I absolutely love this format! The forensic bit was my favorite! I really love being able to the everything happen in one shot from one angle! The cinematic bit was great too! I think you should stick with this format going forward!
This is definitely one of my favorite depictions of the final plunge! The cinematic shots were absolutely chilling, especially with the detail of people falling off as the bow lifted vertical, well done!
Also, yhose that didnt know the ship broke assumed the boilers were breaking loose when they heard the sound of steel tearing, along with loud rumbles and roars from the ship.
I know its just a theory based on the testimonies of the survivors, but I dont see the ship failing at such a low angle and being able to hold herself together at an almost vertical angle
Fasten 2 wine corks (representing the bow and stern halves of the ship) together, end to end, using toothpicks: one at each side (representing the side hull of the ship), one from middle to middle (representing the internal decking of the ship), and two toothpicks at the bottom (representing the strong keel). Attach a string or fishing line to the "bow" end, place it in water, and pull down on the string. The entire assembly will act as one, of course. But now replace the toothpicks with string or fishing line, attaching them to the corks with pins or tacks. Pull down and to the side on the "bow" string again, pulling the corks slowly under water. What happens to the "stern" cork? It steadily stands up. Slowly allow the assembly to come up again, and what happens to the "stern"? It sags down to the level of the water. So you can pull on a string and get things to happen that cannot happen when the string is relaxed. The analog on the Titanic is the shear strakes (the doubled hull at decks C and D) still being intact, as well as the internal decks being mostly intact: even with the keel pieces broken out and the superstructure split as if "cut with a knife", the ship was not parted, and the sunken bow's plunging forward could readily pull the stern underwater "up to the fourth funnel". "As the Titanic plunged deeper and deeper we could see her stern rising higher and higher" "The ship was gradually turning on her nose--just like a duck does that goes down for a dive." “The bow of the ship was now rapidly going down and the stern rising higher and higher out of the water" "Now you could only see half of what you saw before; the forward of the ship was under water, the back part was somewhat more raised from the water than before." "the deck raised up and got so steep that the people could not stand on their feet on the deck. So they fell down and slid on the deck into the water right on the ship." By the way, thank you for illustrating the illusion that many witnesses suffered from, which was thinking that the ship went higher than it did. This animation brought the Big Plunge to just 46 degrees, but it looked like a lot more, right? Commander Lightoller thought it was 60 degrees (and it may have been, but I doubt it).
@@eliminatehumanitysoon The survivors could see, and they could hear. Just one of many examples: "The fore part, and up to the second funnel was by this time completely submerged, and as we watched this terribly awe-inspiring sight, suddenly all lights went out and the huge bulk was left in black darkness, but clearly silhouetted against the bright sky. Then, the next moment, [there was a] thundering…hollow rumbling roar…"
I put together a new video to show how it could be done: ruclips.net/video/VS5BmyImDF4/видео.html . The key is the "plunging" that so many witnesses attested to, and the intact middle of the ship pulling the stern.
1:35 The bow was not at that steep angle underwater. In 2001, the Cameron expedition came upon cabin D-27's still upright (still in place) washstand with still upright (still in place) carafe and glass sitting on the shelves. The washstand faced forward towards the bow, so how did the objects not tumble off their shelves (the guard rails ment to hold them were not high enough either)? It's because the bow did not go down at a steep angle.
The short answer is that Cameron was wrong in his interpretation of what he saw. Many of the survivors of the sinking saw the ship at a high angle. In fact, the loud noise of the breakup was by many people mistakenly thought to be the engines and boilers tearing loose from their mounts and FALLING through the ship to the bow. If the ship were nearer to horizontal, "falling" would have been straight down through the keel, which was impossible, and did not happen. Frank Prentice: "And all of a sudden she lifted up quickly, and you could hear everything cracking through her. Everything that was moveable was going through her. And then she went down, and she had come up again." Edith Russell: "It seemed as though the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline. It then seemed to shoot or dive into the sea." Lawrence Beesley: "As she swung up, her lights, which had shone without a flicker all night, went out suddenly, came on again for a single flash, then went out altogether. And as they did so, there came a noise which many people, wrongly I think, have described as an explosion; it has always seemed to me that it was nothing but the engines and machinery coming loose from their bolts and bearings, and falling through the compartments, smashing everything in their way. It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as the heavy machinery dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship: I suppose it fell through the end and sank first, before the ship." The ship did go to a high angle.
@@billvanek5570the stern didn't go that high out of the water before it broke. The metal and structure itself couldn't handle those kinds of pressures. It more than likely broke somewhere between 15° - 30°. Tests, computer and models, have shown this to be true. Survivors can somewhat exaggerat things during moments of panic and fear, as well as fading memory years later. Let's also not forget our understanding and use of language was slightly different than it was back then, so how they might interpret something said, could be different than how we might interpret it today. We have to remember some survivors said the ship didn't even break...so how accurate are all the survivor accounts really?
The bow would have gotten to a very steep angle. Model tests have shown this to be true. See James Cameron's own model tests from Titanic: 20 Years Later (Titanic: 25 Years Later)
Multiple eyewitness accounts all agree that the Big Plunge went to a high angle: "Then she turned right on end and made a big plunge forward." "It seemed as though the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline. " "The ship was right up on end then. Suddenly she broke in two between the third and fourth funnel." "All at once she seemed to go up on end, you know, and come down about half way, and then the afterpart righted itself again and the forepart had disappeared." "It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as [if] the heavy machinery dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship…. The probability of the noise being caused by engines falling down will be seen by referring to Figure 2, page 116, where the engines are placed in compartments 3, 4, and 5. As the Titanic tilted up they would almost certainly fall loose from their bed and plunge down through the other compartments." "…the great noise which was…when the ship was aslant…" "I think the noise we heard was that of the boilers and engines breaking away from their seatings and falling down through the forward bulkhead. At the time it occurred, the ship was standing nearly upright in the water." "The boat seemed to lift up right out of the water and tilt up on end and then seemed to break and drop back." I will add that the actual angle is of course unknowable, but it is clearly more than what most people today think it was.
also, I might once again post soon maybe by December for my new theory and others also the latest video I will release is the actual mind-blowing brain cell destruction, Head exploding like a shot from a grassy knoll... BrightSide yes, I will do that I watched their series of related videos and came up with a theory with the ship rising from both ends, a bridge breakup, an aft breakup, and more. Also, shingoji I have a question do you have a Titanic model? I got about 3 models 1 is a hand-built 1/4600 model yes very small and in the process of buying a Minicraft 1/350 model and 1 decal.
Also, shingoji another question what do you think about this in my theory? For me the reason why the keel and forward tower had moved far away from the stern was an early rotation, I based my theory on two main survivors Titanic Baker Drunk Charles yes I call him that, and Eva Hart in one of her interviews said this line "she rose for five minutes then keeled over" my theory is that when the ship broke that bow rocked the stern the last was one to the port side which would have cause for me the 9 to 15-degree list, For the turning point of the stern would have 0 degrees during the breakup to 40 degrees 30 seconds later caused by the list this had given the impress to Eva hart that as the ship rose she was keeling at the same time. This rotation would have caused a breakup of the forward tower swinging it downward so it began to spin and drift its way down along with the keel. As the forward tower broke off the stern was moving the rising would have only come up to Eva when the superstructure would have faced her this would have shown her that it was not just "keeling" she was also in the boat where Joseph Scarrot was this swing and breaking of the forward tower would have given him the assumption that it was breaking from the 3rd and 4th funnel as the stern turning for him was the actual settling. This for me also aligns with Charles's testimony both from the Carpathia and the final version in his version from the Carpathia it says that he slipped and fell in the water as the ship sank for I think that when the ship broke and he walked on the railing I think one of his legs slipped as the ship took the quick list and rotation the turn would feel like he was sliding and it was probable that the memory of him jumping off was that he looking down when his leg would have slipped and fell and was possibly dangling over and then he had seen the haul, the port list, the rotation making the stern rise would have given him the assumption that he was sliding down the ship but was just dangling and holding on to a railing. This is just a mini part of my analysis and that would make a bit more sense than what I said here. So what do you think?
Yes indeed. Read these second-person notes about Richard Norris Williams' survival: "Water catches up with them and sweeps them up the deck toward the stern. Ship seems to be rushing forward and down, making the wave that engulfs them. Father swept aft and away. Carried overboard himself. Hears a last word from father. Strikes out swimming. Thinks he goes a mile---actually 50-100 feet. Turns around and watches in astonishment as Titanic towers over him. Despite the horror and the peril, can't help feeling it's a majestic sight. The Titanic rises, settles back, then starts rising again . . . this time all the way. Stern rises right out of the water, till rudder and three propellers are clearly visible, right above. Seems to twist around in a semi-circle, then plunges straight down." Very intense.
The extreme bending stress due to having the stern not supported properly (via normal buoyancy) would have taken the entire 800-foot keel to its buckling stress. Two pieces of keel would have opened, like a drawbridge, either inwardly or outwardly, and fallen first, before the rest of the breakup. And that is what was found on the ocean bottom: the two keel pieces are 500 feet apart, and are 500 feet Northeast of the heavy debris field.
@@average_idiot676 See my reply to DrCury448 above. The key is the "plunging" that pulled the buoyant stern under, raising it. And just like with a rope, once you stop pulling on it, it sags, giving in to gravity; so in that part, you're exactly correct.
Ballard had a single, complete failure; mine shows a 2-stage failure. The first stage of failure (keel failing, superstructure splitting forward of the 3rd funnel) accounts for the 2 keel pieces being found farther from the debris field, and the large quantity of "sparks" (actually hot coals from the last operating boilers in Room 2) shooting up the #3 funnel, and the temporary rising of the bow, which nobody else can adequately explain. Survivors described three different plunges, and three different risings of the stern. No other theory accounts for all of that.
I first shared this theory on the Encyclopedia Titanica website in December 2019. Most people on that site simply disregard my ideas. Some people ask questions, but never will acknowledge things after I explain. So I figure that it took 30 years to get this far with the theorizing, and it'll take another 30 before people finally figure it out. But most people are sold on all of the single-break ideas. If you read all of the eyewitness accounts, and understand buoyancy, strength of materials, tensile and compressive stresses, failure modes, and truth vs. falsehood in human testimony, you'll see that the break-up followed this general outline: first plunge caused stern to rise more; stern rising caused first breaking; first breaking caused stern to go down and bow to go up; second plunging pulled stern behind bow, up to a high angle; buoyancy caused pulling down to cease, so ship broke completely; bow separated and sank, and stern floated for a few minutes; stern turned nearly vertical, hesitated, spun around, and plunged down. The minority of testimonies that don't fit this pattern are either random spouting off by people who didn't know, or people repeating the error of Skidmore's sketch number 4 of 6 (the one labeled, "forward end floats, then sinks"), which was a total myth, but was shown around on board the Carpathia and published as if it was authoritative.
I got tired of seeing the other theories, and went back to the sources--reading the books and cataloging the quotations and recorded testimonies. I also considered the stress state of the different parts of the ship and the various times in its movements. And I considered the map of the debris field, which a lot of people dismiss as "random" in character, whereas I think it tells the story of a two-stage breakup. So all of the other theories are "either/or": they portray either a low-angle breakup or a high-angle breakup. My theory is "both/and": it was a low-angle breaking, followed by a high-angle final breaking. So this theory fits with the observations and testimony better than others. I think it's the most accurate.
@@billvanek5570 huh! That’s pretty neat! I have my own break theory that the speed of the top can’t she took resulted in her buckling and shattering from the keel up to about C deck, then the stern dropped ripping the area forward of the 3rd funnel from the bow, with the loose plating and decks dropping like confetti.
Correct. Forty-five degrees is the mid-point in determining whether an angle is a high angle or not. We'll never know exactly what angle the ship attained; we just know that it was a high angle, so, therefore, more than 45 degrees. The ship went to a high angle before its final breaking: "Then she turned right on end and made a big plunge forward." (Officer Pitman) "It seemed as though the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline. It then seemed to shoot or dive into the sea." "As the Titanic plunged deeper and deeper we could see her stern rising higher and higher until her lights began to go out. As the last lights on the stern went out we saw her plunge distinctively, bow first and intact." "The ship was gradually turning on her nose--just like a duck does that goes down for a dive." “She was pivoting on a point just abaft of midship. Her stern was gradually rising into the air, seemingly in no hurry, just slowly and deliberately. The last funnel was about on the surface of the water. It was the dummy funnel, and I do not believe it fell….Her deck was turned slightly toward us. We could see groups of the almost 1,500 people still aboard, clinging in clusters or bunches, like swarming bees; only to fall in masses, pairs, or singly, as the great after part of the ship, 250 feet of it, rose into the sky, till it reached a 65- or 70-degree angle.” The ship was right up on end then. Suddenly she broke in two between the third and fourth funnel. (Joseph Scarrott) All at once she seemed to go up on end, you know, and come down about half way, and then the afterpart righted itself again and the forepart had disappeared. (Quartermaster Bright.) It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as [if] the heavy machinery dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship…. The probability of the noise being caused by engines falling down will be seen by referring to Figure 2, page 116, where the engines are placed in compartments 3, 4, and 5. As the Titanic tilted up they would almost certainly fall loose from their bed and plunge down through the other compartments. (Lawrence Beesley.) …the great noise which was…when the ship was aslant… (Colonel Gracie, speaking about his conversation with officer Lightoller.) I think the noise we heard was that of the boilers and engines breaking away from their seatings and falling down through the forward bulkhead. At the time it occurred, the ship was standing nearly upright in the water. (Col. Gracie quoting Samuel Rule.) It seemed to me as if all the engines and everything that was in the after part slid down into the forward part. (Frank Osman) The boat seemed to lift up right out of the water and tilt up on end and then seemed to break and drop back. (Walter Nichols) "She went down as far as the after funnel, and then there was a little roar as though the engines had rushed forward, and she snapped in two" (Seaman John Buley) After she reached an angle of 60 degrees there was a rumbling sound. (Officer Lightoller)
Question: I know this is a theory but shouldn't the 4th funnel go under standing, or Cant aft pushed by the water? Sorry for any offence, no offence meant
By "sanding", did you mean "standing"? I saw evidence of the 4th funnel still standing, and falling aft, so I showed both: still standing during the Big Plunge, but falling at the end of the break-up. I disagree with the folks (including Edward Wilding) who think that water brought the funnels down, but I show the first three falling down at the time that water surrounds them just to make those folks happy. I think that the 4th funnel fell due to the breaking around the "aft tower" causing its forward guys/stays to fail, and so it fell aft once the stern returned to less than a 10-degree angle from the sea.
@@billvanek5570 Thanks for response, i disagree with the 4th funnel falling during breakup for 2 main reasons: 1. The 4th funnel was built very differently from the 3rd funnel. It was built much stronger and the guy wires were only their to help with Stability. None of the Titanic's funnels fell because of the guy wires snapping. The wires snapped because the funnels were falling. Even if the deckhouse formed, which I think it did due to Fred Scott's Testimony, it would snap nearly all guy wires but based on my research, due to its design and how well built it was (that the funnels probably fell partially submerged but based on my research, only 40%) it wouldn't fall. Their is also evidence of this on the wreck, if it fell, the deckhouse would have been crushed and mangled. However, it isn't, so that would help suggest that it fell late. The damage to the first class smoking room was probably caused by the implosion. Unless the stern crashed back into the water, then the 4th funnel falling would be quite unrealistic. I doubt it even fell at the surface. If it fell at the surface, it would end up further from the stern but it is quite near to the stern so it probably would have disintegrated during the descent. It was built quite strongly so it couldn't have fallen unless the stern crashed back. It would require less force than the mast so if it fell, the mast would have fallen. While the 4th funnel was fake, it was quite structurally stable. 2. Plenty of survivors said it stood long after break. These include Jack Thayer, Ida Hippach, Edward Buley, George Crowe, Samuel Rule, George Symons, Frank Evans, Fredrick Hoyt, Thomas Dillon, Ruth Becker, Patrick Dillon, Thomas Ranger, and John Collins. If it falls during or after break, it dismisses countless survivors. For example, Jack Thayer literally said that he saw the fourth funnel in the water still standing as the stern rose up.Ida Hippach and Edward Buley said that they watched the remaining funnel for several minutes.Thomas Dillon said that the funnel didn't fall until the ship actually went down.George Crowe, when asked, said that it remained standing after the stern floated back.John Collins said it was still visible when the ship turned over and went down. The reason everyone says it did was because it was shown in several popular theories. While scources like OASAG are great scources in my opninion, they went with the funnel collapse in break as it is the general consensus of what happened. Apologies for any offense, no offense meant.
@@eliminatehumanitysoon The 4th funnel was built very differently from the 3rd funnel. It was built much stronger and the guy wires were only their to help with Stability. None of the Titanic's funnels fell because of the guy wires snapping. The wires snapped because the funnels were falling. Even if the deckhouse formed, which I think it did, it would snap nearly all guy wires but based on my research, due to its design and how well built it was (that the funnels probably fell partially submerged but based on my research, only 40%) it wouldn't fall. Their is also evidence of this on the wreck, if it fell, the deckhouse would have been crushed and mangled. However, it isn't, so that would help suggest that it fell late. The damage to the first class smoking room was probably caused by the implosion. Unless the stern crashed back into the water, then the 4th funnel falling would be quite unrealistic. I doubt it even fell at the surface. If it fell at the surface, it would end up further from the stern but it is quite near to the stern so it probably would have disintegrated during the descent. It was built quite strongly so it couldn't have fallen unless the stern crashed back. It would require less force than the mast so if it fell, the mast would have fallen. While the 4th funnel was fake, it was quite structurally stable. Thier are only 2 testimonies of the fourth funnel falling. First is from Percy Keen who said the second funnel broke off after break. (Would have been 4th funnel as that was the second one standing in break.) However, in another interview, he said the first funnel (Would have been 3rd funnel) fell in break so he most likely confused and thought 4th funnel fell. The only testimony of the fourth funnel falling is from Thomas Dillon and he testifyed he say it being pushed towards him while the stern was rising. However, he was drunk so it likely went under standing. Plenty of survivors said it stood long after break. These include Jack Thayer, Ida Hippach, Edward Buley, George Crowe, Samuel Rule, George Symons, Frank Evans, Fredrick Hoyt, Thomas Dillon, Ruth Becker, Patrick Dillon, Thomas Ranger, and John Collins. If it falls during or after break, it dismisses countless survivors. For example, Jack Thayer literally said that he saw the fourth funnel in the water still standing as the stern rose up. Ida Hippach and Edward Buley said that they watched the remaining funnel for several minutes. Thomas Dillon said that the funnel didn't fall until the ship actually went down. George Crowe, when asked, said that it remained standing after the stern floated back. John Collins said it was still visible when the ship turned over and went down. The reason everyone says it did was because it was shown in several popular theories. While scources like OASAG are great scources in my opninion, they went with the funnel collapse in break as it is the general consensus of what happened. Here are some of the testimonies that say it stood long after break - Jack Thayer - Her stern was gradually rising into the air... the last funnel was about on the surface on the water... I do not believe it fell. Her deck was turned slightly towards us... the great after part of the ship, two hundred and fifty feet of it, rose into the sky, till it reached a sixty-five- or seventy-degree angle. Ida Hippach - The Titanic had keeled to one side and was slowly sinking. Less than twenty minutes after we touched the water, we heard two loud explosions. The explosions occurred almost simultaneously. The giant ship quivered from stem to stern. It parted almost in the centre and slowly sank. The last I saw of it was a single smokestack, which remained above water for several minutes Edward Buley - Q. Notwithstanding the darkness you could see the outline of the ship? A. Yes, sir; we could see the outline of the ship. Q. You could see the funnel? A. Quite plainly. George Crowe - After getting clear of the ship the lights were still burning very bright, but as we got away she seemed to go lower and lower, and she almost stood up perpendicular, and her lights went dim, and presently she broke clean in two, probably two-thirds of the length of the ship...one-third of the aft funnel sticking up. The after part floated back, ... then there was an explosion, and the aft part turned on end and sank John Collins - Q. When you were in the water, after you came up above the surface of the water, you saw the lights on the Titanic? A. Just as I came up to the surface, sir. Her bow was in the water. She had not exploded then. Her bow was in the water, and I just looked around and saw the lights. Q. Had she broken in two? A. Her bow was in the water and her stern was up. Q. But you did not see any break? You did not think she had parted, and broken in two? A. Her bow was in the water. She exploded in the water. She exploded once in the water, and her stern end was up out of the water; and with the explosion out of the water it blew her stern up. Q. You saw it while it was up? A. Yes, sir; saw her stern up. Q. How long? A. I am sure it floated for at least a minute. Q. The lights were still burning? A. No, sir; the lights was out. Q. If it was dark, how could you see? A. We were not too far off. I saw the white of the funnel. Then she turned over again, and down she went. Patrick Dillon - Q. Before the ship actually went down did you see her make any movements? A. Yes, she took one final plunge and righted herself again. Q. She gave a plunge and righted herself again? A Yes. Q. Did you notice anything about the funnel? A. Not then. Q. Did you afterwards notice something about the funnel? A Yes. Q. What? A. When she went down. Q. Was that after you had left the ship? A Before I left the ship. Q. What did you notice? A. Well, the [aftermost] funnel seemed to cant up towards me. Q. Did you get the idea that the ship was breaking in two? A. No. Q. When you came up again, after you were sucked down - you told us you were sucked down and came up again was the ship still floating then? A. No. Q. She had sunk when you came up again? A. Well, I saw what I thought would be the afterpart of her coming up and going down again, final. Q. Then she had not sunk? A. She came up and went down again. Q. You saw what you thought was the afterpart coming up again? A. I thought it was the ship coming up again. She came up and went down again - finish. The reason nearly everyone says it fell is because of the general consensus. However, the general consensus is a very unreliable tool as things survivors said get ignored. For example, several survivors said Titanic broke but we believed it sank intact for 73 years due to the general consensus and relying on only Lightoller and Gracie's testimony. Researching survivor accounts has taught the Titanic community alot about how Titanic sank as we have realised that the list likely eased at start of plunge, that the port list was heavier than prevoiusly thought and that the lights likely went out in sections which in the past wasnt believed. Using testimonies can be important though you have to use them with a grain of salt. Sorry for any offence, no offence meant.
@@eliminatehumanitysoon There are indeed. So they all can't be correct. This shipwreck has an over-abundance of testimony, much of which is flat-out incorrect. The trick is to figure out which testimonies are correct, and which are false. And it all has to mesh with what has been found on the ocean bottom. This 2-break, 3-rise theory matches better than all other theories.
Differences: my Two-Break Theory has speed in the first plunge, a low-angle first break, and the bow momentarily rising due to that first break. I don't ignore all of that eyewitness testimony, but explain it. Examples of speed associated with the first plunge (when the bridge went under): “She slowly went down bow first with a slight list to starboard until the water reached the bridge; then she went quicker.” (Edward Brown) “She started to shoot down fast…” (Jack Thayer) “This movement, with the water rushing up toward us….We had no time to think now, only to act.“ (Jack Thayer) “The next thing I remember was the ship suddenly dipping, and the waves rushing up and engulfing me.” (Cecil Fitzpatrick) “The forward end, where we stood, was sinking rapidly; and before we could jump together the water washed my father over.” (Richard Norris Williams) “The first onrush of water separated us…” (Richard Norris Williams) “The bow of the ship was now rapidly going down…” (Officer Lightoller) “Instantly, when they saw us and the water on deck chasing us from behind…” (Colonel Gracie) “Water catches up with them and sweeps them up the deck toward the stern. Ship seems to be rushing forward and down, making the wave that engulfs them. Father swept aft and away.” (Walter Lord’s written notes from interviewing Richard Norris Williams) "People began to run by me towards the stern of the ship, and as I started to run I realized that the boat was beginning to go down very rapidly….A wave struck me and I went overboard." (John Collins)
I have a theory please rate it or tell me if it’s possible So the iceberg hits the ship the first funnel falls then the 3rd funnel starts smoking then the 2nd funnel falls after causing a spark after that the 3rd funnel gets caught on fire then falls after the 3rd funnel falls the lights go out and the ship breaks up where the 3rd funnel is then the double keel hangs on which causes the stern to go nearly vertical before the double keel falls off and the stern smashed down to the water like the break up then the 4th funnel breaks up then the the goes vertical and starts circling in the air before it disappears
No, this theory doesn't hold water (hee hee). We know the least amount of info about the 3rd funnel out of the four, so all of your conjecture about it is kind of odd. It surely didn't catch on fire. All of the people who think that the keel / double bottom kept the stern half and bow half together always contradict themselves when they speak of (or have pointed out to them) the difference in angle between the bow half and the stern half. The final break-up started with the ship at a high angle, and when it ended, the bow half was still "pointing downward" as many witnesses said, while the stern had dropped from being in line with the bow down to a horizontal/floating orientation. The keel was strong and rigid, and would have broken and torn loose with such a kink/elbow/dogleg angle between the bow and stern.
@@billvanek5570I think the double bottom did hold on for a bit, not long enough to pull the stern vertical but long enough to tear at the bottom allowing the rest of the superstructure under the third funnel to collapse. Then the bow just breaks away and the stern was left until it flooded on its own and eventually sinking.
@@billvanek5570 Hi Bill Vanek, I have a question: Do you believe the stern imploded? I used to but no longer believe it due to Oceanliner designs recent video (Also, since the ship would be completely full of water) and also that those that talked about explosion sounds after the stern sank can be easily explained and also, since some said the stern sank gradually post break and there was no explosion sounds after it sank.
@@IloveCruiseShips1912 I think that there were multiple implosions of compartments that were still isolated. Although it's possible that 1 or 2 water-tight doors aft of the Recip Engine Room had been opened, it's not at all probable. So there would have been a few large volumes of trapped air. Each of those would have imploded once they got a high enough pressure outside of them. The first evidence that there was still air in the stern is that the stern floated for a couple of minutes horizontally as it was flooding. Second, the stern tipped up, with about two thirds of its 320-foot length under water, and one third above, for about half a minute. All of that floating means that there was enough air inside. Even with open hallways and stairwells to let air out, there is still air trapped inside of rooms---the same as with the bow: as the bow went under, deeper and deeper, a hundred small implosions had to have happened with the air trapped in the tops of rooms. Gracie and others testified to all of the air continuing to rise from the bow half as it was plunging the 2nd time. My phrase, "enough air inside" keeps it floating; but "not enough air" lets it sink, carrying that air under water with the steel. But "not enough air" is not the same as zero air, and any air present would cause a local implosion. Also, the condition of the stern is so torn up that there had to have been quite violent force to do it, and the break-up did not: the stern was in good condition after the bow broke off and left the stern floating. Furthermore, sinking to the bottom at 35 mph does not break up a ship (as we can see from numerous other shipwrecks around the world). And finally, Thayer spoke of underwater 'booms' as the stern was disappearing, which corresponds to what other engineers have stated about implosions occurring somewhere deeper than 200 feet of depth. Taken together, all of this evidence speaks of several implosions in sequence as the stern went deeper.
@@billvanek5570 Thanks for reply, I disagree with the implosion for several reasons. Even though, at first the stern imploding when it goes under seems reasonable and accounts for testimonies, when you actually look into it, it becomes less plausible. Witnesses said they heard an explosion when the stern went under or just after BUT, they didn't actually see the stern sink. They were witnessing a phenomenon known as a False plunge. They saw the ship's stern rise quickly and into the air (Many described the stern taking a sudden pitch head on), then saw the lights go out and lost sight of the ship. They then heard the explosion type sounds of the break up and filled in the blanks. That the ship disappeared and then 'exploded' or 'imploded' under the water. That night it was really dark and their was smoke coming up after the ship broke from boiler room 2,3 and 4. So they could have easily lost sight of the ship due to the darkness and smoke and thought it had gone under. The stern wouldn't have enough air to implode to a large scale either. Considering current research suggesting the ship was afloat for a full five minutes post break before the fantail went under, the air would be mainly out by the time the ship was under. If their was too much air inside, it would NOT go under. Any remaining air when the stern went under (A small amount) would have just bled out in the descent which wouldn't even be heard due to the screaming. Certainly not enough for an implosion. The explanation for the mangled condition of the stern is that it went down broken end first ripping off loose parts of the ship and the water ripping back probably caused quite abit of the damage seen on the sea floor. The breakup was not clean either. The 2 tower sections were dislodged and the forward likely fell. The damage from the break probably also caused quite abit of the damage seen on the sea floor along with the stern going under broken end first. The few witnesses that ACTUALLY saw the stern sink (As most lost sight when the aft lights went out and thought it had gone under) specificized it being calm and quite as the ship went under. This wouldn't be possible if their was an implosion. Here are some accounts - Frank Goldsmith Jr: “We rowed away from the ship until we were about 150 yards away, and almost instantly there was a terrific explosion. The ship split in two and the front part disappeared... Then the back end aimed its rudder and propellers to the sky and ‘hung’ there for several minutes. Then it had a sort of whoosh and down it slowly went and everything was quiet.” Cosmo Duff-Gordon: “A minute or two later, the Titanic’s stern slowly disappeared as though a great hand were pushing it gently down under the waves, and as she sank, the screaming of the poor souls onboard seemed to grow louder. We watched her - we were 200 yards away - go down slowly, almost peacefully. For a moment, an awful silence seemed to hang over everything, and then from the water all about where the Titanic had been arose a bedlam of shrieks and cries.” Thomas Whiteley: “She broke in the middle; her forward end went down. The aft end righted itself, went right up into the air, and disappeared. So, she must have been full of water, as there was no air in her. There was no suction, or I would not have been here.” If the stern did have air in it when it sank, it would have produced suction which would have destroyed Boats A and B but both boats didn't sink suggesting their was not a large scale implosion. So this is my reasoning as to why the stern did not implode. Those that hard it can be easily explained along with those that said it was quiet. Their wouldn't be enough air to cause it and the condition on the wreck can be easily explained alternatively.
@@billvanek5570 Thanks for reply, I disagree with the implosion for several reasons. Even though, at first the stern imploding when it goes under seems reasonable and accounts for testimonies, when you actually look into it, it becomes less plausible. Witnesses said they heard an explosion when the stern went under or just after BUT, they didn't actually see the stern sink. They were witnessing a phenomenon known as a False plunge. They saw the ship's stern rise quickly and into the air (Many described the stern taking a sudden pitch head on), then saw the lights go out and lost sight of the ship. They then heard the explosion type sounds of the break up and filled in the blanks. That the ship disappeared and then 'exploded' or 'imploded' under the water. That night it was really dark and their was smoke coming up after the ship broke from boiler room 2,3 and 4. So they could have easily lost sight of the ship due to the darkness and smoke and thought it had gone under. The stern wouldn't have enough air to implode to a large scale either. Considering current research suggesting the ship was afloat for a full five minutes post break before the fantail went under, the air would be mainly out by the time the ship was under. If their was too much air inside, it would NOT go under. Any remaining air when the stern went under (A small amount) would have just bled out in the descent which wouldn't even be heard due to the screaming. Certainly not enough for an implosion. The explanation for the mangled condition of the stern is that it went down broken end first ripping off loose parts of the ship and the water ripping back probably caused quite abit of the damage seen on the sea floor. The breakup was not clean either. The 2 tower sections were dislodged and the forward likely fell. The damage from the break probably also caused quite abit of the damage seen on the sea floor along with the stern going under broken end first. The few witnesses that ACTUALLY saw the stern sink (As most lost sight when the aft lights went out and thought it had gone under) specificized it being calm and quite as the ship went under. This wouldn't be possible if their was an implosion. Thayer also said the ship sank quietly at the end. If the stern did have air in it when it sank, it would have produced suction which would have destroyed Boats A and B but both boats didn't sink suggesting their was not a large scale implosion. So this is my reasoning as to why the stern did not implode. Those that hard it can be easily explained along with those that said it was quiet. Their wouldn't be enough air to cause it and the condition on the wreck can be easily explained alternatively.
I find it an interesting theory, but I question how the lights (including emergency lights - as the emergency dynamo was also dependent on this steam) in the stern section could have remained on so long given the immediate flooding of the aftmost boiler room that would have occurred with a keel/lower hull failure as depicted (not to mention the loss of steam lines to all of the other boiler rooms)
From my experience in steam plants and electrical plants, I estimated that the loss of steam due to the flooding of Boiler Room 2 would take something less than a minute---probably 40 seconds +/- 15 seconds. So I showed the lights going out in about 40 seconds. We know that the lights went out during the Big Plunge, once the ship got to some high angle: "It seemed as though the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline." "The fore part, and up to the second funnel was by this time completely submerged, and as we watched this terribly awe-inspiring sight, suddenly all lights went out and the huge bulk was left in black darkness, but clearly silhouetted against the bright sky. Then, the next moment, [there was a] thundering…hollow rumbling roar…" You're correct that the emergency generators ran on steam. Therefore, the only thing that made them different from the primary generators was their location higher in the ship (above the level of a flooding casualty that took out the primary ones). But having emergency generators does not mean that there was emergency lighting. It would take a large battery to run several lights for some time...and there was no battery room in the Titanic deck plans.🙂
This theory seem not make sense, since it was broke at extreme angel, i guess it over 45° and also if Towers was broke in surface or off from bow it most likely will end up close each other, if off in bow most likely it will end up close or in between Stern and Bow space but in fact the Deckhouse was found very far from debris field even from Aft.
Your "guess" that the angle was greater than 45 degrees, and that the angle was "extreme", illustrate the optical illusion that is associated with large objects: some people can over-estimate the object's movements. In point of fact, this video showed the stern rising to 56 degrees, although I think it actually was nearer to 45 degrees. The video shows the keel and the superstructure breaking around 13 degrees. At time 37 seconds, the "deckhouse debris" piece flies off when the superstructure splits "as if cut with a knife", and sinks away (it's the piece that Shingoji left still lighted! ). That is why the "deckhouse debris" piece and the two keel pieces are located so far from the "heavy debris field": they came off at the first breaking, and then the ship moved South-Southwest (SSW) to where the 2nd breaking happened at a high angle. "The ship was right up on end then..." "The bow of the vessel went down, tipping the stern high in the air." "The bow of the ship was now rapidly going down and the stern rising higher and higher out of the water, piling the people into helpless heaps..." "The ship was gradually turning on her nose..." "...the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline..." "After she reached an angle of 60 degrees there was a rumbling sound." The 2nd breaking came at such a high angle that everyone described it as boilers and machinery coming loose and FALLING DOWN into the bow. "Then came the second explosion, and the ship broke in half" "The front portion of her was pointing downwards and she appeared to be breaking in halves..." See also my response to DrCury448 above to explain how the high angle would happen. Regarding the forward tower: I show it riding loose on the rear end of the bow section, until it (and also one engine cylinder) fall off when the angle gets less steep. We can find the tower and the engine cylinder on the ocean floor North of the stern half, on the way to the bow half--which is actually just as you suggested. And that 'ride' on the back of the bow is also why the 2 towers are not close to one another, and why the 2 engine cylinders are not close to one another. My theory accounts for the debris locations; nearly all the other theories disregard the debris pattern as random and uninformative.
@@billvanek5570I don't think ship broke at very shallow angel, because it doesn't reach the max stress. Break at 25, 30 still make sense, but the breaking at shallow angel 11, 13, 15 that not been possible. -And i'm sure it's not optical illusion, it very high, very-very high, even the ship sank will never reach that high angle, if it's broke at low angle, then when it's broke, 4th funnel already submerge almost and not rising since water will flow on middle pushing the ship down to gravity and more like dunk rather than rising. -the deckhouse most likely fell at near surface, or when stern finally settled, starboard list cause torque effect, and twist it, and throw it far away from main wreckage, it might also explain why Third Funnel remain was also very far, it got pushed by Deckhouse when sink to ocean floor. In my guess the break-up it doesn't happen because failed structure, but the iceberg damage probably reach Boiler Room 3 or 2 as a minor damage, but because always made contact with hot boiler (if i'm not wrong, temperature on room was around 110°C) meet with cold water (-2°C) cause thermal expansion and make a steel weaker and the damage getting large and large, until it pressure on inside cannot hold it again because a water already filled up and break, not because early break (11° degree angle). Oh yeah, Fourth Funnel didn't fell on surface, so correct that.
@@elli2499 Factually speaking, the "max stress" that you're talking about was from engineering calculations for maximum BENDING stress--tensile stress (pulling apart) at the top of the ship, and compressive stress (pushing together) at the bottom. That is a completely different failure mechanism compared to what I have presented--which is EULER BUCKLING following the additional Johnson parabolic curve for non-slender members (which the keel was). Buckling mode is a completely different calculation, and it does not require exceeding the ultimate stress of the steel; it's got more to do with the dimensions/orientation than the strength of the material. So you're repeating someone else's conclusions for a failure mode that doesn't even apply. Secondly, cold water touching a hot boiler would cause local CONTRACTION of the boiler shell--and only the possibility of cracking the shell, not exploding it. And we have visual evidence that the boilers in Room 2 have not exploded: photos show them basically intact and in place (we cannot tell if they're cracked or split, but they still have their as-built appearance and geometry). So the boilers were not the power source for the break-up; the stress state of the ship was the power source. Your "guesses" about iceberg damage way aft, the deckhouse debris being thrown hundreds of feet through the air, are without any evidence. Finally, the 4th funnel was seen to have not fallen during the Big Plunge, when the ship "went down as far as the after funnel" (Buley) (and Thayer: "The last funnel was about on the surface of the water.") But then the final breakup occurred: the forward part of the stern came UP out of the water (Osman, Buley, Rowe, Frank Evans, Collins, Washington Dodge Jr.) while its fantail came DOWN to put it at a nearly horizontal orientation, breaking loose from the bow, to end up floating freely. That breaking and pivoting down would easily cause the funnel to "fall up this way", as Dillon, on the stern, said that it did. (How does a funnel "fall up"? The only way is for the stern to have gone down to less than a 10-degree angle, because the funnels were angled 10 degrees from the deck as installed.) So did the fourth funnel fall, or not fall? The answer is "yes" to both. At first it did not fall, and then it did. That's how we get both kinds of eyewitness testimony: the timing makes the difference. People's recollections and testimony mess up the time dimension more than any other thing--something I learned during 30 years of failure analysis as a mechanical engineer.
@@billvanek5570you make an interesting theory based on what your expertise. But truth is, we will never truly know. It could be this one, it could be another. Me personally, I don’t think this theory is correct in my opinion. Not sure how to explain it.
@@harvestercommander3250 The "we will never truly know" approach is a non-argument. It's like asking, "Are you perfect?", and when the answer is 'no', saying that the person cannot therefore say that a bank robber is evil. Nobody is perfect, so the perfection standard doesn't apply. Similarly, nobody knows every single detail about the ship break-up, so it's irrelevant, and it is the reason we call our ideas theories instead of facts. We're doing the best we can with what we've got. "It could be this one, it could be another": actually, no. One thing truly DID happen that night in 1912, and so most of the differing theories are wrong, by definition. They cannot all be right, so they cannot be treated equally.
The only similarity is the low-angle condition for the first break. Long's idea is a top-down break, with the keel staying together; mine is the opposite, with the keel as the first thing to go (in Euler buckling mode), followed by the superstructure splitting open---as if cut with a knife---down to B Deck, with B, C, and D decks staying intact for another 40 seconds or so. I think Long is mistaken when he thinks that the top decks at the aft end of the bow wreck are mangled due to compression, because they exhibit the clean breaks (in tension) that he says aren't there.
I don't see how the stern could pull the bow back up, physically impossible.. the double bottom is known to have been shoved up into the ship, rather than down. The middle of each section is bent inward, rather than outward.. also, you might want to make underwater stuff slightly brighter, I'd love to be able to see what's actually happening.
It would be physically impossible if the bow were raising the stern up in cantilever--as when a fisherman raises his fishing pole with a bend of the wrist. But that is not the mode that is being shown. The bow is plunging forward and down, and PULLING the buoyant stern DOWN behind it--as when a fish takes the bait, and the bobber on the surface of the water is pulled under. Take a look at all of the Titanic break-up theories that mistakenly show the bow still holding on by the keel (like the "banana peel" theory), and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about with how the stern behaves from the pulling downward. The double bottom is not "known" to have been shoved upward. That is some people's interpretation of the evidence. The evidence itself is tensile overload, with bending, and it exactly matches the buckling mode that I have presented.
@billvanek5570 the stern is literally pulling the bow up as if it's on the edge ofna table. Water isn't that dense. You should watch Cameron's model tests.
@@billvanek5570There are also contradicting reports that talked about the bow going under immediately after break such as George Synoms and Thomas Ranger
@@fitzdizzel48 No. The ship was plunging forward and down at an increasing angle, pulling the stern (by use of the intact shear strakes and several intact decks) like pulling on a rope. It was not levering the ship upwards in cantilever as you suppose. Watch and see that it plunges down to the 4th funnel, so that the mostly buoyant stern is getting pulled under. You're correct to think that a rope cannot lift something like a lever, or push something; but a rope can pull, and that is what is happening. I watched Cameron's experiments last year. He put a lot of effort into rigging them until they illustrated what he wanted them to show. That is not how tests should be run. I did testing of equipment in chemical plants for decades, and I frequently came across Inspectors who would ask me ahead of time what I hoped or expected the results to be. I soon figured out that they were trying to give me what I wanted, so in my last decade I always told them, "I don't care whether the equipment is leaking or not; I just want to have confidence that the answer is true. I can deal with the results either way, but it must be an objective, organized, and certain test." Cameron didn't do that at all.
@billvanek5570 I agree, Cameron's tests are extremely biased, but it is worth noting how the ship acts either way. Physics are physics. And yeah, except a ship, in the open ocean, couldn't do that. It's impossible for it to pull it up or back or however you want to word it, like it's on the edge of a table. There's not enough buoyancy, let alone rigidity in the water against the hull. Literally, impossible. Once the bow is full, it's only going to go down, not pulled back up. Or rise back up. Or go anywhere near the surface again. Only down.
Many people think that they understand physics, but they are wrong. I aced physics classes in both high school and college. I've also been involved with rigging (picking up and moving) heavy equipment many, many times, so I understand how objects move. I've done failure analysis for 30 years, so I understand how metal behaves and fails. And a few months ago, I set up an experiment in my garage to prove that the bow of the ship could have broached the surface after it went under. So my theory is based not just on book learning, but on practical experience and experimental results as well.
@@billvanek5570 That's a big word salad despite the fact you've said nothing except you do NOT understand physics. The bow alone weighed over 30,000 tons and is this displacing 30,000 tons of water - its mass is overcoming the buoyant force because there's no air left inside it. In order for the bow to have come up (which is physically impossible) it would require a force underneath it pushing up (or a force above pulling up) greater than 30,000 tons. Aside from the invisible hand of God, there is absolutely nothing you could possibly to propose to fill this gap. My guess is you failed physics, because only a person who fails to understand basic physics could have said something as wrong as what you've said.
@@billvanek5570 All you did was write a comment saying you are correct and wasting time trying to justify a physics background, instead of explaining yourself. So go ahead. Explain how 30,000 tons of steel, filled with 30,000 tons of water, magically overcomes gravity and floats to the surface?
@@pc_buildyb0i935 First of all, the bow steel was counterbalanced by the stern steel. That is why the TITANIC at any given moment looked as though it was sitting still during the slow flooding; it's called a quasi-static state. The buoyant center section (keeping the ship on the surface) was a fulcrum, balancing the weight of the stern against the weight of the bow. Secondly, 20,000 tons of steel that is filled with water and is under water weighs 20,000 tons. Only if you try to lift the floodwater out into the air does that water now have weight. (Get yourself a bucket and get into a swimming pool, and try out what I've said.) And as I mentioned above, I did an experiment using an 8-foot 2x4 weighted with concrete blocks at each end, perfectly balanced, and pivoting in the middle on ball bearings. The kinetic energy (which most people don't understand) of the experiment's "stern" moving downward due to the break was enough to raise 20% more weight than the "bow" end. That is, the two concrete blocks counterbalanced each other (duh), but the additional energy from the sagging "stern" lifted even more weight. So that is how the bow broached the surface again, momentarily, after the first break. It now occurs to me that you might be speaking of later in the break-up--after the Big Plunge--and asking how the bow half came back upward. So I'll answer that, too. That's actually easier to explain than what I presented above. An illustration helps. If someone is wearing a life preserver and jumps into water from 10 or 15 feet up, what happens? The person goes under water, then comes back up, with a very small percentage of his body back out of the water. Since the TITANIC was still air-filled and buoyant in its stern, the stern was pulled under during the Big Plunge, up to the 4th funnel. Pulling an air-filled object under water would make it resist the plunge downward, and halt it, and then reversing and coming up--just like a person jumping into water. All of the eye-witness quotations exist that support these ship movements. And none of the movements defy physics; they just defy peoples' misunderstandings of physics.
There were two breakings. The funnels fell after the first, but before the second/complete break. Read Jack Thayer's account and you'll see that the loud noise (train on bridge, steel factory, china breaking) preceded the funnels falling.
It's the most accurate theory that exists. No other theory deals with the 3 different rises of the stern and the two separate "explosion" sounds of the breakup. All other theories show a single-phase breaking. Roy Mengot's theory is the only one that almost shows a 2-step breakup.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I absolutely love this format! The forensic bit was my favorite! I really love being able to the everything happen in one shot from one angle! The cinematic bit was great too! I think you should stick with this format going forward!
This is definitely one of my favorite depictions of the final plunge! The cinematic shots were absolutely chilling, especially with the detail of people falling off as the bow lifted vertical, well done!
Oooooh!
Nice style! You should do more theory animations like this.
Question: I know this is a theory but didn't the stern sink slowly down post vertical sinking and post pivot?
Sorry for any offence, no offence meant
Also, yhose that didnt know the ship broke assumed the boilers were breaking loose when they heard the sound of steel tearing, along with loud rumbles and roars from the ship.
I know its just a theory based on the testimonies of the survivors, but I dont see the ship failing at such a low angle and being able to hold herself together at an almost vertical angle
Fasten 2 wine corks (representing the bow and stern halves of the ship) together, end to end, using toothpicks: one at each side (representing the side hull of the ship), one from middle to middle (representing the internal decking of the ship), and two toothpicks at the bottom (representing the strong keel). Attach a string or fishing line to the "bow" end, place it in water, and pull down on the string. The entire assembly will act as one, of course. But now replace the toothpicks with string or fishing line, attaching them to the corks with pins or tacks. Pull down and to the side on the "bow" string again, pulling the corks slowly under water. What happens to the "stern" cork? It steadily stands up. Slowly allow the assembly to come up again, and what happens to the "stern"? It sags down to the level of the water. So you can pull on a string and get things to happen that cannot happen when the string is relaxed. The analog on the Titanic is the shear strakes (the doubled hull at decks C and D) still being intact, as well as the internal decks being mostly intact: even with the keel pieces broken out and the superstructure split as if "cut with a knife", the ship was not parted, and the sunken bow's plunging forward could readily pull the stern underwater "up to the fourth funnel". "As the Titanic plunged deeper and deeper we could see her stern rising higher and higher" "The ship was gradually turning on her nose--just like a duck does that goes down for a dive." “The bow of the ship was now rapidly going down and the stern rising higher and higher out of the water" "Now you could only see half of what you saw before; the forward of the ship was under water, the back part was somewhat more raised from the water than before." "the deck raised up and got so steep that the people could not stand on their feet on the deck. So they fell down and slid on the deck into the water right on the ship." By the way, thank you for illustrating the illusion that many witnesses suffered from, which was thinking that the ship went higher than it did. This animation brought the Big Plunge to just 46 degrees, but it looked like a lot more, right? Commander Lightoller thought it was 60 degrees (and it may have been, but I doubt it).
there are other testimonies that depict different breakups. after the lights went out it was pitch black. no one saw shit lol
@@eliminatehumanitysoon The survivors could see, and they could hear. Just one of many examples: "The fore part, and up to the second funnel was by this time completely submerged, and as we watched this terribly awe-inspiring sight, suddenly all lights went out and the huge bulk was left in black darkness, but clearly silhouetted against the bright sky. Then, the next moment, [there was a] thundering…hollow rumbling roar…"
I put together a new video to show how it could be done: ruclips.net/video/VS5BmyImDF4/видео.html . The key is the "plunging" that so many witnesses attested to, and the intact middle of the ship pulling the stern.
Awww, I missed the premiere cause of school. Amazing animation, you are improving a lot!
This looks great! And sounds great!
very excited for this one!
1:35 The bow was not at that steep angle underwater. In 2001, the Cameron expedition came upon cabin D-27's still upright (still in place) washstand with still upright (still in place) carafe and glass sitting on the shelves. The washstand faced forward towards the bow, so how did the objects not tumble off their shelves (the guard rails ment to hold them were not high enough either)? It's because the bow did not go down at a steep angle.
The short answer is that Cameron was wrong in his interpretation of what he saw. Many of the survivors of the sinking saw the ship at a high angle. In fact, the loud noise of the breakup was by many people mistakenly thought to be the engines and boilers tearing loose from their mounts and FALLING through the ship to the bow. If the ship were nearer to horizontal, "falling" would have been straight down through the keel, which was impossible, and did not happen. Frank Prentice: "And all of a sudden she lifted up quickly, and you could hear everything cracking through her. Everything that was moveable was going through her. And then she went down, and she had come up again." Edith Russell: "It seemed as though the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline. It then seemed to shoot or dive into the sea." Lawrence Beesley: "As she swung up, her lights, which had shone without a flicker all night, went out suddenly, came on again for a single flash, then went out altogether. And as they did so, there came a noise which many people, wrongly I think, have described as an explosion; it has always seemed to me that it was nothing but the engines and machinery coming loose from their bolts and bearings, and falling through the compartments, smashing everything in their way.
It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as the heavy machinery dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship: I suppose it fell through the end and sank first, before the ship." The ship did go to a high angle.
@@billvanek5570the stern didn't go that high out of the water before it broke. The metal and structure itself couldn't handle those kinds of pressures. It more than likely broke somewhere between 15° - 30°. Tests, computer and models, have shown this to be true.
Survivors can somewhat exaggerat things during moments of panic and fear, as well as fading memory years later. Let's also not forget our understanding and use of language was slightly different than it was back then, so how they might interpret something said, could be different than how we might interpret it today. We have to remember some survivors said the ship didn't even break...so how accurate are all the survivor accounts really?
The bow would have gotten to a very steep angle. Model tests have shown this to be true. See James Cameron's own model tests from Titanic: 20 Years Later (Titanic: 25 Years Later)
Multiple eyewitness accounts all agree that the Big Plunge went to a high angle:
"Then she turned right on end and made a big plunge forward."
"It seemed as though the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline. "
"The ship was right up on end then. Suddenly she broke in two between the third and fourth funnel."
"All at once she seemed to go up on end, you know, and come down about half way, and then the afterpart righted itself again and the forepart had disappeared."
"It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as [if] the heavy machinery dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship…. The probability of the noise being caused by engines falling down will be seen by referring to Figure 2, page 116, where the engines are placed in compartments 3, 4, and 5. As the Titanic tilted up they would almost certainly fall loose from their bed and plunge down through the other compartments."
"…the great noise which was…when the ship was aslant…"
"I think the noise we heard was that of the boilers and engines breaking away from their seatings and falling down through the forward bulkhead. At the time it occurred, the ship was standing nearly upright in the water."
"The boat seemed to lift up right out of the water and tilt up on end and then seemed to break and drop back."
I will add that the actual angle is of course unknowable, but it is clearly more than what most people today think it was.
5:18 The sound of a terrified woman breaking down.
My only best part when the 2 towers of the ship begins to sink underwater while the bow was still underwater.
The Lights Flicker after the 3RD Funnel Falls forward
very nice video!
by the way, this kinda looks like my new theory
also, I might once again post soon maybe by December for my new theory and others also the latest video I will release is the actual mind-blowing brain cell destruction, Head exploding like a shot from a grassy knoll... BrightSide yes, I will do that I watched their series of related videos and came up with a theory with the ship rising from both ends, a bridge breakup, an aft breakup, and more. Also, shingoji I have a question do you have a Titanic model? I got about 3 models 1 is a hand-built 1/4600 model yes very small and in the process of buying a Minicraft 1/350 model and 1 decal.
Also, shingoji another question what do you think about this in my theory? For me the reason why the keel and forward tower had moved far away from the stern was an early rotation, I based my theory on two main survivors Titanic Baker Drunk Charles yes I call him that, and Eva Hart in one of her interviews said this line "she rose for five minutes then keeled over" my theory is that when the ship broke that bow rocked the stern the last was one to the port side which would have cause for me the 9 to 15-degree list, For the turning point of the stern would have 0 degrees during the breakup to 40 degrees 30 seconds later caused by the list this had given the impress to Eva hart that as the ship rose she was keeling at the same time. This rotation would have caused a breakup of the forward tower swinging it downward so it began to spin and drift its way down along with the keel. As the forward tower broke off the stern was moving the rising would have only come up to Eva when the superstructure would have faced her this would have shown her that it was not just "keeling" she was also in the boat where Joseph Scarrot was this swing and breaking of the forward tower would have given him the assumption that it was breaking from the 3rd and 4th funnel as the stern turning for him was the actual settling. This for me also aligns with Charles's testimony both from the Carpathia and the final version in his version from the Carpathia it says that he slipped and fell in the water as the ship sank for I think that when the ship broke and he walked on the railing I think one of his legs slipped as the ship took the quick list and rotation the turn would feel like he was sliding and it was probable that the memory of him jumping off was that he looking down when his leg would have slipped and fell and was possibly dangling over and then he had seen the haul, the port list, the rotation making the stern rise would have given him the assumption that he was sliding down the ship but was just dangling and holding on to a railing. This is just a mini part of my analysis and that would make a bit more sense than what I said here. So what do you think?
If this is what really happened, then, holy shit…
No wonder passengers had ptsd after the sinking.
Yes indeed.
Read these second-person notes about Richard Norris Williams' survival: "Water catches up with them and sweeps them up the deck toward the stern. Ship seems to be rushing forward and down, making the wave that engulfs them. Father swept aft and away. Carried overboard himself. Hears a last word from father. Strikes out swimming. Thinks he goes a mile---actually 50-100 feet. Turns around and watches in astonishment as Titanic towers over him. Despite the horror and the peril, can't help feeling it's a majestic sight. The Titanic rises, settles back, then starts rising again . . . this time all the way. Stern rises right out of the water, till rudder and three propellers are clearly visible, right above. Seems to twist around in a semi-circle, then plunges straight down."
Very intense.
Question: Why did titanic fail at a low angle like at a 11 angle?
The extreme bending stress due to having the stern not supported properly (via normal buoyancy) would have taken the entire 800-foot keel to its buckling stress. Two pieces of keel would have opened, like a drawbridge, either inwardly or outwardly, and fallen first, before the rest of the breakup. And that is what was found on the ocean bottom: the two keel pieces are 500 feet apart, and are 500 feet Northeast of the heavy debris field.
@billvanek5570 but titanic would had fail if she had enough stress. Like she did at her final moments
@@average_idiot676 See my reply to DrCury448 above. The key is the "plunging" that pulled the buoyant stern under, raising it. And just like with a rope, once you stop pulling on it, it sags, giving in to gravity; so in that part, you're exactly correct.
@@billvanek5570 okay
Looks like Robert Ballard's 1985 Theory, but modernized.
Ballard had a single, complete failure; mine shows a 2-stage failure. The first stage of failure (keel failing, superstructure splitting forward of the 3rd funnel) accounts for the 2 keel pieces being found farther from the debris field, and the large quantity of "sparks" (actually hot coals from the last operating boilers in Room 2) shooting up the #3 funnel, and the temporary rising of the bow, which nobody else can adequately explain. Survivors described three different plunges, and three different risings of the stern. No other theory accounts for all of that.
The Sound of Explosion can heard the Other Ships
Amazing!! Make this video and your ideas available to a wider audience please
I first shared this theory on the Encyclopedia Titanica website in December 2019. Most people on that site simply disregard my ideas. Some people ask questions, but never will acknowledge things after I explain. So I figure that it took 30 years to get this far with the theorizing, and it'll take another 30 before people finally figure it out. But most people are sold on all of the single-break ideas.
If you read all of the eyewitness accounts, and understand buoyancy, strength of materials, tensile and compressive stresses, failure modes, and truth vs. falsehood in human testimony, you'll see that the break-up followed this general outline: first plunge caused stern to rise more; stern rising caused first breaking; first breaking caused stern to go down and bow to go up; second plunging pulled stern behind bow, up to a high angle; buoyancy caused pulling down to cease, so ship broke completely; bow separated and sank, and stern floated for a few minutes; stern turned nearly vertical, hesitated, spun around, and plunged down. The minority of testimonies that don't fit this pattern are either random spouting off by people who didn't know, or people repeating the error of Skidmore's sketch number 4 of 6 (the one labeled, "forward end floats, then sinks"), which was a total myth, but was shown around on board the Carpathia and published as if it was authoritative.
Lo único que deseo es que James Cameron se anime a actualizar la película o un nuevo director haga una nueva entrega extraordinaria
Y’all gotta admit, not very accurate but still freaking cool.
I got tired of seeing the other theories, and went back to the sources--reading the books and cataloging the quotations and recorded testimonies. I also considered the stress state of the different parts of the ship and the various times in its movements. And I considered the map of the debris field, which a lot of people dismiss as "random" in character, whereas I think it tells the story of a two-stage breakup. So all of the other theories are "either/or": they portray either a low-angle breakup or a high-angle breakup. My theory is "both/and": it was a low-angle breaking, followed by a high-angle final breaking. So this theory fits with the observations and testimony better than others. I think it's the most accurate.
@@billvanek5570 huh! That’s pretty neat! I have my own break theory that the speed of the top can’t she took resulted in her buckling and shattering from the keel up to about C deck, then the stern dropped ripping the area forward of the 3rd funnel from the bow, with the loose plating and decks dropping like confetti.
Hey Shingoji I want to make a accurate sinking depiction video and wanted to know if I can put your video of your theory. Will give credits🙂
Sure
@@KiwiKiwf thanks 😊
Titanic reaches 45 Degrees
Correct. Forty-five degrees is the mid-point in determining whether an angle is a high angle or not. We'll never know exactly what angle the ship attained; we just know that it was a high angle, so, therefore, more than 45 degrees. The ship went to a high angle before its final breaking:
"Then she turned right on end and made a big plunge forward." (Officer Pitman)
"It seemed as though the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline. It then seemed to shoot or dive into the sea."
"As the Titanic plunged deeper and deeper we could see her stern rising higher and higher until her lights began to go out. As the last lights on the stern went out we saw her plunge distinctively, bow first and intact."
"The ship was gradually turning on her nose--just like a duck does that goes down for a dive."
“She was pivoting on a point just abaft of midship. Her stern was gradually rising into the air, seemingly in no hurry, just slowly and deliberately. The last funnel was about on the surface of the water. It was the dummy funnel, and I do not believe it fell….Her deck was turned slightly toward us. We could see groups of the almost 1,500 people still aboard, clinging in clusters or bunches, like swarming bees; only to fall in masses, pairs, or singly, as the great after part of the ship, 250 feet of it, rose into the sky, till it reached a 65- or 70-degree angle.”
The ship was right up on end then. Suddenly she broke in two between the third and fourth funnel. (Joseph Scarrott)
All at once she seemed to go up on end, you know, and come down about half way, and then the afterpart righted itself again and the forepart had disappeared. (Quartermaster Bright.)
It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as [if] the heavy machinery dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship…. The probability of the noise being caused by engines falling down will be seen by referring to Figure 2, page 116, where the engines are placed in compartments 3, 4, and 5. As the Titanic tilted up they would almost certainly fall loose from their bed and plunge down through the other compartments. (Lawrence Beesley.)
…the great noise which was…when the ship was aslant… (Colonel Gracie, speaking about his conversation with officer Lightoller.)
I think the noise we heard was that of the boilers and engines breaking away from their seatings and falling down through the forward bulkhead. At the time it occurred, the ship was standing nearly upright in the water. (Col. Gracie quoting Samuel Rule.)
It seemed to me as if all the engines and everything that was in the after part slid down into the forward part. (Frank Osman)
The boat seemed to lift up right out of the water and tilt up on end and then seemed to break and drop back. (Walter Nichols)
"She went down as far as the after funnel, and then there was a little roar as though the engines had rushed forward, and she snapped in two" (Seaman John Buley)
After she reached an angle of 60 degrees there was a rumbling sound. (Officer Lightoller)
Question: I know this is a theory but shouldn't the 4th funnel go under standing, or Cant aft pushed by the water?
Sorry for any offence, no offence meant
By "sanding", did you mean "standing"? I saw evidence of the 4th funnel still standing, and falling aft, so I showed both: still standing during the Big Plunge, but falling at the end of the break-up. I disagree with the folks (including Edward Wilding) who think that water brought the funnels down, but I show the first three falling down at the time that water surrounds them just to make those folks happy. I think that the 4th funnel fell due to the breaking around the "aft tower" causing its forward guys/stays to fail, and so it fell aft once the stern returned to less than a 10-degree angle from the sea.
@@billvanek5570 Thanks for response, i disagree with the 4th funnel falling during breakup for 2 main reasons:
1. The 4th funnel was built very differently from the 3rd funnel. It was built much stronger and the guy wires were only their to help with Stability. None of the Titanic's funnels fell because of the guy wires snapping. The wires snapped because the funnels were falling. Even if the deckhouse formed, which I think it did due to Fred Scott's Testimony, it would snap nearly all guy wires but based on my research, due to its design and how well built it was (that the funnels probably fell partially submerged but based on my research, only 40%) it wouldn't fall. Their is also evidence of this on the wreck, if it fell, the deckhouse would have been crushed and mangled. However, it isn't, so that would help suggest that it fell late. The damage to the first class smoking room was probably caused by the implosion. Unless the stern crashed back into the water, then the 4th funnel falling would be quite unrealistic. I doubt it even fell at the surface. If it fell at the surface, it would end up further from the stern but it is quite near to the stern so it probably would have disintegrated during the descent. It was built quite strongly so it couldn't have fallen unless the stern crashed back. It would require less force than the mast so if it fell, the mast would have fallen. While the 4th funnel was fake, it was quite structurally stable.
2. Plenty of survivors said it stood long after break. These include Jack Thayer, Ida Hippach, Edward Buley, George Crowe, Samuel Rule, George Symons, Frank Evans, Fredrick Hoyt, Thomas Dillon, Ruth Becker, Patrick Dillon, Thomas Ranger, and John Collins. If it falls during or after break, it dismisses countless survivors. For example, Jack Thayer literally said that he saw the fourth funnel in the water still standing as the stern rose up.Ida Hippach and Edward Buley said that they watched the remaining funnel for several minutes.Thomas Dillon said that the funnel didn't fall until the ship actually went down.George Crowe, when asked, said that it remained standing after the stern floated back.John Collins said it was still visible when the ship turned over and went down. The reason everyone says it did was because it was shown in several popular theories. While scources like OASAG are great scources in my opninion, they went with the funnel collapse in break as it is the general consensus of what happened. Apologies for any offense, no offense meant.
there are other testimonies too, that go against this theory.
@@eliminatehumanitysoon The 4th funnel was built very differently from the 3rd funnel. It was built much stronger and the guy wires were only their to help with Stability. None of the Titanic's funnels fell because of the guy wires snapping. The wires snapped because the funnels were falling. Even if the deckhouse formed, which I think it did, it would snap nearly all guy wires but based on my research, due to its design and how well built it was (that the funnels probably fell partially submerged but based on my research, only 40%) it wouldn't fall. Their is also evidence of this on the wreck, if it fell, the deckhouse would have been crushed and mangled. However, it isn't, so that would help suggest that it fell late. The damage to the first class smoking room was probably caused by the implosion. Unless the stern crashed back into the water, then the 4th funnel falling would be quite unrealistic. I doubt it even fell at the surface. If it fell at the surface, it would end up further from the stern but it is quite near to the stern so it probably would have disintegrated during the descent. It was built quite strongly so it couldn't have fallen unless the stern crashed back. It would require less force than the mast so if it fell, the mast would have fallen. While the 4th funnel was fake, it was quite structurally stable.
Thier are only 2 testimonies of the fourth funnel falling. First is from Percy Keen who said the second funnel broke off after break. (Would have been 4th funnel as that was the second one standing in break.) However, in another interview, he said the first funnel (Would have been 3rd funnel) fell in break so he most likely confused and thought 4th funnel fell. The only testimony of the fourth funnel falling is from Thomas Dillon and he testifyed he say it being pushed towards him while the stern was rising. However, he was drunk so it likely went under standing. Plenty of survivors said it stood long after break. These include Jack Thayer, Ida Hippach, Edward Buley, George Crowe, Samuel Rule, George Symons, Frank Evans, Fredrick Hoyt, Thomas Dillon, Ruth Becker, Patrick Dillon, Thomas Ranger, and John Collins. If it falls during or after break, it dismisses countless survivors. For example, Jack Thayer literally said that he saw the fourth funnel in the water still standing as the stern rose up. Ida Hippach and Edward Buley said that they watched the remaining funnel for several minutes. Thomas Dillon said that the funnel didn't fall until the ship actually went down. George Crowe, when asked, said that it remained standing after the stern floated back. John Collins said it was still visible when the ship turned over and went down. The reason everyone says it did was because it was shown in several popular theories. While scources like OASAG are great scources in my opninion, they went with the funnel collapse in break as it is the general consensus of what happened.
Here are some of the testimonies that say it stood long after break -
Jack Thayer - Her stern was gradually rising into the air... the last funnel was about on the surface on the water... I do not believe it fell. Her deck was turned slightly towards us... the great after part of the ship, two hundred and fifty feet of it, rose into the sky, till it reached a sixty-five- or seventy-degree angle.
Ida Hippach - The Titanic had keeled to one side and was slowly sinking. Less than twenty minutes after we touched the water, we heard two loud explosions. The explosions occurred almost simultaneously. The giant ship quivered from stem to stern. It parted almost in the centre and slowly sank. The last I saw of it was a single smokestack, which remained above water for several minutes
Edward Buley - Q. Notwithstanding the darkness you could see the outline of the ship? A. Yes, sir; we could see the outline of the ship. Q. You could see the funnel? A. Quite plainly.
George Crowe - After getting clear of the ship the lights were still burning very bright, but as we got away she seemed to go lower and lower, and she almost stood up perpendicular, and her lights went dim, and presently she broke clean in two, probably two-thirds of the length of the ship...one-third of the aft funnel sticking up. The after part floated back, ... then there was an explosion, and the aft part turned on end and sank
John Collins - Q. When you were in the water, after you came up above the surface of the water, you saw the lights on the Titanic? A. Just as I came up to the surface, sir. Her bow was in the water. She had not exploded then. Her bow was in the water, and I just looked around and saw the lights. Q. Had she broken in two? A. Her bow was in the water and her stern was up. Q. But you did not see any break? You did not think she had parted, and broken in two? A. Her bow was in the water. She exploded in the water. She exploded once in the water, and her stern end was up out of the water; and with the explosion out of the water it blew her stern up. Q. You saw it while it was up? A. Yes, sir; saw her stern up. Q. How long? A. I am sure it floated for at least a minute. Q. The lights were still burning? A. No, sir; the lights was out. Q. If it was dark, how could you see? A. We were not too far off. I saw the white of the funnel. Then she turned over again, and down she went.
Patrick Dillon - Q. Before the ship actually went down did you see her make any movements? A. Yes, she took one final plunge and righted herself again. Q. She gave a plunge and righted herself again? A Yes. Q. Did you notice anything about the funnel? A. Not then. Q. Did you afterwards notice something about the funnel? A Yes. Q. What? A. When she went down. Q. Was that after you had left the ship? A Before I left the ship. Q. What did you notice? A. Well, the [aftermost] funnel seemed to cant up towards me. Q. Did you get the idea that the ship was breaking in two? A. No. Q. When you came up again, after you were sucked down - you told us you were sucked down and came up again was the ship still floating then? A. No. Q. She had sunk when you came up again? A. Well, I saw what I thought would be the afterpart of her coming up and going down again, final. Q. Then she had not sunk? A. She came up and went down again. Q. You saw what you thought was the afterpart coming up again? A. I thought it was the ship coming up again. She came up and went down again - finish.
The reason nearly everyone says it fell is because of the general consensus. However, the general consensus is a very unreliable tool as things survivors said get ignored. For example, several survivors said Titanic broke but we believed it sank intact for 73 years due to the general consensus and relying on only Lightoller and Gracie's testimony. Researching survivor accounts has taught the Titanic community alot about how Titanic sank as we have realised that the list likely eased at start of plunge, that the port list was heavier than prevoiusly thought and that the lights likely went out in sections which in the past wasnt believed. Using testimonies can be important though you have to use them with a grain of salt.
Sorry for any offence, no offence meant.
@@eliminatehumanitysoon There are indeed. So they all can't be correct. This shipwreck has an over-abundance of testimony, much of which is flat-out incorrect. The trick is to figure out which testimonies are correct, and which are false. And it all has to mesh with what has been found on the ocean bottom. This 2-break, 3-rise theory matches better than all other theories.
ShinGoji look at this, The Forward Tower separate from the Bow Section
I like the Bill Vanek Theory and Rupert Theory
Differences: my Two-Break Theory has speed in the first plunge, a low-angle first break, and the bow momentarily rising due to that first break. I don't ignore all of that eyewitness testimony, but explain it.
Examples of speed associated with the first plunge (when the bridge went under):
“She slowly went down bow first with a slight list to starboard until the water reached the bridge; then she went quicker.” (Edward Brown)
“She started to shoot down fast…” (Jack Thayer)
“This movement, with the water rushing up toward us….We had no time to think now, only to act.“ (Jack Thayer)
“The next thing I remember was the ship suddenly dipping, and the waves rushing up and engulfing me.” (Cecil Fitzpatrick)
“The forward end, where we stood, was sinking rapidly; and before we could jump together the water washed my father over.” (Richard Norris Williams)
“The first onrush of water separated us…” (Richard Norris Williams)
“The bow of the ship was now rapidly going down…” (Officer Lightoller)
“Instantly, when they saw us and the water on deck chasing us from behind…” (Colonel Gracie)
“Water catches up with them and sweeps them up the deck toward the stern. Ship seems to be rushing forward and down, making the wave that engulfs them. Father swept aft and away.” (Walter Lord’s written notes from interviewing Richard Norris Williams)
"People began to run by me towards the stern of the ship, and as I started to run I realized that the boat was beginning to go down very rapidly….A wave struck me and I went overboard." (John Collins)
@@billvanek5570 The top account is actually Joseph Scarrot's, Edward Brown mentioned a list to port
The top account is actually Joseph Scarrot's,
@IloveCruiseShips1912 Thanks!
I have a theory please rate it or tell me if it’s possible
So the iceberg hits the ship the first funnel falls then the 3rd funnel starts smoking then the 2nd funnel falls after causing a spark after that the 3rd funnel gets caught on fire then falls after the 3rd funnel falls the lights go out and the ship breaks up where the 3rd funnel is then the double keel hangs on which causes the stern to go nearly vertical before the double keel falls off and the stern smashed down to the water like the break up then the 4th funnel breaks up then the the goes vertical and starts circling in the air before it disappears
No, this theory doesn't hold water (hee hee). We know the least amount of info about the 3rd funnel out of the four, so all of your conjecture about it is kind of odd. It surely didn't catch on fire.
All of the people who think that the keel / double bottom kept the stern half and bow half together always contradict themselves when they speak of (or have pointed out to them) the difference in angle between the bow half and the stern half. The final break-up started with the ship at a high angle, and when it ended, the bow half was still "pointing downward" as many witnesses said, while the stern had dropped from being in line with the bow down to a horizontal/floating orientation. The keel was strong and rigid, and would have broken and torn loose with such a kink/elbow/dogleg angle between the bow and stern.
@@billvanek5570thank you I was wondering if this theory could be possible
I know this theory is wrong but @Emperor S.G can you make a vid about this?
@@billvanek5570I think the double bottom did hold on for a bit, not long enough to pull the stern vertical but long enough to tear at the bottom allowing the rest of the superstructure under the third funnel to collapse. Then the bow just breaks away and the stern was left until it flooded on its own and eventually sinking.
@@Theonewhoseeks12 The 4th funnel likely never fell at the surface but more likely broke off in the descent.
Question: I know this is a theory but werent the lights up to the second funnel out when the plunge began? (Maybe went out in D's lowering)
I think you're correct. It's just that Keifer/Shingoji/Emperor S.G. didn't show it in his computer model that he made into this video.
@@billvanek5570 Hi Bill Vanek, I have a question:
Do you believe the stern imploded?
I used to but no longer believe it due to Oceanliner designs recent video (Also, since the ship would be completely full of water) and also that those that talked about explosion sounds after the stern sank can be easily explained and also, since some said the stern sank gradually post break and there was no explosion sounds after it sank.
@@IloveCruiseShips1912 I think that there were multiple implosions of compartments that were still isolated. Although it's possible that 1 or 2 water-tight doors aft of the Recip Engine Room had been opened, it's not at all probable. So there would have been a few large volumes of trapped air. Each of those would have imploded once they got a high enough pressure outside of them.
The first evidence that there was still air in the stern is that the stern floated for a couple of minutes horizontally as it was flooding. Second, the stern tipped up, with about two thirds of its 320-foot length under water, and one third above, for about half a minute. All of that floating means that there was enough air inside. Even with open hallways and stairwells to let air out, there is still air trapped inside of rooms---the same as with the bow: as the bow went under, deeper and deeper, a hundred small implosions had to have happened with the air trapped in the tops of rooms. Gracie and others testified to all of the air continuing to rise from the bow half as it was plunging the 2nd time. My phrase, "enough air inside" keeps it floating; but "not enough air" lets it sink, carrying that air under water with the steel. But "not enough air" is not the same as zero air, and any air present would cause a local implosion. Also, the condition of the stern is so torn up that there had to have been quite violent force to do it, and the break-up did not: the stern was in good condition after the bow broke off and left the stern floating. Furthermore, sinking to the bottom at 35 mph does not break up a ship (as we can see from numerous other shipwrecks around the world). And finally, Thayer spoke of underwater 'booms' as the stern was disappearing, which corresponds to what other engineers have stated about implosions occurring somewhere deeper than 200 feet of depth.
Taken together, all of this evidence speaks of several implosions in sequence as the stern went deeper.
@@billvanek5570 Thanks for reply, I disagree with the implosion for several reasons.
Even though, at first the stern imploding when it goes under seems reasonable and accounts for testimonies, when you actually look into it, it becomes less plausible. Witnesses said they heard an explosion when the stern went under or just after BUT, they didn't actually see the stern sink. They were witnessing a phenomenon known as a False plunge. They saw the ship's stern rise quickly and into the air (Many described the stern taking a sudden pitch head on), then saw the lights go out and lost sight of the ship. They then heard the explosion type sounds of the break up and filled in the blanks. That the ship disappeared and then 'exploded' or 'imploded' under the water. That night it was really dark and their was smoke coming up after the ship broke from boiler room 2,3 and 4. So they could have easily lost sight of the ship due to the darkness and smoke and thought it had gone under.
The stern wouldn't have enough air to implode to a large scale either. Considering current research suggesting the ship was afloat for a full five minutes post break before the fantail went under, the air would be mainly out by the time the ship was under. If their was too much air inside, it would NOT go under. Any remaining air when the stern went under (A small amount) would have just bled out in the descent which wouldn't even be heard due to the screaming. Certainly not enough for an implosion.
The explanation for the mangled condition of the stern is that it went down broken end first ripping off loose parts of the ship and the water ripping back probably caused quite abit of the damage seen on the sea floor. The breakup was not clean either. The 2 tower sections were dislodged and the forward likely fell. The damage from the break probably also caused quite abit of the damage seen on the sea floor along with the stern going under broken end first.
The few witnesses that ACTUALLY saw the stern sink (As most lost sight when the aft lights went out and thought it had gone under) specificized it being calm and quite as the ship went under. This wouldn't be possible if their was an implosion. Here are some accounts -
Frank Goldsmith Jr: “We rowed away from the ship until we were about 150 yards away, and almost instantly there was a terrific explosion. The ship split in two and the front part disappeared... Then the back end aimed its rudder and propellers to the sky and ‘hung’ there for several minutes. Then it had a sort of whoosh and down it slowly went and everything was quiet.”
Cosmo Duff-Gordon: “A minute or two later, the Titanic’s stern slowly disappeared as though a great hand were pushing it gently down under the waves, and as she sank, the screaming of the poor souls onboard seemed to grow louder. We watched her - we were 200 yards away - go down slowly, almost peacefully. For a moment, an awful silence seemed to hang over everything, and then from the water all about where the Titanic had been arose a bedlam of shrieks and cries.”
Thomas Whiteley: “She broke in the middle; her forward end went down. The aft end righted itself, went right up into the air, and disappeared. So, she must have been full of water, as there was no air in her. There was no suction, or I would not have been here.”
If the stern did have air in it when it sank, it would have produced suction which would have destroyed Boats A and B but both boats didn't sink suggesting their was not a large scale implosion.
So this is my reasoning as to why the stern did not implode. Those that hard it can be easily explained along with those that said it was quiet. Their wouldn't be enough air to cause it and the condition on the wreck can be easily explained alternatively.
@@billvanek5570 Thanks for reply, I disagree with the implosion for several reasons.
Even though, at first the stern imploding when it goes under seems reasonable and accounts for testimonies, when you actually look into it, it becomes less plausible. Witnesses said they heard an explosion when the stern went under or just after BUT, they didn't actually see the stern sink. They were witnessing a phenomenon known as a False plunge. They saw the ship's stern rise quickly and into the air (Many described the stern taking a sudden pitch head on), then saw the lights go out and lost sight of the ship. They then heard the explosion type sounds of the break up and filled in the blanks. That the ship disappeared and then 'exploded' or 'imploded' under the water. That night it was really dark and their was smoke coming up after the ship broke from boiler room 2,3 and 4. So they could have easily lost sight of the ship due to the darkness and smoke and thought it had gone under.
The stern wouldn't have enough air to implode to a large scale either. Considering current research suggesting the ship was afloat for a full five minutes post break before the fantail went under, the air would be mainly out by the time the ship was under. If their was too much air inside, it would NOT go under. Any remaining air when the stern went under (A small amount) would have just bled out in the descent which wouldn't even be heard due to the screaming. Certainly not enough for an implosion.
The explanation for the mangled condition of the stern is that it went down broken end first ripping off loose parts of the ship and the water ripping back probably caused quite abit of the damage seen on the sea floor. The breakup was not clean either. The 2 tower sections were dislodged and the forward likely fell. The damage from the break probably also caused quite abit of the damage seen on the sea floor along with the stern going under broken end first.
The few witnesses that ACTUALLY saw the stern sink (As most lost sight when the aft lights went out and thought it had gone under) specificized it being calm and quite as the ship went under. This wouldn't be possible if their was an implosion. Thayer also said the ship sank quietly at the end.
If the stern did have air in it when it sank, it would have produced suction which would have destroyed Boats A and B but both boats didn't sink suggesting their was not a large scale implosion.
So this is my reasoning as to why the stern did not implode. Those that hard it can be easily explained along with those that said it was quiet. Their wouldn't be enough air to cause it and the condition on the wreck can be easily explained alternatively.
I find it an interesting theory, but I question how the lights (including emergency lights - as the emergency dynamo was also dependent on this steam) in the stern section could have remained on so long given the immediate flooding of the aftmost boiler room that would have occurred with a keel/lower hull failure as depicted (not to mention the loss of steam lines to all of the other boiler rooms)
From my experience in steam plants and electrical plants, I estimated that the loss of steam due to the flooding of Boiler Room 2 would take something less than a minute---probably 40 seconds +/- 15 seconds. So I showed the lights going out in about 40 seconds. We know that the lights went out during the Big Plunge, once the ship got to some high angle: "It seemed as though the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline." "The fore part, and up to the second funnel was by this time completely submerged, and as we watched this terribly awe-inspiring sight, suddenly all lights went out and the huge bulk was left in black darkness, but clearly silhouetted against the bright sky. Then, the next moment, [there was a] thundering…hollow rumbling roar…"
You're correct that the emergency generators ran on steam. Therefore, the only thing that made them different from the primary generators was their location higher in the ship (above the level of a flooding casualty that took out the primary ones). But having emergency generators does not mean that there was emergency lighting. It would take a large battery to run several lights for some time...and there was no battery room in the Titanic deck plans.🙂
Its similar to the Rupert Theory but 2nd and 4th are not collapse
I like the Bill Vanek Theory
Thanks, but I'd prefer that it be called the Two-Break Theory, because that's what makes it different from all the others (except Rupert's).
What did you think of 1989TV
It was GOOD!
This theory seem not make sense, since it was broke at extreme angel, i guess it over 45° and also if Towers was broke in surface or off from bow it most likely will end up close each other, if off in bow most likely it will end up close or in between Stern and Bow space but in fact the Deckhouse was found very far from debris field even from Aft.
Your "guess" that the angle was greater than 45 degrees, and that the angle was "extreme", illustrate the optical illusion that is associated with large objects: some people can over-estimate the object's movements. In point of fact, this video showed the stern rising to 56 degrees, although I think it actually was nearer to 45 degrees. The video shows the keel and the superstructure breaking around 13 degrees. At time 37 seconds, the "deckhouse debris" piece flies off when the superstructure splits "as if cut with a knife", and sinks away (it's the piece that Shingoji left still lighted! ). That is why the "deckhouse debris" piece and the two keel pieces are located so far from the "heavy debris field": they came off at the first breaking, and then the ship moved South-Southwest (SSW) to where the 2nd breaking happened at a high angle. "The ship was right up on end then..." "The bow of the vessel went down, tipping the stern high in the air." "The bow of the ship was now rapidly going down and the stern rising higher and higher out of the water, piling the people into helpless heaps..." "The ship was gradually turning on her nose..." "...the stern of the boat, fully lighted up, stood up in the sky, suggesting one of our skyscrapers, so high did the outline mark the skyline..." "After she reached an angle of 60 degrees there was a rumbling sound." The 2nd breaking came at such a high angle that everyone described it as boilers and machinery coming loose and FALLING DOWN into the bow. "Then came the second explosion, and the ship broke in half" "The front portion of her was pointing downwards and she appeared to be breaking in halves..." See also my response to DrCury448 above to explain how the high angle would happen. Regarding the forward tower: I show it riding loose on the rear end of the bow section, until it (and also one engine cylinder) fall off when the angle gets less steep. We can find the tower and the engine cylinder on the ocean floor North of the stern half, on the way to the bow half--which is actually just as you suggested. And that 'ride' on the back of the bow is also why the 2 towers are not close to one another, and why the 2 engine cylinders are not close to one another. My theory accounts for the debris locations; nearly all the other theories disregard the debris pattern as random and uninformative.
@@billvanek5570I don't think ship broke at very shallow angel, because it doesn't reach the max stress.
Break at 25, 30 still make sense, but the breaking at shallow angel 11, 13, 15 that not been possible.
-And i'm sure it's not optical illusion, it very high, very-very high, even the ship sank will never reach that high angle, if it's broke at low angle, then when it's broke, 4th funnel already submerge almost and not rising since water will flow on middle pushing the ship down to gravity and more like dunk rather than rising.
-the deckhouse most likely fell at near surface, or when stern finally settled, starboard list cause torque effect, and twist it, and throw it far away from main wreckage, it might also explain why Third Funnel remain was also very far, it got pushed by Deckhouse when sink to ocean floor.
In my guess the break-up it doesn't happen because failed structure, but the iceberg damage probably reach Boiler Room 3 or 2 as a minor damage, but because always made contact with hot boiler (if i'm not wrong, temperature on room was around 110°C) meet with cold water (-2°C) cause thermal expansion and make a steel weaker and the damage getting large and large, until it pressure on inside cannot hold it again because a water already filled up and break, not because early break (11° degree angle).
Oh yeah, Fourth Funnel didn't fell on surface, so correct that.
@@elli2499 Factually speaking, the "max stress" that you're talking about was from engineering calculations for maximum BENDING stress--tensile stress (pulling apart) at the top of the ship, and compressive stress (pushing together) at the bottom. That is a completely different failure mechanism compared to what I have presented--which is EULER BUCKLING following the additional Johnson parabolic curve for non-slender members (which the keel was). Buckling mode is a completely different calculation, and it does not require exceeding the ultimate stress of the steel; it's got more to do with the dimensions/orientation than the strength of the material. So you're repeating someone else's conclusions for a failure mode that doesn't even apply. Secondly, cold water touching a hot boiler would cause local CONTRACTION of the boiler shell--and only the possibility of cracking the shell, not exploding it. And we have visual evidence that the boilers in Room 2 have not exploded: photos show them basically intact and in place (we cannot tell if they're cracked or split, but they still have their as-built appearance and geometry). So the boilers were not the power source for the break-up; the stress state of the ship was the power source.
Your "guesses" about iceberg damage way aft, the deckhouse debris being thrown hundreds of feet through the air, are without any evidence.
Finally, the 4th funnel was seen to have not fallen during the Big Plunge, when the ship "went down as far as the after funnel" (Buley) (and Thayer: "The last funnel was about on the surface of the water.") But then the final breakup occurred: the forward part of the stern came UP out of the water (Osman, Buley, Rowe, Frank Evans, Collins, Washington Dodge Jr.) while its fantail came DOWN to put it at a nearly horizontal orientation, breaking loose from the bow, to end up floating freely. That breaking and pivoting down would easily cause the funnel to "fall up this way", as Dillon, on the stern, said that it did. (How does a funnel "fall up"? The only way is for the stern to have gone down to less than a 10-degree angle, because the funnels were angled 10 degrees from the deck as installed.) So did the fourth funnel fall, or not fall? The answer is "yes" to both. At first it did not fall, and then it did. That's how we get both kinds of eyewitness testimony: the timing makes the difference. People's recollections and testimony mess up the time dimension more than any other thing--something I learned during 30 years of failure analysis as a mechanical engineer.
@@billvanek5570you make an interesting theory based on what your expertise. But truth is, we will never truly know. It could be this one, it could be another. Me personally, I don’t think this theory is correct in my opinion. Not sure how to explain it.
@@harvestercommander3250 The "we will never truly know" approach is a non-argument. It's like asking, "Are you perfect?", and when the answer is 'no', saying that the person cannot therefore say that a bank robber is evil. Nobody is perfect, so the perfection standard doesn't apply. Similarly, nobody knows every single detail about the ship break-up, so it's irrelevant, and it is the reason we call our ideas theories instead of facts. We're doing the best we can with what we've got. "It could be this one, it could be another": actually, no. One thing truly DID happen that night in 1912, and so most of the differing theories are wrong, by definition. They cannot all be right, so they cannot be treated equally.
Its similar to the 2006 Theory by Roger Long
The only similarity is the low-angle condition for the first break.
Long's idea is a top-down break, with the keel staying together; mine is the opposite, with the keel as the first thing to go (in Euler buckling mode), followed by the superstructure splitting open---as if cut with a knife---down to B Deck, with B, C, and D decks staying intact for another 40 seconds or so. I think Long is mistaken when he thinks that the top decks at the aft end of the bow wreck are mangled due to compression, because they exhibit the clean breaks (in tension) that he says aren't there.
Titanic slows to sink and Fast to sink
This theory will be more dramatic in movie.
I don't see how the stern could pull the bow back up, physically impossible.. the double bottom is known to have been shoved up into the ship, rather than down. The middle of each section is bent inward, rather than outward.. also, you might want to make underwater stuff slightly brighter, I'd love to be able to see what's actually happening.
It would be physically impossible if the bow were raising the stern up in cantilever--as when a fisherman raises his fishing pole with a bend of the wrist. But that is not the mode that is being shown. The bow is plunging forward and down, and PULLING the buoyant stern DOWN behind it--as when a fish takes the bait, and the bobber on the surface of the water is pulled under. Take a look at all of the Titanic break-up theories that mistakenly show the bow still holding on by the keel (like the "banana peel" theory), and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about with how the stern behaves from the pulling downward.
The double bottom is not "known" to have been shoved upward. That is some people's interpretation of the evidence. The evidence itself is tensile overload, with bending, and it exactly matches the buckling mode that I have presented.
@billvanek5570 the stern is literally pulling the bow up as if it's on the edge ofna table. Water isn't that dense. You should watch Cameron's model tests.
@@billvanek5570There are also contradicting reports that talked about the bow going under immediately after break such as George Synoms and Thomas Ranger
@@fitzdizzel48 No. The ship was plunging forward and down at an increasing angle, pulling the stern (by use of the intact shear strakes and several intact decks) like pulling on a rope. It was not levering the ship upwards in cantilever as you suppose. Watch and see that it plunges down to the 4th funnel, so that the mostly buoyant stern is getting pulled under. You're correct to think that a rope cannot lift something like a lever, or push something; but a rope can pull, and that is what is happening.
I watched Cameron's experiments last year. He put a lot of effort into rigging them until they illustrated what he wanted them to show. That is not how tests should be run. I did testing of equipment in chemical plants for decades, and I frequently came across Inspectors who would ask me ahead of time what I hoped or expected the results to be. I soon figured out that they were trying to give me what I wanted, so in my last decade I always told them, "I don't care whether the equipment is leaking or not; I just want to have confidence that the answer is true. I can deal with the results either way, but it must be an objective, organized, and certain test." Cameron didn't do that at all.
@billvanek5570 I agree, Cameron's tests are extremely biased, but it is worth noting how the ship acts either way. Physics are physics.
And yeah, except a ship, in the open ocean, couldn't do that. It's impossible for it to pull it up or back or however you want to word it, like it's on the edge of a table. There's not enough buoyancy, let alone rigidity in the water against the hull. Literally, impossible.
Once the bow is full, it's only going to go down, not pulled back up. Or rise back up. Or go anywhere near the surface again. Only down.
Im going to mail the origin of this theory an elementary physics book, because I saw the laws of physics being broken a good 6 times
Many people think that they understand physics, but they are wrong. I aced physics classes in both high school and college. I've also been involved with rigging (picking up and moving) heavy equipment many, many times, so I understand how objects move. I've done failure analysis for 30 years, so I understand how metal behaves and fails. And a few months ago, I set up an experiment in my garage to prove that the bow of the ship could have broached the surface after it went under. So my theory is based not just on book learning, but on practical experience and experimental results as well.
@@billvanek5570 That's a big word salad despite the fact you've said nothing except you do NOT understand physics.
The bow alone weighed over 30,000 tons and is this displacing 30,000 tons of water - its mass is overcoming the buoyant force because there's no air left inside it.
In order for the bow to have come up (which is physically impossible) it would require a force underneath it pushing up (or a force above pulling up) greater than 30,000 tons.
Aside from the invisible hand of God, there is absolutely nothing you could possibly to propose to fill this gap.
My guess is you failed physics, because only a person who fails to understand basic physics could have said something as wrong as what you've said.
@@billvanek5570 You very clearly demonstrated that you also do not understand physics, despite apparently "acing" it lol
@@billvanek5570 All you did was write a comment saying you are correct and wasting time trying to justify a physics background, instead of explaining yourself.
So go ahead.
Explain how 30,000 tons of steel, filled with 30,000 tons of water, magically overcomes gravity and floats to the surface?
@@pc_buildyb0i935 First of all, the bow steel was counterbalanced by the stern steel. That is why the TITANIC at any given moment looked as though it was sitting still during the slow flooding; it's called a quasi-static state. The buoyant center section (keeping the ship on the surface) was a fulcrum, balancing the weight of the stern against the weight of the bow. Secondly, 20,000 tons of steel that is filled with water and is under water weighs 20,000 tons. Only if you try to lift the floodwater out into the air does that water now have weight. (Get yourself a bucket and get into a swimming pool, and try out what I've said.) And as I mentioned above, I did an experiment using an 8-foot 2x4 weighted with concrete blocks at each end, perfectly balanced, and pivoting in the middle on ball bearings. The kinetic energy (which most people don't understand) of the experiment's "stern" moving downward due to the break was enough to raise 20% more weight than the "bow" end. That is, the two concrete blocks counterbalanced each other (duh), but the additional energy from the sagging "stern" lifted even more weight. So that is how the bow broached the surface again, momentarily, after the first break.
It now occurs to me that you might be speaking of later in the break-up--after the Big Plunge--and asking how the bow half came back upward. So I'll answer that, too. That's actually easier to explain than what I presented above. An illustration helps. If someone is wearing a life preserver and jumps into water from 10 or 15 feet up, what happens? The person goes under water, then comes back up, with a very small percentage of his body back out of the water. Since the TITANIC was still air-filled and buoyant in its stern, the stern was pulled under during the Big Plunge, up to the 4th funnel. Pulling an air-filled object under water would make it resist the plunge downward, and halt it, and then reversing and coming up--just like a person jumping into water.
All of the eye-witness quotations exist that support these ship movements. And none of the movements defy physics; they just defy peoples' misunderstandings of physics.
No List. Titanic Stern Sinking
This is inaccurate, The ship's first funnel and second funnel would have fell before it broke.
There were two breakings. The funnels fell after the first, but before the second/complete break.
Read Jack Thayer's account and you'll see that the loud noise (train on bridge, steel factory, china breaking) preceded the funnels falling.
@@billvanek5570Correct, 2 breakings. and she rolled over to a even keel.
do mine :3
As much as the animation is amazing this is entirely inaccurate.
It's the most accurate theory that exists. No other theory deals with the 3 different rises of the stern and the two separate "explosion" sounds of the breakup. All other theories show a single-phase breaking. Roy Mengot's theory is the only one that almost shows a 2-step breakup.