Okay, I've seen this floating around for a couple of days now.

Okay, I've seen this floating around for a couple of days now. No, a fire did not sink the Titanic: an iceberg caused the break in the ship's hull just like we were always told. A fire weakened the steel, allowing that iceberg to break the hull. Otherwise, the it's debatable if the hull would have broken.

In order for the Titanic to sink the iceberg still had to come into contact with the hull. A fire did not sink the ship. Ice did. Blame it on bad navigation, a poor lookout, not enough lookouts, weather or what have you, but without the iceberg the Titanic wouldn't have sunk (at least on that run).

Originally shared by Jesse Stay

According to experts, the #Titanic may have been sunk by...a fire? http://ow.ly/8gJe307EwOt
http://ow.ly/8gJe307EwOt

Comments

John Bump said…
Otherwise known as a contributing factor, although the cause was, of course, an iceberg.
Nick McIntosh said…
I didn't read it as, "everything we were told was wrong." This is just one more aspect added to the mountain of evidence that the ship sank due to gross negligence.
Jerry Mael said…
Also drowned were a few rich US bloaks which vehemently opposed central banking.
1913: The privately owned, Federal Reserve was born.

Popular posts from this blog

I don't make a lot of personal posts so please bear with me.

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.