- Feb 22, 2012
Yes, and say what you will about Senan's fire theory, I am fairly certain that this article was written by someone who really did not understand what Senan was saying in the interview.There are so many errors in that article that as a total amateur even I can spot them. That is a bit of a worry.
I wish in this age of disinformation and popular opinion/louder voice winning over carefully conducted research that the news site would at least publish the rebuttal paper produced by the members of this forum.
I think people are not happy with Senan's book on Mt Temple and his new fire theory; however, I am reluctant to completely dismiss both--with some serious caveats I won't bother with here.Which is more outside the realm of reality, Molony’s actual theory or a misinterpretation of it?
I've read his book, I liked it.I think people are not happy with Senan's book on Mt Temple and his new fire theory; however, I am reluctant to completely dismiss both--with some serious caveats I won't bother with here.
Suffice it to say, I think Senan is a very smart man, and that he has contributed quite a bit of outstanding work when it comes to the history of Titanic.
So my answer to your question, and I may be in the minority, is that it is far more likely the interviewer/paper screwed up the article. For proof, I would just point you to the title of the article, specifically the reference to Titanic capsizing. There is absolutely no way, no matter what anyone thinks of Senan or his theory, that Senan Molony told the paper a fire caused Titanic to capsize.