Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Titanic sank due to huge uncontrollable fire

47 posts in this topic

The sinking of the RMS Titanic may have been caused by an enormous fire on board, not by hitting an iceberg in the North Atlantic, experts have claimed, as new evidence has been published to support the theory.

More than 1,500 passengers lost their lives when the Titanic sank on route to New York from Southampton in April 1912.

While the cause of the disaster has long been attributed to the iceberg, fresh evidence has surfaced of a fire in the ship’s hull, which researchers say burned unnoticed for almost three weeks leading up to the collision.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rms-titanic-evidence-fire-senan-molony-belfast-new-york-southampton-sink-april-1912-a7504236.html

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe way, way, down there they were cooking for a party, sent somebody through the gauntlet of hallways and stairwells for a fire extinguisher up front but, by the time they got back someone had closed a few doors *ssssssssh it will go out eventually*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the Indpendent's standards aren't what they were, but really. This Mr Maloney sounds like a lone obsessive doesn't he. I mean, the fact that this has never been mentioned before in any of the 12000 books written about the Titanic- but it was hushed up! Only the valiant indefatigable researcher Mr. Maloney knows the truth! Someone get him onto JFk please, I'd love to know what he comes up with there.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well he might not be Baloney. *groan*  check it:::: "potential to cause “serious explosions” below decks before it would reach New York." so they packed them on a b0\/\/\b.

Edited by MWoo7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching the documentary on Channel 4 (UK) now.

Obviously you can catch up, or watch it on the +1 at 9pm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did they mention cooking labs or the heads/officials/owners etc. packing the people on a ..ah potentially volatile vessel ?  Why are the best parts always skipped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

I know the Indpendent's standards aren't what they were, but really. 

This news story has been published on more than a dozen different news sites.

Google it and take your pick to find which one meets with your approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the story has been, but that isn't necessarily proof of its veracity, is it? What this theory depends on is that this has been kept secret for over a hundred years, and was never mentioned even at the official inquiry (or if tit was, it was hushed up(TM)). That surely is asking a bit much to believe.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

I'm sure the story has been, but that isn't necessarily proof of its veracity, is it?

Nobody said it was. 

I was replying to your comment chastising the source link.

14 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

I know the Indpendent's standards aren't what they were, but really. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a meth lab cook gone wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

I'm sure the story has been, but that isn't necessarily proof of its veracity, is it?

That wasn't your argument though, you were implying that the story had no veracity because you didn't like the source link.

14 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

What this theory depends on is that this has been kept secret for over a hundred years, and was never mentioned even at the official inquiry (or if tit was, it was hushed up(TM)). That surely is asking a bit much to believe.

Actually the fire was mentioned at the official inquiry and many times since, it was simply not deemed to be significant to the disaster.

The difference now is that new evidence has linked the fire to the weakening of the Titanic's bulkheads.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, acute said:

I'm watching the documentary on Channel 4 (UK) now.

Obviously you can catch up, or watch it on the +1 at 9pm.

I watched the documentary as well, it was very interesting to say the least.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remarkable it was ever allowed to put to sea with a fire on board. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saru said:

I watched the documentary as well, it was very interesting to say the least.

It all seemed to make sense, and it was genuine new information for once!

It's pretty mind-blowing to think that the Titanic might have been on fire when it was launched in Belfast.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fire, iceberg or not the boat wasnt even titanic, it was its sister ship that took damage and they swapped names of the boat, watch documentary about that online, it was an insurance scam, the biggest of its time

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, geraldnewfie said:

fire, iceberg or not the boat wasnt even titanic, it was its sister ship that took damage and they swapped names of the boat, watch documentary about that online, it was an insurance scam, the biggest of its time

I saw a documentary on that, interesting to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geraldnewfie said:

fire, iceberg or not the boat wasnt even titanic, it was its sister ship that took damage and they swapped names of the boat, watch documentary about that online, it was an insurance scam, the biggest of its time

That is a joke, right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also a rumor that a U boat sunk it, so iceberg, u boat we will never know the real story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coolguy said:

There was also a rumor that a U boat sunk it, so iceberg, u boat we will never know the real story

Two years before the war started? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

Two years before the war started? :huh:

Target practice. The Germans became quite proficient. I was surprised to learn that the heavily outnumbered German fleet's gunnery at the Battle of Jutland was superior to that of the Royal Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was practice for the Lusitania. :unsure2: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...that's just nuts. But given how business operates, then as now (anybody remember the Ford Pinto?) I can see them setting sail even if the ship was on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, coolguy said:

There was also a rumor that a U boat sunk it, so iceberg, u boat we will never know the real story

Nooo, Titanics sister ship got torpedod by u boat..get yr facts right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a remarkable story of a nurse, Violet Jessop, who survived  the sinkings of Titanic, and its sister ship Brittanic, and was on the third ship Olympic, when it collided with a warship. Incredible !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I watched the documentary, but found the explanation confusing. The researcher said he noticed on a photograph unusual marks on Titanic's hull, which he attributed to being scorch marks caused by the fire in the coal bunker. The scorch marks are above the water line - which is obvious, otherwise they couldn't be seen. He said these marks were indications that the hull had been weakened by the fire. However, Titanic was holed by the iceberg below the water line, which is why she sank. The allegedly weakened section of hull was above the water line, and not below. And in any case, if part of the hull below the water line was being heated by the fire, surely the icy cold water would have kept the metal cool, and hence maintained its integrity.

I watched a much better explanation yesterday which said that, to cut costs, in many places iron rivets were used rather than steel rivets. These were demonstrated to be less than 60% as strong as steel, meaning they sheared when the iceberg hit the hull.

Edited by Derek Willis
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.