Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,212
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
Also, the break-up ensured that the spaces between decks were completely exposed right from the surface. Those spaces would have flooded very quickly as the stern section sank and so could NOT have imploded. The apparent "inward collapse" is more likely due to the force of impact with the ocean floor followed by ravages of time on the wreck.
Its not the same for the portside.
 
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
Between two images of the wreak which one looks to be in better condition?
nic-44063603-4d69-463d-9998-64d1d0a78bf-resize-750.jpg
titanic205.jpg
The bow obviously because it doesn't look like a bomb was detonated over it.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,212
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
Between two images of the wreak which one looks to be in better condition?
View attachment 77483View attachment 77484The bow obviously because it doesn't look like a bomb was detonated over it.
Yes, but the problem is that the Stern itself didn't implode, and if small enclosed spaces inside did, which I believe, the Stern looks the way that it does is because the damage was impact combined with water passage throughout the forward end.
 
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
The stern going under scene in the 97 movie you can see water exploding out so it's possible it could've happened like that.

The stern did sink much quicker than the bow so air would not get out quickly.
 

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
132
142
88
UK
The stern going under scene in the 97 movie you can see water exploding out so it's possible it could've happened like that.

The stern did sink much quicker than the bow so air would not get out quickly.
Posting videos which are just other people's opinions will not win you an argument. (...and that particular You Tuber often gets things wrong but never corrects anything when it is pointed out later)

'97 movie' says it all. It's a MOVIE!

However, air being unable to escape quickly is not the same as a totally sealed space imploding- I have no doubt that air was blasted out of the stern left, right and centre as it went down and pressure increased, and that that could of course have caused significant damge- as did the hydrodynamic forces that tore the stern apart and appalling slam into the bottom that it suffered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
It’s possible that the weakened structure made is more vulnerable to pressure damage. A pop can with some gashes in it is easier to be flattened than an untouched can.
If the ship sank in one piece it would be in better condition like the Lusitania and Britannic, since the ship broke in two the stern suffered major structural damage.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,212
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
However, air being unable to escape quickly is not the same as a totally sealed space imploding- I have no doubt that air was blasted out of the stern left, right and centre as it went down and pressure increased, and that that could of course have caused significant damge- as did the hydrodynamic forces that tore the stern apart and appalling slam into the bottom that it suffered.
the only problem with that is that bulkheads are still standing in the Stern, and is what is keeping the Stern somewhat upright.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,594
983
388
65
The only problem with that is that bulkheads are still standing in the Stern, and is what is keeping the Stern somewhat upright.
Even if that was true, it does not mean that those remnants of bulkheads are water tight. Since the bulkheads in the stern only went up as far as E-Deck, there would have been flooding on both sides of those bulkheads after the break-up and exposure of all deck spaces. When that happened, the water pressure would equilibrate on both sides which could be why they did not collapse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
132
142
88
UK
the only problem with that is that bulkheads are still standing in the Stern, and is what is keeping the Stern somewhat upright.
Totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that some people here simply don't understand/will not accept that the stern as an entirety was not a perfectly sealed volume that suddenly imploded at a particular depth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,594
983
388
65
I've said multiple times I don't think the entire Stern imploded.
Yes Cam, but occasionally you have continued to support at least part of the "implode" theory, which is utter nonsense. Even if there were closed compartments that were not breached during the break-up, I do not believe that they were water tight enough to remain intact till the water pressure outside the sinking stern got high enough to implode them. As I have said before, why would anyone in their right minds try to make things like freezer compartments and other such spaces water-tight? They were designed to be used on a normally floating ship and would be of no use in a sunken wreck.

I've said multiple times
Also, I now believe that there are others here who are quite deliberately pushing the 'implode' theory just for the heck of it even after experts like Jim Currie, Sam Halpern etc have explained why it could not have happened. I believe those posters are also aware that an implosion was very unlikely but what started as a serious discussion is now being dragged on needlessly just to get a reaction from the likes of you and me. There is a word for such posters but as it is not allowed to be used by the Mods, I'll refrain.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,212
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
...and my comment was meaning the wider population of this interminable thread, not you.
I'm sorry Mike.

Yes Cam, but occasionally you have continued to support at least part of the "implode" theory, which is utter nonsense. Even if there were closed compartments that were not breached during the break-up, I do not believe that they were water tight enough to remain intact till the water pressure outside the sinking stern got high enough to implode them. As I have said before, why would anyone in their right minds try to make things like freezer compartments and other such spaces water-tight? They were designed to be used on a normally floating ship and would be of no use in a sunken wreck.


Also, I now believe that there are others here who are quite deliberately pushing the 'implode' theory just for the heck of it even after experts like Jim Currie, Sam Halpern etc have explained why it could not have happened. I believe those posters are also aware that an implosion was very unlikely but what started as a serious discussion is now being dragged on needlessly just to get a reaction from the likes of you and me. There is a word for such posters but as it is not allowed to be used by the Mods, I'll refrain.
Fair enough, sorry! But just because its unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen however.
 
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
From Roy Mengot's site Breakup

"Implosion and other damage

Much of the damage to the stern section is attributed to implosion damage. Implosion means that the external pressure of the water overcomes the internal air pressure and structures collapse inward.

This is easy to do in the sea. For every 32 feet of depth, sea water exerts on additional atmosphere (15 pounds per square inch) of pressure. What this means is that as the poop deck was about 1/3 submerged, the center of the after well deck was over 60 feet (20 meters) underwater, with a pressure of 2 atmospheres. That's 30 pounds per square inch or more than 2 tons per square foot. If the ship is air filled, then the decks are crushed inward by the weight of the water.

This also means that the ship was suffering implosion damage in the middle of the stern section before the poop deck was fully submerged. This would have added to the rumbling sound heard by survivors. Big ships die a horribly noisy death. Sonar operators report these noises often in wartime when a ship sinks nearby.

Remarkably, the damage to the forward half of the stern section was caused during the break-up, by rapid flooding that followed, and the final impact. It was not implosion damage. True implosion damage is surprising limited to the well deck area and the starboard edges of D, E, and F-decks. This supports the theory that stern sank listing to the port side. If compartments on a ship are already flooded, there can be no implosion.

The interior cabins are another story. As the near vertical stern sank, water raced up the decks, bulldozing the interior walls. In the areas of the cargo hatches, the water blasted down the shafts and stairs, smashing the lightweight structures between the decks. In the 1996 Angus photo view down the #6 cargo hatch, a large amount of random interior wall plating can be seen strewn about the edges of the shaft for several decks. ROV drivers have been reluctant to even try to enter the stern anywhere because a great deal of pipes and wiring are hanging about and the nature of the wreckage is a threat to the ROV tether.

The safes to the assistant purser's office were found in the debris field. They found their way out of the ship from 3 decks within and moved through 3 rows of cabins to find their exit to the seafloor.

The poop deck was peeled up either because water scooped under it during sinking or due to a final blast of air forced out from the lower decks by rapid flooding. The latter effect can often be seen in footage of cargo ships sunk by U-boats (a final geyser of water blasts out of the last cargo hatch just before the ship sinks). The poop deck peeled up as far as the aft end of the 3rd class public rooms and folded back on itself, skewed a bit to starboard. The docking bridge juts out from under the folded poop deck in the broken starboard aft corner. At least one of the forward cranes was thrown off the stern some 50 feet (15 meters) aft of the final resting place on impact.

The stern impacted rudder first, steeply enough so that the momentum of the falling stern forced it to partially collapse to form the 10 degree starboard bend under the 2nd class entrance. The poop deck was already tilted up and probably back, but the wreck shows A and B-decks around the mast tilted slightly to fore and a little to port, hence the mast is tilted slightly fore and to port. The mast will point in the direction that A-deck last shifted.

The center propeller is totally buried. The outboard props and the 'wings' to the propeller shafts were sheared from the ship and are bent upward at nearly 20 degrees, leaving the props visible almost at the level of the G-deck portholes. The starboard prop blade still sports the '401' hull number for Titanic from Harland & Wolff."
 
Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
This message has been reported.
I'm sorry Mike.


Fair enough, sorry! But just because its unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen however.
All sources I could find all over the internet that all experts say the stern imploded like 30 seconds after submerging.

Real Titanic experts aren't people who blatantly lie or ignore stuff that don't line up.
 

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
105
47
73
here is the problem for implosion.. "If the ship is air filled, then the decks are crushed inward by the weight of the water." - i Qoute Michael McDonnell - and i see no practical way that non watertight wooden decks and cabins and stairways and hold entrances were air filled sufficiently at sinking to cause implosion... the steel is stronger than the wood it surrounds... so the wood is defeated first... else the supposition is that air remained in an enclosed sealed steel structure.. and the cold water tanks and prop shaft tunnel room were the only spaces that could possibly do that.. since fresh water and the possible air spaces in the fresh water tanks were not as dense as the sea water around them or the pressure exerted on the enclosed steel spaces with air in them.. any theory of major implosion relies on wood being as strong as steel to contain air.. ? it isn't, even in 1912 it wasn't. so this "If the ship is air filled, then the decks are crushed inward by the weight of the water." could not have happened. the stern sunk from midships open to the sea - vertically downward, and air is forced up and out of any possible opening.. even squeezed out of the wood itself.. never mind the gaps in the joints and doors and passageways and stairs.. and the really big cargo hold entrances.. the vents.. and hatches... the stern was not a submarine... it did not implode like one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,594
983
388
65
I see that someone has already reported your comment, but who is blatantly lying, just out of interest?
Mike, there is an old adage about dealing with deliberate baiting and that's what is happening here. I think we should try and ignore such provocations; this implosion nonsense has gone on long enough and should implode into itself soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Similar threads

Similar threads