The supposed "Banana-Peel" theory from James Cameron is *very* outdated in my opinion. The theory I've formed here (by the way it's outdated) is not a variant of the banana peel theory. My theory consists of the ship breaking from the top to the anti-fouling line. It's not just the double bottom that is hold on here, but rather a combination of the anti-fouling, a few decks, and the double bottom. Although the double bottom and keel had been going through pretty intense compression stresses, it would still stay pretty strong. Also, the keel is 3 inches thick, along with the fact that it was meant to keep the ship mostly sturdy and strong. Even when compressed upwards, breaking it apart would be quite difficult. In James Cameron's 2012 theory, the bow swings down to basically a vertical angle. This would've severely bent the double bottom and keel hard, making it break much easier. If you are wondering why the bow in my personal theory doesn't do that is because the boilers in the bow would have been released from their seat. On the wreck today, the boilers are still in place, meaning the bow never swung down as that much of an angle like Cameron's 2012 theory. Because of the only 30-35 angle bow when the ship initially breaks, the double bottom and keel do not bend very much. These are my reasons as to why the bow still holds on to the stern by the keel and double bottom. It's highly strong, along with help from the anti-fouling and a few decks.
@@Tamity well, nice explanation, but in my opinion this is opposed of Archimedes Law, if ship broke from top to bottom to Anti-Fouling line, it would be difficult since the top of Titanic much heavier than on the bottom, the heavier is on top which is include the Galley Deck, Poop deck, Forward Tower, and First, second, class section which is where people usually been! On a very bottom is much less dense than on top, which is only filled with boiler and engine, no more thing, if Titanic broke from top first, how many power or energy to destroy that weight, it would make sense if bottom fail first, then water push up to upper deck, as soon the water fill entire Upper deck, the pressure was enough to wreck the steel, so stern look settled back or jerking as Torque forces. Also followed by some Survivor, some of them saw stern settled back after first fall so it look like stern fall rise again fall again.
@@elli2499 I am sorry, but I have to disagree with what you said. Sure, the top is probably more dense, but the bottom would be heavier than the top. There would be multiple boilers, coal bunkers, and engines. All of those things are very heavy. Another thing, if the top was more heavy, the ship wouldn't be able to even sail, because it's center of gravity would've been too high, making it tip over. Even if the bottom failed first, the keel and double bottom would still not break, but rather bend upwards slightly. Also, I don't think the keel being pushed upwards would shove water up. The bending process shouldn't be as violent as that, and there are decks that wouldn't allow water up at all. The rocking motion in my theory is to explain why some survivors said the ship went up, then down. The port side/starboard side coming down would give the illusion that the ship is going up. As far as I know, only Carrie Chaffee said the ship went up and then down.
I forgot to mention. While animating, I made the starboard list too high after the break. It is a mistake if you spot.
Looks good!
nice
Please, Tamity, explain it, why you use a Banana-Peel theory too? Don't you think that already outdated?
The supposed "Banana-Peel" theory from James Cameron is *very* outdated in my opinion. The theory I've formed here (by the way it's outdated) is not a variant of the banana peel theory.
My theory consists of the ship breaking from the top to the anti-fouling line. It's not just the double bottom that is hold on here, but rather a combination of the anti-fouling, a few decks, and the double bottom. Although the double bottom and keel had been going through pretty intense compression stresses, it would still stay pretty strong. Also, the keel is 3 inches thick, along with the fact that it was meant to keep the ship mostly sturdy and strong. Even when compressed upwards, breaking it apart would be quite difficult.
In James Cameron's 2012 theory, the bow swings down to basically a vertical angle. This would've severely bent the double bottom and keel hard, making it break much easier. If you are wondering why the bow in my personal theory doesn't do that is because the boilers in the bow would have been released from their seat. On the wreck today, the boilers are still in place, meaning the bow never swung down as that much of an angle like Cameron's 2012 theory. Because of the only 30-35 angle bow when the ship initially breaks, the double bottom and keel do not bend very much.
These are my reasons as to why the bow still holds on to the stern by the keel and double bottom. It's highly strong, along with help from the anti-fouling and a few decks.
@@Tamity well, nice explanation, but in my opinion this is opposed of Archimedes Law, if ship broke from top to bottom to Anti-Fouling line, it would be difficult since the top of Titanic much heavier than on the bottom, the heavier is on top which is include the Galley Deck, Poop deck, Forward Tower, and First, second, class section which is where people usually been!
On a very bottom is much less dense than on top, which is only filled with boiler and engine, no more thing, if Titanic broke from top first, how many power or energy to destroy that weight, it would make sense if bottom fail first, then water push up to upper deck, as soon the water fill entire Upper deck, the pressure was enough to wreck the steel, so stern look settled back or jerking as Torque forces.
Also followed by some Survivor, some of them saw stern settled back after first fall so it look like stern fall rise again fall again.
@@elli2499 I am sorry, but I have to disagree with what you said.
Sure, the top is probably more dense, but the bottom would be heavier than the top. There would be multiple boilers, coal bunkers, and engines. All of those things are very heavy. Another thing, if the top was more heavy, the ship wouldn't be able to even sail, because it's center of gravity would've been too high, making it tip over.
Even if the bottom failed first, the keel and double bottom would still not break, but rather bend upwards slightly. Also, I don't think the keel being pushed upwards would shove water up. The bending process shouldn't be as violent as that, and there are decks that wouldn't allow water up at all.
The rocking motion in my theory is to explain why some survivors said the ship went up, then down. The port side/starboard side coming down would give the illusion that the ship is going up. As far as I know, only Carrie Chaffee said the ship went up and then down.