On A Sea Of Glass Real Time Sinking Animation

Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Yes. After the break-up, the stern section fell back to an almost horizontal position and then started to flood rapidly through the exposed deck spaces.
The only thing is, is that these WTDs were still closed
1620825512808
 
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Frankly, the forces involved in the break-up would have been strong enough to mangle bulkheads and closed WTDs.
Maybe, but we don't know that these didn't stay intact until the Stern began to go through the shredder

There are other examples of things within the ship that survived once hitting the sea floor, which was much more violent than the breakup:
The aft wall of B-56 is intact as of 2001.
C-57's porthole is still closed, and that's within where the decks begin to slope
The Dining Saloon windows, in perfect condition
The WTD near F-40 (also near the Bow's bend) is in good condition, seen in 2001 footage
1620830456513
 
Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
Yes. After the break-up, the stern section fell back to an almost horizontal position and then started to flood rapidly through the exposed deck spaces. IMO, this was more on the port side of the stern section because of the remnant of the 'Scotland Road' and other open areas (ie fewer intervening partitions). Since this flooding pattern occurred from the front (the area of the break) backwards and more on the port side, the early roll to port can thus be explained. This resulted in the flooded front part of the stern section stating to sink portside first (as depicted in Cameron's 2012 reconstruction) while the air displaced further back caused that part of the stern to become temporarily more buoyant and rise again. But the air was also getting compressed and coming out of open portholes and such spaces which would have contributed to that counter-clockwise rotary movement at the same time as the rear part of the stern rose higher. Again as shown in the reconstruction, the rising and rotating stern section would have assumed a near vertical position for a very short time before the continued flooding and air displacement caused it ti sink in that same vertical position as reported by most eyewitnesses.

Are you saying that the port list is what caused the beginning of the stern’s rotation? And then when it achieved near-perpendicularity, it appeared as if had turned around?
 
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Are you saying that the port list is what caused the beginning of the stern’s rotation? And then when it achieved near-perpendicularity, it appeared as if had turned around?
But we know the Stern rotated right? One moment the Propellers weren't facing Collapsible B, the next moment they were, enough to the effect that Jack Thayer thought they were going to come down on them
 
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
Are you saying that the port list is what caused the beginning of the stern’s rotation? And then when it achieved near-perpendicularity, it appeared as if had turned around?
Partly, yes. I was thinking of a "banking" type of effect like an aircraft in turning.

IMO, the rapid flooding caused the port side of the stern section to be heavier than the starboard side, thus producing the port roll. At the same time, continued flooding/sinking at the open 'forward' end produced the combined rotation and rise of the very stern end till the whole section briefly assumed a vertical or very near vertical position before sinking below the ocean over the next 30 seconds or so.
 
Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
But we know the Stern rotated right? One moment the Propellers weren't facing Collapsible B, the next moment they were, enough to the effect that Jack Thayer thought they were going to come down on them

Yes. Either it rotated due to trapped air resisting against the stern being pulled down (like trying to push a beach ball under water) or a list that turned the deck away from some onlookers.
 
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Partly, yes. I was thinking of a "banking" type of effect like an aircraft in turning.

IMO, the rapid flooding caused the port side of the stern section to be heavier than the starboard side, thus producing the port roll.
But why the portside?
 
J Kent Layton

J Kent Layton

Member
Great discussion, everyone. I'm having account issues, and I'm not even sure this will post, so I'll keep my comments relatively brief, but as thorough as I can. There is a good reason why we chose to portray everything the way we did in this animation.

The port list after the break has been blown way out of proportion in recent years, and has little foundation. The rotation of the stern as it reared back up has excellent eyewitness support, on the other hand. We also know that as the stern came up, it sank relatively slowly until the vicinity of the after Second Class areas and stern Well Deck, and that the sinking accelerated as it lost buoyancy. What's interesting to us is that some people on various groups, forums, or elsewhere are claiming certain things about this animation model's angles or lists that we don't actually have it doing -- it's interesting how various perspectives and angles can trick the eye, just as it no doubt did for some back in 1912 as the original events were actually transpiring.

We have also discovered that there is good reason to believe that none of the lifeboats were as far away from the ship as has commonly been thought, a point mentioned by at least one person on this thread. The team discussed this point a bit in the live animation, but we should have something more to discuss that in the future, as well. We were able to place the lifeboats at approximate distances and locations and then watch the final plunge, breakup, and sinking from every lifeboat while actually reading eyewitness accounts out loud in a group meeting. There were times when what we were seeing play out on the screen as we read literally gave us the chills because it was so close to what people said they saw from that specific boat.

As far as timing of events during the final plunge, breakup, and final sinking: we tried a number of variations, and other timings simply could not do everything required in the time allotted. The 2:17 break is an excellent balance between the two points (the 2:15 plunge and the 2:20 disappearance of the ship), and if you try to push the break toward either extreme we discovered that the speeds no longer matched the middle ground of what was reported to have happened by those who saw it take place.

As an aside, placing the lights failing and the ship breaking at 2:17am not only works best with the majority evidence on statements from survivors. What is even more interesting is that that specific timing actually bears up closely with the timing of a key report from another eyewitness, who was observing from the Californian.

BR (Apprentice Gibson):​
7533. What took place after that between you and him?​
- We were talking about it all the time, Sir, till five minutes past two, when she disappeared.​
7534. (The Solicitor-General.) Till five minutes past two, when she disappeared?​
- Yes.​
---​
7551. (The Solicitor-General.) That is until she disappeared at five minutes past two that you have spoken about?​
- Yes.​
---​
7565. What was the time?​
- Five minutes past two by the wheelhouse clock​

It has been established that 2:05am Californian ATS equated to 2:17am Titanic ATS. Although this is not why we chose to have the ship break and the main lights fail (there is no question that the two events were closely connected in the way of timing) at that particular time, it is absolutely astounding to find that that exact time matches precisely what Gibson reported -- and not based on a personal timepiece, but according to the clock in the Californian's Wheelhouse.

So why did it take about three minutes for the stern to sink after the break? (Remember, it has to be between two and four, because each minute has sixty seconds, and it is highly unlikely that the ship broke at the precise time of 2:17:00; not is it likely that the ship sank precisely at 2:20:00 or that the plunge began at exactly 2:15:00; the break could have transpired at 2:17:01 and the ship disappeared at 2:20:45, or 2:17:50 and 2:20:01, any other combination of seconds, we simply can not be that specific, and trying to split hairs further than this is just absurd based on available data; there has to be some room this way or that. No one was watching this thing with a stopwatch and timing how many seconds this or that took.) Quite simply, it took about three minutes for the stern to sink because the order of operation had to play out, and each step took time. First the stern 'settled' back (slower than what was shown in the 1997 film, which was a fast drop with HUGE resulting wave emphasized for dramatic effect), and the stern stayed in that orientation for some time (there are many variations in timing estimates for this step according to survivors). Then it reared up in the corkscrewing motion shown in the animation (again, timing estimates on this stage vary). Many reported that it paused in the vertical position (again, for how long estimates very widely) Finally, it began to plunge in a dive with ever-increasing momentum (and again, timing estimates vary widely).

One has to go with a 'middle' ground that works and balances out everything, and not try to push one way or the other on timing of events, or angles, or anything of that sort, against other statements, perhaps trying to support a pet theory on this or that; it is the average of available evidence where the truth tends to lie. The buoyancy in the stern without question was a significant restraining influence on how long it took for the stern to go down. Without any question, it took time to flood the stern, and have the flooding of that portion of the stern overwhelm its remaining buoyancy. In point of fact, our final plunge and breakup is much faster than previous animations, and is a much closer match to a balance and majority of eyewitness evidence.

In the end, we went for a "bullseye" depiction that balanced all the eyewitness descriptions on timing, speed of events, angles, order of events, etc., and which also matched up best with forensic wreck data. Leaning to one extreme or the other of either eyewitness evidence of forensic wreck data would not produce a realistic or easily-supported overall analysis/conclusion/depiction.

Finer points on this subject can and no doubt will be debated until the cows come home; opinions run hot and people get very defensive over this sort of thing. I personally will not be debating the finer points of this animation on this thread, as I am in the middle of several projects that will certainly be of interest to those who frequent these forums, and which are putting heavy demands on my time right now, but I may be available to answer questions from time to time.

However, believe me when I say that a LOT of thought and research (yes, decades of it) went into what you see in the animation. Bottom line: If you don't see it in this work, we discarded it as implausible, not forensically supported, not supported by the majority of eyewitnesses, or quite simply it did not work when we tested it. I hope this helps, and I am so glad to hear that so many have been enjoying watching the real-time animation; a lot of research and hard work went into it, and we're very glad to be receiving so much positive comment on the whole matter. We know that there are some details we want to refine moving forward, but we are very happy that the hard work we already put into it is being so well received. Take care!

Best,
J. Kent Layton
 
Last edited:
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Great discussion, everyone. I'm having account issues, and I'm not even sure this will post, so I'll keep my comments relatively brief, but as thorough as I can. There is a good reason why we chose to portray everything the way we did in this animation.

The port list after the break has been blown way out of proportion in recent years, and has little foundation. The rotation of the stern as it reared back up has excellent eyewitness support, on the other hand. We also know that as the stern came up, it sank relatively slowly until the vicinity of the after Second Class areas and stern Well Deck, and that the sinking accelerated as it lost buoyancy. What's interesting to us is that some people on various groups, forums, or elsewhere are claiming certain things about this animation model's angles or lists that we don't actually have it doing -- it's interesting how various perspectives and angles can trick the eye, just as it no doubt did for some back in 1912 as the original events were actually transpiring.

We have also discovered that there is good reason to believe that none of the lifeboats were as far away from the ship as has commonly been thought, a point mentioned by at least one person on this thread. The team discussed this point a bit in the live animation, but we should have something more to discuss that in the future, as well. We were able to place the lifeboats at approximate distances and locations and then watch the final plunge, breakup, and sinking from every lifeboat while actually reading eyewitness accounts out loud in a group meeting. There were times when what we were seeing play out on the screen as we read literally gave us the chills because it was so close to what people said they saw from that specific boat.

As far as timing of events during the final plunge, breakup, and final sinking: we tried a number of variations, and other timings simply could not do everything required in the time allotted. The 2:17 break is an excellent balance between the two points (the 2:15 plunge and the 2:20 disappearance of the ship), and if you try to push the break toward either extreme we discovered that the speeds no longer matched the middle ground of what was reported to have happened by those who saw it take place.

As an aside, placing the lights failing and the ship breaking at 2:17am not only works best with the majority evidence on statements from survivors. What is even more interesting is that that specific timing actually bears up closely with the timing of a key report from another eyewitness, who was observing from the Californian.

BR (Apprentice Gibson):​
7533. What took place after that between you and him?​
- We were talking about it all the time, Sir, till five minutes past two, when she disappeared.​
7534. (The Solicitor-General.) Till five minutes past two, when she disappeared?​
- Yes.​
---​
7551. (The Solicitor-General.) That is until she disappeared at five minutes past two that you have spoken about?​
- Yes.​
---​
7565. What was the time?​
- Five minutes past two by the wheelhouse clock​

It has been established that 2:05am Californian ATS equated to 2:17am Titanic ATS. Although this is not why we chose to have the ship break and the main lights fail (there is no question that the two events were closely connected in the way of timing) at that particular time, it is absolutely astounding to find that that exact time matches precisely what Gibson reported -- and not based on a personal timepiece, but according to the clock in the Californian's Wheelhouse.
Hi! Glad you joined the discussion :)

Question about the section quoted:
Wouldn't it be fair to give or take a minute? The Parisian if I recall correctly, heard Titanic's spark go out at approx. 2:18. Again, give or take a minute, but Can't the "spark" be attributed to her power?

So why did it take about three minutes for the stern to sink after the break? (Remember, it has to be between two and four, because each minute has sixty seconds, and it is highly unlikely that the ship broke at the precise time of 2:17:00; not is it likely that the ship sank precisely at 2:20:00 or that the plunge began at exactly 2:15:00; the break could have transpired at 2:17:01 and the ship disappeared at 2:20:45, or 2:17:50 and 2:20:01, any other combination of seconds, we simply can not be that specific, and trying to split hairs further than this is just absurd based on available data; there has to be some room this way or that. No one was watching this thing with a stopwatch and timing how many seconds this or that took.) Quite simply, it took about three minutes for the stern to sink because the order of operation had to play out, and each step took time. First the stern 'settled' back (slower than what was shown in the 1997 film, which was a fast drop with HUGE resulting wave emphasized for dramatic effect), and the stern stayed in that orientation for some time (there are many variations in timing estimates for this step according to survivors). Then it reared up in the corkscrewing motion shown in the animation (again, timing estimates on this stage vary). Many reported that it paused in the vertical position (again, for how long estimates very widely) Finally, it began to plunge in a dive with ever-increasing momentum (and again, timing estimates vary widely).
Great explanation!
I was thinking about this as well, with what could be plausible
Wouldn't the time of events seem to slow for those involved? I think Titanic's lights would go out during 2:17, and then the stresses of the breakup would have her break in two just after 2:18. The Weight of the Stern would have it splash (if any) fairly quickly. The funnels would fall, and she'd start to to go vertical around 2:19, staying in that position for about 30 second (would seem longer to those affected, like how a car crash seems to slow down)
The ship roughly would be out of the water aft of this line
1620860880356






We have also discovered that there is good reason to believe that none of the lifeboats were as far away from the ship as has commonly been thought, a point mentioned by at least one person on this thread. The team discussed this point a bit in the live animation, but we should have something more to discuss that in the future, as well. We were able to place the lifeboats at approximate distances and locations and then watch the final plunge, breakup, and sinking from every lifeboat while actually reading eyewitness accounts out loud in a group meeting. There were times when what we were seeing play out on the screen as we read literally gave us the chills because it was so close to what people said they saw from that specific boat.
Wasn't it said that Lifeboat 6 or 8 or something rowed two miles to try to get to the light?

Sorry for my rambling, can't do much to argue with a historian though ;)
 
J Kent Layton

J Kent Layton

Member
Hello, Cam, great to hear from you.

Three main points in your last message. 1) the often-cited last messages heard from Titanic are not the last messages heard from Titanic. We know the Marconi cabin was abandoned before Collapsible B landed on the port Boat Deck, well before the final plunge began at about 2:15.

2) There is no evidence to suggest that the ship broke after the main lights failed; the two events are nearly always placed together. In fact, the only dichotomy in eyewitness evidence (and there is a lot of it) suggests that at least some of the lights failed AFTER the break.

3) Distance estimates for particular lifeboats varied WIDELY and did not stand up when we examined them, based on multiple lines of evidence.

As I said in my initial post, ... "believe me when I say that a LOT of thought and research (yes, decades of it) went into what you see in the animation. Bottom line: If you don't see it in this work, we discarded it as implausible, not forensically supported, not supported by the majority of eyewitnesses, or quite simply it did not work when we tested it."
 
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Hello, Cam, great to hear from you.

Three main points in your last message. 1) the often-cited last messages heard from Titanic are not the last messages heard from Titanic. We know the Marconi cabin was abandoned before Collapsible B landed on the port Boat Deck, well before the final plunge began at about 2:15.

2) There is no evidence to suggest that the ship broke after the main lights failed; the two events are nearly always placed together. In fact, the only dichotomy in eyewitness evidence (and there is a lot of it) suggests that at least some of the lights failed AFTER the break.

3) Distance estimates for particular lifeboats varied WIDELY and did not stand up when we examined them, based on multiple lines of evidence.

As I said in my initial post, ... "believe me when I say that a LOT of thought and research (yes, decades of it) went into what you see in the animation. Bottom line: If you don't see it in this work, we discarded it as implausible, not forensically supported, not supported by the majority of eyewitnesses, or quite simply it did not work when we tested it."
thanks a lot, good reply!

When will you show this research, after the game releases?
 
Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
2) There is no evidence to suggest that the ship broke after the main lights failed; the two events are nearly always placed together. In fact, the only dichotomy in eyewitness evidence (and there is a lot of it) suggests that at least some of the lights failed AFTER the break.

Would there have been any reason (besides the break) for the lights to go out? From what I’ve read, the main lights went out during a loud noise.

I also loved seeing the reported “shower of sparks” go in the air during the break. I think that’s the first time that has been depicted in anything. I can’t recall who said it, but I remember someone saying that the sparks seemed to light up the whole scene for a second and you could see everyone and everything in the water around the stern.
 
Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
Would there have been any reason (besides the break) for the lights to go out? From what I’ve read, the main lights went out during a loud noise.

I also loved seeing the reported “shower of sparks” go in the air during the break. I think that’s the first time that has been depicted in anything. I can’t recall who said it, but I remember someone saying that the sparks seemed to light up the whole scene for a second and you could see everyone and everything in the water around the stern.

And speaking of loud noises/“explosions,” do you think that the reported four *bangs* as the bridge went under had anything to do with the correction of the port list/slight rising of the starboard side?
 
Top