Paul Rogers
Member
Whilst reading through Dave Bryceson's book "The Titanic Disaster" which lists newspaper reports in the British National press in 1912, I came across some strange reports... I realise that most newspaper reports at that time could, and should, be taken with a pinch of salt, but I wondered what everyone else's thoughts were.
There are at least two reports of explosions during the sinking, at two completely different times; as follows: (The Times, 19th April, 1912.)
FIRST REPORT:
Emilio Portaluppi stated that he was first awakened by the explosion of one of the ship's boilers. (Yeah, right!) But then Edward Beane also declared that 15 minutes after striking the iceberg, there was an explosion in the engine room, which was followed a few minutes afterwards by a second explosion.
SECOND REPORT:
During the final moments, Col. Gracie allegedly said: "After sinking with the ship it appeared to me as if I was propelled by some great force through the water. This might have been occasioned by explosions under the water..." Also, George Brayton (Brereton?) stated that shortly before the ship sank there was an explosion which made the ship tremble from stem to stern.
I suppose the latter "explosions" may have been mistaken for the break-up of the ship as she sank. But the former examples are confusing. Are these just examples of tabloid journalism or land-lubber confusion? Or could an explosion have occurred shortly after the collision? And if so, what possible culprits are there, as it couldn't have been a boiler - could it?
Look forward to people's thoughts.
Regards,
Paul.
There are at least two reports of explosions during the sinking, at two completely different times; as follows: (The Times, 19th April, 1912.)
FIRST REPORT:
Emilio Portaluppi stated that he was first awakened by the explosion of one of the ship's boilers. (Yeah, right!) But then Edward Beane also declared that 15 minutes after striking the iceberg, there was an explosion in the engine room, which was followed a few minutes afterwards by a second explosion.
SECOND REPORT:
During the final moments, Col. Gracie allegedly said: "After sinking with the ship it appeared to me as if I was propelled by some great force through the water. This might have been occasioned by explosions under the water..." Also, George Brayton (Brereton?) stated that shortly before the ship sank there was an explosion which made the ship tremble from stem to stern.
I suppose the latter "explosions" may have been mistaken for the break-up of the ship as she sank. But the former examples are confusing. Are these just examples of tabloid journalism or land-lubber confusion? Or could an explosion have occurred shortly after the collision? And if so, what possible culprits are there, as it couldn't have been a boiler - could it?
Look forward to people's thoughts.
Regards,
Paul.