During the inquiry in 1912 the idea that the Titanic broke in two on the surface was dismissed as ridiculous. In my opinion all ideas are worthy of discussion even if it's limited to just a few brief posts like this thread.
Sorry Aaron but the burden of proof is on you. It's not up to others to disprove your theory because not matter hard people try you seldom agree with a word they say anyway. Besides a few hazy accounts that you've quoted, where is the actual physical evidence or supporting evidence you can provide to back your theory up?
I encourage everyone to do wild-eyed speculation in the quiet of their own office or study. But, be careful when and how you go public with such speculations. Aaron's only mistake was getting overly enthusiastic about a highly unlikely possibility. He would have been much wiser to strop that ol' razor and apply it to his idea before going public.
-- David G. Brown
IF the evidence supports it. In 1912, there was a lot of evidence to support the fact of the break up and the condition of the wreck when found confirmed it past any point of discussion or debate.
There is NO evidence to support the proposition that the flour exploded.
There is a huge difference between the quality of having an open mind and one so vacant that the wind just blows right on through. Having an open mind is simply being willing to consider a proposition based on whatever evidence there is to support it and being honest about it if there isn't.
The polar opposite: Saying "Yeah, it just might be" when there is nothing credible to back it up is not being open minded.
It's just being gullible.