Debunking The Titanic Coal Fire Theory 

Soooo what your saying is thta it was aliens and the flat earth then?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

You aint alone lol

Me too, I’m obsessed.

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.

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

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?

Yup, that's why I never liked this theory, fires were basically to be expected.

Go touch the metal machine.

Fellow Sabaton fan, eh?

LEADING THE WAAAAYYY

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 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 .

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

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

They aren’t wrong technically. Jet fuel on its own can’t melt steel beams. Ignited jet fuel however can melt steel beams.

this comment is basically a conglomeration of misconceptions, stupid theories, and some other obscure theories.

Rube Goldberg.

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.

There's a TV movie about Frederick Barret floating around the internet. It delves into the fire.

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

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).

Probably not, the hull was unhardened low carbon steel, it was already soft.

Cold sea water but also surrounded by very hot furnaces and boilers.

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.

The steel began glowing at 900f, the coal burns at a rate of about 750f

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.

They're talking about Coal the rock not charcoal.

@@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.

@Railfan 765 😮👀

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.

There is no point. The fools who believe this nonsense are not interested in mere facts.

The crew who left the ship in Southampton were simply the delivery crew. They were never going to sail any further.

it’s actually where the ship’s post office is. So i guess the mail was on fire the whole time. 😂

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?

Titanic 2 isn't a theory its a project learn the difference

It still wouldn't have a crap's worth of oxygen so it wouldn't burn very hot, it would just smolder.

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!

Correct!

No. Titanic sank because of the number of compartments compromised when she collided with an iceberg.

Greetings, Aaron1912's notions of how and why the Titanic sank is wrong on so many levels that his website and "theory" has been debunked many times over with exhaustive proofs, physics, and making good use of the extant evidence. His website is complete nonsense!

@@stevefranks6541 ikr!!!

Greetings @@TrayBritannia, "schlimk"

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.