How the break-up occurred

Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
Guys, gals, and variations on a theme: there was not, nor could there have been a resurfacing of the bow. By this point, it was completely flooded solid, and you don't get past those problems of sheer inertia.

You just don't.

A word to the wise; before trying to explain something, make sure it's actually real.

Even the back of the bow rising seems a little out there. As soon as the stern settled back, the bow would have dropped straight down ASAP. No time to stall and rotate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShinGoji (Kiefer), chrismireya and Michael H. Standart
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
Even the back of the bow rising seems a little out there. As soon as the stern settled back, the bow would have dropped straight down ASAP. No time to stall and rotate.
I can see that much happening simply as a consequence of the section tipping over, but with all that mass, I don't see it coming to the surface,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arun Vajpey and chrismireya
chrismireya

chrismireya

Member
I can see that much happening simply as a consequence of the section tipping over, but with all that mass, I don't see it coming to the surface,
Agreed. I certainly don't see the bow rising. All that I can entertain as a possibility (to the zig zag "sketch") is that the breakup might possibly have caused the smaller middle section (the upper forward parts) to buckle upward during the breakup. I believe that the breakup happened very rapidly too. As soon as the breakup was complete and the bow section was free, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that it immediately plummeted toward the ocean floor.
 
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
I certainly don't see the bow rising.
I have to agree. I have always felt uneasy about the physics involved (or the physics that could NOT be invoved); even though I have discussed the slight rise depicted in the OASOG animation with other members, I have never been convinced by it.

The bow was completely flooded and after the break-up that section had absolutely no buoyancy whatsoever. Therefore, it could not have risen.

But, IF the port list had slightly corrected itself before the break-up, could the apparent rise of the still lit portholes on the port side created a momentary illusion of the bow rising slightly for those watching from the lifeboats on that side of the ship?
 
Last edited:
Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
I believe that the breakup happened very rapidly too.

I agree. Some people like to say that the break was a very gradual process, but it was most certainly one event. Yes, lots of events lined up perfectly for it to happen, but it was a sudden and loud process. Those final few moments where the stern heaved up sealed the deal.

But, IF the port list had slightly corrected itself before the break-up, could the apparent rise of the still lit portholes on the port isde created a momentary illusion of the bow rising slightly for those watching from the lifeboats on that side of the ship?

I think this is the only way. There was most likely an internal shift of water that rocked the ship and shifted the trim as the bridge was going under.
 
ShinGoji (Kiefer)

ShinGoji (Kiefer)

Member
It’s definitely interesting the see the double bottom pop upwards as the stern continues to rise. Definitely possible I think. Lots of survivors mentioned hearing two “explosions.” It makes you wonder how far apart they were. Did they happen about 1 second apart? 10 seconds? 30 seconds? Maybe the first “explosion” was the begging of the breakup under the surface. The second one was the breakup finishing?

Interesting theory about sparks coming out of the funnels too. I think there was lots of trapped air in the stern, and any metal gyrations on the inside were definitely causing sparks. And when the hull opened up, those were probably blown out by the escaping air. And the result is lots of smoke and sparks in the area.
The idea of the double bottom popping up early is for the purpose of making survivors hear what seems to be a 'series of explosions' as what majority have claimed they heard during the break-up, and as for the sparks coming out of the 3rd funnel during the break-up, I find it more logical to come out from that area, instead of the break-up area, as the uptakes of the 3rd funnel in the wreck are actually beyond unrecognizable. Working our way back, it could give us the idea that the uptakes may have been shattered, or buckled which could have caused sparks, these sparks then react with the coal dust on the uptakes resulting in such reaction which causes the shower of sparks, which to some may appear it came from the break-up.
 
ShinGoji (Kiefer)

ShinGoji (Kiefer)

Member
Of course, this probably happened so quickly (within a few blinks of the eye) and at a moment when the lights suddenly went out. This could explain why only a tiny few of the 700+ survivors mentioned anything like this at all.

There was not only a traumatically stressful "fog of war" during the survivors' struggle to survive (and the horrors that they were witnessing), but it happened very quickly and from different perspectives at different vantage points. It also happened at a moment when the rods/cones of their eyes were adjusting (i.e., darkness adaptation) to the sudden darkness when Titanic's lights went out.

A few years ago, I went to a drive-in movie in Texas (while visiting my wife's family). While we in the middle of a movie, the entire area (including the drive-in theater) lost power. It took a moment for my eyes to adjust to the point where I could see anything other than the light of a few cell phones and the fuzzy outline of the screen against the backdrop of a dark, moonless and cloudy night sky.
Indeed the events were so quick to have happened, also taking the fact that as the moment the ship broke up, a lot of pieces i.e. the 2 double bottoms, forward and aft towers, big piece and etc. were ripping off from the ship at a fast rate, so everything happened fast.

The idea of the zig-zig in my break-up theory is actually somewhat the same with what you said that the bottom pushed it upwards, but the main thing pushing the towers for a brief moment was the Galley Deck section (pink colored object in video) as the bow was pulling that section, it sort of made it lift, also lifting the towers and ripping them from their places (mostly ripping off the forward tower)
 
Aurélien WOLFF

Aurélien WOLFF

Member
If the break up started at the keel, would the 2 double bottom part suffer more compression damage?
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
If the break up started at the keel, would the 2 double bottom part suffer more compression damage?

Yes it would, and nothing of the kind happened. What you see is a clean break along those sections of double botting and a lot of compression damage higher up and into the superstructure.

The steel doesn't lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuel Halpern, Jason D. Tiller, Aurélien WOLFF and 1 other person
ShinGoji (Kiefer)

ShinGoji (Kiefer)

Member
If the break up started at the keel, would the 2 double bottom part suffer more compression damage?


Taken from Roy Mengot's Website, which is were I based my findings or use their study as related literature/research;

"What the physical evidence shows is multi-fold. The technical artist Ken Marschall mapped the complete video into a detailed drawing based on the construction plans to identify the exact locations on the hull where the breaks occurred. Richard Woytowich, a materials science professor at New York City Technical College and co-author of the paper "The Break-up of Titanic" called the image of the bent keel bar into an S-shape the "smoking gun". The 19.5 X 3 inch (49.5cm X 7.6cm) steel bar could only be bent into that sort of shape under severe compression. That, and the frequent bent-in edges all over both sections, rule out the keel being pulled apart under tension in any 'drag the the stern' down scenario. Further evidence is in the remaining longitudal spacers found along the sections as seen in several TV programs. They appear crushed and smashed from the buckling of the double bottom."

Keelphoto brite

Ctto. Roy Mengot & Richard Woytowich's study on the Break-Up; Roy Mengot's Website

It in fact did suffer compression damage which caused the keel bar to be bent in an s-shape. as that happened, the neutral axis move up, tension further tries to break the ship and as this happens both cracks or damage could have radiated around the ship and then forming the sections that came off the ship during the break-up, i.e. the Forward and Aft Towers, Double Bottom/s, and the Big Piece and many more debris.

Vlcsnap 2022 06 01 15h03m05s251

Photos Are by Me: Keel Fails First, compressing it then forming the s-shape bend on the keel, cracks radiate further around the 3rd funnel casing and aft staircase, forming the sections slowly.

Vlcsnap 2022 06 01 15h03m12s760

Photos Are by Me: Titanic finally breaks apart fully after the upper decks have failed, the ship has also broken into the sections that we actually seen in the wreck with the Forward Tower and Aft Tower. The ship is held together by the B/C-E Deck Area as Neutral Axis prevents cracks from radiating further, although at this point, that area of the deck, starts to tear apart and fail.
Vlcsnap 2022 06 01 15h03m21s434

Photos Are by Me: The other debris finally flake off, after the ship twists away, the other sections i.e. the Forward Tower, Big Piece and etc. begin to slip and break off from the stern as a result of the cracks travelling around the superstructure as the ship broke apart.
 
Aurélien WOLFF

Aurélien WOLFF

Member
Another issue with this theory is the break seem less visible for the whitnesses too. Wouldn't it be more damaged than it is if the break up startedfrom the keel and I wonder if a top to keel break up wouldn't be able to cause this kind of damage too.
 
ShinGoji (Kiefer)

ShinGoji (Kiefer)

Member
Another issue with this theory is the break seem less visible for the whitnesses too. Wouldn't it be more damaged than it is if the break up startedfrom the keel and I wonder if a top to keel break up wouldn't be able to cause this kind of damage too.
The theory you are trying to refer, are you trying to refer mine? or Mengot's.

If you meant Roy Mengot's theory, well yes indeed their theory is quite subtle and barely visible for the witness to see.

however In the case of my theory, I based it on Roy Mengot's studies and findings, but matched it with the survivors, as basically the Forensic Findings are based on by Mengot and I changed it a bit to match with the survivors to what they said the saw.

The Keel wasn't that severely damage, the only major damage compression did to the keel was the S-Shape it caused to the keel as it slowly started to break apart. A top-down break-up's problem is that if it directly broke down to the keel, other forces that would try to form the other sections such as the forward tower, aft tower and etc. would be gone.
 
Aurélien WOLFF

Aurélien WOLFF

Member
I'm talking about the 2006 theory from the documentary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShinGoji (Kiefer)
ShinGoji (Kiefer)

ShinGoji (Kiefer)

Member
I'm talking about the 2006 theory from the documentary.
The 2006 Theory of Roger Long indeed is different, and is a stretch. The Break-Up starts at a very shallow angle of 11 degrees, and the break-up is too quick and subtle.
 
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
The Break-Up starts at a very shallow angle of 11 degrees
It is quite likely that the break-up process started when the stern was at an angle of 11 to 12 degrees to the sea level. In his book RITLOT-SST: A Centennial Appraisal, Sam Halpern demonstrates convincingly that the bending stress on the Titanic keel reached its maximum at 11 to 12 degrees; theoretically, if the break had not started then, it might not have happened at all because as the stern rose higher, the bending stress on the keel dropped sharply.

We must consider what we mean by "start" of the break-up. It is quite likey that when the stern reached around 11-degrees, the keel structure started to give way probably at its top surface between the 2nd and 3rd funnels. But IMO it was not an immediate "snap!" and so for a short time the failing keel still supported the hull and so the stern continued to rise. It was at that time that the dipping bow caused the Titanic to suddenly lose its longitudinal stability (a separate event) resulting in that sharp downward plunge that generated the well known "wave". When that happened, the stern rose further even though the keel was breaking (and that rise would have momentarily reduced the bending force) and probably reached an angle of around 25-degrees before the failing keel snapped and the full break-up, as witnessed by many survivors, occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShinGoji (Kiefer)
Top