If you're having a hard time viewing the video, I would turn up the resolution of the video. RUclips likes to compress the video quality unless it is as the maximum resolution. Thank you all for the support!
If we had the technology back then to see this happening underwater I'm sure it would be pretty chaotic to see and scary at the same time watching a ship rip and tear itself apart as it falls to the bottom of the ocean with relentless force.
Feeds into my Thalassophobia. I’m not afraid of the ocean itself, but it’s massive size and who knows what’s hiding in there. Even if we mapped out the whole sea floor you can’t do it all at once and even if you could there’s an atmosphere above you that is filled with creatures. Who knows what we haven’t found yet down there?
It's fascinating that, amidst all that pressure and destruction, there are still drinking glasses upright in the wreck that look as they were left on the surface.
Why would drinking glasses be affected by pressure? I assume you mean the water pressure and it's only deadly when there's a huge difference between the inner pressure of say a contained space such as inside a submarine (often closer to 1 atmosphere) and the ever increasing outer pressure (striving to fill that void). If the inner pressure is the same as the outer pressure then saturation divers can enter a diving bell, close it, raise the pressure (gradually and slowly of course) to the level of the depth they will be diving/working at, lower the diving bell and open the bottom hatch and exit the diving bell. A glass however has no cavities and as it fills with water there's no pressure difference for there is no contained space with surface level pressure. This is obvious in regards to the different conditions of the bow and stern part of the wreck. Almost all of the bow section was already filled with water when it plunged below the surface and hence there were no air-pockets/contained space to give in to the outer pressure forces. The stern section however had a cargo hold which had been shut and this became a contained space with surface level pressure. As the stern sank ever deeper the pressure gradient on this space increased until it violently imploded leaving the stern a twisted mess. As for the destruction. Well, it wasn't spread evenly all over the superstructure of the ship once it hit the bottom. Some parts took the brunt of the forces. Others experienced minor forces. Hence why some of the glasses are intact. Air disaster investigators find several intact objects where planes have crashed at high speed with no survivors. I'm fairly certain that what is still somewhat intact is found in the bow section of the wreck.
@@McLarenMercedesThe glass and carafe were found way down on D deck (in cabin D-27) on an upright wash stand on shelves that would've had guard rails. But no way the higher up heavier carafe would have stayed in place if the bow took such a steep angle at 0:12. Also, the stand faced forward toward the bow so no way.
@@DavidWilliams-so2dyin reality i dont think there was an implosion. Implosion’s generally happen when a water and air tight container is no longer strong enough to hold out the pressure outside. Titanic’s stern wouldnt have been 100% air tight (even in air pockets). I’ve read (dont know for sure its true) that the extreme damage to the stern is all blown outward, not inward like an implosion. The inrush of water being forced into the wreck faster than the air could escape by the accelerated sinking would have blown out any windows and weak areas of the ship and because the stern wasnt stream lined anything that caused drag in the water got torn off. (Im not an expert so dont know for sure what im saying is 100% true or if im explaining it right but i did read something to that effect)
@@jesslambert4819 If by "destroyed by ego and stupidity," you mean that Titanic was believed to be unsinkable and the crew was careless, I'm afraid to inform you that is incorrect. Titanic was never called unsinkable, but "practically unsinkable" (in other words, nearly unsinkable). Also, she wasn't the only ship referred to as such. Cunard Line's R.M.S Lusitania was also dubbed practically unsinkable, and she sank after being torpedoed during WWI. This was during a time when almost everyone was incredibly confident in maritime safety, and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster. As for Titanic's crew, they were some of the best at sea during the time. It's unknown why Captain Smith had his ship moving at full speed through an icefield that night, as he wasn't alive to defend himself at the inquiries. However, I believe it was because the ocean's calm conditions led him into a false sense of security.
To OP. What "greatness" ? The Cunard Liners Mauretania and Lusitania were *faster* (and more profitable) and the Olympic class liners which White Star Line built lost the record of the world's largest ship in 1913 already to the German ocean liner SS Imperator and its slightly larger sister ship SS Vaterland. After them ever larger and faster ocean liners were launched. When it came to luxury the ocean liners improved upon that pretty much yearly as more modern and technically superior ships emerged. RMS Aquitania launched in 1913 had much emphasis on luxury in an effort by Cunard to beat White Star Line there too. She was much loved by her passengers who called her "the Ship Beautiful". And she served *both* in WWI and WWII. White Star Line struggled economically even before the Olympic Class liners were launched and once motorships (diesel-electric and steam-turbines) appeared in the 1930's the old coal-burned ocean liners which were manually fed with coal instantly became *outdated* . Hence why those who still were around were scrapped in the 1930's. Coal was no longer easily available (hence spiraling costs) not to mention that coal needs large and bulky coal bunkers. Fact is they were so huge they took up 1/6th of the total cargo of any coal-burning ship. Motorships don't need a huge labor force feeding coal manually either. No, heres the harsh reality: Titanic is remembered *because* she sank and a lot of people died on her maiden voyage. But had she never sunk and missed the iceberg? She would have gone down as a footnote in shipping history. On her own she wouldn't have stood out. The *sinking* made her immortal. I reiterate: The Cunard Liners held the Blue RIband and were faster and more profitable (and shipping lines are ultimate in it for the *business* ). Larger, more technically advanced and luxurious ships were constantly being designed and built. So unless Titanic would have served with distinction during WWI as a hospital or troop carrying ship I can't see any greatness being in her future. Certainly not in a way which sets her out from the other ocean liners. Assertions backed up by nothing valid or without historical scope is a myopic outlook on anything, never mind famous disasters.
@@theminingassassin16 "It's unknown why Captain Smith had his ship moving at full speed through an icefield that night" Not quite true. Titanic had received several warnings from other ships about icebergs which had been spotted. During the inquiry following the disaster it emerged that Captain Smith had intended to go around the area with the ice which would have resulted in a minor detour. Captain Smith informed Bruce Ismay of this who realized that this would mean that Titanic would arrive in New York several hours late. In fact it would most likely arrive at port late in the evening. This didn't sit well with Ismay at all. How so? If Titanic arrived late in the evening it would be dark and nobody would witness the ship arriving except for the dock workers. Ismay wanted all the headlines and he wouldn't get those if everybody in New York had already gone to bed. Even worse was that all the passengers would be ready to go to sleep as well and therefore would be eager to get off the ship as soon as possible and hurry to their homes, hotels or in the case of the many immigrants the processing station at Ellis Island. *Nobody* likes to finish a travel late in the evening or at night. It's not so strange that late night flights are cheaper today. The press would most certainly not turn up either, hence no great headline in the newspapers. But if Titanic maintained its course it would arrive in New York during the day and people and the press would gather to see her. This of course meant going through an area they *all knew* had several icebergs. This decision was Captain Smith's but Bruce Ismay, the company president, exerted pressure on the captain to do so. Since the captain has the final say on his ship he was blamed and Bruce Ismay let off lightly. Most however knew *he* was the real reason this decision was taken in the first place. Another factor to consider is that Titanic was *already* delayed and late as her maiden voyage had been postponed due to the Olympic colliding with HMS Hawke and needed urgent repairs. The 1912 Coal strike also meant that there was a shortage of coal and White Star Line had to reroute the deliveries allocated to their other ships so that Titanic could have enough for her maiden voyage. This also meant that these White Star liners had to stay in harbor and their voyages were postponed. Some passengers however got rebooked on the Titanic... Another mishap which might have ended so much worse is when Titanic steamed out of Southampton. The ship City of New York snapped her moorings as Titanic passed and nearly collided with her. Fortunately a quick-thinking thug saw what was happening and prevented a minor disaster. So the maiden voyage delayed be almost a month, coal worker strike leading to cancelled journeys for other White Star ships and the near collision with the ship City of New York were already too many delays and bad news for Ismay. He felt that he could ill-afford another fiasco. The ship arriving delayed by half a day therefore wasn't an alternative Ismay was willing to accept. Yet another factors influencing Ismay's decision was that White Star Line had economical difficulties before they built the Olympic Class liners and gambled on them becoming huge successes. Titanic's maiden voyage had to be resounding success. This ship did also NOT go at full speed that night. Not all of the boilers were lit for starters. And what kind of a captain and crew would push a brand-new ship at top speed anyway? New ships have to be broken in first. Same a new cars or any new equipment. Full speed also burns a lot of coal and Titanic was short on it anyway following the strike. High speed is correct but Titanic wasn't going full speed ahead. "and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster" Really? You know White Star Line alone had lost 4 ships before the Titanic... Atlantic sank in 1873. 562 people died. Naronic was a cargo and livestock ship that disappeared in 1893 while sailing from Liverpool to New York. To this day it is uncertain what happened to Naronic. Suevic sank in 1907. Republic (II), sailing from New York to the Mediterranean, in heavy fog, was smashed into by another ship, causing Republic to slowly sink in 1909. On 24 January, Republic sank stern first; at 15,378 tons, she was the largest ship to have sunk until then. Shipping disasters werent unusual in the early 1900's... Examples (all a few years before Titanic) 1902 Camorta - The ship was caught in a cyclone and sank in the Irrawaddy Delta on 6 May with the loss of all 655 passengers and 82 crew. 1904 General Slocum - The paddle steamer caught fire and sank in New York City's East River on 15 June. 1,029 people were killed, making it New York City's greatest loss of life until the September 11 attacks. 1904 Norge - On 28 June the ship ran aground on Helen's Reef near Rockall. 635 people were killed; 160 survivors spent as much as eight days in open boats before rescue. 1906 Sirio - On 4 August the cargo steamship sank after running aground and suffered a boiler explosion on the Punta Hormigas, a reef off Hormigas Island, two and a half miles east of Cape Palos, Cartagena, Spain. 293, including Italian and Spanish emigrants bound for Argentina, of the 645 aboard were lost. Other sources put the death toll at over 500. 1909 Waratah - About 27 July, the steamship, en route from Australia to London, was lost without trace off Durban on the east coast of South Africa. All 211 aboard were lost. Naming but a few... "and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster" Given the light of the other disasters I find that statement hard to believe. "However, I believe it was because the ocean's calm conditions led him into a false sense of security." 1. He knew there were icebergs in the area. 2. He listened to Ismay's advice of arriving in New York on time to avoid more bad headlines or lack of headlines at all. 3. Captain Smith was a veteran from an era in which disaster were common. What false sense of security could he possibly have had with his experience? He gambled and rolled the dice believing any iceberg wuld be spotted in time... Please verify all the sunken ships I bring up here.
To person with Mercedes in their name: Think what you want , but this is how I see it. Olympic and Titanic were considered groundbreaking when they were put into service, and their luxury was well received by passengers. Also, they weren’t made to be faster than Cunard’s Greyhound class. In fact, no ship would beat Mauretania’s speed record until around 20 years after she got the Blue Riband from Lusitania. White Star Line knew they couldn’t beat the speed record, so they focused on everything else, and I feel like they did it very well. Also, the German ships were built to be larger than the Olympic class because that was the name of the game when it came to building ships during the time. One company would do something, and then everyone else would try to top it. I would also like to point out that if Britannic was completed and put into service as she was intended, she would have likely been able to rival other ships of that generation in luxury. People also remember Olympic for being one of the greatest ships of her time, and I feel like Titanic would have been the same if she didn’t sink. Maybe she wouldn’t have reached the same level of fame, but I think she would have been close. Also, I don’t see how WSL’s financial situation has anything to do with Titanic’s demise. Finally, Olympic, along with many other ships like Vaterland (renamed Leviathan when she was taken by the Americans after the war) was refitted with new boilers that burned oil instead of coal after WWI, so I think you may have been mistaken on that point.
That music just... fits this somehow. It really drives home how stressful and terrifying it was in the victim's final moments. Fantastic choice! I really hope I get over my fear of shipwrecks someday so I can watch more detailed videos of the wreck.
This is the best clip that I've ever seen of the sinking, It gives you an idea of just how deep the Atlantic really is and how insignificant she really is. Its amazing that it stayed as intact as she did given the forces involved
It's quite haunting to know that in hundreds of years, people will only ever recognize wreck by it's propellers and be left wondering how it was once attached to a giant Ocean Liner.
@7822MadaxManorthey are already detached qhen the stern hit the floor the 2 propellers were pushed up and detached so the central is still attached and that's why its under the sand.
It is amazing how much more intact military ships are on the bottom even with heavy battle damage. It shows just how much tougher they are constructed.
I've always wondered if you were there at the wreck site, how loud it would be when the bow collides with the seafloor. The sheer concussion must've been absolutely insane
Honestly, this soundtrack is perfect. Usually it's something tragic, or there's no music and it's just groaning and crashing metal echoing through the deep. This is kind of upbeat, and it staves off the thalassophobia.
Yes, the bow didn’t fall vertically straight downward, but glided slightly forward as well as down. The stern did fall straight down, but whirled around like a sycamore seed as it did so.
I think it was more the idea she “sank like a stone” because she was a heavy bitch and did just drop, nothing to slow nor stop her descent til she reached the ocean floor.
Still a hard landing but I agree. The bow being the bow was more aerodynamic so it cut through the water. That’s its job so it had a smoother fall down. Hit the sea floor hard but compared to the bow that was flailing around, it was more elegant
For a school presentation my son chose the Titanc. As a model kit maker he pleased me to made the ship in different scale. I made one in 1:1200 in one piece, only the chimneys around at the bottom of the ocean. The kids told me that i am wrong, cause it broke in two. I said "Yes, but this was the way people thought she looked like until Sep. 1, 1985!
In 2001 Cameron discovered in the wreck way down on D deck (in cabin D-27) an upright wash stand (that faced foward towards the bow) with a carafe and glass still in place on shelves. So if the bow took such a steep angle 0:12 going to the bottom, how then did these objects not tumble off their shelves? The shelves had guard rails to keep the objects in place however they were of insufficient height particularly for the higher up carafe.
Not a scientist, but possibly since the bow filled slowly and was full of water at the time of the sinking, the water pressure kept everything stable on the way down.
@@joshmesser1898 Yes, but I think @Garsons-oq4lh is referring to the impact. Based on most models, the impact would have jarred everything loose and knocked everything over. I don't know the answer, just trying to hopefully clarify. If I got it wrong, I apologize.
so generally seagoing ships have things to prevent stuff from tumbling around in rough waters. the particular glass you're talking about used to have a wooden trim around to to hold it in place, but it has rotted away between then and when it was discovered. the same trim is visible on pictures of olympic's fixtures.
@@subadanus6310Yes there were trims but there was also a carafe on the higher shelf (the glass below it). They were both perfectly in place so no way the bow took the angle it did at 0:12 .
The actual impacts on the bow and stern were actually extremely in depth great job honestly a huge loss of 1,500 passengers and a great Captain and the ways the survivors lives were impacted. I hope that the ones who survived who have since passed get to see their loved ones again.
The bronze propellers and the telemotor from the wheelhouse could potentially lasts hundreds of years if not longer. Only a few metals can withstand the corrosive forces of the sea. Bronze is 1, gold is another.
I've always wanted to see, in more detail, how Titanic looked in the moment(s) after it had sank and the appearance of the wreck on the seafloor. ❤❤ Thank you SO much for the excellent detail in this video!! ^__^
Awesome graphics Its just that background music is actually quite annoying and if you turn the sound down you loose some of the more important atmospheric noises ect
Titanic's bow certainly didn't swing down. There's no force acting on it that would cause it to do so, and its center of gravity is aft of its midpoint. All physical model tests show the bow flutters down like a lead in the wind. The boilers are still in their seats and most furnishings inside are still upright. It's clear the bow fell at a shallow angle and fluttered down. It didn't do the James Cameron dive bomb maneuver.
Hi TornadoHarry, I have a question - What are your thoughts on new (But ongoing) research which suggests Boat 10 left at 2:08 - 2:09 - later than previously thought? I agree with it as it explains Frank Evans and Edward Buley’s accounts. Great video aswell btw, keep up the great work :)
4:46 : If the Bronze propelers will remain intact for hundreds of years, MAYBE somebody will put some light on the 4-blades/3-blades dilemma eventually.
Bridge was already gone before the bow went under completely. It was smashed by the forward stack, and so was the leading edge of the bridge wing and it was bent out forward.
Dwelling on this horrific catastrophe is creepy and very sobering......we seem to know more about this awful tragedy today in 2024 than they did in 1912.....
@@sabrinashelton1997 Por supuesto que sí !! ..Los hombres que trabajaban en la sala de máquinas haciendo que el Titanic siga con las luces encendidas,las personas de 3 clase que se perdieron en los laberintos del barco!! Todos ellos se hundieron hasta el fondo .
Actualy at that time nobody would have been in the engine room they probably was outside helping with the lifeboats and the 3rd class wasnt locked up like in the movie they just took a long time to get up on deck since they dont open the gates unless its an emergency and they didnt think it was an emergency untill it was atleast 40+ mins after the collision
@@ricemmanuelledimaapi5980 Deberías leer un poco más de historia,el oficial Murdoch ordenó cerrar las compuertas al momento de la colisión para evitar que los compartimentos estancos se llenen de agua ,aún quedaban muchos trabajadores dentro de la sala de máquinas para despresurizar las calderas si no el Titanic podía explosionar debido al vapor acumulado,además los ingenieros eléctricos se quedaron en las entrañas del barco para que aún haya electricidad!!!
don't think that the stern would have collapsed apart like that the moment she impacted the sea floor. I think the fact that she was full of air, and with the implosion, most of her damage to the stern occurred during that time including the peel back of the poop deck. Also the two towers may have imploded apart at that time as well. I do know that there is some vague survivor testimonies that seems to indicate that the towers did come apart at the surface but I would imagine most of it would have managed to stay together until the implosion. I would also imagine that the implosion happened much further down, (and I'm just estimating here but I would have to say about a mile or so). Also, I know that they are saying the mast may have whipped around and destroyed the bridge but I just don't think that looks correct. The bridge may have taken damage when the masked collapsed but I would like to see what evidence they have to support that the mast whipped around like that. I see no reason why the superstructure of the bridge couldn't have come apart naturally as it descended.
when I read that the Titanic split in half when she went under and that people didn't believe it until it waas found, I thought to myself, no way could any huge ship like that could NOT split in 2 (or more)would be impossible for it not to have split into two on the way down. Question did any other ship that sank, go down in one piece?
There were conflicting accounts by survivors. Some said it split, others said it didn't. It boils down mainly to the fact that it happened in pitch black conditions, as well as the fact that eyewitness testimonies are not infallible. As for your question: Titanic is a bit of an anomaly. Very few ships sink bow/stern first, and usually tend to capsize instead. As for the hows and whys behind the split, Mike Brady of Oceanliner Designs made a really comprehensive video behind that, I couldn't recommend it more if you're interested in the topic.
a bit of info: the bow went down smoothly no implosions but the stern imploded 2-3 time before coming to rest on the bottom ( but I could be mistaken on that because I don't know much about when happened on that day cause I was born 72 years later so I might be wrong?)
Are you sure it was an implosion? And not the hydrodynamic forces that stripped the gaping section away. I figured all of the air was already pushed out at the surface. especially since there are massive areas in the ship where the division of spaces was wood not metal
The stern was not "full of air" and certainly didn't "implode," air getting forced out and replaced with water is what caused it to sink, it's not like the stern was air tight. True there were no doubt pockets of air that could have caused mini implosion, but nothing to cause the severe damage of the stern section. Hydrodynamic forces wrenched apart the stern as it cascaded to the bottom. It wasn't arrow-shaped like the bow, it didn't cut through the water on the way down.
I understand that as much as well, a great example of air being rushed out of a ship even through open port holes near the surface was the sinking of the Oceanos.
@@bennu547 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. Those that actually saw the stern sink stated it was all quiet after it sank
The stern remained attached for most of the way down crushing/smashing everything at the breach. No one actually saw the thing separate and watch the front half drop away ,,,,,it was under water. But loud sounds were heard when it bent and the stern part settled back down momentarily. That must have been the decks ripping apart down to the bottom and keel. Making a serious100' wide hinge bending wildly. The notion of implosion is stupid.
Although bodies would not be found at the wreck sites- crustaceans ate the remains right down to the bones… scattered among the debris field, pairs of shoes would be found… the way they landed in the seafloor suggesting they were the last resting place of a victim of the sinking
the ones who weren't wearing lifebelts like Jack Dawson wasn't wearing one but was hanging on the wooden archway (NOT a cabin door 🚫) and then Rose let go of his hands and he descended to the abyss of the Atlantic 🥺
No because the bow was fully flooded and any air pockets would have been pushed out of the stern as it sank. The stern wasn't a pressure vessel it had plenty of holes for air to escape from portholes to massive ventilation systems. Check out Oceanliner Designs' video "What Happened To TItanic's Stern" if you want to know more.
And to think something so massive and huge, strong and fresh off the drydock, could be broken up and blown apart in such a way. It fails to register for me
pretty close rendering , the stern was actually spiraling a bit faster , when it hit the sea floor it left a long skid mark off to one side, detailed imagery has shown this , , , that aside i love this video and the greenish blue sea water , very eerie indeed
4:33 One thing missing. The break up wasn’t exactly clean, and it had some major consequences as a result. One of them being, the two engines lost their first cylinders as the ship broke up. The break up started when double bottom was heaved upward, bending and tearing the massive bed plates for the engines on the process. When the bow and stern separated, the first cylinders of the twin, four cylinder engines were ripped out. There are only three cylinders on each engine still attached at the wreck site of the stern. The other two cylinders, and their supports, are scattered nearby. And the break up didn’t exactly occur between the second and third funnel, it actually seemed to be a bit more complicated than that. The break seemed to have originated for the double bottom, like I said before. That section of double bottom is well documented, and it was located at the front of the engines, just behind the third funnel. But we know the superstructure, for both the bow and stern, separated between funnel 2 and 3, because the forward and aft towers slid off after the bow separated. How is that possible if the break up happened to the rear of that? Well, the break up seems to have been less than uniform. From one theory, It seemed to form a jagged J-shape. It started behind the third funnel from the keel. The double bottom, being under extreme compression, buckled and forced its way up in what would become the two double bottom pieces we know today. From there, the split curved forward, sloping more vertically at about midship, ending at the superstructure just barely in front of funnel 3. The bow plunged, the double keel gave, and the bow detached. The forward tower section of the stern superstructure slid off shortly after, with the forward tower taking the uptakes for the third funnel and several boilers. The superstructure pieces were lighter than the bow, so they would’ve tumbled and floated more in the current. At the same time, several boilers would fall out with the forward tower. The boilers would drop like stones, landing slightly scattered below the site of the break up, and close to where the stern would land. The boilers likely ripped away from the lighter forward tower section and funnel uptakes, while the aft tower and galley sections remained attached to the hull of the stern for a little longer. the forward two cylinders of the engines, who were dangling by a thread at this point, would go with the after tower moments later, leaving the aft galley still attached to the mangled hull of the stern. The forward tower would tumble around, landing to the north east of the stern section, about 1,500ft away, roughly. The double bottom pieces would land a few hundred feet closer to the stern than the forward tower. Blown off the stern in the fall to the sea floor. The aft tower would land next to the remains of one of the forward cylinders, just at the nose of the stern which now pointed toward the bow to the north. The galley deck remains would’ve torn off from the stern on the descent, like many other pieces of the stern, and landed just beside the stern to the east. The second lost cylinder would land just to the east of that, in the field of boilers and hull debris. And we all know what happened to the bow, it landed to the north, pointed toward the north east. This odd break pattern is why some people speculate the break may have taken a y-pattern, forking at some point in the hull and terminating at the superstructure both in front and behind the third funnel. This pattern would be very unusual, but could also help explain the details of the break up. Either way, the events once separation began are pretty much the same with the forward tower following after the bow.
Its actually speculated now that forward tower was attached to the stern still. Forward tower is square shaped piece, it lacks any hydrodynamic shape just like boilers and would drop straight down. So due to that its speculated that when stern went down, during its first spin it trew forward tower to east, following a bit later double bottom pieces.
@@xxdeckxxdumanyan7413 The tower sections are very heavy, heavier than the boilers. But the towers have more surface area, and are mostly made from wood and light sheet metal. It’s also less like a square, and more like a sponge. It’s full of holes for cabin and lounge spaces, and that adds to the surface area. They would catch like a sail in the wind in the ocean currents. The boilers are more dense, and have less surface area. While not exactly hydrodynamic, they have less surface detail for currents to get a purchase on, so they drop straight down. The area right above where the boilers landed would be the breakup zone. There’s several different testimonies on what happened, but if you pick through the information, you find some interesting details. For one, one man reported that he saw the ship break, and he saw the ‘engines’ slide forward into the spot the forward half should’ve been. This is likely the first two cylinders falling off. If the forward tower was still there, that couldn’t have been the case. The engine cylinders would have a recognizable shape from the rest of the ships structure, being simpler in shape, they’d be hard to miss or mistake for something else. And given the distance from the debris field, it’s likely the forward tower fell off closer to the surface, where it then tumbled to its current location. It’s likely the initial break up partially separated the forward tower from the hull, and it tumbled after the bow when the stern heeled back level. It was also likely tossed by the wake of the bow cutting through the water. If the tower and the double bottom went/were tossed when the stern started spiraling, there would be more lightweight debris scattered with them, but there’s fairly little. The double bottom pieces probably went at the same time as to boilers and engines, because them being connected causes other problems for what we see on the debris field. The engine components landed around where the boilers had. These had to have fallen into the sea and about the same time, or else they’d be scattered outward. The problem is, the double bottom is in the way. If the bottom remained attached, the engines would not fall out in time, and would likely have been forced back into the engine bay by hydrodynamic forces. Then they wouldn’t fall off until the ship started spiraling, which would have scattered them further out. For them to drop where they did, the double bottom had to have fallen off not long after the forward tower. Otherwise the engine parts would’ve been partially trapped by the double bottom. Meaning the bottom detached not long after the bow and forward tower plunged beneath the waves. It’s possible that the _aft tower_ remained attached until the stern started spiraling, but it would be unlikely the forward tower would stay attached, as the spiral would’ve scattered the debris field even further. There is little other debris out that way, which wouldn’t be the case if they were taken off when the stern started the corkscrew. It’s likely everything that was going to come off the stern, came off either before the corkscrew started, or late into the corkscrew, otherwise we’d see more lightweight debris scattered over the sight of the forward tower and double bottom area. Since most of the debris is scattered over the sight of the boilers, and the bottom/forward tower sections are isolated from them, they must’ve gone separate from the stern. It also means the spiral didn’t swing wide enough to toss those pieces of double bottom, or the tower, out that far. They would’ve landed with everything else if they had separated that late, so again, they had to have fallen off earlier.
@@Nikolai_The_Crazed i dont think engine cylinder would have been actually visible, they are the bottom of the ship and only small part of them was above waterline. When ship broke up it would immediately flood that room and it would be dragged down slightly, preventing them being visible. Also about the forward tower, the currents that were going to southwest so if currents influenced forward tower it would end up being in completely opposite direction. So it somehow went against the currents. It also was speculated that forward tower was the first 1 piece came off during spiral and closer to surface, then double bottoms and everything else came later during descent a bit closer to bottom.
@@xxdeckxxdumanyan7413 It is important to note that the bit about water current is partially true. The deep western boundary current flows from the north, to the south east. But it flows _under_ the Gulf Stream current at the point where titanic sank, and the gulf stream flows northeast. That’s because colder water is more dense, and sinks beneath the(relatively) warmer surface waters. The western boundary current collides with the Gulf Stream up north and sinks beneath it, because it’s carrying frigid waters from the polar region. For the first part of Titanic’s fall, the debris would be at the mercy of the Gulf Stream, and as it drops down to the abyssal plain, it enters the Deep western boundary. Lighter pieces of debris, like coal and various other belongings, get swept to the south after initially being carried to the north. The larger pieces would change directions as well, but the extent of that depends on the mass of the object and how far it is from the bottom when it hits the lower current. If it’s too close and too heavy, it may only drift a short ways back before settling. There’s also the wake of the bow, and eventually the stern, stirring the water column. If it went with the bow, that wake could carry it to the north, with the Gulf Stream pushing it east. Eventually it hits the deep western boundary, arresting it a bit, but if there’s not enough water left beneath it, it’s still gonna land a decent way out.
@@ArmyJames Cause you think that humans know a lot about physics ? Ask any scientists what they think about our knowledge on physics and they will all tell you that our knowledge is still in its infancy .
No, the testimonies state that they heard some explosions few seconds after the stern sunk. thoses detonations were most likely the stern imploding and getting ripped appart but not the ship hitting the bottom.
La proa que se hundió primero y gracias a sus propiedades hidrodinámicas tardó aproximadamente diez minutos enteros en golpear el fondo. La popa, sin ser hidrodinámica y cayendo en una espiral caótica en lugar de en línea recta cortando el agua demoró unos 37 minutos.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
If you're having a hard time viewing the video, I would turn up the resolution of the video. RUclips likes to compress the video quality unless it is as the maximum resolution. Thank you all for the support!
If we had the technology back then to see this happening underwater I'm sure it would be pretty chaotic to see and scary at the same time watching a ship rip and tear itself apart as it falls to the bottom of the ocean with relentless force.
Hey, I have a question, where do you get the metal strain sound effects from?
@@DC10_AV i like to know that one myself.
The visuals of such a massive ship being absolutely dwarfed by the seemingly bottomless descent is very unsettling
It would make a cool lamp
Feeds into my Thalassophobia. I’m not afraid of the ocean itself, but it’s massive size and who knows what’s hiding in there. Even if we mapped out the whole sea floor you can’t do it all at once and even if you could there’s an atmosphere above you that is filled with creatures.
Who knows what we haven’t found yet down there?
@@LordWyatt it’s cool like that
@@Stem_Cieoh I agree, but I’m the kind of person who’d watch it onscreen from a mountaintop.
I had similar thoughts.....as big as the Titanic was for its time ....1912....it's a mere micro-spec compared to the size of the ocean/oceans!!!
badabing badaboom, that's what we're looking for
Someone here is watching too many documentaries 🙄
I thought it was I'm blue da ba dee da ba die I'm blue da ba dee da ba die
@@Bbc418or not enough...
I always think of that documentary too lol
Anyone who gets this reference is a certified nerd
It's fascinating that, amidst all that pressure and destruction, there are still drinking glasses upright in the wreck that look as they were left on the surface.
Why would drinking glasses be affected by pressure? I assume you mean the water pressure and it's only deadly when there's a huge difference between the inner pressure of say a contained space such as inside a submarine (often closer to 1 atmosphere) and the ever increasing outer pressure (striving to fill that void). If the inner pressure is the same as the outer pressure then saturation divers can enter a diving bell, close it, raise the pressure (gradually and slowly of course) to the level of the depth they will be diving/working at, lower the diving bell and open the bottom hatch and exit the diving bell.
A glass however has no cavities and as it fills with water there's no pressure difference for there is no contained space with surface level pressure.
This is obvious in regards to the different conditions of the bow and stern part of the wreck. Almost all of the bow section was already filled with water when it plunged below the surface and hence there were no air-pockets/contained space to give in to the outer pressure forces. The stern section however had a cargo hold which had been shut and this became a contained space with surface level pressure. As the stern sank ever deeper the pressure gradient on this space increased until it violently imploded leaving the stern a twisted mess.
As for the destruction. Well, it wasn't spread evenly all over the superstructure of the ship once it hit the bottom. Some parts took the brunt of the forces. Others experienced minor forces. Hence why some of the glasses are intact. Air disaster investigators find several intact objects where planes have crashed at high speed with no survivors.
I'm fairly certain that what is still somewhat intact is found in the bow section of the wreck.
I wonder how long someone lucky enough (or unlucky) to have found an air pocket in the stern would survive before the implosion?
@@McLarenMercedesThe glass and carafe were found way down on D deck (in cabin D-27) on an upright wash stand on shelves that would've had guard rails. But no way the higher up heavier carafe would have stayed in place if the bow took such a steep angle at 0:12. Also, the stand faced forward toward the bow so no way.
@@DavidWilliams-so2dyI heard it imploded after 10-30 seconds underwater
@@DavidWilliams-so2dyin reality i dont think there was an implosion. Implosion’s generally happen when a water and air tight container is no longer strong enough to hold out the pressure outside. Titanic’s stern wouldnt have been 100% air tight (even in air pockets). I’ve read (dont know for sure its true) that the extreme damage to the stern is all blown outward, not inward like an implosion. The inrush of water being forced into the wreck faster than the air could escape by the accelerated sinking would have blown out any windows and weak areas of the ship and because the stern wasnt stream lined anything that caused drag in the water got torn off. (Im not an expert so dont know for sure what im saying is 100% true or if im explaining it right but i did read something to that effect)
I can't believe you found the ost used for the 2012 sinking animation. I thought I was the only one who thought it was good.
RIP to all the poor souls lost that night. 🙏
Such a tragic ending for a ship that was built for greatness.
Built for greatness and destroyed by ego and stupidity.
@@jesslambert4819 If by "destroyed by ego and stupidity," you mean that Titanic was believed to be unsinkable and the crew was careless, I'm afraid to inform you that is incorrect. Titanic was never called unsinkable, but "practically unsinkable" (in other words, nearly unsinkable). Also, she wasn't the only ship referred to as such. Cunard Line's R.M.S Lusitania was also dubbed practically unsinkable, and she sank after being torpedoed during WWI. This was during a time when almost everyone was incredibly confident in maritime safety, and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster.
As for Titanic's crew, they were some of the best at sea during the time. It's unknown why Captain Smith had his ship moving at full speed through an icefield that night, as he wasn't alive to defend himself at the inquiries. However, I believe it was because the ocean's calm conditions led him into a false sense of security.
To OP.
What "greatness" ?
The Cunard Liners Mauretania and Lusitania were *faster* (and more profitable) and the Olympic class liners which White Star Line built lost the record of the world's largest ship in 1913 already to the German ocean liner SS Imperator and its slightly larger sister ship SS Vaterland. After them ever larger and faster ocean liners were launched.
When it came to luxury the ocean liners improved upon that pretty much yearly as more modern and technically superior ships emerged. RMS Aquitania launched in 1913 had much emphasis on luxury in an effort by Cunard to beat White Star Line there too. She was much loved by her passengers who called her "the Ship Beautiful". And she served *both* in WWI and WWII.
White Star Line struggled economically even before the Olympic Class liners were launched and once motorships (diesel-electric and steam-turbines) appeared in the 1930's the old coal-burned ocean liners which were manually fed with coal instantly became *outdated* . Hence why those who still were around were scrapped in the 1930's. Coal was no longer easily available (hence spiraling costs) not to mention that coal needs large and bulky coal bunkers. Fact is they were so huge they took up 1/6th of the total cargo of any coal-burning ship. Motorships don't need a huge labor force feeding coal manually either.
No, heres the harsh reality: Titanic is remembered *because* she sank and a lot of people died on her maiden voyage. But had she never sunk and missed the iceberg? She would have gone down as a footnote in shipping history. On her own she wouldn't have stood out. The *sinking* made her immortal.
I reiterate: The Cunard Liners held the Blue RIband and were faster and more profitable (and shipping lines are ultimate in it for the *business* ). Larger, more technically advanced and luxurious ships were constantly being designed and built.
So unless Titanic would have served with distinction during WWI as a hospital or troop carrying ship I can't see any greatness being in her future. Certainly not in a way which sets her out from the other ocean liners.
Assertions backed up by nothing valid or without historical scope is a myopic outlook on anything, never mind famous disasters.
@@theminingassassin16 "It's unknown why Captain Smith had his ship moving at full speed through an icefield that night" Not quite true. Titanic had received several warnings from other ships about icebergs which had been spotted. During the inquiry following the disaster it emerged that Captain Smith had intended to go around the area with the ice which would have resulted in a minor detour. Captain Smith informed Bruce Ismay of this who realized that this would mean that Titanic would arrive in New York several hours late. In fact it would most likely arrive at port late in the evening.
This didn't sit well with Ismay at all. How so? If Titanic arrived late in the evening it would be dark and nobody would witness the ship arriving except for the dock workers. Ismay wanted all the headlines and he wouldn't get those if everybody in New York had already gone to bed. Even worse was that all the passengers would be ready to go to sleep as well and therefore would be eager to get off the ship as soon as possible and hurry to their homes, hotels or in the case of the many immigrants the processing station at Ellis Island. *Nobody* likes to finish a travel late in the evening or at night. It's not so strange that late night flights are cheaper today.
The press would most certainly not turn up either, hence no great headline in the newspapers.
But if Titanic maintained its course it would arrive in New York during the day and people and the press would gather to see her. This of course meant going through an area they *all knew* had several icebergs. This decision was Captain Smith's but Bruce Ismay, the company president, exerted pressure on the captain to do so. Since the captain has the final say on his ship he was blamed and Bruce Ismay let off lightly. Most however knew *he* was the real reason this decision was taken in the first place.
Another factor to consider is that Titanic was *already* delayed and late as her maiden voyage had been postponed due to the Olympic colliding with HMS Hawke and needed urgent repairs. The 1912 Coal strike also meant that there was a shortage of coal and White Star Line had to reroute the deliveries allocated to their other ships so that Titanic could have enough for her maiden voyage. This also meant that these White Star liners had to stay in harbor and their voyages were postponed. Some passengers however got rebooked on the Titanic...
Another mishap which might have ended so much worse is when Titanic steamed out of Southampton. The ship City of New York snapped her moorings as Titanic passed and nearly collided with her. Fortunately a quick-thinking thug saw what was happening and prevented a minor disaster.
So the maiden voyage delayed be almost a month, coal worker strike leading to cancelled journeys for other White Star ships and the near collision with the ship City of New York were already too many delays and bad news for Ismay. He felt that he could ill-afford another fiasco. The ship arriving delayed by half a day therefore wasn't an alternative Ismay was willing to accept.
Yet another factors influencing Ismay's decision was that White Star Line had economical difficulties before they built the Olympic Class liners and gambled on them becoming huge successes. Titanic's maiden voyage had to be resounding success.
This ship did also NOT go at full speed that night. Not all of the boilers were lit for starters. And what kind of a captain and crew would push a brand-new ship at top speed anyway? New ships have to be broken in first. Same a new cars or any new equipment. Full speed also burns a lot of coal and Titanic was short on it anyway following the strike. High speed is correct but Titanic wasn't going full speed ahead.
"and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster" Really?
You know White Star Line alone had lost 4 ships before the Titanic...
Atlantic sank in 1873. 562 people died.
Naronic was a cargo and livestock ship that disappeared in 1893 while sailing from Liverpool to New York. To this day it is uncertain what happened to Naronic.
Suevic sank in 1907.
Republic (II), sailing from New York to the Mediterranean, in heavy fog, was smashed into by another ship, causing Republic to slowly sink in 1909. On 24 January, Republic sank stern first; at 15,378 tons, she was the largest ship to have sunk until then.
Shipping disasters werent unusual in the early 1900's...
Examples (all a few years before Titanic)
1902 Camorta - The ship was caught in a cyclone and sank in the Irrawaddy Delta on 6 May with the loss of all 655 passengers and 82 crew.
1904 General Slocum - The paddle steamer caught fire and sank in New York City's East River on 15 June. 1,029 people were killed, making it New York City's greatest loss of life until the September 11 attacks.
1904 Norge - On 28 June the ship ran aground on Helen's Reef near Rockall. 635 people were killed; 160 survivors spent as much as eight days in open boats before rescue.
1906 Sirio - On 4 August the cargo steamship sank after running aground and suffered a boiler explosion on the Punta Hormigas, a reef off Hormigas Island, two and a half miles east of Cape Palos, Cartagena, Spain. 293, including Italian and Spanish emigrants bound for Argentina, of the 645 aboard were lost. Other sources put the death toll at over 500.
1909 Waratah - About 27 July, the steamship, en route from Australia to London, was lost without trace off Durban on the east coast of South Africa. All 211 aboard were lost.
Naming but a few...
"and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster"
Given the light of the other disasters I find that statement hard to believe.
"However, I believe it was because the ocean's calm conditions led him into a false sense of security." 1. He knew there were icebergs in the area.
2. He listened to Ismay's advice of arriving in New York on time to avoid more bad headlines or lack of headlines at all.
3. Captain Smith was a veteran from an era in which disaster were common. What false sense of security could he possibly have had with his experience?
He gambled and rolled the dice believing any iceberg wuld be spotted in time...
Please verify all the sunken ships I bring up here.
To person with Mercedes in their name:
Think what you want , but this is how I see it. Olympic and Titanic were considered groundbreaking when they were put into service, and their luxury was well received by passengers. Also, they weren’t made to be faster than Cunard’s Greyhound class. In fact, no ship would beat Mauretania’s speed record until around 20 years after she got the Blue Riband from Lusitania. White Star Line knew they couldn’t beat the speed record, so they focused on everything else, and I feel like they did it very well. Also, the German ships were built to be larger than the Olympic class because that was the name of the game when it came to building ships during the time. One company would do something, and then everyone else would try to top it. I would also like to point out that if Britannic was completed and put into service as she was intended, she would have likely been able to rival other ships of that generation in luxury. People also remember Olympic for being one of the greatest ships of her time, and I feel like Titanic would have been the same if she didn’t sink. Maybe she wouldn’t have reached the same level of fame, but I think she would have been close. Also, I don’t see how WSL’s financial situation has anything to do with Titanic’s demise. Finally, Olympic, along with many other ships like Vaterland (renamed Leviathan when she was taken by the Americans after the war) was refitted with new boilers that burned oil instead of coal after WWI, so I think you may have been mistaken on that point.
Imagine finding this fucking thing at the bottom of an abysmal ocean. So eerie and amazing.
You wouldn’t, it’s like 1-2 miles under
@@StuyJamaicaYonkers I didn't mean me personally. I was referencing the person that did find it.
@@BucNasT don matter who I was jus sayin
Umm actually it kind of does. People have gone to the physical wreck. So to say no one can is false
@StuyJamaicaYonkers It was obviously amazing for the one's who found it
Crazy to imagine this happened in complete darkness
Easy to forget that most of the Earth lies at the bottom of a lake or ocean. Most of our planet is shrouded in perpetual darkness.
That music just... fits this somehow. It really drives home how stressful and terrifying it was in the victim's final moments. Fantastic choice! I really hope I get over my fear of shipwrecks someday so I can watch more detailed videos of the wreck.
This is the best clip that I've ever seen of the sinking, It gives you an idea of just how deep the Atlantic really is and how insignificant she really is. Its amazing that it stayed as intact as she did given the forces involved
It's quite haunting to know that in hundreds of years, people will only ever recognize wreck by it's propellers and be left wondering how it was once attached to a giant Ocean Liner.
Honestly they should save the propellers I feel they are worth salvaging
Why would only the propellers be left behind? Do they degrade differently than the hull?
@@EthanDarke They're made of copper which is much MUCH more resistant to corrosion than steel, and iron.
@7822MadaxManorthey are already detached qhen the stern hit the floor the 2 propellers were pushed up and detached so the central is still attached and that's why its under the sand.
The amount of folks here that don’t know the difference between an explosion and an implosion is staggering.
It is amazing how much more intact military ships are on the bottom even with heavy battle damage. It shows just how much tougher they are constructed.
well yes but most sunken military ships are at least 20 years younger than titanic
I, personally, have always thought about this part of the event. So it's cool that someone is focusing on it. Good job. 😉
Rest In Peace To Those Who Lost Their Lives 💯
The exciting music turns this from a tragedy into an exciting action scene to see which section of Titanic hits the bottom first
I've always wondered if you were there at the wreck site, how loud it would be when the bow collides with the seafloor. The sheer concussion must've been absolutely insane
I always imagined standing on the bottom and watching it come down and hit the seafloor. Yeah, I know: "impossible". But I did say imagined.
This video is absolutely amazing great work well done
Man casually using the same OST as the documentary, what a boss
The ost sounds like temple music and I like ig
@@Jackr85 it's the ost of inception
I love the titanic it was the best and you made the sinking of titanic thx it a cool video.
Honestly, this soundtrack is perfect. Usually it's something tragic, or there's no music and it's just groaning and crashing metal echoing through the deep. This is kind of upbeat, and it staves off the thalassophobia.
God bless to the people that suffered RIP
It would have been over in a couple of minutes, once you lost consciousness from the cold.
@@ArmyJames it doesn’t matter. thats still a horrible way to go.
Imagen being a fish swimming having a good time and suddenly this big thing comes crashing down through the darkness.^^*
New house
@@Ashtondaboi918 City* ;P
@@00Kuja00 Yeah and the stern is another city for the fish.
@@Ashtondaboi918 Kinda cute, in a morbid sort of way.
And like during ww2 they were like “oop here comes another 😑”
I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘like a stone’ she went down (her bow at least) very elegantly like you very beautifully portrayed.
Yes, the bow didn’t fall vertically straight downward, but glided slightly forward as well as down. The stern did fall straight down, but whirled around like a sycamore seed as it did so.
I think it was more the idea she “sank like a stone” because she was a heavy bitch and did just drop, nothing to slow nor stop her descent til she reached the ocean floor.
Still a hard landing but I agree. The bow being the bow was more aerodynamic so it cut through the water. That’s its job so it had a smoother fall down. Hit the sea floor hard but compared to the bow that was flailing around, it was more elegant
For a school presentation my son chose the Titanc.
As a model kit maker he pleased me to made the ship in different scale.
I made one in 1:1200 in one piece, only the chimneys around at the bottom of the ocean.
The kids told me that i am wrong, cause it broke in two.
I said "Yes, but this was the way people thought she looked like until Sep. 1, 1985!
Why are you doing your son’s homework for him?
NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REAL TIME.
You should do a real time
@@keneniahwilliams4374yeah
WAS THIS COMMENT NECESSARY
@@levyan4718 yes
@@keneniahwilliams4374the descent was the famous film with grottes and monsters 👿
In 2001 Cameron discovered in the wreck way down on D deck (in cabin D-27) an upright wash stand (that faced foward towards the bow) with a carafe and glass still in place on shelves. So if the bow took such a steep angle 0:12 going to the bottom, how then did these objects not tumble off their shelves? The shelves had guard rails to keep the objects in place however they were of insufficient height particularly for the higher up carafe.
Not a scientist, but possibly since the bow filled slowly and was full of water at the time of the sinking, the water pressure kept everything stable on the way down.
@@joshmesser1898 Yes, but I think @Garsons-oq4lh is referring to the impact. Based on most models, the impact would have jarred everything loose and knocked everything over. I don't know the answer, just trying to hopefully clarify. If I got it wrong, I apologize.
@@joshmesser1898The bow is at such a steep angle here 0:12 that there is no way those objects would've stayed in place.
so generally seagoing ships have things to prevent stuff from tumbling around in rough waters. the particular glass you're talking about used to have a wooden trim around to to hold it in place, but it has rotted away between then and when it was discovered. the same trim is visible on pictures of olympic's fixtures.
@@subadanus6310Yes there were trims but there was also a carafe on the higher shelf (the glass below it). They were both perfectly in place so no way the bow took the angle it did at 0:12 .
Nicely done.
Imagine being a sea creature with a home on the sea floor when this bad boy comes hurtling above to change your life forever
How terrifying. Modern technology has allowed us to learn more about the wreck than we ever knew before it was discovered.
That's some pretty chipper music for such a horrifying visual.
The actual impacts on the bow and stern were actually extremely in depth great job honestly a huge loss of 1,500 passengers and a great Captain and the ways the survivors lives were impacted. I hope that the ones who survived who have since passed get to see their loved ones again.
I truly hope in my lifetime they have the technology to raise one of the props, or dig out the center 3 bladed one
They will.
or at least scan the seabed and tell us if its for sure 3 blades
The bronze propellers and the telemotor from the wheelhouse could potentially lasts hundreds of years if not longer. Only a few metals can withstand the corrosive forces of the sea. Bronze is 1, gold is another.
I've always wanted to see, in more detail, how Titanic looked in the moment(s) after it had sank and the appearance of the wreck on the seafloor. ❤❤
Thank you SO much for the excellent detail in this video!! ^__^
It would have been a strange sight I think because aside from being broken apart it would have been pristine
With all the Titanic mania always present, I'm surprised that nobody has done this in real time.
There’s a few out there if you search for it
Excellent film, thx
Excellent video!! . Congratulations!
The first ever human who sailed on an ocean was a madlad, when you think of it.
Imagine how goofy a britannic movie type style titanic sinking would be. Where the ship capsizes out of legit no where
here before it goes viral
this is very good i ever seen A deck is pancaked true. in the stern section
For scale if you have an 8 foot ceiling and a Sharpie pen is at the top, the fall to the floor is about like that.
The recent scans of the wreck revealed that the bow is not as bent as we previously thought in the area of the expansion joint.
I'm not entirely convinced that the agonising screaming was necessary. We get it. It was horrifying.
3:56 is that the no limits 2 splashdown sound?
Awesome graphics
Its just that background music is actually quite annoying and if you turn the sound down you loose some of the more important atmospheric noises ect
The animation omits the slow rain of dead bodies that followed the ship's impact with the ocean floor.
I never knew the wreck sank to music.
0:01-3:56
Bada-bing bada-boom, that’s what we’re looking for.
Titanic's bow certainly didn't swing down. There's no force acting on it that would cause it to do so, and its center of gravity is aft of its midpoint. All physical model tests show the bow flutters down like a lead in the wind. The boilers are still in their seats and most furnishings inside are still upright. It's clear the bow fell at a shallow angle and fluttered down. It didn't do the James Cameron dive bomb maneuver.
Yes there was. The double bottom hung on for dear life
@@bennu547 The double bottom likely detached just after the stern had fully settled back.
It's heartbreaking
Hi TornadoHarry, I have a question -
What are your thoughts on new (But ongoing) research which suggests Boat 10 left at 2:08 - 2:09 - later than previously thought? I agree with it as it explains Frank Evans and Edward Buley’s accounts.
Great video aswell btw, keep up the great work :)
I've been wanting someone to do an animation on this
4:46 : If the Bronze propelers will remain intact for hundreds of years, MAYBE somebody will put some light on the 4-blades/3-blades dilemma eventually.
The Titanic's bow/centre-section was initially vertical when it plunged to the bottom.
Bridge was already gone before the bow went under completely. It was smashed by the forward stack, and so was the leading edge of the bridge wing and it was bent out forward.
@@050572robert smashed by the mast snapping back. The forward funnel fell to the side not forward
The bride was damaged by the funnel falling but the mast destroyed it
The funnel fell diagonal
Dwelling on this horrific catastrophe is creepy and very sobering......we seem to know more about this awful tragedy today in 2024 than they did in 1912.....
Y pensar que aún había gente atrapada dentro del barco , sus cuerpos habrán implosionado.
@@sabrinashelton1997 Por supuesto que sí !! ..Los hombres que trabajaban en la sala de máquinas haciendo que el Titanic siga con las luces encendidas,las personas de 3 clase que se perdieron en los laberintos del barco!! Todos ellos se hundieron hasta el fondo .
Actualy at that time nobody would have been in the engine room they probably was outside helping with the lifeboats and the 3rd class wasnt locked up like in the movie they just took a long time to get up on deck since they dont open the gates unless its an emergency and they didnt think it was an emergency untill it was atleast 40+ mins after the collision
@@ricemmanuelledimaapi5980 Deberías leer un poco más de historia,el oficial Murdoch ordenó cerrar las compuertas al momento de la colisión para evitar que los compartimentos estancos se llenen de agua ,aún quedaban muchos trabajadores dentro de la sala de máquinas para despresurizar las calderas si no el Titanic podía explosionar debido al vapor acumulado,además los ingenieros eléctricos se quedaron en las entrañas del barco para que aún haya electricidad!!!
Really deep it sank more than one thousand meters under the sea😢
don't think that the stern would have collapsed
apart like that the moment she impacted the sea floor. I think the fact that she was full of air, and with the implosion, most of her damage to the stern occurred during that time including the peel back of the poop deck. Also the two towers may have imploded apart at that time as well. I do know that there is some vague survivor testimonies that seems to indicate that the towers did come apart at the surface but I would imagine most of it would have managed to stay together until the implosion. I would also imagine that the implosion happened much further down, (and I'm just estimating here but I would have to say about a mile or so). Also, I know that they are saying the mast may have whipped around and destroyed the bridge but I just don't think that looks correct. The bridge may have taken damage when the masked collapsed but I would like to see what evidence they have to support that the mast whipped around like that. I see no reason why the superstructure of the bridge couldn't have come apart naturally as it descended.
Do you think if everyone was completely silent at the surface when the bow hit, they could have heard it?
Nah, water was way too deep to hear anything
@@thestonedabbot9551way too deep
No, but people did hear the stern imploding
@@TornadoHarry I believe that
What's your opinion on Mike Brady saying that the stern didn't implode and that it was the ocean currents?
It was hydrodynamic forces cuz the stern was going in the wrong direction
Excellent video 👍
Just one small point its DR Robert Ballard the emphasis on DR 👍 he's not a huge ego cowboy like james Cameron
You think on it's way to the bottom there was air pockets with people still alive before the pressure imploded
The stern didn't implode, it wasn't airtight.
Nither was the Titian💁♀️
then why does the stern look like a bomb hit it ey?
@@imphoto1 The most likely explanation is hydraulic forces ripped up the stern on the way down
Robert Ballard should never have given up the coordinates of the wreck.
A fun fact that is stated in the video: this is half time
I wonder.....if the survivors heard those implosions🤔 imagine, sitting in total darkness in shock.....and suddenly there is a sound🥶
@@Kilb-ill it is postulated that survivors heard the stern imploding/breaking apart when it was near the surface
I thought this very realistic and well done. Nice job!😊
It was and the music fit too, watchin it go down with the music like damn, 5⭐️
The fact this was on Roblox is crazy
@@anunordinarycellist this isn't Roblox this is blender
I wonder if the survivors in the water could hear it smashing into the ocean floor. It must have been pretty feckin loud
So cool.
It now has company--The Plastic can : Titan
Even in this, you can tell it’s the Olympic lol
when I read that the Titanic split in half when she went under and that people didn't believe it until it waas found, I thought to myself, no way could any huge ship like that could NOT split in 2 (or more)would be impossible for it not to have split into two on the way down. Question did any other ship that sank, go down in one piece?
Yeah the Britannic for example, the sister ship, went down in one piece in 1916.
There were conflicting accounts by survivors. Some said it split, others said it didn't. It boils down mainly to the fact that it happened in pitch black conditions, as well as the fact that eyewitness testimonies are not infallible.
As for your question: Titanic is a bit of an anomaly. Very few ships sink bow/stern first, and usually tend to capsize instead. As for the hows and whys behind the split, Mike Brady of Oceanliner Designs made a really comprehensive video behind that, I couldn't recommend it more if you're interested in the topic.
Crazy to think that the Titanic wasn’t even halfway down to the seabed before the Stern went under…
The countless hours and manpower required to build this thing, only to see it sink on it's maiden voyage. 😔
a bit of info:
the bow went down smoothly no implosions but the stern imploded 2-3 time before coming to rest on the bottom ( but I could be mistaken on that because I don't know much about when happened on that day cause I was born 72 years later so I might be wrong?)
Are you sure it was an implosion? And not the hydrodynamic forces that stripped the gaping section away. I figured all of the air was already pushed out at the surface. especially since there are massive areas in the ship where the division of spaces was wood not metal
The stern was not "full of air" and certainly didn't "implode," air getting forced out and replaced with water is what caused it to sink, it's not like the stern was air tight. True there were no doubt pockets of air that could have caused mini implosion, but nothing to cause the severe damage of the stern section.
Hydrodynamic forces wrenched apart the stern as it cascaded to the bottom. It wasn't arrow-shaped like the bow, it didn't cut through the water on the way down.
I understand that as much as well, a great example of air being rushed out of a ship even through open port holes near the surface was the sinking of the Oceanos.
There were about 700 or so people who stated that the Titanic imploded when the bow was submerged🤷♀️ At those depths it would implode regardless
@@bennu547 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.
Those that actually saw the stern sink stated it was all quiet after it sank
This is awesome can I use this video or this scene I'll credit you at the end
The stern remained attached for most of the way down crushing/smashing everything at the breach.
No one actually saw the thing separate and watch the front half drop away ,,,,,it was under water.
But loud sounds were heard when it bent and the stern part settled back down momentarily.
That must have been the decks ripping apart down to the bottom and keel.
Making a serious100' wide hinge bending wildly.
The notion of implosion is stupid.
Makes me wonder if there were any air pockets left and people still alive, during the descent.
Faster than me when I have to shower
Although bodies would not be found at the wreck sites- crustaceans ate the remains right down to the bones… scattered among the debris field, pairs of shoes would be found… the way they landed in the seafloor suggesting they were the last resting place of a victim of the sinking
the ones who weren't wearing lifebelts like Jack Dawson wasn't wearing one but was hanging on the wooden archway (NOT a cabin door 🚫) and then Rose let go of his hands and he descended to the abyss of the Atlantic 🥺
@@ChairmanPaulieD Jack and Rose are fictional
This woukd be more effective if were done just the way it sounded with the ships creaks and groans and no background music.
Can you please make a video on the deepest wreck to date USS Samuel B. Roberts, which sank at a depth of 22,621 ft (6894m)
Is it possible for anyone to have survived in a pocket of air as the ship sank to the bottom? I think it wouldn't be possible.
No because the bow was fully flooded and any air pockets would have been pushed out of the stern as it sank. The stern wasn't a pressure vessel it had plenty of holes for air to escape from portholes to massive ventilation systems. Check out Oceanliner Designs' video "What Happened To TItanic's Stern" if you want to know more.
And to think something so massive and huge, strong and fresh off the drydock, could be broken up and blown apart in such a way. It fails to register for me
"Pretty Cool Huh" 😆😅😂🤣
Rainer Dry!
2:37 Yeah boom, it kind of breaks its back
Thank you for not including that asinine down draft of water.
Thank you for pushing through and still whining even when something doesn't happen.
pretty close rendering , the stern was actually spiraling a bit faster , when it hit the sea floor it left a long skid mark off to one side, detailed imagery has shown this , , , that aside i love this video and the greenish blue sea water , very eerie indeed
4:33 One thing missing. The break up wasn’t exactly clean, and it had some major consequences as a result. One of them being, the two engines lost their first cylinders as the ship broke up.
The break up started when double bottom was heaved upward, bending and tearing the massive bed plates for the engines on the process. When the bow and stern separated, the first cylinders of the twin, four cylinder engines were ripped out. There are only three cylinders on each engine still attached at the wreck site of the stern. The other two cylinders, and their supports, are scattered nearby. And the break up didn’t exactly occur between the second and third funnel, it actually seemed to be a bit more complicated than that. The break seemed to have originated for the double bottom, like I said before. That section of double bottom is well documented, and it was located at the front of the engines, just behind the third funnel. But we know the superstructure, for both the bow and stern, separated between funnel 2 and 3, because the forward and aft towers slid off after the bow separated. How is that possible if the break up happened to the rear of that? Well, the break up seems to have been less than uniform. From one theory, It seemed to form a jagged J-shape. It started behind the third funnel from the keel. The double bottom, being under extreme compression, buckled and forced its way up in what would become the two double bottom pieces we know today. From there, the split curved forward, sloping more vertically at about midship, ending at the superstructure just barely in front of funnel 3. The bow plunged, the double keel gave, and the bow detached. The forward tower section of the stern superstructure slid off shortly after, with the forward tower taking the uptakes for the third funnel and several boilers. The superstructure pieces were lighter than the bow, so they would’ve tumbled and floated more in the current. At the same time, several boilers would fall out with the forward tower. The boilers would drop like stones, landing slightly scattered below the site of the break up, and close to where the stern would land. The boilers likely ripped away from the lighter forward tower section and funnel uptakes, while the aft tower and galley sections remained attached to the hull of the stern for a little longer. the forward two cylinders of the engines, who were dangling by a thread at this point, would go with the after tower moments later, leaving the aft galley still attached to the mangled hull of the stern. The forward tower would tumble around, landing to the north east of the stern section, about 1,500ft away, roughly. The double bottom pieces would land a few hundred feet closer to the stern than the forward tower. Blown off the stern in the fall to the sea floor. The aft tower would land next to the remains of one of the forward cylinders, just at the nose of the stern which now pointed toward the bow to the north. The galley deck remains would’ve torn off from the stern on the descent, like many other pieces of the stern, and landed just beside the stern to the east. The second lost cylinder would land just to the east of that, in the field of boilers and hull debris. And we all know what happened to the bow, it landed to the north, pointed toward the north east.
This odd break pattern is why some people speculate the break may have taken a y-pattern, forking at some point in the hull and terminating at the superstructure both in front and behind the third funnel. This pattern would be very unusual, but could also help explain the details of the break up. Either way, the events once separation began are pretty much the same with the forward tower following after the bow.
Its actually speculated now that forward tower was attached to the stern still. Forward tower is square shaped piece, it lacks any hydrodynamic shape just like boilers and would drop straight down. So due to that its speculated that when stern went down, during its first spin it trew forward tower to east, following a bit later double bottom pieces.
@@xxdeckxxdumanyan7413 The tower sections are very heavy, heavier than the boilers. But the towers have more surface area, and are mostly made from wood and light sheet metal. It’s also less like a square, and more like a sponge. It’s full of holes for cabin and lounge spaces, and that adds to the surface area. They would catch like a sail in the wind in the ocean currents. The boilers are more dense, and have less surface area. While not exactly hydrodynamic, they have less surface detail for currents to get a purchase on, so they drop straight down. The area right above where the boilers landed would be the breakup zone. There’s several different testimonies on what happened, but if you pick through the information, you find some interesting details. For one, one man reported that he saw the ship break, and he saw the ‘engines’ slide forward into the spot the forward half should’ve been. This is likely the first two cylinders falling off. If the forward tower was still there, that couldn’t have been the case. The engine cylinders would have a recognizable shape from the rest of the ships structure, being simpler in shape, they’d be hard to miss or mistake for something else. And given the distance from the debris field, it’s likely the forward tower fell off closer to the surface, where it then tumbled to its current location. It’s likely the initial break up partially separated the forward tower from the hull, and it tumbled after the bow when the stern heeled back level. It was also likely tossed by the wake of the bow cutting through the water. If the tower and the double bottom went/were tossed when the stern started spiraling, there would be more lightweight debris scattered with them, but there’s fairly little.
The double bottom pieces probably went at the same time as to boilers and engines, because them being connected causes other problems for what we see on the debris field. The engine components landed around where the boilers had. These had to have fallen into the sea and about the same time, or else they’d be scattered outward. The problem is, the double bottom is in the way. If the bottom remained attached, the engines would not fall out in time, and would likely have been forced back into the engine bay by hydrodynamic forces. Then they wouldn’t fall off until the ship started spiraling, which would have scattered them further out. For them to drop where they did, the double bottom had to have fallen off not long after the forward tower. Otherwise the engine parts would’ve been partially trapped by the double bottom. Meaning the bottom detached not long after the bow and forward tower plunged beneath the waves. It’s possible that the _aft tower_ remained attached until the stern started spiraling, but it would be unlikely the forward tower would stay attached, as the spiral would’ve scattered the debris field even further. There is little other debris out that way, which wouldn’t be the case if they were taken off when the stern started the corkscrew. It’s likely everything that was going to come off the stern, came off either before the corkscrew started, or late into the corkscrew, otherwise we’d see more lightweight debris scattered over the sight of the forward tower and double bottom area. Since most of the debris is scattered over the sight of the boilers, and the bottom/forward tower sections are isolated from them, they must’ve gone separate from the stern. It also means the spiral didn’t swing wide enough to toss those pieces of double bottom, or the tower, out that far. They would’ve landed with everything else if they had separated that late, so again, they had to have fallen off earlier.
@@Nikolai_The_Crazed i dont think engine cylinder would have been actually visible, they are the bottom of the ship and only small part of them was above waterline. When ship broke up it would immediately flood that room and it would be dragged down slightly, preventing them being visible. Also about the forward tower, the currents that were going to southwest so if currents influenced forward tower it would end up being in completely opposite direction. So it somehow went against the currents. It also was speculated that forward tower was the first 1 piece came off during spiral and closer to surface, then double bottoms and everything else came later during descent a bit closer to bottom.
@@xxdeckxxdumanyan7413 It is important to note that the bit about water current is partially true. The deep western boundary current flows from the north, to the south east. But it flows _under_ the Gulf Stream current at the point where titanic sank, and the gulf stream flows northeast. That’s because colder water is more dense, and sinks beneath the(relatively) warmer surface waters. The western boundary current collides with the Gulf Stream up north and sinks beneath it, because it’s carrying frigid waters from the polar region. For the first part of Titanic’s fall, the debris would be at the mercy of the Gulf Stream, and as it drops down to the abyssal plain, it enters the Deep western boundary. Lighter pieces of debris, like coal and various other belongings, get swept to the south after initially being carried to the north. The larger pieces would change directions as well, but the extent of that depends on the mass of the object and how far it is from the bottom when it hits the lower current. If it’s too close and too heavy, it may only drift a short ways back before settling. There’s also the wake of the bow, and eventually the stern, stirring the water column. If it went with the bow, that wake could carry it to the north, with the Gulf Stream pushing it east. Eventually it hits the deep western boundary, arresting it a bit, but if there’s not enough water left beneath it, it’s still gonna land a decent way out.
This is only a theory based on educated guesses . No one actually knows how things actually really went down .
Yes they do. Physics.
@@ArmyJames Cause you think that humans know a lot about physics ? Ask any scientists what they think about our knowledge on physics and they will all tell you that our knowledge is still in its infancy .
@@guytremblay1647 Sir Isaac Newton over here. 🙄
Is that how the Titanic actually sank
Apparently they heard titanic when it hit the bottom of the ocean.
Who?
No, the testimonies state that they heard some explosions few seconds after the stern sunk. thoses detonations were most likely the stern imploding and getting ripped appart but not the ship hitting the bottom.
Realmente cuanto duro en llegar hasta el fondo??
La proa que se hundió primero y gracias a sus propiedades hidrodinámicas tardó aproximadamente diez minutos enteros en golpear el fondo. La popa, sin ser hidrodinámica y cayendo en una espiral caótica en lugar de en línea recta cortando el agua demoró unos 37 minutos.
¿De dónde vienen los 37 minutos tan exactos?@@LeicaFleury
imagine the grip
Wow! Nice animation for making how Titanic wen’t underwater.