New documentary suggests Titanic broke apart under the surface


Slim

Member
Feb 15, 2016
5
1
13
I recently watched a new documentary that was released in 2015 called "Drain the Titanic" that suggests the ship broke apart below the surface. They theorize this because the debris isn't as scattered as it should be if she broke apart at the surface.

The link above starts at 31:51. Make sure you watch until at least 35:30 for a decent visualization/explanation.

Thoughts/comments?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 18, 2008
2,649
1,143
248
Germany
Actually this is a old theory and has proved wrong.
There were several survivors who did saw the ship breaking at the surface and the different debris (especially the 2 double bottom halves and debris tower under the 3rd funnel) contradicts it.
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,194
14
233
I actually think it's possible that the break up wasn't complete until the ship was below the surface, especially given the wide ranging statements from survivors. No doubt it had well and truly begun before Titanic went under, however.

Cheers,
Adam.
 

Doug Criner

Member
Dec 2, 2009
447
67
133
USA
For a ship sinking by the bow, the maximum bending (splitting) moment occurs when the ship is more or less vertical (actually, at 45 deg from horizontal), with the bow submerged and the stern out of the water. Once the entire ship sinks below the water, that bending moment becomes relatively negligible.

The stern section of the wreck was found remote from the forward section. The bow section was much more intact, as if it glided down toward the sea floor. The stern section is essentially broken into smithereens. Sinking theories need to account for these facts.
 
Last edited:
May 19, 2021
1
0
0
United States
Actually this is a old theory and has proved wrong.
There were several survivors who did saw the ship breaking at the surface and the different debris (especially the 2 double bottom halves and debris tower under the 3rd funnel) contradicts it.
There are also very creditable survivors who claim that the Titanic absolutely did not break up on the surface. Col. Archibald Gracie is the foremost among them. He give a detailed account of the sinking, and I believe his account.
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
398
108
Glasgow, Scotland
There are also very creditable survivors who claim that the Titanic absolutely did not break up on the surface. Col. Archibald Gracie is the foremost among them. He give a detailed account of the sinking, and I believe his account.
Read this by Bill Wormstedt concerning the break up:


As you can see from the tables Bill Wormstedt has compiled, most survivors were actually unsure or a bit vague about what they actually saw. Very few said the ship went down in one piece.

There is also the matter of extensive scientific analysis carried out in the early-mid nineties proving beyond all doubt that the ship broke apart on the surface.

Anyone claiming the ship sank whole is just making a fool of themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,494
1,316
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Col. Gracie was not questioned about the break up at the time of the US inquiry and his name does not seem to appear on Bill's tables in the article.
. Gracie was washed over the side at the same time as Lightoller when the bow section went under and the lights went out. By the time these two surfaced and were able to take stock of events, the entire ship had probably gone under. They could not see the entire length so would naturally believe she sank intact.
Dillon was on the poop deck looking forward. He saw Funnel 4 tilt toward him just before the lights went out and as the bow went down, but could not see the entire length ahead so would naturally assume the ship temporarily righted herself then went down intact. He to was on the ship when sje went down.
Woolner was in a collapsible lying off, when th ship went down. However, his misinterpretation and that of the other can be explained by his own words:
" Mr. WOOLNER.
I could not really see a thing when the lights went out. It was all brilliantly lighted at the stem end, and suddenly the lights went out, and your eyes were so unaccustomed to the darkness, you could see nothing, and you could only hear sounds."

The only unexplainable evidence is that of Pitman and we know he had eyesight problems :rolleyes:

In Bill's analysis: of the18 survivors who expressed an opinion; 14 said she broke in two and 4 said she did not.
Of the 4 who said she did not break in two, only one was in a position to see, or had time to see, the entire length of the ship as she sank so the other 3 had to assume she sank intact. So as Seamas said.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,432
877
388
65
As you can see from the tables Bill Wormstedt has compiled, most survivors were actually unsure or a bit vague about what they actually saw. Very few said the ship went down in one piece.
Could that have been because they were reluctant to admit what they actually saw, even to themselves? I mean, being 1912, those who did not admit that they saw the break-up might have been worried about being ridiculed - you know, the largest ship in the world and all that.
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,040
410
148
16
Maryland, USA
Col. Gracie was not questioned about the break up at the time of the US inquiry and his name does not seem to appear on Bill's tables in the article.
. Gracie was washed over the side at the same time as Lightoller when the bow section went under and the lights went out. By the time these two surfaced and were able to take stock of events, the entire ship had probably gone under. They could not see the entire length so would naturally believe she sank intact.
Dillon was on the poop deck looking forward. He saw Funnel 4 tilt toward him just before the lights went out and as the bow went down, but could not see the entire length ahead so would naturally assume the ship temporarily righted herself then went down intact. He to was on the ship when sje went down.
Woolner was in a collapsible lying off, when th ship went down. However, his misinterpretation and that of the other can be explained by his own words:
" Mr. WOOLNER.
I could not really see a thing when the lights went out. It was all brilliantly lighted at the stem end, and suddenly the lights went out, and your eyes were so unaccustomed to the darkness, you could see nothing, and you could only hear sounds."

The only unexplainable evidence is that of Pitman and we know he had eyesight problems :rolleyes:

In Bill's analysis: of the18 survivors who expressed an opinion; 14 said she broke in two and 4 said she did not.
Of the 4 who said she did not break in two, only one was in a position to see, or had time to see, the entire length of the ship as she sank so the other 3 had to assume she sank intact. So as Seamas said.....
Exactly, if they were underwater, they didn't see the breakup.
Gracie kinda takes a haughty tone, I'd say, when discussing the breakup in his book. Basically, "I didn't see it happen so it Didn't happen" and only listed the extreme accounts where she was "torn asunder" and such
 

Seumas

Member
Mar 25, 2019
720
398
108
Glasgow, Scotland
Could that have been because they were reluctant to admit what they actually saw, even to themselves? I mean, being 1912, those who did not admit that they saw the break-up might have been worried about being ridiculed - you know, the largest ship in the world and all that.
More likely it was simply down to the night being pure pitch black that many in the boats weren't 100% sure what on they saw.

And then there are those in the water who more concerned with swimming to safety and maybe looked over their shoulder once or twice for a second and never saw the whole event.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

James B

Member
May 3, 2021
102
14
53
Earth
More likely it was simply down to the night being pure pitch black that many in the boats weren't 100% sure what on they saw.

And then there are those in the water who more concerned with swimming to safety and maybe looked over their shoulder once or twice for a second and never saw the whole event.
Thats true, no matter who it was, even if it was Andrews himself (no one on board knew about the ships structure more then him) would have cared about noting but his own survival.


I truly wonder why and if it really matters, even by the standarts of today no ship could have stayed intact under such huge stresses so it means absolutely noting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,153
621
188
20
Lightoller was in a terrible circumstance to see a break. He was busy clinging onto Collapsibe B and had just dodged the first funnel. The break would have been a confusing, dark, loud, smokey mess to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Tim Gerard

Member
Feb 26, 2019
181
100
73
Dillon was on the poop deck looking forward. He saw Funnel 4 tilt toward him just before the lights went out and as the bow went down, but could not see the entire length ahead so would naturally assume the ship temporarily righted herself then went down intact. He to was on the ship when sje went down.
I just read through Dillon's testimony at the British Inquiry, he said the ship "took one final plunge and righted herself again", and that he rode the ship on the poop deck as it slipped underwater. When he felt the ship right itself, could that have been a shallow angle breakup and it felt like it was righting itself from wherever on the poop deck he was standing, especially with the lights going out leaving it too dark to see?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,494
1,316
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I just read through Dillon's testimony at the British Inquiry, he said the ship "took one final plunge and righted herself again", and that he rode the ship on the poop deck as it slipped underwater. When he felt the ship right itself, could that have been a shallow angle breakup and it felt like it was righting itself from wherever on the poop deck he was standing, especially with the lights going out leaving it too dark to see?
Absolutely, Tim. There is also another pointer that came from Chief Baker Joughlin. I quote:

" You say that you heard this sound of buckling or crackling. Was it loud; could anybody in the ship hear it?
A- You could have heard it, but you did not really know what it was. It was not an explosion or anything like that. It was like as if the iron was parting.
6050. Like the breaking of metal?
just as I got down towards the [Aft] well she gave a
great list over to port and threw everybody in a bunch except myself. I did not see anybody else besides myself out of the bunch.

Now imagine this - the ship is listed heavily to port, Joughin is in the aft well deck....

. The starboard [side]was going up and she took a lurch to port?
A: - It was not going up, but the other side was going down."

This suggests a great, bending/twisting distortion of the hull due to the sudden inrush of seawater through a gap in the port side - the rending of metal sounds?- the beginning of the hull failure...
Joughin was on the starboard side of the weel deck at this time and climbed over the side bulwark onto the outside of the hull. Shortly after that the tern section sank
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Similar threads