Flour Explosion in Stern


A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I understand the Titanic was carrying 49,000 pounds of flour down on G-deck on the port side of the stern.


flourstern.png




Is it possible that something like this happened?

Increase this explosion by 5,000.




sternwreck1.png



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
551
388
This is one of the strangest suggestions I've seen, one that thoroughly mixes possibility and probability into peanut butter logic. But, it's not a crazy idea. A flour explosion could do a lot of damage in a confined space. The problems of making it a likely possibility, however, are manifest. First, the flour has to be kept dry inside a sinking ship. Then, the dust has to be turned into an aerosol with a rather precise ratio of fuel (flour dust) to oxygen. Finally, there has to be a plausible source of ignition. In my view a flour explosion is technically possible, but with a near zero probability of having happened.

-- David G. Brown
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Jul 9, 2000
58,672
892
563
Easley South Carolina
Beware the pitfalls of over-thinking the problems. This is something the late and great Roy Mengot warned some of us about years ago. As well secured as any stores are on the ship, the chances of there being the exactly right conditions for a flour explosion are essentially zero.

I have to point out that the much of the hull plating and structure in the area where the flour storeroom is located is relatively intact and shows no sign of an internal explosion. They do however show the sort of damage you would expect from the collapse of the hull girder at the weakest point of the structure as well as impact with the bottom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Andy Carter

Member
Feb 11, 2018
15
2
13
Hi everyone,

I think ridiculous threads should be deleted from this Website, they ruin the credibility and respect of the site.

All the best

Andy
 

Rancor

Member
Jun 23, 2017
323
214
88
During the inquiry in 1912 the idea that the Titanic broke in two on the surface was dismissed as ridiculous. In my opinion all ideas are worthy of discussion even if it's limited to just a few brief posts like this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
It's a genuine question that many people might want to know. When you have a large power generator that is about to touch water and you have the main ingredients for a powerful bomb stored right next to it and you have a host of survivor accounts who described a catastrophic explosion on the stern which possibly blew open her port side decks and killed many people it is very important to study what happened and if the location of the flour in the stern might have been the source for the huge explosion which blew the stern apart e.g. Mr. Hyman - "There came a terrible explosion, and I could see men, women and pieces of the ship blown into the air from the after deck. Later I saw bodies partly blown to pieces floating around, and I am sure more than a hundred persons were blown off into the sea by that explosion." Hugh Woolner was looking at her port side and said the explosion - "Tore a big hole in the steamer's side and caused the ship to rock as if she were an eggshell. The Titanic careened to one side and passengers making for the boats were spilled into the water.' Charles Joughin said "many hundreds" were thrown over the port side of the stern. Frank Prentice was on the stern and said there were hundreds of bodies "dead and alive" floating under the port side of the stern when he looked down. August Weikman said the explosion killed many people who were close to the ship. Frederick Scott was in a lifeboat near the stern on the port side. He saw the huge breach where the flour room was and he believed the ship had broken right there.
Q - Do you mean the break was aft of her last funnel?
A - Yes, just aft of the last funnel.
Q - Aft of the ventilating funnel?
A - Yes, that is right.

As you can see, my question about the flour room exploding and causing all of this carnage is a genuine question and if I don't ask it, other's will. There is a strong indication that the port side of the stern was blown out.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jul 9, 2000
58,672
892
563
Easley South Carolina
During the inquiry in 1912 the idea that the Titanic broke in two on the surface was dismissed as ridiculous. In my opinion all ideas are worthy of discussion even if it's limited to just a few brief posts like this thread.

IF the evidence supports it. In 1912, there was a lot of evidence to support the fact of the break up and the condition of the wreck when found confirmed it past any point of discussion or debate.

There is NO evidence to support the proposition that the flour exploded.

There is a huge difference between the quality of having an open mind and one so vacant that the wind just blows right on through. Having an open mind is simply being willing to consider a proposition based on whatever evidence there is to support it and being honest about it if there isn't.

The polar opposite: Saying "Yeah, it just might be" when there is nothing credible to back it up is not being open minded.

It's just being gullible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I read the survivor accounts and determine what might have occurred. You mention gullible people. They ignore the survivor accounts and believe what other's tell them occurred without cross-examining their findings or showing photo comparisons. I genuinely want to know what happened and why the general consensus among the survivors was that she exploded. Do you have evidence that the port side did not explode outwards? No photos or comparisons between other shipwrecks that did and did not explode? How can I be convinced that the survivors are wrong and she did not explode when nothing convincing has been presented to say the survivors are wrong.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
736
208
England
Sorry Aaron but the burden of proof is on you. It's not up to others to disprove your theory because not matter hard people try you seldom agree with a word they say anyway. Besides a few hazy accounts that you've quoted, where is the actual physical evidence or supporting evidence you can provide to back your theory up?

It's not good enough to stick it out there "Did a flour explosion cause the break up?" and then get upset when people say no chance. It would be far better if you could explain how you think it may have happened. We go through this time and time again and it always ends up in the same arguments.

Reading the survivor accounts is not enough in itself to determine what occurred. Where possible there has to be other evidence to back this up. That's why the Police thoroughly investigate crimes instead of just going on what a person or group of people say. An accusation may be enough to start an investigation but it sure as hell isn't enough to conclude one.

I don't think anyone ignores survivor accounts. What I think most people do is filter the survivor accounts and review what is plausible and what isn't. I've seen numerous Aircraft Investigation episodes on Nat Geographic. There are a few episodes where the eye witness reports suggest the plane was on fire when it crashed and a complete forensic investigation of the crash site finds no evidence of any fire. Therefore, those witnesses who say they saw an engine on fire for example, were mistaken. It happens all the time. The Air Accident Investigators don't come up with highly implausible explanations to fit the few witnesses who were mistaken.

Returning to the flour issue. What caused the flour to mix with the atmosphere? I don't expect for a single minute it was stored as you would store coal in an open bunker. I would imagine the flour was stored in strong flour sacks. How then did all this flour suddenly fill the atmosphere with enough fine dust to cause an explosion? Bags of flour don't suddenly open themselves and puff everywhere?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
551
388
This discussion is getting a bit too harsh. Aaron is not to be faulted for making a "what if" suggestion. That's how all research begins.

The problem is believing that all "what ifs" are equal. In the case of a flour explosion, perquisite conditions are each approaching zero on the probability scale. Multiplying zeros doesn't produce a big number, or at least in the math I was taught. So, while the possibility of a flour explosion exists, the probability is nil. Beyond that, there are more probable explanations for the sounds and sights reported by survivors and for the appearance of the stern section as it lies on the bottom. A long time ago, even before Titanic if you can believe it, some guy named Occam gave is a guideline in such situations. It's the "law of parsimony," better known as "Occam's Razor." Simply stated, when you have a complicated problem with competing hypotheses, you should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

Case in point -- flour explosion. That hypothesis requires all sorts of antecedents from dry conditions in a room below the water of a sinking ship to a precise mixture of fuel and oxygen to an exactly timed source of ignition all to produce an explosion. Contrast that with the experience of my late friend Dennis Hale who experienced a steel ship break apart beneath his feet. He said that when the plates tore apart there was the sound of an explosion clearly heard above the roaring gale that night. Which of these two explanations for the sounds and damage is the less complicated? Which fits Mr. Occam's shaving gear? Of the two possibilities -- flour dust explosion or metal failing under stress -- which is more probable?

I encourage everyone to do wild-eyed speculation in the quiet of their own office or study. But, be careful when and how you go public with such speculations. Aaron's only mistake was getting overly enthusiastic about a highly unlikely possibility. He would have been much wiser to strop that ol' razor and apply it to his idea before going public.

-- David G. Brown
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Sorry Aaron but the burden of proof is on you. It's not up to others to disprove your theory because not matter hard people try you seldom agree with a word they say anyway. Besides a few hazy accounts that you've quoted, where is the actual physical evidence or supporting evidence you can provide to back your theory up?

Burden of proof? We're not in court. I simply demonstrated that there was large resource of flour in the stern and showed how potentially dangerous this can be, with the simple question. Did it explode? If you really want to know then by all means explore that possibility.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
736
208
England
I don't care.

The flour didn't explode. It's so improbable there was more chance of the Titanic being in a collision with a UFO.

End of thread.

Move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I encourage everyone to do wild-eyed speculation in the quiet of their own office or study. But, be careful when and how you go public with such speculations. Aaron's only mistake was getting overly enthusiastic about a highly unlikely possibility. He would have been much wiser to strop that ol' razor and apply it to his idea before going public.

-- David G. Brown

Mild curiousity rather than overly enthusiastic. ;) Working in health and safety I have to observe every potential hazard and see a multitude of possibilities that could occur. I leave no stone unturned in the quest for truth.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rancor

Member
Jun 23, 2017
323
214
88
IF the evidence supports it. In 1912, there was a lot of evidence to support the fact of the break up and the condition of the wreck when found confirmed it past any point of discussion or debate.

There is NO evidence to support the proposition that the flour exploded.

There is a huge difference between the quality of having an open mind and one so vacant that the wind just blows right on through. Having an open mind is simply being willing to consider a proposition based on whatever evidence there is to support it and being honest about it if there isn't.

The polar opposite: Saying "Yeah, it just might be" when there is nothing credible to back it up is not being open minded.

It's just being gullible.

Not saying I agree with the proposition in this instance, but I think it's always worth asking the question, even if just to have a discussion over why most likely an explosion didn't occur.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Agreed. According to the cargo manifest the 49,000 pounds of flour were contained within 250 barrels in that storeroom on the port side. The strong list to port may have dislodged the barrels and knocked them over, filling the room with flour. There was also paint and oil containers in that area. Let's assume the heavy port list dislodged part of the engine machinery off their seatings and breached the wall into the flour room. The ship is tearing apart further forward and water is coming into the engine room. There is a massive surge of electric and the flour ignites. BOOM!!!

Owing to the strong list to port, G-deck is already under the waterline outside, so when the hull plating bursts open / strips off it is immediately countered back by the surge of water rushing in which could mean the fire created is immediately extinguished and the wooden barrels and bulkhead wall took the full force of the blast and the shockwave burst open the hull on the port side and causes the stern to keel over to port.



flourstern.png



Now what about the people who were on the aft well deck? Joughin said there were hundreds chucked over into a bunch on the port side. Hyman saw people blown off the aft well deck into the water and saw body pieces in the water. Prentice was on the poop deck and looked over the port side and saw hundreds of bodies dead and alive in the water drifting towards him. Could the port side of the well deck have collapsed followed the flour explosion? Could the passengers who fell over the port side into the water have been sucked into the open breach caused by the flour explosion before being pushed out so that hundreds of them were seen "dead and alive" floating further astern towards Prentice? Was Hedman talking about the collapse of the aft well deck? He said - "The deck gave way in the middle and the people standing there fell to the bottom of the hold.....Most of the steerage passengers were killed when the deck broke asunder. I do not believe they lived long enough after that fall to suffer a great deal. As I remember I saw the water rush in on them immediately. For a moment the cries of the steerage men and women came up from the hold, but only for a moment." Fred Scott wa sin a lifeboat near the stern and witnessed the ship breaking open behind the fourth funnel. Was he observing the breached hull?

If anything, it certainly paints a possible scenario for the final moments of the stern.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 18, 2008
2,663
1,154
248
Germany
I don't care.

The flour didn't explode. It's so improbable there was more chance of the Titanic being in a collision with a UFO.

End of thread.

Move on.

Common Rob, everybody knows it was the 1st class smoking room bar which exploded which was full of alcohol! No one took care to have a look and put out the burning coal in the 1st class smoking room fireplace. With the trim and list the ship had, the burning coal rolled over the place and to the alcohol, some bottles were broken filling the room with alcohol. As we know survivors hear and saw a explosion and the 4th funnel collapsing. On the wreck we can see the room is torn apart, only the floor is still there....

Hey it is what survivors said and no one make sure the fire was out and the alcohol stored away.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
You finally see the light. I don't agree with your theory, but a discarded cigarette can burn down an entire ship.


.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,672
892
563
Easley South Carolina
Aaron, what I said was:

"There is a huge difference between the quality of having an open mind and one so vacant that the wind just blows right on through. Having an open mind is simply being willing to consider a proposition based on whatever evidence there is to support it and being honest about it if there isn't.

The polar opposite: Saying "Yeah, it just might be" when there is nothing credible to back it up is not being open minded.

It's just being gullible."

Got it? Don't try contriving a strawman with me or slice and dice what I say out of context.

>> You mention gullible people. They ignore the survivor accounts and believe what other's tell them occurred without cross-examining their findings or showing photo comparisons.<<

I go by the forensics as to see what the testable physical evidence ACTUALLY supports.<<

>> I genuinely want to know what happened and why the general consensus among the survivors was that she exploded.<<

Because a catastrophic break up is an extremely noisy and violent event.

>>Do you have evidence that the port side did not explode outwards? No photos or comparisons between other shipwrecks that did and did not explode?<<

The present and documented/photographed condition of the hull plating is not consistent with what would have to be a localized explosion.

>>How can I be convinced that the survivors are wrong and she did not explode when nothing convincing has been presented to say the survivors are wrong.<<

A LOT of survivors were convinced that the ship sank intact. We know that they were wrong because the wreck itself tells the tale.
Burden of proof? We're not in court.

No, but you ARE in a forum where assertions need to be backed up with evidence by the one making the assertion or claim.

NOTE: Since such an explosion would produce quite the brilliant fireball, please show us a survivor who mentions seeing any such as well as where it is. In the absence of that, I have no reason to give it any further consideration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users