The Titanic did not break in half


Clarissa E. Parks

The Titanic did not break in half. What people saw was the rudder and 1 propeller fall from the stern before it slid back into the sea. I know i am correct therefore this is not open to debate. this is the final fact as presented on TV the other week. Ballard and most after him were wrong.

Jeffrey Word

Clarissa, I have to beg to differ.

I don't know where you got your information, or if we're even talking about the same ship, but Titanic DID break in half, and it's propellers AND rudder are both still down in their right places. I'm sorry to have to say that you're wrong on that one, or whatever show you were watching was not about the Titanic. The rudder and all 3 propellers, I believe, are all accounted for and are where they were originally placed.

Am I wrong about any of this anybody?
May 7, 2005
I dunno if they are all in the correct places seeing as how the impact could have dislodged a propeller by a few feet, but Jeffrey is totally right. And if I were you Clarissa, I would want to look at the wreck photos, the Marschall paintings and Roy Mengot's Model. And it appears to me that the subject is open for debate after all.

Best Regards
Cliff Johnson

Jeffrey Word

>> dunno if they are all in the correct places seeing as how the impact could have dislodged a propeller by a few feet<<

I do believe you're right there Clifton. I think one of the propellers is off by a few feet and pointed upwards or something, but still right by the stern.

Clarissa, I would agree that the best thing for you to do would be to get hold of Ken Marschall and Don Lynch's 'Titanic: An Illustrated History', and it will pretty much give you the Titanic story in great detail and some splendid paintings of the interiors.

Dave Gittins

Apr 11, 2001
Have we a troll?

The propellers are still on their shafts, but the ship hit the bottom so hard that the outer shafts were bent.

Clarissa, remember that TV considerably exceeds the requirements of Spurgeon's Law, which I leave you to look up "for exercise", as they say in the navy.
May 1, 2010
Funny how a little erroneous information from left field will generate some "HEY WAIT JUST A MINUTE" responses, but thats what we're here for, eh?
The stern was compressed considerately upon impact with the bottom, that would be the same stern section that is A LONG LONG WAY FROM THE BOW SECTION AND POINTING THE OTHER WAY. The props and rudder are pretty much where they are supposed to be, although several feet out of alignment from hitting the bottom, implosions of steel plates, and god knows what else.

Matthew Lips

Mar 8, 2001
Would be interesting to know exactly which TV show Clarissa is referring to, and how they would like to try and explain what Steven has pointed out in his post.

Whatever it was I wish I'd seen it. A good laugh every now and again is good for the soul.
Aug 15, 2005
Darwen, United Kingdom
How could Ballard be wrong? He found the bloody thing - are you suggesting that the mangled mess found 2,000 feet away from the bow is another wreck that just happens to be keel #401, also?
And what about that large section that's missing from Titanic's wreck? I think they call it the stern. Buried in silt, perhaps, when the wreck lies on a plateau and the top deck sits level, 60 to 70 feet above the seabed?
You know you are correct. Have you any idea how stupid you sound?
Regards, Ryan.
Dec 8, 2000
Bob wrote:

Unfortunately that doesn't mean the species is dying out.

Agreed. Now let's aid extinction by not feeding 'em - and not sinking to their level.

As posted earlier, a lot of evidence exists as to Titanic's break up, including some rather large physical evidence. Not really anywhere else to go with this one, is there.​

Jeffrey Word

Fiona, I'd have to agree that there's not much else to be said here. Although, that was a pretty good laugh as Paul said. I think you all are right that it was someone coming in to do NOTHING but start trouble. There were some other posts made by this particular person that I will not go into...but were definitely NOT appropriate for any of these threads. Takes all kinds huh?

John Clifford

Mar 30, 1997
It would have been interesting to start the debate by saying the ship did not break apart completely, at the surface, as some have theorized. However to say that it did not break apart at all is rather laughable; what would be the reasoning for the stern section being found several yards away, then??

Does "Clarissa", who just registed today, believe that the ship was intact during the entire sinking, and that when it hit the ocaan floor, it bounced up a little ways, causing the stern to then come off, swing around, and then crash down away from the bow section?? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I'm no scientist (science was not my strong subject), but I will wager that a 46,000 ton vessel, filled up with water, and accelerating 2 1/2 miles to the ocean floor, will not bounce back upon impact.

George Heiss

Aug 1, 2005
Hello Jeff! How are you doing. Recovered from the other night? Got your message BTW, did you get mine?

ALL: Anyway, I was just lurking around and I found this post. I was like "What the ----" (fill in the dashes with four letter word of preference). Now I am the first one to admit my knowledge of the Titanic doesn't come near that of Don or Ken, but I am above average when compared to your armchair Titanic historian. But one thing for sure is that I do clearly remember Ballard photographing the wreck of the Titanic and that was followed by a submersible trip down to the wreck. Last time I recall...the ship is in fact two main pieces. So how can Ballard be wrong????!!! Oh yeah, the propeller and rudder did break off the ship...along with everything else just past the third funnel.

However, my curiousity is piqued at what show Clarissa was referring to on TV. But as Dave G pointed out, more likely we have a troll. Could be someone just playing with us as just to see how long this thread goes on.

G'Nite all

Jeffrey Word

Hey George!!!! Yes, recovered very well. ;-) Everything is great in that area now. Just took a little conversation! No I didn't receive your message due to having to change my email address over. I'll send you another one so you can reply. Great to see you around!

Yes, this person that started this thread is a complete maniac in my opinion. He/She/it has made several outrageous claims about the Titanic not breaking in half, the staircase being painted blue or something, making allegations against well-respected Titanica members.

Just ignore it. Ballard wasn't wrong (on the break-up thing) and Cameron sure as heck wasn't. This person's a nut and has been making trouble on this and Titanic-Titanic like Kevin said. I really don't see a reason for this thread to remain open.

The rudder and propellers are all down there and are fine. Well, bent up and soaked, but fine. This person like everyone's saying has been doing nothing but trying to cause trouble. Just consider the source and move on. :) George, I'll be messaging ya!!

Dec 8, 2000
Given that some people clearly can't take more than a hint about letting the matter drop, and that this thread isn't constructive discussion it's probably time for a bit of rest.

And a nice cup of tea. I'll put the kettle on.

Similar threads

Similar threads