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.
@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 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.
@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 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 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.
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.
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 5 days 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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
@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
i always get the idea of "haunted ship" when i see the 2 bigger remains of the sunken ship
aflacworld 1 month 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