How the break-up occurred

[Bill Vanek]

From observations of the debris field is it correct to say, presume, that the bow section 'planed' into the seabed at a bow down angle. And that the stern section was rotating in a clockwise (or was it counterclockwise) direction. It seems to me that the stern section left a circular pattern in the seabed as it came to rest. (Isn't this the general accepted belief?)

Could the keel / double bottom sections and tower section have detached fully from the stern section at a later stage of the plunge to the seabed? Say after the stern section had started to rotate / spiral to the bottom; therefore, introducing this motion to those sections.

A side note / comment: "Regarding the geometry, the "forward tower" is fairly uneven. It has jagged edges, various open spaces and there is more of the starboard side than the port side. I'm not exactly sure how that could influence its horizontal displacement."

Wouldn't all these jagged edges and flat surface areas introduce more of a horizontal / lateral deflection in motion as opposed to allowing a more vertical drop? Just asking...

The markings on the seabed by the stern wreck have been misinterpreted to mean that the stern was spinning. For any large or heavy item, spinning stops when it impacts. Watch any WWII airplane being shot down: it may go down spinning, but there is no spinning at impact. The markings on the seabed at the stern are quite likely due to the compaction of impact spewing out the water that was contained within the stern. (Look at what happened to the hatch cover on the bow's forward hold.) Just as likely is the possibility that ocean currents made the marks, the same way snow drifts downwind of an object; there were decades of such currents that could have made the markings. But it certainly wasn't the stern skidding to a stop along the bottom and then burying itself in the mud and dropping its rubble afterward. The stern spinning is a myth.

Furthermore, a spinning stern could not impart any horizontal "flinging" action to pieces coming off. Water friction is too significant. Have you ever tried to throw something underwater? The object goes nowhere, for two reasons: (1) You cannot move your arm fast enough to make a good throw, and (2) the water slows any imparted velocity quickly. Both of those aspects are the result of the water friction. The stern could not spin as if it were an airplane in a flat spin in air, and pieces coming loose could not be flung outward. The entire 'spinning' idea must be discarded.

I guess that there is the possibility that the stern traveled in a wide spiral path downward, the way a person goes when descending a grand, curving staircase. But if it traveled way to the east to drop the keel pieces and "forward tower", why isn't there other stuff just as distant, forming a circular path to and from the keel pieces, and on to the stern? And why would the stern just happen to end up with all of the rest of the major debris if it were traveling an expansive, ranging path? No; the debris testifies to primarily downward motion, with few exceptions. The bow half and the two "towers" appear to be the biggest exceptions, with the coal and dishware to the south being somewhat less exceptional.

 

[POOLIEY]

The markings on the seabed by the stern wreck have been misinterpreted to mean that the stern was spinning. For any large or heavy item, spinning stops when it impacts. Watch any WWII airplane being shot down: it may go down spinning, but there is no spinning at impact. The markings on the seabed at the stern are quite likely due to the compaction of impact spewing out the water that was contained within the stern. (Look at what happened to the hatch cover on the bow's forward hold.) Just as likely is the possibility that ocean currents made the marks, the same way snow drifts downwind of an object; there were decades of such currents that could have made the markings. But it certainly wasn't the stern skidding to a stop along the bottom and then burying itself in the mud and dropping its rubble afterward. The stern spinning is a myth.

Furthermore, a spinning stern could not impart any horizontal "flinging" action to pieces coming off. Water friction is too significant. Have you ever tried to throw something underwater? The object goes nowhere, for two reasons: (1) You cannot move your arm fast enough to make a good throw, and (2) the water slows any imparted velocity quickly. Both of those aspects are the result of the water friction. The stern could not spin as if it were an airplane in a flat spin in air, and pieces coming loose could not be flung outward. The entire 'spinning' idea must be discarded.

I guess that there is the possibility that the stern traveled in a wide spiral path downward, the way a person goes when descending a grand, curving staircase. But if it traveled way to the east to drop the keel pieces and "forward tower", why isn't there other stuff just as distant, forming a circular path to and from the keel pieces, and on to the stern? And why would the stern just happen to end up with all of the rest of the major debris if it were traveling an expansive, ranging path? No; the debris testifies to primarily downward motion, with few exceptions. The bow half and the two "towers" appear to be the biggest exceptions, with the coal and dishware to the south being somewhat less exceptional.

The spinning isn't proposed because of marks on the seabed, it is primarily from the lack of pattern in the debris field. If the hypocentre is roughly where the boilers are or more likely to be a bit more north east, you have two large sections of hull plating and the second funnel, which we know the second funnel came off during the plunge, so it would be relatively close to where the break up happened. But in that areas south of it is the fourth funnel deckhouse, which isn't coming off at the surface. Both LP engine cylinders are in opposite ends of the debris field, indicating they came off separately at different times. As for the fore tower, there are sections that would have been under the tower section that are south of the debris field but still roughly 60 to 70 meters apart. Southern most one being a piece of the starboard side of D deck that would have been next to the BR 1 and 2 casing (and under the forward tower), and ~70 meters apart part of B to D deck, with B82,84,86 and below to D deck, pretty much in the bottom middle of the debris field (and under the forward tower).
With the stern starting off vertical and then maneuvering itself to be more upright with a sizable angle - which is seen quite notably by the sections of debris and the fact that most of them are upright, the only acception is the aft tower (or upper decks of the engine casing), which isn't that big, only the full width of the boat deck, and A deck and B deck inner corridors. B88 is on the aft tower, so linking to the section that is bottom middle of the debris field/ the section that has B82,84,86, so they came off at a different time and were sent in opposite direction, showing the stern was spiralling as it was descending.
Going back to the fore tower, it isn't an even shape, on the port side it only has the boat deck and A deck, and on the starboard side the boat deck to C deck, with the B82,84,86 section being under it (now bottom middle of the main debris field). It has a massive hole in the centre given that it is the br1 and 2 casing, the forward and aft end would be exposed, and there is only really the superstructure plating with some starboard side main hull plating as well. So hydrodynamically, it isn't getting north east by itself if it came off at the surface. The ship was pointing north north east at the breakup, and the stern was capsizing (as it was going vertical) to port, so there isn't any movement at the surface that would get it to travel against all that and the southern direction of the current. If the stern pushed it, it goes north west, if it came of when the stern was vertical, it would likely be in the debris field.
I purposed it came off early in descent when the stern was shifting from being vertical to being sort of level. With the break end going down first, the hull plating that would have been buckled by the underside compressing when the double bottom failed, would be dragging the stern and eventually one side wins and the stern starts switching ends, the sharper stern would catch the water flow and the water would give more of a forceful turn in this moment, this gives enough force to rip away what is left holding the fore tower to the stern and the double bottom (with the fore tower also suffering from the water rushing into the ship and taking a lot of the brunt, it would be quite loosely attached). This momentum breaks those pieces off and send them north east. The double bottom flaps and with them having a more flat surface; slowing them down, the fore tower being more open giving the water an easier time to go through the section, meaning it goes further. Given that it is 4k meters down, a lot of the horizontal movement would have been in the initial throw, but with it being around 350 to 400 meters away from the proposed hypocentre, it would need a significant and different force to send it north east, differing from every other piece excluding the bow.

 

[Bill Vanek]

The spinning isn't proposed because of marks on the seabed, it is primarily from the lack of pattern in the debris field. If the hypocentre is roughly where the boilers are or more likely to be a bit more north east, you have two large sections of hull plating and the second funnel, which we know the second funnel came off during the plunge, so it would be relatively close to where the break up happened. But in that areas south of it is the fourth funnel deckhouse, which isn't coming off at the surface. Both LP engine cylinders are in opposite ends of the debris field, indicating they came off separately at different times. As for the fore tower, there are sections that would have been under the tower section that are south of the debris field but still roughly 60 to 70 meters apart. Southern most one being a piece of the starboard side of D deck that would have been next to the BR 1 and 2 casing (and under the forward tower), and ~70 meters apart part of B to D deck, with B82,84,86 and below to D deck, pretty much in the bottom middle of the debris field (and under the forward tower).
With the stern starting off vertical and then maneuvering itself to be more upright with a sizable angle - which is seen quite notably by the sections of debris and the fact that most of them are upright, the only acception is the aft tower (or upper decks of the engine casing), which isn't that big, only the full width of the boat deck, and A deck and B deck inner corridors. B88 is on the aft tower, so linking to the section that is bottom middle of the debris field/ the section that has B82,84,86, so they came off at a different time and were sent in opposite direction, showing the stern was spiralling as it was descending.
Going back to the fore tower, it isn't an even shape, on the port side it only has the boat deck and A deck, and on the starboard side the boat deck to C deck, with the B82,84,86 section being under it (now bottom middle of the main debris field). It has a massive hole in the centre given that it is the br1 and 2 casing, the forward and aft end would be exposed, and there is only really the superstructure plating with some starboard side main hull plating as well. So hydrodynamically, it isn't getting north east by itself if it came off at the surface. The ship was pointing north north east at the breakup, and the stern was capsizing (as it was going vertical) to port, so there isn't any movement at the surface that would get it to travel against all that and the southern direction of the current. If the stern pushed it, it goes north west, if it came of when the stern was vertical, it would likely be in the debris field.
I purposed it came off early in descent when the stern was shifting from being vertical to being sort of level. With the break end going down first, the hull plating that would have been buckled by the underside compressing when the double bottom failed, would be dragging the stern and eventually one side wins and the stern starts switching ends, the sharper stern would catch the water flow and the water would give more of a forceful turn in this moment, this gives enough force to rip away what is left holding the fore tower to the stern and the double bottom (with the fore tower also suffering from the water rushing into the ship and taking a lot of the brunt, it would be quite loosely attached). This momentum breaks those pieces off and send them north east. The double bottom flaps and with them having a more flat surface; slowing them down, the fore tower being more open giving the water an easier time to go through the section, meaning it goes further. Given that it is 4k meters down, a lot of the horizontal movement would have been in the initial throw, but with it being around 350 to 400 meters away from the proposed hypocentre, it would need a significant and different force to send it north east, differing from every other piece excluding the bow.

Actually, you're the first person I've heard of who has not used the "swirls on the ocean floor" notion to justify the alleged spinning. Many people have been starting with that story, and then building upon it using the "flinging" guesswork, so that the latter is a spin-off of the former (see what I did there?)

I wrote a post on the previous page of this discussion thread, explaining how the debris paths must be primarily downward (as expected); how they sometimes have a horizontal component to go with them (causing randomness to their resting places); that water friction plus hydrodynamic shape is one source of that horizontal component; and how the ship traveling on the surface during the breakup is another source of horizontal distribution differences. It is that horizontal ship movement that nearly all the Titanic enthusiasts don't speak about. Those two reasons for unexpected final debris locations are quite reasonable and understandable. Water friction acting on a sinking item of certain or uncertain geometry is what makes my point so logical--and is the very same friction that makes the 'spinning and flinging' idea so illogical. There's no need to invent conjecture about spinning and flinging when there is a simpler explanation.

If we consider that nearly all the debris went mostly straight down, it does form a pattern, which I described in my previous posting. It means that the ship was pointing SW or even SSW when the breakup began--the opposite of what you say.

You're correct in pointing out that wreckage came off at different times and that different shapes interact differently as they sink. That's been my point all along. My additional point is that those "different times" resulted in different starting locations on the surface, not due to various depths or from impossible flinging.

 

[POOLIEY]

Actually, you're the first person I've heard of who has not used the "swirls on the ocean floor" notion to justify the alleged spinning. Many people have been starting with that story, and then building upon it using the "flinging" guesswork, so that the latter is a spin-off of the former (see what I did there?)

I wrote a post on the previous page of this discussion thread, explaining how the debris paths must be primarily downward (as expected); how they sometimes have a horizontal component to go with them (causing randomness to their resting places); that water friction plus hydrodynamic shape is one source of that horizontal component; and how the ship traveling on the surface during the breakup is another source of horizontal distribution differences. It is that horizontal ship movement that nearly all the Titanic enthusiasts don't speak about. Those two reasons for unexpected final debris locations are quite reasonable and understandable. Water friction acting on a sinking item of certain or uncertain geometry is what makes my point so logical--and is the very same friction that makes the 'spinning and flinging' idea so illogical. There's no need to invent conjecture about spinning and flinging when there is a simpler explanation.

If we consider that nearly all the debris went mostly straight down, it does form a pattern, which I described in my previous posting. It means that the ship was pointing SW or even SSW when the breakup began--the opposite of what you say.

You're correct in pointing out that wreckage came off at different times and that different shapes interact differently as they sink. That's been my point all along. My additional point is that those "different times" resulted in different starting locations on the surface, not due to various depths or from impossible flinging.

Having the ship pointing SW at break up gives multiple issues. 1: The bow. It travelled north with seemingly a turn as it descended, so if the ship was pointing SW then the bow wouldn't get to where it is today. 2: Survivors mentioned that Titanic was pointing at the mystery ship. Given we know where Californian was, he know the ship was pointing in a northern direction.

As for the horizontal movement on the surface, during the sinking it is just drifting so not much is happening. As the plunge occures the ship would shift forward, at the time of the breakup, there is only really momentum to move the stern back, as the stern is rising, it would be moving forward as well, but it wouldn't shift more than lets say 30 meters. Given that the stern is falling by the front more than moving forward, it is unlikely to have the stern move far from where the broke up happened. As well as survivors who were in the like of boat B and A, some testifying that they thought the ship was going to fall onto them as the stern was rising, but we know it didn't so the stern wouldn't have move that much forward. Stern pauses while vertical, likely because water is bottlenecked by bulkheads and some walls around the frame 100A (not exactly, but in this area), and then slowly descends.

The main thing with the debris pattern is having the stern spiral on an orbit likely outside of its mass, and switching from facing down to level-ish, the water flowing around and probably into the stern would have been ripping parts off. So as the stern spirals and something comes off, it will then independantly be influenced by the water, and with the majority of debris being structural components, it wouldn't have the V shape of the bow or stern to make cutting through the water easy. And so the water would essencially hit the brakes on these sections, and so they fall roughly straight down as the stern continues to spiral. Another reason we know the stern was likely spiralling is the fact it is not pointing the same way as the bow, this can be justified by the spinning the stern did on the surface, but it is the furthest western section (outside of the starboard side well deck which likely was blown out when the stern hit the seabed).

But evidence of the flinging/ throwing of sections can be the fore tower which follow no pattern and is an anomoly to all the other debris, and even the aft tower, as the aft tower didn't come off the stern as it hit the seabed because it is on the opposite side, and it is upside down, again different from the other sections. So having the stern spiral and the aft tower having one side of the boat deck rip off first then followed by the other side soon after, and subsequently ripping out corridors a couple decks down, would have the sterns spiral momentum giving the aft tower a rotational element, it hitting the seabed somewhere past on its side and then one side of the boat deck plating digging into the seabed slightly and collapsing the other side down.

 

[Bill Vanek]

Having the ship pointing SW at break up gives multiple issues. 1: The bow. It travelled north with seemingly a turn as it descended, so if the ship was pointing SW then the bow wouldn't get to where it is today. 2: Survivors mentioned that Titanic was pointing at the mystery ship. Given we know where Californian was, he know the ship was pointing in a northern direction.

As for the horizontal movement on the surface, during the sinking it is just drifting so not much is happening. As the plunge occures the ship would shift forward, at the time of the breakup, there is only really momentum to move the stern back, as the stern is rising, it would be moving forward as well, but it wouldn't shift more than lets say 30 meters. Given that the stern is falling by the front more than moving forward, it is unlikely to have the stern move far from where the broke up happened. As well as survivors who were in the like of boat B and A, some testifying that they thought the ship was going to fall onto them as the stern was rising, but we know it didn't so the stern wouldn't have move that much forward. Stern pauses while vertical, likely because water is bottlenecked by bulkheads and some walls around the frame 100A (not exactly, but in this area), and then slowly descends.

The main thing with the debris pattern is having the stern spiral on an orbit likely outside of its mass, and switching from facing down to level-ish, the water flowing around and probably into the stern would have been ripping parts off. So as the stern spirals and something comes off, it will then independantly be influenced by the water, and with the majority of debris being structural components, it wouldn't have the V shape of the bow or stern to make cutting through the water easy. And so the water would essencially hit the brakes on these sections, and so they fall roughly straight down as the stern continues to spiral. Another reason we know the stern was likely spiralling is the fact it is not pointing the same way as the bow, this can be justified by the spinning the stern did on the surface, but it is the furthest western section (outside of the starboard side well deck which likely was blown out when the stern hit the seabed).

But evidence of the flinging/ throwing of sections can be the fore tower which follow no pattern and is an anomoly to all the other debris, and even the aft tower, as the aft tower didn't come off the stern as it hit the seabed because it is on the opposite side, and it is upside down, again different from the other sections. So having the stern spiral and the aft tower having one side of the boat deck rip off first then followed by the other side soon after, and subsequently ripping out corridors a couple decks down, would have the sterns spiral momentum giving the aft tower a rotational element, it hitting the seabed somewhere past on its side and then one side of the boat deck plating digging into the seabed slightly and collapsing the other side down.

I can see that my ignorance of the other ships is showing. I was under the impression that the "mystery ship" was not the Californian, because one survivor said that they rowed their lifeboat toward it and never got any closer, and another survivor said that he saw a ship's light going by and disappearing away, so my impression was that the "mystery ship" was a moving vessel. Another person's account included equating the south side to the port side of the Titanic as they rowed aft. I need to go back to the drawing board regarding how the Titanic was oriented.

I can't follow the rest of your explanations. For example, pointing out that the stern half went from vertical when it plunged to "level-ish" when it hit bottom, that it was "falling by the front more than moving forward" (?), and guessing that stern gave the "aft tower a rotational element" (?) do not even hint that the stern was spinning. It's a non sequitir: it does not follow.

If you are changing your idea from the stern 'spinning' to instead 'spiraling', I can entertain that discussion, as I said in my first posting; but, as I said, there should be a trail of debris marking such a spiral path. There is no circular trail. And the fact that the stern is facing a certain direction tells us only that it turned an unknown number of degrees, which could mean less than 360. To assume that it turned 2 or 10 or any other large number of spins is pure conjecture.

It is impossible to fling or throw underwater, so those concepts cannot be used as the basis to theorize spinning or spiraling.

The thumbrule we should be using is this: any debris sitting where it makes sense is a positive, an 'aha!', a clue. Anything sitting where it is not expected to be is randomness, an exception, an unexplainable phenomenon. So if we see 5 boilers all within 500 feet of one another, we say, 'Aha! They diverge by only a few hundred feet horizontally during that long vertical descent.' And when we find the "forward tower" and "aft tower" in distant locations, all we can really say is that they got there for some hydrodynamic reason. You are probably on to something when you pointed out that the "towers" each had large holes through them (grand staircase, boiler casing, etc.), so maybe such passages acted like a giant thrust nozzle to create sideways force to keep the objects from simply going straight down as expected.

 

[POOLIEY]

I can see that my ignorance of the other ships is showing. I was under the impression that the "mystery ship" was not the Californian, because one survivor said that they rowed their lifeboat toward it and never got any closer, and another survivor said that he saw a ship's light going by and disappearing away, so my impression was that the "mystery ship" was a moving vessel. Another person's account included equating the south side to the port side of the Titanic as they rowed aft. I need to go back to the drawing board regarding how the Titanic was oriented.

I can't follow the rest of your explanations. For example, pointing out that the stern half went from vertical when it plunged to "level-ish" when it hit bottom, that it was "falling by the front more than moving forward" (?), and guessing that stern gave the "aft tower a rotational element" (?) do not even hint that the stern was spinning. It's a non sequitir: it does not follow.

If you are changing your idea from the stern 'spinning' to instead 'spiraling', I can entertain that discussion, as I said in my first posting; but, as I said, there should be a trail of debris marking such a spiral path. There is no circular trail. And the fact that the stern is facing a certain direction tells us only that it turned an unknown number of degrees, which could mean less than 360. To assume that it turned 2 or 10 or any other large number of spins is pure conjecture.

It is impossible to fling or throw underwater, so those concepts cannot be used as the basis to theorize spinning or spiraling.

The thumbrule we should be using is this: any debris sitting where it makes sense is a positive, an 'aha!', a clue. Anything sitting where it is not expected to be is randomness, an exception, an unexplainable phenomenon. So if we see 5 boilers all within 500 feet of one another, we say, 'Aha! They diverge by only a few hundred feet horizontally during that long vertical descent.' And when we find the "forward tower" and "aft tower" in distant locations, all we can really say is that they got there for some hydrodynamic reason. You are probably on to something when you pointed out that the "towers" each had large holes through them (grand staircase, boiler casing, etc.), so maybe such passages acted like a giant thrust nozzle to create sideways force to keep the objects from simply going straight down as expected.

I have always thought the stern spiralled around a point outside of its mass, spinning as well I guess can fit, but spiralling would likely be more of an appropriate adverb to use. I imagine people just use which ever word they think in that moment, or they look at older theorys that show the the stern spinning, which is unlikely because there is no momentum from the surface to seabed to indicate it was spinning on a point within its mass.

We know the stern went vertical just before it plunged based on testimony, so in the beginning stages of the descent the stern was break end down. This would force water into the stern which would build pressure as more water is going in than out, which will eventually blow out of any weak points. Plating buckled outwards by the break up wouldbe causing drag, and being would slowly be getting pealed back, with this drag, one side will have more than the other, which can flip the stern to rotate onto its side, where the shape of the stern would catch the water, and the shape of the fantail would create lift and subsequently level the stern. It is within this moment I suggest that the underside and the fore tower separated. Given that they are likely holding on to the stern loosely, it really was a matter of time before they come of.
But these sections based on everything we know about the stern at the surface has no reason to travel north east. Current is south and only at a couple knots, the ship was pointing north west, known by californians position and where the bow is today, so if it was to come off it would travel within that direction, but with the stern pivoting to port as it was vertical, that also doesn't help the idea of the fore tower being east, as the stern is facing the wrong way. So there had to be a different force to give the tower the initial direction of travel. The stuff in the debris field can be chopped down to coming off at different points during the descent, if the stern wasn't spiralling, then you would see a single curve path of the debris as the stern rotates to face SSW, you wouldn't have likely any of the debris in the north side of the debris field, especially the aft tower and port LP engine cylinder. As well as the double bottom and the fore tower sections being where they are, so at some point the stern would have levelled itself given how it is dug into the seabed, and a force to give the fore and double bottom sections that initiall directional momentum. It has to be early as the fore tower is very far from anything else, and has to be significant enough to give the tower enough force to travel the roughly 350 meters. The tower travelled further than the stern, obviously the stern is heavier, but with its aft end it is a lot more hydrodynamic, so it can travel further in whatever direction the stern has; as seen by the bow.

In the image, I roughly drew the path the bow took. But some evidence of things being thrown/ flung, is what it is in the green square. I have also added another image showing a mosaic of what it is. Seemingly bunker debris, likely from around the break up. And yet it is way out there, not as heavy as the fore tower, but it also has no explanation of how it got there. Best theory I can come with is that it was attached to the bow, and came off at some point, was caught in the bows slipstream for a short while to keep its speed, and then it move over to the north west. This piece would be counted as evidence that pieces can be "thrown" or experience an additional force to get it to where it is today. With the fore tower, I agree with your final statement that there was likely hydrodynamic stuff at play, but the tower would need the initial direction be sent where it is. With the sterns movements, the switch from going break end down to fantail down could possibly have given the momentum for the DB and fore tower to be sent north east. The tower debris continues further because it has less surfaces to cause drag, but eventually it stabilises and then just descends mostly straight down, with possibly some hydrodynamics moving it about slightly. The large hull sections, albeit smaller than the double bottom sections, are pretty much right under the hypocentre (having the hypocenter be more easy can help reduce the force needed to send the fore and DB sections, plus the hull sections that would have been at the break zone pealing off likely happened early given their closeness to the hypocenter. I have another theory that has the boilers roll out the port side of the ship at the break up, but that is another discussion). These pieces are essencially flat, with one piece being bent 90 degrees (evidence of pealing, or well, hard body pealing I guess) and they travelled mostly straight down, while the double bottom sections, being heavier and also pretty much flat, travelled far. So hydrodynamics work for some pieces, but not others. Meaning some other force would been to be given for them to travel north east, which was likely the same motion and force that sent the fore tower. The thrust nozzle would only work if the sections were in a similarly uniform shape, but given there is more of the starboard side on the fore tower than the port side, there would be a lot of uneven water flow. So I can't see any other way to have these sections in the place they are without an additional force/ movement to give them the initial direction of travel.

 

[PCash]

Just to add mud to the water.......

It is claimed that Titanic's stern could not have achieved a high angle (as stated by many survivors) prior to the break-up, because modern computer programs discount it.

Would this be the same programs which mimic the lean/movement of the Leaning Tower of Pisa? The electronic tower collapses after a lean of 5.44' yet the real tower still stands with a lean of 5.5'!

(see Antigravity in Pisa).

 

[Richard C Elliott]

It is claimed that Titanic's stern could not have achieved a high angle (as stated by many survivors) prior to the break-up, because modern computer programs discount it.

It doesn't take a computer program; it involves fairly elementary mechanical calculations. The problem is that the bending moment reaches a maximum somewhere between 10 and 20 degrees and after that it progressively gets less. If the ship doesn't break when the stress is at its greatest why should it break when the stress is easing off.

It is exactly the opposite of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The 'high angle break' theory is almost like suggesting that the tower would be more likely to collapse if you pushed it more upright!

 

[HugoGHA]

It doesn't take a computer program; it involves fairly elementary mechanical calculations. The problem is that the bending moment reaches a maximum somewhere between 10 and 20 degrees and after that it progressively gets less. If the ship doesn't break when the stress is at its greatest why should it break when the stress is easing off.

It is exactly the opposite of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The 'high angle break' theory is almost like suggesting that the tower would be more likely to collapse if you pushed it more upright!

The problem is that a number of survivors stated the ship rose high out of the water before breaking apart, some even specifying that it sank as far as the after funnel. Of course, it is likely that they exaggerated the angle, but nobody would confuse 15° for 60°.

 

[Mike Bull2019]

With survivor testimonies I think we sometimes have to factor in our tendency to take every word they say absolutely literally. Someone in a lifeboat could say 'high out of the water' but what did they actually see? We don't know. Many described the props being visible, some said they could see 'the keel'; things like that are more specific and tie in more with the 'experts' angle shown above.

As for the actual break up, I still lean towards the work of the late Roy Mengot more than anything else-

Breakup

(Old archived website- highlight page for ease of reading text)

I've always thought, the break up probably didn't look anything like any of us would expect! I think (not unlike the Mengot theory) that it was more like a crunching up of the middle of the ship, rather than one split and subsequent shedding of towers etc in the water column. Or to put it another way, I think all depictions of the event are far too neat and clean; I'm always intrigued by one survivor who described the ship as 'writhing'...it's just language again, but that was an interesting word to use.

 

[HugoGHA]

With survivor testimonies I think we sometimes have to factor in our tendency to take every word they say absolutely literally. Someone in a lifeboat could say 'high out of the water' but what did they actually see? We don't know. Many described the props being visible, some said they could see 'the keel'; things like that are more specific and tie in more with the 'experts' angle shown above.

As for the actual break up, I still lean towards the work of the late Roy Mengot more than anything else-

Breakup

(Old archived website- highlight page for ease of reading text)

I am aware that we should take survivor testimony with a pinch of salt, but I just it was worth noting the ship might have broken at a higher angle than what experts propose (more like 20–30°). I personally think the ship's breaking point would have been around here:

Regarding the breakup theory proposed by Roy Mengot, it is simply far too subtle at the surface. We have to remember it was a moonless night and that survivors' eyes hadn't adjusted to the darkness yet, so all they could see was a dark mass blocking the stars. Even then, several survivors saw the ship visibly break apart, they could see the broken end.

I believe the keel failed first and formed the sections we see on the debris field, but I also believe this was followd by a top-down breakup abeam of the third funnel, completely separating the stern from the bow. Since the bulkheads would be mangled, water would quickly flood the engine room and then rush into the turbine room, causing the stern to rise again.

 

[Mike Bull2019]

The eye adjustment thing may have been the case for some, but others had been floating about in lifeboats for a while and the ship's lights seemed to be dimming/reddening- as you say, plenty of people clearly saw what happened, it's just their varying ways of describing it later that lead us round in circles.

I broadly agree with you- keel first, then top. I just think the middle of the ship was far more crushed up in this process (for want of a better description) than in many/most depictions.

Mengot was cited as a reasonable stab at showing how the middle could have failed- and I especially like his description of the ship breaking being like bending a tube- bent in at the bottom, splayed out at the sides, finally tearing at the top- but it's just ballpark/posted for the interest of others.

 

[Bill Vanek]

The problem is that a number of survivors stated the ship rose high out of the water before breaking apart, some even specifying that it sank as far as the after funnel. Of course, it is likely that they exaggerated the angle, but nobody would confuse 15° for 60°.

View attachment 117272View attachment 117273

Survivors described 3 different rises of the stern (all at different angles), 2 major breaking sounds, 4 different plunges, and 2 upward movements of the bow (not to be confused with stern rises). So there was not a single break at one angle.

The rises, breakings, and plunges can be arranged this way:
1. Ship’s bridge plunging under is the final part of the 2-hour 1st stern rise, at a low angle (just beyond 10 degrees). That plunge causes the list to go from port to an even keel, contributing to the "wave" of water coursing up the starboard side quickly.
2. First breaking at keel and superstructure: stern moves downward, causing bow to rise UP a little.
3. The Big Plunge down to the 4th funnel, including the two forward funnels falling, the high-angle (something over 45 degrees) rise of stern (2nd rise), and all lights going out.
4. Second breaking: ship bobs UP (backwards) so that aft end of bow is seen again as stern crunches down almost level; it takes 15-20 seconds; bow seen tearing away and plunging down.
5. Stern floats horizontally for minutes, tips up almost perpendicular (3rd rise), turns, then plunges down.
All of these actions are supported by multiple corroborating testimonies (see attachment).

It's not an "either/or" question of a single angle. It was "both/and": both a low-angle first break and a high-angle final break.

 

[Mike Bull2019]

Survivors described 3 different rises of the stern (all at different angles), 2 major breaking sounds, 4 different plunges, and 2 upward movements of the bow (not to be confused with stern rises). So there was not a single break at one angle.

...or, they all described the same thing but in wildly different ways due to viewpoint, visibility, comprehension, and ability to later express what they had seen. I think you've taken them all too literally and have come up with a scenario of the ship bobbing up and down(!) that tries to treat them all as separate movements.

 

[Bill Vanek]

...or, they all described the same thing but in wildly different ways due to viewpoint, visibility, comprehension, and ability to later express what they had seen. I think you've taken them all too literally and have come up with a scenario of the ship bobbing up and down(!) that tries to treat them all as separate movements.

Actually, no. As a result of the 4 different Failure Analysis courses that I attended, the 30 years of doing failure analysis on mechanical, electrical, and electronic failures in production plants, and 45 years of studying the Bible, I've become pretty good at distinguishing wording as literal or not. I also have the hands-on experience to back up my academic learning: 4.5 years on a submarine, both at sea and in the shipyard; and numerous experiences by the time I was 12 years old that taught me about the physics of buoyancy, balance, etc.; and much involvement with setting up tests to find facts, which helped me a lot when I tested my Titanic model in my hot tub.

You're overlooking three things that back me up. One is corroboration, which I previously mentioned. When multiple people describe the same thing, it increases the certainty that it happened. (That's your 'sameness' argument, applied properly.) Second, the flipside of corroboration is difference, or differentiation. If someone says that the ship came up, and someone else says that the ship went down, they're not talking about the same event, because you can't confuse up versus down. And third, there is the time element. When people say that X happened, followed by Y, there is linkage between events. Timing is the thing that witnesses often get wrong, so you need a lot of experience and skill to work through what is right and what isn't. An example is the Titanic's lights going out: a dozen people said that the lights went out right before the bigger of the two "explosions", and one or possibly two said that the lights went out just after it. The corroboration among so many people tells us that the lights went out before the second breaking, and that the outlier testimony was wrong in its timing. Timing is what links events, just as colors and shapes link puzzle pieces together. There are a lot of similarities between failure analysis and putting puzzles together. Besides working puzzles, I have also read and watched many ship and airplane failure documentaries, and watched numerous murder mysteries, to learn how things fit together to tell the real story. And with the Titanic, there is a real story that can be found; it is not true that "we'll never know."

Taking things literally is the mistake that most Titanic fans commit, and which I took pains to avoid. For example, if you take Mrs. Ryerson's observation that "she seemed to break in half as if cut with a knife" together with Richard Norris Williams' comment, "Then, with explosions, the ship seemed to break in two, and the forward end bounded up again for an instant," you would think that the ship parted. But you add in Jack Thayer's astute description which said it was "the whole superstructure" that split, and knowing that all three of these people were talking about the first plunge (the beginning of the breakup), you realize that they were mostly right about what they heard, half right about what they saw, and wrong to think that the whole ship parted at that time. And then, in hindsight, you understand that Ryerson's and Williams' use of the word seemed is an important word in her tale: they were basically admitting that they didn't quite understand what was going on.

Finally, the physics of the sequence that I described makes perfect sense. A ship that finally loses enough buoyancy to sink (going from "settling" to "foundering", which are the nautical terms) will plunge into the water, overshoot its remaining buoyancy due to momentum, bob up somewhat due to how buoyancy works, and soon flood and sink. The Titanic interrupted this straightforward, understandable sequence with two breakings that came due to the first two risings and which caused stern drops in each instance. The free-floating stern half then displayed what the entire ship would have done if it hadn't broken twice.

Re-read the quotations that I grouped together while considering corroboration, differentiation, and timing, and you'll see that they tell the story plainly.