dont you guys no, when a ship with open spaces bend the floors bend downward whitch causes compression on the ship then when it breaks the floors will crash dwnward whitch could hav been y the ships decks are slanted pluss the collision with the seabead also this theory would explain why in the movie the roof collapsed down and the wooden poles exploded its because of the compression
SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE THEORY, HOWEVER IN MY OPINION, I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THE SHIP MIGHT OF ROSE UP TO ABOUT A 20 DEGREE ANGLE, AND BROKE IN THREE SECTIONS INSTEAD OF TWO. IF WE TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT HOW THE BOW SECTION APPEARS, IT LOOKS SOMEWHAT SHORT, SHORTER THAN HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO LOOK IF IT WOULD OF BROKE IN TWO PIECES. PERHAPS THE THIRD MIDDLE SECTION WAS SMASHED AND CRUMBLED UP WHEN THE FINAL PLUNGE BEGAN, WHEN THE BOW WAS PULLING THE STERN SECTION TO THE TOP.
@gerr1986 It sounds better, after the place where the "third piece" might have came of during the break-up was in theory quite weak in structure, after it contained only few small rooms and the rear smaller first class stair case and huge piston engine room.
There is only one problem with this theory, if the keel was the last thing holding the ship together, and broke separately from the ship, then why does the double bottom have a clean break appearance, i am not an engineer, but a clean break suggests a rapid failure, and the upper decks were stretched and broke last
I personally think this new theory about the break up is what actually happened when it broke up. The only thing I think is incorrect is the fact it's the the front of the bow section remaining underwater after the break. I think that before the keel finally broke, the bow pushed up against the stern so much that not only did the stern rise to the higher angle but also the bow was pushed up to a higher angle so the front of it came up out the water before coming apart from the stern completely.
If Titanic broke at 11 degrees, she would never have been fit to sail on the Atlantic in the first place. If she had not hit the iceberg and perhaps encountered any storms later in her career, she would have split in half then too. It is impossible for the split at 11 degrees because she would have endured pitching of 11 degrees and over in Atlantic storms. The survivors say the ship was high out of the water, and I am more in favor of the ship breaking at 30 degrees.
Titanic was not labeled as "unsinkable" without qualification until after the sinking. It's a common misconception that White Star called its ship unsinkable. In fact, they didn't. A magazine of the day used the phrase "practically unsinkable," in regards to the Titanic after all its watertight compartments had been closed.
And hey, it was technically true. Had four compartments flooded rather than five, the Titanic wouldn't have foundered.
the mangled decks on the bow doesn't convince me of the shallow angle brake up theory...it was even showed in the movie, the decks were broken off clean untill it hit the ocean floor and the impact caused those decks to collapse...this guy is just one of those prove everyone wrong kind
@orkneysnorknie You are right, if the shallow break up was true than the upper deck would actually mangle upwards. I know because I tested this theory serveral times on a model.
@SuperPH34R What modeling software did you use? Was it the finite element type?
Also, Mengot's shallow analysis with the keel / tanktop and rib failure accounts for the flattened decks. Especially failure around the start of the plinth bed for the reciprocators.
@papwalker99 you make a deacent point, sorry for my mispelling, but there were alot of interviews of people who were there and they said they saw it with their own eyes and what they said was it broke at a high angle, dont mean to b an asshole but i am still not convinced, sorry
@SuperPH34R The problem is that there more people and officers who said she went down in one piece and the was no breakup and no angle at all. Recall that until Dr. Ballard found the wreck, two inquiries and the whole world believed her to be in *one piece*. Everyone was shocked to find her broken in two.
Thus eyewitness accounts are unreliable to say the least.
I believe this theory is more plausible simply because the break up happened under the water's surface. Remember that Louis Patten (Grand Daughter of 2nd Officer Charles Lightoller) said that they continued to sail even faster after the ship hit the berg? The bow of the ship would become submerged causing the force of water to collapse the ship in the middle then break apart under water.
@papwalker99 Your right about the unreliable eyewitnesses, it was really dark after the light went out so there is no actual proof of both theorys, people will believe what they want to ( no disrespect ), i personally like to believe in the high angle break up theory, but the point is that i guess nobody will ever know and those that did died in the disaster, and they are right about one thing and that is that the debate will go on and nobody will ever know. :)
I don't believe this anymore. Jim Cameron 2005 found plates, saucers and china stacked neatly in a pantry cupboard around C20. No breakage, not scattered or moved. Just sitting on the shelf. I have doubts about forces that can collaps decks and not disturb crockery and glassware 40 meters away. There was also a clock still sitting on the mantle peice. It had moved but not fallen over or off.
I think Mengot was close to the mark on the breakup.
One of the last radio messages received from the Titanic said that the engine room was flooding. I have never understood how that was possible if the stern was sticking out of the water at a high angle. With the low angle breakup theory, it makes perfect sense.
Now, if only someone could explain why Jack Thayer's eyewitness drawing, made the next morning aboard the Carpathia, showed both the bow AND stern sticking up above the water at one point.
The only way I can see that happening is if the bow and stern completely separated immediately after the breakup, rather than remaining attached at the keel. Then the bow's center of gravity would have shifted suddenly, since the amidships portion was more massive than the forward portion. The bow section would have pivoted, causing the bow to briefly breach the surface before the whole thing sank. It probably was only visible for a few seconds, and most people didn't notice it.
@NeeCheful They did. Each survivor told a different story.
About the breaking: I always thought it's more likely for something to split up if it is closer to its horizontal position than to vertical. And it's nice some science seems to confirm it.
Let's say Roger Long's theory is correct. What about "the big piece?" Wouldn't that have been mangled in the V bend? And wouldn't the wooden planks on the broken part of the bow have peeled forward if the stern was pushed against it?
the salt water will destroy the bones by desolving them you can try a experiment with a piece of concrete and salt water but it will take sometime for you to notice the damage that salt water will do to it
@win7pc360 No. Soft, bodily remains would have been completely dissolved long, long ago. All that remains of where bodies used to lie today are leather shoes.
@win7pc360 No. Soft, bodily remains would have been completely dissolved long, long ago. All that remains of where bodies used to lie today are leather shoes.
Roger Long's theory is entirely dependent on the rate of water coming into the ship during the sinking. Correct me if I'm wrong on this...but there hasn't been an official test done to either confirm or dispute the rate of water coming into the structure.
If that's true then it's possible Roger Long's theory is using incorrect data based on an incomplete and uncorroborated test of the rate of water coming into the ship. It's the only way to explain his theory of a short angle.
I just read Brad Matsen's book; "Titanic's last secrets." The evidence presented is interesting and offers a convincing explanation. Well worth a read.
the whole titanic attempt to dodge the berg, the breakup theory is a conspiracy. no researcher today can say murdoch actually ordered to reverse the engines to slow titanic down but some say the telegraphs only were put on stop, no one today can say that titanic broke at shallow angle. only the survivors knw.
This seams fairly similar to how Jack Thayer said the Titanic sank except he clearly described it hitting an angle of at least 30 degrees. I can see the bow and stern mashing together on the way down, the problem I have with the 11 degree angle theory is at 5:01 the 3 flooded compartments in the middle somehow over power the front 6 to 8 compartments which you have to remember would be completely flooded by then, that should weigh much more then the 3 middle ones and doesn't stack up for me.
I think Roger Long's theory on the breakup is correct but the mechanics suggest the traditional theory is still in play. In other words...the stern was at the James Cameron high angle when the upper structure started to fail. But here's the difference - the ship started to break up while the bow was deeply submerged. This would cause the upper structure of the ship to get crushed as the weight of the water was pulling the ship down. This accounts for the double hull breaking clean.
@DorothyFan1 The upper structure failing would not have cause the hull to fail. The whole expansion joint theory is BS. The expansion joints were part of the superstructure, which was situated above the strength deck (B-deck) and therefore above the top of the structural hull girder. Thus, the expansion joints had no meaning for the support of the hull. The theory that she broke up from the bottom up is dumb. The theory that she broke at a low angle is stupid too.
@DorothyFan1 The break up could have started anywhere around B-Deck down to E-Deck. Below that is unlikely as there was less stress closer to the double hull than at B-Deck. It's the deck with above the upper most portholes on the "white area" of the ship. The rest did nothing to add to strength. You're right about how the upper decks may have been smashed together. The bow may have even leveled off a bit after the hull broke and was being held together by the double bottom.
@DorothyFan1 It would explain why that part of the bottom looked to be pulled apart. It had been bent both ways and broke as it was pulled. It was bent down as the stern broke and fell back level, and bent the other way as the bow pulled the stern down until it was standing straight up. Being bent back and forth with that much stress would cause any metal to fail.
here's my theory: Titanic did reach that high 30 degree angle, and broke from the top down to the double-bottom. as the bow pulled the stern up, the stern crushed the upper decks. then the stern sinks. the bilge keel was from when the stern ripped itself apart on the way to the ocean floor since it has a lot of trapped air. the mangling on the upper deck in the bow fell downwards when the bow hit the ocean floor at 30 to 40 mph (48 to 64 km/h)
The Britannic (Titanic's sister ship) sank when it hit a mine and sank. As it sank, it reached an angle of about 11 degrees but did not split at such a low angle. Plus many survivors say they saw it split "as clean as butter" at a higher angle. I still think the first theory is correct. ☺ :)
Roger Long's theory has been partially debunked. According to analysis of the double hull structure...it was remarkably stronger than previously thought and would have been able to withstand alot of pressure. This discounts the shallow angle theory. But the mechanics of Roger Long's theory on the Titanic breakup may still prove correct.
I think it's possible to use Roger Long's theory using the high angle especially if the bow had already been deeply submerged.
It's one of those things that just need a time machine. Just like the video said, it happened in the dark and the witnesses would not only have not seen everything but we can only imagine the distraugt they would have been going through, both on the sinking ship and in the life boats. They wern't thinking "I must watch everything so that I can ensure historians in 100 years will know every fact". Get a time machine stealth boat, sit a few miles from the sinking and watch it sink.
In that video supporting the shallow angle theory, it shows the stern sinking after a few seconds. As petty as I may sound, it is pretty much accepted that Titanic stood up in the water totally vertical for at least a few minutes before going under. There's also valid survivor accounts (Eva Hart and Ruth Becker come to mind) which state that she clearly and visibly broke in half above the surface. And the bent, downward appearance of the bow split is probably from when she hit the ocean floor.
This explains why a lot of surivers claimed that it didnt break, because it lookedl ike it went down in one piece and felt like it went down in one piece, if it brok elike in the movie, evreyone would of felt the ship go down, the people in the lifeboats would of heard it and everything but only 7 survivors claimed it broke up
@TheRealAdfirmatio no,alot more survivors said it broke up including jack thayer,chief baker jouhghin,eva hart,archibald butt,bruce ismay,norris willians,frank pertice(or something like that),and molly brown.and more.
Survivors can´t always be "trusted" i mean not that they lie, but they´re all like 100 years old so they don´t have such a good memory and in the heat of the moment people don´t really care about watching the ship sink they just wanna survive.Plus they´re all dead now. RIP survivors
@Killjoy45 Exactly. The survivors are the only ones who can tell the real story. And yes, the ones who saw the ship sink either saw it break in one piece (usually, those were the ones who were in far away lifeboats). The ones in closer lifeboats said the ship broke like theory one. None of the survivors described theory 2 in their testimonials.
The first theory is based on reports by actual eyewitnesses. They saw it for real unlike any of these investigators which everyone believe that their theories are the real ones no matter what. I know that about half of the witnesses ''saw'' the ship sinking as one piece, but we have to remember that some of them couldn't even watch the ship sinking and so on they didn't see the breakup. But those who saw it will make the ''theory 1'' the real one.
@MrRocha90 That is a very smart thing to say, but the survivors would have been tired and scared out of their boots and it was in the middle of the night (thus dark). Of course witness accounts must be taken into account. But modern day science looking at the wreck must be listened to. Prehaps the 10 degree angle is correct or maybe the twisted metal that shows this theory was bent on impact with the ocean. We will never know, atleast not at the moment.
Another problem with the Shallow Angel theory. We would have heard survivor accounts of being suddenly lifted into the air because Roger Long's theory suggests at a shallow angle the water was holding the ship together until the double hull failed. At that point...the water causing the ship to break would have caused a sudden physical tearing of the ship before the plunge making survivors jump off the ship...like airplane turbulence in the skies syndrome.
1. With the stern lifted off just 10 or 11 degrees would mean the breakup happened before the lights went off. This would have allowed the survivors to see the ship crack before taking the final plunge. But survivor accounts don't suggest this. This means the High Angel theory is still in play.
2. With the Shallow Angel theory...the buildup of water causing the double hull to fail would have caused the stern to topple over sideways instead.
according to a 1912 newspaper I had the privelage to read at State Records Archive ... witness statements describe how she broke COMPLETLY in two at the surface and the two halves drifted apart .... sounds silly??? just remember ... FOR 70 YEARS ... the world was told she went down in one piece.
My theory is that when the titanic reached a 15 degree angle, the hull began to fail, but stopped at the double bottom, as the bow continued to sink, the stern still raised, but was held together by the double bottom, Because of the fact that there was a hinge between the 3rd and 4th funnels, thats where the break continued from, The engines pulled that space farther down, while the dry areas of the stern kept it afloat, the bow seperated after filling completley, and the stern was left there
It's funny because they talk about how to top decks like the boat deck are crunched inwards instead of the keel to support the theory that the break up happened from the bottom up, but when the ship went vertical the stern section would have crashed into the bow section of the ship before finally detaching itself and sinking. Couldn't of this collision caused the damage that they are using to support their theory?? Maybe they forgot about that.....
Theories from Scientists and Researchers are just theories. I'll stick to survivor accounts from those who were ACTUALLY there that night. People can't claim how what degree the stern rose and how the Titanic actually broke. Those who were on board the Titanic during the final moments and those in the water or in the nearest lifeboats saw what happened with the ship rising into the air before the lights went out. I'll stick to the survivor accounts of people who were there... not amateurs...
The problem with that people didn't care much for the ship they were trying to escape. Also, no matter how the ship broke, all accounts state that the lights flickered and then went out (they would have had to, regardless of whether the ship even broke apart or not). This means that whatever went on went on in the dark. There were differing accounts among the survivors as well.
Wait a minute. If the break up started near the bottom, and it was near the stern, shouldn't that have supported the stern a little? Sure, it still would have broken up, but the stern would fall to a lower angle instead of staying in the air, instead of just falling.
Read "Titanic's Last Secrets" it is the book that resulted from this expidition and includes the secret study Harland & Wolff conducted after the sinking. H&W knew the ship was weak and possibly dangerously so based on the performance of the Olympic, as the mans says "steel doesnt lie" the forensic evidence for the low angle break up just makes sense mathmaticly based on the evidence, including survivors accounts who recalled suddenly being in the water. ALOT was covered up at the inquiry.
Let's end this discussion once and for all. I know I'm right on this one. Like I said: the break-up occured BELOW the waterline, DURING the sinking, at a HIGH angle. Hence the break-up itself was not visible. The reason why so many eye witnesses knew that she had broken in half was because they heard an explosion, followed by cracking noises and the stern moving strangely for a few seconds. It also explains why some people claimed that the ship sank intact.
@LightStijn oh aren't you a fucking bigot. hundreds of people said they saw the ship break in half. One survivor drew a fucking picture at the hearings. But what they probably saw was the top section fail. They probably thought that the ship split like that because the impending stress on the rest of the middle section would have given away very quickly. How would the survivors know that the explosion meant the ship split? It could have meant anything.
@papacharlie123 Do you really believe the stern fell back into the water, causing two huge waves that would have swamped every lifeboat? And what is there not to understand about the explosion part? If you hear a loud explosion, followed by cracking noises, followed by a bizarre movement of the stern, then you're not like: "Whoops, I think someone farted."
Ugh, why am I even replying to you? My last comment should have ended this discussion.
@LightStijn The Titanic's lifeboats where not near the ship to begin with because they thought the suction would take the boats under. Eyewitnesses had said that people had been scared of that. The people in the lifeboats saw everything until the lights shut off. They had said the Titanic was at a high angle, and they had heard crashing because of the stuff inside the ship falling forward, because of the tilt.
1. It doesn't matter how far the lifeboats were from the ship. Big tidal waves like that would have reached them and hit them hard in no time. So the usual break-up theory doesn't make any sense. None whatsoever.
2. Yes, but the big explosion they heard was caused by the destruction of the boilers, not just any "stuff". This explosion has contributed to the break-up; beneath the waterline.
@LightStijn Boilers have been found intact on the bottom and waves no matter how big they are are not going to stay big forever. Tidel waves are 50 foot waves, the Titanic's stern hitting the water would've made a big splash, like throwing a pebble into a puddle. The Titanic was big but not that big. Even tidel waves are nothing on open sea, when they reach shore is when they are huge. Anything that hits water splashes and ripples like a puddle. If you jump into a pool it would do that.
@WTCLover Geez, how do I have to explain this to you? How many arguments do you need? More than half of the eye witnesses claimed that the Titanic sank intact, including Second Officer Lightoller. How do you explain this? You really think they wouldn't have noticed if she broke up like you said? It's because the break-up occured just BENEATH the waterline, after which the stern reached a high angle and disappeared in the water like a black thumb in a bathtub. Fuck James Cameron's theory.
@LightStijn Many also said the ship broke in half, it was proved to have broke in half when it had been discovered. James Cameron went with many of the witnesses, if it had broke up under the water why is the stern messed up now? If it sank in one piece, why did it break up at all? The bow and stern sections are over a mile apart, with a huge debris field in between them. The Titanic was found 74 years after it had sank, don't you think alot could've happened in that time?
@WTCLover Where did you learn how to read? I never said that the ship broke while being completely submerged. What I said was that the break-up occured beneath the waterline, while the stern was still ABOVE the waterline. That's the only break-up theory that actually makes sense.
@LightStijn Even if it had starting to break up under the water if the Titanic was at a high angle it would have fallen. Gravity is still in play, the main idea of the Titanic breaking in half was at or just below the surface of the water. This guy is saying it started long before it even got at a high angle, when the lights would have been on. The lights where on for awhile because of people putting coal in the boilers, so they would stay on in case another ship was near them.
@WTCLover Lol, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Is my english really that bad? It's so obvious. The final break-up occured at a high angle, below the waterline, bending the upper decks and slowly lowering the stern back into the water, without any splash. My theory doesn't exclude the fact that the break-up had already started at a shallow angle. If only I could draw this out for you...
@LightStijn But if it had started at a shallow angle why did not 1 survivor say it did? The lights would have been on at that time, so they would have seen it. The ship only took 2 hours and 40 minutes to sink. The entire ship would've come back level if it would have been slowly lowered back into the water. The bow would've been still been connected. Both parts of the ship had to have sunk separably to be a mile apart. How does anyone know the decks where not crushed until the bo
@WTCLover until the bow hit the bottom? Like I said before the ship was discovered 74 years after it sank, lots of stuff could've happened to it in that time. The decks could have collapsed because of rust. People assume it happened because of the break up, maybe it happened because of rusting at the bottom for 74 years.
Im only 10 so don't yell at me if this sounds stupid but I wonder if it sunk intact and when it hit the ocean floor it broke and it got thrown apart from the bow or if how fast it was going down broke it and separated it.
@251rocker it was going down to the bottom as fast as it hit the iceberg.... she sure;y didnt break when she hit the ocean floor cause the back ( stern ) is half a mile away... i thoughtd id just let u know that lil fact
today i finally lerned wat the tiatanic was i never herd of it because i'm 9 and i'm using my dad's profile hopefully i will read the book and the movie
What I think is: Why is it a conspiracy? Why do they need theories? I mean, every one at the time, even the youngest survivor is dead now, but surely being witness to the disaster, they could have accurately explained what happened when it sank assuming they weren't too gobsmacked to speak back in their time and then passed the facts on?
Even MORE eyewitnesses said that they saw the ship break in half. Robert Ballard's findings of the Titanic wreck in 1985 only supports the break-up testimonials. I mean, If people actually claim to have seen the ship break in half, which they did, why would you favor the ship going down intact when it was reported to have broken up, and then FOUND broken in half, especially when people said they saw it break apart in the first place?
also, the Titanic DID break at a high angle...the reason why the back on Titanic is broken is because when she hit the bottom, the force of the impact made the back on her bow, crash
Do you honestly believe that the massive steel was under more pressure when it hit ocean bottom than it was when the part of the titanic below the surface was pulling itself towards the ocean bottom? We're talking about approx. 30 000 ton of weight(for the part below surface) + water pressure just hanging on the backbone. If I were eyewitness there, I wouldn't be able to tell if it was 10° or 20° angle when it broke, I'd be in shock and would be fighting for my life.
eh, this is straight up lying edvince...if they asked the last survivor of the Titanic herself before she died, she would've proved them wrong...in fact, 79% of the WHOLE world think that this 'theory' is a big, fat lie
...it's not the 'unsinkable' remark that made God mad...it was the name. 'Titans' were the Greek Gods and White Star made a ship after the Gods, AND they were honoring the ship. Hell, it was Sin City on that ship, so, God sank it. The reason why God didn't touch Olympic was because the 'Olympicans' were the tyrantant Gods and most loyal to God. But, even Olympic had it's flaws too, but it didn't sink, like it's two sisters
This theory is actually very plausible, but I don't think we will ever know the truth because not only are all the survivors now dead, but each year we wait, the Titanic's remains fade away just a little more. It's actually really sad to think that in another hundred or so years, there may be nothing left of that great ship bellow the sea.
The last memories of the Titanic's sinking were destroyed in 2006 when the last survivor who had any recollection of it died. Now even the lady who was an infant at the time is dead.
exactly! Listen to the survivors! They were ACTUALLY there and Witnessed it! They saw how it really happened. It obviously didn't happen like this. Listen to your history! Find interviews on Eva Hart, Ruth Becker, Marjorie Robb, Frankie Goldsmith, and Edith Russel. They know what they're talking about!!
I remember reading somewhere that humans tend to over-estimate angles when viewing them (but not when showing with their hands) ...
So say the eye witnesses (from the lifeboats and etc.) were asked to *see* the angle of the stern, but not to *show* it -- suddenly the angle is exaggerated... so it is definitely possible.
Also, I don't think it matters if it's 11 degrees or 30... that much steel in the air? S'gonna look really, really high up off the water.
but i still think it was this one because people disagreed that it split and said that it split well it wasnt as obvious because if it was 35 degrees in angle i think people would hear it or see it but if it split like this it doesnt seem so obvious that people would see it
I think it was 20 maybe 25 degrees since people there said it was up very high. I think its a combination of both. it reached a high angle but split in the way it did in this knew theory which explains how the broken ends of the ship look like at the bottom. Pulled down on top, and pulled up at bottom.
the ship still after the break in this theory, still goes up on a high angle before totally breaking off and then doing straight in the air and sinking
i think the mangled edges are valid evidence for this theory. they might just as well look like that because the ship has been on the ocean floor for almost 100 years, so of course they're gonna get weak and start to hang down.
The lower angel makes sense there's a drawing from 1912 that shows the break-up, and in the drawing the bow broke the surface during the break up, the only way I see that possible is if the ship broke at a low angle at two stages or from the bottom up. However owing to the poor condition of the stern makes it impossible to confirm any theory, and the break up itself occured after the lights had gone out
Here's what i think happened: Titanic reached a high angle (like in the movie) and then slipt. When the bow pulled the stern up it mangled the end of the bow. And the bilge keel was from when the stern ripped itself apart on the way down.
@bettabreeder181 That is exactly what i think..the double bottom was very strong, so it is not that damaged....and aditionally, tha damage of the upper decks could have happened on impact....
One way to know how steep was Titanic before it broke up is remembering what the survivors still saw, the people began to slide down the decks. In a 11 degree angle that could not happened. people would be walking up hill, but they wouldn't slide down as it was shown in the movie. The survivors(both detractors & believers of the break) saw that, & they saw it with the ship's lights on, in dark it would've been impossible to see it. I believe she broke at 20 degrees not too high not too low.
Survivors said the lights at the stern stayed on after she broke in two. Remember the power generators were at the back of the ship and were still fully manned by the crew down below. Witnesses said the bow lights dimmed red and then went out first when she broke, and the stern lights stayed on for a long time afterwards but finally flickered and went out just before the stern made it's final plunge.
The only reason the end of the bow was "mangled and bent steeply downwards" is because the decks collapsed on top of each other when it hit the seabed. And the double bottom would be "cleanly broken off" because that was the strongest metal on the ship. I think the way it sank in the 1997 film was how it sank in reality.
Let's not forget that expansion joint. Sure it would have NEVER been able to support the Titanic if the ship was to attain a higher angle of say 15 degrees, but what IF that expansion joint was partly submerged? After all, many passengers testified seeing only a little bit of the bottom before the Titanic's break-up, and these testimonies reinforce the prospect of the expansion joint being half-underwater.
Consider this....If the hull was not designed to put up with an angle higher than say 20 degrees, then the ship wouldn't be very seaworthy, would it? After all, Harland and Wolff constructed many ships of the same strength steel, and if what was true about the low angle of the Titanic, think of how many ships, including the Titanic's sister Olympic, would have crached like peanuts during rough seas when the hull was unsupported between troughs of waves.
If the ship sank like that then it would have sunk minutes earlier than 2:20am. And the only reason the edge of the bow was "mangled" is because the decks collapsed on top of each other when the bow hit the seabed. The only reason the double bottom is still intact is because it is the strongest part of the ship so it wouldn't be "crushed and compressed".
Forget Joughin....he was tipsy. It has already been established in Encyclopedia Titanica that Joughin was a very poor candidate for a personal testimonial. Second, the scenario of the stern standing vertical before the final plunge is very abundant among passenger accounts, particularly because of the recipricating engines forward near the break-up weighing the stern down.
Don't forget the front part was racing to the bottom. When it first hits, the very front of the ship is bent/mangeled up, then the rest falls down, front and ship bends the other way a bit, and as the rest of the ship hits the bottom of he sea, the decks near the break-up is mangeled together. But it is just another theory... the back section of the ship is destroyed. Torn apart.
According to Joughin, the ship can't go near perpendicular forwards. Because he gives a large port list and others like Ableseth don't note the direction, this is sound. Therefore, the V bend would bob it up like a qork. The ship would rest back down then since it can't go to 20-25 degrees tops, though even 30 degrees would even have it go to the mid teen area if the water was only up to the engine room as shown here.
Not flat horizontal, but more Cameron's where the stern is lightly in air.
Also, most stress tests don't factor lists to the side. At even 10-15 degrees to port, the ship isn't on even keel. After that, the ship actually plunged very quickly, there is a 911 ft long air craft carrier that plunge very quickly as well. Other ships show the same nature and one larger ship plunged to a high angle in only a minute.
Titanic would likely taken 2-2 and a half minutes to plunge to such an angle of nearer to 17-20 degrees. This is an easy angle to walk on as well.
There is testimony that sounds like this and that, however, one said she rose after she appearently broke and then leveled out. Another said she reached the aft funnel and Collins said the lights went when water was near the middle of the ship.
Lastly, some of this is old news and Mengot and others found that while it would tare evenly, there are compressive and tensil stresses found. Mengot shows there is even an S shaped dissfiguration as well and did finites on the keel with others.
He proved that a bottom up failure is a possibility as well with the finite. Regardless, the keel is what tares the ship apart, be it top to bottom or opposite. The joint had alot of load as it was isolating the stress to the regions as its ment to.
I kinda agreed to others theory but, the problem is if anyone was still alive maybe we could evidence a bit more. my theory is that the ship broke its back at 35 degree angle or maybe more, even thou the weight of the boilers and mechanics in the ship and the people the ship outside the ship it could of hold on a little bit longer, but it sank in between breaking points so it couldn't of went up totally sinking.
Well, the back of the front part is bent down possibly because of the heavy impact on the ocean floor. The front hits, is bent, the rest falls down and hits, and the back is crushed together. But it's just a theory among many others.
@DreadLordBalnazaar I agree with you, but another factor that could have made Titanic look like that could possibly be the intense water pressure pushing down this unstable section of the ship.
@DreadLordBalnazaar u may be right 3:32 i think it was heavy impact because if it was the theory in this video i think it will be a little more mangled now like a flat bend down if that photo was a painting forget what i said =p
A lot of people have a lot of great and different ideas- especially the one person who said that a distress call was received by the Californian (not the Virginian lol) at 2:17.
Starwarsworld, where did you read that they got this at 2:17? Thats kinda interesting seeing that got it only minutes before the ship was gone.
Many things are possible, but at the same time, I think we will fully never know about what happened. Its 98 years since the event and no one is alive to tell the tale.
Remember that this is just a theory. There are many theories on the break-up theory, some of them quite plausable in their own respects, including this one. But if this theory here was actually proof, why does it contradict so many eye-witness testimonies, such as ppl in the boats saying otherwise that the ship attained a higher angle, ppl actually witnessing from the boats the break-up, etc. If we just discard these testimonies, then what is the point of hearing from ppl who were witnesses?
@TheGozalus Of course it is a theory, but all of the evidence gathered proves that it hapened like this. It is aso shown that people thought that the reason many thought it broke at a steep angle was cuz it was an illusion.When it broke, the propellors were a few stories out of the water, making it seem like it was higher than it actually was.
@TheGozalus i wonder too why does it contradict eye-witness testimonies... one thing i thought about is that people couldn't see under the water and it was also dark. it may have looked like how they showed it in the movie when it actually happened the way shown in this video. con
dont you guys no, when a ship with open spaces bend the floors bend downward whitch causes compression on the ship then when it breaks the floors will crash dwnward whitch could hav been y the ships decks are slanted pluss the collision with the seabead also this theory would explain why in the movie the roof collapsed down and the wooden poles exploded its because of the compression
1912TITANICLOVER22 22 hours ago
SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE THEORY, HOWEVER IN MY OPINION, I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THE SHIP MIGHT OF ROSE UP TO ABOUT A 20 DEGREE ANGLE, AND BROKE IN THREE SECTIONS INSTEAD OF TWO. IF WE TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT HOW THE BOW SECTION APPEARS, IT LOOKS SOMEWHAT SHORT, SHORTER THAN HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO LOOK IF IT WOULD OF BROKE IN TWO PIECES. PERHAPS THE THIRD MIDDLE SECTION WAS SMASHED AND CRUMBLED UP WHEN THE FINAL PLUNGE BEGAN, WHEN THE BOW WAS PULLING THE STERN SECTION TO THE TOP.
gerr1986 6 days ago in playlist TITANIC
@gerr1986 It sounds better, after the place where the "third piece" might have came of during the break-up was in theory quite weak in structure, after it contained only few small rooms and the rear smaller first class stair case and huge piston engine room.
JokeriPokeri17 1 day ago
There is only one problem with this theory, if the keel was the last thing holding the ship together, and broke separately from the ship, then why does the double bottom have a clean break appearance, i am not an engineer, but a clean break suggests a rapid failure, and the upper decks were stretched and broke last
sotodnl 1 week ago
I personally think this new theory about the break up is what actually happened when it broke up. The only thing I think is incorrect is the fact it's the the front of the bow section remaining underwater after the break. I think that before the keel finally broke, the bow pushed up against the stern so much that not only did the stern rise to the higher angle but also the bow was pushed up to a higher angle so the front of it came up out the water before coming apart from the stern completely.
dopperuk 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Titanic broke at 11 degrees, she would never have been fit to sail on the Atlantic in the first place. If she had not hit the iceberg and perhaps encountered any storms later in her career, she would have split in half then too. It is impossible for the split at 11 degrees because she would have endured pitching of 11 degrees and over in Atlantic storms. The survivors say the ship was high out of the water, and I am more in favor of the ship breaking at 30 degrees.
JohnThePianoPlayer 3 weeks ago
i always get the idea of "haunted ship" when i see the 2 bigger remains of the sunken ship
aflacworld 2 months ago
titanic is so awsome
MommyinTx 2 months ago
the titanic's stern was pulled on top of the bow as it was pulled down after the break up. this can explain why its bent
Jakanddaxter1999 2 months ago
Titanic was not labeled as "unsinkable" without qualification until after the sinking. It's a common misconception that White Star called its ship unsinkable. In fact, they didn't. A magazine of the day used the phrase "practically unsinkable," in regards to the Titanic after all its watertight compartments had been closed.
And hey, it was technically true. Had four compartments flooded rather than five, the Titanic wouldn't have foundered.
drygnfyre 2 months ago
roughly 20 Knots (I may be wrong I dont remember) abruptly stoping in an instant and still forcing the bow down pushes the decks down.
WatchdogDisciple 3 months ago
If his theory is true than why are the sterns upper decks cleanly severed
SuperPH34R 3 months ago
the mangled decks on the bow doesn't convince me of the shallow angle brake up theory...it was even showed in the movie, the decks were broken off clean untill it hit the ocean floor and the impact caused those decks to collapse...this guy is just one of those prove everyone wrong kind
orkneysnorknie 3 months ago
@orkneysnorknie You are right, if the shallow break up was true than the upper deck would actually mangle upwards. I know because I tested this theory serveral times on a model.
SuperPH34R 3 months ago
@SuperPH34R What modeling software did you use? Was it the finite element type?
Also, Mengot's shallow analysis with the keel / tanktop and rib failure accounts for the flattened decks. Especially failure around the start of the plinth bed for the reciprocators.
papwalker99 1 month ago
@papwalker99 you make a deacent point, sorry for my mispelling, but there were alot of interviews of people who were there and they said they saw it with their own eyes and what they said was it broke at a high angle, dont mean to b an asshole but i am still not convinced, sorry
SuperPH34R 4 weeks ago
@SuperPH34R The problem is that there more people and officers who said she went down in one piece and the was no breakup and no angle at all. Recall that until Dr. Ballard found the wreck, two inquiries and the whole world believed her to be in *one piece*. Everyone was shocked to find her broken in two.
Thus eyewitness accounts are unreliable to say the least.
papwalker99 4 weeks ago
I believe this theory is more plausible simply because the break up happened under the water's surface. Remember that Louis Patten (Grand Daughter of 2nd Officer Charles Lightoller) said that they continued to sail even faster after the ship hit the berg? The bow of the ship would become submerged causing the force of water to collapse the ship in the middle then break apart under water.
wurkinwoodwheel 3 weeks ago
@papwalker99 Your right about the unreliable eyewitnesses, it was really dark after the light went out so there is no actual proof of both theorys, people will believe what they want to ( no disrespect ), i personally like to believe in the high angle break up theory, but the point is that i guess nobody will ever know and those that did died in the disaster, and they are right about one thing and that is that the debate will go on and nobody will ever know. :)
SuperPH34R 3 weeks ago
@orkneysnorknie
I don't believe this anymore. Jim Cameron 2005 found plates, saucers and china stacked neatly in a pantry cupboard around C20. No breakage, not scattered or moved. Just sitting on the shelf. I have doubts about forces that can collaps decks and not disturb crockery and glassware 40 meters away. There was also a clock still sitting on the mantle peice. It had moved but not fallen over or off.
I think Mengot was close to the mark on the breakup.
papwalker99 1 month ago
One of the last radio messages received from the Titanic said that the engine room was flooding. I have never understood how that was possible if the stern was sticking out of the water at a high angle. With the low angle breakup theory, it makes perfect sense.
Now, if only someone could explain why Jack Thayer's eyewitness drawing, made the next morning aboard the Carpathia, showed both the bow AND stern sticking up above the water at one point.
rickl3000 3 months ago
@rickl3000
The only way I can see that happening is if the bow and stern completely separated immediately after the breakup, rather than remaining attached at the keel. Then the bow's center of gravity would have shifted suddenly, since the amidships portion was more massive than the forward portion. The bow section would have pivoted, causing the bow to briefly breach the surface before the whole thing sank. It probably was only visible for a few seconds, and most people didn't notice it.
rickl3000 3 months ago
The stern section rolled over on it's port side then went vertical, so it capsized.
starwarsfandude 4 months ago in playlist Titanic Breakup Theories
its amazing.... & thanks for the video..
TheMs1234321 4 months ago
Why dont they just ask a survior what they saw?
NeeCheful 4 months ago
@NeeCheful They did. Each survivor told a different story.
About the breaking: I always thought it's more likely for something to split up if it is closer to its horizontal position than to vertical. And it's nice some science seems to confirm it.
Virtimera 4 months ago
@NeeCheful Because there are no survivors left...
DarthAverage 3 months ago
Let's say Roger Long's theory is correct. What about "the big piece?" Wouldn't that have been mangled in the V bend? And wouldn't the wooden planks on the broken part of the bow have peeled forward if the stern was pushed against it?
startanica 5 months ago
i also saw a similar programme on five.
lsteer100 5 months ago
JOHN. STOP SAYING YESYESYESYESYESYESYES!
Facebook3682 5 months ago
If you look at the gravestone it says that the Captain of Titanic stayed at the Bridge.
So my question is, If the captain stayed on the bridge would there be a skeleton on the bridge?
win7pc360 5 months ago
@win7pc360
the salt water will destroy the bones by desolving them you can try a experiment with a piece of concrete and salt water but it will take sometime for you to notice the damage that salt water will do to it
darkrider97801 5 months ago
@win7pc360 No. Soft, bodily remains would have been completely dissolved long, long ago. All that remains of where bodies used to lie today are leather shoes.
drygnfyre 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@win7pc360 No. Soft, bodily remains would have been completely dissolved long, long ago. All that remains of where bodies used to lie today are leather shoes.
drygnfyre 2 months ago
Roger Long's theory is entirely dependent on the rate of water coming into the ship during the sinking. Correct me if I'm wrong on this...but there hasn't been an official test done to either confirm or dispute the rate of water coming into the structure.
If that's true then it's possible Roger Long's theory is using incorrect data based on an incomplete and uncorroborated test of the rate of water coming into the ship. It's the only way to explain his theory of a short angle.
DorothyFan1 5 months ago
I just read Brad Matsen's book; "Titanic's last secrets." The evidence presented is interesting and offers a convincing explanation. Well worth a read.
badbaz83 6 months ago
@ 6:01 where can i find that submersible model?
ReptigloRand 6 months ago
the whole titanic attempt to dodge the berg, the breakup theory is a conspiracy. no researcher today can say murdoch actually ordered to reverse the engines to slow titanic down but some say the telegraphs only were put on stop, no one today can say that titanic broke at shallow angle. only the survivors knw.
09adge13 6 months ago
5:41 "ULCHINS"!
kingbooger94 6 months ago
Pretty much every survivor who watched the ship sink said that the stern of the ship reached a high angle before it disappeared beneath the ocean.
RebelYank 6 months ago
This seams fairly similar to how Jack Thayer said the Titanic sank except he clearly described it hitting an angle of at least 30 degrees. I can see the bow and stern mashing together on the way down, the problem I have with the 11 degree angle theory is at 5:01 the 3 flooded compartments in the middle somehow over power the front 6 to 8 compartments which you have to remember would be completely flooded by then, that should weigh much more then the 3 middle ones and doesn't stack up for me.
TheGlassPhantom 6 months ago
I think Roger Long's theory on the breakup is correct but the mechanics suggest the traditional theory is still in play. In other words...the stern was at the James Cameron high angle when the upper structure started to fail. But here's the difference - the ship started to break up while the bow was deeply submerged. This would cause the upper structure of the ship to get crushed as the weight of the water was pulling the ship down. This accounts for the double hull breaking clean.
DorothyFan1 7 months ago
@DorothyFan1 The upper structure failing would not have cause the hull to fail. The whole expansion joint theory is BS. The expansion joints were part of the superstructure, which was situated above the strength deck (B-deck) and therefore above the top of the structural hull girder. Thus, the expansion joints had no meaning for the support of the hull. The theory that she broke up from the bottom up is dumb. The theory that she broke at a low angle is stupid too.
GeneralKenobiSIYE 6 months ago
@DorothyFan1 The break up could have started anywhere around B-Deck down to E-Deck. Below that is unlikely as there was less stress closer to the double hull than at B-Deck. It's the deck with above the upper most portholes on the "white area" of the ship. The rest did nothing to add to strength. You're right about how the upper decks may have been smashed together. The bow may have even leveled off a bit after the hull broke and was being held together by the double bottom.
GeneralKenobiSIYE 6 months ago
@DorothyFan1 It would explain why that part of the bottom looked to be pulled apart. It had been bent both ways and broke as it was pulled. It was bent down as the stern broke and fell back level, and bent the other way as the bow pulled the stern down until it was standing straight up. Being bent back and forth with that much stress would cause any metal to fail.
GeneralKenobiSIYE 6 months ago
here's my theory: Titanic did reach that high 30 degree angle, and broke from the top down to the double-bottom. as the bow pulled the stern up, the stern crushed the upper decks. then the stern sinks. the bilge keel was from when the stern ripped itself apart on the way to the ocean floor since it has a lot of trapped air. the mangling on the upper deck in the bow fell downwards when the bow hit the ocean floor at 30 to 40 mph (48 to 64 km/h)
k6ka1 7 months ago
The Britannic (Titanic's sister ship) sank when it hit a mine and sank. As it sank, it reached an angle of about 11 degrees but did not split at such a low angle. Plus many survivors say they saw it split "as clean as butter" at a higher angle. I still think the first theory is correct. ☺ :)
SamuelR45 7 months ago
Roger Long's theory has been partially debunked. According to analysis of the double hull structure...it was remarkably stronger than previously thought and would have been able to withstand alot of pressure. This discounts the shallow angle theory. But the mechanics of Roger Long's theory on the Titanic breakup may still prove correct.
I think it's possible to use Roger Long's theory using the high angle especially if the bow had already been deeply submerged.
DorothyFan1 7 months ago
It's one of those things that just need a time machine. Just like the video said, it happened in the dark and the witnesses would not only have not seen everything but we can only imagine the distraugt they would have been going through, both on the sinking ship and in the life boats. They wern't thinking "I must watch everything so that I can ensure historians in 100 years will know every fact". Get a time machine stealth boat, sit a few miles from the sinking and watch it sink.
QullVideo 8 months ago
titanic = hubris.
lukebccb 8 months ago
In that video supporting the shallow angle theory, it shows the stern sinking after a few seconds. As petty as I may sound, it is pretty much accepted that Titanic stood up in the water totally vertical for at least a few minutes before going under. There's also valid survivor accounts (Eva Hart and Ruth Becker come to mind) which state that she clearly and visibly broke in half above the surface. And the bent, downward appearance of the bow split is probably from when she hit the ocean floor.
lydiaisinsabe 8 months ago
Why dont they just simulate the sinking in real time, and stop the simulation at the time where it cracked, and then see how steep the angle was?
andromedarr 8 months ago
240p? sad day.
pinkshamrock18 8 months ago
This explains why a lot of surivers claimed that it didnt break, because it lookedl ike it went down in one piece and felt like it went down in one piece, if it brok elike in the movie, evreyone would of felt the ship go down, the people in the lifeboats would of heard it and everything but only 7 survivors claimed it broke up
TheRealAdfirmatio 8 months ago
@TheRealAdfirmatio and it didnt go back as far down as it did in the movie.
TheRealAdfirmatio 8 months ago
@TheRealAdfirmatio no,alot more survivors said it broke up including jack thayer,chief baker jouhghin,eva hart,archibald butt,bruce ismay,norris willians,frank pertice(or something like that),and molly brown.and more.
lpc1962 8 months ago
I hate how they don't even ecknowledge that Dr. Robert Ballard found the ship
undertakerpitt 8 months ago
press 7 Uctions
mrlego611 8 months ago
the first i true cuz the back of the bigger wrek must than stand up but it lays now down 1st is true
OneTeamOneMission 9 months ago
plus the survivors were like 6 years old at the time all they did was cry and look away
ShipWreckAndHaloFan 9 months ago
Survivors can´t always be "trusted" i mean not that they lie, but they´re all like 100 years old so they don´t have such a good memory and in the heat of the moment people don´t really care about watching the ship sink they just wanna survive.Plus they´re all dead now. RIP survivors
ShipWreckAndHaloFan 9 months ago
I think they're crazy. Only the survivors can say what happened. So these guys can stop acting smart. They just want money for stuff they made up.
ASHLEY031696 9 months ago
@ASHLEY031696 i dont know...science can tell you alot these days,you´d be surprised to see what they can discover just from a wreck...
ShipWreckAndHaloFan 9 months ago
The survivors are the ONLY ones who can tell the true story. I'm sticking with their accounts
MrRocha90 9 months ago
Comment removed
Killjoy45 9 months ago
@Killjoy45 Exactly. The survivors are the only ones who can tell the real story. And yes, the ones who saw the ship sink either saw it break in one piece (usually, those were the ones who were in far away lifeboats). The ones in closer lifeboats said the ship broke like theory one. None of the survivors described theory 2 in their testimonials.
MrRocha90 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrRocha90
Yeah me too.
The first theory is based on reports by actual eyewitnesses. They saw it for real unlike any of these investigators which everyone believe that their theories are the real ones no matter what. I know that about half of the witnesses ''saw'' the ship sinking as one piece, but we have to remember that some of them couldn't even watch the ship sinking and so on they didn't see the breakup. But those who saw it will make the ''theory 1'' the real one.
Killjoy45 9 months ago
@MrRocha90 That is a very smart thing to say, but the survivors would have been tired and scared out of their boots and it was in the middle of the night (thus dark). Of course witness accounts must be taken into account. But modern day science looking at the wreck must be listened to. Prehaps the 10 degree angle is correct or maybe the twisted metal that shows this theory was bent on impact with the ocean. We will never know, atleast not at the moment.
QullVideo 8 months ago
i have 1 thing to say.....shut the fuck up john....
jrocker798 9 months ago
what happened to 8:06?
181Cade 9 months ago
Another problem with the Shallow Angel theory. We would have heard survivor accounts of being suddenly lifted into the air because Roger Long's theory suggests at a shallow angle the water was holding the ship together until the double hull failed. At that point...the water causing the ship to break would have caused a sudden physical tearing of the ship before the plunge making survivors jump off the ship...like airplane turbulence in the skies syndrome.
DorothyFan1 9 months ago
Two problems with the Shallow Angle theory:
1. With the stern lifted off just 10 or 11 degrees would mean the breakup happened before the lights went off. This would have allowed the survivors to see the ship crack before taking the final plunge. But survivor accounts don't suggest this. This means the High Angel theory is still in play.
2. With the Shallow Angel theory...the buildup of water causing the double hull to fail would have caused the stern to topple over sideways instead.
DorothyFan1 9 months ago
according to a 1912 newspaper I had the privelage to read at State Records Archive ... witness statements describe how she broke COMPLETLY in two at the surface and the two halves drifted apart .... sounds silly??? just remember ... FOR 70 YEARS ... the world was told she went down in one piece.
squidau1999 10 months ago
My theory is that when the titanic reached a 15 degree angle, the hull began to fail, but stopped at the double bottom, as the bow continued to sink, the stern still raised, but was held together by the double bottom, Because of the fact that there was a hinge between the 3rd and 4th funnels, thats where the break continued from, The engines pulled that space farther down, while the dry areas of the stern kept it afloat, the bow seperated after filling completley, and the stern was left there
Timberwolf8998 10 months ago
I will always believe a survivor or a theory
gordo9405 10 months ago
It's funny because they talk about how to top decks like the boat deck are crunched inwards instead of the keel to support the theory that the break up happened from the bottom up, but when the ship went vertical the stern section would have crashed into the bow section of the ship before finally detaching itself and sinking. Couldn't of this collision caused the damage that they are using to support their theory?? Maybe they forgot about that.....
gordo9405 10 months ago
Why is it so important to know how titanic sank?
leshkaka 1 year ago
Theories from Scientists and Researchers are just theories. I'll stick to survivor accounts from those who were ACTUALLY there that night. People can't claim how what degree the stern rose and how the Titanic actually broke. Those who were on board the Titanic during the final moments and those in the water or in the nearest lifeboats saw what happened with the ship rising into the air before the lights went out. I'll stick to the survivor accounts of people who were there... not amateurs...
jPod07 1 year ago
@jPod07
The problem with that people didn't care much for the ship they were trying to escape. Also, no matter how the ship broke, all accounts state that the lights flickered and then went out (they would have had to, regardless of whether the ship even broke apart or not). This means that whatever went on went on in the dark. There were differing accounts among the survivors as well.
PainInTheAssInternet 10 months ago
I believe the movie!!!!
randomstuff1282 1 year ago
Wait a minute. If the break up started near the bottom, and it was near the stern, shouldn't that have supported the stern a little? Sure, it still would have broken up, but the stern would fall to a lower angle instead of staying in the air, instead of just falling.
starwarsfandude 1 year ago
Read "Titanic's Last Secrets" it is the book that resulted from this expidition and includes the secret study Harland & Wolff conducted after the sinking. H&W knew the ship was weak and possibly dangerously so based on the performance of the Olympic, as the mans says "steel doesnt lie" the forensic evidence for the low angle break up just makes sense mathmaticly based on the evidence, including survivors accounts who recalled suddenly being in the water. ALOT was covered up at the inquiry.
KlunkerRider 1 year ago
Let's end this discussion once and for all. I know I'm right on this one. Like I said: the break-up occured BELOW the waterline, DURING the sinking, at a HIGH angle. Hence the break-up itself was not visible. The reason why so many eye witnesses knew that she had broken in half was because they heard an explosion, followed by cracking noises and the stern moving strangely for a few seconds. It also explains why some people claimed that the ship sank intact.
There. The End.
LightStijn 1 year ago
@LightStijn oh aren't you a fucking bigot. hundreds of people said they saw the ship break in half. One survivor drew a fucking picture at the hearings. But what they probably saw was the top section fail. They probably thought that the ship split like that because the impending stress on the rest of the middle section would have given away very quickly. How would the survivors know that the explosion meant the ship split? It could have meant anything.
papacharlie123 1 year ago
@papacharlie123 Do you really believe the stern fell back into the water, causing two huge waves that would have swamped every lifeboat? And what is there not to understand about the explosion part? If you hear a loud explosion, followed by cracking noises, followed by a bizarre movement of the stern, then you're not like: "Whoops, I think someone farted."
Ugh, why am I even replying to you? My last comment should have ended this discussion.
LightStijn 1 year ago
@LightStijn The Titanic's lifeboats where not near the ship to begin with because they thought the suction would take the boats under. Eyewitnesses had said that people had been scared of that. The people in the lifeboats saw everything until the lights shut off. They had said the Titanic was at a high angle, and they had heard crashing because of the stuff inside the ship falling forward, because of the tilt.
WTCLover 6 months ago
@WTCLover
1. It doesn't matter how far the lifeboats were from the ship. Big tidal waves like that would have reached them and hit them hard in no time. So the usual break-up theory doesn't make any sense. None whatsoever.
2. Yes, but the big explosion they heard was caused by the destruction of the boilers, not just any "stuff". This explosion has contributed to the break-up; beneath the waterline.
LightStijn 6 months ago
@LightStijn Boilers have been found intact on the bottom and waves no matter how big they are are not going to stay big forever. Tidel waves are 50 foot waves, the Titanic's stern hitting the water would've made a big splash, like throwing a pebble into a puddle. The Titanic was big but not that big. Even tidel waves are nothing on open sea, when they reach shore is when they are huge. Anything that hits water splashes and ripples like a puddle. If you jump into a pool it would do that.
WTCLover 6 months ago
@WTCLover Geez, how do I have to explain this to you? How many arguments do you need? More than half of the eye witnesses claimed that the Titanic sank intact, including Second Officer Lightoller. How do you explain this? You really think they wouldn't have noticed if she broke up like you said? It's because the break-up occured just BENEATH the waterline, after which the stern reached a high angle and disappeared in the water like a black thumb in a bathtub. Fuck James Cameron's theory.
LightStijn 6 months ago
@LightStijn Many also said the ship broke in half, it was proved to have broke in half when it had been discovered. James Cameron went with many of the witnesses, if it had broke up under the water why is the stern messed up now? If it sank in one piece, why did it break up at all? The bow and stern sections are over a mile apart, with a huge debris field in between them. The Titanic was found 74 years after it had sank, don't you think alot could've happened in that time?
WTCLover 6 months ago
@WTCLover Where did you learn how to read? I never said that the ship broke while being completely submerged. What I said was that the break-up occured beneath the waterline, while the stern was still ABOVE the waterline. That's the only break-up theory that actually makes sense.
LightStijn 6 months ago
@papacharlie123 maaaybe cause they seem it fall back in de water
rdj9606 1 year ago
@LightStijn Even if it had starting to break up under the water if the Titanic was at a high angle it would have fallen. Gravity is still in play, the main idea of the Titanic breaking in half was at or just below the surface of the water. This guy is saying it started long before it even got at a high angle, when the lights would have been on. The lights where on for awhile because of people putting coal in the boilers, so they would stay on in case another ship was near them.
WTCLover 6 months ago
@WTCLover Lol, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Is my english really that bad? It's so obvious. The final break-up occured at a high angle, below the waterline, bending the upper decks and slowly lowering the stern back into the water, without any splash. My theory doesn't exclude the fact that the break-up had already started at a shallow angle. If only I could draw this out for you...
LightStijn 6 months ago
@LightStijn But if it had started at a shallow angle why did not 1 survivor say it did? The lights would have been on at that time, so they would have seen it. The ship only took 2 hours and 40 minutes to sink. The entire ship would've come back level if it would have been slowly lowered back into the water. The bow would've been still been connected. Both parts of the ship had to have sunk separably to be a mile apart. How does anyone know the decks where not crushed until the bo
WTCLover 6 months ago
@WTCLover until the bow hit the bottom? Like I said before the ship was discovered 74 years after it sank, lots of stuff could've happened to it in that time. The decks could have collapsed because of rust. People assume it happened because of the break up, maybe it happened because of rusting at the bottom for 74 years.
WTCLover 6 months ago
Comment removed
jacobbg24 1 year ago
Im only 10 so don't yell at me if this sounds stupid but I wonder if it sunk intact and when it hit the ocean floor it broke and it got thrown apart from the bow or if how fast it was going down broke it and separated it.
251rocker 1 year ago
@251rocker it was going down to the bottom as fast as it hit the iceberg.... she sure;y didnt break when she hit the ocean floor cause the back ( stern ) is half a mile away... i thoughtd id just let u know that lil fact
rdj9606 1 year ago
Later evidence has since shown that it is more likely to have broken at a high angle like it is usually thought.
mjdoomreviews 1 year ago
today i finally lerned wat the tiatanic was i never herd of it because i'm 9 and i'm using my dad's profile hopefully i will read the book and the movie
theplaylister1 1 year ago
What I think is: Why is it a conspiracy? Why do they need theories? I mean, every one at the time, even the youngest survivor is dead now, but surely being witness to the disaster, they could have accurately explained what happened when it sank assuming they weren't too gobsmacked to speak back in their time and then passed the facts on?
WonkyTonkBotty 1 year ago
"Eyewitnesses also say that she sank intact"
Even MORE eyewitnesses said that they saw the ship break in half. Robert Ballard's findings of the Titanic wreck in 1985 only supports the break-up testimonials. I mean, If people actually claim to have seen the ship break in half, which they did, why would you favor the ship going down intact when it was reported to have broken up, and then FOUND broken in half, especially when people said they saw it break apart in the first place?
TheGozalus 1 year ago
The new break-up theory makes alot more sense.
LightStijn 1 year ago
also, the Titanic DID break at a high angle...the reason why the back on Titanic is broken is because when she hit the bottom, the force of the impact made the back on her bow, crash
JoeyVoicesProduction 1 year ago
@JoeyVoicesProduction
Do you honestly believe that the massive steel was under more pressure when it hit ocean bottom than it was when the part of the titanic below the surface was pulling itself towards the ocean bottom? We're talking about approx. 30 000 ton of weight(for the part below surface) + water pressure just hanging on the backbone. If I were eyewitness there, I wouldn't be able to tell if it was 10° or 20° angle when it broke, I'd be in shock and would be fighting for my life.
DrMiniMog 1 year ago
I also rejected the fact that Titanic ran over the iceberg when she sideswiped it
JoeyVoicesProduction 1 year ago
eh, this is straight up lying edvince...if they asked the last survivor of the Titanic herself before she died, she would've proved them wrong...in fact, 79% of the WHOLE world think that this 'theory' is a big, fat lie
JoeyVoicesProduction 1 year ago
@JoeyVoicesProduction the titanic split maby not on the sirfise but it did
quintanafaj2009 1 year ago
@quintanafaj2009 I didn't say she didn't break up at the surface
JoeyVoicesProduction 1 year ago
...it's not the 'unsinkable' remark that made God mad...it was the name. 'Titans' were the Greek Gods and White Star made a ship after the Gods, AND they were honoring the ship. Hell, it was Sin City on that ship, so, God sank it. The reason why God didn't touch Olympic was because the 'Olympicans' were the tyrantant Gods and most loyal to God. But, even Olympic had it's flaws too, but it didn't sink, like it's two sisters
JoeyVoicesProduction 1 year ago
This theory is actually very plausible, but I don't think we will ever know the truth because not only are all the survivors now dead, but each year we wait, the Titanic's remains fade away just a little more. It's actually really sad to think that in another hundred or so years, there may be nothing left of that great ship bellow the sea.
Exotic0111 1 year ago
@Exotic0111 it'll disappear forever in 2112, except her propellers and the bridge's telemotor, which, both are made from Bronze and can't rust
JoeyVoicesProduction 1 year ago
@Exotic0111
The last memories of the Titanic's sinking were destroyed in 2006 when the last survivor who had any recollection of it died. Now even the lady who was an infant at the time is dead.
plusplusplusplusp 1 year ago
i wish the titanic didnt split in half
pinoyboys12 1 year ago
@pinoyboys12 why the boilers is how the titanic was found i persenly whish it dident sink
quintanafaj2009 1 year ago
exactly! Listen to the survivors! They were ACTUALLY there and Witnessed it! They saw how it really happened. It obviously didn't happen like this. Listen to your history! Find interviews on Eva Hart, Ruth Becker, Marjorie Robb, Frankie Goldsmith, and Edith Russel. They know what they're talking about!!
MrRocha90 1 year ago
I remember reading somewhere that humans tend to over-estimate angles when viewing them (but not when showing with their hands) ...
So say the eye witnesses (from the lifeboats and etc.) were asked to *see* the angle of the stern, but not to *show* it -- suddenly the angle is exaggerated... so it is definitely possible.
Also, I don't think it matters if it's 11 degrees or 30... that much steel in the air? S'gonna look really, really high up off the water.
teartaye 1 year ago
but i still think it was this one because people disagreed that it split and said that it split well it wasnt as obvious because if it was 35 degrees in angle i think people would hear it or see it but if it split like this it doesnt seem so obvious that people would see it
scienceguy474 1 year ago
If the stern section wasn't a mangaled mess the theories about the break up could be proven or disproven
snakes3425 1 year ago
I think it was 20 maybe 25 degrees since people there said it was up very high. I think its a combination of both. it reached a high angle but split in the way it did in this knew theory which explains how the broken ends of the ship look like at the bottom. Pulled down on top, and pulled up at bottom.
AaronRBB11 1 year ago
the ship still after the break in this theory, still goes up on a high angle before totally breaking off and then doing straight in the air and sinking
AaronRBB11 1 year ago
one questions i know this may sound silly and dumb but did'nt anyone see how the ship snak and did'nt anyone say how it happened.
thewewguy8t88 1 year ago
a new theory a new mistery
MrAkimov 1 year ago
i think the mangled edges are valid evidence for this theory. they might just as well look like that because the ship has been on the ocean floor for almost 100 years, so of course they're gonna get weak and start to hang down.
rgur90x 1 year ago
i say we just build a life-sized replica of the titanic, take it out into the ocean, pop a few holes in the bow, and see how it sinks!..
frost12436 1 year ago
The lower angel makes sense there's a drawing from 1912 that shows the break-up, and in the drawing the bow broke the surface during the break up, the only way I see that possible is if the ship broke at a low angle at two stages or from the bottom up. However owing to the poor condition of the stern makes it impossible to confirm any theory, and the break up itself occured after the lights had gone out
snakes3425 1 year ago
so the stern of the Titanic was upide down?
starball23 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the titanic cracks due to the brittleness of it's material, hence the water gash in and it sink D:
SylerHell 1 year ago
the titanic cracks due to the brittleness of it's material, hence the water gash in and it sink D:
SylerHell 1 year ago
thanks for posting
TheHeavynerf 1 year ago
Here's what i think happened: Titanic reached a high angle (like in the movie) and then slipt. When the bow pulled the stern up it mangled the end of the bow. And the bilge keel was from when the stern ripped itself apart on the way down.
bettabreeder181 1 year ago 11
@bettabreeder181 exactly how i thought it happened!
MTwillman 1 year ago
@bettabreeder181 That is exactly what i think..the double bottom was very strong, so it is not that damaged....and aditionally, tha damage of the upper decks could have happened on impact....
andromedarr 8 months ago
thanks guys for the view nearly reaching 10,000!
TitanicFilms 1 year ago 30
@TitanicFilms this is good stuff!
jeffbrister2004 1 year ago
@TitanicFilms Well now theres 17,704 views!
MalaFiumanka 1 year ago
One way to know how steep was Titanic before it broke up is remembering what the survivors still saw, the people began to slide down the decks. In a 11 degree angle that could not happened. people would be walking up hill, but they wouldn't slide down as it was shown in the movie. The survivors(both detractors & believers of the break) saw that, & they saw it with the ship's lights on, in dark it would've been impossible to see it. I believe she broke at 20 degrees not too high not too low.
AROBASPARK 1 year ago
Survivors said the lights at the stern stayed on after she broke in two. Remember the power generators were at the back of the ship and were still fully manned by the crew down below. Witnesses said the bow lights dimmed red and then went out first when she broke, and the stern lights stayed on for a long time afterwards but finally flickered and went out just before the stern made it's final plunge.
Aaron1912 1 year ago
3:40-3:47
The only reason the end of the bow was "mangled and bent steeply downwards" is because the decks collapsed on top of each other when it hit the seabed. And the double bottom would be "cleanly broken off" because that was the strongest metal on the ship. I think the way it sank in the 1997 film was how it sank in reality.
alexander3826 1 year ago 3
Wow this one heavily debated theory O_O I'm going play it safe and say I'm neutral at Titanic's sinking
leavenworthkd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's not forget that expansion joint. Sure it would have NEVER been able to support the Titanic if the ship was to attain a higher angle of say 15 degrees, but what IF that expansion joint was partly submerged? After all, many passengers testified seeing only a little bit of the bottom before the Titanic's break-up, and these testimonies reinforce the prospect of the expansion joint being half-underwater.
TheGozalus 1 year ago
Consider this....If the hull was not designed to put up with an angle higher than say 20 degrees, then the ship wouldn't be very seaworthy, would it? After all, Harland and Wolff constructed many ships of the same strength steel, and if what was true about the low angle of the Titanic, think of how many ships, including the Titanic's sister Olympic, would have crached like peanuts during rough seas when the hull was unsupported between troughs of waves.
TheGozalus 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
TheGozalus 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheGozalus 1 year ago
If the ship sank like that then it would have sunk minutes earlier than 2:20am. And the only reason the edge of the bow was "mangled" is because the decks collapsed on top of each other when the bow hit the seabed. The only reason the double bottom is still intact is because it is the strongest part of the ship so it wouldn't be "crushed and compressed".
alexander3826 2 years ago
"According to Joughin..."
Forget Joughin....he was tipsy. It has already been established in Encyclopedia Titanica that Joughin was a very poor candidate for a personal testimonial. Second, the scenario of the stern standing vertical before the final plunge is very abundant among passenger accounts, particularly because of the recipricating engines forward near the break-up weighing the stern down.
TheGozalus 2 years ago
Don't forget the front part was racing to the bottom. When it first hits, the very front of the ship is bent/mangeled up, then the rest falls down, front and ship bends the other way a bit, and as the rest of the ship hits the bottom of he sea, the decks near the break-up is mangeled together. But it is just another theory... the back section of the ship is destroyed. Torn apart.
DreadLordBalnazaar 2 years ago
According to Joughin, the ship can't go near perpendicular forwards. Because he gives a large port list and others like Ableseth don't note the direction, this is sound. Therefore, the V bend would bob it up like a qork. The ship would rest back down then since it can't go to 20-25 degrees tops, though even 30 degrees would even have it go to the mid teen area if the water was only up to the engine room as shown here.
Not flat horizontal, but more Cameron's where the stern is lightly in air.
silenceofthehills 2 years ago
Also, most stress tests don't factor lists to the side. At even 10-15 degrees to port, the ship isn't on even keel. After that, the ship actually plunged very quickly, there is a 911 ft long air craft carrier that plunge very quickly as well. Other ships show the same nature and one larger ship plunged to a high angle in only a minute.
Titanic would likely taken 2-2 and a half minutes to plunge to such an angle of nearer to 17-20 degrees. This is an easy angle to walk on as well.
silenceofthehills 2 years ago
There is testimony that sounds like this and that, however, one said she rose after she appearently broke and then leveled out. Another said she reached the aft funnel and Collins said the lights went when water was near the middle of the ship.
silenceofthehills 2 years ago
Lastly, some of this is old news and Mengot and others found that while it would tare evenly, there are compressive and tensil stresses found. Mengot shows there is even an S shaped dissfiguration as well and did finites on the keel with others.
He proved that a bottom up failure is a possibility as well with the finite. Regardless, the keel is what tares the ship apart, be it top to bottom or opposite. The joint had alot of load as it was isolating the stress to the regions as its ment to.
silenceofthehills 2 years ago
i think it went up so much and snapped because that iceberg hit it hard and the hole at the bottom could of brought it up that far
darthd101 2 years ago
100 hundred years later its 2012
w00tbeerisgood 2 years ago
I kinda agreed to others theory but, the problem is if anyone was still alive maybe we could evidence a bit more. my theory is that the ship broke its back at 35 degree angle or maybe more, even thou the weight of the boilers and mechanics in the ship and the people the ship outside the ship it could of hold on a little bit longer, but it sank in between breaking points so it couldn't of went up totally sinking.
powertower8000 2 years ago
Those gowning noises at 4:48 are going to give me nightmares. D:
Kondaar 2 years ago
Well, the back of the front part is bent down possibly because of the heavy impact on the ocean floor. The front hits, is bent, the rest falls down and hits, and the back is crushed together. But it's just a theory among many others.
DreadLordBalnazaar 2 years ago 22
@DreadLordBalnazaar I agree with you, but another factor that could have made Titanic look like that could possibly be the intense water pressure pushing down this unstable section of the ship.
crimsonvipor 1 year ago
@DreadLordBalnazaar u may be right 3:32 i think it was heavy impact because if it was the theory in this video i think it will be a little more mangled now like a flat bend down if that photo was a painting forget what i said =p
scienceguy474 1 year ago
A lot of people have a lot of great and different ideas- especially the one person who said that a distress call was received by the Californian (not the Virginian lol) at 2:17.
Starwarsworld, where did you read that they got this at 2:17? Thats kinda interesting seeing that got it only minutes before the ship was gone.
Many things are possible, but at the same time, I think we will fully never know about what happened. Its 98 years since the event and no one is alive to tell the tale.
sammylojax 2 years ago
...anymore, I meant. If there ARE survivors still out there, they were most likely too young to even understand or see what was going on.
sammylojax 2 years ago 3
Remember that this is just a theory. There are many theories on the break-up theory, some of them quite plausable in their own respects, including this one. But if this theory here was actually proof, why does it contradict so many eye-witness testimonies, such as ppl in the boats saying otherwise that the ship attained a higher angle, ppl actually witnessing from the boats the break-up, etc. If we just discard these testimonies, then what is the point of hearing from ppl who were witnesses?
TheGozalus 2 years ago 11
@TheGozalus Of course it is a theory, but all of the evidence gathered proves that it hapened like this. It is aso shown that people thought that the reason many thought it broke at a steep angle was cuz it was an illusion.When it broke, the propellors were a few stories out of the water, making it seem like it was higher than it actually was.
333Simpson 2 years ago
@TheGozalus Eyewitness also say that she sank intact.
GuyFawkes522 1 year ago
@TheGozalus i wonder too why does it contradict eye-witness testimonies... one thing i thought about is that people couldn't see under the water and it was also dark. it may have looked like how they showed it in the movie when it actually happened the way shown in this video. con