Sinking simulation videos never depict the alleged 'big dip' that occurred a bit before the breakup

[drtheglob]

"As Hemming and I looked down from the top of the officers’ quarters where we were standing the ship took a sudden dip and a sea came rolling up carrying everyone with it. Many were drowned there and then. Everyone that could just instinctively started to scramble up towards the after end of the ship. But that was only putting it off. In fact, it was lessening their chances. The plunge had to come and that I could see was pretty soon and no one's chances were going to be improved by getting mixed up in a struggling mess."

- Second Officer Charles Lightoller

So the ship lurched forward/down so dramatically that it was enough to drown many people all at once. Yet it's hardly a noticeable event on virtually all of the sinking simulation videos. Why?

I recently asked someone this actual event. Supposedly this was caused by the ship leaning to one side, and when the water finally made it over one of the decks, it righted the ship dramatically but also caused it to dip. Going off memory but I believe that's how it worked.

Virtually all these videos seem to focus on the ship leveling out at this moment. The leveling is depicted as relatively gradual, and the ship doesn't plunge down at all. Certainly doesn't seem like an event that corresponds with what Lightoller described in terms of violence.

 

[Kyle Naber]

2:38:05 shows the bridge plunging very quickly. We then see water wash the collapsibles, people, and the first funnel away. I’d say this animation does the best job depicting this event, but it’s important to remember that everything feels more dramatic and bigger in person.

For example, when the breakup happens a couple minutes later, it seems a tad bit anticlimactic because the stern doesn’t look too high out of the water. But if you imagine yourself as one of those tiny specs on the poop deck, you’ll see that it was quite a drop.

 

[Timothy Richards Laurence]

Just a brief note regarding the actual physics of a ship's buoyancy or loss thereof. It is very often imagined, in the case of a relatively slow sinking such as that of Titanic, that as the vessel took on water, the sinking would be experienced on board as a smooth, continuous process as the vessel sank deeper into the water. In truth, the Titanic sank in increments. That is to say that as water entered the hull of the Titanic, the hull would periodically sink in increments rather than continuously. In simpler terms, all vessels have a purposefully engineered centre of gravity As the weight of the water increases there is an adjustment to that centre of gravity. There is a period of tolerance as the ship "adjusts" to its new centre of gravity, Naturally as more weight continues to be added, the vessel is again forced to adjust its centre of gravity. To the passenger aboard, initially, the sensation is barely noticeable, but as the weight within the hull continues to increase the "pauses" between the dips become less as the magnitude of the dip downwards actually increases. Of course, these stresses upon the actual vessel or hull naturally increase in magnitude. My thinking is that the keel of the Titanic's hull began to fail before the sudden wave, It might only have taken a matter of seconds, but I believe the outer keel started to compress inwards followed quickly by the tank top or double bottom began to tear wider apart. The break of course came right ahead of the point when the heaviest counterweight in the ship -- the two massive reciprocating engines -- could no longer keep countering for the weight of water, and this, in turn, caused the massive wave as the hull plates utterly shattered apart. I do believe that the ship broke up right at the surface and the large piece of the double bottom fell off quite quickly; indeed, almost explosively, which is why it was found so far off from the remains of the stern. I feel certain that Lightoller was fully aware of the ship tore itself apart, although, at the British Enquiry, he was "the good company man" by insisting the 'perfect' Titanic simply could not shatter. He felt it through his feet and legs as he was pushed or dived off the roof of the inner bridge. That is how I see this event, As for so many not seeing this, only speaks to their point of view (perspective); the pitch blackness of the night and the distance lifeboats had rowed and drifted away from the ship. What say the true engineers and scientists? Feel free to tear my theory to shreds. We can only learn!

 

[Kyle Naber]

I feel certain that Lightoller was fully aware of the ship tore itself apart, although, at the British Enquiry, he was "the good company man" by insisting the 'perfect' Titanic simply could not shatter. He felt it through his feet and legs as he was pushed or dived off the roof of the inner bridge.

It’s pretty strange that he wouldn’t experience the breakup at all- that’s for sure. He didn’t mention any of the sparks and smoke that other people saw, but he attributed the huge rumbling noise to the boilers sliding around. He said this caused the lights to go out, but we now know he was describing the break.

I think you’re right about the break starting at a low angle (around the time Lightoller dove off the bridge) and finishing at a high angle (25-30°).

 

[marina_irc]

It’s pretty strange that he wouldn’t experience the breakup at all- that’s for sure. He didn’t mention any of the sparks and smoke that other people saw, but he attributed the huge rumbling noise to the boilers sliding around. He said this caused the lights to go out, but we now know he was describing the break.

I think you’re right about the break starting at a low angle (around the time Lightoller dove off the bridge) and finishing at a high angle (25-30°).

Lightoller was incredibly focused on launching the collapsibles right up until he entered the water. Then he was in a fight for personal survival. It would be natural for him to experience tunnel vision. Perfectly reason for his brain to assemble chaos into a narrative after the fact as all minds do.

I’ve never understood where this “good company man” narrative about the ship breaking in two came from. The ship sank, almost fifteen hundred people are dead. It doesn’t matter that the keel got overstretched in circumstances beyond the design specification. It would not harm the White Star, or even H&W. It’s a weird and unnecessary rationalisation in a day and age when we know so much about cognitive science and the unreliability of human memory.

 

[Kyle Naber]

Lightoller was incredibly focused on launching the collapsibles right up until he entered the water. Then he was in a fight for personal survival. It would be natural for him to experience tunnel vision. Perfectly reason for his brain to assemble chaos into a narrative after the fact as all minds do.

I’ve never understood where this “good company man” narrative about the ship breaking in two came from. The ship sank, almost fifteen hundred people are dead. It doesn’t matter that the keel got overstretched in circumstances beyond the design specification. It would not harm the White Star, or even H&W. It’s a weird and unnecessary rationalisation in a day and age when we know so much about cognitive science and the unreliability of human memory.

I think it comes from his absolute attitude. It would be easier to give him credit if he said “I didn’t see it, but it might be possible.” But his testimony kinda shut down everyone else who said otherwise. But yeah in the grand scheme of things, it’s a niche topic to discuss.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

It is very often imagined, in the case of a relatively slow sinking such as that of Titanic, that as the vessel took on water, the sinking would be experienced on board as a smooth, continuous process as the vessel sank deeper into the water. In truth, the Titanic sank in increments.

True. Sam Halpern has described this process in some detail, complete with graphs and diagrams in his "............Centennial Reappraisal" book.

My thinking is that the keel of the Titanic's hull began to fail before the sudden wave, It might only have taken a matter of seconds, but I believe the outer keel started to compress inwards followed quickly by the tank top or double bottom began to tear wider apart.

I too feel that way but believe that while the first cracks in the keel might have appeared around 02:15am, this coincided with the time when the bow started sinking very rapidly. About a minute or so later, the Titanic suddenly lost its longitudinal stability and that was what caused the sudden forward and downward lurch at the bow; this in turn dispaced a large volume of water in the form of a wave that washed sternwards with the effects that has been discussed several times here and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the failure of the keel and deck plates had progressed rapidly and the stresses caused by the 'lurch' likely started the final catastrophic break-up.

I think it comes from his absolute attitude. It would be easier to give him credit if he said “I didn’t see it, but it might be possible.” But his testimony kinda shut down everyone else who said otherwise.

Well said. Lightoller's entire testimony on both sides of the Atlantic indicated that he was a good Company Man and wanted to protect its....and his own.... interests above all.

 

[Bill Vanek]

My theory from 2019 describes all three plunges that people witnessed that night. I separate the 3 plunges by 2 breakings, so that the overall outline of the breakup is:

1. Ship’s bridge plunging under is the final part of the slow 1st stern rise, at a low angle.

2. First breaking at keel and superstructure: stern moves downward, causing bow to rise a little.

3. The Big Plunge, including high-angle rise of stern (2nd rise), and all lights going out.

4. Second breaking: ship bobs up backward; stern crunches down level; bow then tears away.

5. Stern floats horizontally, tips up almost perpendicular (3rd rise), turns, then plunges down.

The first attachment to this posting is what I published on this website in December 2019, and again in December 2021. Then people took what I had written and attempted to make videos on YouTube, and they did a poor job. This year, Shingoji/Keifer/Emperor S.G. offered to make a video, and has just completed it; it was released on YouTube last week. (Search for it using "Titanic 2-break 3-rise" or you won't find it.) The second attachment to this post is what I prepared to aid Keifer in making his video. The last attachment is a list of quotations that overlap one another, and therefore illustrate the breakup sequence. Note that I call them "representative" quotations. That means that they represent several other similar quotations--which means that I didn't just take these few quotations and ignore everything else. I built my theory first, and prepared these summary quotations in 2022.

Most other theories about the ship's breakup show a single breaking (even though some show an "extended", multi-step breaking, such as Mengot's bending this way and that), but they are single-stage breakups nonetheless. Mine is a two-stage breakup, which accounts for the "two explosions" that most people recollected (20 people by my count--far more than those who said three or four explosions), and therefore illustrates the time separation between the two explosions. Almost nobody else starts the breakup before the funnels fell and the lights went out; mine does, and it's a crucial difference. And almost nobody else's theory accounts for (1) the momentary bow rise and (2) the ship bobbing back up after the Big Plunge, which several people spoke of--even using the word up in their descriptions. Other theories miss the "speed" factor, starting at the first plunge, when they show the funnels falling lazily during the ordinary, slow flooding time. Some theories even show the funnels falling to port, instead of to starboard as they actually did. And several theories don't show the stern floating freely at the end--completely unaffected by the sunken bow--as so many people plainly saw (I catalogued at least 24 quotations that make it clear that the bow was long gone).

My theory explains the actual physical mechanisms of each step in the breakup using accurate engineering terms from my training and experience as a mechanical engineer in failure analysis. So instead of vague comments like, "The keel fails in way of the engine room," I point out that the keel fails in Euler buckling using the Johnson extension for non-slender beams. I speak of tensile stress, compressive force, mass, counter-balance, fulcrum, axial force, force vectors, cantilever, potential energy, kinetic energy, momentum, and crushing work as well. One has to understand the stress state of the components and apply the right terminology to explain the failure mechanism adequately.

I believe that I'm qualified to present such explanations. My training as a mechanical engineer gave me understanding of Newton's Laws, specific gravity, ballistic movement, metal fatigue, crack propagation, strength of materials, and vector mechanics. My Navy nuclear/mechanical training and service gave me submarine and shipyard experience, including lathe and milling machine, rigging (using cranes, chainfalls, etc.), pipe strain, machinery operation and maintenance, and multiple casualty/crisis drills (including flooding!). Then, in college and in my 35-year engineer career, I did computer programming to model mechanical systems, and learned by experience and observation about heat transfer, ductile and brittle failures, boilers and steam locomotives (called 'fired equipment'), fluid flow, estimation, probability, and much more; and also learned by woodworking, working with bricks, breaking things, and dealing with 3-dimensional failures when only 2-dimensional drawings were available. I've been through four different failure analysis courses, and have looked at dozens of failures of rotating and fixed mechanical equipment, including fires and explosions. My failure analysis has included lots of interviewing of people, and understanding how people remember and present fact versus opinion. (That's big; but there's more.) And all of that experience flowed from my youth which included canoeing, sailing, working puzzles, swimming and diving, playing in water with buckets and boats, fishing, building with Legos, building scale models and destroying what I built; experience with wood fires, teeter-totters (see-saws), snow sledding, waves at the beach, welding, casting, brazing, small-engine repair, and building toothpick bridges in school. I actually drew on all of those things for my understanding of the Titanic's movements and failures. I continue to watch shows about ship and airplane casualties and the follow-up failure analysis. I've read and re-read at least 10 papers on the Titanic's forensics; I've listened to the survivor interviews on YouTube and written down what was said; I've read at least 10 books on the Titanic's construction and the survivors' testimonies; and I sorted through dozens of testimonies and grouped their phrases together to compare them. And I've learned from Mengot, Woytowich, Wormstedt, and the rest. Many people have brought good ideas to light.

I hope to continue that pattern, and hope that my theory encourages positive discussion.

 

[Kyle Naber]

And several theories don't show the stern floating freely at the end--completely unaffected by the sunken bow--as so many people plainly saw (I catalogued at least 24 quotations that make it clear that the bow was long gone).

This is super important to note! There’s several breakup simulations that only show the break for a small time. Several survivors said they knew of the breakup, BECAUSE the bow was gone. Not because they saw the stern settling or heard loud sounds.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

There’s several breakup simulations that only show the break for a small time. Several survivors said they knew of the breakup, BECAUSE the bow was gone.

Yes, but IMO there are other simulations which show the separated stern afloat for far too long.

I agree that the start of what eventually lead to the catastrophic break-up and separation of the Titanic as seen and reported by many survivors must have been a few minutes at least earlier. Sam Halpern has shown clearly in his excellent Centennial Appraisal book that the bending forces upon the keel were at the maximum when the stern had risen to 11 to 12 degrees. That was sometime between 02:15 and 02:16am and was almost certainly when the keel and deck plates started to fail. But the ship as a whole was still nominally intact and at the same time, its forward/downward trim was increasing rapidly due to continued flooding and pressure of the water above the sunken bow. From what Sam has described, I deduced that around 02:17am the Titanic suddenly lost its longitudinal stability and gave that forward and downward lurch, which in turn generated the freak "wave" washing sternwards due to the volume of water displaced.

In addition to the wave, that lurch did two other things that were seen and reported by surviving witnesses. It caused the stern to rise higher rather rapidly, perhaps attaining an angle of almost 25 degrees before triggering the other event - the final catastrophic break-up that caused the flooded bow to separate and sink. IMO that happened sometime between 02:18 and 02:19am and was followed by the stern section falling back and starting to flood rapidly through the now exposed deck spaces. I will not go into the actual maneuvers performed by the separated stern section since there are different opinions about it but IMO over the next 2 minutes or so it flooded rapidly and sank beneath the surface. To the onlookers from lifeboats, those 2 minutes would have seemed considerably longer.

 

[Bill Vanek]

Yes, but IMO there are other simulations which show the separated stern afloat for far too long.

I agree that the start of what eventually lead to the catastrophic break-up and separation of the Titanic as seen and reported by many survivors must have been a few minutes at least earlier. Sam Halpern has shown clearly in his excellent Centennial Appraisal book that the bending forces upon the keel were at the maximum when the stern had risen to 11 to 12 degrees. That was sometime between 02:15 and 02:16am and was almost certainly when the keel and deck plates started to fail. But the ship as a whole was still nominally intact and at the same time, its forward/downward trim was increasing rapidly due to continued flooding and pressure of the water above the sunken bow. From what Sam has described, I deduced that around 02:17am the Titanic suddenly lost its longitudinal stability and gave that forward and downward lurch, which in turn generated the freak "wave" washing sternwards due to the volume of water displaced.

In addition to the wave, that lurch did two other things that were seen and reported by surviving witnesses. It caused the stern to rise higher rather rapidly, perhaps attaining an angle of almost 25 degrees before triggering the other event - the final catastrophic break-up that caused the flooded bow to separate and sink. IMO that happened sometime between 02:18 and 02:19am and was followed by the stern section falling back and starting to flood rapidly through the now exposed deck spaces. I will not go into the actual maneuvers performed by the separated stern section since there are different opinions about it but IMO over the next 2 minutes or so it flooded rapidly and sank beneath the surface. To the onlookers from lifeboats, those 2 minutes would have seemed considerably longer.

At last, I hear somebody speaking of the first part of the failure, that preceded the final break-up. I heartily agree. There was ample testimony of something happening early on--that is, at the beginning of the "fast" events starting around 2:15. Thayer's talk of a train on a steel bridge, a pressed steel factory, and wholesale breakage of china happened when the starboard bridge first went under and he jumped overboard--which means it preceded the funnels falling and the lights going out. And Thayer saw the superstructure split open as soon as he surfaced from his jump. Something big happened early on, at about 13 degrees of pitch.

I think that this first breaking was the keel opening outward at frame 25 under the No. 1 boilers, which would cause a shudder to go throughout the ship, and which then allowed more bending of the ship (like around 4 degrees), and causing the loud noise (hull and internal decks crushing in compression), the ejection of the No. 2 boilers' coals up the 3rd funnel, the splitting of the superstructure forward of the 3rd funnel "as if cut with a knife" and sounding like several gunshots as steel snapped in tension, and giving the ship its hog-backed look and the impression that the first two funnels were leaning relative to the last two. More importantly, I think that the stern went down at that time, raising the bow momentarily, because it is at the "early on" time that people experienced the bow rise. So the stern going down and the bow rising were a "pause" in the ship's plunging. The first plunge (10-15 degrees) caused the first breaking; then the pause; then the steady rising of the Big Plunge at a higher angle, as you spoke of.

Yes, there are a few models that show the stern floating for pretty long. Most theories show the stern going under rather quickly--due to being somehow still connected to the bow. My theory has the stern floating and steadily flooding for 78 seconds, then a tilting up to about 80 degrees taking 40 more seconds, then hanging there for 19 seconds, and plunging for 15 seconds until it is gone. That's 2.5 minutes--which is the median between the "five minutes" and "it went right up" range of time estimates for the stern's demise that eyewitnesses can't agree on.

Of all the testimonies that speak of the above things, I appreciate Lady Duff Gordon's the most. She starts with the whole ship shuddering, followed very quickly by the loud noise and the stern going down again. She skips the Big Plunge and the lights going out, but jumps directly to the second loud noise accompanying the loss of the bow half. Finally, she talks of the stern rising again to becoming nearly perpendicular before plunging down. She thought that there was a spread of 2 minutes between the two "tremendous" noises (I place it as 49 seconds), and 2 minutes to finally sink (compare my aforementioned 2.5 minutes). I really believe that there was a first major breaking early on, followed by a 2nd/final breaking, and that there was a time period that separated the two.

 

[Kyle Naber]

More importantly, I think that the stern went down at that time, raising the bow momentarily, because it is at the "early on" time that people experienced the bow rise.

I’m a bit confused by this part. What would have caused the bow to rise if the beginning of the break is taking place? To me, that would cause the bow to dip even faster.

In my opinion, this “raising” of the bow is simply the whole ship correcting its port list. As the list evens out, the port side of the boat deck would lift a few feet out of the water.

 

[Bill Vanek]

I’m a bit confused by this part. What would have caused the bow to rise if the beginning of the break is taking place? To me, that would cause the bow to dip even faster.

In my opinion, this “raising” of the bow is simply the whole ship correcting its port list. As the list evens out, the port side of the boat deck would lift a few feet out of the water.

The people who had the deck "come up beneath them" after having been overwhelmed with the water were all on the starboard side. The port side had already been flooding for a while due to the port list, so the only thing happening over there was a few people jumping aboard the Collapsible B that Lightoller and others threw down. Anyone else over there ended up dead. So almost all of the action was on the starboard side.

For the starboard people to have gotten caught by flooding, then have the flooding recede, then get flooded again, the ship would have had to come out of its port list, then go back to a port list immediately, then come out of it again quickly. The closest we have that is anything near to that scenario is only one of Lightoller's comments that at the moment he jumped forward, the ship "reel[ed] for a moment". He distinguished that movement from the forward plunge, so I take it to mean that there was a slight side-to-side movement that was barely noticeable via his footing and his sense of balance. It wasn't a large happening. So the evidence is just not there for a large starboard shift, followed by a port shift, followed by another starboard shift as the ship plunged down. (The funnels falling to starboard inform us as to which direction the ship finally got to as it was plunging.)

Instead, people who were on the ship or watching the ship felt/saw it "plunge" and then right itself. Lady Duff Gordon: "I had seen the Titanic give a curious shiver. Almost immediately we heard several pistol shots and a great screaming arise from the decks. Then the boat’s stern lifted in the air and there was a tremendous explosion. After this the Titanic dropped back again. The awful screaming continued." She is talking early on, 2 minutes before the final breakup. The first indication of the faster sinking included (1) some very loud, ongoing noise, (2) what sounded like pistol shots, or "a volley of musketry" as one man put it, (3) the stern rising a little more than it was already up, and (4) the stern coming down again. (The stern going up and then down would be easily discernible by the reflections of the lights on the water.) Note also Dillon, on the stern, who was sharing a last cigarette with his companions, waiting for something to start happenning: "There we stood smoking it. Then she plunged and then seemed to right herself. There were about fifteen of us when she took the first plunge. After the second there were only five of us left." And then he goes on to describe the third/final plunge, where he made the sign of the cross across his chest and went down with the ship, going into the water at last.

So people described multiple "plunges" forward, but the only person who claims that there was a large and sudden movement to port AT THE END was Joughin, and he had been drinking, so his perceptions were impaired. Everyone else who talked of the well-known port list spoke about it starting way earlier, and even becoming corrected. Thus, large, rapid lists back and forth were not the reason for the bow bounding up again for a few seconds. Richard Norris Williams puts the rising around the same time as the first loud noise: "The forward end, where we stood, was sinking rapidly, and before we could jump together the water washed my father over. Then, with the explosions, the ship seemed to break in two, and the forward end bounded up again for an instant." (Then he went overboard, and soon saw the second and third risings: "Turns around and watches in astonishment as Titanic towers over him. Despite the horror and the peril, can't help feeling it's a majestic sight. The Titanic rises, settles back, then starts rising again . . . this time all the way.") So the 'mysterious' bow rise was early on--not part of the Big Plunge or the final plunge/sinking of the stern half.

So now, your question: what would have caused the bow to rise if the breaking of the ship was beginning? The same thing I said in 2019: the stern, still connected via the shear strakes of the hull and the internal deck structure, bent down after the first rising / first plunge. It was still one ship, and not parted. If still connected, and bending down, the stern would provide enough energy to lift the bow 10 feet--just enough to get the officer's quarters back out of the water. It's important to realize that the ship had already demonstrated this ability over the past 2 hours: the bow had moved down, raising the stern up, and the two halves were in perfect balance the whole time. Then, as soon as the first plunge started, the two halves were still close together in mass balance, so if the stern pivoted down 4 degrees or so toward the ocean, it would have been a large mass moving--a grunch (great big bunch) of kinetic energy. Now, some of that energy was going into smashing the hull in compression (from aft to forward) local to frame 25, and also smashing the lower interior decks likewise, and it would have been loud. Then the top of ship split open "as if cut with a knife", and those A Deck and Boat Deck steel ceilings, decks, and bulkheads would have snapped open like gunshots from the top down. But most of the energy of the stern's pivoting would be in a vector going downward, opposing the bow.

Let's say that you were wanting to go for a trip in a rowboat. Upon coming onto the pier, you found that the front half of the rowboat was flooded a foot deep (maybe from a slow leak), so that the boat was very low in the bow, and high in the stern. If you were to step off the pier onto the rear of that boat, what would happen to the front? It would come up momentarily, reacting to the new down-force on the stern which disrupted the equilibrium that existed. If you immediately stepped to the center of the boat (the center being the fulcrum of the movement), the bow would then go back down, the stern up, and the whole boat would sit lower in the water than the way you found it, due to your added weight. I believe that that's exactly what happened with the Titanic at its first break (keel and superstructure only), with the analog to your body weight in the rowboat being tons of seawater that instantly flooded Titanic's No. 1 and 2 Boiler Rooms and Reciprocating Engine Room.

So it's entirely probably that a first breaking would cause the bow to rise momentarily, not go down faster.

P.S. You could almost say that the first plunge and the Big Plunge were the same plunge, but with a "pause" or hesitation interrupting it. That hesitation was the first breaking, with the stern going down, momentarily stopping the plunge; so that's why I distinguish the first plunge from the Big Plunge, because there was a significant event between them. The 20-second-long second breaking (the complete parting) separated the Big Plunge from the final plunge.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I’m a bit confused by this part. What would have caused the bow to rise if the beginning of the break is taking place? To me, that would cause the bow to dip even faster.

In my opinion, this “raising” of the bow is simply the whole ship correcting its port list. As the list evens out, the port side of the boat deck would lift a few feet out of the water.

I confess that I have always been rather skeptical about the "rising bow" part of the Titanic's break-up because, among other things, it does not fit in with principles of physics. The bow was completely flooded with negative buoyancy and had an increasing volume of sea water pressing down upon it as the sinking progressed rapidly. Under those circumstances, IMO it would have been impossible for the bow section to actually "rise" in the slightest. Even with the now completely discarded "V-Break" theory, I don't believe that there could been the "fulcrum effect" upon the flooded bow to make it rise to any degree.

I agree that the partial righting of the port list might have created an illusion of the bow rising slightly both to the survivors who were still on board (allusions to "the deck coming up beneath them") and to those watching from the port side lifeboats due to apparent re-exposure of previously immersed portholes. However, I do not believe that the port list corrected itself to the extent that some reconstructions depict (some even say that the Titanic came back to an almost even keel); the same reconstructions show the final catastrophic break-up occurring around 02:17am (which IMO is 80 to 90 seconds too early) followed by the stern section remaining afloat for far too long.

 

[Bill Vanek]

I confess that I have always been rather skeptical about the "rising bow" part of the Titanic's break-up because, among other things, it does not fit in with principles of physics. The bow was completely flooded with negative buoyancy and had an increasing volume of sea water pressing down upon it as the sinking progressed rapidly. Under those circumstances, IMO it would have been impossible for the bow section to actually "rise" in the slightest. Even with the now completely discarded "V-Break" theory, I don't believe that there could been the "fulcrum effect" upon the flooded bow to make it rise to any degree.

I agree that the partial righting of the port list might have created an illusion of the bow rising slightly both to the survivors who were still on board (allusions to "the deck coming up beneath them") and to those watching from the port side lifeboats due to apparent re-exposure of previously immersed portholes. However, I do not believe that the port list corrected itself to the extent that some reconstructions depict (some even say that the Titanic came back to an almost even keel); the same reconstructions show the final catastrophic break-up occurring around 02:17am (which IMO is 80 to 90 seconds too early) followed by the stern section remaining afloat for far too long.

Water was not "pressing down on" the bow as it sunk. Read the attachment to see the 'principles of physics' where water, air, and steel are involved. The people are wrong who claim that it "violates physics" for the ship's bow to rise and broach the surface. Read, and then let's discuss.