Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,538
581
123
For me it was but I was a bid disappointed about how some photos were published, either small or it was "cut" as it was in the middle as it happened with a wonderful Olympic photo.
About high quality, on the larger ones you can make out some details but I would not call all high quality. Maybe you have a chance to have a look into the book before buying it?!
I did see a bit of it in the V&A gift-shop at the exhibition of Ocean Liners in London, but you be glad to know I put it down to tell some other tourists / sightseers that the coal fire theory was wrong and inaccurate! :D

Back to Topic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ioannis Georgiou
Mar 18, 2008
2,273
566
183
Germany
Have any of the expeditions looked inside the large hole on the starboard side? The location of the dark smudge is just underneath it, so an internal inspection might give us some answers.
Yes the ROV Robin had been send down a few times having a look around in the post office and other rooms in 1987, 1994, 1996 (?) and a few other years I can not remember. Nothing about any fire or explosion.

Several of the questions raised here had been already addressed in that research article.
http://wormstedt.com/Titanic/TITANIC-FIRE-AND-ICE-Article.pdf
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
719
111
53
Seeing the repeat of the so call NEW EVIDENCE of TITANIC coal bunker fire with shadow marks on the side of the ship. I would of thought by now there would of corrected the mistakes made in the January documentary! The shadow marks are not were the coal bunkers are position. The marks are further forward and above the water line level. As over 80% of the bunkers are below the water line. Coal bunkers capacity 6,611 tons. Titanic on the 25th March took on 3000 tons of coal. If the photo was taken on the 2nd April that's seven days of coal been burnt at the rate of 70 tons a day. 490 tons from 3000 = 2510 tons. Making the coal bunkers well less than half full! Way below the water line level.
So were did the shadows marks come from? Well my theory is a fine example can be seen on the Olympic when entering the Thompson dry dock March 1912 for propeller repairs. Where a large tug is guiding her into the dry dock. Tug rubbing? followed by fresh paint been applied!
Then that ordinary steel used. Making out it was inferior quality steel? The steel came from Motherwell Scotland and was the standard steel as used on any other commercial ship. Further the prove the steel was well up to the job was her sister ship Olympic using the same steel and in service for 24 years. Only with drawn from service due to lack of passengers over the depression years in the 1930s. Certainty nothing to do with the quality of the steel!
Further talk of coal bunker heat damage the outer shell of the ship! If well below the water level the cold water would of stopped any distortion to the outer plates. I am rather surprise that Sean Molony came up with this idea in the first place. As other articles he has written are quite good. Rather puts it in the class if trying make money out of nothing!
This weekend 27th Sunday steam powered SS Shieldhall Titanic Theme at Southampton. I shall be there.
Mike.
 
Nov 14, 2005
685
254
133
I agree totally. I've made that statement to several people. It wasn't the way Titanic was built that caused her to sink it was the way she was operated. Her sister sailed for over 20 years having been built the same way. You cant make something 100% for every conceivable scenario. Look at the Twin Towers...they were designed to take the impact of a jet airliner. But nobody thought about the insulation getting blown off the i-beams...which was what cause them to collapse after the fires. you know what they say about hindsight being 20 20. Also the corrected flaws didn't do the Britannic much good either if you operate her poorly.
 
May 27, 2018
7
1
13
Australia
I tried to watch this once before but had other things to do, I'm watching it now, and I am not an expert. I do not claim to know if this had an effect on the sinking. But to me, it is not the best documentary I have watched. They seem to be a little on the naive side, maybe just searching for views? We may never know the truth of what happened but this one just catches me as people trying pin the sinking on something that may or may not have had an impact.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,538
581
123
The entire premises for the coal fire relies on 2 photos taken by John Kempster during Titanic's departure from Belfast, but the documentary quietly ignores a 3rd photo taken in succession of the other 2 which shows no smear at all (Below Right).

NewEvidencePhotos.jpg

(Photos above taken from Paul Lee's website here: http://www.paullee.com/titanic/time.php)

Also the documentary itself even shows the smear to be in the wrong place in a CGI panning shot of the Titanic, that quickly cuts away when it shows the smear to be nowhere near the bunker where the fire actually happened. (Below).
Screen Shot 2018-04-27 at 08.12.02.png


Overall, It was a bad documentary that tried (and unfortunately succeeded) to bring up an old myth (that the coal sank sunk the ship) that previously had been debunked multiple times.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
We may never know the truth of what happened but this one just catches me as people trying pin the sinking on something that may or may not have had an impact.
Actually, we DO know. Some things just are not the mysteries that the promoters of some of these so-called "documentaries" would have you believe. Still, they put a little bait on a hook (The 'New Evidence.') try to present themselves as forensics experts to the unknowing, and the now there's a contrived controversy where there was none before.

This matter of the smoldering bunker fire has been known since 1912 and it was brought up in the inquires as well. Nobody who was aware of it was all that impressed by the event, all of which was handled in the usual manner: The coal was shoveled out of the bunker to the furnaces and when that smoldering bed was reached, it was saturated with water. Game over. Annoying but no big deal.

I've been on fire parties fighting real shipboard fires and I can tell you from hard experience that if there had been the sort of conflagration as claimed, everybody would have known about it. There would have been no missing it. Boiler Rooms Six and Five would have been uninhabitable and the swimming bath above the area of the effected bunker would have been heated to a "refreshing temperature" of about 800 degrees which....I suspect....a few of the passengers might have complained about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Aldrich

Kas01

Member
May 24, 2018
149
41
38
24
and the swimming bath above the area of the effected bunker would have been heated to a "refreshing temperature" of about 800 degrees which....I suspect....a few of the passengers might have complained about.
Maybe, but then again, Big T could also lay claim to the world's largest shipboard lobster pot.
 

Kas01

Member
May 24, 2018
149
41
38
24
Just toss 'em all in the pool and close the door. Except for the fact that Old Bay didn't exist yet, wouldn't be a bad idea.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,992
617
183
Funchal. Madeira
You are right Michael. A "Mystery" is simply something that is not understood. Those who promote such nonsense as the bunker fire theory either base their ideas on lack of basic understanding of the subject matter or are very well read on the physics involved but get off on the lack of basic understanding of Joe Public.
As for "Joe Public"? I suggest the perusal of a good book on bulk cargo handling - specifically the part that deals with the carriage of loose coal. They might also keep in mind the method by which iron ore is reduced to make the steel with which ship's plates are made. To top off their studies, they should think back to basic 1st year Science...CCR...Conduction, Convection and Radiation of heat.
Spontaneous combustion in the coal bunkers of ships in the 18th and early 19th centuries was "as common as muck" as they say. How many ships were lost solely due to bunker fires?
 

N. D. Risener

Member
Apr 8, 2018
41
7
8
Cleveland, not OH
My view of the matter. I agree that the Titanic bunker fire theory is nonsense. As for the possibility of ships being lost due to bunker fires, apparently it could happen. The explosion that destroyed the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor in Feb. 1898 may well have resulted from spontaneous combustion in the coal bunker. The exact cause will probably never be proven but bunker fire is a likely answer. This event certainly had historic consequences as it precipitated war between the U.S. and Spain, which resulted in American emergence as a world power.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
The explosion that destroyed the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor in Feb. 1898 may well have resulted from spontaneous combustion in the coal bunker.
In this instance, it helps to know that the bunker most likely to be the culprit was right next to a fully loaded ammunition magazine. When you mix a high heat source with huge honking bags of gunpowder and high explosive shells, you're not going to like the stew!

Something to think about in terms of shipboard damage control, and keep in mind that this is an area I've had a lot of training in, you need to think in three dimensions. You have the damaged space so now you have to concern yourself with the nature of the damage and how it does...if it can....effect anything over, below, and around it.

Do you have flooding? Is it contained or not? On Titanic, it couldn't be contained, much to the annoyance of the passengers and crew.

Do you have fire? Is it contained or not? What's in the surrounding spaces which can be affected by thermal convection and radiation? If it's a water tank or an empty void, are you going to care an awful lot about that?

Nah....you're not going to care about that.

Is it passenger accommodation with flammable furniture and carpets, which can spread to other spaces? If it's that or a cargo space full of flammable goods or an ammunition magazine on a warship.....

Yeah....I think you're going to care a GREAT deal about THAT.
 
"In Titanic: The New Evidence, newly-discovered photos of the Titanic before it started on its ill-fated maiden voyage will be used as proof that the structure of the ship was already damaged before it ever encountered any icebergs. The photos come from the previously unreleased private collection of John Kempster, who worked as the chief electrical engineer on the Titanic. The documentary claims that it was a fire in a coal bunker belowdeck that weakened the hull to the point that it didn't stand a chance when it eventually hit the iceberg."
Why The Titanic Really Sank, According To A New Documentary

Hi everyone, I watched this recently with much interest as I had never encountered this theory previously but sounds entirely plausible. Anyone have any views ? Apparently, there was a national coal strike in England which ended on 6 April 2012. National coal strike of 1912 - Wikipedia
When did the Titanic sail ? April 10 - just a few days later. Maybe the logistics were such that she was forced to use dirty coal, after all she was a coal fired steam ship - albeit an extremely large one. However, the article below refers to 'double-handling of coal'. Help, Im lost what is dirty coal (maybe that was mentioned in the documentary is where I recall it from) and what is double-handling of coal ?

Titanic's Dark Secret
Titanic’s 'DARK SECRET’ REVEALED: Shortcut taken by owners 'caused ship to sink'
"Titanic would need around 6,000 tonnes for its voyage [to New York] and the only way to get this was to take it out other liners like the Oceanic and New York.
This meant double handling of the coal – a very dirty and laborious business.
"In the midst of the mayhem, Titanic kept a dark secret that the coal in the bottom of bunker number six was on fire for the duration of the journey."
Researchers have since claimed the blaze may have weakened the ship's hull before it struck an iceberg.
Journalist Senan Molony, who has spent more than 30 years researching the sinking of the Titanic, studied photographs taken by the ship’s chief electrical engineers before it left the Belfast shipyard.
Mr Molony claims to be able to identify a 30-foot-long black mark across the front right-hand side, almost exactly where the iceberg is said to have struck.
Speaking in 2017, he said: "We are looking at the exact area where the iceberg stuck, and we appear to have a weakness or damage to the hull in that specific place before she even left Belfast."
Experts subsequently confirmed the marks were likely to have been caused by a fire started in a three-storey high fuel store behind one of the ship’s boiler rooms.
Officers on board were reportedly under strict instruction from J Bruce Ismay, president of the company that built the Titanic, not to mention the fire to any of the ship’s 2,500 passengers.
Mr Molony claims the ship was also reversed into its berth in Southampton to prevent passengers from seeing damage already made to the side of the ship by the ongoing fire.
He added: “The official Titanic inquiry branded [the sinking] as an act of God. This isn’t a simple story of colliding with an iceberg and sinking.
“It’s a perfect storm of extraordinary factors coming together: fire, ice and criminal negligence.
“The fire was known about, but it was played down. She should never have been put to sea.”
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Apr 21, 2009
982
188
113
64
Every now and then someone tries to make a quick buck by coming-up with a "new" theory about why the Titanic really sank. More often than not, it is a rehash of tried and tired old theories that have been debunked several times over but seem to hang about because of their nuisance value. Coal fires, brittle steel, insurance scams, switched ships and everything else but the iceberg that really sank the Titanic. Really.
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
395
152
43
Glasgow, Scotland
Just a heads up.

We may be in for "round two" of this idiotic theory next year. :confused:

The same company that produced the pseudo-historical "Titanic: The New Evidence" documentary are currently making another film for broadcast next year about the causes of the sinking.

What are the odds that this coal bunker waste of time (together with all that proven rubbish about "brittle" steel, "lost" binoculars and an "inadequate" rudder) gets another airing with a certain "internationally respected Titanic historian" fronting it again, you know the one I mean. :mad:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steven Christian
Mar 22, 2003
5,391
757
273
Chicago, IL, USA
On 30 July 1912, the British Wreck Commission issued its report of findings regarding the Titanic disaster. In their conclusions they wrote that the reason the ship was lost was because of "A collision with an iceberg which pierced the starboard side of the vessel in several places below the waterline between the forepeak tank and No. 4 boiler room."
107 years later and there are still some who are trying to push some other reason for the ship being lost. Bad rivets, a coal fire, a failed bulkhead, brittle steel, poor design, etc., etc. Always some 'new' evidence that turns out to be nothing more than reinvented rubbish.
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
395
152
43
Glasgow, Scotland
Sam, I really hope you don't mind me asking this but in recent years have you ever been approached to take part in a documentary film about the Titanic or indeed any of your co-authors from the marvellous "A Centennial Re-Appraisal" ?

It's serious researchers like you guys that know the subject inside out who should be getting offered the money to write and present these films.

If only I had a spare million or two, I'd make a successor version of the three part A&E "End of A Dream" documentary from the early nineties and get the likes of you and messrs Chirnside, Fitch, Lanyon, Wormstedt, Lee, Gittins, Read, Georgiou, Behe and several others on screen taking us through the timeline and explaining various events.

When I find those lost Picasso's hidden in the loft, we'll set the ball rolling :cool: