Titanic 2
Feb 13, 2016 03:59:23 #
Well. They actually built another Titanic. Everything is the same as the original, with more lifeboats and improved safety features. Would you want to be a passenger? I say, why tempt fate?
Feb 13, 2016 04:43:12 #
Little Ball of H**e wrote:
Well. They actually built another Titanic. Everything is the same as the original, with more lifeboats and improved safety features. Would you want to be a passenger? I say, why tempt fate?
I saw a documentary many years ago and the thing I remember is that there was only one binocular that belonged to one of the crew and he was stingy with it, also the Capt was trying to break the speed record. Another thing that I recall that people stated that the titanic was unsinkable and was referenced that not even God could sink it. So I agree, why tempt fate or God.
Feb 13, 2016 05:22:31 #
Feb 13, 2016 05:31:19 #
lindajoy wrote:
I would sail on this vessel, provided it was not confined to 1912 navigation aids.
Feb 13, 2016 05:54:11 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
Little Ball of H**e wrote:
Well. They actually built another Titanic. Everything is the same as the original, with more lifeboats and improved safety features. Would you want to be a passenger? I say, why tempt fate?
Just avoid the North Atlantic. Well, that might not be such a risk anymore - G****l w*****g has reduced the iceberg threat. :lol:
Feb 13, 2016 06:00:31 #
Loki wrote:
I would sail on this vessel, provided it was not confined to 1912 navigation aids.
Actually so would I, with an airplane on stand by~~~~~~~~~~~ :wink:
Feb 13, 2016 06:01:20 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Just avoid the North Atlantic. Well, that might not be such a risk anymore - G****l w*****g has reduced the iceberg threat. :lol:
Ohhhhhh noooooooooooo lp, now ya done it...Good grief man, lolololololololol :thumbup: :shock:
Feb 13, 2016 06:02:51 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Just avoid the North Atlantic. Well, that might not be such a risk anymore - G****l w*****g has reduced the iceberg threat. :lol:
If the original Titanic had improved safety features like the new one does, the old one probably would not have hit the damn iceberg in the first place.
It would have a head on with a supertanker, maybe. That's why I should be the designated driver.
Feb 13, 2016 06:05:00 #
lindajoy wrote:
Actually so would I, with an airplane on stand by~~~~~~~~~~~ :wink:
For someone who dislikes flying as much as I do, I've certainly had to do much more than my share of it.
Feb 13, 2016 06:32:28 #
Loki wrote:
For someone who dislikes flying as much as I do, I've certainly had to do much more than my share of it.
I used to love flying..Now, if at all possible I will drive..Within a 4 hr drive that is what I do.....
Nothing better than your music, fresh coffee, the freedom to get out and look at wh**ever..
Airports are a true pain and being confined with all those people and lord only what germs your breathing~~ohhh no Thank You..
Feb 13, 2016 08:31:45 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Just avoid the North Atlantic. Well, that might not be such a risk anymore - G****l w*****g has reduced the iceberg threat. :lol:
Huh? You won't see Al Gore on it! Or the eco-Wackos who got stuck in the non-existent Antarctic ice on that research trip two years ago! Seriously, with the new radars and weather predicting............last week one of the latest giant cruise ships got whacked! By weather the KNEW about! Interestingly......the watertight bulkheads on the Titanic only went up one level! After the holeing the sea just went OVER those safety bulkheads!
Feb 13, 2016 09:21:04 #
And the titanic,was RIVETED together,and the rivets were of an inferior quality.today,ships are welded,
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.