New documentary claims Titanic wasn't sunk by an iceberg

The Titanic. Source: YouTube

It’s been almost 105 years since the Titanic sunk on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean.

If you have an interest in history, or you’ve watched the film Titanic, then you know it was an iceberg that sunk the massive ship.

Or at least that’s what everyone thought.

But now, one journalist has a new theory about what sunk the Titanic and it has nothing to do with an iceberg.

Instead, he believes a fire in the ship’s hull before it departed caused it to eventually sink.

Ad. Article continues below.

Sure, it’s just a theory, but Senan Molony has been researching the Titanic for more than 30 years and what he’s concluded has turned into a documentary that has the Internet talking.

The documentary Titanic: The New Evidence, aired in the UK two nights ago.

You might be wondering why Molony’s theory has turned into a documentary?

Well, he believes he found a 9m black mark on the front right-hand side of the ship’s hull in a photograph taken before the ship left port.

Ad. Article continues below.

His theory claims the fire burnt unnoticed for three weeks, with temperatures burning to up 1000 degrees and that the ship was reversed into its berth in Southampton so people couldn’t see the damage caused by the fire.

“We are looking at the exact area where the iceberg struck, and we appear to have a weakness or damage to the hull in that specific place, before she even left Belfast,” Molony says in the documentary.


“The official Titanic inquiry branded [the sinking] as an act of God. This isn’t a simple story of colliding with an iceberg and sinking.

“It’s a perfect storm of extraordinary factors coming together: fire, ice and criminal negligence.”

Ad. Article continues below.

“Nobody has investigated these marks before. It totally changes the narrative. We have metallurgy experts telling us that when you get that level of temperature against steel it makes it brittle, and reduces its strength by up to 75 percent.”

“The fire was known about, but it was played down. She should never have been put to sea.”

While Molony’s account might not rewrite the history books, it’s got a lot of people talking.

What do you think about this? Is it just another theory or something more?