Titanic - The New Evidence

Tis Spontaneous combustion, usally because the stuff being stored is not dry enough, it heats up and keeps on heating then so hot it catchs fire or if someone move some stuff and lets air in then up it's goes, hay/straw barn fires are the same you also can get it with animal feed stuff in store, and then there is dust exposlosion in which i've experienced and the barn fires

 

@martin-f thanks for posting that. I could not watch the one that @fat controller posted, but have been able to watch this one.

With my engineers hat on, all I can say after seeing it is that there are so many flaws in the "evidence" its nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

 

Probably!

 

Its possibly probable that I might ask a stargazing question thats been bugging me...

 

Late joining this ha ha.....but yes I watched it too, interesting programme, however as mentioned earlier the fire has been fairly common knowledge for years, perhaps not to the extent that they put over.

Something else not mentioned in the programme though was something I saw in another documentary a few years ago, that suggested that regardless of the fire and possible weak steel used to build the ship if it had hit the iceberg head on and not tried to steer away it wouldn't have caused the damage required to sink the ship or at worst it would have stayed afloat a lot longer than it did...

 

The 20/20 vision of hindsight.

Imagine being in charge. Imagine giving the order to crash rather than attempting to avoid collision.

Kind of related, I saw a documentary about road accidents and while ago. Cars are tested and safety rated in simulated head on collisions. What really causes problems for the engineers is the human element. In the perfectly human attempts to avoid collision, the cars involved end up hitting each other in ways that are difficult to predict, often resulting in greater damage and injury than would have been the case if no evasive action was taken. Instincts are extremely difficult to overcome, even in the face of compelling logic.

 

But did the fire weaken the steal as well

 

Without knowing the construction details of the vessel, and that includes knowing the exact specification of the steel used, its impossible to say.

There is one thing though that points to the fact that it didnt.

The Titanic had a sister ship called the Britannic. The launch of that was delayed due to the fact that it was modified to be safer in light of the Titanics demise. One of the things that this ship was equipped with was a double hull. For those that arent aware, double hulls are used on many warships. They help them to stay afloat if, for example, they are torpedoed or hit a mine.

Whilst being employed as a Hospital ship, the Britannic did indeed hit a mine. Although the double hull should have saved it, or at least delayed sinking, it only took 30 minutes before going down.

According to reports I've seen, the Titanic struck the iceberg at 23:40 and sank at 02:20. That is, 2hours 40 minutes later. If the "safe" ship went down over 5 times faster than the "unsafe" one, despite having the double hull that should have given it some protection, that would suggest to me that the Titanics hull would not have been affected negatively by the fire.

 

I read this in the paper! I was shocked, this means leo and kate will have to make a new movie? :D

 

Watched it, but cant think, even if they are right, it will make much difference.
It's still on the bottom of the Atlantic.

 

People are naturally interested in such things. It's human nature and it's, in my opinion, a character trait that is our only advantage over other animal species. That is the desire to advance our position of understanding even with stuff we didn't experience.

Other animals learn from experience like we do. Some even teach each other. But as far as I know we're the only species that takes any interest in anything we don't directly experience or witness.

It all means that with every generation, stuff we make and do gets safer.