Nov 14, 2005
2,310
1,205
308
That is fair and I respect your opinion.
And I respect yours and all the others here. It's one of things that nobody can really know for sure. Some here don't like opinions or speculation and that's ok. I understand where they are coming from. As for me as long as it's stated as such then its fine by me. There's so many aspects of Titanic we can't really know for sure. Just like many other subjects concerning history. But that's part of the fun of it. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,599
986
388
65
Some here don't like opinions or speculation and that's ok.
Yes, it is OK but there are limitations to that.

As far as I am concerned (and talking about the Titanic tragedy) certain types of speculation are necessary - even inevitable, but others are not. For example, human behaviour is unpredictable and highly variable and so we can only best guess what Lily May Futrelle or Martta Hiltunen or John Collins or William Murdoch was doing at any given time based on what evidence is available. That 'evidence' in itself is almost entirely based on survivor accounts and so subject to variation and/or incompatibility.

On the other hand, events like implosion or not, rate of flooding of any particular compartment etc follow laws of physics and cannot be twisted around to suit one's belief.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,214
532
188
16
Maryland, USA
On the other hand, events like implosion or not, rate of flooding of any particular compartment etc follow laws of physics and cannot be twisted around to suit one's belief.
we cannot firmly say the stern did not implode, or at least small sections, because we were not there. it may be unlikely, but it could have happened.
 

Auden G Minor

I am a Titanic enthusiest!
Member
Sep 8, 2020
67
53
38
Yes, it is OK but there are limitations to that.

As far as I am concerned (and talking about the Titanic tragedy) certain types of speculation are necessary - even inevitable, but others are not. For example, human behaviour is unpredictable and highly variable and so we can only best guess what Lily May Futrelle or Martta Hiltunen or John Collins or William Murdoch was doing at any given time based on what evidence is available. That 'evidence' in itself is almost entirely based on survivor accounts and so subject to variation and/or incompatibility.

On the other hand, events like implosion or not, rate of flooding of any particular compartment etc follow laws of physics and cannot be twisted around to suit one's belief.
That is true. But sometime people assume things.
 

Auden G Minor

I am a Titanic enthusiest!
Member
Sep 8, 2020
67
53
38
I would like to ask what exploded if it did explode? Testimony like Fredrick Lee said “explosions…after [the ship] had gone down” that were “like a gun-cotton explosion under water at a distance”.
That may be the first of a few testimony accounts, I found this out at this link:
 

Rose F.

Member
Feb 19, 2021
25
20
13
I would like to ask what exploded if it did explode? Testimony like Fredrick Lee said “explosions…after [the ship] had gone down” that were “like a gun-cotton explosion under water at a distance”.
That may be the first of a few testimony accounts, I found this out at this link:
What I'm suspecting is that even if she didn't technically implode, the force of water rapidly displacing air, especially if the water pressure compressed the air before it found a way to force itself out, would have been destructive and loud in its own right, but not quite an explosion either, at least in the way we think of it.

I will concede that I am not a naval engineer though, so I wouldn't know the exact mechanisms involved in the matter.
 

Auden G Minor

I am a Titanic enthusiest!
Member
Sep 8, 2020
67
53
38
I would like to bring back reference to this video, notice how it tears itself apart towards the outside violently. Sure it may be a submarine, but the similarities are some substantial evidence towards the case the the stern did implode. I am open to criticism.
 

DarrenC

Member
Dec 27, 2018
6
15
13
I would like to bring back reference to this video, notice how it tears itself apart towards the outside violently. Sure it may be a submarine, but the similarities are some substantial evidence towards the case the the stern did implode. I am open to criticism.

Hello Auden,

It's been a while since I've posted, but it looks like I started a minor fire storm in this thread and quite by accident. I never thought this idea was controversial; just basic physics.

As you said, Titanic was not a submarine, so I am surprised why you bring up the example of a submarine. That aside, Titanic's hull was not a pressure vessel. It was not designed to withstand any great pressure differential beyond about 1 atmosphere.

Assuming there was air trapped in the stern (probable), the water pressure would have simply squeezed the shell plating until the rivets popped, which wouldn't have taken long. I can't understand how people can accept the idea that striking an iceberg at 22 knots can rupture the seams, but a few atmospheres of pressure differential can not! Do no underestimate pressure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

Auden G Minor

I am a Titanic enthusiest!
Member
Sep 8, 2020
67
53
38
Hello Auden,

It's been a while since I've posted, but it looks like I started a minor fire storm in this thread and quite by accident. I never thought this idea was controversial; just basic physics.

As you said, Titanic was not a submarine, so I am surprised why you bring up the example of a submarine. That aside, Titanic's hull was not a pressure vessel. It was not designed to withstand any great pressure differential beyond about 1 atmosphere.

Assuming there was air trapped in the stern (probable), the water pressure would have simply squeezed the shell plating until the rivets popped, which wouldn't have taken long. I can't understand how people can accept the idea that striking an iceberg at 22 knots can rupture the seams, but a few atmospheres of pressure differential can not! Do no underestimate pressure.
I 100% agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
Did implode because it looks like a bomb detonated over it.
62580d547bca37c971044ddb74d1462f.jpg
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,599
986
388
65
Furthermore, the state of the stern looks more like the result of an explosion with all that debris strewn around and not an implosion. I think a number of people including myself have pointed our several times that even a partially flooded stern would have significantly reduced the pressure gradient between the inside and outside making an implosion far less likely. By the time the stern section reached 300 feet beneath the surface, it would have been almost completely flooded, thus making the pressure gradient almost zero.

The Lusitania sank intact and at 300+ feet showed no evidence of any implosion. I cannot quote names off the top of my 65-year-old head but I believe there are deeper wrecks which show no evidence of implosion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
Furthermore, the state of the stern looks more like the result of an explosion with all that debris strewn around and not an implosion. I think a number of people including myself have pointed our several times that even a partially flooded stern would have significantly reduced the pressure gradient between the inside and outside making an implosion far less likely. By the time the stern section reached 300 feet beneath the surface, it would have been almost completely flooded, thus making the pressure gradient almost zero.

The Lusitania sank intact and at 300+ feet showed no evidence of any implosion. I cannot quote names off the top of my 65-year-old head but I believe there are deeper wrecks which show no evidence of implosion.
The reason why everyone say it was an implosion was due to trapped air escaping, if the ship sank intact all the air would've been forced out like the Lusitania and Britannic, by due to the Titanic breaking in two different psychic apply.

Historic Travels can explain it
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,214
532
188
16
Maryland, USA
Furthermore, the state of the stern looks more like the result of an explosion with all that debris strewn around and not an implosion. I think a number of people including myself have pointed our several times that even a partially flooded stern would have significantly reduced the pressure gradient between the inside and outside making an implosion far less likely. By the time the stern section reached 300 feet beneath the surface, it would have been almost completely flooded, thus making the pressure gradient almost zero.
The debris on the Starboard side is from when the Stern violently impacted and everything exploded out the starboard side from the force of impact. And, since the Stern was rotating, the Stern broke its back around the Second Class Entrance, which the Starboard hull did not take kindly to, which also blew off. Everything else was torn off on descent.

The Stern also left in a different configuration than the Bow did, as you know. We also have to take into account the speed that the Stern was rapidly descending down, and the interior bulkheads walls, and passageways. Even some of the portholes are intact on the Stern, even in bent areas.
NOAA 2003
1626188654220.png

the Rivets seem to be gone, yes, but they most likely failed as the hull splayed outwards from the frame of the Stern.
The Lusitania sank intact and at 300+ feet showed no evidence of any implosion.
Now, I am no Lusitania expert, but I'll try my hand at this.

Lusitania's Bow also touched the bottom of the sea, as she was 787 feet long, and the depth of the water was a little over 300, as you said. From what I can gather by reading accounts, is that the Stern of the Lusitania (gently?) settled lower and lower into the water, allowing water to get into open areas before an Implosion could happen.

The Derbyshire also sank slowly in a rough Ocean, and the ship still violently imploded leaving only the very forward Bow.

Just my .2 cents. Trust me, I was surprised as you are to see this thread reopened Arun ;)
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,599
986
388
65
The reason why everyone say it was an implosion was due to trapped air escaping, if the ship sank intact all the air would've been forced out like the Lusitania and Britannic, by due to the Titanic breaking in two different psychic apply.
How would trapped air escaping from inside outwards cause an 'implosion'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Look at the plans of the ship.

The ship broke her back in way of the engine room void, thus leaving the forward ends of all compartment after of the engine room open to the sea. above WT bulkhead level. As soon as the water reached that level, it flooded aft along the alleyway across the big spaces and down into every stern compartment. Only empty tanks would contain air. These would implode when the water pressure exceeded the bulkhead strength All compartments had vents and the water would displace the air in them.
Think about construction + weight + gravity combined with nature and forget about "ex" or "im" - plodes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,599
986
388
65
As soon as the water reached that level, it flooded aft along the alleyway across the big spaces and down into every stern compartment.
That's what I figured. If water displaced the air and took up that space, then there would be almost no pressure gradient between the inside and outside of the stern. In that case, IMO implosion would be unlikely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,214
532
188
16
Maryland, USA
Look at the plans of the ship.

The ship broke her back in way of the engine room void, thus leaving the forward ends of all compartment after of the engine room open to the sea. above WT bulkhead level. As soon as the water reached that level, it flooded aft along the alleyway across the big spaces and down into every stern compartment. Only empty tanks would contain air. These would implode when the water pressure exceeded the bulkhead strength All compartments had vents and the water would displace the air in them.
the WTDs were closed, I'll give you stairways though. The water had to find time to seep through ever nook and cranny, rise, go down the next staircase, fill the compartment, and rinse and repeat.
Make this pretty shoddy.

For jim!.png


I can't say I have your expertise though Jim, you're a smart man :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
How would trapped air escaping from inside outwards cause an 'implosion'?
There's plenty of documentaries about like Answers From The Abyss and what others said above with air trapped below decks. The stern was still buoyant after the ship broke in two and was badly damaged due to the break up, if the ship sank in one piece it would be in better condition because the water would force out the air til the very end.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
the WTDs were closed, I'll give you stairways though. The water had to find time to seep through ever nook and cranny, rise, go down the next staircase, fill the compartment, and rinse and repeat.
Make this pretty shoddy.

View attachment 77294

I can't say I have your expertise though Jim, you're a smart man :)
Hello Cam.
The WT doors only protected the compartment to a height of 50 feet above the keel and that was in an intact ship. Once the forward end of the main engine room was open to the sea, all buoyancy was lost and the water would rise within minutes up and over the tops of the spaces enclosed by the WT bulkheads. When this happend, it would immediately start flowing aft along all the exposed ends of the accommodation spaces and enter every space which was not watertight. Since all ship spaces "sweat" they are ventilated which means the water would engulf every space within minutes. The air within spaces was at atmospheric pressure and would soon be driven out by the superior water pressure at an ever- increasing rate
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Similar threads

Similar threads