How did the Two Tower Debris break from the Stern? Or did they separate at the surface?

[Cam Houseman]

Hi!
A recent thing that has been going through my mind is: How did the Forward and Aft Tower Debris break away from the Stern? Or better yet, did they break away during the initial break up at the Surface? And their journey to the Bottom?
A quick Rundown of what the "Hull Towers" are:

There are two Massive Structures in the debris field. One close to the Bow, Northeast. (aft of the Breakup) This section of the Hull consists of the Ship, directly under the Third Funnel deckhouse, and consists of The Boat Deck, A, B, C, D, and F-Deck. the boundaries of the structure stop at E-Deck, begins at the Third Funnel Deckhouse, and ends at just before the Tankroom.

The other structure, the Aft Tower, consists of the Tankroom, , the Aft Grand Staircase, and A, B, and C-Deck right under them. A good Illustration of the Sections:

Some pictures of the sections:
Forward Tower:

Aft Tower, lies directly infront of the Stern (supporting the Stern spiraling)

Back to the questions: How/why did these two Towers break away from the Ship, how do they look like a giant mess compared to the other two hull sections?

 

[Dan Coghlan]

Good question,

With the 3rd funnel site, I believe you are referring to the wreckage located near the double bottom, a long distance from the wreck of the stern. It was determined by James Cameron and his team during the 2012 Final Word documentary that the Titanic split in two places. The infamous "split" between the 2nd and 3rd funnel - which accounts for the bow and sterns separation - and then in the area you are referring to under the 3rd funnel.
The reason for this debris being so far off the main wreckage is because of the depth of the water. The best example that I can give you is the "ladder against wall" scenario.
The higher the wall is, the further the base point is going to be from the top point on a horizontal viewpoint. So essentially, if the depth of the water is removed from the equation, the debris is going to be way more closer to the stern then it looks.

The Aft tower is more than likely the result of the implosion that occurred right after the stern sank, which caused a lot of the stern to break off from it. The placement of this tower on the wreck could simply be due to it's weight, as practically all the heavy sections of the stern that came off during the implosion landed in that general area.

I hope this helps answer your questions, and that the ladder analogy is understandable, to go more further would require some trigonometry, which is far more complex.

Feel free to respond if you require more assistance or need me to clarify something

 

[Jim Currie]

Consider the shape of each sinking object and the fact that they were descending through a medium of differing densities and a medium which, because of such densities would not have been static.
(1). Do you think that the bow section would sink faster if it was bow -up or bow down?
(2) If the bow section went down on its side,(with a port list) would it point in the same direction all the way down? or
(3). Because the bow was in water of greater pressure and had a list to port and the greatest pressure was on the port side of the bow - would the bow descent direction be diverted to the right...i.e. in the direction of the starboard bow?

Now apply the foregoing principal to different shapes of sinking wreckage through water of different densities in layers which were probably mobile.

 

[Cam Houseman]

Consider the shape of each sinking object and the fact that they were descending through a medium of differing densities and a medium which, because of such densities would not have been static.
(1). Do you think that the bow section would sink faster if it was bow -up or bow down?
(2) If the bow section went down on its side,(with a port list) would it point in the same direction all the way down? or
(3). Because the bow was in water of greater pressure and had a list to port and the greatest pressure was on the port side of the bow - would the bow descent direction be diverted to the right...i.e. in the direction of the starboard bow?

Now apply the foregoing principal to different shapes of sinking wreckage through water of different densities in layers which were probably mobile.

Great answers, both of you! Great to hear from you Jim

To me, it looks like the Forward Tower is in better condition, it is upright on the Ocean floor. How did it upright its self?

As for the Aft Tower, its alright, but the only identifiable object is the Reciprocating Engine Casing

(oh and Bill Sauder when I talked to him, identified some of the Ladders that went up through the Casing lying nearby)
Why do these two "towers" look so different??

 

[Dan Coghlan]

to me, it looks like the Forward Tower is in better condition, it is upright on the Ocean floor. How did it upright its self?

There are some things about the Titanic that cannot be explained in a reasonable manner.
In this case, it could just be that the Forward Tower was so formless that it may have not even have flipped in the first place and could potentially have just dropped down to the seafloor as it is one of the more heavier parts of the wreckage. It more than likely lacked aerodynamics that would even be required to flip or even upright itself underwater
It's one of those things that we just don't know, however I hope that this answer helps.

DC

 

[Mike Bull2019]

The Aft tower is more than likely the result of the implosion that occurred right after the stern sank, which caused a lot of the stern to break off from it.

Except none of that area of the stern was in any way a truly sealed volume, and thus, it could not have 'imploded'. It was all torn apart and open to rapid flooding as the stern flooded and plunged. So it was more likely all ripped apart hydrodynamically, and not by one huge all-destroying 'implosion'. (But we've done that one to death on another thread, where some still want to argue with basic physics!)

Broadly speaking the late Roy Mengot's theory still serves as one of the best bits of thinking on the break up/the towers etc.

Breakup

 

[Cam Houseman]

Except none of that area of the stern was in any way a truly sealed volume, and thus, it could not have 'imploded'. It was all torn apart and open to rapid flooding as the stern flooded and plunged. So it was more likely all ripped apart hydrodynamically, and not by one huge all-destroying 'implosion'. (But we've done that one to death on another thread, where some still want to argue with basic physics!)

Broadly speaking the late Roy Mengot's theory still serves as one of the best bits of thinking on the break up/the towers etc.

Breakup

It sure did implode
The Towers broke away for a reason

 

[Dan Coghlan]

Except none of that area of the stern was in any way a truly sealed volume, and thus, it could not have 'imploded'. It was all torn apart and open to rapid flooding as the stern flooded and plunged. So it was more likely all ripped apart hydrodynamically, and not by one huge all-destroying 'implosion'.

You are absolutely right Mike! I retract my first answer

The hydrodynamic forces can account for the destruction on the upper decks, and subsequently caused the Aft Tower to come off from the stern.

Thanks for correcting me.

DC

 

[Mike Bull2019]

(But we've done that one to death on another thread, where some still want to argue with basic physics!)

It sure did implode

Case in point...

 

[Cam Houseman]

Case in point...

Hi Mike, how're you?


ok

 

[Mike Bull2019]

You are absolutely right Mike! I retract my first answer

The hydrodynamic forces can account for the destruction on the upper decks, and subsequently caused the Aft Tower to come off from the stern.

Thanks for correcting me.

DC

Oh, hey, it's not really correcting, and no one knows any of this stuff for sure of course, but it's simple physics that there just were not the large enough sealed volumes to cause implosions on the scale that is often thrown about in discussion.

But rapid flooding of a torn-open structure and the extreme hydrodynamic forces following the structural trauma of the break up make a lot more sense for a lot of what seems to have happened. I'm very wary of James Cameron's sweeping theories sometimes but I do think his 'deck of cards into wind' analogy is a good one in this instance.

 

[Dan Coghlan]

I'm very wary of James Cameron's sweeping theories sometimes but I do think his 'deck of cards into wind' analogy is a good one in this instance.

Completely agreed! Thanks once again.

 

[Jim Currie]

I join in against my better judgement,

Ship compartments to not "implode" in the proper sese of the word.

When joints and seams fail, pressure between inside and outside equalises. This may be sudden or gradual, depending on uniformity of joint stength. The latter in the case of a welded joint and the former where welded and bolted seams are concerned. Ask a submariner. Titanic did not have any welded seams so it is probable that any sealed or semi-sealed comparments and empty piping would start to distort due to pressure (as with the force of hitting the iceberg). The fastenings (rivets) would fail everywhere and pressure eualisation would be gradual. This would initiate at a fairly early time on the way to the bottom and would be almost completed by the time the ship hit the sea bed.

 

[ShinGoji (Kiefer)]

How these towers might have collapsed or separated maybe explained simply, if we take Roy Mengot's theory it states there that the keel pushed the engines and decks up which crushed the upper decks which holds these aft and forward towers, we know Roy Mengot's theory has it's flaws so let's say we tweak his theory and match it up with the survivors accounts, let's take Mrs. Chaffe's account for Example here she states

"first one end of the boat going down at a dangerous angle, and then the other.....it seemed to writhe, breaking into the three parts in which it was divided. "

here she states the ship breaking into parts or sections so if we combine this with Roy Mengot, what if as the keel pushed the engines up it manage also to cause both a bottom-up and a top down break scenario, for which it breaks the ship into sections, the idea of the engines pushed up maybe supported by one survivor account (I forgot whom who said that but if you know kindly provide it in this reply) one testified seeing the engine being thrown out of the ship as she broke, only that can happen if the engines were to be shoved up by the bending motion of the keel.

So basically in short, a bottom-up and top-down break caused by the bending of the keel. shoved the engines is displacing the decks and towers causing them to fall.

something like this: Video

 

[Cam Houseman]

How these towers might have collapsed or separated maybe explained simply, if we take Roy Mengot's theory it states there that the keel pushed the engines and decks up which crushed the upper decks which holds these aft and forward towers, we know Roy Mengot's theory has it's flaws so let's say we tweak his theory and match it up with the survivors accounts, let's take Mrs. Chaffe's account for Example here she states

"first one end of the boat going down at a dangerous angle, and then the other.....it seemed to writhe, breaking into the three parts in which it was divided. "

here she states the ship breaking into parts or sections so if we combine this with Roy Mengot, what if as the keel pushed the engines up it manage also to cause both a bottom-up and a top down break scenario, for which it breaks the ship into sections, the idea of the engines pushed up maybe supported by one survivor account (I forgot whom who said that but if you know kindly provide it in this reply) one testified seeing the engine being thrown out of the ship as she broke, only that can happen if the engines were to be shoved up by the bending motion of the keel.

So basically in short, a bottom-up and top-down break caused by the bending of the keel. shoved the engines is displacing the decks and towers causing them to fall.

something like this: Video

thanks! Brilliant answer

Could I further tweak this, if that's ok?

What if, the forward tower broke away at the surface, as the keel buckled. In my mind, the Keel buckling wouldn't drive it upward, just mash it together. But I'm no engineer.
The Aft tower which consists of the Portside and amidships section of the ship down to C-Deck, seems to have followed the Stern down, perhaps weakened, and that's why it tore away? Why I think it followed the Stern down is because its very close to the stern, maybe 100-200 north of it, actually. Compared to the Forward tower, which was somehow "flung" all the way northeast slightly, The Aft tower could've stayed on the Stern, followed it down maybe 1000-2000 feet, and separated, and twisted and spun, having it land upside down, which it is today.

Any feedback?