That sounds logical. Am I correct in thinking that what you are saying is that the major damage (like the keel starting to break) occurred at a low angle of about 11 to 12 degrees like Sam calculated but complete separation did not occur and so the bow continued to dip and stern rise further while the break-up process continued? I can buy that but please indicate Kent, at approximately what angle you believe the bow and stern sections actually separated and the latter fell back.However, viewing the breakup as an ongoing failure, we believe that reconciling those calculations to eyewitness accounts means that as the stern continued to come up out of the water and the angle increased, the stresses decreased and the break continued over time as the stresses decreased. This likely allowed the stern to reach a higher angle than stress calculations alone would indicate.
Most accounts agree that the stern reached a very high angle after the break while rotating at the same time. Thank you.As far as the angles after the break: the stern did reach a very high angle. This is confirmed because as it rotated, eyewitnesses from every conceivable angle reported that it went vertical or almost vertical.