George Symons' "Top-Cant"?

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

Personally, I myself believe the meaning of "Top-Cant" is a sudden jolting/moving of the stern upwards after the break-up settling then after again, before taking it's final plunge, Just like Roy Mengot's break-up that also shows the stern being violently pulled upwards via B-deck (Strength Deck), I myself just wanted to ask if what are your personal opinions on George Symons' depiction on the Top-Cant and how do you think the stern behaved.

There have been 3 definitions that I myself have been seeing around the internet on the Top Cant, one is well known and that is being what I believe in which is a sudden jolting/moving of the stern upwards after the break-up settling then after again, another explanation says that it's just the stern going vertical, while another definition being the stern just moving and bobbing like a cork as the stern settles after the break-up.

This is how I view the "Top-Cant" as said by George Symons, which looks like Roy Mengot's Theory

 

[Samuel Halpern]

He explained what he meant by that when ask:
11511. A top cant? - You know what I mean to say, she took a heavy cant and her bow went down clear.

The bow when down and the stern went up.

 

[Kyle Naber]

I believe he was talking about how the bow took a sudden plunge and it sent the stern in the air.

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

I believe he was talking about how the bow took a sudden plunge and it sent the stern in the air.

He explained what he meant by that when ask:
11511. A top cant? - You know what I mean to say, she took a heavy cant and her bow went down clear.

The bow when down and the stern went up.

Sounds a bit Roy Mengot-ish, with the stern being pulled up like that so quickly,

FIG. 1 (Image from Breakup)

but also it just sounds also at the same time like The stern going vertical alone, I find it difficult on how and what he exactly saw by trying to recreate it, but I believe it could be somewhat similar to how Roy Mengot describes it? so basically the stern settling back twice afterwards the "top-cant" happens.

Something Like This (this is based on a break-up I'm working on that is based with Mengot's theory) :

3D Previs:

2D Previs:

There were also similar descriptions on the top-cant but not clearly saying it was a top-cant like Chaffee saying

"it seemed to writhe, breaking into the three parts in which it was divided. First the middle seemed to go down, lifting bow and stern into the air. Then it twisted the other way, throwing the middle up." (P.S I'm not a V-break believer since obviously Physics doesn't support that, at all)

The way I interpret Chaffee's account is the ship twisted the other way, or bent the other way like FIG.1 (first image Above) that it twisted, then throwing middle up, and the middle being the forward tower or 3rd funnel casing thingy? Which in my interpretation being during the break-up it threw the forward tower off, which supports another account at the same time Nellie Becker seeing the middle fell in.

(feel free to correct me in how I interpret the survivor accounts)

Additional notes on my reply (may or not be related to the main topic)
- My Theory bases on Roy Mengot's study and tweaking it to match with Survivor accounts.

 

[Kyle Naber]

Sounds a bit Roy Mengot-ish, with the stern being pulled up like that so quickly,

View attachment 77848
FIG. 1 (Image from Breakup)

but also it just sounds also at the same time like The stern going vertical alone, I find it difficult on how and what he exactly saw by trying to recreate it, but I believe it could be somewhat similar to how Roy Mengot describes it? so basically the stern settling back twice afterwards the "top-cant" happens.

Something Like This (this is based on a break-up I'm working on that is based with Mengot's theory) :

3D Previs:

2D Previs:

There were also similar descriptions on the top-cant but not clearly saying it was a top-cant like Chaffee saying

"it seemed to writhe, breaking into the three parts in which it was divided. First the middle seemed to go down, lifting bow and stern into the air. Then it twisted the other way, throwing the middle up." (P.S I'm not a V-break believer since obviously Physics doesn't support that, at all)

The way I interpret Chaffee's account is the ship twisted the other way, or bent the other way like FIG.1 (first image Above) that it twisted, then throwing middle up, and the middle being the forward tower or 3rd funnel casing thingy? Which in my interpretation being during the break-up it threw the forward tower off, which supports another account at the same time Nellie Becker seeing the middle fell in.

(feel free to correct me in how I interpret the survivor accounts)

Additional notes on my reply (may or not be related to the main topic)
- My Theory bases on Roy Mengot's study and tweaking it to match with Survivor accounts.

I don’t think the ship ever achieved a position like that. It assumes that the intake of water from the break would be enough force to bend the stern in the opposite direction that it settled in to. The bow would have dropped as soon as it could; it wouldn’t pause under the surface for the stern to achieve the pre-break angle again AND also climb higher for a V angle.

I always try to vision the bow and stern always going DOWN. For example, we know that the bow couldn’t have risen from the water as some said. However, the starboard side could have dipped down, allowing the port side to go up like a sea-saw. Using that same logic, the stern would have risen up at a sharp angle only because the broken end was going down- Not because water in the middle was forcing it up.

The “top cant” would have seemed sudden because the final five minutes were very monumental. Compared to the rest of the 2 hours and 35 minutes of the sinking being relatively stable, the bow dipping and the stern climbing up would have appeared very fast.

Another issue with the stern climbing back up quickly is that survivors clearly remembered the stern settling back, decks open and exposed, and resting even on the surface for a few moments; even long enough to trick some into false hope. If the broken middle remained hidden at the surface, we wouldn’t have such explicit testimony of a “clean” break.

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

I don’t think the ship ever achieved a position like that. It assumes that the intake of water from the break would be enough force to bend the stern in the opposite direction that it settled in to. The bow would have dropped as soon as it could; it wouldn’t pause under the surface for the stern to achieve the pre-break angle again AND also climb higher for a V angle.

I always try to vision the bow and stern always going DOWN. For example, we know that the bow couldn’t have risen from the water as some said. However, the starboard side could have dipped down, allowing the port side to go up like a sea-saw. Using that same logic, the stern would have risen up at a sharp angle only because the broken end was going down- Not because water in the middle was forcing it up.

The “top cant” would have seemed sudden because the final five minutes were very monumental. Compared to the rest of the 2 hours and 35 minutes of the sinking being relatively stable, the bow dipping and the stern climbing up would have appeared very fast.

There's actually two forces forcing the stern to do that movement, which is the b-deck (strength deck [as what Mengot Himself refers to] ) and the water flooding in.

It's basically like Roy Mengot but however, the b-deck fails earlier in my version just enough flooding to have the stern settle back and make the break-area still clean enough to make the passengers see that the ship has parted and broken in half. And then the stern settles back.

(Fig. 1 Stern Doesn't settle back since B-deck fails late, and flooding has taken over much of the stern preventing it from falling back Picture CTTO. Titanic Animations)

unlike in Roy Mengot's version the stern stays upright directly and doesn't settle anymore.

In the video which is a Recreation of Mengot's Theory above made by Titanic Animations
it shows B-Deck failing at time stamp 0:10

The way I tweaked it is around that it failed somewhere at 0:06 to 0:07 (Fig 2&3 Below) just early enough for flooding to be just right and make the stern still float and make the passengers see the break-area

(FOLLOWING ARE SCREENSHOTS FROM MY UPCOMING REAL TIME VIDEO)

(Fig. 2 Top-Cant from another angle)

(Fig 3. Top Cant From Boat 2 Stern Settling, props are out of the water, just enough for Symons to see it and others.)

(Fig. 4 Forward Tower (3rd Funnel Casing) Falling)

(Fig. 5 Stern Settling, just enough for the passengers to see the break area)

 

[Kyle Naber]

There's actually two forces forcing the stern to do that movement, which is the b-deck (strength deck [as what Mengot Himself refers to] ) and the water flooding in.

It's basically like Roy Mengot but however, the b-deck fails earlier in my version just enough flooding to have the stern settle back and make the break-area still clean enough to make the passengers see that the ship has parted and broken in half. And then the stern settles back.

View attachment 77849
(Fig. 1 Stern Doesn't settle back since B-deck fails late, and flooding has taken over much of the stern preventing it from falling back Picture CTTO. Titanic Animations)

unlike in Roy Mengot's version the stern stays upright directly and doesn't settle anymore.

In the video which is a Recreation of Mengot's Theory above made by Titanic Animations
it shows B-Deck failing at time stamp 0:10

The way I tweaked it is around that it failed somewhere at 0:06 to 0:07 (Fig 2&3 Below) just early enough for flooding to be just right and make the stern still float and make the passengers see the break-area

(FOLLOWING ARE SCREENSHOTS FROM MY UPCOMING REAL TIME VIDEO)
View attachment 77850
(Fig. 2 Top-Cant from another angle)
View attachment 77851
(Fig 3. Top Cant From Boat 2 Stern Settling, props are out of the water, just enough for Symons to see it and others.)
View attachment 77852
(Fig. 4 Forward Tower (3rd Funnel Casing) Falling)
View attachment 77853

(Fig. 5 Stern Settling, just enough for the passengers to see the break area)

I would bet that the stern could still go vertical on its own without B deck holding it together. The only difference is that it will sit much lower in the water. What you describe might allow for more of the stern section to be visible at a high angle. It’s also important to know that Mengot apparently had plans to revise the theory before his passing, so some aspects may be outdated (even by his standards).

I think this video does a good job depicting what survivors reported back. 2:38:38 is what I think the “top cant” is referring to. I wish we could see what’s happening below the surface during the break, but it does not follow Mengot’s findings.

In my opinion, the main takeaways for what any theory should include is a visible break(s), a horizontal stern for at least 30 seconds, and a near-vertical/vertical stern, as these are most consistent with testimony.

Frank Prentice described how he felt the stern rise up, go down, then rise into a vertical position when he then jumped. While still a violent event, I don’t think the stern would have jumped around too too much.

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

I am aware that Mengot was planning on a Revision on his Theory, heard a talk as well from the On A Sea of Glass (Livestream) when they were talking about their new break-up theory. that Bill Wormstedt did wanted to help out Mengot as well, that's why the site of Roy Mengot is still up.

The main Purpose of making my theory on the break-up is sort of a revised worked of Roy Mengot, but at the same time to follow Survivor Accounts, although the Top Cant in my theory isn't that violent it's just right to make the stern not wobble enough or move too violent.

Here is another Angle after the break-up in my Real Time which is just enough to see "clean break"

(Fig. 1 Stern Settling 2-3 seconds after Top-Cant and the Fall of the Forward Tower)

[I apologize for the Pic above on my previous reply which seemed the stern was too low, that was about seconds already after the break-up.]

Also regarding with B-deck the main purpose of it in My theory, is that it holds the ship together.

[Side note: currently making A Short/Long Documentary or a study on my Theory which will be up on YouTube somewhere in the future.]

(You may also give opinions on my theory and what are your ideas about it, I myself approached some people, while some agreed and some didn't )

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

I would bet that the stern could still go vertical on its own without B deck holding it together. The only difference is that it will sit much lower in the water. What you describe might allow for more of the stern section to be visible at a high angle. It’s also important to know that Mengot apparently had plans to revise the theory before his passing, so some aspects may be outdated (even by his standards).

I think this video does a good job depicting what survivors reported back. 2:38:38 is what I think the “top cant” is referring to. I wish we could see what’s happening below the surface during the break, but it does not follow Mengot’s findings.

In my opinion, the main takeaways for what any theory should include is a visible break(s), a horizontal stern for at least 30 seconds, and a near-vertical/vertical stern, as these are most consistent with testimony.

Frank Prentice described how he felt the stern rise up, go down, then rise into a vertical position when he then jumped. While still a violent event, I don’t think the stern would have jumped around too too much.

Here's a video of it. (I removed the sound effects and texts from my upcoming real-time since I don't want spoilers xD )

Top-Cant.avi

drive.google.com

Again You may also give opinions on my theory and what are your ideas about it, I myself approached some people, while some agreed and some didn't

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

I would bet that the stern could still go vertical on its own without B deck holding it together. The only difference is that it will sit much lower in the water. What you describe might allow for more of the stern section to be visible at a high angle. It’s also important to know that Mengot apparently had plans to revise the theory before his passing, so some aspects may be outdated (even by his standards).

I think this video does a good job depicting what survivors reported back. 2:38:38 is what I think the “top cant” is referring to. I wish we could see what’s happening below the surface during the break, but it does not follow Mengot’s findings.

In my opinion, the main takeaways for what any theory should include is a visible break(s), a horizontal stern for at least 30 seconds, and a near-vertical/vertical stern, as these are most consistent with testimony.

Frank Prentice described how he felt the stern rise up, go down, then rise into a vertical position when he then jumped. While still a violent event, I don’t think the stern would have jumped around too too much.

Forgot to add also this another thing I wanna note, from your reply, quoted "What you describe might allow for more of the stern section to be visible at a high angle. "

The Titanic in my Theory breaks at angle roughly around 26.5-28.5, just enough for people to slide on the decks.

According to strength analysis performed in 2010, the max angle the steel could endure was 23 degrees, Though some historians have argued the ship broke at 15 degrees. Another majority of historians debate that an angle of 25-28 degrees is more likely as that angle is high enough that it will cause people to slip and fall down the decks as reported by survivors right before the break-up started.

Over-all the main purpose of The "top-cant" with my theory was to follow the same movement with Roy Mengot's break-up and that being the B-deck pulling the stern upwards a bit and settling back down once more.

Top-Cant.avi

drive.google.com

 

[Kyle Naber]

Forgot to add also this another thing I wanna note, from your reply, quoted "What you describe might allow for more of the stern section to be visible at a high angle. "

The Titanic in my Theory breaks at angle roughly around 26.5-28.5, just enough for people to slide on the decks.

According to strength analysis performed in 2010, the max angle the steel could endure was 23 degrees, Though some historians have argued the ship broke at 15 degrees. Another majority of historians debate that an angle of 25-28 degrees is more likely as that angle is high enough that it will cause people to slip and fall down the decks as reported by survivors right before the break-up started.

Over-all the main purpose of The "top-cant" with my theory was to follow the same movement with Roy Mengot's break-up and that being the B-deck pulling the stern upwards a bit and settling back down once more.

Top-Cant.avi

drive.google.com

Oh what I meant by this was the stern reaching a high angle after the break. If the stern were completely independent after the break, it could still go vertical, but at least half of it will be under the surface. Mengot’s theory (that proposes the stern being jolted up) would allow for more of the stern section to be visible at it climbed vertical.

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

Oh what I meant by this was the stern reaching a high angle after the break. If the stern were completely independent after the break, it could still go vertical, but at least half of it will be under the surface. Mengot’s theory (that proposes the stern being jolted up) would allow for more of the stern section to be visible at it climbed vertical.

Ah, I see.. I apologize for mistaking that..

Personally I do believe that yes the stern even if completely independent/dependent (With B-deck connected/ Without B-deck connected) , it would still go vertical, because obviously it's damaged and there are ways water can come in.

I just added in that type of movement (referring to "top-cant"), after the break-up for the Forward Tower to fall off, and break the ship into sections.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

You originally asked what did Symons mean when he said she took a top cant. I pointed out that Symons tried to clarify his statement when he said: "You know what I mean to say, she took a heavy cant and her bow went down clear."
Then you tried to bend what he meant by fitting it into Mengot's theory of a V break, which does not really make sense if you consider the stresses and compressions on the hull that was taking place before the break occurred. You really need to read Symons more carefully. He doesn't support a break like Mengot described. Quite the opposite. To quote him further:
"Head down, and that is the time when I saw her lights go out, all her lights. The next thing I saw was her poop. As she went down like that so her poop righted itself and I thought to myself, 'The poop is going to float.' It could not have been more than two or three minutes after that that her poop went up as straight as anything; there was a sound like steady thunder as you hear on an ordinary night at a distance, and soon she disappeared from view."

He further explained:
"It righted itself without the bow; in my estimation she must have broken in half....
I should think myself it was abaft the after expansion plate."

That last point he described indicates a break, a pulling apart, near the aft expansion joint which is located on the superstructure. It would be near where the max stress point on the hull was taking place.

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

You originally asked what did Symons mean when he said she took a top cant. I pointed out that Symons tried to clarify his statement when he said: "You know what I mean to say, she took a heavy cant and her bow went down clear."
Then you tried to bend what he meant by fitting it into Mengot's theory of a V break, which does not really make sense if you consider the stresses and compressions on the hull that was taking place before the break occurred. You really need to read Symons more carefully. He doesn't support a break like Mengot described. Quite the opposite. To quote him further:
"Head down, and that is the time when I saw her lights go out, all her lights. The next thing I saw was her poop. As she went down like that so her poop righted itself and I thought to myself, 'The poop is going to float.' It could not have been more than two or three minutes after that that her poop went up as straight as anything; there was a sound like steady thunder as you hear on an ordinary night at a distance, and soon she disappeared from view."

He further explained:
"It righted itself without the bow; in my estimation she must have broken in half....
I should think myself it was abaft the after expansion plate."

That last point he described indicates a break, a pulling apart, near the aft expansion joint which is located on the superstructure. It would be near where the max stress point on the hull was taking place.

Sorry if the fitting in my theory was kind of out of place (obviously it was) , I was only sharing my understanding on the top-cant (which was kind of different) , which was when I search on the internet that was the depiction of people, and a lot have come around that depiction where it was pulled violently that way.

These are what of some people on the internet seem to depict the top-cant. which is really different from what you guys explained, but anyways thanks for enlightening me! <3

Anyways Thanks Samuel Halpern and Kylie Naber for answering my questions regarding on it, not to mention Mr. Samuel Halpern, big fan of your low break angle by the way <3

 

[Jim Currie]

A lot of vey high-level pontification here, lads. However, if all that was wanted was what Symonds meant, then you must view the word in light of the early 20th century. The work 'cant' used by George Symonds was not a nautical term but simply meant as The King's Dictionary of the day states: "an external angle; an inclination from a horizontal line; a jerk: to throw with a jerk: to tilt. "Cant" was not a marine expression.
However, I suspect the reason for this post was simply to air a theory.
No theory needed - a moderate understanding of ship construction will show that Titanic had an inherent weakness in hull design and there was a very obvious point in her hull where, if undue longitudinal stress was imposed, the hull girder would fail, and that is exactly what happened. No big deal, but a great deal of hot air.