Titanic author and political journalist: By Titanic Belfast, CC BY 2. Senan-Molony-Titanic-Hotel-Belfast-Opening-22. The Titan in the book was described in a way similar to the. What theory about the catastrophe do you believe? Share your opinion in the comments below! Old Video / Virtual Sailor 7 Ship Show R.M.S Titanic / SS Titan Sinking Floating Sandbox 1.11.1 5:08.
Surprisingly, it would turn out cheaper than the production of the world-famous movie Titanic in 1997, which cost $200,000,000!Ĭriminal negligence, tragic and unfortunate chain of coincidences, fire or ice: whatever it was, it took the lives of hundreds of people and still keeps the minds of scientists busy to this day. If we take into account modern exchange rates and inflation, in 2016 they would be paying $166,000,000. No less awe-inspiring was the cost of the ship. The smokestacks were placed at a 30° angle to look even more astonishing and imposing. Such an impressive height was necessary to avoid covering the passengers in 100 tons of soot blown off daily. Each of them weighed 60 tons, and they extended 81.5 feet above the deck. Some people also blame Captain Smith 8:25 In this video, we’ll tell you the whole truth that has been buried for over one hundred years.Īnother criminal negligence: the lifeboats 7:23 But scientists’ most recent findings have debunked this theory. The cause of this horrible disaster leading to so many deaths was an iceberg the ship crashed into. The Titanic took more than 1,500 lives with it as it sank to its watery grave. in the early morning of April 15th, the biggest ship of its time had completely disappeared under the ice-cold surface of the Atlantic Ocean. RMS Titanic had a terrible accident that led to its ultimate demise 3 hours later. Why did Titanic sink? What's the real cause of the Titanic crash? Scientists have debunked the theory that the cause of the Titanic sinking was an iceberg. It's not even good trash.Recent findings reveal the truth that has been buried for over one hundred years. Gives new meaning to unoriginal and predictable. The score even had slight reminisces of the movie Titanic's score in a shameful attempt to piggy-back on the success of the James Cameron movie. One of the best, laughable scenes was the cast running down into the "engine room" with concrete walls!!!? The Titanic II sailed with the name emblazoned on it's bow, then the name was gone, then it was back again? Where were the continuity people? Or could they not afford to employ them. Some scenes showed the ship with three funnels, some scenes she had four funnels. Shots included the sea wall enclosing the Queen Mary, rust on the railings of this "brand new Titanic II", and red funnels when the original Titanic had yellow funnels, (which they corrected within the movie and then went back to red funnels). But, 1912 maritime design is very different from 1930s maritime design as was White Star Line, (Titanic), to Cunard Line, (Queen Mary). A 'copy' of Titanic only deserves a 'copy' of her steam horn. With an obvious low budget, the movie made use of the 1930's Queen Mary permanently moored at Long Beach, CA. Re: RMS TITANIC & RMS QUEEN MARY 2 Horn Battle - Virtual Sailor 7 unless t2 is a Harland & Wolff built ship I think not and even in that case I still think not. Nice concept, but so poorly made that you understand immediately that the makers knew zero about the 1912 Titanic and cared even less. At least it gave a good actor, Bruce Davison, employment. Be warned that this is probably the worst movie ever made.