Specifics of the Breakup


Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
629
188
20
I'm still having a hard time understand why the stern would make a 180 degree turn. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what is being said. Are you staying that the stern went from facing...say east to facing west?

The 2012 simulation does a god job of animating this:


When the stern becomes sideways, it is pulled back up, no longer on an even keel so that her decks are facing away from survivors like Jack Thayer.
 

Millerpsc

Member
Jul 3, 2017
27
4
23
Ok, so basically it takes a quarter of a turn and list heavily to port. I was thinking you meant it took a 180 degree turn
 

Millerpsc

Member
Jul 3, 2017
27
4
23
Ok thanks for clearing that up, I was wondering if you were making the assumption that the stern had made a 180 degree turn due to how the wreck lies on the bottom of the ocean.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I believe the stern did turn around roughly 180 degrees because survivors saw it turn around. The bow and stern are also pointing in relatively the same position as they were on the surface.



Lawrence Beesley
"As we gazed awe-struck, she tilted slowly up, revolving apparently about a centre of gravity just astern of amidships"

2nd officer Lightoller
"The ship or I had turned around while I was under the water."

Jack Thayer drew the outline of the sketch and even the description in the sketch said the stern turned around. Jack Thayer said - "The stern either pivoted around towards our boat, or we were sucked towards it.........We were right under the three enormous propellers. For an instant, I thought they were sure to come down on top of us."



His sketch with the added shading removed.


sketchthayer1.PNG


.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
629
188
20
Lawrence Beesley
"As we gazed awe-struck, she tilted slowly up, revolving apparently about a centre of gravity just astern of amidships"

This simply implies how the ship sank by the bow and rose at the stern.

Also, the positions of the bow and stern have nothing to do with how they left the surface. The stern spun around multiple times during the descent which is recorded in the sand on the ocean floor.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Lawrence Beesley denied the ship broke in two in his book despite the fact that others in his same lifeboat did witness it and were quite vocal about it. e.g Ruth Becker. The surviving officers also denied it despite others in their lifeboats who said she did. Beesley's book in my opinion was 'got at' by the White Star Line and Board of Trade who probably withheld its publication until they had assurances that the 'break up' was removed from the book. Notice how Beesley kept glorifying and complimenting the White Star Line and Board of Trade. Wonder if they paid for the publication costs? e.g.


'What the public demanded the White Star Line supplied.'
'The Board of Trade employs the best experts'
'The White Star Line has received very rough handling from some of the press'
'There is no evidence that the White Star Line instructed the captain to push the boat or to make any records'
'The White Star Line had complied to the full extent with the requirements of the British Government.'


Reads like a propaganda piece. The sand on the sea floor around the Titanic moves about and is affected by the currents over the years. The wreck likely sank straight to the bottom without turning in any direction. James Cameron's film and documentary is really just one theory with a touch of Hollywood sparkle added for public ratings. His researchers probably couldn't agree (when do researchers ever agree) and he simply had to choose one or go with the general consensus without spending too much time and resources. So he bought a banana and used that to show his banana peal theory instead. ;)


.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
629
188
20
James Cameron's film and documentary is really just one theory with a touch of Hollywood sparkle added for public ratings. His researchers probably couldn't agree (when do researchers ever agree) and he simply had to choose one or go with the general consensus without spending too much time and resources. So he bought a banana and used that to show his banana peal theory instead. ;)

I highly doubt it. Bill Sauder has even praised the documentary for not adding any cinema tactics or tricks. Parks Stephenson also helped put the animation together. Cameron himself didn't do anything but throw in some ideas and then have the experts have a go at them.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
The same conclussion was presented in the documentary from the History Channel which has nothing to do with Cameron.

Where is the proof that White Star Line withold the book from Beesley? All we see are ridicoulus claims a la conspirancy theories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
Can you image if White Star had their own spies or hired agents running all over the place silencing dodgy reviews or accidents? Image the cost alone of maintaining a Jason Bourne-ish attempt to keep the disaster wrapped up!

Even by today standards without the internet and worldwide instant messaging (like this website!) it would still be difficult to track down and bribe / force witnesses or survivors not to say anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Easier than you think. Just like signing the official secrets act. All kinds of atrocities were carried out during the wars which is rarely known because the witnesses knew when to keep their mouths shut, under threat of imprisonment, or firing squad. When the Olympic rescued the survivors of the Audacious in 1914 the passengers were told not to mention the sinking and their photos were confiscated and the survivors were forced to sign the official secrets act and deny any knowledge of the sinking. When it becomes common practice it does not take much to silence men. I understand the surviving Titanic crew members were huddled onto the Lapland back to England, individually photographed and numbered and each handed a summons while kept in detention while guarded by police and soldiers who stopped them from leaving the Lapland until the union finally intervened and allowed them to finally leave and see their loved ones. It doesn't take much to blackmail the men and force them to co-operate with the company or face permanent black-listing from the company. They knew the reporters would pay a pretty penny for their accounts but their published accounts are few and far between. Clearly something or someone was stopping them. Even in 1929 when the Titanic film was being made, the White Star Line intervened and made sure no connection to the Titanic was made. Wonder how they got their way that time. If the government had a long term investment with the company or an 'understanding' behind closed doors, because they provided troop ships for war, they may have helped the company and used their 'persuasion' to see things their way.


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
Easier than you think... When the Olympic rescued the survivors of the Audacious in 1914 the passengers were told not to mention the sinking and their photos were confiscated and the survivors were forced to sign the official secrets act and deny any knowledge of the sinking.

True, but that was the Royal Navy under war, and even then they failed because the Germans eventually found out by late 1914 and turned it into propaganda material.

232329.jpg

Hungarian Postcard of HMS Audacious sinking (Date Unknown)

There is a German version of the Postcard shown on "Deep Wreck Mysteries" (that you might remember Aaron_2016 Cough Cough).
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
True, but that was the Royal Navy under war, and even then they failed because the Germans eventually found out by late 1914 and turned it into propaganda material.

The German knew in 1914 that Audacious had sunk. Even a few US Papers reported it.

View attachment 3690
Hungarian Postcard of HMS Audacious sinking (Date Unknown)

Looks to be the modern painting based on that incident.

There is a German version of the Postcard.

Actually there are two, the one was done by Willy Stöwer in 1914 for the Illustrierte Zeitung and was also published as a postcard. (Willy Stöwer did the famous Titanic sinking painting).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
629
188
20
Any thoughts on the idea of tower debris separating on the surface like what is depicted here?

(2:54:44)

I think I can remember there being two accounts that describe multiple cracks forming but I don’t remember who said what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Aug 31, 2020
12
8
3
17
Philippines
Any thoughts on the idea of tower debris separating on the surface like what is depicted here?

(2:54:44)

I think I can remember there being two accounts that describe multiple cracks forming but I don’t remember who said what.
How these towers might have collapsed or separated maybe explained simply, if we take Roy Mengot's theory it states there that the keel pushed the engines and decks up which crushed the upper decks which holds these aft and forward towers, we know Roy Mengot's theory has it's flaws so let's say we tweak his theory and match it up with the survivors accounts, let's take Mrs. Chaffee's account for Example here she states

"first one end of the boat going down at a dangerous angle, and then the other.....it seemed to writhe, breaking into the three parts in which it was divided. "

here she states the ship breaking into parts or sections so if we combine this with Roy Mengot, what if as the keel pushed the engines up it manage also to cause both a bottom-up and a top down break scenario, for which it breaks the ship into sections, the idea of the engines pushed up maybe supported by one survivor account (I forgot whom who said that but if you know kindly provide it in this reply) one testified seeing the engine being thrown out of the ship as she broke, only that can happen if the engines were to be shoved up by the bending motion of the keel.

So basically in short, a bottom-up and top-down break caused by the bending of the keel. shoved the engines is displacing the decks and towers causing them to fall.

something like this: Video

BREAKUPTITANICREALTIMEIMAGE0495.png


Recreation On Blender
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 5, 2016
54
38
68
28
The V-break is a concept I find infuriating and fascinating. I know many hate it, because it looks inelegant, silly even, dispelling what people think they know about the final moments. I know especially, the visuals promulgated by Aaron1912 caused controversy, and the subject certainly got many threads on this forum locked.

My curiosity is, is there evidence at all on the wreck to show evidence for a V-motion?

Based on what I recall on the specifics of Aaron1912's evidence there's some points I agree and disagree with.

I think it's possible there may have been twisting forces contributing to the break. I wonder if the shifting of the list from port to even keel shown in recent real times caused a strain amidship where the stern wanted to go one way and the bow wanted to go another.

I believe too it's unlikely the ship's flooding would have happened so uniformly as films would have you believe - where a section of the ship shown underwater is taken as a checkpoint of no return, lost to the abyss. The flooding may had been much more uneven and unorganized. Law of physics still apply. Water can't defy gravity, but I think it's certainly possible areas of the ship were more securely watertight until the very end.

I don't believe the pitch often shown in V-break animations was so extreme, with the prow breaching out like a whale, and the entire bow superstructure exposed with the waterline down to the well deck. I don't recall any survivor describing this phenomenon saying this happened. I understand the water was to the well deck when Collapsible C was lowered, and later, when the bridge plunged, Lightoller noted the waterline was to the crow's nest.

I don't believe cabins acted like air-pockets giving the ship enough buoyancy to behave like that. The first class cabin walls were made of a pine I doubt was particularly strong, nor watertight. I imagine those dividing walls would have collapsed fairly easily under hydraulic forces. Also, if the well and forecastle were awash before the break up, I imagine water would have quickly succeeded the openings in doors, canvas covered hatches etc.


I doubt the ship broke apart acting like two pointy chop-sticks pointed away to the skies, could a V-motion occured under the surface or just barely at?
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
629
188
20
The V-break is a concept I find infuriating and fascinating. I know many hate it, because it looks inelegant, silly even, dispelling what people think they know about the final moments. I know especially, the visuals promulgated by Aaron1912 caused controversy, and the subject certainly got many threads on this forum locked.

My curiosity is, is there evidence at all on the wreck to show evidence for a V-motion?

Based on what I recall on the specifics of Aaron1912's evidence there's some points I agree and disagree with.

I think it's possible there may have been twisting forces contributing to the break. I wonder if the shifting of the list from port to even keel shown in recent real times caused a strain amidship where the stern wanted to go one way and the bow wanted to go another.

I believe too it's unlikely the ship's flooding would have happened so uniformly as films would have you believe - where a section of the ship shown underwater is taken as a checkpoint of no return, lost to the abyss. The flooding may had been much more uneven and unorganized. Law of physics still apply. Water can't defy gravity, but I think it's certainly possible areas of the ship were more securely watertight until the very end.

I don't believe the pitch often shown in V-break animations was so extreme, with the prow breaching out like a whale, and the entire bow superstructure exposed with the waterline down to the well deck. I don't recall any survivor describing this phenomenon saying this happened. I understand the water was to the well deck when Collapsible C was lowered, and later, when the bridge plunged, Lightoller noted the waterline was to the crow's nest.

I don't believe cabins acted like air-pockets giving the ship enough buoyancy to behave like that. The first class cabin walls were made of a pine I doubt was particularly strong, nor watertight. I imagine those dividing walls would have collapsed fairly easily under hydraulic forces. Also, if the well and forecastle were awash before the break up, I imagine water would have quickly succeeded the openings in doors, canvas covered hatches etc.


I doubt the ship broke apart acting like two pointy chop-sticks pointed away to the skies, could a V-motion occured under the surface or just barely at?

I think the bow wanted to go down the entire time, and the only thing stopping it was the buoyant stern. I’d imagine that the sudden return to an even keel (or even a small starboard list) was due to a failing bulkhead or some massive displacement of water. It was said that four full explosive sounds were heard as the bridge went under, so that probably what I’d imagine happened there.

Once the stern broke away and settled back, it separated the flooded and buoyant sections of the ship, so I think the bow really just dropped at that point. This allowed for large tower debris to separate on the surface and follow suit in that same downwards motion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,122
471
158
16
Maryland, USA
Once the stern broke away and settled back, it separated the flooded and buoyant sections of the ship, so I think the bow really just dropped at that point. This allowed for large tower debris to separate on the surface and follow suit in that same downwards motion.
I don’t think the tower debris split at the surface, it’s too far away from the boilers , and the Aft tower most likely stayed with the stern, because it’s only a couple hundred feet north of the fantail. I agree with everything else though!
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
629
188
20
I don’t think the tower debris split at the surface, it’s too far away from the boilers , and the Aft tower most likely stayed with the stern, because it’s only a couple hundred feet north of the fantail. I agree with everything else though!

There is some evidence to suggest that at least one large chunk broke away from the stern. There are a few “broke in three” reports about the sinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,156
629
188
20
I’m just now seeing that at least three people mention a massive spark show during the break.

May Futrelle said, “[All of] a sudden the lights snapped out. There was a terrible creaking noise, the Titanic seemed to break in two. There was a tremendous explosion. For a fraction of a second she arose in the air and was plainly visible in the light caused from the blowing up of the boilers.”

Charlotte Collyer said, “Something in the very bowels of the Titanic exploded, and millions of sparks shot up to the sky, like rockets in a park on the night of a summer holiday. This red spurt was fan-shaped as it went up, but the sparks descended in every direction in the shape of a fountain of fire.”

Esther Hart said, “For a few moments we could see everything that was happening, for, as the vessel sank, millions and millions of sparks flew up and lit everything around us.”

Seems like a bit of a missed opportunity for lots of Hollywood/TV depictions. I wasn’t aware of this phenomenon until recently.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads