Jed: There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They
never sank a ship as far as I know.
So, as far as you know.
As far as you know - would they be so incompetent that they would go to
sea with a massive coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible
to put out? It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned,
and you get the money from insurance scam.
A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am
concerned. If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor
meltdown by a collection of people - then just employ incompetent people
at each stage of the process.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 15:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com
<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:
Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port with a fire in its
coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds to me that didn't
want the Titanic to survive the journey.
There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They never
sank a ship as far as I know. Trying to sink a ship by that method would
be incompetent. It would almost certainly fail. It would only work if
you managed to arrange many other improbable events, such as sailors
ignoring the fire -- something they never did. And making the fire
undetectable, which is impossible, because bunkers were equipped with
thermocouples, and bunkers were checked regularly, because everyone knew
fires were common. Or making the fire impossible to put out, which it
would not be. Or simultaneously inveigling the captain to go along with
the conspiracy and ignore iceberg warnings. That would be impossible
because it was impossible to know there would be icebergs, and without
them, even a large fire would cause no harm. Also because the captain
would never agree to such a thing.
It is also a conspiracy theory because you have no idea who might have
arranged it; there is no solid evidence that it happened; and fires of
this nature were common and caused by spontaneous combustion, so there
is no reason to think anyone set it -- assuming there even was a fire.
In short, this is a conspiracy theory. No written evidence, no known
people involved, no motivation, and if the event occurred it is highly
unlikely it would cause serious damage.
A series of unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by
someone to happen.
Nope. Just about every major industrial accident in history, from the
Titanic to Three Mile Island to Fukushima, was caused by a combination
of unfortunate events. These systems have multiple fail-safe protection.
One failure cannot destroy them. It takes multiple failures. One person
-- or even a group of people -- could not arrange to have the right
combination of failures because no one knows in advance what has to
fail. For example, no one would deliberately add sulphur to the steel in
the Titanic, because no one at that time knew what effect that would
have, and no one would even know the sulphur was in the steel. Without
the sulphur there would have been no tragedy. A person who
surreptitiously arranged for sulphur would have no way of knowing the
embrittling effects of extreme cold it has, and no way to influence the
captain to ignore an iceberg warning years later. Most ships never
struck an iceberg or anything else, so even if they had been brittle
(without anyone knowing that fact), it would never have caused any harm.
(Note that some of what I wrote here is not well documented. I know a
thing or two about ships of that era because my father was a fireman on
one, albeit with oil instead of coal. There were still many coal fired
ships when he sailed.)
