Titanic's stern did not implode.

[Michael-McDonnell]

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."

 

[Michael-McDonnell]

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.

 

[Mike Bull2019]

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

I see that someone has already reported your comment, but who is blatantly lying, just out of interest?

 

[Incony]

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.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

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.

 

[Michael-McDonnell]

Try this for size.
View attachment 77481

Like the Oceanos

 

[Mike Bull2019]

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.

 

[Cam Houseman]

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.

 

[Steven Christian]

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.

 

[Cam Houseman]

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.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

As Mike was saying, an implosion is when a sealed volume suddenly fails under pressure and everything around gets sucked in.

 

[Evelyne Harville]

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

 

[Evelyne Harville]

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.

 

[Cam Houseman]

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

titanic_MM7985_rsmt_GF_013.jpg

drive.google.com

 

[Evelyne Harville]

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

titanic_MM7985_rsmt_GF_013.jpg

drive.google.com

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.