Decided to make a comment which answers a lot of questions I get. Q: Why don't we just go off what survivors say? A: That's what some of these theories do. Also, basically every survivor contradicted each other due to the darkness and position at which they are located when the ship broke. This makes it difficult to account for some of them. Q: What are towers? You mean funnels? A: The "Towers," which are mentioned frequently in the video are chunks of superstructure which are called the "forward and aft" towers. The forward tower is the chunk located where the third funnel is. The aft is directly behind it, although slightly smaller. Q: Why did you not include the V-Break? A: I simply just don't like to talk or animate much about it for no reason at all really. Q: Why do people care so much about this stupid topic? Why does it matter? A: It is simply a tragedy that we the community enjoy to research and learn about. It's an interesting topic in our opinions. It's like how people obsess over video games or books. Q: Your theory is wrong because you have the engine fall out and they are still on the wreck today! A: I should've used my words correctly while editing, but only the forward cylinders are not in the stern. They are scattered in the debris field. The rest of the engines are still in the stern. Q: They are just the same theory! A: No they are not. In fact, they are all quite different. I mean, look at the first theory, and then look at mine (or basically any other theory) and it will look different. If you need to ask any questions, ask them here.

"If I had a time machine I'd travel back to the night of the Titanic sinking" "To stop it?" "No to see exactly how it sank"

So sad to think that all of these ships sank in quick succession, just a few hundred yards apart.

I was really hoping the last one would be something ridiculous like the Bigfoot Theory and you'd animate a huge monster truck speeding across the water and barreling through the ship.

I like the last theory too. One witness said her mother was covering her eyes, but then took her hand away and said, "Oh look, the ship's righting itself." I presume that was the aft section becoming more level after the front part broke off. If it was a really obvious break like in the 1997 movie, nobody would think that.

A moment of silence for the brave engineers that kept the lights on. Straight up heroes.

Meanwhile no one in 1912 cared to record the sinking on their cellphones, not even for the memes.

Structure was never strong enough to support Cameron's 95 theory. Made for some great scenes in the movie though..

The use of Satie's Gymnopedie # 1 is VERY effective.

I strongly agree with your theory as well, arguably the best I’ve ever seen. I used to study a lot about the Titanic as a kid many years ago and I recall many stories from people stating that when the stern section broke off, it appeared to float by itself for a brief while and some thought that the stern may be able to stay afloat independently for longer than expected. Those stories don't match any of the earlier theories where the stern is at a high angle and/or where the stern comes crashing down and quickly sinks. I've always found it very odd that even though we had hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the wreck, the theories most commonly accepted don't match how many of the survivors described it. Fantastic video

I think the transition moments can be shorter, and the animation moments can last a bit longer to see the boat sink. Otherwise, great vid!

The last one (your theory) is also mine. If you search on google, you will find a page with the testimonies of all the people who saw the break (not only the ones interviewed in the two trials), a lot of female passengers for instance. I strongly believe that the break didn’t occur underwater because a witness said that he could see the stern floating alone with no front part of the ship ahead of it. What is sure is that the lights went out few seconds before the break but not all of them : some security lights that didn’t depend on the engines remained perfectly still until the end on the stern. Some sparks came up between the bow and the stern. There were few rumbling / roaring sounds and little explosions that sounded like distant thunders and finally the stern went down almost vertical (unlike the film where it sunk completely vertical), keeling over (as it was stated by Eva Hart).

I think the most probably theory came from Cameron's 20 year anniversary film where they do experiments on the sinking. Models kept showing that the double bottom held the 2 sections together when they split apart at the water and the bow pulled the stern more under till they broke apart. That's why the double bottom is separate from the rest of the wreck cause itself was 1 of 3 parts of the break up.

I honestly didn't expect to see that you have so few subscribers. Of course, I'm not an expert, but I get the impression that you took the time to research, which definitely deserves a like. And of course your own theory is very good in my opinion

This deserves more likes and views for all the research and time put into this

I feel like the break up was a lot more subtle than a lot of people think

Such a calm song to what killed 1500 people

the sea of glass theory and your theory make the most sense to me. i also find them to be the most accurate of any other

From what I've researched (and bear in mind I haven't done a deep dive (no pun intended) in several years) there seems to be a reoccurring testimony that the stern of the ship, when the ship broke, actually refloated and almost leveled out, to the point in which several onboard proclaimed she (referring to Titanic's stern) would remain afloat. It didn't last long, as the rear quickly flooded and eventually slipped to the bottom. (I remember one source saying that the stern rose as high as 90 degrees at one point before it made the final plunge, but I think that's unlikely. Perhaps it _did_ rise high enough to expose the propellers, but I think such an extreme angle is massive exaggeration.) Bottom line: I think your theory holds up.

Still not as devastating as my last breakup.

This is fascinating. Somehow I never knew there were multiple theories on the Titanic breakup. Great vid!

great vid, appreciate the effort

Your theory looks the most real for me :)

Now that was a very good theory you created, taking evidence from survivor Jack Thayer and the layout of the wreck❤

The problem with the last one is the third funnel hole was discovered to be still attached to the bow when the wreck was discovered in 1985. It has since disappeared from the bow due to the slow deterioration of the wreck by metal eating microrganisms.

Awesome video! I'd really like to see the rest of the sinking though, showing how the stern went up in the air as the survivors affirmed

Great video, thanks!

now THIS is a video that sparks my interest

I thought I was going to have more of a opinion on this but the music soothed me into just watching

I didn't know there were so many theories on how the ship broke. I may replay the Titanic VR experience to see which theory it adopted (if I can). There's a feature where you witness the Titanic sinking from the perspective of one of the survivors. It was intended to be educational, and it was released in 2018.

Tamity your theory is probably the most correct!

I'm a fan of a combo of the bob Ballard theory of course at a shorter angle, the double bottom attachment and the sea of glass, but yours was quite well thought out and I have no issues with it

Your theory is good. Makes the break subtle, it is the most realistic break up for me.

park stephenson's theory makes visual sense, now if it is physically possible I think it would be worth studying the physics of water inside a ship of this size

This was a great video, you just earned a subscriber

Damn, titanic, if you need anything I’m here for you. Just remember, there’s more fish in the sea. You deserve better

great video

this is gonna be awesome

Great video you just did.

These are all surprisingly similar, at least visually. I would tend to believe results based on accurate finite element simulation. More detailed explanation of the differences would be appreciated.

This, in a weird way, summarizes most of the world's interpretations of a given religion.

Mistake: On A Sea Of Glass was not the first theory with towers showcased in a real time.

I think your theory and James Cameron theory make perfect sense. But hey, thats just a theory, a Titanic theory.

Much appreaciated that you didn't add the infamous "freak of nature, defying laws of physics and gravity" one with these. It's just a joke, nothing else.

Both of Jame’s theories are ones I can get with

Great animation

Prayers to both of them

Yours was the best❤

Respect to all the titanics they sunk in this video to reproduce each theory

It was actually the Kraken that split the titanic by using both of it’s tentacles to drop pressure on the bow and stern which caused the ship to snap.

Personally I subscribe to the Roy Mengot breakup theory. Very good animations by the way!

this is very impressive for a channel thats not at 1k

Not one theory truly exposed the propeller enough to have "Propeller Guy" fall into it and make the ✨ping sound as detected in other videos.

Ugh... Even animations of the titanic sinking send a shiver down my spine...

There's no way that ship could've stood that high up out of the water like in the 1985 theory and Cameron's theory from the movie. There's no way it was strong enough to get that high. Made for a good movie though.

VERY GOOD

Wow who would have thought that the oceanographer/engineer who spent a lifetime looking for the wreck had more of a sound basis for speculating the nature of how the wreck broke apart than the guy who decided on a whim to put a Hollywood spin on a maritime tragedy.

I love it

Every mainstream feature length film made of Titanic depicts the most accurate information available at the time of filming. Every film before the 1997 depicts the Titanic sinking in one piece because that's what 'most' people thought at the time. It wasn't until the wreck was discovered that they realized Jack Thayer was right. At the same time, the Cameron film depicted the steep incline at the time of break up because that's what the theory of the time suggested. It's only later, when new archaeological information come to light, that it seems less accurate.

Either way a ship of that size was never designed to have so much pressure pinpointed at one section, and so as the bow goes down you have a literal pivot point putting huge pressure on the ship from the top of the deck to the keel. It's insane to think about.

Great vid. I’m still inclined towards the stern bobbing theory over a relatively horizontal sinking, though your presentation is compelling and definitely addresses the issues with Cameron’s second theory. The thing is that I just don’t believe so many different witnesses would have said “90 degrees”/“perpendicular” unless the stern was truly close to perpendicular with the water. Only a small number of witnesses described a 45 degree angle - I would guess the ‘final plunge’ happened so quickly and was so awful to hear/see, that the last thing they remember in recalling the event is the 45 degree angle that started the final plunge. However, I do think you’re onto something. Perhaps a much smaller section of the stern than originally thought bobbed at 90 deg., and it was provided by a roll to the side?

I hope the titanic gets through these breakups they seem so harsh to them

They estimated the bow section once broken, free of the stern, took about 10 minutes to go the 2.4 miles to the ocean floor.

These theories are from folks with no real understanding of the forces acting on a sinking ship. The entire time a ship remains at the surface, she is displacing enough water to match her entire weight and everything on board. Titanic normally displaced around 35 feet of water. That’s 35 feet of dry hull below sea level. As she takes on water, she literally has to have one additional cubic meter of dry space for every ton of water she takes on. ( that is, if she took on 35 feet of water throughout the ship, she would weight TWICE as much and she would need to have 70 feet of dry hull beneath sea level to hold her weight plus the weight of flooding at the surface of the ocean.) By the time the bridge was under water, she still had several decks of dry space in her forward half, under the surface. Not filling much past the top of the bulkheads because the water inside the ship was spilling down into the next compartment, one after the other, but those dry decks under water still providing just enough buoyancy to keep her at the surface. The stern did not lift much out of the water until she started to break, and she broke because as her aft half was entirely dry and being pulled deeper in the water Her stern was being pushed UP by buoyancy with more than twice the weight of the entire ship. The idea that the stern broke off Down from its own dry weight in the air is ludicrous. Her stern portion weighed only 30,000 tons. Just before she broke, buoyancy was pushing the stern UP with around 100,000 tons of force. The weight of her stern was negligible compared to the buoyancy required to hold the flooding ship at the surface Thayer’s account was correct in every detail. Her stern only lifted a little out of the water initially. It was being dragged deeper to compensate for her increasing weight. The Flat bottom separated below the expansion joint in Tension. This is proven by the fact that this 20 foot by 90 foot section was found on the sea bottom, UNBENT, along with the last row of half-boilers. As she broke, the stern slowly lifted out of the water as the superstructure above the break began to crumple and crush against each other. As it parted it allowed the last row of half-boilers to spill out and water to flood into the formerly dry engine room and last boiler room, as well as the upper decks that were still dry at this point, even tho forward they were already below sea level. ( all of this occurred under the water’s surface.) This sudden increase in weight in the formerly dry area that had been helping hold the ship up saw the middle of the ship drop lower, and the bow briefly re-surfaced. But with water now flooding in the entire area of the break amidships, the dry areas under water in the bow quickly flooded and with the last of the side strakes broken, her bow section bent back down and tore away, which dropped the stern back down, and slowly spun it 180 degrees and the weight of her engines and flooding into the breaks gradually brought her stern vertical. The bow 3/5ths sank slightly bow down, planing away a good distance from the spot where the half boilers dropped. It hit the bottom at exactly the angle her bow still sits, and the weight of the rest of her, filled with more than her weight of water, buckled the hull just at the bridge superstructure and from there back she settled more or less level. The stern, once submerged and purged of most air re-oriented upright ( as most sinking ships do if they sink in deep enough water) It sank nearly level, the lower drag of the rudder and rounded fantail offset by the massive weight of her engines. As she hit bottom, dead level, she was moving perhaps 30 mph, and so was the mass of water inside of her. The yawning maw of the opened engine room was exposed, and most of the decks above that space crushed when she folded in breaking. Offering no real structural support. When she hit, her damaged superstructure flattened considerably, the water inside her blew her sides outwards like a bomb, disturbing the bottom for a large area around her impact. Despite conflicting accounts of her going down in one piece, Thayer’s eyewitness account perfectly predicted how she would be oriented and the pattern of damage that would be found when Ballard discovered the wreck. Thayer said she broke DOWN in the middle and THAT is what tipped the stern out of the water the first time, and that her bow breaking away is what caused the stern to drop back down, and then SPIN 180 degrees as she tipped back up to near vertical. She was found with her stern facing the exact direction he described. She had a wedge of damage to her superstructure that is entirely consistent with her stern and bow folding UP. And her double hull section found on the bottom shows no sign at all of bending. It HAD to have been Pulled apart endwise. The greatest force acting on the stern as she took on water was the ever increasing force of buoyancy required to hold her at the surface. 3 to 4 times the weight of her stern, dry. Thayer’s account is the only trustworthy account of the sinking.

I still vividly remember the proposal History channel's "Missing Pieces" documentary made after the discovery of those bilge keel pieces allegedly from the point of breakup. Park's theory was illustrated with an "inverted" break where the ship bent inwards, trying to explain the clean break of the keep parts alongside crushed state of the bow superstructure. Seems like that visualization of the theory gotten no further support or acknowledgement in the years since. I get that the theory may've been disproven, but still find it a tad weird.

Your theory seems pretty accurate

That was a fine forensic analysis, Mr. Bodine…..…

Nice, now do one for how we thought the OceanGate submersible imploded.

underrated

Your theory is actually pretty smart but u think we’ll never know

the song feels nostalgic kind of from my childhood

I think the most realistic is the 2021 theory

I do think titanic broke in 3 peace’s only because the 2 big peace’s of the wreck don’t line up. From funnel 3 to funnel 4 there’s a big chunk missing. I believe the ship broke right at funnel 3 so that would be on the first class lounge just after the compass platform. And the 2nd break was at the aft grand staircase just after the engine room skylight and that section got destroyed more and peace’s fell off as the stern sank.

I am on board with Bob Ballard..... The entirety of the middle of the ship is missing (the wreck)... If it broke in half ( a clean break down the middle) there would be more of the middle portion still intact (on both the bow and stern). This is despite the stern's chaotic plummet to the sea bed... Just my thoughts on the matter... Ty : J from NJ

Of course the experience of it was somewhat different…

Surprised you didn't mentioned Aaron1912's "V break" theory no matter how much of a middle finger it is to physics lol

I always believed that the bow stayed attached until most of the stern was under water so that it explain the huge water pressure that ripped appart the stern's walls.

“I looked forward in time… I witnessed 9 outcomes.” “How many did we win?” “Zero”

You should make a video with all of them superimposed or playing at the same time for comparison 😊

Tamity's Theory 2023 - is right - my perfect choice possible

I thought this was capitalizing on the Titan tragedy then I saw the upload date and I was so wrong. Sorry and Thank you for caring about the topic and researching. I am happy for you and your hard work and theories being heard by so many.

this all theoury is still make sense than v-split

3-Section und Mengot sind die physikalisch wahrscheinlichsten Varianten.

I love this song

awesome🗣🗣🗣‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Could be a Robert Ballard '85 Theory is first theory that involve Two Tower break up? Although the Forward Tower first identified in 2005 also Aft Tower as well!

All equally terrifying

My personal theory is that the initial break happened at boiler room 2 directly in front of the third smokestack which caused a boiler explosion which destroyed the bulkhead to boiler room 1 as well as damage the double hull causing it to break in three places due to the sudden strain. Her stern would dip down towards the water as the upper deck would keep her together while her belly emptied out until the bend between the bow and stern caused the upper deck to snap in numerous places as it was listing. The Bow and Stern would then fully separate and the Stern would capsize before eventually flooding and sinking which then suffer an implosion before flipping and spinning down to the sea floor stern first.

The odds are regardless of anything, it wasn't a clean "snap", she tore herself apert.

Whatever theory you subscribe to, you have to account in some way for most survivors stating they never saw her break in two. I personally believe she broke much more subtlely than most people believe, and then what has been portrayed. She can break at or below the water and still stand on end. Point is you have to keep the break up from being like the 1997 film. Many more people would have seen that. I think the three piece break up is close to being correct. She breaks around 23 degrees as engineers have calculated with her superstructure awash. The weight of her engines make the stern section bow heavy and keeps her flooding while the double bottom holds on them parts. While that occurs, significant flooding occurs and continues to take her down. Because of this the stern never falls back, it continues down as if it hadn’t have broke, and only the most keen eyes and attentive ears could tell she broke up.

I like how you can either read the description or watch the breakup.

Everyone always asks; "how did the titanic sink". But nobody ever asks; "why did the titanic sink"

If sparks came from the funnels, that's almost certainly the remnants of burning coal being blown out of the boilers as they fill with water. The air pressure inside the hull would be much higher than ambient and the funnels would be a good point of escape. All that air being forced through the boilers, Titanic taking her last breath, literally.

The three most believable for me are Cameron’s second theory (naval architects were involved in helping recreate the simulation, not perfect but for the most part their work is based in reality) On a sea of glass And your theory is not too far off from on a sea of glass when it comes to showing a recreation of what the breakup would’ve looked like since both are based on witness testimony as well

I think rhe full break up must ve been underwater because the area of the parts of the wr3ck are much closer to each other than if it broke in surface,but i think something along the lines of the last theory happened

Wow but i think i'll miss the premiere

Such a sad song behind this damn

I'm going with your theory

Please do one on the Submersible

the first one is realistic to what could’ve happened as the structure probably just crumbled