Bulkhead collapse


Jul 8, 2018
130
30
38
Hello, i have heard that during the sinking one of Titanic's main bulkheads failed and collapsed, causing the compartment to be flooded and the ship to sink further, did this actually happen and is there any proof of it?

Also, if you wondering, i'm doing ok when it comes to COVID-19, lockdown and all that, i haven't come down with a cold yet and i hope i never
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
981
432
73
19
As far as I know, there’s not really solid evidence of this happening, but it’s possible. There were some reported “explosions” from deep inside as the forward boat deck swung down.
 

batman614u

Member
Mar 6, 2020
43
8
8
I doubt that the bulkhead failed. This has been the subject of conjecture for decades.
More likely that the coal bunker door failed, causing the flooding in the boiler rooms.
 

Scott Mills

Member
Jul 10, 2008
668
74
98
42
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
This is why I want someone to make it down into the boiler rooms, because there are a lot of things that do not make much sense about Beachamp's testimony; and, while it may not represent a greater than 50% probability, the chances the bulkhead collapsed are large enough that it just cannot be ruled out entirely until someone looks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

batman614u

Member
Mar 6, 2020
43
8
8
This is why I want someone to make it down into the boiler rooms, because there are a lot of things that do not make much sense about Beachamp's testimony; and, while it may not represent a greater than 50% probability, the chances the bulkhead collapsed are large enough that it just cannot be ruled out entirely until someone looks.
Certainly, that is the only way that we'll ever know for sure.
But even if the evidence is there, you can bet that someone will argue that it was caused by 108 years of the ship settling and collapsing; so we'll in all probability never know the answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nov 14, 2005
917
323
133
Certainly, that is the only way that we'll ever know for sure.
But even if the evidence is there, you can bet that someone will argue that it was caused by 108 years of the ship settling and collapsing; so we'll in all probability never know the answer.
Of course it would get argued about. Thats what Titaniacs do. But I could see where it could be a valid argument. With the ship breaking apart, hitting the seabed, corrosion over the years...ect. It would be almost guaranteed it would be argued about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
436
184
43
USA
Do you gentlemen actually believe that the court is going to allow any further disturbance of the wreck?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
917
323
133
Being a somewhat cynical person on the legal system I could see a judge allowing it (for the right price) but in the end no I don't see it happenning with appeals courts and all. Too many people would raise hell about it. Of course thats just my belief on what I've seen in our system. I can't really comment on how the maritime and european courts work. I'm not familar with them. Maybe I should be. I think I still have an outstanding speeding ticket in Germany...o_O
 

batman614u

Member
Mar 6, 2020
43
8
8
Of course it would get argued about. Thats what Titaniacs do. But I could see where it could be a valid argument. With the ship breaking apart, hitting the seabed, corrosion over the years...ect. It would be almost guaranteed it would be argued about.
Then we agree.
 

Scott Mills

Member
Jul 10, 2008
668
74
98
42
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Certainly, that is the only way that we'll ever know for sure.
But even if the evidence is there, you can bet that someone will argue that it was caused by 108 years of the ship settling and collapsing; so we'll in all probability never know the answer.
Maybe; however, I am sure there is a metallurgical engineer or two out there who could, if the bulkhead does appear to be collapsed, give most likely causes of the type of failure observed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

batman614u

Member
Mar 6, 2020
43
8
8
Maybe; however, I am sure there is a metallurgical engineer or two out there who could, if the bulkhead does appear to be collapsed, give most likely causes of the type of failure observed.
That'd be nice...
Doubtful that it will ever happen.
 
Nov 14, 2005
917
323
133
I've read thru some of the old threads on this and the consensus I got if reading right from others who've studied it a lot more..ie..Paul Lee, Samuel Halpern, Michael Standart and many others who havent come here in a long time seem to lean toward the coal bunker door failing. Whats not clear to me is where the water in the bunker came from. Over the top from the preceding bulkhead or did that one fail? I need to look at the diagrams more to see if the water came from a different route...if there is any.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

batman614u

Member
Mar 6, 2020
43
8
8
I concur.
"This condition shows the ship at 11:50, or 10 minutes past the collision. Water is already at 8 feet high in boiler room #6 and the coal bunker in boiler room #5 is filling. The mail hold is rapidly filling while holds #1 & #2 are following each other closely. "
This is taken from the attached Titanic Forensic Study, which by the way is most excellent!
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
917
323
133
Thanks so much for posting that link. How in the hell did I miss that one. I downloaded it to go thru more later. My internet has gotten slow lately. Think they are throttleing bandwith here. Anyway thanks again!

P.S. just did a speedtest...half normal speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

batman614u

Member
Mar 6, 2020
43
8
8
I cannot take credit for it.
I found it on another site. Sadly I did not take down the name of the author as I thought that he would surely name himself in the paper which he does not. But the compiled information is absolutely fantastic, because it compile a number of theories all in one paper.
 
Nov 14, 2005
917
323
133
Well right at the beginning on the title page it says "Itstillthinking" . You know, the graphics extraordinare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,156
197
223
I found it on another site.
Or maybe in another thread here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Scott Mills

Member
Jul 10, 2008
668
74
98
42
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Do you gentlemen actually believe that the court is going to allow any further disturbance of the wreck?
There is not a court that can stop it unless an expedition is slated to leave from the United Kingdom or the United States.

That's the thing about treaties 'protecting' ship wrecks in international waters. The protection of said treaty cannot be extended beyond the borders of the countries who are actual signatories.

And in any event, yes. I believe a court in said countries would approve a well thought out archaeological penetration of the wreck, as long as commercial salvage was off of the table...

But again, RMS Titanic Inc. can still do whatever they want as long as they sail from (and return to) a port outside of Great Britain or the United States, for example, from ports in Russia or France; both places with a history of partnering with RMS Titanic Inc's salvage dives.
 

Similar threads