Titanic Crewmen April 13, 1912: "Thank goodness the fire is out, the ship is saved" Titanic Crewmen April 14, 1912: "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK-!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I seriously dont know why people just cant understand that Titanic sank because she hit the iceberg.No fires,explosions,monsters,switches...She hit the iceberg.
In fact all his facts isn't facts in fact lol but all I will say is go look up steel/iron with a higher sulfer content does at those temperatures and the properties of the metal and i won't say what or give you any persuasion just know that and there maybe an expert in the field somewhere in the comments who knows like a metallurgist👀 maybeeeeee?
people all the titanic needs is one compartment to rip open from weak steel and BOOM! cold water plus hot coal = explosions! causing more damage and more leaks thus more explosions...
@Ultra CNC You're being awfully smug for someone saying nothing. If you read the thread, you would have grasped that we were talking about the hull integrity. I was using the comparison to say that the hull did not need to be weakened to be damaged by the iceberg, any more than it would by a stick of dynamite. Get it now? Or do I need to spoon-feed you some more basic reading comprehension? EDIT: Ah, they deleted their comment. Owned.
Then those people forget that icebergs are made out of water and what happens when you submerge ice in water for too long it melts there probably was ice inside the ship unfortunately the ice melted inside the ship as the ship sunk
To put everything into context, the vessel hit a berg at speed, ripped a gash down it's side, filled the so called watertight compartments with water, the problem was, is that the watertight compartments were not sealed at the top, so as the front filled with water, the bow nose dives, then the water spilled over into the next compartment and so on, hence she sank nose first, before breaking in two.
Right, they were designed to be able to stay above the water line with only so many filled, but the problem was that too many got compromised, and as soon as they knew the number that was compromised they knew she would sink and couldn’t be saved
But part of the fire documentary states that ... If there had not been a fire titanic would have been moving slower and possibly been able to avoid the iceberg.. the fire wasn't a cause but a contributing factor
Listen I work in metal inspection, I’m not a super scientific guy, but that heat, on steel, PLUS the addition of freezing water can and usually does create cracks. Just saying, I’ve seen it personally.
The change in temperature was gradual, like in annealing steel rather than a quick shock like when you quench it for hardening. The gradual raising of the temperature and the slow cooling would *maybe* make the steel a bit softer, but usually that only can be done to steel that is already hardened. If the plate on titanic was unhardened, which is most likely, then after a gradual cooling process it would return to a very similar hardness level as it had before.
Finally we learn the truth. It was a torpedo that sank her. No wait that was the Lusitania? An underwater mine sank the Britannic so we can debunk that myth .The Andrea Doria was struck by another ship, and since the closet ship was at least 10 miles away we can rule that out. So I guess that leaves me to think only one thing could have cause her to sink. The German Battleship Bismarck was doing target practice. No that was like 1941 not 1912. So using my deductive reasoning I can only conclude what I have read in about 20 different books; it was a BERG.A VERY BIG BERG.
This comment is basically a conglomeration of misconceptions, stupid theories, and some other obscure theories. *And it perfectly makes fun of them. And i like it.*
Couple things, even if it is playing devil's advocate: 1) metallurgical analysis of titanics' steel showed higher than normal sulfur impurity, which would make the steel brittle at either temperature extreme and lower the melting point 2) The Centralia mine fire (coal mine burning for decades underground with little access to oxygen) has a range of documented temperatures some in excess of 1,350 °f Therefore: It is conceivable that the bunker fire did effect the structural integrity of the surrounding steel and was possibly then a contributing factor in hastening the flooding either in an initial or progressively worsening capacity as the situation unfolded and stresses and pressure increased. Also, emptying a three storey tall coal bunker mostly into the boilers so you can get to the fire in the bottom of the bunker all the while increasing your speed in excess of the planned 20 knots to what I think was somewhere around 23 knots probably didn't help when they hit the iceberg. Right in whatever sore spot the bunker fire may have created.......conceivably. All of which is not to ignore the sheer cacophony of a cluster-fluck the series of events was that culminated in the sinking of the unsinkable. Whatever the particulars actually were many died who should not have.
I know that's right and I know at those prolonged temperatures is enough to change the temper making it even more brittle and that's a fact that can't be argued especially with the more sulfur that is in the metal,I live in Michigan we mine and process taconite pellets but people believe whatever they want to but who knows there maybe a expert metallurgist SOMEWHERE in the comments I'm sure 🤫...hehehehe but sir you are absolutely 100% right.
Any warping or deformities such as were reported, is a very good indicator that the metal had lost it's temper and became brittle. But let's add into the mix, the cold temperatures of the water on the outer hull and WALLAH, DISASTROUS CIMBINATION!
Bunker fires happened all the time in coal-fired ships. Imperator/Berengaria suffered several fires over the course of her career prior to converting to oil, including one during her sea trials that killed several people.
My Father was a Carpenter working on the Clyde shipbuilding in the late 30s. He told me while watching the riveters that He never ever seen a 'clean' full diameter river hole, The rivers were white hot and almost molten, they were just hammered into the malformed hole. So the assumption that every rivet was 100% strong and correct is just theoretical fantasy.
look and compare the side view ! The Dark Spot is between Bulkhead C-D , the Fire was next to Bulkhead E the black spot is too far forward. The fire in the bunker was further back.
Very interesting, so in short if the fire played any role in the sinking it was how the ship flooded after the collision. If the said coal bunkers were damaged and flooded from the inside and then the coal door failed. I wonder what would have happened with the flooding if the bunkers were full? Would the coal have acted like a plug or slow the flooding? I wonder if that data could be plugged into a simulator either way?
The coal might have worked that way. In The Last Word, the most recent documentary with James Cameron, they posted that idea, essentially changing the bouyancy of the boiler room. The idea was what if they'd gambled and shoved all the cork lifebelts into boiler room 6 (or the coal bunker, I forget which). It was a possibility, but essentially would have been a huge risk if they were wrong. So, it might have taken longer for the ship to sink if the bunkers had been full to the brim, but I don't know if it would have stopped the sinking. It'd be interesting to find out if they could determine that
Yellow Journalists: "I'm going to pretend I didn't see that." But in all seriousness, glad you made this video, out of all of the false theories made on the Titanic, this, the V-break theory, and the Olympic Switch theory are theories that irritate me every time I hear someone talk about them.
A few weeks ago there was a documentary about the coal fire and how it caused the ship to sink, which we know is not true, and it gets me so mad. What makes me even more mad is that the Smithsonian Chanel actually aired it. With there audience and stuff some people actually might think it is true. Another problem is that it was actually somewhat convincing which scared me
It not that it made it sink but because that bulkhead was subjected to high heat it weakened the steel so when flooding water reached that bulkhead during the sinking it couldn't of withstood the water pressure it was originally designed for and possibly played a role in the Titanic sinking faster than it would of if the steel was not subjected to heat more lives could of possibly been saved .
@@lolloblue9646 It does with low temperatures, especially the low-purity high-slag steel that the Titanic's rivets were made with. Read up on ductile-to-brittle transition (also known as cold shortness).
I was taught that coal burns at temperatures exceeding 1100 degrees Celsius (2000 degrees Fahrenheit). 795C is the ignition temperature not the temp it produces while burning.
It burns at that temperature when there's plenty of oxygen available. In a poorly ventilated bunker it would have exhausted the available oxygen fairly quickly, which would then only be replenished slowly through non-airtight gaps in the bunker. This would have led to a low-temperature smouldering fire, not a hot roaring one.
@mapleflag6518 Exactly, because the temperature is so hot it compromises the steel, the steel is not designed to withstand the excessive temperature of burning jet fuel
One point made in the original 'coal fire' documentary is not addressed here. Though the metal may not have been weakened from the fire, when you throw more coal into the burner to get rid of the burning coal, you can easily increase the speed of the ship, thereby not giving enough time to clear a rapidly nearing iceberg. I would be interested to hear Titanic Animations take on this and/or the rest of you of course.
Well considering they weren't even at top speed, and feeding the burning coals to the boilers wasn't even how they extinguished the fire, that kinda falls apart doesn't it? The reason they didn't have enough time to dodge was entirely because of the flat, glassy calm ocean. This condition meant that waves weren't breaking on the iceberg which was how they spotted Icebergs at the time.
@@sorrenblitz805 and also there could've been a mirage effect going on when the ship hit the iceberg and also when it was sinking. (Unless I'm completely wrong)
the titanic had systems to vent extra steam, so if they did burn the coal they couldve easily just gotten rid of any steam they didnt need instead of being forced to go faster
@@sorrenblitz805 Steel weakens at much lower temperatures than red hot, it definitely could have weakened it. But what is clear is that this weakening would not have affected more than coal bunker 5, so clearly the coal fire was not a major factor
@@Tom--Ace this is the same argument people made about the twin tower steel You only need to heat steel a small amount to make it easier to bend, ask anyone who works steel by hand and has a small handheld blowtorch
@@Obvsaninternetexpert I mean the final blow to the structure of the north and south towers was the heat, first of all, the water inside that would boil and cause masses of pressure on the concrete walls, coupled with the fire and destruction of some of the support beams it was destined to fall.
nobody: the media when theres a Titanic theory with no facts: EEE HAHAH MMMM ME BIG POST THIS AND MAKE NEWS STORY. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Interesting. But the fire was potentially much bigger than first thought. The fire started in belfast. And most of the fireman originally employed by whitestar line. Left the ship in southampton and refused to go any further. They had to recruit new firemen at southampton at quick notice. This in iteself is worrying. This was referenced from a surviving fireman who got on in southampton
Survivors say they could see the Californian about two miles away. Instead of just shooting flares and waiting for it to respond, why didn't a life boat paddle over to it? Or, why didn't the Titanic turn it's boilers back on and steam over to the Californian?
1) It's utterly ridiculous to make a damaged, sinking ship sail to the rescue ship. The act of sailing towards the Californian could have forced more water into the ship, making it sink faster. 2) Lifeboats weren't designed to travel that large of a distance. They weren't even designed to sit in the water for hours.
@@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim Boat 8 was actually ordered to Row for the Californian. However you are right, these boats were intended for short back and forth ferry trips taking people from a stricken vessel to a nearby rescue ship. It was completely unforeseen circumstances that a ship wouldn't be only a few minutes away.
The better question is why did the California do nothing when they saw the rockets in regular intervals signaling distress and saw the morse code lights, while they knew they were in a dangerous ice field that easily could have claimed a nearby ship?
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 Many things contributed to that. For one they did not fire the signals properly to signal their distress. They fired in 5 minute intervals rather than 1 minute so this confused the captain and the passengers and they figured it was just company signals. The Californian was also surrounded by ice at the time like you said though they still could have theoretically gotten out but they would have to be careful much like how the Carpathia had done. And they turned off their wireless for the night. The captain certainly could have done more. He could have turned their devices back on to make absolutely sure nothing was actually amiss, etc. but even though the ship seemed somewhat strange in how it was acting he decided not to act on it for whatever reason. They were still technically around 10 miles away or so in reality and their ship was very slow. Not built for speed. People constantly over the years blamed the captain of the Californian but realistically he simply could not have known the full situation and he had to think about the safety of his own crew as well. They weren't in the best situation themselves. The Californian did try to signal with morse code lamps but the Titanic never replied or at least did not seem to. Those lamps were not ideal to use in those conditions at that distance. A still moonless night is rare and can play all kinds of tricks to the eye. They could have just have easily looked like stars at that distance. Personally I would have taken every measure including turning the wireless back on. But that doesn't mean the Captain and his crew should be condemned for their actions. They simply did not know for certainty that the ship they had seen so far away was in serious trouble. The Carpathia understood completely what was happening due to keeping communication with the Titanic for as long as they could. They were not a really fast ship either but the Captain knew the situation and did everything in his power to come to Titanic's aide. This meant endangering himself, the ship, and his crew along the way. That is one heck of a decision to have to make. And they still did not reach the ship until after it had sank. They had even been given the wrong coordinates by the Titanic. The only reason they found it was because one of the officers in a Titanic lifeboat had lit a green flare in order to help keep the others together. It is not certain that the Californian itself would have been able to make it to the ship before it sank.
@@timtnr.6177That really opens up the question of burning to death versus freezing to death. 🤔 Which would be worse? Of course you also need to factor in the boilers blowing when the ice cold water hits. That's definately going to cost some lives. 🤔🤔🤔 Instant death definately beats drowning, that is, assuming you arent in that special sweet spot where the shockwave wont kill, but you still end up with a stomach full of shrapnel. Oh, thats painful.
@@Emigdiosback Tin foil alert! The fact is that neither fires had to directly destroy the structures! In Titanics case the fire would have softened the hull, witch was made of already brittle steel. In the case of the twin towers the weight of the tower itself made the hot and softened, but not melted steel, buckle... But sure, be an idiot and don't think or research the materials, but please do believe tin foil theories... You utter bell end!
@@riesa85 well this video gives you a temperature range that the fire would've had to get to weaken the metal. 1300°F+ which the coal fire on Titanic never got up to.
@@Emigdiosback I'm calling BS on that, Look at RMS Olympic. Same design out lasted tons of ships from 1911 all the way til 1936 when the ship was scrapped and surprised scrappers as to how tough she still was after 25 years at sea.
Very interesting, however it was a bloody great iceberg that sank her. There are so many 'if only' alternatives, the saddest being if she'd not turned and hit the berg head on, she'd have probably survived or at least remained afloat longer, time enough for Carpathia to arrive. Who knows, it's amazing she remained level and not tilt to starboard, just going down by the head.
Say what you will about the role or lack thereof the fire played in the sinking of Titanic, but the coal fire is an account I'd love to see reenacted in the next Titanic motion picture or docudrama.
Titanic sinking theory worked by islas shipping line: the titanic hit in the icebers probably disrupted lower parts and caused a fire when the ship sank in the lover compartments in the bow the fire is put out but fire reaches the boilers causing an explosion around the third funell stress fractures and holes started froming and the stern was bending the ship eventualy splits but the stern instantly sank due to holes caused by stress fractures
i agree but i dont think that the iceburg is the only factor idk why but it just doesnt sit right tell me im not the only one thinking this like the olympic which is older and less advanced manages to not sink when its front of the hull was smushed and an iceburg vs a ship may not be as bas as a ship vs another ship idk its like i said it just doesnt sit right with me how an older ship got into so many bad accidents and survived longer than both of its sister ships
The fire probably didn't cause severe damage, but it might have slightly weakened the hull a little bit. If that didn't happen, the hull may have been slightly stronger and it may not have sunk to begin with.
Idea for next video, follow the flooding based on eyewitness. Mark of water on deckplans and profil pictures. Maybe we can see the break up in new light?!
Your animations keep looking better and better! Like you said coal fires were definitely a common occurrence. I do not think it had bearing on the sinking with the exception of the coal that was moved from starboard to port and that what probably kept the ship on an even keel as long as it did the night of the sinking and enabled the crew to lower the lifeboats without too much issue. Keep up your great work!!
Not even the correct type of coal being talked about industrial coal used for furnaces and steam boilers burn at a higher temperatures than cooking coal. Just look up bituminous coal instead of using the first result you find when you type in "how hot does coal burn" in the hotbar. To add on even more specifically the exact coal being used by the company at the time was welsh anthracite which has one of the highest burning temperatures of the different coal types.
Isn't this part of the ship below the waterline? The below freezing water? I would think that the cold of the sea during the voyage would have kept the hull plates cold, regardless of how the coal was burning. I don't see those being weakened in any way. The bulkheads I'm less sure, but she would have gone down either way.
I would also like to mention that this specific coal bunker was below first class swimming pool. If temperatures reached 500-1000 C as they claim, water in the swimming pool would be boiling (water boils at 100 C) and deck around it would be deformed. Testimonies say this was not the case and temperatures were just mildly warmer than usual.
Californian only had one operator, and there was no requirement for the set to be constantly in use. That said, Lord should certainly have woken him up.
If a documentary can be created to insist that a COAL FIRE was responsible for the sinking then I don't see why there can't be a documentary explaining that that is entirely false. I would seriously get in touch with the History Channel people and try to do an actual film. Or Nat Geo, either way.
@@DerpyPossum yea, I work with metal all the time constant med heat affects metal douse it with cold makes it hard but more brittle. So yes it had a small contributing factor. Anybody that says other wise reads the history but doesn't understood the subject.
@@timesthree5757 You may work with modern metal, but i know my history. No factor in the ship sinking was played by that fire. That’s been known since 1912.
@@DerpyPossum metal is metal. Like I said you read history but don't understand it. Yes, the iceburg sank the ship. If it wasn't for the iceburg the ship would've had a long life. But the fire would have an effect. Wait so the Metal today is worse than metal back. Also if inquiries back then are anything like today then no I don't trust them.
well i believe what the eyewitness's said at the trial about what they saw in the boiler room etc...we were not there..so we can only go on their accounts..i see no reason for them to lie in a court of inquiry....ty...nuff said
Those bunkers were desighned go to tolerate heat etc ! So no danger of fatigue . What was titanics doom was 3 ft of plates seperating in that bunker and the fact the bunker wall was not ment to be watertight .
Just thinking 🤔 could the fire perhaps have softened the haul and thus making the Titanic leak faster. Yet the fire would have to occurred starboard side at the Bow. Which it's wasn't.
At least im 80% sure that there was a coal fire inside the titanic than me being 0.0000000000000001% sure (not enough zeros) of the v-break that aaro-logan dublin university supports
It's hilarious to me that people looked at the picture you used in the thumbnail and thought it was the coal fire. It's a photograph that was literally 100 years old. There are tons of ways that the chemicals could degrade. If it had been that obvious at the time, there would have been evidence of it.
@@stephenmccloughan7541 most assuredly she would have. There've been at least two simulations done - one on the fire specifically, another on the watertight doors. In the case of the fire, the sinking simulation app that researchers used predicted that, without the weight shift/list from the efforts to fight the coal fire, Titanic would have rolled in just under an hour. Same thing when the watertight door study was done, only worse; power failure in minutes, rolling, and going under a good half hour sooner than in reality.
Finally! These clickbait videos about “the heat made the hull weaken” made me loose braincells because of how bad it is. *literally* *only 1 boiler room flooded, and most of the damage was on the cargo holds*
This is a terrific series of videos. And I've known the work of people like Sam Halpern and Roy Mengot for years. They're some of the very best. Cheers, all!
Well that image people point is actually a reflection of the land on a spot of fresh paint. not to mention the spot isn't anywhere near where the fire actually was.
If this isn't about the fire theory itself but it's something related and I can't find an answer. Why did Barret but oil on the dented bulkhead? It is framed as a common practice, but I can't find anything on the reasoning behind it.
@@AidenWestori thank you. For years, everytime I would read something about Barret's account that always perplexed me. Now that I got my answer, I feel a bit silly that I never made that connection.
Too much assumptions, not enough evidence for actual testing. We will never know how much of the steel was decent quality, just assuming it was doesn't make it true. Just like we will never know if the fire had any correlation to the accident. You sure seem to have made up your mind and with imaginary evidence, bravo on fooling the idiots in there comments.
Well I mean, the iron rivets that everyone loves to point to as being "inferior" in quality were used in the bow and stern (the center rivets were hydraulically rivetted in) and uh....they're still retaining their shape even after all this time in water.
They tested some of the steel they brought up from the wreck at one point too, even that disclosed there was no fault with the steel used on the ship (from both recovered rivets and Hull plate).
in addition, they very people you chose to quote in the vid, state that the metal was Deformed by the heat you say the guy didn't SEE the bulkhead glowing red hot but this guy knew his business and could see the signs of extreme heat damage to the metal. "rubbed black oil over it" has no bearing on anyting
So about the part where they emptied out the unscorched coal, how does that really relate to anything? Not trying to debunk this or support the theory, but it just genuinely confuses me and I can't wrap my mind around it, if somebody could give me a simple example of why that supports the debunk then it would be greatly appreciated!
It took them so long to put the fire out because they had to move the coal that wasn't on fire out of the way so they could access the on-fire coal and dump water on it.
Coal fires were common back then, hard to believe they would design a ship where a fire would do any meaningful structural damage.
Titanic Crewmen April 13, 1912: "Thank goodness the fire is out, the ship is saved"
Titanic Crewmen April 14, 1912: "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK-!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
LOL
this comment has 69 likes nice
Except for the fire not really being a danger for the ship
It still is a funni comment
I seriously dont know why people just cant understand that Titanic sank because she hit the iceberg.No fires,explosions,monsters,switches...She hit the iceberg.
Looks like you've been there
Nazi genetically engineered cyborg plesiosaurs
But…but think of the mermaids!!
Actually it was a fireberg, get it right…gawwwd
Because it isn't dramatic enough, and modern media needs everything to be sEnSaTiOnAlIzEd
How DARE you to debunk theories with reason facts and science? Ahahaha Great video.
How dare you not use commas to separate parts of your list?
@@panzerjagertigerporsche Poetic license.
When has facts or science solved anything? 🤔 😆🤣😂
In fact all his facts isn't facts in fact lol but all I will say is go look up steel/iron with a higher sulfer content does at those temperatures and the properties of the metal and i won't say what or give you any persuasion just know that and there maybe an expert in the field somewhere in the comments who knows like a metallurgist👀 maybeeeeee?
@@insertnamehere313 ER? What? Please...use a comma, at least occasionally.
coal fires can't melt steel bulkheads
They can weaken em for an iceberg to do the rest
@@sherylstapleford2005 that's like saying they can weaken them for a dynamite blast
it doesn't need the assistance, it's perfectly capable alone
Highly doubt the iceberg ripped open boiler room 5 which started flooding right where they say the coal fire was coincidentally
people all the titanic needs is one compartment to rip open from weak steel and BOOM! cold water plus hot coal = explosions! causing more damage and more leaks thus more explosions...
@Ultra CNC You're being awfully smug for someone saying nothing.
If you read the thread, you would have grasped that we were talking about the hull integrity. I was using the comparison to say that the hull did not need to be weakened to be damaged by the iceberg, any more than it would by a stick of dynamite.
Get it now? Or do I need to spoon-feed you some more basic reading comprehension?
EDIT: Ah, they deleted their comment. Owned.
These are the kind of people to say “If the titanic REALLY struck an iceberg, howcome no pieces of iceberg were found in the wreck????”
Then those people forget that icebergs are made out of water and what happens when you submerge ice in water for too long it melts there probably was ice inside the ship unfortunately the ice melted inside the ship as the ship sunk
😂😂
@@redseagaming7832and the iceberg was in between the areas of cold and hot waters and airs. Source? Vsauce’s illusions video. Vsauce is always correct
@@FlatEarthKiller If there is one person I trust more than anyone to not lie for content, it's Vsauce.
@@Boileryard Vsauce never lies
To put everything into context, the vessel hit a berg at speed, ripped a gash down it's side, filled the so called watertight compartments with water, the problem was, is that the watertight compartments were not sealed at the top, so as the front filled with water, the bow nose dives, then the water spilled over into the next compartment and so on, hence she sank nose first, before breaking in two.
Right, they were designed to be able to stay above the water line with only so many filled, but the problem was that too many got compromised, and as soon as they knew the number that was compromised they knew she would sink and couldn’t be saved
You know for all it's flaws I always kinda figured the British inquiry had it right with a 300ft gash down the side,
@@rampancyproductions even that was wrong. A gash that size would’ve sunk the ship in minutes. It was more like a series of small little rips
But part of the fire documentary states that ... If there had not been a fire titanic would have been moving slower and possibly been able to avoid the iceberg.. the fire wasn't a cause but a contributing factor
@@rmsteutonic3686 I don't think it was ever a 300 foot gash, 300 foot of damage with said small rips mixed in.
I’ve watched so many titanic videos I’ve lost count
You aint alone lol
Me too, I’m obsessed.
Listen I work in metal inspection, I’m not a super scientific guy, but that heat, on steel, PLUS the addition of freezing water can and usually does create cracks. Just saying, I’ve seen it personally.
It could've give in after the iceberg hitting it, because the iceberg actually hit a few feet above where the coal fire was.
The change in temperature was gradual, like in annealing steel rather than a quick shock like when you quench it for hardening. The gradual raising of the temperature and the slow cooling would *maybe* make the steel a bit softer, but usually that only can be done to steel that is already hardened. If the plate on titanic was unhardened, which is most likely, then after a gradual cooling process it would return to a very similar hardness level as it had before.
I enjoy these kinds of documentaries explaining or debunking something.
Thank you. Now I can link this to the people who think the theory is real, to show them other wise.
You’re the best man :)
THE SAM
Ik, he makes things so easy, I can link his Switch theory vid to Switch Theory Believers :)
Theory is true though.
TheNewBec the coal bunched theory is false, as the video shows
@@thenewbec8915 No it isn't
"...and broke his leg."
*OW*
That's putting it mildly.
Finally we learn the truth. It was a torpedo that sank her. No wait that was the Lusitania? An underwater mine sank the Britannic so we can debunk that myth .The Andrea Doria was struck by another ship, and since the closet ship was at least 10 miles away we can rule that out. So I guess that leaves me to think only one thing could have cause her to sink. The German Battleship Bismarck was doing target practice. No that was like 1941 not 1912.
So using my deductive reasoning I can only conclude what I have read in about 20 different books; it was a BERG.A VERY BIG BERG.
This comment is basically a conglomeration of misconceptions, stupid theories, and some other obscure theories.
*And it perfectly makes fun of them. And i like it.*
Rube Goldberg.
Couple things, even if it is playing devil's advocate:
1) metallurgical analysis of titanics' steel showed higher than normal sulfur impurity, which would make the steel brittle at either temperature extreme and lower the melting point
2) The Centralia mine fire (coal mine burning for decades underground with little access to oxygen) has a range of documented temperatures some in excess of 1,350 °f
Therefore:
It is conceivable that the bunker fire did effect the structural integrity of the surrounding steel and was possibly then a contributing factor in hastening the flooding either in an initial or progressively worsening capacity as the situation unfolded and stresses and pressure increased. Also, emptying a three storey tall coal bunker mostly into the boilers so you can get to the fire in the bottom of the bunker all the while increasing your speed in excess of the planned 20 knots to what I think was somewhere around 23 knots probably didn't help when they hit the iceberg. Right in whatever sore spot the bunker fire may have created.......conceivably.
All of which is not to ignore the sheer cacophony of a cluster-fluck the series of events was that culminated in the sinking of the unsinkable. Whatever the particulars actually were many died who should not have.
I know that's right and I know at those prolonged temperatures is enough to change the temper making it even more brittle and that's a fact that can't be argued especially with the more sulfur that is in the metal,I live in Michigan we mine and process taconite pellets but people believe whatever they want to but who knows there maybe a expert metallurgist SOMEWHERE in the comments I'm sure 🤫...hehehehe but sir you are absolutely 100% right.
Exactly
Any warping or deformities such as were reported, is a very good indicator that the metal had lost it's temper and became brittle. But let's add into the mix, the cold temperatures of the water on the outer hull and WALLAH, DISASTROUS CIMBINATION!
You have said and explained everything Perfectly.I have tried to explain this to many others .
Photo: some smudge
People: OMG FIRE
Bunker fires happened all the time in coal-fired ships. Imperator/Berengaria suffered several fires over the course of her career prior to converting to oil, including one during her sea trials that killed several people.
Yup, that's why I never liked this theory, fires were basically to be expected.
finally we have a video debunking the fire theory
also Aaro- I mean Logan dublin university made a response video and he said alot of BS in that video
THG did a debunking video awhile back as well
that and including this video are the only videos i can find debunking the fire theory
Link?
I used to partially believe the theory, with that the fire made the hull weaker, and the iceberg was the last straw for the hull to collapse inward
My Father was a Carpenter working on the Clyde shipbuilding in the late 30s. He told me while watching the riveters that He never ever seen a 'clean' full diameter river hole, The rivers were white hot and almost molten, they were just hammered into the malformed hole. So the assumption that every rivet was 100% strong and correct is just theoretical fantasy.
look and compare the side view ! The Dark Spot is between Bulkhead C-D , the Fire was next to Bulkhead E
the black spot is too far forward. The fire in the bunker was further back.
Very interesting, so in short if the fire played any role in the sinking it was how the ship flooded after the collision. If the said coal bunkers were damaged and flooded from the inside and then the coal door failed. I wonder what would have happened with the flooding if the bunkers were full? Would the coal have acted like a plug or slow the flooding? I wonder if that data could be plugged into a simulator either way?
The coal might have worked that way. In The Last Word, the most recent documentary with James Cameron, they posted that idea, essentially changing the bouyancy of the boiler room. The idea was what if they'd gambled and shoved all the cork lifebelts into boiler room 6 (or the coal bunker, I forget which). It was a possibility, but essentially would have been a huge risk if they were wrong. So, it might have taken longer for the ship to sink if the bunkers had been full to the brim, but I don't know if it would have stopped the sinking. It'd be interesting to find out if they could determine that
Yellow Journalists: "I'm going to pretend I didn't see that."
But in all seriousness, glad you made this video, out of all of the false theories made on the Titanic, this, the V-break theory, and the Olympic Switch theory are theories that irritate me every time I hear someone talk about them.
I mean if the conspiracies were real, why people on modern times would conspire in favor of cover the switch? This does not making sense
@Logan Jones. YES THEY ANNOY ME SO MUCH
you know that this theory is also fake you know right?
A few weeks ago there was a documentary about the coal fire and how it caused the ship to sink, which we know is not true, and it gets me so mad. What makes me even more mad is that the Smithsonian Chanel actually aired it. With there audience and stuff some people actually might think it is true. Another problem is that it was actually somewhat convincing which scared me
History itself, isnt what is actually taught to us.
It not that it made it sink but because that bulkhead was subjected to high heat it weakened the steel so when flooding water reached that bulkhead during the sinking it couldn't of withstood the water pressure it was originally designed for and possibly played a role in the Titanic sinking faster than it would of if the steel was not subjected to heat more lives could of possibly been saved .
@@stephenperkins5644 mild steel doesn't become brittle with heating and cooling
@@lolloblue9646 Where is your proof ? Your just going say what you said and that all ?
@@lolloblue9646 It does with low temperatures, especially the low-purity high-slag steel that the Titanic's rivets were made with. Read up on ductile-to-brittle transition (also known as cold shortness).
I was taught that coal burns at temperatures exceeding 1100 degrees Celsius (2000 degrees Fahrenheit). 795C is the ignition temperature not the temp it produces while burning.
It burns at that temperature when there's plenty of oxygen available. In a poorly ventilated bunker it would have exhausted the available oxygen fairly quickly, which would then only be replenished slowly through non-airtight gaps in the bunker. This would have led to a low-temperature smouldering fire, not a hot roaring one.
I left sabaton metal machine as fast as I can for this video
Go touch the metal machine.
Fellow Sabaton fan, eh?
LEADING THE WAAAAYYY
This reminds me of the Jet fuel can't melt steel debate :p
They aren’t wrong technically. Jet fuel on its own can’t melt steel beams.
Ignited jet fuel however can melt steel beams.
@mapleflag6518 Exactly, because the temperature is so hot it compromises the steel, the steel is not designed to withstand the excessive temperature of burning jet fuel
I’ll never forget a buddy of mine in middle school saying their was a Meglodon fossil in the iceberg and that was actually what made the hole.
No, that was a frozen Megatron.
Ah yes, because it makes perfect sense for a fossil to be stored in a single iceberg for millions of years, rather than the fossil sinking/j
@@alien-chat Yeah for real /s
STUUUPID
One point made in the original 'coal fire' documentary is not addressed here. Though the metal may not have been weakened from the fire, when you throw more coal into the burner to get rid of the burning coal, you can easily increase the speed of the ship, thereby not giving enough time to clear a rapidly nearing iceberg.
I would be interested to hear Titanic Animations take on this and/or the rest of you of course.
Well considering they weren't even at top speed, and feeding the burning coals to the boilers wasn't even how they extinguished the fire, that kinda falls apart doesn't it?
The reason they didn't have enough time to dodge was entirely because of the flat, glassy calm ocean. This condition meant that waves weren't breaking on the iceberg which was how they spotted Icebergs at the time.
@@sorrenblitz805 and also there could've been a mirage effect going on when the ship hit the iceberg and also when it was sinking.
(Unless I'm completely wrong)
the titanic had systems to vent extra steam, so if they did burn the coal they couldve easily just gotten rid of any steam they didnt need instead of being forced to go faster
I thought the theory was that the coal fire weakened the steel and perhaps contributed to the iceberg damaging the area more than it would otherwise
And this video explains how it couldn't have weakened the steel because it couldn't get hot enough to do so.
@@sorrenblitz805 Steel weakens at much lower temperatures than red hot, it definitely could have weakened it. But what is clear is that this weakening would not have affected more than coal bunker 5, so clearly the coal fire was not a major factor
@@Tom--Ace this is the same argument people made about the twin tower steel
You only need to heat steel a small amount to make it easier to bend, ask anyone who works steel by hand and has a small handheld blowtorch
@@Obvsaninternetexpert I mean the final blow to the structure of the north and south towers was the heat, first of all, the water inside that would boil and cause masses of pressure on the concrete walls, coupled with the fire and destruction of some of the support beams it was destined to fall.
nobody:
the media when theres a Titanic theory with no facts: EEE HAHAH MMMM ME BIG POST THIS AND MAKE NEWS STORY. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Interesting. But the fire was potentially much bigger than first thought. The fire started in belfast. And most of the fireman originally employed by whitestar line. Left the ship in southampton and refused to go any further. They had to recruit new firemen at southampton at quick notice. This in iteself is worrying. This was referenced from a surviving fireman who got on in southampton
The crew who left the ship in Southampton were simply the delivery crew. They were never going to sail any further.
Legend has it the fire is still burning to this day
Sorry, Water and Fire don't mix
Survivors say they could see the Californian about two miles away. Instead of just shooting flares and waiting for it to respond, why didn't a life boat paddle over to it? Or, why didn't the Titanic turn it's boilers back on and steam over to the Californian?
1) It's utterly ridiculous to make a damaged, sinking ship sail to the rescue ship. The act of sailing towards the Californian could have forced more water into the ship, making it sink faster.
2) Lifeboats weren't designed to travel that large of a distance. They weren't even designed to sit in the water for hours.
@@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim Boat 8 was actually ordered to Row for the Californian. However you are right, these boats were intended for short back and forth ferry trips taking people from a stricken vessel to a nearby rescue ship. It was completely unforeseen circumstances that a ship wouldn't be only a few minutes away.
The better question is why did the California do nothing when they saw the rockets in regular intervals signaling distress and saw the morse code lights, while they knew they were in a dangerous ice field that easily could have claimed a nearby ship?
@@bobbygetsbanned6049
Many things contributed to that. For one they did not fire the signals properly to signal their distress. They fired in 5 minute intervals rather than 1 minute so this confused the captain and the passengers and they figured it was just company signals. The Californian was also surrounded by ice at the time like you said though they still could have theoretically gotten out but they would have to be careful much like how the Carpathia had done. And they turned off their wireless for the night. The captain certainly could have done more. He could have turned their devices back on to make absolutely sure nothing was actually amiss, etc. but even though the ship seemed somewhat strange in how it was acting he decided not to act on it for whatever reason. They were still technically around 10 miles away or so in reality and their ship was very slow. Not built for speed. People constantly over the years blamed the captain of the Californian but realistically he simply could not have known the full situation and he had to think about the safety of his own crew as well. They weren't in the best situation themselves. The Californian did try to signal with morse code lamps but the Titanic never replied or at least did not seem to. Those lamps were not ideal to use in those conditions at that distance. A still moonless night is rare and can play all kinds of tricks to the eye. They could have just have easily looked like stars at that distance. Personally I would have taken every measure including turning the wireless back on. But that doesn't mean the Captain and his crew should be condemned for their actions. They simply did not know for certainty that the ship they had seen so far away was in serious trouble. The Carpathia understood completely what was happening due to keeping communication with the Titanic for as long as they could. They were not a really fast ship either but the Captain knew the situation and did everything in his power to come to Titanic's aide. This meant endangering himself, the ship, and his crew along the way. That is one heck of a decision to have to make. And they still did not reach the ship until after it had sank. They had even been given the wrong coordinates by the Titanic. The only reason they found it was because one of the officers in a Titanic lifeboat had lit a green flare in order to help keep the others together. It is not certain that the Californian itself would have been able to make it to the ship before it sank.
It's so simple.. *put a hole in the ship to put out the fire!*
And it's ice water too, so you know it will put out the fire extra good!
Now that is cruel, put a hole in the ship to put out the fire, and have 2, 200 casualties, I know sarcasm but that is just absurd
@@timtnr.6177That really opens up the question of burning to death versus freezing to death. 🤔 Which would be worse? Of course you also need to factor in the boilers blowing when the ice cold water hits. That's definately going to cost some lives. 🤔🤔🤔 Instant death definately beats drowning, that is, assuming you arent in that special sweet spot where the shockwave wont kill, but you still end up with a stomach full of shrapnel. Oh, thats painful.
Do people know how hot a fire would have to be to do enough damage to ruin the watertight compartments?
@@Emigdiosback Tin foil alert! The fact is that neither fires had to directly destroy the structures! In Titanics case the fire would have softened the hull, witch was made of already brittle steel. In the case of the twin towers the weight of the tower itself made the hot and softened, but not melted steel, buckle... But sure, be an idiot and don't think or research the materials, but please do believe tin foil theories... You utter bell end!
@@Emigdiosback shit! I'm sorry! But still people think all this bs!
@@riesa85 well this video gives you a temperature range that the fire would've had to get to weaken the metal. 1300°F+ which the coal fire on Titanic never got up to.
@@Emigdiosback I'm calling BS on that, Look at RMS Olympic. Same design out lasted tons of ships from 1911 all the way til 1936 when the ship was scrapped and surprised scrappers as to how tough she still was after 25 years at sea.
@@riesa85 If you soften steel that is "brittle" you actually make it stronger. Brittle steel is a result of it being too hard.
Very interesting, however it was a bloody great iceberg that sank her. There are so many 'if only' alternatives, the saddest being if she'd not turned and hit the berg head on, she'd have probably survived or at least remained afloat longer, time enough for Carpathia to arrive. Who knows, it's amazing she remained level and not tilt to starboard, just going down by the head.
i used to think this theory was real. but know that you have explaind it, i feel stupid for thinking the fire theory was real.
Say what you will about the role or lack thereof the fire played in the sinking of Titanic, but the coal fire is an account I'd love to see reenacted in the next Titanic motion picture or docudrama.
There's a TV movie about Frederick Barret floating around the internet. It delves into the fire.
Titanic sinking theory worked by islas shipping line:
the titanic hit in the icebers probably disrupted lower parts and caused a fire when the ship sank in the lover compartments in the bow the fire is put out but fire reaches the boilers causing an explosion around the third funell stress fractures and holes started froming and the stern was bending the ship eventualy splits but the stern instantly sank due to holes caused by stress fractures
i agree but i dont think that the iceburg is the only factor idk why but it just doesnt sit right tell me im not the only one thinking this like the olympic which is older and less advanced manages to not sink when its front of the hull was smushed and an iceburg vs a ship may not be as bas as a ship vs another ship idk its like i said it just doesnt sit right with me how an older ship got into so many bad accidents and survived longer than both of its sister ships
The fire probably didn't cause severe damage, but it might have slightly weakened the hull a little bit. If that didn't happen, the hull may have been slightly stronger and it may not have sunk to begin with.
Doesn’t matter because 5 other compartments were compromised from the iceberg and they weren’t affected by a fire.
Idea for next video, follow the flooding based on eyewitness. Mark of water on deckplans and profil pictures.
Maybe we can see the break up in new light?!
Your animations keep looking better and better! Like you said coal fires were definitely a common occurrence. I do not think it had bearing on the sinking with the exception of the coal that was moved from starboard to port and that what probably kept the ship on an even keel as long as it did the night of the sinking and enabled the crew to lower the lifeboats without too much issue. Keep up your great work!!
Time to share this with the people that refuse to think that a fire caused the sinking haha
But the fire didn't cause the sinking, even this video said the coal fire didn't get hot enough to structurally weaken the metal.
@@justinlynch3 yea and I’ve been into to titanic for a few years and I laughed at the switch theory and the fire theory
@@danielt619 Don’t forget to also laugh at the v-shape theory.
Not even the correct type of coal being talked about industrial coal used for furnaces and steam boilers burn at a higher temperatures than cooking coal. Just look up bituminous coal instead of using the first result you find when you type in "how hot does coal burn" in the hotbar. To add on even more specifically the exact coal being used by the company at the time was welsh anthracite which has one of the highest burning temperatures of the different coal types.
It still wouldn't have a crap's worth of oxygen so it wouldn't burn very hot, it would just smolder.
Finally, the video I've been waiting for forever!
That is just a smudge on the lense, its where the POOL is
@Railfan 765 😮👀
Isn't this part of the ship below the waterline? The below freezing water? I would think that the cold of the sea during the voyage would have kept the hull plates cold, regardless of how the coal was burning. I don't see those being weakened in any way. The bulkheads I'm less sure, but she would have gone down either way.
Cold sea water but also surrounded by very hot furnaces and boilers.
Could it be that Titanic sadly passed due to faulty/ bad bolts and a series of other "errors" and not any conspiracy theories at all?
No. Titanic sank because of the number of compartments compromised when she collided with an iceberg.
I would also like to mention that this specific coal bunker was below first class swimming pool. If temperatures reached 500-1000 C as they claim, water in the swimming pool would be boiling (water boils at 100 C) and deck around it would be deformed. Testimonies say this was not the case and temperatures were just mildly warmer than usual.
There is no point. The fools who believe this nonsense are not interested in mere facts.
It's funny that coal can spontaneously combust when sometimes lighting coal can be a real pain in the butt.
They're talking about Coal the rock not charcoal.
People really forget that smudges exist.
Putting that *Its Time to Stop! Guy* is just amazing.
This is very well made and accurate as far as I can tell.
Good job.
The Californian saw the flares but didn't turn the wireless back on? Ridiculous even thinking they turned it off in the first place.
Californian only had one operator, and there was no requirement for the set to be constantly in use. That said, Lord should certainly have woken him up.
@@dovetonsturdee7033you are correct.
@@lochlanmuir2291 Thank you. Not that it makes much difference. A lot of the people who comment on here seem to regard facts as irrelevant.
If a documentary can be created to insist that a COAL FIRE was responsible for the sinking then I don't see why there can't be a documentary explaining that that is entirely false. I would seriously get in touch with the History Channel people and try to do an actual film. Or Nat Geo, either way.
History channel hasnt taught history in so long, we need a channel that talks about when history taught history.
Easy and logical call. The coal bunkers were BELOW THE WATERLINE.
I never heard the fire theory being the major factor but a minor contributing factor. So nothing was debunked.
it wasn’t a factor at all.
@@DerpyPossum yea, I work with metal all the time constant med heat affects metal douse it with cold makes it hard but more brittle. So yes it had a small contributing factor. Anybody that says other wise reads the history but doesn't understood the subject.
@@timesthree5757 You may work with modern metal, but i know my history. No factor in the ship sinking was played by that fire. That’s been known since 1912.
@@DerpyPossum metal is metal. Like I said you read history but don't understand it. Yes, the iceburg sank the ship. If it wasn't for the iceburg the ship would've had a long life. But the fire would have an effect. Wait so the Metal today is worse than metal back. Also if inquiries back then are anything like today then no I don't trust them.
very good assessment of the one of many happenings if april 14-15 1912. Brilliant.
well i believe what the eyewitness's said at the trial about what they saw in the boiler room etc...we were not there..so we can only go on their accounts..i see no reason for them to lie in a court of inquiry....ty...nuff said
yes thats.... where the pool is i think
Those bunkers were desighned go to tolerate heat etc ! So no danger of fatigue . What was titanics doom was 3 ft of plates seperating in that bunker and the fact the bunker wall was not ment to be watertight .
The coal fire theory is just a theory. The ship would have sunk anyway
Would have been so much easier of all temperatures were mentioned in world wide accepted and used Celsius.
thank you for the COAL CUBE asmr
I'm telling you. It was the eels man. Those fuckers are relentless in their quest for blood!
The camera could've had a blemish in the lens
Y'know - I'm torn as to if I should be glad this video exists, or disappointed/angry that it needs to exist.
Be glad it exists, animation is always a great tool for understanding things like this.
Based on what i heard, even if it DID happen, the iceberg didnt hit where it was effected
Correct!
well done, great information!
I wonder how far apart hall plates after the collision with the iceberg to let the the match water in each watertight compartments
very good
GUYS OMG THERES A SHADOW ON THE BOW OF THE SHIP COAL FIRE THEORY CONFIRMED????!?!?!, 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓😳😳😳😳😳😜😜😜😜
no jk who tf came up with this theory lmao
Yeah like lmao
This is just speculation nobody here was on the titanic to prove or disprove this theory. And it doesn't change the tragedy
Just thinking 🤔 could the fire perhaps have softened the haul and thus making the Titanic leak faster. Yet the fire would have to occurred starboard side at the Bow. Which it's wasn't.
Probably not, the hull was unhardened low carbon steel, it was already soft.
I never even knew this was a theory in the first place XD.
At least im 80% sure that there was a coal fire inside the titanic than me being 0.0000000000000001% sure (not enough zeros) of the v-break that aaro-logan dublin university supports
Oh there's no denying that there was indeed a fire. It just wasn't serious enough to damage the ship.
Ngl, this is one of the myths I believed lol
It's hilarious to me that people looked at the picture you used in the thumbnail and thought it was the coal fire. It's a photograph that was literally 100 years old. There are tons of ways that the chemicals could degrade. If it had been that obvious at the time, there would have been evidence of it.
It’s also a newly painted ship. It’s just a reflection for gods sake!
Historia Civilus type music and I’m 100% for it
So the titanic was part of project blue beam!
Our world is truly lost
I dont believe the fire helped to sink her. The iceberg started to open up her some feet before the fire spot
The fie saved the 706 people
@@rogersstinson4019 oh yeah, if it wasn't for the fier I think she would sink like Britannic
@@stephenmccloughan7541 most assuredly she would have. There've been at least two simulations done - one on the fire specifically, another on the watertight doors. In the case of the fire, the sinking simulation app that researchers used predicted that, without the weight shift/list from the efforts to fight the coal fire, Titanic would have rolled in just under an hour. Same thing when the watertight door study was done, only worse; power failure in minutes, rolling, and going under a good half hour sooner than in reality.
I really would like those floor plans.
Even today people still fiercly believe that there was a coalfore wich weakened titanics hull and thats why she sank
Great illustrations, but I'd like the direction of the bow to be represented in them.
thanks!
Thank God... someone who is reasonable and uses facts on this subject. Great video!
Survivors account that the boiler men battle against the fire to not let them light the coal near the hull
Me: *confused confusion*
Sad to think about shepherd who broke his leg and was left behind to die
I’m a simple man, I see papa Franku and i click
Yes there was a fire but there were 2 hull
You could have just said the discolouring on the picture is actually at the area of the swimming pool. 😂😆
it’s actually where the ship’s post office is. So i guess the mail was on fire the whole time. 😂
Finally! These clickbait videos about “the heat made the hull weaken” made me loose braincells because of how bad it is.
*literally*
*only 1 boiler room flooded, and most of the damage was on the cargo holds*
This is a terrific series of videos. And I've known the work of people like Sam Halpern and Roy Mengot for years. They're some of the very best. Cheers, all!
If metal is hot you throw cold water on it it becomes warped
It could have been new paint
Responding to my own comment , but for the unknowledgeable, new paint tends to stand out until it dries when you put it on
Well that image people point is actually a reflection of the land on a spot of fresh paint. not to mention the spot isn't anywhere near where the fire actually was.
or most likely a smudge.
At 3:08 did you mean that the mild steal's 900F is 'OVER' the range of the smoldering coal temp? or am I just confusing it.
The steel began glowing at 900f, the coal burns at a rate of about 750f
If this isn't about the fire theory itself but it's something related and I can't find an answer.
Why did Barret but oil on the dented bulkhead? It is framed as a common practice, but I can't find anything on the reasoning behind it.
Black oil can absorb heat very well and smooths the surface, same reason we use oil in a car engine. Hope this helps!
@@AidenWestori thank you. For years, everytime I would read something about Barret's account that always perplexed me. Now that I got my answer, I feel a bit silly that I never made that connection.
Too much assumptions, not enough evidence for actual testing. We will never know how much of the steel was decent quality, just assuming it was doesn't make it true. Just like we will never know if the fire had any correlation to the accident. You sure seem to have made up your mind and with imaginary evidence, bravo on fooling the idiots in there comments.
Well I mean, the iron rivets that everyone loves to point to as being "inferior" in quality were used in the bow and stern (the center rivets were hydraulically rivetted in) and uh....they're still retaining their shape even after all this time in water.
They tested some of the steel they brought up from the wreck at one point too, even that disclosed there was no fault with the steel used on the ship (from both recovered rivets and Hull plate).
in addition, they very people you chose to quote in the vid, state that the metal was Deformed by the heat
you say the guy didn't SEE the bulkhead glowing red hot
but this guy knew his business and could see the signs of extreme heat damage to the metal.
"rubbed black oil over it" has no bearing on anyting
On an INTERIOR WALL not the hull.
So about the part where they emptied out the unscorched coal, how does that really relate to anything? Not trying to debunk this or support the theory, but it just genuinely confuses me and I can't wrap my mind around it, if somebody could give me a simple example of why that supports the debunk then it would be greatly appreciated!
It took them so long to put the fire out because they had to move the coal that wasn't on fire out of the way so they could access the on-fire coal and dump water on it.
@@werelemur1138 ooooooh, now I think I see it. Thank you!