It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Psynic
The point is, the wing propellors would have been completely interchangeable and it is completely reasonable to hypothesize White Star would not hesitate to use an Olympic spare part on the Titanic if need be.
originally posted by: VoidHawk
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
There's another issue that we need to consider. What the hell would have been the point of switching the propellers? Why bother?
Because a damaged propeller would run out of balance! Watch how your washing machine shakes when the washing is not evenly distributed. Now imagine several tons of propeller doing that! They needed the ship to reach the ice fields, but had the prop been out of balance it probably wouldn't have even got out of the harbor before the ship ripped itself apart.
So there ya go, a reason why they'd change the propeller.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: VoidHawk
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
There's another issue that we need to consider. What the hell would have been the point of switching the propellers? Why bother?
Because a damaged propeller would run out of balance! Watch how your washing machine shakes when the washing is not evenly distributed. Now imagine several tons of propeller doing that! They needed the ship to reach the ice fields, but had the prop been out of balance it probably wouldn't have even got out of the harbor before the ship ripped itself apart.
So there ya go, a reason why they'd change the propeller.
But during the collision with the Hawke the propeller wasn't damaged at all - it was the propeller shaft. There's a difference. And all the evidence shows that the Titanic was being steered on a more Southerly course than normal to avoid any ice, due to messages from ships that had seen ice on their own voyages. They were trying to avoid the ice. It wasn't their fault that it was an abnormal year for ice.
Take a look at how big the propellers were!
originally posted by: Nochzwei
How could a destroyer ie hawk get sucked in by the propeller suction of the olympic
originally posted by: Foundryman
To pull this off wouldn't they have to switch everything on the ships? They'd have to swap all the linens, dishes, glassware, etc. from both of the ships and nobody noticed? Thousands of personnel on those ships. I dunno, seems iffy to me.
originally posted by: VoidHawk
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: VoidHawk
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
There's another issue that we need to consider. What the hell would have been the point of switching the propellers? Why bother?
Because a damaged propeller would run out of balance! Watch how your washing machine shakes when the washing is not evenly distributed. Now imagine several tons of propeller doing that! They needed the ship to reach the ice fields, but had the prop been out of balance it probably wouldn't have even got out of the harbor before the ship ripped itself apart.
So there ya go, a reason why they'd change the propeller.
But during the collision with the Hawke the propeller wasn't damaged at all - it was the propeller shaft. There's a difference. And all the evidence shows that the Titanic was being steered on a more Southerly course than normal to avoid any ice, due to messages from ships that had seen ice on their own voyages. They were trying to avoid the ice. It wasn't their fault that it was an abnormal year for ice.
The Olympic also damaged a propeller when it ran over a sunken ship!
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: VoidHawk
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: VoidHawk
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
There's another issue that we need to consider. What the hell would have been the point of switching the propellers? Why bother?
Because a damaged propeller would run out of balance! Watch how your washing machine shakes when the washing is not evenly distributed. Now imagine several tons of propeller doing that! They needed the ship to reach the ice fields, but had the prop been out of balance it probably wouldn't have even got out of the harbor before the ship ripped itself apart.
So there ya go, a reason why they'd change the propeller.
But during the collision with the Hawke the propeller wasn't damaged at all - it was the propeller shaft. There's a difference. And all the evidence shows that the Titanic was being steered on a more Southerly course than normal to avoid any ice, due to messages from ships that had seen ice on their own voyages. They were trying to avoid the ice. It wasn't their fault that it was an abnormal year for ice.
The Olympic also damaged a propeller when it ran over a sunken ship!
Erm, when exactly was that? I know that Olympic threw a prop blade, but that was down to bad metallurgy.
If you want to dispute this theory then fine, but please do so AFTER watching the linked video, without doing so you might not have all the facts!
originally posted by: Foundryman
To pull this off wouldn't they have to switch everything on the ships? They'd have to swap all the linens, dishes, glassware, etc. from both of the ships and nobody noticed? Thousands of personnel on those ships. I dunno, seems iffy to me.
originally posted by: VoidHawk
Take a look at how big the propellers were!
originally posted by: Nochzwei
How could a destroyer ie hawk get sucked in by the propeller suction of the olympic
When they spin they push VAST amounts of water out behind them, that water has to come from somewhere. The water along side the liner moves towards the liner to replace the water pushed out the back by the propeller. Any ship in that water will be drawn towards the liner.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
originally posted by: VoidHawk
Take a look at how big the propellers were!
originally posted by: Nochzwei
How could a destroyer ie hawk get sucked in by the propeller suction of the olympic
When they spin they push VAST amounts of water out behind them, that water has to come from somewhere. The water along side the liner moves towards the liner to replace the water pushed out the back by the propeller. Any ship in that water will be drawn towards the liner.
Yes but no so much as to ram her, puncture the hull, damage/ bend the prop shaft and bend the keel plate.
originally posted by: tommyjo
That film is a load of bunk. Look at the credits to see who the Executive Producer was? Can you believe - Ray Santilli of Hoax Alien Autopsy fame?
You referenced the 'MP' footage and wrote "but there's one piece thats very hard to dispute! Look at this picture, what do you see?" - Really, seriously with Ray Santilli in the mix?. Did you also fall for his Alien Autopsy footage? So where did this part of the footage come from? What dive expedition? Why are the producers of the film not highlighting exactly where the footage comes from and the rest of the footage taken during that dive expedition? Exactly, because it is simply thrown in with computer graphics and gullible people fall for it just like they did with the Alien Autopsy hoax. Easy money!