« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster  (Read 4144 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« on: January 24, 2017, 04:04:50 pm »
Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
THE Titanic was NOT sunk after striking an Iceberg, it has sensationally been claimed more than a century since the ship disaster.
By Sean Martin
PUBLISHED: 04:12, Wed, Jan 4, 2017 | UPDATED: 07:40, Wed, Jan 4, 2017
 

For 105 years, many had believed that the RMS Titanic sank while on its voyage from Southampton to New York, but new findings suggest that was not the case.

In a new documentary titled Titanic: The New Evidence, researchers establish a solid theory that a fire in the ship’s hull, which started even before it departed Belfast for Southampton led to its downfall.

Journalist Senan Molony, who has been researching the Titanic’s fate for 30 years, found a nine metre black mark on the front of the ship’s hull from a photo taken before the Titanic left.

Mr Molony states the fire burnt unnoticed for three weeks at temperatures of 1000 degrees, meaning the metal weakened. This easily allowing the iceberg to tear a hole in the ship which otherwise been impossible.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/749712/titanic-fire-theory-channel-4-titanic-documentary?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 04:05:52 pm by rangerrebew »
Logged

Offline ShadowAce

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 157
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2017, 04:07:51 pm »
How does one NOT notice a 1000 degree fire for three weeks while serving aboard a ship? 
Logged

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,467
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2017, 04:27:39 pm »
Quote from: ShadowAce on January 24, 2017, 04:07:51 pm
How does one NOT notice a 1000 degree fire for three weeks while serving aboard a ship?

When one is trying to sell a book?

Logged

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2017, 04:30:37 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

 Abraham Lincoln dies the exact same day the Titanic sinks, except 47 years prior! The Titanic had the capacity to carry 3,547 passengers aboard! They both have 47!!!!

COINCIDENCE???

When will you sheeple realize that you're being lied to? How many amateur documentaries must be made using stock footage before you believe that we're important?  :silly:

« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 04:33:14 pm by Cripplecreek »
Logged

Wingnut

  • Guest
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2017, 04:36:22 pm »
Quote from: Cripplecreek on January 24, 2017, 04:30:37 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

 Abraham Lincoln dies the exact same day the Titanic sinks, except 47 years prior! The Titanic had the capacity to carry 3,547 passengers aboard! They both have 47!!!!

COINCIDENCE???

When will you sheeple realize that you're being lied to? How many amateur documentaries must be made using stock footage before you believe that we're important?  :silly:

I'm sold.  Beam me up! 
Logged

Offline Just_Victor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,765
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2017, 04:36:37 pm »
Quote
Mr Molony states the fire burnt unnoticed for three weeks at temperatures of 1000 degrees...

unnoticed? :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:
Logged
If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 383,149
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2017, 04:40:06 pm »
This isn't a new theory...I have read this many years ago in other books about the Titantic.
Logged
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,467
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2017, 04:41:37 pm »
Quote from: Just_Victor on January 24, 2017, 04:36:37 pm
unnoticed? :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

Belfast.  Ireland.  No wonder they didn't notice.  Even thousands of leprechauns wielding blowtorches are invisible to mortals.
Logged

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2017, 04:42:35 pm »
Quote from: Just_Victor on January 24, 2017, 04:36:37 pm
unnoticed? :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:

Lean up against a lit wood stove for a few hours and we'll see how long it goes unnoticed.
Logged

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2017, 04:56:23 pm »
This is easily the stupidest conspiracy theory since the one about Walmart stores being converted to FEMA camps.
Logged

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2017, 04:56:52 pm »
Quote from: ShadowAce on January 24, 2017, 04:07:51 pm
How does one NOT notice a 1000 degree fire for three weeks while serving aboard a ship?

@ShadowAce
@Just_Victor
@Cripplecreek

I watched the show about this the other night. The coal bin was over 3 stories tall and it started at the bottom. Coal bunkers surround  the coal bunker that caught fire so it would have went unnoticed.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 04:57:12 pm by mirraflake »
Logged

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,467
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2017, 05:01:29 pm »
Quote from: Frank Cannon on January 24, 2017, 04:56:23 pm
This is easily the stupidest conspiracy theory since the one about Walmart stores being converted to FEMA camps.

You mean that one's not true?  Damn.  And all this time I've been living in a big-ass FEMA tent over in women's underwear.  I did wonder about those extra holes in the top -- thought maybe they were skylights.  Are you telling me they're leg holes?
Logged

Offline Idaho_Cowboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,924
  • Gender: Male
  • Ride for the Brand - Joshua 24:15
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2017, 05:10:06 pm »
Hardly new and hardly lives up to the headline. Since it still probably wouldn't have sunk if it had missed the iceberg. As I understand it, this was a known problem on ships at the time, since coal dust under pressure can spontaneously combust. Standard procedure was to shovel the coal out and into the fire.

Logged
“The way I see it, every time a man gets up in the morning he starts his life over. Sure, the bills are there to pay, and the job is there to do, but you don't have to stay in a pattern. You can always start over, saddle a fresh horse and take another trail.” ― Louis L'Amour

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,487
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2017, 05:11:34 pm »
Quote from: Idaho_Cowboy on January 24, 2017, 05:10:06 pm
Hardly new and hardly lives up to the headline. Since it still probably wouldn't have sunk if it had missed the iceberg. As I understand it, this was a known problem on ships at the time, since coal dust under pressure can spontaneously combust. Standard procedure was to shovel the coal out and into the fire.

Actually it wouldn't have sunk if it just hit the iceberg head-on instead of scraping it.
Logged

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,487
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2017, 05:12:28 pm »
It was the Jews!!!!!

Iceberg, Goldberg, Greenberg.....What's the difference?
Logged

Offline Idaho_Cowboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,924
  • Gender: Male
  • Ride for the Brand - Joshua 24:15
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2017, 05:14:22 pm »
Quote from: dfwgator on January 24, 2017, 05:11:34 pm
Actually it wouldn't have sunk if it just hit the iceberg head-on instead of scraping it.
If the captain had had the brains to back the screw on the side he might have missed it altogether.
Logged
“The way I see it, every time a man gets up in the morning he starts his life over. Sure, the bills are there to pay, and the job is there to do, but you don't have to stay in a pattern. You can always start over, saddle a fresh horse and take another trail.” ― Louis L'Amour

Wingnut

  • Guest
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2017, 05:18:15 pm »
Quote from: Idaho_Cowboy on January 24, 2017, 05:10:06 pm
Hardly new and hardly lives up to the headline. Since it still probably wouldn't have sunk if it had missed the iceberg. As I understand it, this was a known problem on ships at the time, since coal dust under pressure can spontaneously combust. Standard procedure was to shovel the coal out and into the fire.

You know I've stoked a lot of furnaces
Lord, I've prepped a lot of flues
But I've never touched nothin'
I know that my spirit could kill.
I've seen a lot of people walkin' 'round
With tombstones in their eyes
Coal Dust  don't care
If you live or if you die
Logged

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2017, 05:23:23 pm »
The nazis blamed the bankers (Jews) stockholders (Jews) and capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(1943_film)

Oddly enough,  Joseph Goebbels commissioned the film to be made then had it banned in Germany because family members looking through a chain link fence for family members was too close to concentration camp imagery.

Logged

Offline Just_Victor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,765
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2017, 05:30:13 pm »
Quote from: mirraflake on January 24, 2017, 04:56:52 pm
@ShadowAce
@Just_Victor
@Cripplecreek

I watched the show about this the other night. The coal bin was over 3 stories tall and it started at the bottom. Coal bunkers surround  the coal bunker that caught fire so it would have went unnoticed.
1000°F heat can be felt from hundreds of feet away, and the surrounding steel would be glowing.  It would be hard to miss.
Logged
If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.

Offline Idaho_Cowboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,924
  • Gender: Male
  • Ride for the Brand - Joshua 24:15
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2017, 05:34:33 pm »
Quote from: Just_Victor on January 24, 2017, 05:30:13 pm
1000°F heat can be felt from hundreds of feet away, and the surrounding steel would be glowing.  It would be hard to miss.
Look folks we know that jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams...  :tongue2:
Logged
“The way I see it, every time a man gets up in the morning he starts his life over. Sure, the bills are there to pay, and the job is there to do, but you don't have to stay in a pattern. You can always start over, saddle a fresh horse and take another trail.” ― Louis L'Amour

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,487
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2017, 05:44:15 pm »
Quote from: Idaho_Cowboy on January 24, 2017, 05:14:22 pm
If the captain had had the brains to back the screw on the side he might have missed it altogether.


"If the captain had had the brains to back the screw on the side he might have missed it"
Logged

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,463
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2017, 05:47:59 pm »
Not to mention DeCaprio's acting.......
Logged
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2017, 05:54:53 pm »
Quote from: Idaho_Cowboy on January 24, 2017, 05:14:22 pm
If the captain had had the brains to back the screw on the side he might have missed it altogether.

First Officer Murdoch gave the order “hard-a-starboard” using the traditional to turn to port (left). He adjusted the engines via telegraph for either ‘full reverse’ or ‘stop’, though the actual testimony is unclear. The iceberg had caused the hull to buckle in multiple places, shooting out the rivets and causing the first five watertight compartments to flood.

http://www.titanicuniverse.com/titanic-sinks

- - - - - - - - -

When the officer in charge of the ship was warned that an iceberg had been spotted in its path, he waited a crucial half-minute before changing course, a new study has concluded.

Had William Murdoch taken action immediately, the liner – and 1,496 lives – might well have been saved.

The finding comes from major new study to coincide with the centenary of the Titanic disaster next year. Investigators have reappraised the original 1912 Wreck Commission inquiry in the light of all the research and evidence that has emerged since.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8933109/The-30-seconds-that-sank-the-Titanic-fatal-delay-in-order-to-change-course-doomed-liner.html
Logged
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,572
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2017, 03:24:24 am »
mystery wrote:
"This isn't a new theory...I have read this many years ago in other books about the Titantic."

I don't remember any mention of this at all in Walter Lord's "A Night To Remember"...
Logged

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Titanic WAS NOT sunk by Iceberg – new evidence suggests shock theory to disaster
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2017, 02:30:56 pm »
So, let me get this straight.  The iceberg struck the ship on the side and ripped it open just below the waterline.  The iceberg was able to do this only because the hull metal had been weakened by a 1,000 degree fire.  The fire had been burning for three weeks straight (presumably at or near 1,000 degrees). That necessarily implies that the external hull metal was sufficiently exposed to this 1,000 degree fire that it was weakened. 

Now, I know for a fact that metal is a very good conductor of heat.  That means that the external surface of the hull would have been at or near that 1,000 degree temperature if the internal surface was at that temperature.  Now, I also know that the external surface of a ship's hull is in direct contact with the surrounding ocean.  Now, I also know that the ocean consists mainly of water and that water boils at around 212 degrees F (the salt content of the ocean most likely changed this a little).

Which leads to a question: how come this boat was able to toddle along for three - three! - weeks without anyone noticing a big plume of steam coming off the side that was exposed to this 1,000 degree fire?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »