The Titanic Was Sunk By The Us Government

[capitan1962]

Glad to see there is not a barrage of people here to argue this.

[eigokyoukan]

Its Maddox. He is an asshole who gets kicks out of people REACTING to his satire. He is not disinfo. He is just a duche. He is not psy-ops. He is just a bored guy who writes arcticles in the hope of getting a rise.

[TraxusIV]

I dont entirely remember right off hand what the deal was, but I remember there being an interestingly high level of people that died on the titanic that were either competition for someone or just in the way for something to happen. Like, there were enough people to where it couldnt have been a coincidence. I dont remember what the deal was though. Can someone help me out here?

[capitan1962]

In 1912 navigation was done by sextant, ship telegraphs sending commands to the engine room crew were still used to control the engines, communication by morse code, no satelites, no internet, no way to manipulate the course of the ship other than plain celestial navigation by the Captain and the officers. Therefore the only defense in this argument is someone physically placed the iceberg in the path of the ship for a collision. That couldn't be done today with all of the technology in the world.

[MrBlonde159]

Quote:Your not THEEEEEEEE Mr Blonde from DS are you ? :shocked:

???????? DS ???????

Not sure what DS is...... ?:suspicious:

[FighterFromAfar]

I think we have our nominee for this year's The Biggest Douche in the Universe. (Maddox)

Hey, if Maddox wants to sink to the level of illogic, he deserves whatever he gets. Sometimes he's funny, but sometimes he's just another uninformed douche.

[capitan1962]

Ditto

[Nyte]

http://debunking-maddox.blogspot.com/


;)

[drunkenmunky]

On the whole argument, metal is stronger than ice. From what I have been told, it wasn't the ice puncturing straight through the metal sides. But instead, the ice berg brushed along the ship, shearing off the rivots holding the metal side paneling together. As the mechanical properties of the iron rivots weren't strong in shear strength, the pivot heads were easily knocked off.

[Guest]

I'd find it easier to believe the 'berg pushed in plates thus affecting tensile strength as opposed to a shearing force.

Here's an example... do you have the physical strength to strip threads off a 1/4 inch dia. bolt using 1 ft. leverage on a wrench? Yes. How about shearing a bolt using only 1 ft. leverage?

Which is easier? Tensile or shear?

[drunkenmunky]

It depends upon the manufacturing process and material used. It seems both steel & wrought iron rivets were used in the ships construction. Wrought iron is usually quite brittle under cold conditions in comparison to most metals, which to my knowledge reduce both tensile and shear strength.

I did a brief google search and found this:

Quote:kenvlach (Materials)
18 Feb 07 2:03
There are a modern metallurgical studies on ca. 1912 rivets owing to the H.M.S. Titanic, most notably by Tim Foecke at NIST & Jennifer J. Hooper, who got her PhD on the subject, with Foecke as advisor.
The Titanic had both steel & wrought iron rivets, and excessive slag in the latter may have contributed to their failure & rapid sinking of the ship.
Note the link for "comparison between the microstructure of Titanic's rivets and those from The Farmer's Bank Building in Pittsburgh..."
The Marine Forensics Panel report also notes micro-cracking around the cold-punched rivet holes in plates: "The iceberg did not penetrate the steel, but instead compromised a main riveted seam below the waterline, which resulted in popped rivets, broken caulking, and micro cracks extending into the plate surfaces from the rivet holes."
See the page Metallurgy of the RMS Titanic
http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/webpages/TF...ic/titanic.html
I think somewhere in the literature they reported mechanical testing on the rivets.

An earlier paper focused on the quality and brittleness of the steel plates, but mentions rivet installation:
"In the early 20th century, ships were constructed using wrought-iron rivets to attach steel plates to each other or to a steel frame. The frame itself was held together by similar rivets. Holes were punched at appropriate sites in the steel-frame members and plates for the insertion of the rivets. Each rivet was heated well into the austenite temperature region, inserted in the mated holes of the respective plates or frame members, and hydraulically squeezed to fill the holes and form a head."
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/980...-9801.html

The AISC has historical data on steel construction: Historical Record, History of ASTM Structural Steel Specification Stresses.
An excerpt that may be relevant is on page 11 at http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Secti...;CONTENTID=1849

FEMA also quotes from historical ASTM and AISC Structural Steel Specification Stresses (on page 140 of 435 page of pdf) to give Default Expected Material Strengths:
For 1909–1923 Buildings:
A9 Structural Steel 55 ksi for TS, 1/2 TS for YS
Rivet Steel 48 ksi for TS, 1/2 TS for YS
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/FEMA/fema273.pdf
Helpful Member!metengr (Materials)
18 Feb 07 10:29
In addition to the above, for historical boilers and pressure vessels in the US that date back to this time frame, rivets were either steel or wrought iron. The default values stated in Appendix C of the NBIC use the following values;

Iron rivets in single shear 38 Ksi
Iron rivets in double shear 76 Ksi
Steel rivets in single shear 44 Ksi
Steel rivets in double shear 88 Ksi

When the ultimate tensile stregnth of the steel or wrought iron rivet is not known, the default values are

steel 55 Ksi
iron 45 Ksi

I would choose the most conservative route (wrought iron rivets) for your analysis.

Source

Quote:The Rivets.

The wrought iron rivets that fastened the hull plates to the Titanic's main structure also failed because of brittle fracture from the high impact loading of the collision with the iceberg and the low temperature water on the night of the disaster. Figure 2 shows the Titanic during her construction, with the riveted hull plates of her stern visible. With the ship travelling at nearly 25 mph, the contact with the iceberg was probably a series of impacts that caused the rivets to fail either in shear or by elongation [Garzke and others, 1994]. As the iceberg scraped along sections of the Titanic's hull, the rivets were sheared off, which opened up riveted seams. Also, because of the tremendous forces created on impact with the iceberg, the rivet heads in the areas of contact were simply popped off, which caused more seams to open up. Normally, the rivets would have deformed before failing because of their ductility, but with water temperatures below freezing, the rivets had become extremely brittle....

(Figure 2)

...When the iceberg tore through the hull plates, huge holes were created that allowed water to flood the hull of the ship. As a result, rivets not in the area of contact with the iceberg were also subjected to incredible forces. Like a giant lever, the hull plates transferred the inward forces, applied to the edges of the cracked plates by the water rushing into the hull, to the rivets along the plate seams. The rivets were then either elongated or snapped in two, which broke the caulking along the seams and provided another inlet for water to flood the ship.

Source

As far as the rivets [heads] are concerned, they seems to fail in shear as the iceberg skimmed past, AND also in tensile as the initial impact buckling the steel panelling and popping the rivet heads off.

Since true knowledge is that which you experience, and since I wasn't there. I will never know. :cry:

[bubbazan68]

in a show on the Titanic cant remember what one they showed the test on the rivits
and by todays standerds they wouldent even make good rebar

and it wasint an ice burg that sank the Titanicit was
















































water;)

[FighterFromAfar]

Just like, it wasn't the fall that killed the man, it was the sudden stop at the end.:)