black gang to stoke his boilers and turned off
all heating and hot water on the ship to conserve steam. The Titanic sank at
2:20 am. The Carpathia arrived on the scene at 4:00 a.m., one hour and forty
minutes too late.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:27:10 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:



In retrospect, the crew COULD have over-loaded the lifeboats. On a calm sea,
surely you wouldn't need the same freeboard as in 12-foot swells.
Particularily since the crew knew, or should have known, that help was only
a few hours away.

In a practiced situation there would have been a lot of things done
differently. There was probably no lifeboat drill like you have today
(even that regulation was changed just a few months ago due to the
Concordia). It was the first time for the crew on the ship and some
confusion and panic on what to do with the boats.

The RMS Carpathia acknowledged Titantic's distress call at 12:11 a.m. and
made maximum speed (17 knots) from 58 miles distance. The captain of the
Carpathia rousted a second black gang to stoke his boilers and turned off
all heating and hot water on the ship to conserve steam. The Titanic sank at
2:20 am. The Carpathia arrived on the scene at 4:00 a.m., one hour and forty
minutes too late.

The California was even closer, but the Marconi operators on the
Titanic told the Marconi operator on that ship to STFU as he was
interfering with their transmission. He shut down for the night after
issuing a warning just before the Titanic hit the berg. Today, that
would not happen that way, there would be radio contact.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:57:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

In a practiced situation there would have been a lot of things done
differently. There was probably no lifeboat drill like you have today
(even that regulation was changed just a few months ago due to the
Concordia).

The drill may be new for that company, but cruises (5) I've been on in
the past 12 years have a lifeboat drill shortly after sailing outside
the port channel. You have some snacks while the luggage is delivered
and then the drill starts. A mandatory drill. Passengers are not
released until every passenger is present. and accounted for. You
bring your life floatation device with you from the cabin. You have
an assigned deck assembly area, specific to the lifeboat.

....just sayin'

On Apr 16, 9:46*pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:12:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:07:49 -0500, Caesar Romano wrote:

... because there were not enough escape pods!

But there was plenty of room for Bruce Ismay. *He was on one of the
first lifeboats launched.

After the disaster, Ismay was savaged by both the American and the
British press for deserting the ship while women and children were still
on board. Some papers called him the "Coward Of The Titanic" or "J.
Brute Ismay" and suggested that the White Star flag be changed to a
white liver. Some ran negative cartoons depicting him deserting the
ship. The writer Ben Hecht, then a young newspaperman in Chicago, wrote
a scathing poem contrasting the actions of Capt. Smith and Ismay. The
final verse reads: "To hold your place in the ghastly face of death on
the sea at night is a seaman's job, but to flee with the mob, is an
owner's noble right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bruce_Ismay

Not knowing the exact circumstances, he may or may not have done the
right thing by getting off the ship. *As a businessman, he may have save
lives by getting the hell out of the way and letting the heroic crew do
their jobs without his hindrance.

*What he was guilty of was reducing the number of lifeboats.

"To accommodate the luxurious features Ismay ordered the number of
lifeboats reduced from 48 to 16, the latter being the minimum allowed by
the Board of Trade, based on the Titanic's projected tonnage."

Hmm, didn't the Olympic (Titanic's sister[1] ship) have a similar
(possibly identical) number of lifeboats? As far as I know, nobody kicked
up a stink then; people weren't particularly worried about it until after
Titanic went down.

[1] IIRC, some of the "Titanic" footage from newsreels and the like
immediately after the Titanic disaster is actually of Olympic; the ships
appeared more or less identical.

cheers

Jules- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When theTitanic sank,all sailings were suspended on the sister ship.
No-one would have got on anyway.
Extra lifeboats were added and the bulkhead heights increased and
other rmodifications.

However when the Britannic (even more modified) struck a mine off the
shore of Turkey, it sank even faster than the Titanic. It was a
hospital ship so there were casualties again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic

On Apr 17, 4:13*am, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:57:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
In a practiced situation there would have been a lot of things done
differently. *There was probably no lifeboat drill like you have today
(even that regulation was changed just a few months ago due to the
Concordia).

The drill may be new for that company, but cruises (5) I've been on in
the past 12 years have a lifeboat drill shortly after sailing outside
the port channel. *You have some snacks while the luggage is delivered
and then the drill starts. *A mandatory drill. Passengers are not
released until every passenger is present. and accounted for. You
bring your life floatation device with you from the cabin. *You have
an assigned deck assembly area, specific to the lifeboat.

...just sayin'

Same old problem. No-one believed the ship was sinking until it was
too late.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:13:44 -0700, Oren wrote:


The drill may be new for that company, but cruises (5) I've been on in
the past 12 years have a lifeboat drill shortly after sailing outside
the port channel. You have some snacks while the luggage is delivered
and then the drill starts. A mandatory drill. Passengers are not
released until every passenger is present. and accounted for. You
bring your life floatation device with you from the cabin. You have
an assigned deck assembly area, specific to the lifeboat.

...just sayin'

On the Concordia, there was no drill yet. It was scheduled for the
NEXT day. That is no longer allowed and must be done the same day.

Cruises don't interest me so I have no first hand experience.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:57:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

In a practiced situation there would have been a lot of things done
differently. There was probably no lifeboat drill like you have today
(even that regulation was changed just a few months ago due to the
Concordia).

The drill may be new for that company, but cruises (5) I've been on in
the past 12 years have a lifeboat drill shortly after sailing outside
the port channel. You have some snacks while the luggage is delivered
and then the drill starts. A mandatory drill. Passengers are not
released until every passenger is present. and accounted for. You
bring your life floatation device with you from the cabin. You have
an assigned deck assembly area, specific to the lifeboat.

I haven't been on a cruise yet (both in the US and in Europe) where
the drill wasn't completed before departure. Usually about 30 minutes
or so before so we could have it, go back to the cabin, dump off our
life preserver, and still have time for a couple of beers before the
band started up on the pool deck.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:37:27 -0700, bob haller wrote:
besides they thought the ship was unsinkable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Legends_and_myths_regarding_RMS_Titanic#Unsinkable

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

I always found it strange that there wasn't enough wood or other
light-weight materials onboard that could have been scavanged to
make ad-hoc rafts or other floatation aids.

The ship was carrying lots of cargo, so I'm sure there would have
been lots of wood crates, etc.

The only problem is that survival in arctic waters is a matter of a
couple of minutes

What part of "finding enough wood or other junk to use as a raft" don't
you understand?


Unless you stay warm AND DRY, which is very hard to do on ANY kind of raft,
your odds of survival are low.


I can't believe the number of people that don't understand the concept
of assembling a pile of floating junk to sit on during the 3 to 6 hours
that the survivors in lifeboats had to wait until they were picked up.


The problem is not to be sitting, it's how you get to be sitting without
being immersed or soaked in arctic waters.

The Titanic hit the iceberg at 11:40 pm, and the stern went under at
2:20 am. The first survivors were picked up at 4:10 am, and the last at
8:30 am.


That's nice.
But not really relevant.
Many that made it into the boats, didn't survive those few hours.
How do you think that people sitting soaking wet on a raft would do ?


For the others here that claimed that "people stayed on the ship -
believing it wouldn't sink" - ya, well, when the bow is so low and about
to go under, and you've got maybe an hour to make a crude raft, do you
still think that people on the ship are still thinking that the ship
won't sink???

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
Kurt Ullman wrote:

I can't believe the number of people that don't understand the
concept of assembling a pile of floating junk to sit on during
the 3 to 6 hours that the survivors in lifeboats had to wait
until they were picked up

(put a blank-line between the lines you're quoting and your first reply
line to make your reply more readable)

I can't believe that you would think that would work given the
fact that it isn't fact that people were killed by drowning,
but rather by the cold. How is one supposed to get to the floating
junk but swim to it?

The ship was easing itself slowing into the water bow-first. There was
plenty of opportunity to assemble a crude raft on deck and then ease it
into the water with you sitting on it.

Even if you get wet, as long as you stay above the water you can easily
survive 3 to 6 hours.

Then if you could get past that hurdle, if you are sitting on a
whole bunch of flotsam and jetsam, how do you keep it from
sinking from just the addition of your weight?

That depends on what you can get for your raft. I don't know how much
cork, life-rings, life jackets, maybe even buoys they had on the ship.

The timelines don't indicate anywhere near enough to time
to do that after it became that apparent.

It took what - 2.5 hours between hitting the ice and going under.
Plenty of time to scavange the ship if you KNOW that you're not getting
into a life boat.

And the lights stayed on until about the last 2 minutes.

Always easy to be a Monday-Morning Quarterback.