snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > History

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04 January 2017, 01:15 AM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,954
Flame Documentary identifies second culprit in the sinking of the Titanic

Everybody knows why the Titanic went down. She hit an iceberg and despite being supposedly designed as unsinkable, she sank and took 1,500 lives with her.

But that, as the film makers of a new documentary say, is not the whole story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/document...f-the-titanic/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04 January 2017, 01:55 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,466
Default

The entire bow of the ship has the same dark smudge on it as the "burn area" in that picture. What makes that little space special?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04 January 2017, 02:14 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,527
Default

I thought they would say the "first culprit" was the brittle steel, a hypothesis that was supported by test results on steel brought up from the actual hull. Seems they mean the "first culprit" was the iceberg. Lots of culprits in that disaster, though.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04 January 2017, 02:40 AM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,807
Default

The circled section is a small fraction of tbe damage that was done by the collicsion, so it is unlikely that the burn was that significant.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04 January 2017, 02:59 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,527
Icon05

It's the approximate location of the sixth, final, and largest fracture, without which the ship almost certainly would not have sunk.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04 January 2017, 01:32 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,807
Default

The damage to the hull ended about even with the first funnel, the burn area in the photo appears well before that point. Also, the burn area is well above the waterline, the damage to Titanic's hull was below the waterline.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04 January 2017, 11:52 PM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,316
Mouse

I heard many theorize that it was the rivets that helped take down the Titanic. Supposedly the alloy mixture made them weak and when the ship hit the iceberg, they started popping out, one after another. I don't claim to be a Titanic buff, but the rivets theory sounds more plausible than the burn one.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05 January 2017, 12:08 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,453
Default

I think we can go with "just generally not well built, in spite of what the advertisements claimed" as the overall "second culprit." The first being the iceberg and the as yet unmentioned third being the decision to transit at an unsafe speed given the conditions.

On the subject of the area of the fire vs. the waterline, it's possible that a fire could cause warping on the hull, bulkheads, and frames would have weakened the hull in areas not directly affected by the heat from the fire. Stresses would be transmitted to other parts of the ship and so on.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05 January 2017, 01:56 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
The damage to the hull ended about even with the first funnel,the burn area in the photo appears well before that point.
The area of the smudge is right by the number six coal bunker, which is where the final fracture started. (The water line is above the water in the picture, by the way.)
Quote:
Also, the burn area is well above the waterline, the damage to Titanic's hull was below the waterline.
Yes, heat goes up. The bunker and the coal fire, which is not in dispute at all as it was already documented, went well below the waterline and the fire was said to have heated the hull up to glowing temperatures. It also happens to be very near the start of where the final fracture occurred.

Do you really think this researcher spent all this effort only to misplace these simple items?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05 January 2017, 02:07 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
I don't claim to be a Titanic buff, but the rivets theory sounds more plausible than the burn one.
Although these news articles don't mention it, as far as I can tell this research doesn't contradict any of that previous research on the hull and the rivets. It's known that the hull buckled and leaked at the seams. Whether brittle rivets played a large or small role isn't known but it's still quite plausible. The question this tries to answer is whether the fire weakening the hull and its components (including the rivets) played a role as well.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05 January 2017, 02:19 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Do you really think this researcher spent all this effort only to misplace these simple items?
The default interpretation of any "new" explanation of a historic event is that it does indeed miss several important aspects of the event. Aspects that the investigators of the time were fully aware of. Since the investigators of the time new about the fire I think it is unlikely that the new analysis adds anything of value. So yes, there is a strong possibility that this new investigator has missed some basic facts that have been known since the time of the sinking.

Fires in coal bunkers of ships of the period (and roughly 50 years further back in time) were surprisingly common.

Any iron that was heated to glowing would have lost all of its annealing. It wont melt in a coal fire (especially an oxygen starved coal fire) but once it looses annealing the strength goes way down (see the WTC). Investigators of the time certainly would have known this and would have probably had first hand knowledge of the affects of a coal bunker fire on the iron structure of a ship.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05 January 2017, 02:31 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,527
Default

I agree it does happen that simple things are missed by people who think they are experts. However, much of what was thought to known about the disaster until the ship was found and examined turned out to be wrong. The hull buckled and split at the seams rather than ripped, for example. So since then people have been at work in putting together the pieces as to why that happened. Brittle steel and the rivets have been researched but everyone who looked at them knew they couldn't tell the whole story. One of the remaining mysteries is why it would happen on the Titanic when it didn't happen that way on other ships with lower quality steel and rivets when they were rammed or torpedoed during wartime. Maybe the experts will look at this new work and say it's not right for one reason or another but I don't see that it's so easily debunked as saying "nah, that looks like it's in the wrong place".

Either way, the fire has definitely deserved a better look as to whether it played a role since it was in the right place to have done so for sure, whether or not one accepts this photographic evidence. (As the article says, its role was dismissed in the inquiries that followed but they had far less information about what happened to the hull than we do. I repeat myself but they thought, and it was thought for most of a century that a long, more or less continuous, gash had been opened in the hull. That was wrong.)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06 January 2017, 02:28 AM
Latiam's Avatar
Latiam Latiam is offline
 
Join Date: 19 June 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,471
Default

I'm not familiar with the Smithsonian channel. Is it only available in America?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06 January 2017, 03:03 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,466
Default

Probably. It's a cable channel that's usually only available on the most expensive packages.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06 January 2017, 03:13 AM
Latiam's Avatar
Latiam Latiam is offline
 
Join Date: 19 June 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,471
Default

Well, it's not available to me at least. I just checked the premium cable package and it doesn't have it. I'm thinking USA only.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06 January 2017, 07:07 AM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,954
Default

Check the Smithsonian YouTube channel. There are a few rotating older Full Episodes, including one or two on the Titanic that pop up every now and again, like The Real Story: Titanic and another one called "Titanic - How It Really Sank" (not available at the moment, but it also appears on the iTunes Music Store).



~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06 January 2017, 05:17 PM
Latiam's Avatar
Latiam Latiam is offline
 
Join Date: 19 June 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,471
Default

Thanks, Psihala, I'll do that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'The Nazi Titanic': WWII sinking of ship crammed with POWs, camp inmates examined Psihala History 2 15 June 2016 07:45 AM
That sinking sensation Brad from Georgia Rantidote 6 26 June 2015 11:19 AM
DC news crew robbed while reporting on app that identifies ‘sketchy’ neighborhoods A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 1 12 August 2014 03:55 PM
'Sinking' yacht Jenn Fauxtography 39 25 December 2010 11:28 PM
Adult Acne: Culprit or Myth? snopes Medical 18 07 November 2007 09:57 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.