# New Examination of Lusitania:



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

Recent news story in the Daily Telegraph on the Lusitania sinking: 
New underwater survey finds no evidence of explosive cargo. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...MS-Lusitania-find-underwater-researchers.html


----------



## rickles23 (Oct 13, 2006)

Hi,
Did not Bob Ballard figure that out on his dive in 1993?
Regards


----------



## frangio (Jan 20, 2012)

rickles23 said:


> Hi,
> Did not Bob Ballard figure that out on his dive in 1993?
> Regards


Yep, I thought that too.

However this seems to be what researchers do these days - publish papers "proving" something that has already been proven!

Just the other day a "new" piece of research suggested that dinosaurs were warm blooded. That has been the accepted view for quite a while now!


----------



## Mike S (Dec 27, 2005)

Not only did Bob Ballard not find any evidence of explosive cargo, or more to the point no evidence of explosion from such cargo, he found a trail of coal in the debris field that had come from the ruptured No 1 starboard coal bunker.
His conclusion was that the torpedo had hit that bunker which by that part of the voyage was about two thirds empty and that the secondary explosion that sank the ship was the residual coal dust exploding and blowing an enormous hole in the side of the ship. This is impossible to prove as she sank and rolled onto that side (stbd) which would be the case of course following his scenario.
I have to say that I agree with him and I would rather believe the deductions of a man of his calibre than some of the so called historians that tried to alter the facts to prove their own crackpot theories.
It is interesting to note that she and her sister with side coal bunkers were stopped from being used as Armed Merchant Cruisers by Churchill when he was 1st Sea Lord as after the sinking of RN cruisers of a similar design from that very cause it was obvious that they were likely to suffer the same fate. HMS Barnham.........? Maybe someone can verify an old mans memory.


She did just that.


----------



## Mad Landsman (Dec 1, 2005)

Mike S said:


> I HMS Barnham.........? Maybe someone can verify an old mans memory.
> She did just that.


Careful, you will be getting the conspiracy theorists going!

My understanding of the sinking of HMS Barham was that the explosion was definitely caused by explosives - when the main magazine blew up as she turned over.


----------



## rickles23 (Oct 13, 2006)

Hi,
Is that newspaper on the same planet as the rest of us are?

I finished reading the NEW THEORY on the Titanic sinking and the article states that even if she had not hit an iceberg, and I quote,

"structural weaknesses made it vulnerable to any stormy sea."

But they completly ignore the two sisters which sailed in more weather than Titanic.

As I have posted elsewhere the Titanic filled with water which is why she sank.

Rant over and regards


----------



## Mike S (Dec 27, 2005)

OK thanks for that so it was not Barnham. 

There were a class of cruisers with side bunkers that proved very prone to bunker explosions.......however in order to keep the conspiracy merchants in their little lairs I will leave it there..(Smoke)


----------

