"SteveB" fired this volley in
:

I think it took on too much water, but
they have all these theories.

It was those damned defective rivets! If they'd been working like they
should, that 90' long hole across multiple non-watertight compartments
wouldn't have mattered.

LLoyd

On my MSN home page, down about one page, there is a video, and "new" info
on how the Titanic sank. I think it took on too much water, but they have
all these theories. They did state that the ship was abused by driving it
full speed through an iceberg field. Duh ..........

It's all about a book, Ghost of the Titanic, Archaeological Odyssey. I
listened to it, and not a lot of new news, mostly stuff we've covered here.
If they would have just asked us first .........

Steve

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:31:09 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Lloyd
E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote,
It was those damned defective rivets! If they'd been working like they
should, that 90' long hole across multiple non-watertight compartments
wouldn't have mattered.

Moron.

Hardly

--
J Miller
"David Harmon" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:31:09 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Lloyd
E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote,
It was those damned defective rivets! If they'd been working like they
should, that 90' long hole across multiple non-watertight compartments
wouldn't have mattered.

Moron.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:32:16 -0700, David Harmon wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:31:09 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Lloyd
E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote,
It was those damned defective rivets! If they'd been working like they
should, that 90' long hole across multiple non-watertight compartments
wouldn't have mattered.

Moron.


Would you care to expand upon the engineering basis for your rebuttal?


Mark Rand
RTFM