New documentary claims Titanic wasn’t sunk by an iceberg

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

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.

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.”

“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?

  1. Linsay Watts  

    My grandfather worked on the Titanic.
    According to my mother, he had been agitated and extremely distressed when they were testing the hull.
    He said it had been weak and the steel had split.
    He left the house in the middle of the night and said that he had seen the hull of the ship being repaired by a huge workforce as it had not been seaworthy?
    I don’t know, but Mom said her mother told her he cried when it was proclaimed ‘that even our Lord couldn’t sink her’!
    It makes me think and I know he worked at Harland & Wolfe in Belfast!
    Mom was born in 1921 and her recollection was through my Grandmother who told her the story but swore her to secrecy…

    • Susan  

      Hello Linsay Watts, I think you should contact the reporter, Senan Malony and tell him that. I’m copying what you’ve said and pasting it in my diary to have a record for the future.

  2. Cindi  

    I think this is an interesting theory and should be investigated. I would also wonder if the third-class passengers, being closer to the source of the fire, could have felt the heat. Of course, if true, most died with the sinking of the Titanic. This would also put a new possible answer as to why Bruce Ismay was in favor of the Titanic going through the ice fields without slowing, not to set a record by reaching New York ahead of schedule, but to perhaps slow the fire or destroy Titanic for the insurance money. But if there was a plan to save the 1st and 2nd class passengers as there were enough lifeboats for them, it went horribly awry. A planned lifeboat drill was cancelled–some have always wondered why. Regardless, Ismay made sure he was in one of the earlier boats launched.

    Both the Olympic and Titanic had problems even with the sea trials and for its cost, the Olympic had a relatively short lifetime and the Britannic sank quickly during WWI.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *