Titanic Break Up Version 20.1

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 28 дек 2024

Комментарии • 16

  • @SyAnimates
    @SyAnimates  Год назад +3

    Enjoy!

  • @TandMe
    @TandMe Год назад +1

    how do you only have 30 subscribers you deserve so much more than that

  • @KiwiKiwf
    @KiwiKiwf Год назад +1

    The theory is good, but I would like to point out a few things.
    Is the entire segment of "2:17AM" happening in real-time? If it is, it would be inaccurate as the events are too fast. What are causing the sparks on the 2nd and 3rd funnel? Please do explain its etiology when it comes to "Break-Up Explanation" you only showed and told us what happened instead of explaining what causes the following to happen. Personally, the Stern sinking seems to slow, it should be under by at least 2:21-2:22, having it sink at 2:23 becomes a bit unrealistic.

    • @SyAnimates
      @SyAnimates  Год назад +2

      Why is the entire 2:17 section to fast in my opinion it makes a lot of sense it accounts for those who saw the 1st and 2nd funnel at the same time or is it something else?
      The reason there are sparks from both the 2nd and 3rd funnel have sparks is because when the guy wires snap they then whip against the base of the funnel cause sparks due to hitting metal but also activated the coal in the funnels uptakes resulting in a spark explosion.
      I will make a video explaining why these events happening like the break up.
      The stern dose going down at 2:22 but at the end of 2:22 to account for those who saw Titanic go down at 2:23.

    • @KiwiKiwf
      @KiwiKiwf Год назад

      ​@@SyAnimates
      I see, good reasons for the sparks on the funnels. , but the "2:17AM Section" is too fast, and speaking in physics, it is impossible to sink that rapidly, Titanic had many rooms, hallways, decks. Which would take time for the water to get around, the fastest water could go from the bridge to the area by the 3rd funnel would be 50 seconds to 1 minute and 20 seconds.

    • @SyAnimates
      @SyAnimates  Год назад +1

      @@KiwiKiwf ok I will take that into account

    • @SyAnimates
      @SyAnimates  Год назад +1

      @@KiwiKiwf thank you for explaining

  • @TelaBRIKKZ
    @TelaBRIKKZ Месяц назад

    this might actually be the one

  • @DannyDraws1912
    @DannyDraws1912 Год назад +1

    The theory is fine in some parts but id like to point out that the ft is too under supported here, if it was like this it would just come off at the surface, and also every thing that shin said also

    • @SyAnimates
      @SyAnimates  Год назад

      well why would the forward tower come off it still has parts of D deck E deck and F deck holding it to the stern. Sure the anti fouling isn't holding but why does that make the forward tower come off?

    • @DannyDraws1912
      @DannyDraws1912 Год назад +1

      @@SyAnimates It all about the weight of the tower, as it weighs a lot so a few decks wouldn’t keep it up. The anti fouling was supporting the upper decks holding the tower

    • @SyAnimates
      @SyAnimates  Год назад

      ok i will take this into account

  • @BreadMasterduck
    @BreadMasterduck Год назад +1

    The theory is fine, the animation is *AMAZING* ! but small issue, the events of the plunge are too fast. Good work though.👍