Nov 28, 2020
66
39
38
Well theywouldn't... would they? othrwise there woud have been no show.
That effort is full of supposition. i.e. Murdoch did not give that second order as part of the berg avoidance sequence When did you ever see a bow-shaped torpedo? such aprojrile would never run straight and true, nor would have th ebow of Titanic. The reason behind that nonsense it to explane why the two parts are in opposition on t se be. Something else for you all to think about...how on earth did that column of water follow he sections to the bottom when sea water inceases pressure by 64 lb/ ft, cu. for every foot of depth?
with all do respect cap'n if the stern did not implode how come bits of it are scattered around it . this would be caused by an implosion and all the loose stuff blew of
ba20040d74c1eab1e449e87784fcded6.jpg
91720d420f68926fe590097f496a05cb.jpg
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
Ok I think we're missing the point here Gentlemen?

The Stern most likely imploded due to trapped air in deep within the ship, lets say, the Cargo Holds. Maybe the Turbine room, since the WTD between that room and the Engine Room is closed. I know the water could come down from the Turbine Uptake, but that necessarily was more for ventilation for the galleys, so I bet some of it vented into the Galleys (well, what was left of them) . Then, since the Stern was already going super fast down into the Atlantic, the air didn't have enough time to equalize, and rooms began to implode, or even slightly implode. Like the Third Class General Room and Smoking Room, located under the Poop Deck. (I still support the idea it imploded, loosening rivets, which are visible on the wreck. If it was escaping air, the air wouldn't escape from the forward portion of the Poop Deck, it'd be the fantail, so it'd flap back over forwards.)Blowing out support structures, and walls. then, when the Stern landed at 50-55 mph (what's that in Kilometers)? the Force of impact and the weakened structure made the decks collapse, and the Starboard hull to explode outwards, along with everything on the Starboard side (Tiles, furniture, beams, people, etc)

I bet a good counter argument would be this: Did the Hull explode outwards on Impact, or on descent?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
with all do respect cap'n if the stern did not implode how come bits of it are scattered around it . this would be caused by an implosion and all the loose stuff blew of View attachment 74740View attachment 74742
that's pieces of the Stern, from the Third Funnel to the Aft Grand Staircase, because the Stern came apart during the descent, and threw everything all over the place

I still maintain that the wreck of the Derbyshire is a good example of implosions
 
Nov 28, 2020
66
39
38
that's pieces of the Stern, from the Third Funnel to the Aft Grand Staircase, because the Stern came apart during the descent, and threw everything all over the place

I still maintain that the wreck of the Derbyshire is a good example of implosions
i i thought that the peices were scattered because of the implosion
 
Nov 28, 2020
66
39
38
Ok I think we're missing the point here Gentlemen?

The Stern most likely imploded due to trapped air in deep within the ship, lets say, the Cargo Holds. Maybe the Turbine room, since the WTD between that room and the Engine Room is closed. I know the water could come down from the Turbine Uptake, but that necessarily was more for ventilation for the galleys, so I bet some of it vented into the Galleys (well, what was left of them) . Then, since the Stern was already going super fast down into the Atlantic, the air didn't have enough time to equalize, and rooms began to implode, or even slightly implode. Like the Third Class General Room and Smoking Room, located under the Poop Deck. (I still support the idea it imploded, loosening rivets, which are visible on the wreck. If it was escaping air, the air wouldn't escape from the forward portion of the Poop Deck, it'd be the fantail, so it'd flap back over forwards.)Blowing out support structures, and walls. then, when the Stern landed at 50-55 mph (what's that in Kilometers)? the Force of impact and the weakened structure made the decks collapse, and the Starboard hull to explode outwards, along with everything on the Starboard side (Tiles, furniture, beams, people, etc)

I bet a good counter argument would be this: Did the Hull explode outwards on Impact, or on descent?
decent because like i said stuff is scattered all around the grand ladies a$$ so one could think that the stern imploded before hitting the bottom
14353272453_144485e46d_b (3).jpg
 

Platnmz

Member
Nov 17, 2017
17
6
13
So, I think you can’t ignore science and physics, but there is always room for gray areas. In this situation, I believe the physics shows that a complete or even major implosion is not possible. As for minor, isolated instances, maybe, because we can’t possibly know every situation. From the plans and construction methods of the Titanic, it’s clear that the ship was not water tight and there were innumerable air leak paths. As the stern sank incredibly fast, this alone demonstrates the loss of buoyancy, which proves the massive rate of water replacing air. One of the things we will never know without divine revelation, is how the increasing air pressure and developing air pockets interacted with increasing water pressure and the nearest air leak path. From my understanding, as the air is forced rearward, the pressure and velocities would wreak havoc on the interior walls of cabin, bathrooms and any non structural bulkheads and divides. Once a percentage of the walls get blown out, the moment the stern hits bottom, there’s not enough internal structure to support the kinetic energy of the stern falling at it’s speed, which is why it looks like was blown out (where as the bow slowly filled and the air escapes at a sustainable rate as not to destroy the inner walls, leaving its internal structure there to support the landing). As far as the top decks, poop deck, davits and such being torn off; I believe the aerodynamics of the stern explain a lot of this. The bow was designed to cut through the water, therefore it went down in a very natural and stable path; the stern on the other hand was not designed like that, the propellers alone would alter the path, let alone the geometry of the stern as a whole, which was not design to cut through anything; with its bulbous design, it’s going to be very unstable trip to say the least. I think when you take all of the variables together, add in the actual physics, there wasn’t a MAJOR implosion, there was damage due to the influx of water forcing air out, and the trip down through the water damaged the exterior and the finish product is what we see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
109
101
88
UK
Broadly, agreed; I don't know how many more times we need to go around in circles here trying to attribute everything to one all-destroying 'implosion' that simply cannot have happened the way some people so desperately want it to have!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,510
926
388
65
From my understanding, as the air is forced rearward, the pressure and velocities would wreak havoc on the interior walls of cabin, bathrooms and any non structural bulkheads and divides. Once a percentage of the walls get blown out, the moment the stern hits bottom, there’s not enough internal structure to support the kinetic energy of the stern falling at it’s speed, which is why it looks like was blown out

I think when you take all of the variables together, add in the actual physics, there wasn’t a MAJOR implosion, there was damage due to the influx of water forcing air out, and the trip down through the water damaged the exterior and the finish product is what we see

Agreed to the post and especially the quoted points. Drawing attention to the highlighted bits, the influx of water forced the air out which would have been responsible for at least part of the damage now seen. But was are talking about pressure from within to without, which is quote the opposite of implosion.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
Broadly, agreed; I don't know how many more times we need to go around in circles here trying to attribute everything to one all-destroying 'implosion' that simply cannot have happened the way some people so desperately want it to have!
I said I believed the Stern had small localized implosions in certain areas.
 
Nov 28, 2020
66
39
38
Broadly, agreed; I don't know how many more times we need to go around in circles here trying to attribute everything to one all-destroying 'implosion' that simply cannot have happened the way some people so desperately want it to have!
you are 100% wrong with that cap'n with all due respect Titanic's stern looks like it was slapped into 2030 so the stern imploded
f53a491fe870c17fd02cfcb1500562ca (1).jpg
so thats why stuff started to rip off as well as regular resons for her suff to rip off
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
287
18
263
Titanic’s Stern did implode. The air that was trapped within her hull built pressure. Think of when you’re washing the dishes, and you flip a cup of bowl down and press it on the bottom of the sink. There’s an air pocket!

See, the deeper you go, the more pressure that air pocket is subjected to. Think of how much pressure the Stern’s remaining air pockets had to deal with, within the first 300-400 feet. Boom! The subsequent implosions blew out Walls and supports, explaining why when the Stern landed, everything pancaked. And, there’s huge mounts of Hull, and superstructure that’s missing. Basically, when the Stern landed and broke her back, the job was finished.

how else do you explain the Stern’s appearance? The Bow retained its entire structure!
Cam, you must go back and research what is the definition of implosion. Titanic's stern did not implode. An implosion would take a structure, and crush it - it would actually reduce the volume similar to crunching up an empty soda can. Pressures did cause structural failures, and the stern is an jumbled mess, but that is FAR from an implosion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Think about it this way.

Imagine Titanic's stern section standing vertically on a roadway with wheels fitted at the torn end. The drive it bottom foremost at 30 mph+ into a brick wall (You can substitute the wall for an iceberg. What do you think would happen?
Then imagine what would happen to the same skeletal, flat bottomed structure falling at 30_ mph and landing on its flat bottom on an unforgiving sea bed.
I can tell you.
The internal supports at each deck level would buckle and the decks would pancake. While doing so, they would displace water sideways which would rupture the ship side plating seams and cause the plating to bulge outward and fail. No ex or im plosion. No descending "James Cameron" water fall nonsense.
If a small iceberg could open a few seems on the side, what do you think the sea bed could do to the bottom?

.
 

Attachments

  • f53a491fe870c17fd02cfcb1500562ca (1).jpg
    f53a491fe870c17fd02cfcb1500562ca (1).jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 51
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Think about it this way.

Imagine Titanic's stern section standing vertically on a roadway with wheels fitted at the torn end. The drive it bottom foremost at 30 mph+ into a brick wall (You can substitute the wall for an iceberg. What do you think would happen?
Then imagine what would happen to the same skeletal, flat bottomed structure falling at 30_ mph and landing on its flat bottom on an unforgiving sea bed.
I can tell you.
The internal supports at each deck level would buckle and the decks would pancake. While doing so, they would displace water sideways which would rupture the ship side plating seams and cause the plating to bulge outward and fail. No ex or im plosion. No descending "James Cameron" water fall nonsense.
If a small iceberg could open a few seems on the side, what do you think the sea bed could do to the bottom?

.Got the sketch the wrong way around and can't delete it. Use your imagination
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,127
477
158
16
Maryland, USA
Think about it this way.

Imagine Titanic's stern section standing vertically on a roadway with wheels fitted at the torn end. The drive it bottom foremost at 30 mph+ into a brick wall (You can substitute the wall for an iceberg. What do you think would happen?
Then imagine what would happen to the same skeletal, flat bottomed structure falling at 30_ mph and landing on its flat bottom on an unforgiving sea bed.
I can tell you.
The internal supports at each deck level would buckle and the decks would pancake. While doing so, they would displace water sideways which would rupture the ship side plating seams and cause the plating to bulge outward and fail. No ex or im plosion. No descending "James Cameron" water fall nonsense.
If a small iceberg could open a few seems on the side, what do you think the sea bed could do to the bottom?

.
I agree (always have) Jim! The force of impact, combined with the downblast, the Stern was like an eggshell!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Similar threads

Similar threads