If you're having a hard time viewing the video, I would turn up the resolution of the video. RU-vid likes to compress the video quality unless it is as the maximum resolution. Thank you all for the support!
If we had the technology back then to see this happening underwater I'm sure it would be pretty chaotic to see and scary at the same time watching a ship rip and tear itself apart as it falls to the bottom of the ocean with relentless force.
It's fascinating that, amidst all that pressure and destruction, there are still drinking glasses upright in the wreck that look as they were left on the surface.
Why would drinking glasses be affected by pressure? I assume you mean the water pressure and it's only deadly when there's a huge difference between the inner pressure of say a contained space such as inside a submarine (often closer to 1 atmosphere) and the ever increasing outer pressure (striving to fill that void). If the inner pressure is the same as the outer pressure then saturation divers can enter a diving bell, close it, raise the pressure (gradually and slowly of course) to the level of the depth they will be diving/working at, lower the diving bell and open the bottom hatch and exit the diving bell. A glass however has no cavities and as it fills with water there's no pressure difference for there is no contained space with surface level pressure. This is obvious in regards to the different conditions of the bow and stern part of the wreck. Almost all of the bow section was already filled with water when it plunged below the surface and hence there were no air-pockets/contained space to give in to the outer pressure forces. The stern section however had a cargo hold which had been shut and this became a contained space with surface level pressure. As the stern sank ever deeper the pressure gradient on this space increased until it violently imploded leaving the stern a twisted mess. As for the destruction. Well, it wasn't spread evenly all over the superstructure of the ship once it hit the bottom. Some parts took the brunt of the forces. Others experienced minor forces. Hence why some of the glasses are intact. Air disaster investigators find several intact objects where planes have crashed at high speed with no survivors. I'm fairly certain that what is still somewhat intact is found in the bow section of the wreck.
@@McLarenMercedesThe glass and carafe were found way down on D deck (in cabin D-27) on an upright wash stand on shelves that would've had guard rails. But no way the higher up heavier carafe would have stayed in place if the bow took such a steep angle at 0:12. Also, the stand faced forward toward the bow so no way.
@@jesslambert4819 If by "destroyed by ego and stupidity," you mean that Titanic was believed to be unsinkable and the crew was careless, I'm afraid to inform you that is incorrect. Titanic was never called unsinkable, but "practically unsinkable" (in other words, nearly unsinkable). Also, she wasn't the only ship referred to as such. Cunard Line's R.M.S Lusitania was also dubbed practically unsinkable, and she sank after being torpedoed during WWI. This was during a time when almost everyone was incredibly confident in maritime safety, and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster. As for Titanic's crew, they were some of the best at sea during the time. It's unknown why Captain Smith had his ship moving at full speed through an icefield that night, as he wasn't alive to defend himself at the inquiries. However, I believe it was because the ocean's calm conditions led him into a false sense of security.
To OP. What "greatness" ? The Cunard Liners Mauretania and Lusitania were *faster* (and more profitable) and the Olympic class liners which White Star Line built lost the record of the world's largest ship in 1913 already to the German ocean liner SS Imperator and its slightly larger sister ship SS Vaterland. After them ever larger and faster ocean liners were launched. When it came to luxury the ocean liners improved upon that pretty much yearly as more modern and technically superior ships emerged. RMS Aquitania launched in 1913 had much emphasis on luxury in an effort by Cunard to beat White Star Line there too. She was much loved by her passengers who called her "the Ship Beautiful". And she served *both* in WWI and WWII. White Star Line struggled economically even before the Olympic Class liners were launched and once motorships (diesel-electric and steam-turbines) appeared in the 1930's the old coal-burned ocean liners which were manually fed with coal instantly became *outdated* . Hence why those who still were around were scrapped in the 1930's. Coal was no longer easily available (hence spiraling costs) not to mention that coal needs large and bulky coal bunkers. Fact is they were so huge they took up 1/6th of the total cargo of any coal-burning ship. Motorships don't need a huge labor force feeding coal manually either. No, heres the harsh reality: Titanic is remembered *because* she sank and a lot of people died on her maiden voyage. But had she never sunk and missed the iceberg? She would have gone down as a footnote in shipping history. On her own she wouldn't have stood out. The *sinking* made her immortal. I reiterate: The Cunard Liners held the Blue RIband and were faster and more profitable (and shipping lines are ultimate in it for the *business* ). Larger, more technically advanced and luxurious ships were constantly being designed and built. So unless Titanic would have served with distinction during WWI as a hospital or troop carrying ship I can't see any greatness being in her future. Certainly not in a way which sets her out from the other ocean liners. Assertions backed up by nothing valid or without historical scope is a myopic outlook on anything, never mind famous disasters.
@@theminingassassin16 "It's unknown why Captain Smith had his ship moving at full speed through an icefield that night" Not quite true. Titanic had received several warnings from other ships about icebergs which had been spotted. During the inquiry following the disaster it emerged that Captain Smith had intended to go around the area with the ice which would have resulted in a minor detour. Captain Smith informed Bruce Ismay of this who realized that this would mean that Titanic would arrive in New York several hours late. In fact it would most likely arrive at port late in the evening. This didn't sit well with Ismay at all. How so? If Titanic arrived late in the evening it would be dark and nobody would witness the ship arriving except for the dock workers. Ismay wanted all the headlines and he wouldn't get those if everybody in New York had already gone to bed. Even worse was that all the passengers would be ready to go to sleep as well and therefore would be eager to get off the ship as soon as possible and hurry to their homes, hotels or in the case of the many immigrants the processing station at Ellis Island. *Nobody* likes to finish a travel late in the evening or at night. It's not so strange that late night flights are cheaper today. The press would most certainly not turn up either, hence no great headline in the newspapers. But if Titanic maintained its course it would arrive in New York during the day and people and the press would gather to see her. This of course meant going through an area they *all knew* had several icebergs. This decision was Captain Smith's but Bruce Ismay, the company president, exerted pressure on the captain to do so. Since the captain has the final say on his ship he was blamed and Bruce Ismay let off lightly. Most however knew *he* was the real reason this decision was taken in the first place. Another factor to consider is that Titanic was *already* delayed and late as her maiden voyage had been postponed due to the Olympic colliding with HMS Hawke and needed urgent repairs. The 1912 Coal strike also meant that there was a shortage of coal and White Star Line had to reroute the deliveries allocated to their other ships so that Titanic could have enough for her maiden voyage. This also meant that these White Star liners had to stay in harbor and their voyages were postponed. Some passengers however got rebooked on the Titanic... Another mishap which might have ended so much worse is when Titanic steamed out of Southampton. The ship City of New York snapped her moorings as Titanic passed and nearly collided with her. Fortunately a quick-thinking thug saw what was happening and prevented a minor disaster. So the maiden voyage delayed be almost a month, coal worker strike leading to cancelled journeys for other White Star ships and the near collision with the ship City of New York were already too many delays and bad news for Ismay. He felt that he could ill-afford another fiasco. The ship arriving delayed by half a day therefore wasn't an alternative Ismay was willing to accept. Yet another factors influencing Ismay's decision was that White Star Line had economical difficulties before they built the Olympic Class liners and gambled on them becoming huge successes. Titanic's maiden voyage had to be resounding success. This ship did also NOT go at full speed that night. Not all of the boilers were lit for starters. And what kind of a captain and crew would push a brand-new ship at top speed anyway? New ships have to be broken in first. Same a new cars or any new equipment. Full speed also burns a lot of coal and Titanic was short on it anyway following the strike. High speed is correct but Titanic wasn't going full speed ahead. "and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster" Really? You know White Star Line alone had lost 4 ships before the Titanic... Atlantic sank in 1873. 562 people died. Naronic was a cargo and livestock ship that disappeared in 1893 while sailing from Liverpool to New York. To this day it is uncertain what happened to Naronic. Suevic sank in 1907. Republic (II), sailing from New York to the Mediterranean, in heavy fog, was smashed into by another ship, causing Republic to slowly sink in 1909. On 24 January, Republic sank stern first; at 15,378 tons, she was the largest ship to have sunk until then. Shipping disasters werent unusual in the early 1900's... Examples (all a few years before Titanic) 1902 Camorta - The ship was caught in a cyclone and sank in the Irrawaddy Delta on 6 May with the loss of all 655 passengers and 82 crew. 1904 General Slocum - The paddle steamer caught fire and sank in New York City's East River on 15 June. 1,029 people were killed, making it New York City's greatest loss of life until the September 11 attacks. 1904 Norge - On 28 June the ship ran aground on Helen's Reef near Rockall. 635 people were killed; 160 survivors spent as much as eight days in open boats before rescue. 1906 Sirio - On 4 August the cargo steamship sank after running aground and suffered a boiler explosion on the Punta Hormigas, a reef off Hormigas Island, two and a half miles east of Cape Palos, Cartagena, Spain. 293, including Italian and Spanish emigrants bound for Argentina, of the 645 aboard were lost. Other sources put the death toll at over 500. 1909 Waratah - About 27 July, the steamship, en route from Australia to London, was lost without trace off Durban on the east coast of South Africa. All 211 aboard were lost. Naming but a few... "and the Titanic's sinking made people realize that ocean liners weren't immune to disaster" Given the light of the other disasters I find that statement hard to believe. "However, I believe it was because the ocean's calm conditions led him into a false sense of security." 1. He knew there were icebergs in the area. 2. He listened to Ismay's advice of arriving in New York on time to avoid more bad headlines or lack of headlines at all. 3. Captain Smith was a veteran from an era in which disaster were common. What false sense of security could he possibly have had with his experience? He gambled and rolled the dice believing any iceberg wuld be spotted in time... Please verify all the sunken ships I bring up here.
To person with Mercedes in their name: Think what you want , but this is how I see it. Olympic and Titanic were considered groundbreaking when they were put into service, and their luxury was well received by passengers. Also, they weren’t made to be faster than Cunard’s Greyhound class. In fact, no ship would beat Mauretania’s speed record until around 20 years after she got the Blue Riband from Lusitania. White Star Line knew they couldn’t beat the speed record, so they focused on everything else, and I feel like they did it very well. Also, the German ships were built to be larger than the Olympic class because that was the name of the game when it came to building ships during the time. One company would do something, and then everyone else would try to top it. I would also like to point out that if Britannic was completed and put into service as she was intended, she would have likely been able to rival other ships of that generation in luxury. People also remember Olympic for being one of the greatest ships of her time, and I feel like Titanic would have been the same if she didn’t sink. Maybe she wouldn’t have reached the same level of fame, but I think she would have been close. Also, I don’t see how WSL’s financial situation has anything to do with Titanic’s demise. Finally, Olympic, along with many other ships like Vaterland (renamed Leviathan when she was taken by the Americans after the war) was refitted with new boilers that burned oil instead of coal after WWI, so I think you may have been mistaken on that point.
The bronze propellers and the telemotor from the wheelhouse could potentially lasts hundreds of years if not longer. Only a few metals can withstand the corrosive forces of the sea. Bronze is 1, gold is another.
For a school presentation my son chose the Titanc. As a model kit maker he pleased me to made the ship in different scale. I made one in 1:1200 in one piece, only the chimneys around at the bottom of the ocean. The kids told me that i am wrong, cause it broke in two. I said "Yes, but this was the way people thought she looked like until Sep. 1, 1985!
It's quite haunting to know that in hundreds of years, people will only ever recognize wreck by it's propellers and be left wondering how it was once attached to a giant Ocean Liner.
In 2001 Cameron discovered in the wreck way down on D deck (in cabin D-27) an upright wash stand (that faced foward towards the bow) with a carafe and glass still in place on shelves. So if the bow took such a steep angle 0:12 going to the bottom, how then did these objects not tumble off their shelves? The shelves had guard rails to keep the objects in place however they were of insufficient height particularly for the higher up carafe.
Not a scientist, but possibly since the bow filled slowly and was full of water at the time of the sinking, the water pressure kept everything stable on the way down.
@@joshmesser1898 Yes, but I think @Garsons-oq4lh is referring to the impact. Based on most models, the impact would have jarred everything loose and knocked everything over. I don't know the answer, just trying to hopefully clarify. If I got it wrong, I apologize.
so generally seagoing ships have things to prevent stuff from tumbling around in rough waters. the particular glass you're talking about used to have a wooden trim around to to hold it in place, but it has rotted away between then and when it was discovered. the same trim is visible on pictures of olympic's fixtures.
@@subadanus6310Yes there were trims but there was also a carafe on the higher shelf (the glass below it). They were both perfectly in place so no way the bow took the angle it did at 0:12 .
Yes, the bow didn’t fall vertically straight downward, but glided slightly forward as well as down. The stern did fall straight down, but whirled around like a sycamore seed as it did so.
Honestly, this soundtrack is perfect. Usually it's something tragic, or there's no music and it's just groaning and crashing metal echoing through the deep. This is kind of upbeat, and it staves off the thalassophobia.
Titanic's bow certainly didn't swing down. There's no force acting on it that would cause it to do so, and its center of gravity is aft of its midpoint. All physical model tests show the bow flutters down like a lead in the wind. The boilers are still in their seats and most furnishings inside are still upright. It's clear the bow fell at a shallow angle and fluttered down. It didn't do the James Cameron dive bomb maneuver.
@@sabrinashelton1997 Por supuesto que sí !! ..Los hombres que trabajaban en la sala de máquinas haciendo que el Titanic siga con las luces encendidas,las personas de 3 clase que se perdieron en los laberintos del barco!! Todos ellos se hundieron hasta el fondo .
Actualy at that time nobody would have been in the engine room they probably was outside helping with the lifeboats and the 3rd class wasnt locked up like in the movie they just took a long time to get up on deck since they dont open the gates unless its an emergency and they didnt think it was an emergency untill it was atleast 40+ mins after the collision
@@ricemmanuelledimaapi5980 Deberías leer un poco más de historia,el oficial Murdoch ordenó cerrar las compuertas al momento de la colisión para evitar que los compartimentos estancos se llenen de agua ,aún quedaban muchos trabajadores dentro de la sala de máquinas para despresurizar las calderas si no el Titanic podía explosionar debido al vapor acumulado,además los ingenieros eléctricos se quedaron en las entrañas del barco para que aún haya electricidad!!!
In the real world, pressure differential is the driving force behind an implosion. The stern implosion theory ignores real world facts. The stern could never have imploded as the pressure would have had escape routes and then what air was left would have eventually equalized or the air would have "fizzled" out through the water like in a carbonated drink. The mass damage was caused by hydrodynamic forces as it fell and then, after being weakened by losing so much of the internal and external structure in it's fall, it collapsed further when it struck the bottom.
Now just imagine being some poor whale or fish or whatever minding your own business, swimming along, and out of nowhere a busted ass ship comes down on your head knocking your ass out.
Hi TornadoHarry, I have a question - What are your thoughts on new (But ongoing) research which suggests Boat 10 left at 2:08 - 2:09 - later than previously thought? I agree with it as it explains Frank Evans and Edward Buley’s accounts. Great video aswell btw, keep up the great work :)
Bridge was already gone before the bow went under completely. It was smashed by the forward stack, and so was the leading edge of the bridge wing and it was bent out forward.
i hope those propellers, once the ship has eroded, will be recovered, it’d be a shame to let them rot and eventually, probably, be lost to time as the ship fully disappears.
Yeah, but there’s plenty of people who want nothing more to be taken from the wreck since it’s considered a gravesite, and it’s not like we don’t already have the whistle, the bell, the Big Piece, and other symbolic relics recovered already.
@@mrviking2mcall212 Titanic isn’t really a gravesite, most of those people died in the water afterwsrds and sank down over time, not to mention that basically evrrything and everywhere is a gravesite, someone has died probably everywhere at this point. And wouldn’t it be nice to save one of the most iconic things from the ship that would probably be in the best condition to raise without damaging it?
I reckon they would be the last thing ever recovered since removing them anytime soon will completely destroy what's left of the stern section. Waiting until the stern finally folds in on itself or just disintegrates is the right thing to do
a bit of info: the bow went down smoothly no implosions but the stern imploded 2-3 time before coming to rest on the bottom ( but I could be mistaken on that because I don't know much about when happened on that day cause I was born 72 years later so I might be wrong?)
Although bodies would not be found at the wreck sites- crustaceans ate the remains right down to the bones… scattered among the debris field, pairs of shoes would be found… the way they landed in the seafloor suggesting they were the last resting place of a victim of the sinking
the ones who weren't wearing lifebelts like Jack Dawson wasn't wearing one but was hanging on the wooden archway (NOT a cabin door 🚫) and then Rose let go of his hands and he descended to the abyss of the Atlantic 🥺
4:33 One thing missing. The break up wasn’t exactly clean, and it had some major consequences as a result. One of them being, the two engines lost their first cylinders as the ship broke up. The break up started when double bottom was heaved upward, bending and tearing the massive bed plates for the engines on the process. When the bow and stern separated, the first cylinders of the twin, four cylinder engines were ripped out. There are only three cylinders on each engine still attached at the wreck site of the stern. The other two cylinders, and their supports, are scattered nearby. And the break up didn’t exactly occur between the second and third funnel, it actually seemed to be a bit more complicated than that. The break seemed to have originated for the double bottom, like I said before. That section of double bottom is well documented, and it was located at the front of the engines, just behind the third funnel. But we know the superstructure, for both the bow and stern, separated between funnel 2 and 3, because the forward and aft towers slid off after the bow separated. How is that possible if the break up happened to the rear of that? Well, the break up seems to have been less than uniform. From one theory, It seemed to form a jagged J-shape. It started behind the third funnel from the keel. The double bottom, being under extreme compression, buckled and forced its way up in what would become the two double bottom pieces we know today. From there, the split curved forward, sloping more vertically at about midship, ending at the superstructure just barely in front of funnel 3. The bow plunged, the double keel gave, and the bow detached. The forward tower section of the stern superstructure slid off shortly after, with the forward tower taking the uptakes for the third funnel and several boilers. The superstructure pieces were lighter than the bow, so they would’ve tumbled and floated more in the current. At the same time, several boilers would fall out with the forward tower. The boilers would drop like stones, landing slightly scattered below the site of the break up, and close to where the stern would land. The boilers likely ripped away from the lighter forward tower section and funnel uptakes, while the aft tower and galley sections remained attached to the hull of the stern for a little longer. the forward two cylinders of the engines, who were dangling by a thread at this point, would go with the after tower moments later, leaving the aft galley still attached to the mangled hull of the stern. The forward tower would tumble around, landing to the north east of the stern section, about 1,500ft away, roughly. The double bottom pieces would land a few hundred feet closer to the stern than the forward tower. Blown off the stern in the fall to the sea floor. The aft tower would land next to the remains of one of the forward cylinders, just at the nose of the stern which now pointed toward the bow to the north. The galley deck remains would’ve torn off from the stern on the descent, like many other pieces of the stern, and landed just beside the stern to the east. The second lost cylinder would land just to the east of that, in the field of boilers and hull debris. And we all know what happened to the bow, it landed to the north, pointed toward the north east. This odd break pattern is why some people speculate the break may have taken a y-pattern, forking at some point in the hull and terminating at the superstructure both in front and behind the third funnel. This pattern would be very unusual, but could also help explain the details of the break up. Either way, the events once separation began are pretty much the same with the forward tower following after the bow.
Its actually speculated now that forward tower was attached to the stern still. Forward tower is square shaped piece, it lacks any hydrodynamic shape just like boilers and would drop straight down. So due to that its speculated that when stern went down, during its first spin it trew forward tower to east, following a bit later double bottom pieces.
@@xxdeckxxdumanyan7413 The tower sections are very heavy, heavier than the boilers. But the towers have more surface area, and are mostly made from wood and light sheet metal. It’s also less like a square, and more like a sponge. It’s full of holes for cabin and lounge spaces, and that adds to the surface area. They would catch like a sail in the wind in the ocean currents. The boilers are more dense, and have less surface area. While not exactly hydrodynamic, they have less surface detail for currents to get a purchase on, so they drop straight down. The area right above where the boilers landed would be the breakup zone. There’s several different testimonies on what happened, but if you pick through the information, you find some interesting details. For one, one man reported that he saw the ship break, and he saw the ‘engines’ slide forward into the spot the forward half should’ve been. This is likely the first two cylinders falling off. If the forward tower was still there, that couldn’t have been the case. The engine cylinders would have a recognizable shape from the rest of the ships structure, being simpler in shape, they’d be hard to miss or mistake for something else. And given the distance from the debris field, it’s likely the forward tower fell off closer to the surface, where it then tumbled to its current location. It’s likely the initial break up partially separated the forward tower from the hull, and it tumbled after the bow when the stern heeled back level. It was also likely tossed by the wake of the bow cutting through the water. If the tower and the double bottom went/were tossed when the stern started spiraling, there would be more lightweight debris scattered with them, but there’s fairly little. The double bottom pieces probably went at the same time as to boilers and engines, because them being connected causes other problems for what we see on the debris field. The engine components landed around where the boilers had. These had to have fallen into the sea and about the same time, or else they’d be scattered outward. The problem is, the double bottom is in the way. If the bottom remained attached, the engines would not fall out in time, and would likely have been forced back into the engine bay by hydrodynamic forces. Then they wouldn’t fall off until the ship started spiraling, which would have scattered them further out. For them to drop where they did, the double bottom had to have fallen off not long after the forward tower. Otherwise the engine parts would’ve been partially trapped by the double bottom. Meaning the bottom detached not long after the bow and forward tower plunged beneath the waves. It’s possible that the _aft tower_ remained attached until the stern started spiraling, but it would be unlikely the forward tower would stay attached, as the spiral would’ve scattered the debris field even further. There is little other debris out that way, which wouldn’t be the case if they were taken off when the stern started the corkscrew. It’s likely everything that was going to come off the stern, came off either before the corkscrew started, or late into the corkscrew, otherwise we’d see more lightweight debris scattered over the sight of the forward tower and double bottom area. Since most of the debris is scattered over the sight of the boilers, and the bottom/forward tower sections are isolated from them, they must’ve gone separate from the stern. It also means the spiral didn’t swing wide enough to toss those pieces of double bottom, or the tower, out that far. They would’ve landed with everything else if they had separated that late, so again, they had to have fallen off earlier.
@@Nikolai_The_Crazed i dont think engine cylinder would have been actually visible, they are the bottom of the ship and only small part of them was above waterline. When ship broke up it would immediately flood that room and it would be dragged down slightly, preventing them being visible. Also about the forward tower, the currents that were going to southwest so if currents influenced forward tower it would end up being in completely opposite direction. So it somehow went against the currents. It also was speculated that forward tower was the first 1 piece came off during spiral and closer to surface, then double bottoms and everything else came later during descent a bit closer to bottom.
@@xxdeckxxdumanyan7413 It is important to note that the bit about water current is partially true. The deep western boundary current flows from the north, to the south east. But it flows _under_ the Gulf Stream current at the point where titanic sank, and the gulf stream flows northeast. That’s because colder water is more dense, and sinks beneath the(relatively) warmer surface waters. The western boundary current collides with the Gulf Stream up north and sinks beneath it, because it’s carrying frigid waters from the polar region. For the first part of Titanic’s fall, the debris would be at the mercy of the Gulf Stream, and as it drops down to the abyssal plain, it enters the Deep western boundary. Lighter pieces of debris, like coal and various other belongings, get swept to the south after initially being carried to the north. The larger pieces would change directions as well, but the extent of that depends on the mass of the object and how far it is from the bottom when it hits the lower current. If it’s too close and too heavy, it may only drift a short ways back before settling. There’s also the wake of the bow, and eventually the stern, stirring the water column. If it went with the bow, that wake could carry it to the north, with the Gulf Stream pushing it east. Eventually it hits the deep western boundary, arresting it a bit, but if there’s not enough water left beneath it, it’s still gonna land a decent way out.
2:37 Animations always show cargo hatch 1 hitting the crane on the prow of the ship causing it to face forward but is there actual proof that happened? surely it makes more sense that the force of hitting the floor spun it around. Genuinly asking if anyone knows lol
@@RaccoonKCD the hatch doesnt hit the crane in this animation, it's just the perspective. The force of the water moving down and forward would have snapped the crane
when I read that the Titanic split in half when she went under and that people didn't believe it until it waas found, I thought to myself, no way could any huge ship like that could NOT split in 2 (or more)would be impossible for it not to have split into two on the way down. Question did any other ship that sank, go down in one piece?
pretty close rendering , the stern was actually spiraling a bit faster , when it hit the sea floor it left a long skid mark off to one side, detailed imagery has shown this , , , that aside i love this video and the greenish blue sea water , very eerie indeed
La proa que se hundió primero y gracias a sus propiedades hidrodinámicas tardó aproximadamente diez minutos enteros en golpear el fondo. La popa, sin ser hidrodinámica y cayendo en una espiral caótica en lugar de en línea recta cortando el agua demoró unos 37 minutos.
@@McLarenMercedes Every single compartment and room in the whole ship was vented and had several openings for piping and wires, the cargo holds could not be considered sealed in the slightest. What comes closest to the definition would be the refrigeration area, but even that space was built to be airtight, not watertight. Several structrues would have collapsed even at the slightest rising pressure, there is just no possibility for a big enough pressure differential. The only structure physically able to implode (at least if partially or totally empty) would be the freshwater tanks, but even if they did they couldn't rip apart the stern.
It's a bit weird, but I loose all interest for the Titanic as soon as she sinks below the surface. To me, looking at her wreck is so sad and depressing. It's a bit cringe to phrase it like that but I don't want to remember the Titanic as a pile of iron rotting at the bottom of the atlantic.
I know I’m wrong in a lot of people’s books but I say raise or raise as much her as possible before the props are the only thing left. Hopefully we have the tech to do it some day soon
@@SudrianTales she won’t be there forever in been over 100 years an all the misinformation has already gotten to stupid heights and will only get worse. Another 100 years shel be gone and that stupid “the titanic is actually the Olympic” theory might become fact. I’m also not of the opinion that the ship is a grave yard. The debris field maybe…MAYBE could be one but the bodies are long gone and people died on the surface of the water anyway. Also since when did been a grave stop archaeologist in Egypt anyway? It is what it is. If she was in better shape and no where near as deep I’d say leave her but in order to find out everything and remember the victims raising or pulling as much up as possible is the only way to go. I used to be firmly on team “leave her there” but I don’t think people appreciate the fact that she is now truly dying.
@@keetahbrough no it isn’t. Wheres the bodies? Where do most people die? The surface might be a grave site but that’s it. If you have a cry about titanic you should also have a cry about the pyramids
I question these sinking models. I don't think it immediately snapped and then came apart. I think it broke and then it separated a little further down. With the bow pulling the stern. And then it separated.
I believe survivor Jack Thayer described the bow as it went under rising. So as the bow plunged, it rose, and then that's when it broke from the stern and fell to the ocean bottom. This angle (0:12) never happened.
I cannot believe the stern “sank like a stone because of the engines”! From numerous eye witness accounts the engines by this time were accumulated on the bow.
Thats the james cameron estimate. what is left of the bow is too short to have split that far back even with how much of it ripped off on the descent. The true break is right around the base of the third funnel
Survivors testified a 3 section break, the wreck also supports this as the middle section is in several pieces, for example, forward and aft towers and the galley decks. Others also testified different break locations. Here are the accounts of a 3 section break - 1. William Lindsay: “I was on the ship ‘til the water came up to the funnel and we got away on a raft. There were 39 of us on it. Oh, but the sight was awful. I shall never forget it, for she broke in three pieces.” 2. James McGann: “She broke into three parts. The fore part went down first, then the middle of the ship, and I heard a hissing as it dropped into the sea.” 3. William Murdock: “When we got 100 yards away, she suddenly righted, the lights went out, and the stern rose clear of the water. She remained that way for two or three minutes, and then sank bow-first. There was no plunge, she just glided beneath the surface.” “After the collision, the Titanic broke into three parts.” 4. Carrie Chaffee: “The ship sank steadily until just at the last, when it plunged rapidly. Just before going down, it seemed to writhe, breaking into the three parts into which it was divided. First, the middle seemed to go down, lifting bow and stern into the air. Then it twisted the other way, throwing the middle up. Finally, the bow went under, and it plunged, stern last.” 5. Harry Oliver: “Recognizing that the Titanic was fast settling down, the crew pulled vigorously to get beyond the region of a possible vortex. Suddenly, there was a terrible crash, and the great ship appeared to split in ‘twain, if not in three distinct sections, the rending of her timbers and steel plates making a noise that carried terror into the hearts of all.” “He is confident that the Titanic broke between the third and fourth funnels, and also believes that her machinery fell out of her, causing her to sink like a log.” 6. Thomas Threlfall: “When the boilers broke out of the ship, it was dreadful. Mr. Lowe, the fifth officer, was in command of my boat, and I heard him say: ‘Thank God! Perhaps she will float now with all that weight out of her.’ Then she broke again, and we knew she must go down.” 7. Thomas Threlfall: “Shortly after I got out by the emergency ladder, she parted forward of the bridge. Then she parted again, and the boilers dropped out of her. As she parted, a pal of mine dropped between the sections. A funnel fell over onto lots of people in the water; it must have killed a tidy few. I was picked up.”
That whole section below funnel 3 is missing in the wreck. Debris of that section was found in 2012 (I believe) along with the double bottom piece. That's how they theorized the 3 section break.
I often wonder how many people may have still been alive, stuck in air pockets in the ship somewhere. Obviously the pressure would kill them before long but..... still terrifying to think about
Zero people. Those in the bow section had already drowned inside the ship before its final plunge. There were no airpockets there since the water had slowly filled the entire bow. Those who tried to save themselves but found no lifeboats all took their chance on the deck or jumped into the water. There were a few airpockets in the stern section, more specifically in the stern cargo hold which could be sealed with a water tight door. The question is who would be stupid enough to hide in the stern cargo hold rather than trying to get out of the sinking ship. Especially since the stern section was completely elevated out of the water and obviously was going to be dragged down with the ship either way. Passengers also didn't have access to this cargo hold only the crew. Suppose there were a few who were inside the stern section as it went under the surface. Since the stern section violently imploded merely a few seconds after it sank below the surface gargantuan forces of tens of thousand of tons of water violently rushed in destroying everything in its path. Hence the horrible shape of the stern section. Any hypothetical survivors therefore got hit by the same gargantuan forces which bent steel like paper. Instantly crushed. The pressure didnt kill them the violent trauma did. For a similar sensation. Try this experiment. Drop a thousand ton of water from a height onto a car... That car will be mangled. Water is incredibly strong and destructive and can tear down buildings in a flood. So what can many tons of water do to a human body...
@@McLarenMercedes Well...damn. Lol. I appreciate the explanation I guess. You could have used about three sentences to explain it but...I guess a novel works.
Na verdade são 4 grandes pedaços. Bow section, stern section, forward tower section e aft tower section. E ainda tem a galley section mas ainda é alvo de debate
Survivors testified a 3 section break, the wreck also supports this as the middle section is in several pieces, for example, forward and aft towers and the galley decks.
It more likely broke both just forward and aft of third funnel as witnesses said it broke in 3 and testified different break locations, some said forward of third funnel and others said between the third and fourth funnels. Sorry for any offence, no offence meant.
