An Irish journalist claims in a new documentary that fire, not ice, was responsible for the most famous nautical disaster of all time.
Senan Molony, a newspaper editor and large-boat enthusiast, says newly unearthed photos suggest a fire inside the Titanic’s coal room was much more serious than anyone previously believed.
In Titanic: The New Evidence, which aired Sunday in Britain, Molony claims the flames, which were burning before the ocean liner even left Europe, weakened the ship’s hull from the inside out.
By the time the boat reached the waters off Newfoundland, its skin was so brittle, Molony believes, that even a minor collision could have caused it to tear.
Here’s the Youtube version. h/t Melonhead
“…even a minor collision could have caused it to tear…”
Sure. And a stupendous fart from a beer-guzzling Ivory Coaster could have been butterfly effect that gave us Hurricane Andrew.
This seems to me to be up there with the theory that the World Trade Centers were wired for demolition on 9/11.
A fire in the boiler room burning even from before Titanic’s sailing so massive that it weakens the integrity of the entire hull …..but otherwise the ship maintains high speed and functions normally until a collision with an iceberg? Sounds equally ridiculous to me.
More pseudo-scientific revisionist malarkey.
The collision with the iceberg obviously caused the ship to sink by breaching the hull. However, I read a few years ago that the steel that was used to build the Titanic may have contributed to it.
In that article, the authors suggested that the cold water temperature had affected the strength of the rivets to the point that the impact energy required to shear them was quite low compared with what it would have been in lab conditions. Another aspect to this was that quality control and materials testing standards were far below what we have nowadays. The steel that was used would not have been accepted today but was suitable in accordance with the codes and procedures back then.
This is a very old theory. It’s tenuous at best especially when you consider that the hull is water-cooled. Sure the inner hull supports might have been weakened if it was a particularly fierce fire, but nothing happens unless it strikes the iceberg.
Something that has more credibility IMO is that the ship would have taken far longer to sink if the captain had the sense to simply put the ship in reverse and turned towards the nearest ship. The titanic would have taken on very little water moving at say, 10 knots.
To quote the great Hillary: “at this point, what does it matter”?
FYI, a sad day for authentic Climate Science .
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/#more-22651
Yeah, well that’s all well and good … however … I choose to believe James Cameron’s highly researched Hollywood epic film about the Titanic. Leo never lies either. I believe Hollywood always tells the TRUE story of History. Oliver Stone is one of the greatest Historians in the history of academia
Re: Judith Curry retiring. Yes indeed a sad day…… well, maybe not. Maybe with more time/freedom, she will go on to better things yet. I certainly hope so. She is a voice of sanity and they are far too few these days.
I blame the Russians. And the public schools. And George W. Bush. And fluoride. And unmarked UN helicopters.
The best Titanic movie I’ve seen is the 1950s British flick A Night to Remember starring Kenneth More with David McCallum in a minor role as one of the ship’s radio operators.
Turner Classic Movies shows it once in a while.
The problem with the Titanic was … not enough life boats.
One might just as well posit that the heat may have annealed the brittle steel that was used in Titanic’s construction and made it more malleable and less likely to shatter in an impact.
The steel used was of a quality similar to that of rebar. Strong but not terribly flexible, and it has a tendency to snap and shatter.
“The problem with the Titanic was … not enough life boats.”
That, and in being in too big a hurry to set a crossing record and not paying attention to ice warnings and slowing down when they should have.
“An Irish journalist claims in a new documentary…” The idea isn’t new, just the documentary.
Coal Trimmer – interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_trimmer
It may be possible to verify this claim. We know where the Titanic is. The theory is that the molecular structure of the steel changed, due to the coal fire. Since steel samples could be recovered from the wreck, it would be possible to compare the samples near the fire to samples not affected by the fire.
Don’t forget Occam’s razor. If one explanation can account for the events, then don’t bother with two explanations.
Also, materials theory back then was rudimentary compared with what is known nowadays. In the article I mentioned earlier, there was some question as to whether scientists actually understood how steel’s grain structure was affected by lower temperatures.
In addition, when Titanic sunk, the American Society for the Testing of Materials (ASTM) was only a few years old. Perhaps applicable methods for testing the steel were not available to the steel producer or the shipyard.
Even so, was there adequate documentation to verify any of this?
It must be true–it was reported in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/world/europe/titanic-coal-fire-iceberg.html
“I blame the Russians…”
Any Canadian left@rd knows the sinking of the Titanic was all Stephen Harper’s fault.
And that evil Mike Harris, too…
The jews trying to absolve another ‘berg.
Two words: BS
One of the survivors, an Irish immigrant in third class, settled in our small town and her daughter published her story several years ago.
Besides far too few life boats, many pulled away with too few people in them.
When the Night to Remember movie was shown in a nearby city, as a survivor she received a special invitation, which she accepted. Once the unfolding of the tragedy began, she was completely overwhelmed by her memories and left.
My grandparents who came over in 1906 mentioned the huge icebergs they saw but their ship wasn’t trying to establish a record.
Why would anyone discount what 2nd in command Henry Wilde wrote? First, he said wrote his sister: “I still don’t like this ship…I have a queer feeling about it.” And then there is this account which was given later by crew members: “After the collision, Wilde spoke to bosun Albert Haines and lamp trimmer Samuel Hemmings – who said they could hear air escaping from the tank and that water was getting in, but that the storeroom was dry.
Wilde went up to report this to the bridge and then joined Captain Smith and Thomas Andrews on a brief inspection to see the extent of the damage.”
How could anyone imagine it was caused by a fire if none of these people knew about it?
It was aliens.
Well, it does give an explanation as to why the bulkheads failed, instead of “unaccountably” doing so.
Ah, but why did the bulkheads fail? And why did Chief Officer Wilde, a man not known for “flights of fancy” (even tho’ his middle name was Tingle), have that “queer feeling” about this ship? He had sailed with Smith on the Olympic and had a good feeling about that ship. But from the beginning he had this “queer” feeling about the Titanic. He definitely did not want to sail on it.
Had he seen or heard something that made him think it might be sabotaged by someone supporting the other contender? Or was it just one of those weird feelings we get?
Instead of the fanciful story of the fire that isn’t substantiated at all, why doesn’t someone come up with a script for History channel which investigates possible sabotage? The theorists could have a ball with that one.
My grandmother owned that book … A Night to Remember … displayed prominently in her office/den. The image of that book spine is emblazoned in my memory. I read bits and pieces of it as a kid. Yeah … I think she saw the film too (and loved it). I assume that you knew I was being sarcastic about Hollywooden dipshitz history lecturers.
I assume that you knew I was being sarcastic about Hollywooden dipshitz history lecturers.
One can’t be too sarcastic about Cameron’s cinematic drivel from 20 years ago. I watched it on Turner Classic Movies a few years back and I wondered what all the fuss was about.
Just when I thought he had hit a new low, he came out with that stinker Avatar…..
Those movies were certainly several steps down from Terminator and Aliens.
I have my own scientific theory. Gravity caused it to sink.
Plausible theory, actually. If the bulkhead had held, Titanic wouldn’t have sunk. When it did fail, everyone on board noticed as the ship lurched forward by 6-10 feet.
for the fire to be hot enough to cause malleability changes in the steel, it would have caused enough damage that she would not have sailed when she did. You don’t use a bloody lighter to heat steel, you use a torch. This is just BS
Rosie O’Donnell taught me that steel doesn’t burn, or deform, or melt, or change its properties in any way … only an explosion set by Bush-Cheney will alter steel. Sayyyy … were Bush or Cheney on board the Titanic
Has Rosie O’Donnell weighed in on whether fire can melt steel yet?
Dark Angel, Terminator, and Alien were his best work; it went downhill from there.
I believe the prevailing theory is the bulkheads probably didn’t fail, the bulkheads, did not reach up enough decks to prevent over topping as the front third of the ship filled with water. and dragged the nose down far enough.
A fire in the coal bunkers of any magnitude would have been dealt with forthwith, I cannot imagine any Victorian Steam engineer, captain not treating that as SERIOUS PROBLEM. Fire in the fuel. At sea. If nothing else the Insurance company would have had a cow if they found out.
The most obvious solution is prob. the correct one. A large iron ship ran into an iceberg which probably outweighed it 10 or 100 to 1, the shock & impact cracked the riveted hull plates and if ripped open for dozens of meters allow water to fill multiple bulkheads.
Was the steel more brittle because of cold…maybe. But in the end, the iron ship dragged brutally against a huge iceberg and ripped so many hull plates so much that too many bulkheads filled with water.
Too many compartments filled with water. Bulkheads are the walls that keep watertight compartments separated if the watertight doors are closed in time and the flooding doesn’t rise above the bulkheads.
In a head-on collision the ship might have stood up sufficiently to the impact and the damage might have been to only the foremost compartments with higher bulkheads. It doesn’t much matter whether the rivets weren’t strong enough or the plates were weakened by a fire or just too weak anyway. The ship sank because it struck the iceberg alongside and the damage opened too many compartments to flooding that the crew couldn’t overcome so it lost buoyancy.