The iceberg in the film is the wrong size totally i think. I heard that it was over 5 times bigger than the Titanic itself. Can anyone help me witht this.

-- Ian Rafferty (IRaff@compuserve.com), November 20, 1998

Answers

Response to ICEBERG?

its doesn,t matter how big it was on the surface what was belowm that sunk it, remeber only 10 percent of an iceberg is above water

-- (al@agc.ca), November 20, 1998.

Response to ICEBERG?

sorry terrible spelling

it does not matter how big the berg was on the surface...it was what was below that sank the ship...remember only 10 % of the iceberg is above water

-- al (al@agc.ca), November 20, 1998.

Response to ICEBERG?

The berg was big enough that chuncks of ice broke off and fell into the forward well deck (the depressed section of the hull just below the bridge). That section of the deck is about 50 feet above the waterline, so we know it stood at least that far out of the water.

The berg was stated to have been visible at eye level from the boat deck, which was 70 feet above the waterline, but there are conflicting accounts about this.

At any rate, the berg was big enough to have stood 50 to 70 feet out of the water (some accounts ran as high as 100 feet). Given that 9/10ths of an iceberg is below the water, this was a massive chunk of ice.

Regards,

-- Kip Henry (kip-henry@ouhsc.edu), November 23, 1998.

It was bigger than the titanic but........ it says it was 25 feet wide and 15 feet long>>>?

-- flash reynolds (babyspice _e@msn.com), January 16, 2003.