Decided to make a comment which answers a lot of questions I get. Q: Why don't we just go off what survivors say? A: That's what some of these theories do. Also, basically every survivor contradicted each other due to the darkness and position at which they are located when the ship broke. This makes it difficult to account for some of them. Q: What are towers? You mean funnels? A: The "Towers," which are mentioned frequently in the video are chunks of superstructure which are called the "forward and aft" towers. The forward tower is the chunk located where the third funnel is. The aft is directly behind it, although slightly smaller. Q: Why did you not include the V-Break? A: I simply just don't like to talk or animate much about it for no reason at all really. Q: Why do people care so much about this stupid topic? Why does it matter? A: It is simply a tragedy that we the community enjoy to research and learn about. It's an interesting topic in our opinions. It's like how people obsess over video games or books. Q: Your theory is wrong because you have the engine fall out and they are still on the wreck today! A: I should've used my words correctly while editing, but only the forward cylinders are not in the stern. They are scattered in the debris field. The rest of the engines are still in the stern. Q: They are just the same theory! A: No they are not. In fact, they are all quite different. I mean, look at the first theory, and then look at mine (or basically any other theory) and it will look different. If you need to ask any questions, ask them here.
I was really hoping the last one would be something ridiculous like the Bigfoot Theory and you'd animate a huge monster truck speeding across the water and barreling through the ship.
What about a giant squid with a cartoon-dog's face threw an iceberg at the Titanic, cause a bunch of sharks in prison uniforms tricked him, and then the dog-faced squid tried to keep the ship together with its tentacles?
I asked ChatGPT if there's any possibility that the Titanic disaster was caused by aliens and it said that the possibility is "almost" zero, which gives me hope.
I like the last theory too. One witness said her mother was covering her eyes, but then took her hand away and said, "Oh look, the ship's righting itself." I presume that was the aft section becoming more level after the front part broke off. If it was a really obvious break like in the 1997 movie, nobody would think that.
People also describe the creaking snapping sounds of the metal detaching from the rivets and the wood snapping so she could’ve also heard that and subconsciously taken her hand off to see what was happening.
The YT-Channel "Oceanliner Designs" has made a video with realistic light settings, it very much underlines what you said: it was so dark, you could hardly make out the shiluette of the ship. That's also why some passengers even denied it had broken apart. In fact, until Robert Ballard found the wreck, common understanding was that the ship was still in one piece.
And the Titanic's crew lied about the ship being in one piece because they wanted to keep their jobs. If the ship had broken in two, that might indicate poor design versus an accident, which alters legal responsibility.
I strongly agree with your theory as well, arguably the best I’ve ever seen. I used to study a lot about the Titanic as a kid many years ago and I recall many stories from people stating that when the stern section broke off, it appeared to float by itself for a brief while and some thought that the stern may be able to stay afloat independently for longer than expected. Those stories don't match any of the earlier theories where the stern is at a high angle and/or where the stern comes crashing down and quickly sinks. I've always found it very odd that even though we had hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the wreck, the theories most commonly accepted don't match how many of the survivors described it. Fantastic video
Well it was 2 in the morning in the pitch black of nite in the middle of the ocean.....unbelievable horror.......most survivors were probably on the verge of shock........have you ever stood on a beach at nite and looked at the ocean....its very scary, awesome and creepy at the same time...and that's from the safety of land!!!... imagine it from a tiny lifeboat after just witnessing that huge s bip break apart and go to the bottom of the sea.......................
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. During a crisis, emotion overrides objectivity and people only process things that are of an immediate benefit to their survival. In the context of the Titanic - knowing if that buoyant object over there is a door or a table takes a backseat to the fact that it is buoyant
@@Bubble170 nite/night ...so what...just trying to abbreviate the task at hand.....you obviously didn't read my comment all the way through or gave it very little thought.....surely eyewitness accounts would be the best...but 700+ accounts would all vary slightly given their surroundings and circumstances......utter horror!!!!!
I think the most probably theory came from Cameron's 20 year anniversary film where they do experiments on the sinking. Models kept showing that the double bottom held the 2 sections together when they split apart at the water and the bow pulled the stern more under till they broke apart. That's why the double bottom is separate from the rest of the wreck cause itself was 1 of 3 parts of the break up.
Cameron artificially designed the model to accommodate his presupposition that the double keel held the two sections together. He really has very little basis for thinking this. In fact, he was shown directly a physics study conducted by the US Coast Guard showing that in fact the double keel would be the first thing to fail, i.e. a bottom up break. He ignored this evidence and made the subsequent animation and model tests have the keel hold on to the two halves. Not only does that notion make no sense, it is also flatly contradicted by the actual research out there. The keel failed first, steel is weaker in compression than tension, and doesn't behave like shoelace leather or a banana peel. The break continued up for some extent from there, however it's clear the keel failed first. The damage to the keel pieces in the debris field indicate this too. Their placement in the debris field suggests they came off at a high altitude, i.e. falling off at or near the surface, not staying attached to the stern for a part of the descent. If I had to guess the failure which started at the keel continued up, uncleanly and not in one spot, to the strength deck, the double straked plates at D Deck would arrest the failure, subsequently the upper decks pull themselves apart. Remember (and this is why Mengot's theory is unlikely) the ship is listing to port. The dynamics and shifting of the weight along the structure is affected by this. It's not clean, the ship structurally fails in numerous spots becauce of the bilateral distribution of weight. Multiple failure points account why the forward and aft towers, and galley decks are found in chunks scattered around the stern. Titanic was a complex structure and modeling its failure is a lot more complex then cutting a model in two, or animating it in blender.
@@TLO129Eyewitnesses do tell that the stern fell back fairly flat when the ship broke, instead of immediately falling over. And metal has a tendency to break in junctures or corners instead of flat planes. As you said, the ship was listing by that time, so the deepest point wouldn’t actually have been the keel but rather the point where keel and port outer hull are connected. If that corner breaks, both the keel and the hull would crack upwards from there, but at different speeds due to different material thickness. If the hull cracked faster than the keel, this would actually rotate the stern section to be somewhat upright again instead of falling over completely immediately
Eye witnesses state that the stern went vertical and was like a “finger in the air” and bobbed around for a while before going straight down as per the 1997 film. For me Cameron therefore had it right in his film. You can’t recreate the completely vertical stern this with his newer 2017 simulation.
@@Dave_Albright That’s a silly statement… Rose’s film lol. The forensic analysis at the start and how the boat sank was as how Cameron believed it to be historically and accurately at the time. It probably still is and it still has the double bottom breaking last with the main ship pulling the stern section downwards… that hasn’t changed. From a simulation point of view the updated Cameron sinking would appear more likely and accurate, however many eye witnessed reported the stern end going fully vertical and then suddenly rushing down as per the film. Given that the eyewitnesses were ignored last time and yet were proven right in 1985, I’m going to go with the eye witnesses again and say the 1997 film is most accurate. Remember that Cameron is a Titanic nut - 33 dives!
The last one (your theory) is also mine. If you search on google, you will find a page with the testimonies of all the people who saw the break (not only the ones interviewed in the two trials), a lot of female passengers for instance. I strongly believe that the break didn’t occur underwater because a witness said that he could see the stern floating alone with no front part of the ship ahead of it. What is sure is that the lights went out few seconds before the break but not all of them : some security lights that didn’t depend on the engines remained perfectly still until the end on the stern. Some sparks came up between the bow and the stern. There were few rumbling / roaring sounds and little explosions that sounded like distant thunders and finally the stern went down almost vertical (unlike the film where it sunk completely vertical), keeling over (as it was stated by Eva Hart).
Why do people speak of security lights on the ship? I mean, why bother? What does it contribute? Multiple eyewitness accounts say that the ship's lights all went out, putting the ship into "black darkness" and leaving it to be seen afterward only by silhouette against the starry sky. Just because we have battery-operated emergency lighting today doesn't mean that it was that way in 1912. ... And sparks didn't come up "between the bow and the stern"; they were seen coming out the top of the funnels. ... And the sounds were not "little"; two were dramatic. "Then we heard the most awful roaring and rumbling that seemed as if it must be heard over the ocean for miles" is just one of many descriptions. Remember: it takes a lot of noise to make a ship, so to suddenly un-make it is quite noisy.
(This is as far as I remember, I need to fact check on this) There was a survivor that mentioned the ship breaking as if a knife had sliced it in half. Another fact, it wasn't that people said it sank intact, rather they were unsure or just didn't mention anything. There are actually several accounts of survivors which said the ship had broken in half. In my opinion, I think that "only a few people saw it break" is a misconception. I believe there are more than 50 survivors in which they mention the ship breaking/the stern settling back.
@@f40carz93 You're correct. Another thing I want to add as well is that some positions at which the lifeboats were at had awkward angles which made it harder to tell if the ship had broken or not.
@@falconeshield it really isn't. This theory is outdated and unrealistic. There is simply no way Titanic would reach such a high angle without breaking, and the break-up only accounts a portion of survivors.
I honestly didn't expect to see that you have so few subscribers. Of course, I'm not an expert, but I get the impression that you took the time to research, which definitely deserves a like. And of course your own theory is very good in my opinion
@@TerraAustralis01 the first theory to have towers and to be showcased in a real time was Roy Mengot. Titanic Animations (YT channel), animated a real time which included Roy Mengots theory.
@@Unbreakify The term "towers" refers to the 2 sections of superstructure on Titanic. The 2 sections are called "forward" and "aft" towers. They are located between the third funnel and the front of the fourth funnel.
@Yora21 I disagree! Some of them have relative similarities of course, since we're working from survivors' accounts as well as the way the wreck landed, but the differences shown here are pretty significant to me in a lot of cases.
The problem with the last one is the third funnel hole was discovered to be still attached to the bow when the wreck was discovered in 1985. It has since disappeared from the bow due to the slow deterioration of the wreck by metal eating microrganisms.
These are all surprisingly similar, at least visually. I would tend to believe results based on accurate finite element simulation. More detailed explanation of the differences would be appreciated.
Yes, they are quite similar. They all show a single time of breaking, and all in the range of 15 to 30 degrees of ship angle. Most show no serious activity before the forward funnels fell (there was actually A LOT that happened, including the first stage of the breakup). And the theories that rely on the bow staying partially connected and pulling the stern down with it can be thrown out because there are a couple of dozen accounts that show the stern floating freely, long after the bow was gone.
From what I've researched (and bear in mind I haven't done a deep dive (no pun intended) in several years) there seems to be a reoccurring testimony that the stern of the ship, when the ship broke, actually refloated and almost leveled out, to the point in which several onboard proclaimed she (referring to Titanic's stern) would remain afloat. It didn't last long, as the rear quickly flooded and eventually slipped to the bottom. (I remember one source saying that the stern rose as high as 90 degrees at one point before it made the final plunge, but I think that's unlikely. Perhaps it _did_ rise high enough to expose the propellers, but I think such an extreme angle is massive exaggeration.) Bottom line: I think your theory holds up.
There were many sources. "she went almost perpendicular...she became a black mass before she made the final plunge." "everyone watching in the lifeboats saw silhouetted against the starlit sky the stern of the ship rise perpendicularly into the air from about midship" "When the call came that she was going, I covered my face and heard someone call, ‘She’s broken.’ After what seemed a long time, I turned my head only to see the stern almost perpendicular in the air so that the full outline of the blades of the propeller showed above the water. She then gave her final plunge" "Finally she attained an absolute perpendicular position and then went slowly down.” "In this amazing attitude [that is, nearly perpendicular] she remained for the space of half a minute." "The stern rose a hundred feet, almost perpendicularly. The boat stood up like an enormous black finger against the sky." "gradually the stern rose in the air, and the vessel remained perpendicular for a minute or so. Then, very slowly, it sank beneath the waves." "The stern reared straight on end and stood poised on the ocean for many seconds." 1. That's a lot of alignment between multiple eyewitnesses, so it cannot be brushed off as exaggeration. 2. "Perpendicular" has a very specific meaning; it doesn't merely mean "at a steep angle". 3. Therefore, the only exaggeration is Lightoller's use of the word "absolute". But that's an easy mistake to make, if someone were observing it in the dark from the direction of its keel or its decks while it was "straight on end".
@@georgebrankov2143 Yes, the Big Plunge, just before the final break-up, was at a high angle, but I think it was in the 40- to 55-degree range. It was certainly steep enough to make people think that the ship's heavy equipment broke loose and fell into the bow. I think that if the bow had been any steeper than 55 degrees when it turned loose from breaking off, it would have gone down like an arrow (staying steep)--instead of planing/gliding closer to horizontal, which I think it did, because of the distance from the rest of the wreckage area and the direction it plowed into the ocean bottom.
I didn't know there were so many theories on how the ship broke. I may replay the Titanic VR experience to see which theory it adopted (if I can). There's a feature where you witness the Titanic sinking from the perspective of one of the survivors. It was intended to be educational, and it was released in 2018.
park stephenson's theory makes visual sense, now if it is physically possible I think it would be worth studying the physics of water inside a ship of this size
It may be just some mistaken memory, but there are some people that find this song sad rather than calm. I used it because I wanted to find something that was calm-ish so that the background noise wasn't empty.
Much appreaciated that you didn't add the infamous "freak of nature, defying laws of physics and gravity" one with these. It's just a joke, nothing else.
I'm a fan of a combo of the bob Ballard theory of course at a shorter angle, the double bottom attachment and the sea of glass, but yours was quite well thought out and I have no issues with it
Either way a ship of that size was never designed to have so much pressure pinpointed at one section, and so as the bow goes down you have a literal pivot point putting huge pressure on the ship from the top of the deck to the keel. It's insane to think about.
Every mainstream feature length film made of Titanic depicts the most accurate information available at the time of filming. Every film before the 1997 depicts the Titanic sinking in one piece because that's what 'most' people thought at the time. It wasn't until the wreck was discovered that they realized Jack Thayer was right. At the same time, the Cameron film depicted the steep incline at the time of break up because that's what the theory of the time suggested. It's only later, when new archaeological information come to light, that it seems less accurate.
I always believed that the bow stayed attached until most of the stern was under water so that it explain the huge water pressure that ripped appart the stern's walls.
The stern imploded because it was still full of air so the water flooding the stern imploded the air pressure. The bow sank slow and all the air was pushed out as the bow flooded. The stern flooded quick and flooded broken end down. The bow was already detached heading down before the stern slipped away
@@ryans413 The stern was pulled down by the bow. The stern could not have sunk as quickly as it did if it was separated entirely. The whole reason for the catastrophic implosions was being dragged down hundreds of feet underwater whilst mostly full of air.
@@psychotic.reaction wrong the stern was a good 20 minutes behind the bow. The bow hit the ocean floor first then the stern a few minutes later. The bow pulled the stern under and then broke off the air pressure inside the stern was pushed out rapidly causing the stern to implode and throw off chunks of the ship why it looks like a bomb hit it.
Wow who would have thought that the oceanographer/engineer who spent a lifetime looking for the wreck had more of a sound basis for speculating the nature of how the wreck broke apart than the guy who decided on a whim to put a Hollywood spin on a maritime tragedy.
I still vividly remember the proposal History channel's "Missing Pieces" documentary made after the discovery of those bilge keel pieces allegedly from the point of breakup. Park's theory was illustrated with an "inverted" break where the ship bent inwards, trying to explain the clean break of the keep parts alongside crushed state of the bow superstructure. Seems like that visualization of the theory gotten no further support or acknowledgement in the years since. I get that the theory may've been disproven, but still find it a tad weird.
I do think titanic broke in 3 peace’s only because the 2 big peace’s of the wreck don’t line up. From funnel 3 to funnel 4 there’s a big chunk missing. I believe the ship broke right at funnel 3 so that would be on the first class lounge just after the compass platform. And the 2nd break was at the aft grand staircase just after the engine room skylight and that section got destroyed more and peace’s fell off as the stern sank.
There's no way that ship could've stood that high up out of the water like in the 1985 theory and Cameron's theory from the movie. There's no way it was strong enough to get that high. Made for a good movie though.
I thought this was capitalizing on the Titan tragedy then I saw the upload date and I was so wrong. Sorry and Thank you for caring about the topic and researching. I am happy for you and your hard work and theories being heard by so many.
Whatever theory you subscribe to, you have to account in some way for most survivors stating they never saw her break in two. I personally believe she broke much more subtlely than most people believe, and then what has been portrayed. She can break at or below the water and still stand on end. Point is you have to keep the break up from being like the 1997 film. Many more people would have seen that. I think the three piece break up is close to being correct. She breaks around 23 degrees as engineers have calculated with her superstructure awash. The weight of her engines make the stern section bow heavy and keeps her flooding while the double bottom holds on them parts. While that occurs, significant flooding occurs and continues to take her down. Because of this the stern never falls back, it continues down as if it hadn’t have broke, and only the most keen eyes and attentive ears could tell she broke up.
I also believe that it broke probably right at the surface but in a way that it wasn't immediately obvious to every single person that was around. If it happened anything close to what is shown in the Cameron movie, absolutely everyone would have noticed it. But as we know, as soon as someone was a little away they didn't notice anything.
I think sometimes when trying to account too much for the witnesses who say they didn't see the break up, people kinda forget to account for those that did. There are explanations for why someone wouldn't see it or at least claim not to (it's dark, they're distracted, they work for WSL, etc). There's no explanation for how several people can see it break in half if it happened underwater.
These theories are from folks with no real understanding of the forces acting on a sinking ship. The entire time a ship remains at the surface, she is displacing enough water to match her entire weight and everything on board. Titanic normally displaced around 35 feet of water. That’s 35 feet of dry hull below sea level. As she takes on water, she literally has to have one additional cubic meter of dry space for every ton of water she takes on. ( that is, if she took on 35 feet of water throughout the ship, she would weight TWICE as much and she would need to have 70 feet of dry hull beneath sea level to hold her weight plus the weight of flooding at the surface of the ocean.) By the time the bridge was under water, she still had several decks of dry space in her forward half, under the surface. Not filling much past the top of the bulkheads because the water inside the ship was spilling down into the next compartment, one after the other, but those dry decks under water still providing just enough buoyancy to keep her at the surface. The stern did not lift much out of the water until she started to break, and she broke because as her aft half was entirely dry and being pulled deeper in the water Her stern was being pushed UP by buoyancy with more than twice the weight of the entire ship. The idea that the stern broke off Down from its own dry weight in the air is ludicrous. Her stern portion weighed only 30,000 tons. Just before she broke, buoyancy was pushing the stern UP with around 100,000 tons of force. The weight of her stern was negligible compared to the buoyancy required to hold the flooding ship at the surface Thayer’s account was correct in every detail. Her stern only lifted a little out of the water initially. It was being dragged deeper to compensate for her increasing weight. The Flat bottom separated below the expansion joint in Tension. This is proven by the fact that this 20 foot by 90 foot section was found on the sea bottom, UNBENT, along with the last row of half-boilers. As she broke, the stern slowly lifted out of the water as the superstructure above the break began to crumple and crush against each other. As it parted it allowed the last row of half-boilers to spill out and water to flood into the formerly dry engine room and last boiler room, as well as the upper decks that were still dry at this point, even tho forward they were already below sea level. ( all of this occurred under the water’s surface.) This sudden increase in weight in the formerly dry area that had been helping hold the ship up saw the middle of the ship drop lower, and the bow briefly re-surfaced. But with water now flooding in the entire area of the break amidships, the dry areas under water in the bow quickly flooded and with the last of the side strakes broken, her bow section bent back down and tore away, which dropped the stern back down, and slowly spun it 180 degrees and the weight of her engines and flooding into the breaks gradually brought her stern vertical. The bow 3/5ths sank slightly bow down, planing away a good distance from the spot where the half boilers dropped. It hit the bottom at exactly the angle her bow still sits, and the weight of the rest of her, filled with more than her weight of water, buckled the hull just at the bridge superstructure and from there back she settled more or less level. The stern, once submerged and purged of most air re-oriented upright ( as most sinking ships do if they sink in deep enough water) It sank nearly level, the lower drag of the rudder and rounded fantail offset by the massive weight of her engines. As she hit bottom, dead level, she was moving perhaps 30 mph, and so was the mass of water inside of her. The yawning maw of the opened engine room was exposed, and most of the decks above that space crushed when she folded in breaking. Offering no real structural support. When she hit, her damaged superstructure flattened considerably, the water inside her blew her sides outwards like a bomb, disturbing the bottom for a large area around her impact. Despite conflicting accounts of her going down in one piece, Thayer’s eyewitness account perfectly predicted how she would be oriented and the pattern of damage that would be found when Ballard discovered the wreck. Thayer said she broke DOWN in the middle and THAT is what tipped the stern out of the water the first time, and that her bow breaking away is what caused the stern to drop back down, and then SPIN 180 degrees as she tipped back up to near vertical. She was found with her stern facing the exact direction he described. She had a wedge of damage to her superstructure that is entirely consistent with her stern and bow folding UP. And her double hull section found on the bottom shows no sign at all of bending. It HAD to have been Pulled apart endwise. The greatest force acting on the stern as she took on water was the ever increasing force of buoyancy required to hold her at the surface. 3 to 4 times the weight of her stern, dry. Thayer’s account is the only trustworthy account of the sinking.
I am on board with Bob Ballard..... The entirety of the middle of the ship is missing (the wreck)... If it broke in half ( a clean break down the middle) there would be more of the middle portion still intact (on both the bow and stern). This is despite the stern's chaotic plummet to the sea bed... Just my thoughts on the matter... Ty : J from NJ
This video does not include every theory, as there are hundreds of them. That is why I didn't include it, because I was only adding a select amount of theories.
titanic's front: "I'm breaking up with you!" Titanic's Back: "I don't Care, I am too!" *insert arguing sounds while drowning into the pits of the ocean*
One issue with the 2 part break at the top of the water is the debris field is actually very small and supports the ship breaking in 2 much farther down than the surface.
There are several problems that come from an "underwater break." Firstly, there are lots of accounts that mention the ship breaking above the surface. I would say more than 50 survivors that mention this. Yes, some say that it sank intact, but it was likely due to the darkness of the night along with the position the lifeboats were in. The second big flaw with this is, how are you going to account for the outlier pieces that are hundreds of feet from the hypocenter (the double bottom pieces and parts of the 3rd funnel deckhouse)? If the ship broke underwater, what's creating the force to cause those pieces to come that way? The third flaw is, how is it going to break underwater? An implosion ain't going to do that, because all of the air is located where the poop deck is.
@Tamity I know basically nothing about Titanic but it seems a bit odd to say that the eye witnesses who saw the ship sink in one piece are unreliable whereas the ones who saw it break up above the surface are reliable. It was believed the ship sank in once piece until the wreckage was found
@@TamityIt's sad that even after being validated that the ship broke in two after 73 years of disbelief, the survivors' testimonies are still being ignored.
The three most believable for me are Cameron’s second theory (naval architects were involved in helping recreate the simulation, not perfect but for the most part their work is based in reality) On a sea of glass And your theory is not too far off from on a sea of glass when it comes to showing a recreation of what the breakup would’ve looked like since both are based on witness testimony as well
There is another theory: The water pressure stabilizes the superstructure. After flooding the double-keel section this part brakes trough. This happened, according to one withness, as the bow was a bit above the water level. During breaking the bow float up again a bit, but dissapeared quickly.
If sparks came from the funnels, that's almost certainly the remnants of burning coal being blown out of the boilers as they fill with water. The air pressure inside the hull would be much higher than ambient and the funnels would be a good point of escape. All that air being forced through the boilers, Titanic taking her last breath, literally.
@@Tamity wow, interesting 🤔 everyone watches and experiences the smae thing yet everyone sees it break apart and sink in drastically different ways, that is wild
I think rhe full break up must ve been underwater because the area of the parts of the wr3ck are much closer to each other than if it broke in surface,but i think something along the lines of the last theory happened
While I feel 2012 is one of the most likely, I do have a very large issue with the simulation. The massive angle the ship was facing in the simulation. It appears as if the titanic was torpedoed in the left hull by a U-Boat/Submarine which often can make ships start angling to an extreme because, well, torpedo. The rapid flooding caused by a torpedo would likely cause the Titanic to have taken that heavy angle, however, it was grazed by the iceberg and sunk over 2+ hours instead. If someone who understands the physicst/simulation more can explain the extreme angle into the opposite direction of the side that was grazed, please explain it.
Scotland road would help allow water to the port side. It is larger than its starboard counterpart so it can allow water more easily. Their was also likely a 3 degree port list due to coal being shuffled around. The D deck gangway door would allow water to flood into the starboard side. However, modern research heavily debunks the 2012 theory as it only explains a few accounts and dismisses a lot of accounts from eye witnesses who talked about the stern going perpendicular. It also doesn't explain the accounts of the forward funnels falling to starboard or the list easing as modern research suggests the port list eased, it began to lean slightly to starboard, then after the breakup, it went back to a port list. The double bottom holding on for that long is quite unrealistic. Though he made another theory in 2017 that is much more accurate in my opinion. Sorry for any offence, no offence meant
My personal theory is that the initial break happened at boiler room 2 directly in front of the third smokestack which caused a boiler explosion which destroyed the bulkhead to boiler room 1 as well as damage the double hull causing it to break in three places due to the sudden strain. Her stern would dip down towards the water as the upper deck would keep her together while her belly emptied out until the bend between the bow and stern caused the upper deck to snap in numerous places as it was listing. The Bow and Stern would then fully separate and the Stern would capsize before eventually flooding and sinking which then suffer an implosion before flipping and spinning down to the sea floor stern first.
Most of the engines are still in place on the wreck. It looks like only the forward set of cylinders fell out and not the whole engine. A single cylinder missing would not cause a significant change in balance.
I've seen a lot of people point this out. I think I should've clarified while editing. I meant to say "Port Cylinder," which is just one of 8 Cylinders. There are 6 Cylinders still connected to the stern today, while the forward Cylinders are in the debris field.
Rating Break/Split Theory : Robert Ballard : 100/10 James Cameron 1995 : 100/10 3 Section Break : 7/10 Park Stephenson : 120/10 Roy Mengot : 70/10 James Cameron 2012 : 110/10 On a sea of glass : 9.5/10 GamePlayerZ : 99.9/10 Tamity : 120/10
There’s something kind of funny about seeing all these names of men who are professionals in the field proposing theories and then “GamePlayerZ”. No disrespect to the guy, I know nothing of the work the they’ve done, but it is kind of funny
Yeah, I understand it is weird. You know nothing about me because I'm no renowned expert, I'm just an enthusiast. I've been doing research for about 3 years now, and what is featured in the video is my current theory about the break-up (although I'm currently researching more).
Could be a Robert Ballard '85 Theory is first theory that involve Two Tower break up? Although the Forward Tower first identified in 2005 also Aft Tower as well!
Great vid. I’m still inclined towards the stern bobbing theory over a relatively horizontal sinking, though your presentation is compelling and definitely addresses the issues with Cameron’s second theory. The thing is that I just don’t believe so many different witnesses would have said “90 degrees”/“perpendicular” unless the stern was truly close to perpendicular with the water. Only a small number of witnesses described a 45 degree angle - I would guess the ‘final plunge’ happened so quickly and was so awful to hear/see, that the last thing they remember in recalling the event is the 45 degree angle that started the final plunge. However, I do think you’re onto something. Perhaps a much smaller section of the stern than originally thought bobbed at 90 deg., and it was provided by a roll to the side?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Decided to make a comment which answers a lot of questions I get.
Q: Why don't we just go off what survivors say?
A: That's what some of these theories do. Also, basically every survivor contradicted each other due to the darkness and position at which they are located when the ship broke. This makes it difficult to account for some of them.
Q: What are towers? You mean funnels?
A: The "Towers," which are mentioned frequently in the video are chunks of superstructure which are called the "forward and aft" towers. The forward tower is the chunk located where the third funnel is. The aft is directly behind it, although slightly smaller.
Q: Why did you not include the V-Break?
A: I simply just don't like to talk or animate much about it for no reason at all really.
Q: Why do people care so much about this stupid topic? Why does it matter?
A: It is simply a tragedy that we the community enjoy to research and learn about. It's an interesting topic in our opinions. It's like how people obsess over video games or books.
Q: Your theory is wrong because you have the engine fall out and they are still on the wreck today!
A: I should've used my words correctly while editing, but only the forward cylinders are not in the stern. They are scattered in the debris field. The rest of the engines are still in the stern.
Q: They are just the same theory!
A: No they are not. In fact, they are all quite different. I mean, look at the first theory, and then look at mine (or basically any other theory) and it will look different.
If you need to ask any questions, ask them here.
Hello
Good job on the video
In your theory it didn’t sink.
Eye witnesses are among the most unreliable pieces of evidence you can go by. It’s funny how the mind will sometimes see what it wants to see.
Which breakup theory do you think is accurate?
So sad to think that all of these ships sank in quick succession, just a few hundred yards apart.
So many ships. So many lives. Hard to believe this happened in such succession from each other. But these loses will not be forgotten. RIP.
Hello, I am your 100th like. Thank me.
@@Tenten_TamtamHow about no
Who knew icebergs were the greatest serial killer in history?
That wasn’t a good joke.
"If I had a time machine I'd travel back to the night of the Titanic sinking"
"To stop it?"
"No to see exactly how it sank"
honestly mood
Cruel at first blush, but a lot of good came out of this disaster. Regulations are written in blood, after all.
Or what sank it
It's not a good idea to alter the past because there could have been a bigger disaster later on.
You can’t it’s a canon event
I was really hoping the last one would be something ridiculous like the Bigfoot Theory and you'd animate a huge monster truck speeding across the water and barreling through the ship.
What.
@@FreakingFantasticFilmswdym what? It’s the stoospooge theory (2023)
What about a giant squid with a cartoon-dog's face threw an iceberg at the Titanic, cause a bunch of sharks in prison uniforms tricked him, and then the dog-faced squid tried to keep the ship together with its tentacles?
Yeah, 10/10 I was expecting a kraken somewhere.
I asked ChatGPT if there's any possibility that the Titanic disaster was caused by aliens and it said that the possibility is "almost" zero, which gives me hope.
A moment of silence for the brave engineers that kept the lights on. Straight up heroes.
@@jone8626 what's the name of the movie? I always thought they all perish.
@@jone8626 22% of the engineering crew survived. That is not "many" by any stretch of the imagination. They had a higher death rate than third class.
a
Ah fuck em…
As well as the men who kept the bilge pumps running to keep her from keeling over.
I like the last theory too. One witness said her mother was covering her eyes, but then took her hand away and said, "Oh look, the ship's righting itself." I presume that was the aft section becoming more level after the front part broke off. If it was a really obvious break like in the 1997 movie, nobody would think that.
Tbf, nobody could probably see it super well. It was pitch black
People also describe the creaking snapping sounds of the metal detaching from the rivets and the wood snapping so she could’ve also heard that and subconsciously taken her hand off to see what was happening.
The YT-Channel "Oceanliner Designs" has made a video with realistic light settings, it very much underlines what you said: it was so dark, you could hardly make out the shiluette of the ship. That's also why some passengers even denied it had broken apart.
In fact, until Robert Ballard found the wreck, common understanding was that the ship was still in one piece.
And the Titanic's crew lied about the ship being in one piece because they wanted to keep their jobs. If the ship had broken in two, that might indicate poor design versus an accident, which alters legal responsibility.
@@Paul_Wetorполный бред. Он не рассчитан на такие нагрузки и никто бы за такое не спросил.
I strongly agree with your theory as well, arguably the best I’ve ever seen. I used to study a lot about the Titanic as a kid many years ago and I recall many stories from people stating that when the stern section broke off, it appeared to float by itself for a brief while and some thought that the stern may be able to stay afloat independently for longer than expected. Those stories don't match any of the earlier theories where the stern is at a high angle and/or where the stern comes crashing down and quickly sinks. I've always found it very odd that even though we had hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the wreck, the theories most commonly accepted don't match how many of the survivors described it. Fantastic video
Well it was 2 in the morning in the pitch black of nite in the middle of the ocean.....unbelievable horror.......most survivors were probably on the verge of shock........have you ever stood on a beach at nite and looked at the ocean....its very scary, awesome and creepy at the same time...and that's from the safety of land!!!... imagine it from a tiny lifeboat after just witnessing that huge s bip break apart and go to the bottom of the sea.......................
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. During a crisis, emotion overrides objectivity and people only process things that are of an immediate benefit to their survival. In the context of the Titanic - knowing if that buoyant object over there is a door or a table takes a backseat to the fact that it is buoyant
@@Bubble170 nite/night ...so what...just trying to abbreviate the task at hand.....you obviously didn't read my comment all the way through or gave it very little thought.....surely eyewitness accounts would be the best...but 700+ accounts would all vary slightly given their surroundings and circumstances......utter horror!!!!!
@@Bubble170 s bip = ship .....typo...sorry!
@@Bubble170"Please" should be capitalized in your first sentence. 🤓
The use of Satie's Gymnopedie # 1 is VERY effective.
Absolutely. Nothing crazy, and also popular.
Yeah. No cringe music here
@@Tamityshould've played stereo hearts by gym class heros
@@alterbennet5420💀
Meanwhile no one in 1912 cared to record the sinking on their cellphones, not even for the memes.
bruh ikr
They were enjoying the moment, I respect that
Cellphones and memes did not exist back then but that’s crazy
@@WhySpeedBird113that’s sarcasm 😭
Structure was never strong enough to support Cameron's 95 theory.
Made for some great scenes in the movie though..
At one point people thought it was too strong to break in half in the first place.
I think the transition moments can be shorter, and the animation moments can last a bit longer to see the boat sink. Otherwise, great vid!
Thank you for your feedback.
I think the most probably theory came from Cameron's 20 year anniversary film where they do experiments on the sinking. Models kept showing that the double bottom held the 2 sections together when they split apart at the water and the bow pulled the stern more under till they broke apart. That's why the double bottom is separate from the rest of the wreck cause itself was 1 of 3 parts of the break up.
Cameron artificially designed the model to accommodate his presupposition that the double keel held the two sections together. He really has very little basis for thinking this. In fact, he was shown directly a physics study conducted by the US Coast Guard showing that in fact the double keel would be the first thing to fail, i.e. a bottom up break. He ignored this evidence and made the subsequent animation and model tests have the keel hold on to the two halves. Not only does that notion make no sense, it is also flatly contradicted by the actual research out there. The keel failed first, steel is weaker in compression than tension, and doesn't behave like shoelace leather or a banana peel. The break continued up for some extent from there, however it's clear the keel failed first. The damage to the keel pieces in the debris field indicate this too. Their placement in the debris field suggests they came off at a high altitude, i.e. falling off at or near the surface, not staying attached to the stern for a part of the descent. If I had to guess the failure which started at the keel continued up, uncleanly and not in one spot, to the strength deck, the double straked plates at D Deck would arrest the failure, subsequently the upper decks pull themselves apart. Remember (and this is why Mengot's theory is unlikely) the ship is listing to port. The dynamics and shifting of the weight along the structure is affected by this. It's not clean, the ship structurally fails in numerous spots becauce of the bilateral distribution of weight. Multiple failure points account why the forward and aft towers, and galley decks are found in chunks scattered around the stern. Titanic was a complex structure and modeling its failure is a lot more complex then cutting a model in two, or animating it in blender.
he designed the model to do that
@@TLO129Eyewitnesses do tell that the stern fell back fairly flat when the ship broke, instead of immediately falling over. And metal has a tendency to break in junctures or corners instead of flat planes. As you said, the ship was listing by that time, so the deepest point wouldn’t actually have been the keel but rather the point where keel and port outer hull are connected. If that corner breaks, both the keel and the hull would crack upwards from there, but at different speeds due to different material thickness. If the hull cracked faster than the keel, this would actually rotate the stern section to be somewhat upright again instead of falling over completely immediately
Eye witnesses state that the stern went vertical and was like a “finger in the air” and bobbed around for a while before going straight down as per the 1997 film. For me Cameron therefore had it right in his film. You can’t recreate the completely vertical stern this with his newer 2017 simulation.
@@Dave_Albright That’s a silly statement… Rose’s film lol. The forensic analysis at the start and how the boat sank was as how Cameron believed it to be historically and accurately at the time. It probably still is and it still has the double bottom breaking last with the main ship pulling the stern section downwards… that hasn’t changed. From a simulation point of view the updated Cameron sinking would appear more likely and accurate, however many eye witnessed reported the stern end going fully vertical and then suddenly rushing down as per the film. Given that the eyewitnesses were ignored last time and yet were proven right in 1985, I’m going to go with the eye witnesses again and say the 1997 film is most accurate. Remember that Cameron is a Titanic nut - 33 dives!
The last one (your theory) is also mine. If you search on google, you will find a page with the testimonies of all the people who saw the break (not only the ones interviewed in the two trials), a lot of female passengers for instance. I strongly believe that the break didn’t occur underwater because a witness said that he could see the stern floating alone with no front part of the ship ahead of it. What is sure is that the lights went out few seconds before the break but not all of them : some security lights that didn’t depend on the engines remained perfectly still until the end on the stern. Some sparks came up between the bow and the stern. There were few rumbling / roaring sounds and little explosions that sounded like distant thunders and finally the stern went down almost vertical (unlike the film where it sunk completely vertical), keeling over (as it was stated by Eva Hart).
Both engines are still connected to the ship as seen in many pictures, what are you talking about??
Never liked the split happening underwater
Also isn’t the wreck literally in two?
@@alexcher4606 that is not what I meant to say
Why do people speak of security lights on the ship? I mean, why bother? What does it contribute? Multiple eyewitness accounts say that the ship's lights all went out, putting the ship into "black darkness" and leaving it to be seen afterward only by silhouette against the starry sky. Just because we have battery-operated emergency lighting today doesn't mean that it was that way in 1912. ... And sparks didn't come up "between the bow and the stern"; they were seen coming out the top of the funnels. ... And the sounds were not "little"; two were dramatic. "Then we heard the most awful roaring and rumbling that seemed as if it must be heard over the ocean for miles" is just one of many descriptions. Remember: it takes a lot of noise to make a ship, so to suddenly un-make it is quite noisy.
This deserves more likes and views for all the research and time put into this
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I feel like the break up was a lot more subtle than a lot of people think
(This is as far as I remember, I need to fact check on this) There was a survivor that mentioned the ship breaking as if a knife had sliced it in half. Another fact, it wasn't that people said it sank intact, rather they were unsure or just didn't mention anything. There are actually several accounts of survivors which said the ship had broken in half.
In my opinion, I think that "only a few people saw it break" is a misconception. I believe there are more than 50 survivors in which they mention the ship breaking/the stern settling back.
@@Tamity it also is important to mention just how dark it was that night, making some survivors believe it sank in one piece
@@f40carz93 You're correct. Another thing I want to add as well is that some positions at which the lifeboats were at had awkward angles which made it harder to tell if the ship had broken or not.
1995 is probably the best one
@@falconeshield it really isn't.
This theory is outdated and unrealistic. There is simply no way Titanic would reach such a high angle without breaking, and the break-up only accounts a portion of survivors.
Still not as devastating as my last breakup.
I honestly didn't expect to see that you have so few subscribers. Of course, I'm not an expert, but I get the impression that you took the time to research, which definitely deserves a like. And of course your own theory is very good in my opinion
The three section break was my fav cause the breakup was so calm
Mistake: On A Sea Of Glass was not the first theory with towers showcased in a real time.
What are the first one?
@@TerraAustralis01 the first theory to have towers and to be showcased in a real time was Roy Mengot. Titanic Animations (YT channel), animated a real time which included Roy Mengots theory.
@@Tamity What is a 'tower'?
@@Unbreakify The term "towers" refers to the 2 sections of superstructure on Titanic. The 2 sections are called "forward" and "aft" towers. They are located between the third funnel and the front of the fourth funnel.
@@Tamity Ah that explains it
This is fascinating. Somehow I never knew there were multiple theories on the Titanic breakup. Great vid!
They all look extremely similar.
@Yora21 I disagree! Some of them have relative similarities of course, since we're working from survivors' accounts as well as the way the wreck landed, but the differences shown here are pretty significant to me in a lot of cases.
Tamity your theory is probably the most correct!
Btw I found some things wrong with it
@@nicholegully8744Please can you explain what is wrong with it?
Damn, titanic, if you need anything I’m here for you. Just remember, there’s more fish in the sea. You deserve better
he is dating an underwater graveyard
The problem with the last one is the third funnel hole was discovered to be still attached to the bow when the wreck was discovered in 1985. It has since disappeared from the bow due to the slow deterioration of the wreck by metal eating microrganisms.
These are all surprisingly similar, at least visually. I would tend to believe results based on accurate finite element simulation. More detailed explanation of the differences would be appreciated.
Yes, they are quite similar. They all show a single time of breaking, and all in the range of 15 to 30 degrees of ship angle. Most show no serious activity before the forward funnels fell (there was actually A LOT that happened, including the first stage of the breakup). And the theories that rely on the bow staying partially connected and pulling the stern down with it can be thrown out because there are a couple of dozen accounts that show the stern floating freely, long after the bow was gone.
From what I've researched (and bear in mind I haven't done a deep dive (no pun intended) in several years) there seems to be a reoccurring testimony that the stern of the ship, when the ship broke, actually refloated and almost leveled out, to the point in which several onboard proclaimed she (referring to Titanic's stern) would remain afloat. It didn't last long, as the rear quickly flooded and eventually slipped to the bottom. (I remember one source saying that the stern rose as high as 90 degrees at one point before it made the final plunge, but I think that's unlikely. Perhaps it _did_ rise high enough to expose the propellers, but I think such an extreme angle is massive exaggeration.)
Bottom line: I think your theory holds up.
Some versions claim that the stern tilted at an angle of 70 degrees before breaking. Which is not impossible, but unlikely.
There were many sources.
"she went almost perpendicular...she became a black mass before she made the final plunge." "everyone watching in the lifeboats saw silhouetted against the starlit sky the stern of the ship rise perpendicularly into the air from about midship" "When the call came that she was going, I covered my face and heard someone call, ‘She’s broken.’ After what seemed a long time, I turned my head only to see the stern almost perpendicular in the air so that the full outline of the blades of the propeller showed above the water. She then gave her final plunge" "Finally she attained an absolute perpendicular position and then went slowly down.” "In this amazing attitude [that is, nearly perpendicular] she remained for the space of half a minute." "The stern rose a hundred feet, almost perpendicularly. The boat stood up like an enormous black finger against the sky." "gradually the stern rose in the air, and the vessel remained perpendicular for a minute or so. Then, very slowly, it sank beneath the waves." "The stern reared straight on end and stood poised on the ocean for many seconds."
1. That's a lot of alignment between multiple eyewitnesses, so it cannot be brushed off as exaggeration.
2. "Perpendicular" has a very specific meaning; it doesn't merely mean "at a steep angle".
3. Therefore, the only exaggeration is Lightoller's use of the word "absolute". But that's an easy mistake to make, if someone were observing it in the dark from the direction of its keel or its decks while it was "straight on end".
@@georgebrankov2143 Yes, the Big Plunge, just before the final break-up, was at a high angle, but I think it was in the 40- to 55-degree range. It was certainly steep enough to make people think that the ship's heavy equipment broke loose and fell into the bow. I think that if the bow had been any steeper than 55 degrees when it turned loose from breaking off, it would have gone down like an arrow (staying steep)--instead of planing/gliding closer to horizontal, which I think it did, because of the distance from the rest of the wreckage area and the direction it plowed into the ocean bottom.
the sea of glass theory and your theory make the most sense to me. i also find them to be the most accurate of any other
I didn't know there were so many theories on how the ship broke.
I may replay the Titanic VR experience to see which theory it adopted (if I can). There's a feature where you witness the Titanic sinking from the perspective of one of the survivors. It was intended to be educational, and it was released in 2018.
Your theory is actually pretty smart but u think we’ll never know
I think your theory and James Cameron theory make perfect sense. But hey, thats just a theory, a Titanic theory.
I thought I was going to have more of a opinion on this but the music soothed me into just watching
park stephenson's theory makes visual sense, now if it is physically possible I think it would be worth studying the physics of water inside a ship of this size
Such a calm song to what killed 1500 people
It may be just some mistaken memory, but there are some people that find this song sad rather than calm. I used it because I wanted to find something that was calm-ish so that the background noise wasn't empty.
Gymnopedie No. 1 is one of my favorites. Good choice. 👍🏻🙂
Awesome video! I'd really like to see the rest of the sinking though, showing how the stern went up in the air as the survivors affirmed
This seems to be a common feedback. Also, thanks!
Your theory is good. Makes the break subtle, it is the most realistic break up for me.
It was actually the Kraken that split the titanic by using both of it’s tentacles to drop pressure on the bow and stern which caused the ship to snap.
You are truly a man of culture
Kraken is extinct
Much appreaciated that you didn't add the infamous "freak of nature, defying laws of physics and gravity" one with these. It's just a joke, nothing else.
This, in a weird way, summarizes most of the world's interpretations of a given religion.
I'm a fan of a combo of the bob Ballard theory of course at a shorter angle, the double bottom attachment and the sea of glass, but yours was quite well thought out and I have no issues with it
Your theory looks the most real for me :)
Either way a ship of that size was never designed to have so much pressure pinpointed at one section, and so as the bow goes down you have a literal pivot point putting huge pressure on the ship from the top of the deck to the keel. It's insane to think about.
R.i.P to consumerdirect9535's whiny comment. You will be missed 💔
Lmao yes.
Every mainstream feature length film made of Titanic depicts the most accurate information available at the time of filming. Every film before the 1997 depicts the Titanic sinking in one piece because that's what 'most' people thought at the time. It wasn't until the wreck was discovered that they realized Jack Thayer was right. At the same time, the Cameron film depicted the steep incline at the time of break up because that's what the theory of the time suggested. It's only later, when new archaeological information come to light, that it seems less accurate.
I always believed that the bow stayed attached until most of the stern was under water so that it explain the huge water pressure that ripped appart the stern's walls.
Nah that water flow occured when the stern was sinking
The stern imploded because it was still full of air so the water flooding the stern imploded the air pressure. The bow sank slow and all the air was pushed out as the bow flooded. The stern flooded quick and flooded broken end down. The bow was already detached heading down before the stern slipped away
@@ryans413 The stern was pulled down by the bow. The stern could not have sunk as quickly as it did if it was separated entirely. The whole reason for the catastrophic implosions was being dragged down hundreds of feet underwater whilst mostly full of air.
@@psychotic.reaction wrong the stern was a good 20 minutes behind the bow. The bow hit the ocean floor first then the stern a few minutes later. The bow pulled the stern under and then broke off the air pressure inside the stern was pushed out rapidly causing the stern to implode and throw off chunks of the ship why it looks like a bomb hit it.
Both of Jame’s theories are ones I can get with
Surprised you didn't mentioned Aaron1912's "V break" theory no matter how much of a middle finger it is to physics lol
They estimated the bow section once broken, free of the stern, took about 10 minutes to go the 2.4 miles to the ocean floor.
Now that was a very good theory you created, taking evidence from survivor Jack Thayer and the layout of the wreck❤
“I looked forward in time… I witnessed 9 outcomes.”
“How many did we win?”
“Zero”
great vid, appreciate the effort
Wow who would have thought that the oceanographer/engineer who spent a lifetime looking for the wreck had more of a sound basis for speculating the nature of how the wreck broke apart than the guy who decided on a whim to put a Hollywood spin on a maritime tragedy.
Not one theory truly exposed the propeller enough to have "Propeller Guy" fall into it and make the ✨ping sound as detected in other videos.
I still vividly remember the proposal History channel's "Missing Pieces" documentary made after the discovery of those bilge keel pieces allegedly from the point of breakup. Park's theory was illustrated with an "inverted" break where the ship bent inwards, trying to explain the clean break of the keep parts alongside crushed state of the bow superstructure. Seems like that visualization of the theory gotten no further support or acknowledgement in the years since. I get that the theory may've been disproven, but still find it a tad weird.
now THIS is a video that sparks my interest
I do think titanic broke in 3 peace’s only because the 2 big peace’s of the wreck don’t line up. From funnel 3 to funnel 4 there’s a big chunk missing. I believe the ship broke right at funnel 3 so that would be on the first class lounge just after the compass platform. And the 2nd break was at the aft grand staircase just after the engine room skylight and that section got destroyed more and peace’s fell off as the stern sank.
There's no way that ship could've stood that high up out of the water like in the 1985 theory and Cameron's theory from the movie. There's no way it was strong enough to get that high. Made for a good movie though.
Its plausible
Why not. Some even explain it quite convincingly.
So which theory was used in Voyage of Despair in Call of Duty Black Ops 4?
I thought this was capitalizing on the Titan tragedy then I saw the upload date and I was so wrong. Sorry and Thank you for caring about the topic and researching. I am happy for you and your hard work and theories being heard by so many.
You are very welcome.
tragedy?
@@FLLMALL yup
@@DrCury448 not really
Everyone always asks; "how did the titanic sink". But nobody ever asks; "why did the titanic sink"
Because we've already known why for ages, it struck an iceberg. This is an incontestable fact.
@@HugoGHA sure alex jones. And oswald shot jfk, aliens didnt build the pyramids, the earth is round, and epstein didnt kill himself.
Read a book!
I believe the survivors who said the stern was up in the air at an almost 90° angle. That's what most the accounts were
Respect to all the titanics they sunk in this video to reproduce each theory
Lol 😅
Ugh...
Even animations of the titanic sinking send a shiver down my spine...
And for y’all saying, “WhAt AbOuT tHe V-bReAk ThEoRy??” That DOESN’T count because it just doesn’t make sense
Whatever theory you subscribe to, you have to account in some way for most survivors stating they never saw her break in two. I personally believe she broke much more subtlely than most people believe, and then what has been portrayed. She can break at or below the water and still stand on end. Point is you have to keep the break up from being like the 1997 film. Many more people would have seen that. I think the three piece break up is close to being correct. She breaks around 23 degrees as engineers have calculated with her superstructure awash. The weight of her engines make the stern section bow heavy and keeps her flooding while the double bottom holds on them parts. While that occurs, significant flooding occurs and continues to take her down. Because of this the stern never falls back, it continues down as if it hadn’t have broke, and only the most keen eyes and attentive ears could tell she broke up.
I also believe that it broke probably right at the surface but in a way that it wasn't immediately obvious to every single person that was around. If it happened anything close to what is shown in the Cameron movie, absolutely everyone would have noticed it. But as we know, as soon as someone was a little away they didn't notice anything.
I think sometimes when trying to account too much for the witnesses who say they didn't see the break up, people kinda forget to account for those that did. There are explanations for why someone wouldn't see it or at least claim not to (it's dark, they're distracted, they work for WSL, etc). There's no explanation for how several people can see it break in half if it happened underwater.
Yours was the best❤
These theories are from folks with no real understanding of the forces acting on a sinking ship. The entire time a ship remains at the surface, she is displacing enough water to match her entire weight and everything on board. Titanic normally displaced around 35 feet of water. That’s 35 feet of dry hull below sea level. As she takes on water, she literally has to have one additional cubic meter of dry space for every ton of water she takes on. ( that is, if she took on 35 feet of water throughout the ship, she would weight TWICE as much and she would need to have 70 feet of dry hull beneath sea level to hold her weight plus the weight of flooding at the surface of the ocean.)
By the time the bridge was under water, she still had several decks of dry space in her forward half, under the surface. Not filling much past the top of the bulkheads because the water inside the ship was spilling down into the next compartment, one after the other, but those dry decks under water still providing just enough buoyancy to keep her at the surface. The stern did not lift much out of the water until she started to break, and she broke because as her aft half was entirely dry and being pulled deeper in the water Her stern was being pushed UP by buoyancy with more than twice the weight of the entire ship.
The idea that the stern broke off Down from its own dry weight in the air is ludicrous. Her stern portion weighed only 30,000 tons. Just before she broke, buoyancy was pushing the stern UP with around 100,000 tons of force. The weight of her stern was negligible compared to the buoyancy required to hold the flooding ship at the surface
Thayer’s account was correct in every detail. Her stern only lifted a little out of the water initially. It was being dragged deeper to compensate for her increasing weight. The Flat bottom separated below the expansion joint in Tension. This is proven by the fact that this 20 foot by 90 foot section was found on the sea bottom, UNBENT, along with the last row of half-boilers. As she broke, the stern slowly lifted out of the water as the superstructure above the break began to crumple and crush against each other. As it parted it allowed the last row of half-boilers to spill out and water to flood into the formerly dry engine room and last boiler room, as well as the upper decks that were still dry at this point, even tho forward they were already below sea level. ( all of this occurred under the water’s surface.) This sudden increase in weight in the formerly dry area that had been helping hold the ship up saw the middle of the ship drop lower, and the bow briefly re-surfaced. But with water now flooding in the entire area of the break amidships, the dry areas under water in the bow quickly flooded and with the last of the side strakes broken, her bow section bent back down and tore away, which dropped the stern back down, and slowly spun it 180 degrees and the weight of her engines and flooding into the breaks gradually brought her stern vertical. The bow 3/5ths sank slightly bow down, planing away a good distance from the spot where the half boilers dropped. It hit the bottom at exactly the angle her bow still sits, and the weight of the rest of her, filled with more than her weight of water, buckled the hull just at the bridge superstructure and from there back she settled more or less level. The stern, once submerged and purged of most air re-oriented upright ( as most sinking ships do if they sink in deep enough water) It sank nearly level, the lower drag of the rudder and rounded fantail offset by the massive weight of her engines. As she hit bottom, dead level, she was moving perhaps 30 mph, and so was the mass of water inside of her. The yawning maw of the opened engine room was exposed, and most of the decks above that space crushed when she folded in breaking. Offering no real structural support. When she hit, her damaged superstructure flattened considerably, the water inside her blew her sides outwards like a bomb, disturbing the bottom for a large area around her impact. Despite conflicting accounts of her going down in one piece, Thayer’s eyewitness account perfectly predicted how she would be oriented and the pattern of damage that would be found when Ballard discovered the wreck. Thayer said she broke DOWN in the middle and THAT is what tipped the stern out of the water the first time, and that her bow breaking away is what caused the stern to drop back down, and then SPIN 180 degrees as she tipped back up to near vertical. She was found with her stern facing the exact direction he described. She had a wedge of damage to her superstructure that is entirely consistent with her stern and bow folding UP. And her double hull section found on the bottom shows no sign at all of bending. It HAD to have been Pulled apart endwise. The greatest force acting on the stern as she took on water was the ever increasing force of buoyancy required to hold her at the surface. 3 to 4 times the weight of her stern, dry.
Thayer’s account is the only trustworthy account of the sinking.
I am on board with Bob Ballard..... The entirety of the middle of the ship is missing (the wreck)... If it broke in half ( a clean break down the middle) there would be more of the middle portion still intact (on both the bow and stern). This is despite the stern's chaotic plummet to the sea bed... Just my thoughts on the matter... Ty :
J from NJ
Where is Roger Long's History Channel theory that competed with Parks Stephenson's theory?
This video does not include every theory, as there are hundreds of them. That is why I didn't include it, because I was only adding a select amount of theories.
titanic's front: "I'm breaking up with you!"
Titanic's Back: "I don't Care, I am too!"
*insert arguing sounds while drowning into the pits of the ocean*
Lets take a moment for not just how many people died but how many titanics were sunk in the making of this presentation...
I hope the titanic gets through these breakups they seem so harsh to them
One issue with the 2 part break at the top of the water is the debris field is actually very small and supports the ship breaking in 2 much farther down than the surface.
There are several problems that come from an "underwater break."
Firstly, there are lots of accounts that mention the ship breaking above the surface. I would say more than 50 survivors that mention this. Yes, some say that it sank intact, but it was likely due to the darkness of the night along with the position the lifeboats were in.
The second big flaw with this is, how are you going to account for the outlier pieces that are hundreds of feet from the hypocenter (the double bottom pieces and parts of the 3rd funnel deckhouse)? If the ship broke underwater, what's creating the force to cause those pieces to come that way?
The third flaw is, how is it going to break underwater? An implosion ain't going to do that, because all of the air is located where the poop deck is.
@Tamity I know basically nothing about Titanic but it seems a bit odd to say that the eye witnesses who saw the ship sink in one piece are unreliable whereas the ones who saw it break up above the surface are reliable.
It was believed the ship sank in once piece until the wreckage was found
@@TamityIt's sad that even after being validated that the ship broke in two after 73 years of disbelief, the survivors' testimonies are still being ignored.
Nice, now do one for how we thought the OceanGate submersible imploded.
Prayers to both of them
0:38 a night to remeber book theory but they remade it in 1985
The 1998 one is one of my fav theories
This was a great video, you just earned a subscriber
Thanks!
The three most believable for me are Cameron’s second theory (naval architects were involved in helping recreate the simulation, not perfect but for the most part their work is based in reality)
On a sea of glass
And your theory is not too far off from on a sea of glass when it comes to showing a recreation of what the breakup would’ve looked like since both are based on witness testimony as well
There is another theory: The water pressure stabilizes the superstructure. After flooding the double-keel section this part brakes trough. This happened, according to one withness, as the bow was a bit above the water level. During breaking the bow float up again a bit, but dissapeared quickly.
Personally I subscribe to the Roy Mengot breakup theory. Very good animations by the way!
Thanks!
this all theoury is still make sense than v-split
If sparks came from the funnels, that's almost certainly the remnants of burning coal being blown out of the boilers as they fill with water. The air pressure inside the hull would be much higher than ambient and the funnels would be a good point of escape. All that air being forced through the boilers, Titanic taking her last breath, literally.
didnt near 500 people watch this happen? how do we not have a more concrete version
This is because almost everybody contradicted each other. A simple example would be that not everybody agreed on how the ship sank (intact or broken).
Because it was the middle of the night and hard to see
@@Tamity wow, interesting 🤔 everyone watches and experiences the smae thing yet everyone sees it break apart and sink in drastically different ways, that is wild
@@ben1ben2ben1 i understand that, but alot of people did watch it sink so 🤷🏼♂️
I think rhe full break up must ve been underwater because the area of the parts of the wr3ck are much closer to each other than if it broke in surface,but i think something along the lines of the last theory happened
3-Section und Mengot sind die physikalisch wahrscheinlichsten Varianten.
Your theory seems pretty accurate
Is this Gymnopédie No. 1??
Yes
While I feel 2012 is one of the most likely, I do have a very large issue with the simulation. The massive angle the ship was facing in the simulation. It appears as if the titanic was torpedoed in the left hull by a U-Boat/Submarine which often can make ships start angling to an extreme because, well, torpedo. The rapid flooding caused by a torpedo would likely cause the Titanic to have taken that heavy angle, however, it was grazed by the iceberg and sunk over 2+ hours instead. If someone who understands the physicst/simulation more can explain the extreme angle into the opposite direction of the side that was grazed, please explain it.
Scotland road would help allow water to the port side. It is larger than its starboard counterpart so it can allow water more easily. Their was also likely a 3 degree port list due to coal being shuffled around. The D deck gangway door would allow water to flood into the starboard side. However, modern research heavily debunks the 2012 theory as it only explains a few accounts and dismisses a lot of accounts from eye witnesses who talked about the stern going perpendicular. It also doesn't explain the accounts of the forward funnels falling to starboard or the list easing as modern research suggests the port list eased, it began to lean slightly to starboard, then after the breakup, it went back to a port list. The double bottom holding on for that long is quite unrealistic. Though he made another theory in 2017 that is much more accurate in my opinion. Sorry for any offence, no offence meant
My personal theory is that the initial break happened at boiler room 2 directly in front of the third smokestack which caused a boiler explosion which destroyed the bulkhead to boiler room 1 as well as damage the double hull causing it to break in three places due to the sudden strain. Her stern would dip down towards the water as the upper deck would keep her together while her belly emptied out until the bend between the bow and stern caused the upper deck to snap in numerous places as it was listing. The Bow and Stern would then fully separate and the Stern would capsize before eventually flooding and sinking which then suffer an implosion before flipping and spinning down to the sea floor stern first.
I think your theory and James Cameron's 2012 theory is the best ones
The odds are regardless of anything, it wasn't a clean "snap", she tore herself apert.
Most of the engines are still in place on the wreck. It looks like only the forward set of cylinders fell out and not the whole engine. A single cylinder missing would not cause a significant change in balance.
‘…the port engine falls out’ - Despite the fact it’s still in the wreck?
I've seen a lot of people point this out. I think I should've clarified while editing.
I meant to say "Port Cylinder," which is just one of 8 Cylinders. There are 6 Cylinders still connected to the stern today, while the forward Cylinders are in the debris field.
Rating Break/Split Theory :
Robert Ballard : 100/10
James Cameron 1995 : 100/10
3 Section Break : 7/10
Park Stephenson : 120/10
Roy Mengot : 70/10
James Cameron 2012 : 110/10
On a sea of glass : 9.5/10
GamePlayerZ : 99.9/10
Tamity : 120/10
There’s something kind of funny about seeing all these names of men who are professionals in the field proposing theories and then “GamePlayerZ”. No disrespect to the guy, I know nothing of the work the they’ve done, but it is kind of funny
Yeah, I understand it is weird. You know nothing about me because I'm no renowned expert, I'm just an enthusiast.
I've been doing research for about 3 years now, and what is featured in the video is my current theory about the break-up (although I'm currently researching more).
Of course the experience of it was somewhat different…
Could be a Robert Ballard '85 Theory is first theory that involve Two Tower break up?
Although the Forward Tower first identified in 2005 also Aft Tower as well!
Great vid. I’m still inclined towards the stern bobbing theory over a relatively horizontal sinking, though your presentation is compelling and definitely addresses the issues with Cameron’s second theory.
The thing is that I just don’t believe so many different witnesses would have said “90 degrees”/“perpendicular” unless the stern was truly close to perpendicular with the water. Only a small number of witnesses described a 45 degree angle - I would guess the ‘final plunge’ happened so quickly and was so awful to hear/see, that the last thing they remember in recalling the event is the 45 degree angle that started the final plunge.
However, I do think you’re onto something. Perhaps a much smaller section of the stern than originally thought bobbed at 90 deg., and it was provided by a roll to the side?
Artistic, Very Artistic, My only criticism would be let each boat sink all the way.
I didn't let it sink all the way because I was only going to represent the breakup part.
my theory is that all of these look like CGI
Tamity's Theory 2023 - is right - my perfect choice possible
hey im 2 months late
congrats on half a million views i guess
ok