Roy Mengot's bottom up breakup theory

Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Yeah, this would not happen if the break was bottom-up. I still hold the point the keel failed first, but I think the break was a violent, but visible process, which ripped off the ship in chunks. 2 of Mengot's rules don't hold up that well either.
Agreed! The keel breaking first doesn't mean she broke bottom up. Perhaps the keel broke, but the shell plating itself didn't separate until the ship broke top down?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GamePlayerZ
GamePlayerZ

GamePlayerZ

Member
I believe the ship had immense stress around the areas between the 4th funnel and the compass tower, which was slowly weaking the area. I think the areas with the most stress were the keel and the upper decks. Once the keel failed, the upper decks failed next, and the ship broke top-down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
GamePlayerZ

GamePlayerZ

Member
Roy Mengot's theory surely was interesting and quite good, but it didn't account for the survivors who clearly saw a break, which was a major problem from it in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Roy Mengot's theory surely was interesting and quite good, but it didn't account for the survivors who clearly saw a break, which was a major problem from it in my opinion.
Yeah. It was a brilliant theory, to be honest!
 
Kyle Naber

Kyle Naber

Member
I agree that the ship mainly broke top down, with the keel buckling upwards before any of the deck opened up. This is the only way that the break could be shown to everyone watching. Most people described two explosions as the stern settled back: one dull one, and one a little louder. To me, that indicates the keel bending and popping up, and then everything else crashing down and apart up top.
 
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
Could the keel have bent before actually failing (breaking)? If it had bent, that in itself could have exerted opposing "pulling-apart" forces on the relevant parts of the upper decks, thus starting the break-up process somewhere between 02:17 am and 02:18 am
 
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Could the keel have bent before actually failing (breaking)? If it had bent, that in itself could have exerted opposing "pulling-apart" forces on the relevant parts of the upper decks, thus starting the break-up process somewhere between 02:17 am and 02:18 am
That makes sense, the Keel wasn't designed to bend (other than the shape of the hull itself), and once it reached a certain point, it broke apart.

Have you seen the 1995 animation shown in the 2005 Doc "Last Mysteries of the Titanic"? Although outdated and still shows the ship going T97, it does show the ship (maybe a little too dramatically) bending.
 
Matthew Chapman

Matthew Chapman

Member
Has anyone seen the graphic from 1985 where it shows the break up a little differently, rather than snapping like a twig, it shows the hull twisting and pulling itself apart. This fits with some descriptions of the writhing and twisting motion with the two ends moving in opposing directions. Worth a consideration?

 
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Has anyone seen the graphic from 1985 where it shows the break up a little differently, rather than snapping like a twig, it shows the hull twisting and pulling itself apart. This fits with some descriptions of the writhing and twisting motion with the two ends moving in opposing directions. Worth a consideration?

IIRC, I think someone, maybe a survivor, described the pieces "writhing" and going in opposite ways, but I can't remember where.


I wouldn't be too sure about the accuracy, especially since they have everything forward of the Aft mast gone.
 
Matthew Chapman

Matthew Chapman

Member
Little was know too greatly about the break up around that time. Even in the 1996 miniseries (the first depiction of the break up) the break occurs aft of the fourth funnel.
 
Top