Titanic's stern did not implode.

Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
I do agree an implosion was kinda unlikely.
Not just unlikely. It did not happen.

IMO, most of that damage was impact, with the force of it (probably around 45-50mph?) flattening decks, blowing out the starboard side hull. The portside splayed out, and I do support Charles Pellegrino’s theory about the downblast.

The way the starboard side hull and debris items are ejected out the side? That’s proof right there, in my opinion.
Look at the terms that you have used yourself to describe the nature of damage to the stern section. "blowing out", "splayed out" "ejected out" etc. Does any of that seem like the result of an implosion to you?
 
Sam Brannigan

Sam Brannigan

Member
Hi Sam,

Pitman also clearly described, and clarified, that the booms came after the ship disappeared. Loud BOOMS would certainly catch your attention. Without the ship's lights, the surrounding area became extremely dark. We know there were 4 loud booms, multiple people testified to that. But other survivors also testified to things some don't remember, like there being lights still burning in the aft most part of the ship (which is still debatable), or whether or not People were scscreaming.
Hi Cam,

In Pitman's testimony quoted above I don't think it is clear that he is describing the booms after the ship sank - I read it that he gave a brief overview of the nature of the sinking, then added extra detail to the process when questioned further.

Another thing which may add to confusion regarding the booms heard is the definition of "disappeared". One survivor may use the word to describe the moment the Titanic's stern submerged, another may use it to describe the moment the lights went out.

The joys of semantics! ;)
 
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Not just unlikely. It did not happen.




Look at the terms that you have used yourself to describe the nature of damage to the stern section. "blowing out", "splayed out" "ejected out" etc. Does any of that seem like the result of an implosion to you?
Hello Arun,
As I said in the very same post, I'll quote it again.
I do agree an implosion was kinda unlikely.
That doesn't mean I am supporting the Implosion theory, I'm against it. For things to be blown out things, that would go against Physics, obviously. I am aware of what I posted, thanks though!

Hi Cam,

In Pitman's testimony quoted above I don't think it is clear that he is describing the booms after the ship sank - I read it that he gave a brief overview of the nature of the sinking, then added extra detail to the process when questioned further.

Another thing which may add to confusion regarding the booms heard is the definition of "disappeared". One survivor may use the word to describe the moment the Titanic's stern submerged, another may use it to describe the moment the lights went out.

The joys of semantics! ;)
Hey Sam, long time no see! How've you been?

And that's a good point, Pitman heard as you described. Some of that testimony was a little confusing, right? Shame we can't go back and question him ourselves.. ;)

What do you personally think it was? For noises to travel upwards through the water (Let's say, about 50-100 feet, given how rapidly the stern left the surface), I'd reckon that it was just the Stern splintering apart!
 
Rose F.

Rose F.

Member
Not just unlikely. It did not happen.

Look at the terms that you have used yourself to describe the nature of damage to the stern section. "blowing out", "splayed out" "ejected out" etc. Does any of that seem like the result of an implosion to you?

Adding my own two cents and expanding on some things (we are likely on the same page, though):
It's almost certain some amount of damage related to water pressure happened; even with air being compressible, it would be forced out eventually because of the water pressure. It would not be an implosion per se, as the destructive forces would be more related to the expulsion of air, rather than the water pressing in on the stern around it, and thus more explosive than implosive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman and Arun Vajpey
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
It would not be an implosion per se, as the destructive forces would be more related to the expulsion of air, rather than the water pressing in on the stern around it, and thus more explosive than implosive.
Precisely. That is what I have always believed. The spaces between decks would have been exposed to the ocean after the break-up and so it would have flooded very rapidly, expelling all the air that was in the stern section till then. By the time the end of the stern sank below the surface, it would have been almost completely flooded save for a few insignificant trapped air pockets. But the flooding would have meant a very small and insiginificant pressure difference between the water outside and inside and as the stern sank, this difference would have dropped futher even as the pressure outside increased, thus making implosion of any sort impossible and against laws of physics.

But the rapid forcing out of air during the flooding of the stern both on the surface and just under and later the impact against the ocean floor would have created outward "explosive" forces which were what caused the extensive damage to the stern section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rose F.
Sam Brannigan

Sam Brannigan

Member
Hey Sam, long time no see! How've you been?

And that's a good point, Pitman heard as you described. Some of that testimony was a little confusing, right? Shame we can't go back and question him ourselves.. ;)

What do you personally think it was? For noises to travel upwards through the water (Let's say, about 50-100 feet, given how rapidly the stern left the surface), I'd reckon that it was just the Stern splintering apart!
I'm very well thanks Cam, hope you are too!

I think that some survivors equated the lights going out with the actual sinking. The pitch blackness would have been startling, so the booms may have been the ship breaking up at the surface and disappearing while they gad night blindness immediately after the electric went.

Alternatively, perhaps it was the double bottom snapping and separating beneath the surface - that would have made a hell of a racket 20 or 30 feet underwater?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
But the rapid forcing out of air during the flooding of the stern both on the surface and just under and later the impact against the ocean floor would have created outward "explosive" forces which were what caused the extensive damage to the stern section.
Certainly, which is what makes the stern look as if a bomb went off. The water pressure inside plus the insane impact speed with the combined spiraling weakened the structure, and the water inside the section was forced out through through the side, as is what caused the huge gaping hole in the starboard Bow under the well deck.

I'm very well thanks Cam, hope you are too!

I think that some survivors equated the lights going out with the actual sinking. The pitch blackness would have been startling, so the booms may have been the ship breaking up at the surface and disappearing while they gad night blindness immediately after the electric went.

Alternatively, perhaps it was the double bottom snapping and separating beneath the surface - that would have made a hell of a racket 20 or 30 feet underwater?
Glad to hear it, I have, thank you!

That's a very good point, because they wouldn't have seen the actual breakup due to the ship's lights being out. So that also could put Pitman's time of 2:20 off as well, technically? That's when he said "She's gone."

And I agree! The Stern absolutely splintering would be very loud, steel breaking apart was never too quiet, lol.
 
Steven Christian

Steven Christian

Member
Certainly, which is what makes the stern look as if a bomb went off. The water pressure inside plus the insane impact speed with the combined spiraling weakened the structure, and the water inside the section was forced out through through the side, as is what caused the huge gaping hole in the starboard Bow under the well deck.


Glad to hear it, I have, thank you!

That's a very good point, because they wouldn't have seen the actual breakup due to the ship's lights being out. So that also could put Pitman's time of 2:20 off as well, technically? That's when he said "She's gone."

And I agree! The Stern absolutely splintering would be very loud, steel breaking apart was never too quiet, lol.
Don't be too hard on yourself if your conclusions after studing something more make you change your mind. As I've stated many times before I don't think there was an implosion outside of maybe some minor spaces. But I see where someone could come to a conclusion one way or the other just by looking at a debris field. Implosions are often follwed by explosions. Just go look at the remains of the U.S.S Scorpion and the U.S.S. Thresher. They look like they exploded. Titanic's stern just had too many openings to the sea after she left the surface. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
Don't be too hard on yourself if your conclusions after studying something more make you change your mind.
It happens all the time. I've changed my views on a few things over the years, even after I published some work. At first there is a natural reaction to defend what you have already done or concluded. However, upon evaluation of new evidence, or upon additional analysis, if things change, then own up to it, and revise what you wrote. Here is a sample list of some of the articles I posted on my on-line articles website page (MyOnlinePublications) and had to revise at a latter date due to new, missing or incorrect information:

Speed and Revolutions - The Development of a Slip Table for the SS Titanic
(Revised 16 October 2015)

Titanic’s Prime Mover – An Examination of Propulsion and Power
(Revised January 31, 2011)

Speed and More Speed
by Mark Chirnside and Samuel Halpern
(Revised: 26 March 2014)

Signals of Distress – What Color Were They?
(Revised: February 2021)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman, Rose F., Steven Christian and 2 others
Steven Christian

Steven Christian

Member
It happens all the time. I've changed my views on a few things over the years, even after I published some work. At first there is a natural reaction to defend what you have already done or concluded. However, upon evaluation of new evidence, or upon additional analysis, if things change, then own up to it, and revise what you wrote. Here is a sample list of some of the articles I posted on my on-line articles website page (MyOnlinePublications) and had to revise at a latter date due to new, missing or incorrect information:

Speed and Revolutions - The Development of a Slip Table for the SS Titanic
(Revised 16 October 2015)

Titanic’s Prime Mover – An Examination of Propulsion and Power
(Revised January 31, 2011)

Speed and More Speed
by Mark Chirnside and Samuel Halpern
(Revised: 26 March 2014)

Signals of Distress – What Color Were They?
(Revised: February 2021)
I too have changed my mind on things about Titanic over the years. Some were no-brainers of course after Ballard had found the wreck. But long after that mostly not about mechanical issues although there are some. My opinion on the crew and people aboard her have changed some. Things that I regarded as black and white have turned grey. I think it's an age thing. Mellowing out more and all. Ismay comes to mind. When I was younger he was like the villian of villians. Now...no. Just another human who didn't want to die. He just stepped into a boat that was being lowered with empty seats. It wasn't like he threw someone out to get that spot. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Steven Christian

Steven Christian

Member
Yes Samuel. Another reply to your post about something different. More mechanical. This doesn't really apply to the people that post on here. But from articles and posts I've read over the years some people don't seem to understand that a ship like Titanic or any large process isn't going to respond to commands like hitting the brakes on your car or clicking a mouse. From the time a command is given to when it's carried out. Them add mechanical lag like the time for the rudder to move, valves to be operated..ect ect. Anyway given the time distance speed ect of what played out my opinion has changed. I'm kind of amazed that got her to move as much as they did. The just hard over debate has been worked over enough that I don't want to get back into that. And maybe my expirence is comparing apples to oranges. But thats something that my opinion has changed over the years. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Don't be too hard on yourself if your conclusions after studing something more make you change your mind. As I've stated many times before I don't think there was an implosion outside of maybe some minor spaces. But I see where someone could come to a conclusion one way or the other just by looking at a debris field. Implosions are often follwed by explosions. Just go look at the remains of the U.S.S Scorpion and the U.S.S. Thresher. They look like they exploded. Titanic's stern just had too many openings to the sea after she left the surface. Cheers.
Hey Steven, it’s been a while, how have you been?

I agree, especially when it's something you've believed in for so long, which is why I defended it so strongly. It's nice to accept the facts and logic and move on, though.

Nice seeing you again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steven Christian
Steven Christian

Steven Christian

Member
Hey Steven, it’s been a while, how have you been?

I agree, especially when it's something you've believed in for so long, which is why I defended it so strongly. It's nice to accept the facts and logic and move on, though.

Nice seeing you again!
I've been fine. Thanks for asking. Hope you've been doing good yourself. Only complaint I have is that it's been like groundhog day here. That's my fault. Looking forward to the fall when I'll be in the woods more. Like I said before there's nothing wrong about changing your position on a subject when you learn more. I'm not one to give advice as I'm just a dude but I'm going to give it anyway...:D. In today's world with the internet and the media there's so much bullshit out there that you have to question everything. Take it for whats it worth. It's always been that way to some sort but now it's magnified exponentially. Hope you have a good summer...whats left of it anyway. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Top