Titanic's stern did not implode.


Jul 4, 2021
49
13
28
Skegness
Like the Oceanos
ss-100520-oceanos-16.jpg
 

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
134
144
88
UK
Oceanos did not implode. Air being forced out of the extemity of its stern it as it went under (an example I have used previously in this thread myself- you see it better in the video) and possibly disrupting structure within as it does so is not the same as a sealed volume suddenly failing under pressure, which is what implosion is.

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.
Yes, agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
534
188
16
Maryland, USA
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.
You guys are swaying my opinion, honestly. Hopefully we get a final say from those higher up, like Parks or Bill to put this to rest.
 
Nov 14, 2005
2,322
1,221
308
You guys are swaying my opinion, honestly. Hopefully we get a final say from those higher up, like Parks or Bill to put this to rest.
You might be waiting a long time. I'm no Titanic expert just an enthusiast. But I do know nothing dealing with Titanic ever gets put to rest. You can ignore some of the more silly things like the switch theory ect ect. But other things will never be agreed too. Even among the so called experts. But having looked into it more I'm starting to put the implosion theory into the silly column. But that's just my opinion. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
534
188
16
Maryland, USA
You might be waiting a long time. I'm no Titanic expert just an enthusiast. But I do know nothing dealing with Titanic ever gets put to rest. You can ignore some of the more silly things like the switch theory ect ect. But other things will never be agreed too. Even among the so called experts. But having looked into it more I'm starting to put the implosion theory into the silly column. But that's just my opinion. Cheers.
Of course, but in my books, you guys are the closest thing :)


I'm just going to stick to what I think. See y'all in another thread.
 
Apr 16, 2020
4
12
13
I have no argument for or against implosions or explosions. However, I just thought that a little bit that I happen to know from my own research into the wreck might effect some of these arguments about the way that the ship landed. According to several of the models done concerning the descent of the stern, she twirled her way down. If you look at the coal debris field, and the actual sediment along the sides of the landing site of the stern, you can see this twirling. If you look closely at the sediment, and the way that the hull sort of skirts out on one side, it would appear that the stern did not, in fact, drop down like the bow did. She was flung somewhat gently, skidding just a bit - not enough to make her capsize or tumble, but enough to slide up the badly damaged hull and double bottom. That slide is accounted for in the previously posted analysis of the condition of the stern which attests that the entire structure is tilted and off-center. It's like when a cake slides across a table and the top layer shifts off the center (the amount of which it shifts depends entirely upon the speed at which it is flung).

I've also seen a few comments on this that talk about the double bottom. I'd like to point out that the "double bottom" that was found in the debris field is only two sections of the entire bottom, specifically the two sections from the break point. It's not like the other 4-6 sections of the stern's double bottom were removed. They're still attached to her underneath. This is clear from the fact that the engines (or rather the halves of the engines left because they broke in half) are still standing upright, and they were attached to that double bottom directly.

The reason why I'm pointing this out is because people keep pointing to the way that the hull is "blasted out" as proof of implosions or explosions. Not necessarily. It is, actually, likely due to this slide. I have no idea how that slide might have effected the internal structures. I don't know if there were any implosions or explosions. I'm not knowledgeable about any of that. I just wanted to point out this slide so that people far smarter than me can consider it in their calculations. It is also helpful to keep in mind that the ship did not drop onto a perfectly flat surface. The area where she hit is rather geographically turbulent. For example, the bow is actually tilting down a bit on a slope. That entire area is also subject to strong currents and the dunes down there have been inching closer and closer to the ship for the past few decades, and will likely bury her before she collapses completely.

Just thought that might help :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Apr 16, 2020
4
12
13
This is the full image of the debris field. Keep in mind that the lines from top to bottom are the mosaic lines because this is actually mosaic'ed together from the thousands of images from the unmanned subs that scanned the debris field.

I mentioned in my post "the slide". You can see it if you look to the left of the stern in this image.
Titanic debris field.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
534
188
16
Maryland, USA
I have no argument for or against implosions or explosions. However, I just thought that a little bit that I happen to know from my own research into the wreck might effect some of these arguments about the way that the ship landed. According to several of the models done concerning the descent of the stern, she twirled her way down. If you look at the coal debris field, and the actual sediment along the sides of the landing site of the stern, you can see this twirling. If you look closely at the sediment, and the way that the hull sort of skirts out on one side, it would appear that the stern did not, in fact, drop down like the bow did. She was flung somewhat gently, skidding just a bit - not enough to make her capsize or tumble, but enough to slide up the badly damaged hull and double bottom. That slide is accounted for in the previously posted analysis of the condition of the stern which attests that the entire structure is tilted and off-center. It's like when a cake slides across a table and the top layer shifts off the center (the amount of which it shifts depends entirely upon the speed at which it is flung).

I've also seen a few comments on this that talk about the double bottom. I'd like to point out that the "double bottom" that was found in the debris field is only two sections of the entire bottom, specifically the two sections from the break point. It's not like the other 4-6 sections of the stern's double bottom were removed. They're still attached to her underneath. This is clear from the fact that the engines (or rather the halves of the engines left because they broke in half) are still standing upright, and they were attached to that double bottom directly.

The reason why I'm pointing this out is because people keep pointing to the way that the hull is "blasted out" as proof of implosions or explosions. Not necessarily. It is, actually, likely due to this slide. I have no idea how that slide might have effected the internal structures. I don't know if there were any implosions or explosions. I'm not knowledgeable about any of that. I just wanted to point out this slide so that people far smarter than me can consider it in their calculations. It is also helpful to keep in mind that the ship did not drop onto a perfectly flat surface. The area where she hit is rather geographically turbulent. For example, the bow is actually tilting down a bit on a slope. That entire area is also subject to strong currents and the dunes down there have been inching closer and closer to the ship for the past few decades, and will likely bury her before she collapses completely.

Just thought that might help :)
Good Post!

The trail in the sediment does seem to be evidence the Stern slid, I'm in support of that. How, I also thought about how if that was so, How did the Stern dig the aft end of ittself into the sediment that the Anti-Fouling is hidden below, and the Poop Deck is only 16 feet from the seabed? And since the propellers were ripped up, wouldn't they be where she first landed?
TLDR, I think she might've not have slid, maybe the aft end dug into the sediment, forcing the spiraling to a stop, and twisting the keel around the Second Class entrance.

Here is the Map in better quality, I hope this helps :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Apr 16, 2020
4
12
13
Good Post!

The trail in the sediment does seem to be evidence the Stern slid, I'm in support of that. How, I also thought about how if that was so, How did the Stern dig the aft end of ittself into the sediment that the Anti-Fouling is hidden below, and the Poop Deck is only 16 feet from the seabed? And since the propellers were ripped up, wouldn't they be where she first landed?
TLDR, I think she might've not have slid, maybe the aft end dug into the sediment, forcing the spiraling to a stop, and twisting the keel around the Second Class entrance.

Here is the Map in better quality, I hope this helps :)
Nice quality on that map! I'm definitely saving that one.

I'm from an island. When you create a small artificial whirlpool with your hands in shallow water, the sediment moves in cohesion with the water motion. Now translate that it a much bigger scale with the Titanic swirling its way down. Many of these skid marks might not have had actual contact so much as water flow causing the sediment to move in that direction, so the actual amount of contact that the stern had with the sea floor might not have been much - maybe only as much as 50 ft. She couldn't have come in at a low enough angle to have skid as far as the debris field shows, to be sure, because that would have resulted in the inertia tumbling her - she would have rolled. We know that didn't happen because the cranes (at the very least) would have broken off. So, I think you make a fair point - maybe she just skid in at a high angle for a short distance and so dug in like you point out. I'm no expert, but I think that the engines (or at least the halves of the engines still in the stern by that point) would have been the heaviest point, and so they would have hit the bottom first. I'm not sure. There would have been a resulting carry-over current after she stopped, causing sediment from the direction from whence she came to built up. So if you're looking at her on this map, with the propellers to the top of the image, she slid from left to right (her starboard to port). The sediment would have built up on the right side (her port side) from the force of the impact digging in. Then the current would have pushed the sediment up on the left side (her starboard side) as well from the inertia of the movement.

The curious thing is that when they did a core sample of the ocean floor in the debris field back in the 1990's, they found that the sediment was extremely dense, like mud, which is unusual at those depths. Usually sediment that far down is soft and piled like cotton candy, like it is in the Mariana Trench. So any sediment movement from the impact is actually indicative of about twice as much force as would normally be needed to cause that kind of buildup. It's the difference between landing in sand versus landing in mud. She landed in mud. It takes more force to move mud. So she would have had to land really really hard to cause that kind of sediment movement, including the height of the buildup around the bow as well. That explains why the bow's back is broken. She hit that mud extremely hard to build up 50 feet of sediment around her bow point. The same would be true of the stern, but the buildup is so much heavier at the propellers than at the engines. That suggests that she hit propellers first (like you point out), so maybe she was tipped that way because it's more hydro-dynamic? Not sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Apr 16, 2020
4
12
13
Oh, and the force at which the bow hit is visible in the debris field map. That's why it's so dark around her. That's from both the lower sediment being uncovered from the the current that followed her down (what James Cameron called a hypoburst, but it's basically just the inertia of the current and suction of the ship and probably not as violent as he argued). The sheer size of that dark field around her shows how hard she hit. But you'll notice that the stern doesn't have that big dark field around her. It's only a little darker. That suggests that she didn't hit as hard as the bow did because she twirled her way down instead of shooting down or "leafing" as is more likely (floating forward, then back, then forward, which is what the models of the bow did when they tested it in a tank).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
134
144
88
UK
All good food for thought, but I think the depth of the rudder and the position of the wing props makes any kind of appreciable sideways/skidding arrival on the bottom unlikely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
534
188
16
Maryland, USA
All good food for thought, but I think the depth of the rudder and the position of the wing props makes any kind of appreciable sideways/skidding arrival on the bottom unlikely.
I agree. If so, the starboard propeller would be way off to the west of the Stern, and the portside prop would be grounded up against the hull. As it is, both are next to the Stern still, ripped up from their original position. I also think that if the Stern skidded, the Rudder would bear damage, or be in the Hard a'Port position.

The sheer size of that dark field around her shows how hard she hit. But you'll notice that the stern doesn't have that big dark field around her. It's only a little darker. That suggests that she didn't hit as hard as the bow did because she twirled her way down instead of shooting down or "leafing" as is more likely (floating forward, then back, then forward, which is what the models of the bow did when they tested it in a tank).
I'm sorry! But I have to disagree with this one, based on how smashed parts of the Stern are, and how multiple decks "pancaked" on top of each other, even before the deterioration recently. That darkspot could be downblast, and the downblast wasn't as strong since the Stern spiraled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,622
992
388
65
I have to disagree with this one, based on how smashed parts of the Stern are, and how multiple decks "pancaked" on top of each other, even before the deterioration recently. That darkspot could be downblast, and the downblast wasn't as strong since the Stern spiraled
I agree, except that I am not sure that the downblast was not strong enough. You could be right, but I'd like more views particularly on the downblast, which is not often discussed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Incony

Member
Mar 11, 2020
111
47
73
this is now off topic, since at ocean floor depth, its no longer a question of implosion.. is it? i think the discussion of impact on the ocean floor is a topic of its own..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users