Titanic Documentary (Titanic: The new evidence)

Guy Fawkes · Jan 16, 2017

RexCathedra said:
Why would slowing down increase the rate at which you go through your coal supply? All contemporary Royal Navy practice points the other way... they proceeded at a leisurely pace from place to place, excepting immediately before and during action to stretch their coal.

I think that it was said in the programme that they would probably have run out of coal if they had slowed for the ice and then sped up again (the country had a coal strike and the Titanic only took on just enough to make the trip - The original coal bunker fire could have been burning for around 3 weeks as it was only found on the day it sailed from Belfast, all bar 8 firemen then quit at Southampton which was highly unusual) It's heat caused a neighbouring coal bunker to catch fire too, affecting supply during the crossing

The standard practice to deal with fires of this type was to burn the affected coal through a ships furnaces, so if it had spread (as said in eye witness reports printed in the press at the time) then they had to try to get rid of that burning coal which could have been a reason or part of the reason for the speed. After all, the Titanic wasn't fast enough to break any speed records so why travel at 23 knots through an ice field?

LlcoolJ · Jan 16, 2017

Cowfold Seagull said:
As others have said, this all happened so long ago, and with any evidence now at the bottom of the sea, this can't be proved either way. As conspiracy theories go however, I find this quite incredible. Disturbing to me that many people on here actually choose to believe it despite the lack of any real evidence!

You didn't watch the programme then? It wasn't a conspiracy theory, it was looking at "real evidence".

ManOfSussex · Jan 16, 2017

This photo was shown in the documentary - the black mark on the starboard bow is as a result of the fire burning inside.

Guy Fawkes · Jan 16, 2017

beorhthelm said:
was thinking similar line. to add not consistent if you have "just enough" coal and its burning, so reducing, to continue onwards. doesnt really sit right that you can have a fire on a boat and carry on, and keep it secret, unless its a minor business as usual event. wish i'd seen it now, i thought it would be a tired old rehash, not a new conspiracy.

The fire aboard was something that was known about after the event and it is even mentioned at the original inquires held in New York and in England as survivors gave evidence. Only the passengers weren't told during the trip about a fire onboard

I'd recommend watching the programme as a lot of the things contained within it are from witness testimonies, press interview reports made just after the rescue ships docked in New York and most of the evidence the documentary presents was available at the time when the public inquiries were held

Straight up dismissing it is a bit like those who dismissed the Liverpool fans appeals for justice and stuck by the original public inquiries held into the Hillsborough disaster prior to the recent case where the truth was finally found

The Spanish · Jan 18, 2017

I was privileged enough to meet Bob Ballard tonight. Amazing stories.

Chicken Run · Jan 18, 2017

The Spanish said:
I was privileged enough to meet Bob Ballard tonight. Amazing stories.

Where was he? I once saluted him at HMS Dryad!

HantsSeagull · Jan 18, 2017

Chicken Run said:
Where was he? I once saluted him at HMS Dryad!

Chicken Run · Jan 18, 2017

[emoji23][emoji23]

Taybha · Jan 18, 2017

47 was it ? fireman got off at southampton refusing to continue the journey,leaving just 8 of the original stokers from belfast ,kinel if i were a passenger and knew that i would of swam the atlantic .

Paul Reids Sock · Jan 18, 2017

Taybha said:
47 was it ? fireman got off at southampton refusing to continue the journey,leaving just 8 of the original stokers from belfast ,kinel if i were a passenger and knew that i would of swam the atlantic .

I thought it was 8 of the initial 150?

Watched the documentary last night - brilliant recommendation. I really enjoyed it

Cowfold Seagull · Jan 18, 2017

HantsSeagull said:
View attachment 81238

Now if he had been aboard the Titanic it would have sunk.

Oh wait a minute . . .

symyjym · Jan 18, 2017

AK74 said:
See also:

Titanic: the ship that never sank?

One for the conspiracy theorists, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

Is this the one where they swapped the Titanic for the Olympic or Britanic for insurance purposes due to an earlier incident?

AK74 · Jan 18, 2017

symyjym said:
Is this the one where they swapped the Titanic for the Olympic or Britanic for insurance purposes due to an earlier incident?

Yes, that's it. More details here:

https://theunredacted.com/titanic-conspiracy-the-ship-that-never-sank/

lizard · Jan 18, 2017

AK74 said:
Yes, that's it. More details here:

https://theunredacted.com/titanic-conspiracy-the-ship-that-never-sank/

I thought it was common knowledge that the ships had been switched, the motive being insurance. Didn't realise that was still considered a conspiracy theory.

Driver8 · Jan 18, 2017

lizard said:
I thought it was common knowledge that the ships had been switched, the motive being insurance. Didn't realise that was still considered a conspiracy theory.

The evidence against quoted in that article suggests otherwise.

lizard · Jan 18, 2017

Driver8 said:
The evidence against quoted in that article suggests otherwise.

Am just watching it now

(I probably should have watched it before commenting.)

Driver8 · Jan 18, 2017

lizard said:
Am just watching it now (I probably should have watched it before commenting.)

I just read the article, didn't watch anything. The evidence against seems much stronger than that for which is all a bit "tin foil hat"!

Cowfold Seagull · Jan 18, 2017

lizard said:
I thought it was common knowledge that the ships had been switched, the motive being insurance. Didn't realise that was still considered a conspiracy theory.

It wasn't common knowledge, it was no more than a rumour, or if you prefer, yet another conspiracy theory.

vegster · Jan 18, 2017

RexCathedra said:
Why would slowing down increase the rate at which you go through your coal supply? All contemporary Royal Navy practice points the other way... they proceeded at a leisurely pace from place to place, excepting immediately before and during action to stretch their coal.

They probably left with just enough coal to make the trip if they had any sense, if it was say a 6 day trip at full speed they wouldn't have taken say 14 days coal as it would have just slowed the ship down. if there had have been a fire that would have meant them running out of coal pretty quickly I would have thought ?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Titanic Documentary (Titanic: The new evidence)

The voice of treason

Mama said knock you out.

We wunt be druv

The voice of treason

Well-known member

Member Since Jul 2003

Well-known member

Member Since Jul 2003

Whalewhine

Well-known member

Fan of the 17 bus

Banned

Bright-eyed. Bushy-tailed. GSOH.

Well-hung member

On the road...

Well-hung member

On the road...

Fan of the 17 bus

Sanity Clause

Share this page