RTE News, 9 August 2011 – Greg Bemis, owner of the Lusitania wreck has dived to the wreck again for ammunition from the ship’s cargo. You can see the video here: http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0809/media-3022069.html#
Editor’s Note: Previous dives have established that Lusitania was definitely carrying small caliber ammunition. What had not been definitively proved (and under current knowledge, seems unlikely) is whether the ammunition caused the second explosion.
I have information about the sinking of the lucitaina that is the answer to the second explosion Winston Churchill orderd the royal navy to sink the ship. I was told this information by a Captain Arkel who was a VERBAL
COURER captain Arkel had only a few weeks to live and his exact words to me were “I am not taking this information to my grave” he caeeied the order from Winston Churchill to the war office
Cpt B V Taylor
Very hard sir to take seriously anything you share, when you do so in a manner so agregiously full of both spelling and grammatical errors; especially a supposed officer in the armed forces.
I just watched “Dark Secrets of the Lusitania”. I, too, have a problem with the Lawrence Livermore Lab conclusion of the second explosion. If cold water reached a super heated boiler and caused the second explosion, then, in the eighteen minutes before Lusitania foundered, there had to be other super heated boilers. Why would only one of them explode? Why wasn’t there more than one other explosion? I’m not a scientist, nor does my intelligence level approach theirs. But it seems to me there is a certain logic here.
I just watched the show on 9/8/12. I also have a problem with Lawrence Livermore Lab conclusion. They said that boiler explosion was the second explosion because of the “18 minutes” or so time delay. But it was not powerful enough to sink the ship and create the twisted girders, etc. The gun cotton was the only one powerful enough to do so. (The ship had bullets and logically that means other ammunition and explosives as well.) The lab ruled gun cotton out because the explosion would have happened instantly.
Ships are destroyed in war by a series of explosions, the first being the torpedo(s). Assuming that there was not a second torpedo to either let some people escape, or the attackers got tired of waiting for the ship to sink. The Lusitania IS resting on it’s side. That second torpedo could have destroyed the Lusitania itself or ignited the gun cotton.) I think that if the boiler WAS the second explosion after the time delay, it then instantly detonated the gun cotton that was stored in a separate room/bulkhead. It would appear as one explosion and thus supplying the explosive force necessary to twist the girders and sink the ship.
I just saw the presentation on Nat Geo, and am surprised that no one on your team sees the reason for the sinking. It is clear as day to me.
The gun cotton theory was ruled out because of the time between the torpedo and the 2nd explosion. The boiler had the proper time but not the explosive power.
What is plain to me is the gun cotton went off and caused the damage that sank the ship. The boiler did indeed blow up from the cold water which would have been the cause of the 2nd explosion. But the real culprit was the gun cotton.
Its as clear to me as the nose on my face. And I think your testing proved it. The problem is, you were looking for 1 thing that caused 2 events.