V Break Theory

chrismireya

Member
Apr 7, 2019
9
9
3
Palo Alto, CA
I have spoken to the visitors at the Titanic museum in Belfast and have found many who agree with the eye witness accounts and in principle Jack Thayer's sketch...
To be very clear: Jack Thayer's position at the point of the breakup and sinking was NOT from a position seen in the drawing. He was at sea level, further to the aft and a bit close. Some of the people on Collapsible B stated emphatically that the ship went down whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ioannis Georgiou

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
914
373
73
18
To be very clear: Jack Thayer's position at the point of the breakup and sinking was NOT from a position seen in the drawing. He was at sea level, further to the aft and a bit close. Some of the people on Collapsible B stated emphatically that the ship went down whole.
Exactly. The V break theory would have been too dramatic for some to claim it went down whole.
 

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
184
145
53
36
New England
Okay, William, after the ship breaks in two there are precisely two forces acting on the bow: The downward force imposed by gravity, and the upward force imposed by buoyancy. Net force is clearly negative in sense because the ship is sinking. The bow is already underwater. If the front and rear of the bow were of equal buoyancy/weight ratio, then they would sink at a constant rate and there would be no rotation. Why "buoyancy/weight ratio"? because, of course, different net forces at different points along the length of the bow section can produce a torque.

So, critical question? Where is the superstructure on the bow?

Think about that for a moment.

Exactly. The rear of the bow by definition has a higher ratio of buoyancy to weight than the front of the bow. It may flood rapidly, and it may not be designed to be watertight, but that's neither here nor there, since we're dealing in seconds, not minutes. The proportion of unflooded to flooded compartments in the bow would have to be much higher to produce the effect that you and Aaron claimed... And that is objectively not true, because there wouldn't be any water coming in to spread through the rest of the ship!

To put this really bluntly: This scenario would only be possible if there was in excess of four times the flooded volume amidship as there was forward, except if that was the case then the Post Office wouldn't have flooded, and why would water be propagating aft with the flooding so minor forward? Or, if the damage was amidship...why is she down by the head?

Aaron's flooding diagrams never made sense because they ignore volume. The bow simply has less of it than there is amidships, and that means proportionally more of the bow has to flood to trim the ship down by the head, and that means there is less un-flooded volume than amidship as a function of total volume, V_uf/V_t, forward than amidship.
 
Last edited:

William_2019

Member
May 7, 2019
10
0
1
Belfast, Northern Ireland
To be very clear: Jack Thayer's position at the point of the breakup and sinking was NOT from a position seen in the drawing. He was at sea level, further to the aft and a bit close. Some of the people on Collapsible B stated emphatically that the ship went down whole.

Mr. Skidmore was a passenger on the Carpathia. When the sketches were published, the descriptions said that Mr. Thayer had outlined the sketches himself and provided details of each stage of the sinking to Mr. Skidmore, and it says the sketches were later shaded in by Mr. Skidmore who made the sketches more professional for publication. Perhaps Mr. Skidmore spoke to a number of survivors at first. Several passengers felt the ship lean over to port when the iceberg struck, and this was represented in the first picture. Perhaps Mr. Skidmore drew the first few stages himself with the ship facing west. When I draw sketches of ships I instinctively draw the ship facing west. The Titanic was also westbound to America and perhaps Mr. Skidmore instinctively started to draw the first sketches himself as a starting point, and when he approached Mr. Thayer and discovered he was a good and co-operative witness, he may have handed the scrap of paper and pencil to Mr. Thayer who outlined the rest of the sketches and provided Mr. Skidmore with details (possibly using his hands to indicate what each part of the ship was doing.) Perhaps Mr. Skidmore started the sketch himself and marked two X's on the paper and said to Mr. Thayer "That is the bow and that is the stern, now could you sketch down for me please how she sank" and Mr. Thayer would oblige using the perspective that Mr. Skidmore wanted (westbound) as the newspaper readers might have got confused if they saw the sketches were facing eastbound when they knew the Titanic was westbound.
 

William_2019

Member
May 7, 2019
10
0
1
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Okay, William, after the ship breaks in two there are precisely two forces acting on the bow: The downward force imposed by gravity, and the upward force imposed by buoyancy. Net force is clearly negative in sense because the ship is sinking. The bow is already underwater. If the front and rear of the bow were of equal buoyancy/weight ratio, then they would sink at a constant rate and there would be no rotation. Why "buoyancy/weight ratio"? because, of course, different net forces at different points along the length of the bow section can produce a torque.

So, critical question? Where is the superstructure on the bow?

Think about that for a moment.

Exactly. The rear of the bow by definition has a higher ratio of buoyancy to weight than the front of the bow. It may flood rapidly, and it may not be designed to be watertight, but that's neither here nor there, since we're dealing in seconds, not minutes. The proportion of unflooded to flooded compartments in the bow would have to be much higher to produce the effect that you and Aaron claimed... And that is objectively not true, because there wouldn't be any water coming in to spread through the rest of the ship!
Marion Wright thought the iceberg had ripped open the entire bottom of the ship from the bow to the stern as she saw the ship sink by her entire length. That for me is sufficient to believe the water on E-deck moved aft and flooded sections in a domino effect and the assistance of the open portholes sank the ship in a manner that has not been studied, and possibly can never be studied as we do not know how many windows were open, and how many cracks were developing across the ship, between unsupported walls, pipes, toilets etc. The boiler rooms below were reportedly not flooding while the decks above were, which would increase the top heaviness of the ship. That kind of force would mess up the structural integrity and the survivors saw the ship rolling and reeling as she was top heavy.

Titanic I recall could survive with 4 compartments flooded. Just like carrying extra cargo in the bow which weighs the bow down to F-deck. I believe that this posed no real importance in preventing the bow from rising. It just means F-deck could not rise out of the water again while everything above could. Everything above F-deck is the issue I am curious about. Lightoller was sucked against the forward ventilation shaft that led down to boiler room 6. This room was allegedly completely flooded a long time before this happened, but the forces involved in Lightoller being sucked against the vent and being blown to the surface with hot air escaping with explosive force and bending the vent upwards (as can be seen on the wreck) could mean the water originally down in boiler room 6 was no longer there immediately before the ship began to break and the forward end lurched, broke off completely, drifted away from the stern, sank down at the back, tipped up at the front, and sank. A breached wall or a series of breached walls or re-opened doors would allow the water in boiler room 6 to escape to boiler room 5 in possibly a chain reaction as it possibly moved further aft, which shifted the entire ship's position and possibly assisted the break, or maybe created the break to begin with, as the structure twisted and rolled with little support to remain intact under such force.

With E-deck flooding aft and flooding sections towards the stern and easing the ship back and back, and the breach of a wall/walls below, or the simple rolling of the ship to port, the water that was mounting on C, D, E, deck in the bow would immediately leave the bow and descend into the boiler rooms below. If the survivors saw the bow bounding up again, then that is sufficient proof for me because anything could have happened inside which would allow the bow to rebound again. I don't believe in absolute certainties and the Titanic sinking as very few certainties. If there was 98% chance the bow did not rise and just 2% chance that it did, then I would rule nothing out.
 
Last edited:

William_2019

Member
May 7, 2019
10
0
1
Belfast, Northern Ireland
I'm assuming that you're the same guy as Aaron1912/Aaron_2016...?
Again, no. We correspond and meet regularly here in Belfast and share similar opinions over a pint at the Crown bar. I registered to let some of the members know what others out there think. That is all I care to contribute. I might sign off now, because this board seems to be entirely counterproductive and not worth investing time on.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
914
373
73
18
I might sign off now, because this board seems to be entirely counterproductive and not worth investing time on.
I'm sorry you feel that way. But you need to either revise your theory, or find more credible sources to back your claims. There have been naval architects and U.S. Navy members who formed a theory based on pure mathematics. I don't find it at all to be a coincidence that the numbers say the ship broke apart just in front of the third funnel which matches up with survivor testimony. Lightoller described a "huge rumbling roar" when the ship was at an angle of "about 60 degrees" (this is an exaggeration, but it makes sense when it was actually about 25 degrees). This would have been the point when the ship broke apart. Of course he couldn't see it, but that's what I'll guess what that was.
 

Logan H

Member
Dec 4, 2018
36
12
8
15
Counterproductive for who? The productive part is that there people here willing to challenge what a few eyewitnesses thought they saw instead of merely accepting what they said.
I think he finds it counterproductive for HIMSELF and Aaron because they apparently just refuse to let go of spamming the nonsense theory of the Titanic's fully-flooded bow rising to the surface and defying the laws of physics, and they distort survivor testimonies to make it their way and attempt to convince people to believe in their nonsense, only to get debunked and exposed by everybody else. Even a child would know that there is no way the V-Break theory could have happened.
 
Last edited:

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
914
373
73
18
What a waste of time coming here. This board is just a mob of rudeness with no room for proper debate. Signing off.
Because we’ve come to a conclusion that proves your theory to be wrong? I’m sorry, but maybe you should expect some amount opposition when you present an unpopular theory. Best wishes.
 

chrismireya

Member
Apr 7, 2019
9
9
3
Palo Alto, CA
What a waste of time coming here. This board is just a mob of rudeness with no room for proper debate. Signing off.
Hi William. I think that it helps to understand the claims of those survivors who thought that the bow rose up by knowing where they were during the sinking. I am currently making a map in Photoshop to point out the location of the lifeboats. I'd like to add a key that points out how many people in each boat believed that the ship broke apart, went down in one piece or broke with the bow rising. Then, we can try to create an image of what the sinking looked like for each of them (from their perspective/vantage point).

I think that the vantage and perspective might explain why different people in the same lifeboats might have had different conclusions about the sinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle Naber

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
184
145
53
36
New England
Marion Wright thought the iceberg had ripped open the entire bottom of the ship from the bow to the stern as she saw the ship sink by her entire length. That for me is sufficient to believe the water on E-deck moved aft and flooded sections in a domino effect and the assistance of the open portholes sank the ship in a manner that has not been studied, and possibly can never be studied as we do not know how many windows were open, and how many cracks were developing across the ship, between unsupported walls, pipes, toilets etc. The boiler rooms below were reportedly not flooding while the decks above were, which would increase the top heaviness of the ship. That kind of force would mess up the structural integrity and the survivors saw the ship rolling and reeling as she was top heavy.

Titanic I recall could survive with 4 compartments flooded. Just like carrying extra cargo in the bow which weighs the bow down to F-deck. I believe that this posed no real importance in preventing the bow from rising. It just means F-deck could not rise out of the water again while everything above could. Everything above F-deck is the issue I am curious about. Lightoller was sucked against the forward ventilation shaft that led down to boiler room 6. This room was allegedly completely flooded a long time before this happened, but the forces involved in Lightoller being sucked against the vent and being blown to the surface with hot air escaping with explosive force and bending the vent upwards (as can be seen on the wreck) could mean the water originally down in boiler room 6 was no longer there immediately before the ship began to break and the forward end lurched, broke off completely, drifted away from the stern, sank down at the back, tipped up at the front, and sank. A breached wall or a series of breached walls or re-opened doors would allow the water in boiler room 6 to escape to boiler room 5 in possibly a chain reaction as it possibly moved further aft, which shifted the entire ship's position and possibly assisted the break, or maybe created the break to begin with, as the structure twisted and rolled with little support to remain intact under such force.

With E-deck flooding aft and flooding sections towards the stern and easing the ship back and back, and the breach of a wall/walls below, or the simple rolling of the ship to port, the water that was mounting on C, D, E, deck in the bow would immediately leave the bow and descend into the boiler rooms below. If the survivors saw the bow bounding up again, then that is sufficient proof for me because anything could have happened inside which would allow the bow to rebound again. I don't believe in absolute certainties and the Titanic sinking as very few certainties. If there was 98% chance the bow did not rise and just 2% chance that it did, then I would rule nothing out.

The bottom is ripped out of the ship but the boiler rooms aren't flooded? I have helpfully highlighted the two sentences in which you make these two claims. I don't believe I actually need to say anything else in response to that claim(s? They are mutually contradictory, so does that make it two claims?).

Incidentally, addressing another point, I actually believe in a statistical or probabilistic universe because of my work as a researcher as well.... What that actually means is that when there's a 98% chance something happened one way and you have a two-percent outlier over in the corner, you have enormous statistical significance in pointing at the 98% and saying "this is the hypothesis we are accepting". That's how science and engineering work... If something happens 98 times out of 100, you don't then declare "nothing can be ruled out", you say "the 98 has been proved for all legitimate scientific purposes".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle Naber

Tex Mullikin

Member
Jul 11, 2019
1
0
1
Covington, KY
I am a recently arrived member who has been doing a lot of thinking and research to understand a possible explanation to support the v break theory. Many times while searching for survivor testimony to support the theory, I have stumbled upon this discussion in your group but did not join because of the sometimes daunting task of setting up an account, password and all that on a limited mobile device. Anyway...
One of the things I have noticed in every one of theses discussions is the assumption that the bow and stern had seperated before the ship had begun to sink center down... therefore making it very difficult to explain how the bow could suddenly rise back up. The wreck shows us that the entire superstructure of the ship's mid section is crushed and scattered all over the wrecksite. Some parts of it appear to have been squeezed in a vise. Even the bow and stern themselves have a tell tale v shape at their broken ends...
What if the bow and stern had not completely seperated when the ships mid section opened to the sea? Water would have flooded both ends of the ship resulting in the downward pull at the center. The stern would have given a lunge downward at the open end... but since it is still connected to the bow the ships mid section would have been crushed out the rest of the way as the stern pushed against the bow, momentarily nudging it back up towards the forecastle.

I firmly believe that Titanic did not sink as it has been portrayed by so many incorrect theories and videos. I have put about 48,000 tons of thought into this because I believe that a certain movie producer's "final word" flies in the face of survivor accounts and I want their words to have the gravity they deserve.
 

mitfrc

Member
Jan 3, 2017
184
145
53
36
New England
Unfortunately, it didn't happen that way, because the bow was fully flooded. For the ship to break in two to begin with, the bow is submerging underwater, it's down by the head. Once the ship begins to sever in two, all the weight of the water is accelerating the down downwards, and abrupt lunge of the stern is accelerating ... downwards. No buoyancy is added to the system. Since the buoyancy in the system is just getting less and less, there is less and less force resisting the acceleration of gravity. The entire stem will maintain a roughly constant angle, and sink, still down by the head. In fact, the only part of the stem which could rise would be the "stern of the bow", that is to say, the back of the bow section as it is being severed.

This is, if unconfirmed, possible, and may be what people really meant when eyewitnesses claimed to see the bow rise. But the actual head of the ship never rose, because the acceleration of gravity is constant and there is no new countervailing buoyant force for it to push against to cause rotation -- which must occur because there are multiple forces acting in different senses at different positions, or because an object is fixed at a single point it is rotating about. Neither is occurring here. The sense of weight and buoyant force remains the same even after separation.

What you would see happen is that the stern would rise up if the two halves briefly remained connected, because it has buoyant force to resist being pulled down by the bow. This would tend to, however, rapidly finish severing the ship so it would only happen in the brief period of time between the "explosions".

If you want to understand this, I strongly encourage studying engineering statics and dynamics and auditing a course in Marine Hydrodynamics. You seem very passionate about the issue, and the best way to focus that passion is by educating yourself in the science behind what you are talking about. That's where the truth is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuel Halpern