So, you believe the Admiral Rickover version? I think that National Geographic did a good job with their computer simulation, and also explaining why the previous theory is incorrect. Rickover's theory, for example, does not explain why the bottom hull was bent inward.
=====================================================
I didn't say I had a position on the cause of the destruction of the Maine. I was unaware that one was required. The coal dust theory sounded plausible.
Later, I read the National Geographic as well, and see where that might make sense as well. I think I will reserve judgement, since it is unimportant to me.
But why would the Spanish have had mines floating about Havana harbor, though? I imagine that the Spanish would welcome scholars checking out ancient Spanish naval records, as the current Spanish government has no political axes to grind, and historical research fascinates them a lot more than it seems to fascinate those who keep the records of the US.
The important fact is that it was not blown up intentionally by anyone. Not the Spanish or the Americans.
The Americans were not connaiving enough to blow it up then (this was before the days of the Dulleses), and the Spanish were stupid, but not stupid enough to blow up the Maine, which could not have been to their advantage in any way.
I have found that it is always wise to assume that incompetence exists everywhere, and it is always a more likely reason than conspiracy.
I think that we can discount anything said by any tourist guide, anywhere. They tend to not indulge in scholarly research. If there were dead officers on board, we can assume they died as a result of the explosion.