Water Pressure Against the Hull

[Ioannis Georgiou]

What previous questions have not been answered?

Look at page 3 & 4.

When someone says "Survivors said" it means more than one survivor said it,

Yes but as in the past you use that "Survivors said" even it was only one. I asked which survivors were burned based on your claims and then you came up with Mrs Abbott....

and my opinion based on what the survivors said has remained consistant in this topic.

How does it fit with your statement in post #64?

It is the survivors who claimed the boilers exploded, not me.

As I said from survivors said so to my opinion. If it is your opinion why not state so and leave it? Instead starting again another discussion running over several pages going in rounds about nothing.

We can't see all of the boilers so we can't say with certainty that the boilers did not explode, to state otherwise requires proof.

We can not see all the boilers, so we can't say with certainty that the boilers explode, to state otherwise requires proof! Did anyone of the survivors who mentioned a boiler explosion was down there and had a look into every boiler as you demand from other crew survivors who said boilers were not lit or the fire was taken out of the boilers? No, I don't think so anyone saw the boilers exploding. No one saw the propeller blade getting off or missing.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

In the wise words of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you have a right to your opinion. You do NOT have a right to your own facts.

Therein lies the rub, Mr. Aaron insofar as you have at least been asserting and/or implying a certain point of view as fact without a smidgen of evidence to back it up. There is zero evidence to back up a boiler explosion.
There is zero evidence that a propeller blade was thrown, broken off or otherwise lost.
No matter how fervent and passionate your appeals, it does not exist.

End of story....or at least "End of story" until firm evidence comes up to SHOW otherwise. Like a boiler being OBSERVED which clearly exploded or a propeller blade in the debris field which can be positively identified as having come from the Titanic.

Nobody has the right to change their mind, and I believe nobody should push their beliefs on others. Positive and polite assessments are the best way to 'influence' others to change their beliefs.

Like you're trying to push or advance yours? Sounds to me like you don't like being challenged. Well, you know what?

That's just too bad. Your right to advance an "opinion" goes hand in hand with everybody else's right to challenge it.

 

[Rob Lawes]

Well said Sir.

 

[Aaron_2016]

In the wise words of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you have a right to your opinion. You do NOT have a right to your own facts.

Therein lies the rub, Mr. Aaron insofar as you have at least been asserting and/or implying a certain point of view as fact without a smidgen of evidence to back it up. There is zero evidence to back up a boiler explosion.
There is zero evidence that a propeller blade was thrown, broken off or otherwise lost.
No matter how fervent and passionate your appeals, it does not exist.

End of story....or at least "End of story" until firm evidence comes up to SHOW otherwise. Like a boiler being OBSERVED which clearly exploded or a propeller blade in the debris field which can be positively identified as having come from the Titanic.



Like you're trying to push or advance yours? Sounds to me like you don't like being challenged. Well, you know what?

That's just too bad. Your right to advance an "opinion" goes hand in hand with everybody else's right to challenge it.

Using your own dramatic emphasis. There is actually ZERO evidence to suggest the propeller blade is still there, and all of the boiler rooms have not been inspected so there is ZERO evidence to say with certainty that there was no explosion. As you say, opinions are not facts. So stating that there was no explosion does not make it fact. I believe what the survivors said 'may have' occurred. Some believed a bulkhead wall had failed. I don't know, but it 'may have' occurred. Some believed they lost a propeller blade. I don't know, but it 'may have' occurred. I always use terms such as "I believe...possibly.....may have" because I can't confirm or deny what they said without a thorough investigation of the wreck and I certainly can not confirm that there was no explosion until I see every boiler. So I see no reason to dismiss the survivor's claims. However you seem very certain without providing any proof. I believe nothing can be certain until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt.


.

 

[Aaron_2016]

How does it fit with your statement in post #64?
.

Post 64 is consistant with my beliefs because I just repeated what the survivors said in regards to the boiler explosion e.g. Mrs. Abbott having her thighs burnt and she herself believed a boiler explosion caused those burns. You however dismissed her claim and said it was frost bite. Where is your proof? Did you inspect the patient? Also in post 64 I asked you - Q - You told me to look up the testimony of five crew men. Do you believe they were present in the boiler rooms in the final moments before she exploded and witnessed the contents of every boiler to see if they were lit or not? You did not answer. However it is clear you believed their accounts support the theory that the boilers did not explode. Therefore if you want to use their testimonies to convince me, then you need to prove to me that they witnessed every single boiler in the final moments before she exploded to see if they were lit or not. e.g. If just one of them inspected boiler rooms 1, 2, 3, and 4 right before she exploded and thoroughly checked they were not lit, then that would be satisfactory proof to convince me, otherwise I would require proof from the wreck with a thorough inspection of her boiler rooms. If you wish to convince that none of the boilers exploded then those are my terms.

It is strange that you and Michael are doing your best to convince me.

1 - Why?
2 - Where are the photo comparisons with ships that did and did not explode?
3 - Why is every survivor account I mention dismissed even though they saw sparks, smoke, steam, body parts, burns, hot water. Sure sounds like a boiler explosion to me.
4 - There is no sign of the missing propeller blade where it should be. No bolts that held it in place. No markings on the sand where it would carve as the stern rotated. No mound of sand dug up by the blade. There is no evidence whatever to indicate that the blade is there.

My assessment remains the same. If you don't convince me, then I naturally can't change my assessment of how the ship may have sunk. I suppose my main question would be, why do you want to convince me?


.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

How bizarre. There is actually ZERO evidence to suggest the propeller blade is there, and all of the boiler rooms have not been inspected so there is ZERO evidence to say with certainty that there was no explosion.

One: I don't have to prove a negative.
Two: YOU are asserting a positive and that changes the whole dynamic.
Three: Opinions are not facts and do not have a claim to the respectability of same.
Four: Your assessment in the absence of any supporting evidence is completely irrelevant.

SHOW us the missing blade. SHOW us the exploded boiler. Then and ONLY then will your assessment have any value.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Yes, but I see a problem from outside the box. If people claim with absolute certainty that something did or did not happen then I need to be convinced that what they claim is true. If the survivors believed they blew a boiler and lost a propeller blade then I need to be convinced that they are right or wrong. So I need to see the blade and I need to see every boiler. That is how I assess their testimony. I don't see the blade and I have not been shown the boilers, so I can't claim with certainty what happened to either of them, and I feel nobody can until a proper investigation has been made. No investigation means no conclusions can be made. That is why I post topics that start with 'what may have happened' as they are open questions open to reasonable debate.


.

 

[coal eater]

as stated above there is no exsisting proof of exploding boilers, there are no way to explore boiler room 3 that might hold some eventual proof,without going inside wreck and looking on boilers is impossible to say if they exploded or not and i am 100% boilers did not explode they just geysered steam and lumps of coal when water flooded the boilers,if explosion happened then shell plating on area of boiler room 3 would have signs of bending outwards but there is none of these so as long as there wont be epedition to explore very inside shp we cannot confirm or deny boiler explosion at all,its just one of possible scenarios.

i am now more thinking how peopel in boiler rooms were working during last minutes before break,did they heart hull "screaming" ?

regarding boiler explosion at all,more chance to get boiler explosion in titanic scenario would occur if titanic had oil boilers that operate at even greater temperatures so boiler explosion from this could be done,exploding oil boiler is way more dangerous than steam one,steam boileer exploding can injury crew and destroy surrounding boilers,eventuall starting chain reaction ( one boiler explodes after another one) but again any explosion in canned space like boiler room would damage shell plating at some point,not pierce hole but flex or bend it outwards,if oil boiler explodes this makes huge difference,lots of fire and debris from destroyed boiler "COULD" puncture hull.

water pressure has notthing to do about bending hull inwards in titanic last minutes before break,bending inwards (called implosion) would happen at some depth so after complete sinking of titanic. stern of titanic appears to look like skinned banana,crushed decks, reverted shell plating "stern docking bridge" is completly gone too,when stern was going down in spiral after loss of remaining air water was pushed in into already flooded compartments,this could rip off shell plating

(small experiment u can do to see yourself,take a cardboard box cut the edges down so box walls can freely move,walk now with that box at slow speed and observe,now walk faster and you notice box walls getting moved away from the box,you go faster the wind completly "opens" the box,if you walk "in reverse" at same speed wind will push cardboard box walls back inside.. in titanic case flooded stern half way to bottom of atlantic would keep getting hammered by water and shell plating and poop decks would roll outwards because of push force from water, spiral movement will only throw around debris from ship itself, implosion destroyed hull integrity and collapsed decks but deeper decks are in good condition notice lack of shell plaing on starboard side while there is more of shell plating on port side. alsos tern edge shell plating is intact [area of steering gear]...so stern probably was going on spiral with list to port all time untill hitting the bottom. if it righted itself there would be only ship skeleton, entire shell plating would be ripped away, like skinned banana also another important thing - when stern has hit the seafloor the water was pushed in and out ripping off more shell plating and more decks collapse. hit on sea floor might have done 50-70% of destruction on stern and rest caused by escaping air from trapped sections eventually causing decks collapse.

why bow section did not lose shell plating so much? because bow was going down like bullet,destructive water force had no way to demolish,impact on sea floor did damage decks but bow section was in very good condition and water managed to remove cargo holds covers and throwing them away,probably the first forward compartments compressed at level of double bottom?? so bow itself is little deeper than part of amidships area. there is giant hole between bow and amidships on starbaord side,most likely caused by impact,the bow compressed and pulled the amidships,amidships hit the floor on heel while bow had list,not eoungh force to pull bow back and hole between area forms up.

if titanic was very well watertight and sunk with more air inside (unflooded cabins,toilets,coal bunkers etc.) there would be more total destruction areas,coal bunkers did flood after boiler rooms atleast in boiler room 1 ebcause this coa bunker was total empty,there was just space.

howewer if we combine all coal bunkers and "merge" them to form up compartments then there was more than 4-5 flooded,probably 7 or 8 compartments at once. (only if wall between coal bunkers between boiler rooms was removed) lets take a stb coal bunker from boiler room 5 and stb coal bunker from boile room six,now imagine wall between coal bunkers removal what we get? another compartment!

so lets analyze situation of boiler room 6 after collision,the guys were throwing burning coal into floor and after some time steam was blown off boiler room 6 was flooding slowly and coal bunker of boiler room 6 was also taking water,why did coal bunker door did not fail on boiler room six while doors to coal bunker failed in boiler room 5? maybe the coal bunker of boiler room 6 actually wa damaged but maybe the wall between br 5 and br6 was damaged on shell plating area so water was coming to coal bunker in br 5 fromhole in hull and hole in wall between coal bunkers.

if there was air pockets in cabins in bow section after break the water would eventually push inside the iluminators causing unflooded cabins to flood.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Yes, but I see a problem from outside the box.

I don't care what you "See." I really don't. Opinions do not count, Facts DO count.
SHOW is the broken propeller blade.
SHOW us the exploded boiler.

If you can't manage that, than we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Post 64 is consistant with my beliefs because I just repeated what the survivors said in regards to the boiler explosion e.g. Mrs. Abbott having her thighs burnt and she herself believed a boiler explosion caused those burns. You however dismissed her claim and said it was frost bite. Where is your proof? Did you inspect the patient? .

Where is your proof she has burned thighs? Only 1 newspaper account mentioned it! This report about her in hospital has it not mentioned
Mrs Abbott Is Still In Hospital
and nor did Amy Stanley who did took care of her aboard Carpathia. Where are the other survivors as you mentioned survivors got burned? Who else???? Why was Weikmann not burned??? Did you inspect her?

Also in post 64 I asked you - Q - You told me to look up the testimony of five crew men. Do you believe they were present in the boiler rooms in the final moments before she exploded and witnessed the contents of every boiler to see if they were lit or not? You did not answer. However it is clear you believed their accounts support the theory that the boilers did not explode. Therefore if you want to use their testimonies to convince me, then you need to prove to me that they witnessed every single boiler in the final moments before she exploded to see if they were lit or not. e.g. If just one of them inspected boiler rooms 1, 2, 3, and 4 right before she exploded and thoroughly checked they were not lit, then that would be satisfactory proof to convince me, otherwise I would require proof from the wreck with a thorough inspection of her boiler rooms. If you wish to convince that none of the boilers exploded then those are my terms.

So why are you not reading the testimony of the crew members I mentioned? You are posting quotes from others who mentioned a explosion so why are you not looking of posting the ones I mentioned? Why did you Ignore them? Did those who mentioned a boiler explosion where there down in the boiler rooms see them exploding? Where is your proof?
And by the way Dillon belonged to the crew members for Boiler Room No.1 as the boilers were not lit he was working in the main engine room when the collision took place. Why are you ignoring that fact?

4 - There is no sign of the missing propeller blade where it should be. No bolts that held it in place. No markings on the sand where it would carve as the stern rotated. No mound of sand dug up by the blade. There is no evidence whatever to indicate that the blade is there..

No marks on the sand? Why are you still ignoring the fact that the propellers did not scratch the sand? It is you who is still making that claim! If the starboard propeller marked the sand the port one would have done the same. You have 0 evidence 0 proof for what you claim.

It is strange that you and Michael are doing your best to convince me.

1 - Why?

My assessment remains the same. If you don't convince me, then I naturally can't change my assessment of how the ship may have sunk. I suppose my main question would be, why do you want to convince me?
.

Why are you wanting to convince us that there was a boiler explosion or the ship sunk as you claim?

 

[Aaron_2016]

Where is your proof she has burned thighs? Only 1 newspaper account mentioned it! This report about her in hospital has it not mentioned
Mrs Abbott Is Still In Hospital
and nor did Amy Stanley who did took care of her aboard Carpathia. Where are the other survivors as you mentioned survivors got burned? Who else???? Why was Weikmann not burned??? Did you inspect her?





So why are you not reading the testimony of the crew members I mentioned? You are posting quotes from others who mentioned a explosion so why are you not looking of posting the ones I mentioned? Why did you Ignore them? Did those who mentioned a boiler explosion where there down in the boiler rooms see them exploding? Where is your proof?
And by the way Dillon belonged to the crew members for Boiler Room No.1 as the boilers were not lit he was working in the main engine room when the collision took place. Why are you ignoring that fact?





No marks on the sand? Why are you still ignoring the fact that the propellers did not scratch the sand? It is you who is still making that claim! If the starboard propeller marked the sand the port one would have done the same. You have 0 evidence 0 proof for what you claim.




Why are you wanting to convince us that there was a boiler explosion or the ship sunk as you claim?

You are a very strange person if you think I'm going to respond to that kind of rudeness. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe what I think may have happened and you know that. No matter what I say to you it is not good enough, so there is no point debating with you. When Jim Currie was discussing Fred Barrett and his testimony and he innocently spelt his name Barratt by accident, you deliberately out of spite kept telling him he was wrong about the testimony because Barrett didn't say that. You knew he was talking about Barrett but you just had to stir up trouble and provoke an argument out of him. I only respond to members who know how to reply in a polite and civil manner.


.

 

[Mark Baber]

Moderator's hat on:

Knock off the personal comments and stick to the subject.

Moderator's hat off.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

You are a very strange person if you think I'm going to respond to that kind of rudeness. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe what I think may have happened and you know that. No matter what I say to you it is not good enough, so there is no point debating with you. When Jim Currie was discussing Fred Barrett and his testimony and he innocently spelt his name Barratt by accident, you deliberately out of spite kept telling him he was wrong about the testimony because Barrett didn't say that. You knew he was talking about Barrett but you just had to stir up trouble and provoke an argument out of him. I only respond to members who know how to reply in a polite and civil manner.


.

Why are you still not answering the questions?!
Funny how you still avoid answering any question pointed out to you, instead again start with rude attacks and provocation! No Aaron, I simply asked the same questions you did and the only rude person here is YOU!

 

[Aaron_2016]

Why are you still not answering the questions?!
Funny how you still avoid answering any question pointed out to you, instead again start with rude attacks and provocation! No Aaron, I simply asked the same questions you did and the only rude person here is YOU!

Sticks and stones. You can't bully and then play the innocent card with me. The moderator has to continually step in when you become out of line. I will not answer any sarcastic questions that are intentionally designed to cause provocation and you know that. If you genuinely want to ask me a question about a possible explosion then say it with genuine interest in a civil tone, otherwise don't waist my time.

.

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Sticks and stones. You can't bully and then play the innocent card with me. The moderator has to continually step in when you become out of line. I will not answer any sarcastic questions that are intentionally designed to cause provocation and you know that. If you genuinely want to ask me a question about a possible explosion then say it with genuine interest in a civil tone, otherwise don't waist my time.

.

Another rude attack and provocation from your side. Time to report!