Water Pressure Against the Hull

[Aaron_2016]

The wreck has not been properly explored inside, so there is no conclusive proof that there was or wasn't an internal explosion or breach. Until a full investigation is made all we can do is read the survivor accounts, batch the similarities together, and come to a theorised conclusion based on their testimony.


.

 

[Kyle Naber]

Did they include the strong list to port?

Yes. The list was considered and dealt with in a logical and scientific manner.

(Flooding and Structural Forensic Analysis of the Sinking of the RMS Titanic J.W. Stettler (M), B.S. Thomas (M) (under the subject titled "Near Equalization").)

(Flooding and Structural Forensic Analysis of the Sinking of the RMS Titanic J.W. Stettler (M), B.S. Thomas (M) (under the subject titled "Conclusions").)

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

The wreck did not show any sign of explosion.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Aaron_2016 (2018)

"The testimony of a dazed and shocked survivor recorded a while after the event and viewed through the prism of sensationalist newspaper reports designed to sell copy to the masses, should always be viewed with a greater degree of accuracy than hard scientific research that draws upon all aspects to form an educated conclusion"

We believe the ship struck an iceberg because a handful of survivors saw a dark object, and we believe them with apparent absolute trust. We also believe the ship broke apart because a number of survivors saw her break. Practically everything we have learned from the Titanic disaster comes from survivor accounts. So, yes I value them very much.

Yes. The list was considered and dealt with in a logical and scientific manner.
View attachment 42438
(Flooding and Structural Forensic Analysis of the Sinking of the RMS Titanic J.W. Stettler (M), B.S. Thomas (M) (under the subject titled "Near Equalization").)

View attachment 42441
(Flooding and Structural Forensic Analysis of the Sinking of the RMS Titanic J.W. Stettler (M), B.S. Thomas (M) (under the subject titled "Conclusions").)

The problem with the quote you provided is that it says - "The simulation was fixed in a zero heel condition." So they decided not to show a strong list to port and fixed the heel to 'zero'? - despite the fact that survivors like Colonel Gracie said the port list was so bad that he thought the ship was going to capsize.

The second quote says - "It has been discussed in this paper that there were likely several important structural failure mechanisms". But merely 'discussing' what 'likely' happened is by no means conclusive proof. There is also no mention of how the port list accelerated the break up on that side and the explanations for the first explosion that were heard up to 20 minutes before the second one, and no comparisons with the Britannic and why she did not break despite having her stern suspended with that huge weight lifted up with a strong list to starboard. I need convincing proof that the Titanic simply bent and broke before the first funnel fell. The bending theory only works if the forward half of the ship is well below the surface but that does not match survivor accounts. So the 'science' only works if they dismiss the survivor accounts. Hence my distrust of the conclusions made.


.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

and no comparisons with the Britannic and why she did not break despite having her stern suspended with that huge weight lifted up with a strong list to starboard.
.

Britannic sunk competently different (we already had that discussion). By the time the stern was "up in the air" the bow had hit the ocean floor breaking the ship about the end of the forward well deck (at cargo hold No. 3). Also Britannic sunk in 55 minutes while Titanic was filling up with water for over 2 hours (bending the ship).

 

[Aaron_2016]

I thought the bend theory was entirely focused on how much weight was lifted up out of the water. So it does not matter if the Britannic flooded differently and touched bottom. Her stern was suspended in the air for several minutes at a high angle, yet she did not bend or break. To me, that is conclusive evidence that the Titanic did not bend and break when her stern did the same. The fact that a number of survivors heard the first explosion and saw the ship break before the first and second funnels fell is a revealing indication that the bending theory could not have been the main cause because she broke before her stern had risen to a minimal degree to achieve the bend and break theory, which also did not affect her sister.


.

 

[Aaron_2016]

The wreck did not show any sign of explosion.

They haven't explored the boiler rooms that may have exploded, so there is no conclusive evidence either way.


.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

They had been on E Deck and F Deck and though boiler room No. 2. There was no reason for any boiler to explode.
Aside from that your argument makes no sense. First you came up that funnel no. 2 was lifted off by a explosion and now when pointing out to the missing explosion damage you came up with the statement above.
As a side note, there was no 2nd explosion on Lusitania and the remains of her 4 funnels are directly at the remains of the upper deck structure.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

I thought the bend theory was entirely focused on how much weight was lifted up out of the water. So it does not matter if the Britannic flooded differently and touched bottom. Her stern was suspended in the air for several minutes at a high angle, yet she did not bend or break. To me, that is conclusive evidence that the Titanic did not bend and break when her stern did the same. The fact that a number of survivors heard the first explosion and saw the ship break before the first and second funnels fell is a revealing indication that the bending theory could not have been the main cause because she broke before her stern had risen to a minimal degree to achieve the bend and break theory, which also did not affect her sister.
.

Then you should read the break up papers again. What do you mean with high angle? Both ship went down different, were flooded different, had different design, had a different degree in trim and list.
Jack Thayer was clear the ship break in front of the 1st funnel after the forward funnel (same one Lightoller, Gracie and others mentioned) had fallen off an nearly missed him.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Where does Jack Thayer state that the ship broke "in front of the first funnel"?

His journal says:

"The stars were brilliant and the water oily. Occasionally there had been a muffled thud or deadened explosion within the ship. Now, without warning, she seemed to start forward, moving forward and into the water at an angle of about 15 degrees. This movement, with the water rushing up toward us was accompanied by a rumbling roar, mixed with more muffled explosions. It was like standing under a steel railway bridge while an express train passes overhead, mingled with the noise of a pressed steel factory and wholesale breakage of china.

Long and I had been standing by the starboard rail, about abreast of the second funnel. Our main thought was to keep away from the crowd and the suction. At the rail we were entirely free of the crowd. We had previously decided to jump into the water before she actually went down, so that we might swim some distance away, and avoid what we thought would be terrific suction. Still we did not wish to jump before the place where we were standing would be only a few yards over the water, for we might be injured and not be able to swim.

We had no time to think now, only to act. We shook hands, wished each other luck. I said, “Go ahead, I’ll be right with you.” I threw my overcoat off as he climbed over the rail, sliding down facing the ship. Ten seconds later I sat on the rail. I faced out, and with a push of my arms and hands, jumped into the water as far out from the ship as I could. When we jumped we were only 12 or 15 feet above the water.

I never saw Long again. His body was later recovered. I am afraid that the few seconds elapsing between our going, meant the difference between being sucked into the deck below, as I believe he was, or pushed out by the backwash. I was pushed out and then sucked down.

The cold was terrific. The shock of the water took the breath out of my lungs. Down and down I went, spinning in all directions. Swimming as hard as I could in the direction which I thought to be away from the ship, I finally came up with my lungs bursting, but not having taken any water. The ship was in front of me, 40 yards away. How long I had been swimming under water, I don’t know. Perhaps a minute or less. Incidentally, my watch stopped at 2:22 am.

The ship seemed to be surrounded with a glare and stood out of the night as though she were on fire. I watched her. I don’t know why I didn’t keep swimming away. Fascinated, I seemed tied to the spot. Already I was tired out with the cold and struggling, although the life preserver held my head and shoulders above the water.

She continued to make the same forward progress as when I left her. The water was over the base of the first funnel. The mass of people on board were surging back, always back toward the floating stern. The rumble and roar continued, with even louder distinct wrenchings and tearings of boilers and engines from their beds.

Suddenly the whole superstructure of the ship appeared to split, well forward to midship, and blow or buckle upwards. The second funnel, large enough for two automobiles to pass through abreast, seemed to be lifted off, emitting a cloud of sparks. It looked as if it would fall on top of me. It missed me by only 20 or 30 feet. The suction of it drew me down and down, struggling and swimming, practically spent.

As I finally came to the surface I put my hand over my head, in order to push away any obstruction. My hand came against something smooth and firm with rounded shape. I looked up and realized that it was the cork fender of one of the collapsible lifeboats, which was floating in the water bottom-side up. About four or five men were clinging to her bottom. I pulled myself up as far as I could, almost exhausted, but could not get my legs up. I asked them to give me a hand up, which they readily did."


Lightoller said he was sucked down and felt several explosions while he was under the water. When he reached the surface he discovered the stern was facing the opposite way. It was now hovering over the collapsible boat with Thayer on top. Lightoller was blown to the surface after holding onto a piece of broken wood and guy wire and reached for the collapsible. He turned to see the first funnel falling down which he estimated pushed their boat "half a mile" away from the crowds of people in the water. This would mean the ship broke apart and the 2nd funnel fell and sucked the collapsible and Thayer towards the ship. The stern turned around and Lightoller came to the surface and saw the collapsible and turned to see the 1st funnel fall down which pushed the collapsible far away from the scene. That is how I understand their accounts.

This would mean the 2nd funnel fell first and the survivors in the lifeboats would note that funnel falling while the lights were still on. e.g.

Survivor Percy Keen
"It appeared to us that when the ship listed heavily to port the engines fell out and crashed through the side. The second funnel broke off, and killed a number of people in its fall."

The forward half would go dark as she broke, which would make it much harder to see the 1st funnel collapse, especially as a number of survivors saw dark plumes of smoke rising out after she exploded and broke apart.


.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Where does Jack Thayer state that the ship broke "in front of the first funnel"?

Was faster thinking then writing, it was in front of the 3rd funnel.

His journal says:

His "journal" is from 1940 in which several things are different from what he said and wrote in 1912 a few days after the sinking.

"I came up facing the ship, and one of the funnels seemed to be lifted off and fell towards me about fifteen yards away, with a mass of sparks and steam coming out of it. I saw the ship in a sort of red glare, and it seemed to me that she broke in two just in front of the third funnel. This time I was sucked down, and as I came up I was pushed out again and twisted around by a large wave, coming up in the midst of a great deal of small wreckage."

Lightoller said he was sucked down and felt several explosions while he was under the water. When he reached the surface he discovered the stern was facing the opposite way. It was now hovering over the collapsible boat with Thayer on top. Lightoller was blown to the surface after holding onto a piece of broken wood and guy wire and reached for the collapsible. He turned to see the first funnel falling down which he estimated pushed their boat "half a mile" away from the crowds of people in the water. This would mean the ship broke apart and the 2nd funnel fell and sucked the collapsible and Thayer towards the ship. The stern turned around and Lightoller came to the surface and saw the collapsible and turned to see the 1st funnel fall down which pushed the collapsible far away from the scene. That is how I understand their accounts.

This would mean the 2nd funnel fell first and the survivors in the lifeboats would note that funnel falling while the lights were still on. e.g.

Charles Lightoller
14076. (The Commissioner.) If you saw it - if you saw what happened, tell us what it was? - After the funnel fell there was some little time elapsed. I do not know exactly what came or went, but the next thing I remember I was alongside this collapsible boat again, and there were about half a dozen standing on it. I climbed on it, and then turned my attention to the ship. The third if not the second funnel was still visible, certainly the third funnel was still visible. The stern was then clear of the water.
14077. Which do you call the second and third? - Numbering them from forward, My Lord.
14078. The second was visible? - The third was visible - I am not sure if the second was visible, but I am certain the third was visible, and she was gradually raising her stern out of the water. Even at that time I think the propellers were clear of the water. That I will not be certain of.
14079. Had the funnel broken away? - Only the forward one.
14080. But you are not sure about the second one? - I am not sure whether that was below water or not, that I cannot say.
14081. That is what I mean. I want to know from you. Was it below water in the sense that the ship had sunk so as to immerse it in the water, or had it broken adrift? - No, the second funnel was immersed.

There are a few other survivors who mentioned the 1st funnel falling.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

I see the title of this topic is:

Water Pressure Against the Hull

Interesting how another topic change again to the same discussion which already took place elsewhere on ET. It seems it is always turning in circles about the same.

 

[Kyle Naber]

But merely 'discussing' what 'likely' happened is by no means conclusive proof.

But it's proof that Titanic didn't break up because of stresses because of the way Britannic sank?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Is somebody straining on a gnat here trying to prove a boiler explosion happened?
There's a simple way to do that: SHOW us a boiler which has obviously exploded.
If you can't do that, there's nothing further here to discuss.

We believe the ship struck an iceberg because a handful of survivors saw a dark object, and we believe them with apparent absolute trust.

Uhhhhh....Aaron....we believe it because the people on watch saw the iceberg, and because all the forensic evidence backs it up. We further believe it because nobody....and I mean NOBODY has offered an alternate theory as to why the ship sank which they could offer a smidgen of evidence for.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Uhhhhh....Aaron....we believe it because the people on watch saw the iceberg, and because all the forensic evidence backs it up.

"We believe it because the people on watch saw the iceberg."

That's my point. When a number of survivors described an explosive event and believed it was a boiler explosion it is very important to follow that lead and when you see a pattern you reach a conclusion. e.g. The very first name that appears on the survivor list is Mrs. Abbott.

“I came to the surface, but Gene did not, so far as I know I never saw my eldest son after we went down the first time. I sank a second time, but was blown out of the water by the force of the explosion of the boilers. This accounts for the burns on my thighs. After a time I scrambled to a raft and begged some of those on it to pull me aboard."

She was blown to the surface by burning hot water. So hot that it burnt her thighs. Lightoller was also blown to the surface and felt the hot water and said - "Certainly, I think it was the boilers exploded." Others were blown to pieces and blown off the deck. At the same time heavy plumes of black smoke, huge lumps of coal, sparks, and steam were seen shooting out of at least one funnel. The funnel was then lifted off by the force underneath and the grating was bent upwards by the explosive force. There is absolutely nothing that resembles a gradual bending and break of the ship to cause that. It was a catastrophic event. A number of survivors now witnessed the ship lurch violently as she burst and broke apart. The natural thing to do is trust the accounts (same as the iceberg sighting) and to find proof on the wreck to see if they were accurate in their assessment. An internal exploration of the affected area has not been done, so the survivors' statements will continue to stand until the exploration has been made. So I can't discredit them without a convincing plausible alternative for the smoke, steam, sparks, coal, and body parts blown into the air, not to mention Mrs. Abbott's burn marks as she burst to the surface by the boiling hot water below.

No plausible alternative = No reason to doubt their original cause for the explosion. I don't believe that a single boiler explosion caused all of this. More likely the contents of the boilers were still hot and were not drawn entirely, or were restarted. A bulkhead wall then collapses or the hull plating bursts open by the water pressure as she settled low in the water and the water rushed in and blew open that section of the ship. Before the wreck was discovered I imagine all of the researchers who believed the Titanic had broken in two (because that is what the survivors saw) were largely ignored because without the discovery of the wreck they could not confirm what the survivors said happened. No wreck = no conclusive proof, but still they stood firm and believed what the survivors said had possibly occurred. Same with the internal explosion or breach. Until a full investigation inside the affected area is made, the survivors' version will continue to stand. If I can't conclusively prove it, and nobody can conclusively disprove it, then it will forever remain an open question.

Just my two cents.

.