Raise the titanic

[deleted]

"Maybe they didn't know it actually cracked in half at the time of the sinking"

AFAIR, until the Titanic was actually found, the general consensus was that it sunk in one piece.

"they sure as hell would have known that the steam-stacks would have collapsed as the ship went down"

I may be mistaken, but I think that was mentioned in the novel, so it was probably just another screwup by the people who made the movie.

What I hadn't realised was that they apparently had a $40 million budget. What the heck did they spend it on?

Cussler has said his stories take place in a different Reality then the one we live in so in that Reality the Titanic went down in One Piece so they were able to Raise the Ship. Also Cussler still talks about Dirk Pitt Raising the Titanic in his Newer books.

But the Ship being in one Piece or two???? Two Great Authors have different opinions Aurther C. Clarke has the Titanic Being Raised and made into a Museum of some Sorts in one of his books. Then on the Other had in the Book "A Night To Remember" By Walter Lord, He is the leading athority and Researcher on the Titanic and has Written Two book on the Subject "A Night To Remember" and "The Night Lives On" In those two book he has Quotes by some who think the Ship broke in Two as she went down.

On a Personal Note Was Kind of sad when they found the ship in Two Pieces so they could never Raise the Ship.

Ismay didn't own the Titanic. Ismay was the director of International Mercantile Marine, which owned the Titanic. IMM was owned by JP Morgan, at the time the wealthiest man in the world, so technically, JP Morgan owned the Titanic. The survivors that stated that the Titanic broke in half, such as Jack Thayer and Eva Hart, were in the minority. The surviving officers stated in the inquiry that the ship went down in one piece. There testimony is what was accepted. And White Star Lines was very adamant that the ship did not break in two, as it would give the impression that its ships were flawed.

>assumed that at the depth where the Titanic lay the lack of oxygen and harmful
>marine creatures would have 'preserved' the ship - they did not expect the
>ship to rust (rusticles etc.) the way it did.

That's one of the key parts of the book. I'm not so sure it was just the depth, though. As I recall, there was something about it being in the path of an underwater flow that actually preserved the wreckage. Perhaps it had something to do with the salinity (or lack thereof), but I do recall that there is a section of the book where they discuss this as they were originally assuming that the ship would be almost completely rusted away until this came up.

As for the breaking in half, I think the majority of people were unaware that it broke in half until James Cameron's movie came out. It only became known as a definite fact when the wreckage was discovered as reports from eyewitnesses varied greatly. I also believe many of the survivors were far more interested in saving their own lives than keeping tabs on the sinking of the ship... that and it was nighttime, so visibility would have been limited. I don't think we should fault Cussler for keeping the ship in one piece for this story.

The worst and most unreliable stories usually comes from the eyewitnesses. Ask a cop!

Actually no. There were conflicting reports about whether the ship split in two and I believe, those witnesses saying it did were in the minority.

Actually, the Titanic split into three pieces, not two. The third piece was discovered by the scientist and it was mentioned in a documentary on Discovery Channel.

Also, the stern is so badly crushed (since it was full of air when it sank so it then imploded), that it would be impossible to weld it to the other two parts.

what the hell?
movies are made to entertain us,they dont have to be realistic thats what documentations are for.but raise the titanic is not one.ok it could have been done a little bit better and the condition of the titanic might be a little bit to unrealistic.but after all its not a bad movie,i like watching it,and i give a damn *beep* if a movie is realistic or not aslong its entertaining,and this movie was.
i really hate nitpickers that just have nothing better to do than rip a movie in pieces just for the dinky details.
GUYS! GET A LIFE!

The mentioned "3rd" piece that was reffered to is actually a piece of the keel of the ship with part of the double bottom intact . It has both port and starboard sides (as well as the line that runs along them, it protrudes off the hull slightly. It was said on the documentary that found this piece, but not knowing much of ship design and building I don't know it's name). It was fairly large and was theorised that as the ships steel hull buckled and warped because of the iron rivets (this theory was tested and proven under stress testing and this is what did the ship in really according to that documentary) unable to take the stress that this section under the weight from the bow, was strechted and ripped off and sank to the bottom a few minutes before the ship started to descend. But because of this missing peice the weight was jsut to much and the ship ripped in half with the front pulling the back end down and nearly vertical and then snapping off and sinking minus the stern. Then the stern sank and because of the force of air landed with the same force as an a bomb nearly, thus ruining her completely. This could never have been theorised due to the keel of the ship being covered in sand and most likely crushed like so many parts of the enginering levels. The documentary is repeated on Discovery UK every few weeks or so still. It was found something like 1.5 miles away in the debris filed. I base my own judgement however basing it on all the documentaries I have watched and books I've read, but I agree with what people have said here, in the fact that the officals paid attention to the more reputiable people than the passengers.