Basically what happened

@@HistoricTravels Definitely some unbiased historians for sure lol

Historical gaslighting

@@HistoricTravels Don Lynch told the story you're referring to and the passenger's name was Ruth Becker.

Historian: Please tell me how an Olympic class liner breaks in half Survivor: I don't know Historian: You don't know because it isn't possible

Similar situation happened with Buzz Aldrin when some weirdo went up to him and claimed that he never landed on the moon. Then Buzz flat out punched him in the face.

We don't have to imagine. We have Reddit for things like that.

“Were you there?” “No” “I was there” “Correct” “I could of seen the ship break” “Yes” “And it did” “No it didn’t you’re just confused from the cold temperature that night”

What is your "Opinion " on how the ship sank @silent gamer

Titanicsplaining

Plenty of survivors saw the break up happen.. unfortunately they were ignored like Eva Hart.. but now after Bob Ballard found the Titanic weackage in 1985 everyone knows they were telling the truth.. White Star just did not want people to know the biggest ship in world 🌍 at the time broke clean in two..in my opinion.

I believe you both are correct.

@@proudpatriot6567 Thx my friend.. best wishes to you and your family

​@@jasonhowell-lg5igI believe in you and Sam about the ship broke in half

For the passengers who weren’t aware or didn’t believe they were in danger that sound must’ve been very frightening.

Imagine what it was like for anyone inside the hull - right at the break point!

Some of the T.H.S. officers have been ousted over time because their views became too "radical"; I remember when Charles Haas was President and John Eaton was historian. Despite both being reelected by a comfortable margin year after year, somehow, one year, their vote total went down to about 3,000 to 15 members or something. I thought at the time that was very, very strange, and then Ed Kamuda became T.H.S. President (also bringing in his wife Karen as an officer), and the names Haas and Eaton suddenly disappeared as if they had denounced Stalin or something. The 2 later formed a new group, called "Titanic International", which I joined for a year or 2 alongside my T.H.S. membership. At the first TITANIC International 'convention' (or meeting), I met Charlie Haas and asked him about another former T.H.S. President named Robert Gibbons - I had only just discovered he even existed, as no mention of the man was ever made anywhere in the T.H.S journal, or in any way in the organization. He was clearly uncomfortable with my asking, and really didn't want to talk about it, but he DID tell me, "Yeah, he's (Gibbons) another one of the 'UnPeople'."

Eva Hart was always absolutely adamant that she saw the ship break in two also.

Ms Becker can be seen on KZfaq saying “That’s when I thought the ship broke in half,” bringing up the subject but implying that she must be wrong. It’s tragic to see her doubting what she saw for herself as a 12-year-old. Probably raised to defer to men, like women in my family from that era. At least she lived to be vindicated.

@@partiellementecreme She was a child, a female and a 2nd class citizen, 3 strikes against her. Even into the 80's 2 of those 3 strikes were still prevalent.

@@steelpaine9932 what’s the third strike? That she had been a second class passenger? The Beckers must have been pretty affluent to travel as a family all the way from India to Michigan, and in second class on the Titanic. Imagine all the ocean passages, train fares and hotels. It must have cost a fortune. Perhaps their church community raised money for them, as they were missionaries and had to travel for medical treatment, but I’m speculating.

That’s a good video it’s true I’m not surprised that they thought the ship sank in one piece

Mike and Tom are the best when it comes to Titanic. They should do a colab

The problems with that video and the reason why I think it only tells half of the truth are the following: 1) For that asumption to work it will require the break to occur so slowly that the dim emergency light wouldn't give away the change off the stern's alignment. 2) It doesn't touch the fact that the noise alone would have give away that a massive structure failure has occurred within the ship, for instance there is a video here on youtube of a cargo ship suddenly breaking in half on some rogue waves and the early break sounds like a high explosion. Using the lack of light as validation for either the final desition of the official investigation or why some survivors thought the ship sank in one piece is dangerously as wrong as the "V-Break" hypothesis.

@@PointReflex 2) Many were talking about boiler explosions. Ofc, Lightholler was busy balancing on top of a lifeboat and wouldn't have seen it, but he did hear it.

I can vouch that outside in the dark in countryside, it really is impossible to see.

Elgen Long, a famous Amelia Earhart investigator was interviewed on "In Search Of" in the 1970s and said that he believed her plane was lying on the Ocean Floor since 1937 in perfect condition, for similar reasons... Robert Ballard prove them all wrong in 1986.

There was talk of course that they all knew perfectly well that the ship broke in two, but it was brushed under the carpet to save face. There is some evidence that the design of Titanic's younger sister was altered to include different expansion joints - and that was based on their understanding that Titanic had broken in two.

Think the eeriest part of the baker's story is the implication the the ship was breaking inside long before the actual big break occurred.

@@th8257 How exactly would any face have been saved? The ship sank, after all, didn't it?

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Yeah, but breaking into two pieces while doing so would make it seem even less structurally sound, and that's the last thing you'd want when you're on trial.

@@firstnamlastnam2141 Why? The ship wasn't designed to withstand the intolerable stresses imposed when her stern reared almost vertically out of the water. I really don't believe that there would have been a conversation along the lines of:- Mrs. Smith, I am afraid that your son drowned when Titanic sank. Oh dear. I am desolated. The ship went down in one piece, by the way. She didn't break up. Didn't it? Oh well. That all right then.

What lie?

​@@dovetonsturdee7033 if they said the ship broke in half, people would start doubting their ship's quality.

That's not how things worked back then. Harland & Wolff came to the UK inquiry with mathematical engineering proof as to how Titanic sank and broke up, but the press and powers-that-be didn't want to know.

@@-_deploy_- Why would 'people' believe that a ship which sank in one piece was any better than a ship which broke up?' Isn't the crux of the matter three short words :- 'THE SHIP SANK?'

@@dovetonsturdee7033 because the fact that it BROKE during the sinking could make people believe that white stairline ships' structure was weak and could break easily at any point

Wasn't his sketch, someone else drew it based on what he said and he said it was wrong (the bow floating).

Skidmore's.

Jack Thayer was correct… the Bow did NOT ‘float’ it was levered up out of the water because the ship folded DOWN in the middle when she broke.

@@christopherpardell4418 which wouldn’t have happened due to the mass weight of water and heaviness in the bow. Once that bow section was fully under. That was it. It was never coming back up again. And you can see by the bow wreak how she landed that she nosed dived straight down. She definitely broke up how you see it in this vid. The bending and both bow and Stern ends due to the different weights and expansion joints. Broke her like a stick.

@@MrPerthglory Sorry, but you are wrong. The bow was Not full of water. It still had air in it. I don’t think you comprehend how buoyancy keeps a ship afloat. Water flooding the ship ADDS WEIGHT to her displacement. If she had 20,000 cubic feet of displacement under normal conditions, as she flooded, she needed to displace 40,000 cubic feet to stay at the surface. That is TWICE the air filled volume BELOW sea level than normal. The water in most of the forward half of the ship never got higher than the tops of the watertight compartments, because it then would spill over into the bottom of the next compartment. She was down by the bow but her stern was not out of the water while she was in one piece because the entire ship was settling deeper to displace more water. But her center of buoyancy kept shifting aft until it was fully aft of the expansion joint. As the last of the boiler rooms started to fill, MOST of her shipped weight in water was just forwards of the last boiler room. And the weight in her center was too much and she folded Down at the expansion joint. That is why everything ABOVE her bottom was crushed, but the bottom is still its full length minus only the 20 foot section of her bottom from beneath the last boiler room that shows no evidence of bending. The weight of her stern was inconsequential compared to the upward force holding the entire ship at the surface. Let say just before she broke she weighed 3 times her normal amount because of the water she shipped. HOW is she still at the surface of the Atlantic? She’s still at the surface because the hull is still able to displace 3 times as much water as normal. That means 3 times as much air filled hull below sea level as before she started flooding, because the portion filled with water is not displacing water anymore. As she filled, the dry portions of the ship were holding up 3 times her entire weight. And as the center of buoyancy shifted past the expansion joint, the forces LIFTING the stern and holding the whole ship at the surface were what snapped the stern up. Because she was still attached along her sides below the end of the expansion joint, her stern lifting up levered the bow back up out of the water ( at this point the bow was only 10 -20 feet bellow the water’s surface, and the bow was still several dry decks below the waters surface, offsetting its weight ) the break was NOT sudden and violent, it was relatively slow because to fold it had to crush all the superstructure above ship’s bottom and THIS process was what lifted the stern out of the water the first time. THEN when the last of the metal tying the upper structure together failed, the bow, now deprived of the buoyancy of the dry stern, and with massive additional flooding from the break roaring in, dropped down and snapped the remaining steel decking and it planes away bow first because the metal decking gave way only when the bow folded back down the other way, and the bow PLANED away bow first and landed a half mile away from the where her boilers spilled when the bottom parted. That is when the stern dropped back down and started filling from the exposed engine room end. Now That is how Thayer described the sinking and HIS description absolutely predicted the condition and orientation of the wreck. SO he is the most reliable eye witness whose testimony is most likely accurate. She folded down in the middle, up at either end. There are a lot os silly assumptions people make without regard to the physics of water. For example, most recreation show the bridge being torn off by the forces of the bow plunging thru the water as it sank. That is not how the bridge tore loose. As the bridge sank, it was DRY INSIDE the bridge. The bridge house was made of wood and was held to the deck with bolts. Like the walls of any house. As the water rose around the bridge, the bridge became buoyant, and it was this buoyancy that tore the bridge loose. You can see this happen in footage from tsunami flooding. The force of the water does not cave in houses… before the water even reaches the windows, the House FLOATS free of its foundation and without the rigidity of the foundation the house break apart. Similarly, Titanic’s funnels did not collapse because of snapping guy wires or the weight of them being at an angle, they tore lose as the water surrounded their bases and created an air space displacing water…i.e. buoyancy. When the force of buoyancy exceeded the strength of the bolts holding the funnels on, The bolts snapped and without that rigid foundation holding their shape, they flexed, buckled and fell. Those bolts were designed to resist the weight of the funnel and lateral wind loading on the funnel, but NOT designed to hold the funnel down against an upwards force that exceeded any other force by a factor of 9. Another example, as her forward hold filled, her forward hatch, which was capable of supporting tons of water coming over the bow, Blew Off because of compressed air in the hold as water filled it up. The hatch was designed to take enormous pressure from outside, but not the pressure building from inside. Once more, the force of buoyancy acting on the stern was vastly larger than the weight of the stern. It was 3 times the weight of the entire ship. THAT is what broke her.

Bear in mind that the wreck was not found until September 1, 1985, which greatly hindered the ability to ascertain the truth in 1912.

The superstructure being crushed inward by being pulled underwater before it could flood slowly could easily cause wooden portion to break free and float to the surface. After all, the funnels collapsed before the ship actually sank. So there would be no way to tell HOW those wood portions broke free.

@@shirtless6934 It was found much earlier, as early as the 1950s, but never revealed its location until Ballard (who's real mission was looking for sunken nuclear submarines) found it.

The location was known in the 50s right enough, but was not revealing it meant to be an indefinite feature? In 1985, Ballard`s brief was to find those two submarines, the Americans, as far as we know, weren`t in the least interested in finding Titanic. However, either they could use it as a cover story, or if it was just Ballard who was hell bent on finding it, and as he found the subs in good time, they indulged him. If the latter and Ballard was sticking his nose in where it was not wanted, in view of what has transpired since, could it be a case of "be careful what you wish for?"

@@aj6954 What was the motive for keeping the location of the Titanic secret?

Even more heartbreaking IMO was the fact that it was Ken who figured out what happened to the bodies while he was assessing the submersible footage.

Eva always said she heard an horrible explosion and she knows that explosion is what caused the Titanic to break in half. She says this in the interview she gave in 85 when they girst discovered the Titanic. And the interviewer guy pretty much cuts her off and says it sinks whole. Like how do you believe someone who didnt survive the Titanic sinking over someone who was there and survived the event. It's insane. But people back in the 80s were not as educated as we are today.

The closest modern lines to that ocean liner era are, predictably, Cunard, which bought out White Star Line in the 30s, and surprisingly, Disney Cruise Line, which debuted the year after Titanic (1997) came out.

There was a Chinese attempt but it has run out of money. It would look like and be same sizer as Titanic but have modern engines, navigation behind historic bridge, and . . . more lifeboats.

@@dwm53w1k6no the Chinese one was just a floating museum/ hotel. It was not going to move at all. It was just a hotel part of a park. Stop spreading false information and actually research. So shut up

@@DriftingVRthat was unnecessarily aggressive for a comment. Even more so since it’s over a year old.

@@Attack_Pillow well it’s annoying that he has the audacity to spread false shit. Other people will think it true when it’s not so I was preventing that.

13 of the 65 asked said the ship broke in two on the surface. 4 said it didn't. Eva Hart was seven years old at the time. Do you consider a seven years old to be an expert witness?

@@dovetonsturdee7033 During a very traumatic experience where your father died, YES, I bet she never forgot it.

One question: If some people thought the ship sank in 1 piece, just how do they explain the black silhouette of the stern suddenly dropping back into the ocean? Like a ship wouldn't just tilt its stern up and decide "man this is boring", smash down, somehow flood super duper fast after that and sink.

@@markbrookes6557 I'm sure she never forgot the sinking. I am not sure she would have been quite so precise about the details. Just as a seven years old's evidence would be regarded with caution in a court of law.

@@floseatyard8063 As Ludovic Kennedy wrote in his account of the sinking of the Bismarck. 'In moments of great stress, people tend to see what they expect to see.' I am simply reporting the opinions of Oceanographers from Wood's Hole. Personally, I believe the salient fact here is that the ship sank, and that her condition at the time of sinking really doesn't matter.

THE ENGINEERS BLEW THE PRESSURE OFF AND, DOUSED THE FIRES TO PREVENT THEM FROM BLOWING UP WHICH WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE SHIP TO SINK FASTER. AS FOR THE BOW , IT WAS THE PART DAMAGED BY THE ICEBERG SO, IT FLOODED AND, CAUSED THE STERN TO LIFT OUT OF THE WATER WITH NOTHING UNDER IT TO CRADLE IT, SO THE SHIP BROKE IN HALF. THE STERN STILL HAD AIR IN IT AND, FLOATED A BIT LONGER . AS IT SANK, IT IMPLODED WHICH IS WHY IT'S IN WORSE SHAPE THAN THE BOW. SADLY, THE WRECK IS COLLAPSING INSIDE ITSELF AND, WILL BE NOTHING BUT A BIG RUST STAIN ON THE OCEAN FLOOR.

Well the ship is depicted exploding by the time the grand staircase was about to flood, it was more the explosion during the very end of the sinking that was the split interpretation

@@thecaring9616 well yes they fudged the timeline a bit but i think that's where they got the idea of there being an explosion in the first place from

Based on the location of the split of the wreck, the split happened between boilers. So all that high pressure steam that was driving generators and othere equipment on ship would have been released when pipes broke and that would make a hell of a big bang. I would have to assume the the engines and boilers would have been very firmly attached to the structure since the engines provide a lot of torque. So don't know that they "slipped" down due to angle.

Fr, Titanic was such a rare event.

Yes, and it even has those two extra smaller masts on either side of the foremast. In the book, they cut the masts and funnels off and seal up all the windows and doors. I guess that would not have looked as good on the big screen. But hey, when your actions are set to that score by John Barry, I guess you can accomplish anything.

Yeah pretty much anyone who wasn't a witness to it, believed she sank intact until the wreck was found in 1985 & they all went "Oh....well.....shit...."

I've read A Night To Remember a few times. I don't remember that book making any statement about whether the ship broke or not. Walter Lord basically interviewed all or most of the remaining Titanic survivors. The book is mainly made up of their anecdotes and quotes. That is, it is a book about people and what happened to them rather than a technical description of the ship and what happened to it. And if I remember correctly, sometimes there are survivor stories presented that don't even agree with each other.

@@gregorymoore2877 You are correct that "A Night To Remember," much like Mr. Lord's "Day Of Infamy," is a collection of first person interviews of events of the sinking and anecdotal recollections. But I do remember Lord mentioning that he had problems with John Thayer, Jr's and, (if I am wrong, please correct me) Molly Brown's recollection that they saw the ship snap in two. I remember Lord stating that had TITANIC broken in two, the lights would have gone out much earlier. But, since they remained on until she foundered, TITANIC must have went down in one piece.

There are reports of explosions early in the proceedings, and no-one has yet explained the 2 sections of keel found 1km from wreck site. I am no fan of Brightside, but for me, this guy seems just a bit too eager to slag them off and maybe some of this is down to him rather than his followers. Whilst Brightside may be a load of crap, they could also be considered a loose cannon that might show stuff that the ptb would rather be kept secret. Just a thought.

@@aj6954wasnt there an implosion about 30 seconds after it sunk

@@perkyraid9089 Very likely, but more concerned about explosions before it sank.

All that activity in the 1950s and never a suggestion that it had broken in half.

Ah, one of my first Titanic movies! I was introduced to Titanic when my mom was reading the book (she had several Clive Cussler novels) and I asked about the ship on the front cover. Raise the Titanic... say what you will about the movie itself, but it probably has the best film score of any Titanic movie. In fact, it is the music that most frequently goes though my mind when I think of the Titanic.

@@gregorymoore2877 oh, yeah. John Berry was a great composer.

'Largely intact?' Haven't you seen pictures of the wreck?

​@@dovetonsturdee7033 he's talking there about Britannic, not Titanic. Britannic's wreck is in much, much better shape than Titanic.

@@th8257 exactly, thanks for commenting. (Edited my own comment to clarify.)

Titanic is in a league of its own, so much so they conveniently forget that it`s a mass grave. Obsession with it is out of all proportion, and by contrast Britannic would hold little interest if any at all.

Edward Wilding is probably the naval architect you're referring to. He testified that a series of small cuts would make more sense than a long gash, which turned out to be true when the wreck was found.

@@GamePlayerZ1912 thank you. I didn’t remember his name off the top of my head.

It doesn't really prove a thing. Titanic broke in two, but there is no conclusive indication of when.

It proves a lot, actually. If she didn't break in half when the survivors say she did, then how would they have possibly known that the Titanic was in 2 pieces before the shipwreck was found? The Bow and the Stern were found almost 2000 feet part from each other. One of the simulations I've seen about how the Titanic made its way down to the ocean floor for her final resting place shows that they believe the Stern went straight down when it succumbed to the ocean and that's why it's as destroyed as it looks. However, the Bow was pointing downwards when it went underwater, and the point of a Bow of ships were designed to cut through water. Even though the ship was sank, the Bow was still able to do what it was designed to do and cut through the water. Which is likely why the Bow looks more intact in the front because after it went under, broke apart and sank, it imploded from any extra air that could have been trapped inside bit then it glided to the bottom of the ocean floor and was able to lay itself down. The fact that they were so far apart from each other and I think even facing each other shows they had (or at least the Bow did) the time to travel that far away from each other even with all the damaged both pieces faced.

@@proudpatriot6567 'how would they have possibly known that the Titanic was in 2 pieces before the shipwreck was found?' That wasn't know until the wreck was discovered and investigated. The ship certainly sank by the bow. When she sank there were no air pockets in the bow, hence no crushing of the structure. The stern, with air pockets initially trapped inside, imploded as it sank.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 the survivors that saw it break knew. So they knew it would be in 2 pieces on the ocean floor. Despite what every expert and the company was trying to put out there instead.

@@proudpatriot6567 Why do you think either 'experts' or 'the company' would have any reason to mislead? Wasn't the main issue that the ship sank?

Why would the ship sinking in one piece have preserved 'confidence in the shipping industry?' After all, the ship did sink, didn't it?

@@dovetonsturdee7033 fairly obvious I would have thought. It was not normal for ships to break into two even if they did sink. You'd be hard pushed to find another example. People would be asking why. The obvious conclusions people would have come to, rightly or wrongly, would have been shoddy workmanship or massive design flaw and that would have been even more catastrophic for confidence in the industry. It would not have been unreasonable for passengers to think that a ship that broke in two may have broken into two in any number of scenarios where the hull was under stress - including rough weather. That's what the expansion joints were for - to allow the ship to flex when being tossed about in rough weather As things stood, they instead believed that Titanic had sunk due to unique bad luck. They thought there had been a massive hole from the iceberg damage (which also turned out also not to be true) but the strength of the ship bad kept it afloat and together to allow at least some people to escape. That perpetuated the idea that the ship was a lot stronger than it possibly was, had just been massively unlucky, and that the iceberg had been solely responsible. They didn't want people thinking that a ship could snap in two.

@@th8257 'The obvious conclusion people would have come to' would be that the ship sank. Do you really think people would have been happy to be aboard a sinking liner, if they could be sure that it would not break in two? Really? As you seem to belive in the 'shoddy workmanship or massive design flaw' idea, how would you explain her sister, which was a successful and popular ocean liner for almost 25 years? The fact is that Titanic sank broke her structure was subjected to stresses and forces far beyond anything for which she had been designed. Once too many compartments had been compromised, she had no chance of survival. You seem to confuse Titanic's sinking with the nature of the sinking. The fact is that she stayed afloat for over two hours. Lusitania, by contrast, survived for 18 minutes. Oh, and there are numerous examples of ships breaking in two, All you need to do is a quick search. 'As things stood, they instead believed that Titanic had sunk due to unique bad luck.' Isn't that exactly what happened? Titanic did not break as a result of rough seas or flexing, but because of flooding the six compartments.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 if you read The Only Way to Cross, apparently people in that era preferred four-funnel steamers because they thought that more funnels meant more safety. People’s reasons for confidence in a ship don’t have to be rational. If it had been admitted that the Titanic had split apart, the public would be concerned about ships spontaneously splitting in two in all sorts of improbable situations, thinking that the hulls were weak like a Jenga tower. As a business, you want maximum consumer confidence and have to reassure against every possible fear. So yes, it would have been in the industry’s best interest to have the public believe that although she did sink due to the iceberg, her sturdy hull kept its structure.

​@dovetonsturdee7033 there's no point trying to argue with a conspiracy theorist. As if anyone would have went "Gosh isn't it terrible that ship sank and 100s of people died, but thank goodness it stayed in one piece"

Why would a company spend time and money to change something that didn't need changing? It's possible, maybe likely, there was something that had zero bearing on the sinking that necessitated the change but until that can be shown I think it's fair to ask. I'd really like to see more about this.

@Craig Cole That's what White Star Line did. It's the reason why Thomas Andrew's was on the ship during the maiden voyage. He was getting an idea of what worked and what didn't. Improvements could increase safety, reduce wasted space, increase passenger enjoyment which equals increasing the popularity of their ships.

Eva Hart always said she saw the ship break in two. She was absolutely adamant.

@@th8257 Ruth was also very accurate on where about the ship broke in two. That was before the wreck was even discovered. What’s interesting people always say it was too dark for anyone to see anything, well her lifeboat rowed a pretty far distance and she was still for sure that she broke in two.

@@Tommy-with-a-T Young people as her were a lot more likely to be able to appreciate the details, even in low light, that's probably why she was able to see a far distance.

That would be super interesting 😊

It's very dark at the bottom of the Atlantic. Visibility is near zero even with a good light. It's possible the debris field is bigger than we think. Heavier debris would have gone straight to the bottom (like Rose were she wearing the Heart of the Ocean.) Lighter debris would be carried a long way off by the currents. I think James Cameron nailed it with his computer model of the break up.

@@gregorymoore2877 you ought to see the documentary before commenting. Their opinion is based on scientific observation of the debris field following an extensive (Woods Hole spent 4 years on this project) sonar mapping of the area surrounding the titanic. Witness accounts can be largely unreliable, and if they conflict with data should be ignored.

Have you seen the documentary (available here on KZfaq) called "Titanic: Case Closed" ? They present some pretty firm evidence that "refraction" played a major role in the disaster. It's essentially a mirage that distorts how things appear. It can hide things nearby (e.g. the iceberg) but also show things that are very far away and make them appear much closer. It seems very likely that the Californian was actually quite a distance away but appeared much closer to the people on the Titanic.

Californian was 20 miles from Titanic. Another ship was seen from Titanic, that was Mount Temple a CPR liner which was just a few miles away but did not attempt a rescue despite seeing what was happening. Reason for that is unclear.

Britannic sank in 55 minutes versus Titanic sank in 2 hours & 40 minutes. Britannic spent a lot less time with the weight of the water and gravity putting pressure on the bow & stern against each other. Britannic’s new expansion joint likely helped with the added pressure as well. On Titanic, witnesses inside the ship heard throughout the sinking many types of groans & noises as the hull was being stretched & stressed. Once Titanic reached her sinking angle of 18 to 24 degrees, the amount strain from the previous 2 hours of sinking was too much for the hull to handle & she broke up violently.

And the britannic didn't rise up, it basically went bow first at first then listed towards the right. At the end of the sinking which was probably 20 minutes long, barely enough time for the ship to stress and bend and break apart, the stern was only slightly up in the air and sideways

The break up wasnt in that area though,it was in front of 3rd funnel casing.

@@xxdeckxxdumanyan7413 it obliterated everything around that area. None of it exists anymore.

Thats false,in 20 anniversary documentary they never said ship seperated during the descent. With model shown ship seperated almost fully at the surface and then bow bringed the stern down due to double bottom being connected and when the stern was almost fully submerged they seperated.

The ship also broke slowly and then stern just slowly settled back.Also every survivor heard those noices when ship broke up,but most thought it was boilers exploding.

I`ve often wondered whether those responsible would have settled for 73 years, or would they have expected longer or that it should never be found. The last thing they needed was an early advance in technology which would leave them exposed, that they should all have passed on would be a minimum requirement.

It was called "Raise the Titanic". It was a notorious flop.

@@th8257 okay thanks I never could remember the name of the movie.

If historians are required to have been present at an event in order to have an opinion, that rather makes the study of history prior to around 1960 impossible.

yep, sometime within the next few days

Because it's not true. Some parts of Titanic did break when fully submerged, but the main break (when it split in two) happened on the surface. There are too many eyewitness accounts that corroborate that fact and it's only shame that both British and American inquiry ignored what the majority of witnesses said.

No it definetely didn't, there's no way or reason for a ship to just snap underwater unless the ship hits the bottom of the ocean violently but even then the ship wouldn't break in HALF like that.

The bow and stern *detached* well after going under sea level. But the breakup would have happend when stern was partly in the air, and would have left portions of structure at bottom of ship still linking stern and bow sections. It is that link that broke later.