What I see is that you taking a situation and molding it to your hypothesis......
Just ignored your rant and reported you.
But there is no proof, scientific reasoning, or probability that supports a break before any funnel collapses.
Plenty of proof that the ship broke before the forward funnel fell.
1. Survivors heard explosive sounds coming from deep inside the ship. Immediately after this the bow took a sudden and violent lurch and the people were washed off the boat deck and the lowering of the forward collapsible had to be abandoned. This explosive sound and violent lurch was in my opinion caused by the break up.
2. Edward Brown saw the ship break in two. He gave his location as: "In the water; right before the forward funnel."
3. We have survivors who saw the two forward funnels leaning and watched her break in two. The leaning was evidently caused by the forward section breaking away which caused the bow to take a sudden lurch.
4. We have accounts of the ship breaking when the sea had reached the officer's quarters and before the bridge was submerged. e.g. George Brayton - "I saw the waters reach the bridge after the vessel broke in two and the forward portion began sinking first."
5. We have accounts of the ship trembling, shaking, and reeling. This was I believe the broken bow and stern rapidly flooding at the broken ends and rocking violently as they lost buoyancy. e.g. John Haggan - "The ship was shaking very much, part of it being under water. On looking up at it, I could see death in a minute for us as the forward funnel was falling and it looked a certainty it would strike our boat and smash it to pieces."
6. We have accounts of the ship breaking and then turning around. Lightoller denied the ship broke but he admitted the ship had exploded and turned around before he reached the surface and that was before he reached the collapsible which was later pushed away from the scene by the funnel when it eventually fell. His own admission that the ship had turned around while he was under the water is proof that she was already broken. He just couldn't admit to that at the Inquiry. None of the officers could.
7. We have accounts of a violent explosion that killed a number of people in the water. We can't even determine what caused the ship to break. Just theorise on what may have happened. Survivors heard 2 distinct explosive sounds that were between 10 and 20 minutes apart. This could have been the ship breaking up in stages before finally separating completely. Again, we can only theorise on what may have caused those explosions or explosive sounds.
8. Lightoller said the forward funnel fell over to starboard because the expansion joint opened which caused a cable on one side to hold for a fraction longer which pulled the funnel over to starboard. This tells us that the bow was no longer listing to port. When ships take their final plunge they often right themselves on a level keel as they fill with water. The vast amount of the ship (if intact) was still above water and she should have continued to list over to port, but because she had broke she flooded heavily and rapidly and the bow section returned to a level keel as it sank down, so that the funnel would fall over to starboard when the cable on one side broke.
Science is always secondary. It can only determine the facts based on what survivors said and what physical evidence can be found inside the wreck. Owing to the condition of the wreck we cannot rule out anything, and if scientists do not follow the accounts or project a scenario based on the accounts then their findings no matter how well carried out will still be flawed. A single porthole left open could change their analysis. There are too many unknowns, and if accounts as important as the ones I listed are casually disregarded then science must also be disregarded as it will be inaccurate and incomplete. Of course, this is merely my opinion, as we are all entitled to believe what we want based on our own research and findings.
.