Yeah, several people described it like thunder.

@@Wolfric_Rogers or a freight train

@@sp1n4l_sn4p, yes, that is similar to Jack Thayer's description.

Surprisingly, nobody who was on the poop deck at the time (Thomas Patrick Dillon, Frank Prentice and possibly Charles Joughin) said anything about the sound that the ship made as is broke apart. The closest thing to that was Joughin's remark about hearing iron buckle while standing under the aft expansion joint at some point before heading aft.

@@Wolfric_Rogers ah, infact, it makes it more scariet to be honest.

As did Dr. Wacky...

Same

Well fuck. MAKE A V3!!

@@jenniferphillips919 LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

@@Wolfric_Rogers hello I made a theory,about it ,although mine was lazily done in FlipaClip as I don’t have a professional software ,but it would be neat if u featured mine maybe on the next one ,thanks,Kit Kat107

Hi TA, sad to hear that you weren't satisfied with your animation, but I'm excited to see your new theory in 2023!

2022 ! titanIc !!:) :) p

2012 !56🚢

Bro your animation is better than my entire existants

Yeah I noticed that too!

unless the boilers that exploded were in boiler room 3 or 4 which are not exposed. only 1s which are on the ocean floor and 2s which are in the bow section and exploded. the collapse of funnel 2 is supposedly why people think their was a boiler explosion and that was in 3 or 4s room.

That or due to the boilers exploding in the small parts that would be left from the boiler had decomposed over time

This may be true, but I do still believe that the titanic broke underneath the 3rd funnel or just after it witch caused a small boiler explosion. My theory is also backed up by survivor testimonies.

I think the explosions people heard were just the ship breaking up, because all boilers were put out so I don't get how they would have blown up.

@@THEMENPRODUCTIONS True, but they would have definitely still been hot. A rush of cold water against the hot steel of the boilers could crack them. Not sure if they would explode though, because as you said, they were already put out. All of the steam was vented at that time as well, right?

Nice! Your Theory is very cool!

“*buckle*” -Crunch Bandicoot 2022

Btw how yo make that sinking test

2:36 THE theory worse than arron1912's v break

​@@walterhardwellwhite68419theories shouldn't be cool

I think the stern would’ve started to instantly drop forward due to the sheer weight of the triple expansion engines.

The giant engines would have INSTANTLY caused a weight inbalance, leaving the stern to be pulled down by the head. Not to mention the break caused many watertight seals and bulkheads to break and twist, leaving them open for water to enter.

@@toranziancentralnetwork According to the sources of this theory, the air in the still unsubmerged aft compartments caused the ship to hold for 10-15 minutes like a plug until at some point it began to flood, also the rear half was in a vertical shape and this ensured the ship's frontal balance.

Didn't the weight of the boilers pull her down?

@@Williamslamaeiland boilers were ripped out.

Testimonies of some still recalled having lights on after the break, those were the emergency dynamos, or lights, they would stay on for 30s or even a Minute

There was still residual pressure within the system as it doesn't all escape at once unlike compressed air and the dynamos would have retained some spin for a short period of time allowing for the lights to slowly dim off rather than going off all at once. In some rare instances modern systems have acted the same as the case was with the big quake in Japan back in 2011 where parts of the grid went out of synch then gradually flickered out and one can still find videos of this happening here on YT usually from around the Sendai area.

imagine them thinking of a way to convince people the ship was powered to the end

they probably did it was just very faint

I know! Why would the lights be on after Titanic snapped in two?

Give this man more likes for timestaping the breakups edit:my wish came true

@@unknownmanmoment6174 Took me about 1 hour and 58 minutes to do this

I think a under water break is a good one

@@moonhidoraqueenofthemonste3268absolutely not survivors described seeing it break like James Cameron’s version

@@f4uawesome687proof?

Ok.

It says zig-zag break

It's just a small error, besides i didn't notice that.

2:42 i love how the music synced with the flickering lights

I think the reason people didn’t think it split was because it was so dark. It was a moonless night and the sea was so calm that you couldn’t see anything other than the stars, the lights of the ship, and the reflection of both in the water. Since the power went out only a few moments before the break-up, the survivors would also be subject to night blindness for a minute or two, and the ship would have broke by then. The people say that they heard a boiler explosion, but many people believe that they were only hearing the hull and superstructure fail and come apart. You do have a good point, but I also don’t think the structure would fail at that angle.

I believe the weight of the titanic on the back end is just far to great. The fact all that water is holding down the front and the back being lifted out of the water causes far too much weight displacement. I believe the low angle split happened just that, because it was a low angle split and just tore at the first sign of overload on the back.

@@GenericOceanLinerHistorian but there was a lot of people who sworn to have seen the ship split in two, so the break up must be at least visible

@@elyisusking3603 I believe what most people saw was the outline of the ship breaking apart through the stars, since you’d be able to see the black mass that was the ship cover up stars as the stern fell down. I recommend you watch Ocean Liner Design’s video titled ‘What did Titanic’s Break Up Really Look Like?’, it shows pretty clearly what I mean if you didn’t understand what I said. Not a very easy thing to put into words lol

​@theolympicclassdude5452 Charles Lightoller said the ship looked like just a giant black mass

Yes

almost like a bomb

Yes

same with the parks stephenson one

Good point.

@jenniferphillips919 I know it had uses. I was just trying to prove a point

This is simultaneously true and false. The fourth funnel didn't vent steam from the boilers, this is true. It was used to vent steam from the kitchens and galleys, as well as being used as a chimney for the only actual fireplace on the ship. It was stated by several passengers, however, that some lights remained on during and even after the breakup. This likely signifies that someone had started the emergency dynamos under the fourth funnel (it's other use was as an air vent for the engine room), which could run on less steam than the ship's main engines and so likely did keep certain lights burning until the very end. There was also the oil lantern on the ship's mainmast that likely didn't go out until it was submerged. So certain lights, especially dim deck lights, staying on is actually probably accurate.

Actually, a Madagascar Christmas special.

@@Wolfric_Rogers it premiered with a Madagascar movie that I have

I for some reason want to go with James Cameron’s theory. To me that just seems like the most plausible. At least it’s better than Aaron1912

@@therealspeedwagon1451 u talking about the movie ?? I believe it’s totally wrong , the break up location is located right in front or underneath the 3rd funnel since the bow wreck ain’t long enough to fit 3rd funnel , the angle is also wrong 😑, the movie made it looks like 75 degree 📜 which is way too much for the hull, his 2012 new theory it is close but based on the break line of the aft bow , the mangled twisted steel doesn’t show clean break , it looked like the titanic bent heavily before break up , which in pitch black night not so many saw that .

@@midokhalil1558 I thought the angle for the ship sinking was 45 degrees Then again, some theories claimed the break was at a shallower angle at 11 degrees...

@@jacobaldrich1534 the ship was sinking , the stress point kept changing or moving aft let’s say , it is possible she could have reached 45 and besides the eye witnesses accounts I always put them first , u see when they said it broke in two everyone said it is impossible and it turned out to be possible

@@therealspeedwagon1451 Which exactly. This at 1995 or the other at 2012?

Thanks!

It split in 4 so James Cameron is so wrong

@@JesseSoUwU cap

@@cindyagarcia87 it’s not cap, it’s the truth and accurate

@@JesseSoUwU top can't

Oh actually nevermind, I thought you meant something else, you’re right

@@MB-us2rs, yeah, I meant that that somehow fell to different sides of the ship.

@@Wolfric_Rogers yeah what you said makes sense, the 3rd funnel fell on a *kinda* wierd direction

"Stressed due to the break up" Hahaha

@@Heythebrodyboy its a stupid comment

if this were really the case, then it would be easy to understand why the survivors did not mention the breakup.

@@TRealAragornTE as much as I agree, you can see more lifeboats further in the background, no way they didn't notice the breakup

I belobe it was at 30 degrees, snapped behind the 3rd funnel, but also in front of the third funnel, resulting in three bits

Yup exactly which is why you find three parts of the ship

That’s an interesting theory. There are many different theories about how the Titanic broke up and it’s possible that we may never know exactly what happened. Do you have any evidence to support your theory?

The 4th funnel never fell

The james cameron angle is to extreme

1:38 is so unrealistic 💀

How would anyone have seen the breakup.

​@@pattycakesyand so is the underwater breakup BC nobody would have seen it break in half.

Thank you, I will! 😁

No worries mate 🙂

3:59 the 3rd funnel has no front support,so it fell

Umm... ok?

@@Nobody-dz3gj I meant to put it somewhere else,sorry

Alright, np.

@@Nobody-dz3gj it’s good

Same!

Same, because I think that an survivor testimony said that the stern being almost vertical, it looked like an black thumb pointing to the night sky

Yes really correct

Showoffs

Jack Thayer claimed it had broken in half. And then ocean explorers also had confirmed that it did break in half. And they also confirmed that it broke in-between the 3rd and 4th funnel, not the 2nd and 3rd

Never realized how many were in this.

Lol

Wow I cannot believe you made

Nice animation you used for it love that the lights have a deep orange/ red colour as claimed by people during the last ten fithteen minutes of the sinking

Aft tower should detach from the stern underwater.In the wreck that part is close to the stern.Which means it was last thing to detach from the stern.While Forwars tower is so far.The only way it could end up being there that it detached on surface.

Your mistake is revealed by "The keel fails in the same place as everyone says it did, the hull then fails as well, due to the stress from the unsupported weight". The hull failed first at an expansion joint. All ships of any substantial length are built with expansion joints to allow for slight movement in rough seas, otherwise ships would be breaking apart at an alarming rate. They also have weak spots where large open areas are built. The keel, by design, is the sturdiest part of the ship. It is it's backbone. No ship whose keel is compromised will last for very long. The weight of the unsupported stern section as it rose out of the water caused the expansion joint to have pressure put on it in a manner it was not designed to handle. Once the failure began there was no stopping it. The keel itself failed when it could no longer support both the unsupported stern and the combined weight of the now fully flooded bow section trying to drag the still buoyant stern down with it. Estimates are that the fully flooded bow section weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 90,000 tons. More than the entire weight of the unflooded Titanic itself. Naturally, neither one of us was there to see it. That is why I prefer to use science, physics, and some knowledge of how ships of this size are constructed.

@@garygemmell3488 I'm not sure if this is implying a James Cameron style split, but the keel, while very sturdy and designed to not violently implode, is not meant to have the strength to pull essentially a third of an ocean liner while bent at such a sharp angle. I think the expansion joints went first, but the sudden bending of the hull due to loss of structure would cause a massive spike of weight (similar to how dropping something on a scale causes it to read much heavier initially), enough to crumple the keel or dramatically send parts of it into the ship. That would leave something like B deck pulling the stern down, which to me sounds a bit more reasonable.

@@3_Circles The only way to know for sure, short of actually being there at the time, would be to examine the both halves of the ship where the keel came apart. That will probably not happen in my lifetime. The exposed keel sections are buried in the silt and exposing them would be a herculean task. The keel is not made of one long section, but a series of smaller, reinforced sections riveted and\or welded together. When it snapped it probably did not do so cleanly. Steel is meant to flex and regain it's shape, but when it is stressed beyond it's breaking point it can take on some really weird shapes. Sometimes it will snap relatively cleanly, other times it will tear and leave jagged edges, and sometimes both will happen. The two things I believe happened is that the bow broke free when the hull rupture reached the keel and that the stern came back on an even keel and then went down. Exactly how it happened and how long it took is a matter of conjecture. I've never been one to come up with a theory and then try to make the facts fit the theory like so many of these "experts" try to do.

@@garygemmell3488 These theories came out because Roy Mengot, a historian, disproved James Cameron's theory and then made a theory of his own, which is the backbone of all these theories. Since Roy Mengot's theory does not perfectly align with eyewitnesses, these theories were formed to attempt to correct his theory.

Also 3:51 is perfect timing with the music

its bc the ship’s steel could not support the excess amount of weight and at a certain point it broke up with the bow (never know it was in a relationship)

@@traindude432 due to the fact that there were so many metal that materially stressed,most of the connections (top to bottom break is double hull, bottom to top is aft tower) broke (the double hull would likely break 10 seconds after the initial breakup itself while the aft tower breaks connection from the bow and falls 5 seconds later from the stern) and the bow sunk to the bottom The stern was pulled when the double hull was still attached which led it sinking likely a minute later, in 30 seconds or 2 whole minutes. If the connecting parts broke off immediately the stern would float more time,

not exactly there bud.

Only cuz it was darker than dark ever has been. It was a moonless night, stars were barely blooming, only a few lights were on, and those that were on were very dim. It was very dramatic

I am pretty sure only one survivor said it was how it was in movies, I honestly believe that it broke when fully submerged or it v split.

I mean, the only theory missing is the least plausible out of all of them (aarons v breaks)

@@thegamingteen44mc5 he intentionally didn't put V-Break to avoid everyone talking about it, and because Aaron doesn't do anymore Titanic stuff, but doesn't work anyways.

It aint complete without aarons theory doe xd I dont support his theory

The sparks would still not be very visible

That's an interesting theory. It sounds like you are talking about the sinking of the Titanic, which happened on April 15, 1912, after it struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic Ocean³. There is a lot of debate and controversy about how exactly the ship broke apart and sank. Some witnesses said they heard a loud bang before or during the breakup², while others did not. Some experts think that the ship split between the third and fourth funnels⁴⁵⁶, while others think it split between the second and third funnels⁷. The discovery of the wreck in 1985 showed that the ship broke into two main pieces, but there were also many smaller fragments scattered around⁴. Here is my own theory based on some of the evidence: The Titanic was traveling too fast for the icy conditions and did not have enough time to avoid the iceberg. The collision caused a series of small holes along the starboard side of the ship, flooding six of its sixteen watertight compartments. The ship began to tilt forward and to starboard as more water poured in. The crew tried to launch as many lifeboats as possible, but there were not enough for everyone on board. As the bow section sank deeper into the water, it put enormous stress on the hull and deck plating. The ship buckled and split near the aft expansion joint, between the third and fourth funnels. The bow section detached and plunged to the bottom, dragging down some of the debris with it. The stern section briefly rose up in the air before settling back into a horizontal position. It then began to flood rapidly from both ends, causing it to tilt backwards and to port. The remaining funnels collapsed one by one as the stern section twisted and tore apart. It finally sank in a corkscrew motion, leaving behind a trail of wreckage. That's my theory, but I could be wrong. What do you think? S

I hope you understand that I'm not trying to talk trash about these theories.

@@Wolfric_Rogers Ikr this!

It's not actually. Titanic's boilers are intact on the wreck.

@@GamePlayerZ1912 There couldve been some left open.

I think is you looks at some of the boilers they look Bent inward or deformed But idk People heard shit go boom that night several times

​@@johndetheshape3095 they were probably hearing the steel beams snapping within the ship

​@@johndetheshape3095they likely implode but we didn't find every boiler of Room No. 1 so it is not impossible.

The boiler explosion and the 2012 miniseries do aswell

@@stuiep1983 yea

@@stuiep1983 and the 4th funnel falling in titanic animation's theory

Bruh

aaron1912 v-break was not included in this vid

@Totallynotsomeblackiconguybutmynameisnothingthheje good grammer

​@@ghosty3034grammar*

But it is quite possible that it will not be found now. (it could have been deleted or hidden) (in the history for 1.11.2020 - 12/31/2022 I did not find it, but at the same time I found deleted / hidden videos).

They wouldn't have lasted more than a minute.

@@Wolfric_Rogers at least they lasted 30 seconds

The two sections that make up the area just in front of the third funnel to just in front of the fourth funnel have been located and are quite far from each other.

@@Wolfric_Rogers *three actually

@@Wolfric_Rogers because the middle bit where the third funnel was detached from the bow when it was plummeting

@@Potato_power12 its not confirmed if ship breaked in 3 sections or 2 sections

Are you talking about the 'Jack Thayer' V-break sketch that was actually drawn by a Carpathia passenger? In terms of the zig-zag theory, a survivor did actually draw a zig-zag when she described the breakup, her name was Robertha Watt.

@@Wolfric_Rogers get 20 eyewitnesses to an incident and you'll get 20 accounts of what happened

Yes, but Thomas Patrick Dillon said that fell aft when the stern was rising again and said that it bobbed up in the water and broke off. Nobody saw the fourth fall when the stern righted.

The 4th funnel was built very differently from the 3rd funnel. It was built much stronger and the guy wires were only their to help with Stability. None of the Titanic's funnels fell because of the guy wires snapping. The wires snapped because the funnels were falling. Even if the deckhouse formed, which I think it did due to Fred Scott's Testimony, it would snap nearly all guy wires but based on my research, due to its design and how well built it was (that the funnels probably fell partially submerged but based on my research, only 40%) it wouldn't fall. Their is also evidence of this on the wreck, if it fell, the deckhouse would have been crushed and mangled. However, it isn't, so that would help suggest that it fell late. The damage to the first class smoking room was probably caused by the implosion. Unless the stern crashed back into the water, then the 4th funnel falling would be quite unrealistic. I doubt it even fell at the surface. If it fell at the surface, it would end up further from the stern but it is quite near to the stern so it probably would have disintegrated during the descent. It was built quite strongly so it couldn't have fallen unless the stern crashed back. It would require less force than the mast so if it fell, the mast would have fallen. While the 4th funnel was fake, it was quite structurally stable. Plenty of survivors said it stood long after break. These include Jack Thayer, Ida Hippach, Edward Buley, George Crowe, Samuel Rule, George Symons, Frank Evans, Fredrick Hoyt, Thomas Dillon, Ruth Becker, Patrick Dillon, Thomas Ranger, and John Collins. If it falls during or after break, it dismisses countless survivors. For example, Jack Thayer literally said that he saw the fourth funnel in the water still standing as the stern rose up.Ida Hippach and Edward Buley said that they watched the remaining funnel for several minutes.Thomas Dillon said that the funnel didn't fall until the ship actually went down.George Crowe, when asked, said that it remained standing after the stern floated back.John Collins said it was still visible when the ship turned over and went down. The reason everyone says it did was because it was shown in several popular theories. While scources like OASAG are great scources in my opninion, they went with the funnel collapse in break as it is the general consensus of what happened. Apologies for any offense, no offense meant.

Indeed, they even broke-up several times 😔🤞

The bow was on a relationship with stern.

lol i was gonna say this 🗿

@@BimDaTitanicNerd Divorce.

That 10 dollar budget

​@@could_possiblybe_thane07echo 34 cent*

it’s made for artistic purposes

@@ThatIsALakeSir wdym by that

@@could_possiblybe_thane07echo it was made for illustrative purposes not analytic purposes

Actually most people asked about the break up DID say it broke up. I think 20 people were directly asked if the ship broke in 2 and 16 of them said yes. So I think you may want to amend your statement that says amongst survivors most people said the ship did not break. It's actually the opposite.

that would explain why there were some lights on after the breakup...

well actually there r three parts of the ship at the ocean floor because when the third funnel collapsed it pulled down a chunk of the stern