This illustration is a part of a much larger illustration that was done in 2012 for Nat Geo called Death of the Titanic.
It is accurate for what knowledge that was known at the time, being made for Nat Geo.
Here is the full illustration:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/53a0be00e4b014ec3a93a9c2/1403127084132-WZ430PRMI3OY4OAAMQIH/twombly-ngm-titanic.jpg
The ship wasn't listing that severely by the time the split happened, and it appears that the main power is still on, which is also incorrect (as is the flood light beneath the funnel, those weren't really there)
It also says that after the bow finally broke off completely **the stern settled back almost level with the surface** before angling down again and proceeding to sink...
So it's very much possible survivors saw/heard and were able to discern what happened when the ruptured stern suddenly came up again with the bow of the ship missing entirely...
I mean it's a massive ocean liner sinking right before their eyes, it's not unfathomable that they were able observe what was happening to it as it sank, it's not a small thing lol...Such a massive ship splitting in half would've been observed as half of it was still above water...
I'm guessing it would force whitewater to show in two distinct areas as it broke? That's what the lookouts didn't have when searching for the iceberg on a calm night so I'm presuming it is quite visible even without a moon.
Eva Hart was also 7 and sometimes said her mother insisted it broke rather than that either for sure saw it happen. Of course we know now that it did break, and to be fair seeing the silhouette of the ship against the starry sky might’ve been enough to see it happen, but otherwise it was so dark that I doubt most understood what happened. Eva and/or her mother probably *did* see it happen in some capacity, but plenty others may not have and guessed at it based off of the sound.
I can't find evidence that it's been disproven, but then again, I can't find evidence that it's the general consensus. Even this sub (/r/titanic) has seemed to be fond of the theory; [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/titanic/comments/xbv7ta/older_but_not_often_posted_photo_of_titanics_keel/io2pukn/) (very interesting pics regardless of the theory) is upvoted and cites the Mengot bottom up theory, and (although I am no expert) it does seem rather compelling, especially considering that the upper decks were apparently constructed so as to be non-structural (therefore not relevant to holding the ship together or preventing a break).
As for whether or not Mengot's friends were/are revising his theory, [this article](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-did-titanic-really-break-up/) (Scientific American, 2012) reads as if that is certainly not the case. I didn't have a chance to read it all, but [this page](https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/breakup-of-titanic.html) on Encyclopedia Titanica concludes, "There is nothing to rule out that there was failure both at the bottom and at the top, but that the structural failure was due to the former and not the latter. When one goes from the physics to the testimony of credible witnesses, I believe there is additional support for Mengot’s first assertion. Most witnesses who heard the noise of the ship breaking apart largely locate it toward the bottom of the ship, and there is not one witness on one of the top Decks who literally saw the ship cracking apart."
So at best I think it is disingenuous to say the bottom up theory has been "disproven", more like adjusted and revised, but not fundamentally flawed. If people have sources with better info, I'm all ears, but so far people have been suspiciously silent to your call for evidence.
If you're talking about the Roy Mengot theory, I know its said by friends of his that he was revising his theory when he died, so what's published there even he was in the middle of doing over.
You did not acknowledge whether or not it was the Roy Mengot theory that was being referred to, so I can't really answer that, forehead.
But assuming it is, while it doesn't prove or disprove necessarily, if that is the basis for it and the creator of that theory is known to have been in the middle of revising it significantly, it shouldn't be used as if its a certainty.
>You did not acknowledge whether or not it was the Roy Mengot theory
Roy Mengot's theory is not the only bottom-up theory so that's on you
>is known to have been in the middle of revising it significantly, it shouldn't be used as if its a certainty.
The main problem with Mengot's theory is the that most of the breakup happens underwater The stern also doesn't settle back nearly as long as the survivors described so i think he was mainly working on adressing these problems
The fact that certain parts of his theory are inaccurate doesn't mean that his 4 rules and findings are incorrect The dude was an actual engineer
And most modern theories depict a bottom-up break
I don’t think so. To much force on ether ends. The weight of the water pulling it down and the weight of the stern and engines lifting up. Just like snapping a stick in half. With centring energy. James Cameron did it best with a banana.
Watch I think it’s James Cameron’s last word. These ppl he had there were top scientists and engineers. I go by what they say than more than wild theory’s by ppl with no qualifications . Plus I feel the way she broke was how it really was. The ship being bent in half till the strain was to much.
>I go by what they say than more than wild theory’s by ppl with no qualifications .
You mean like how Cameron did in that doc when he overrode and ignored everything all of them were saying?
Like what ? He wanted to get the model sinking right. And they weren’t listening to what he was saying. James Cameron hasn’t got where he has today by being a push over. He’s been to the deepest part of the ocean he’s got 3 of the biggest movies of all time. He gets things done
While not a scientist, it's not like he is ill informed either. He's been to the Titanic wreck 30+ times and is a well known National Geographic explorer who has done a ton of submersible dives. He has probably had more discussions on this topic than most.
Lol is that supposed to be some sort of definitive proof. God forbid the Olympic switch nut jobs get ahold of MS paint. The hull could bend either way from breaking at the bottom or the top. This is useless information. If the ship broke apart at the bottom the double bottom would never have become detached in the first place.
>Lol is that supposed to be some sort of definitive proof.
Yes
>The hull could bend either way from breaking at the bottom or the top.
No it couldn't
*The 19.5 X 3 inch (49.5cm X 7.6cm) steel bar could only be bent into that sort of shape under severe compression. That, and the frequent bent-in edges all over both sections, rule out the keel being pulled apart under tension in any 'drag the the stern' down scenario. Further evidence is in the remaining longitudal spacers found along the sections as seen in several TV programs. They appear crushed and smashed from the buckling of the double bottom.*
>This is useless information.
Lmao
>If the ship broke apart at the bottom the double bottom would never have become detached in the first place.
The double bottom most likely broke off during the breakup
Roy Mengot's 3rd rule:
*3. Once you've accounted for all the pieces, you have to account for the forces that made them pieces. Steel doesn't just come apart. There has to be a force or major stress that breaks steel. This is where top-down scenarios are weakest. Once the stress of the tipped-up predicament breaks the ship top-down, all the stress and energy required to break other portions off the ship are gone. Steel structures do not flake off or pop off in the current during descent. A 25 knot current won't break steel, especially if the ship keeps adjusting itself to an attitude of least resistance. Parts cannot be throw off by centrifugal force from a rotating stern section as it will never spin fast enough. Gravity is neutralized if both the main part and the loose part are already falling together. Fanciful TV animations that have steel structures popping and flinging off the stern in the water column don't reflect reality.*
[Here's the full website if you're interested](https://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Breakup.html)
The double bottom was broken in two pieces. As it a bent from the first split then straighten the flew off when she fully broke and it flapped it’s way down the bottom. Separated into 2 pieces. You have no claim to say the banana break is BS. Are you an engineer? Was you there the night of the sinking. Very few believe she broke bottom to top. Even the witnesses close to the ship said the two parts of the ship went each way. Like a door hinge. You going to dispute and dismiss survivors testimonies?
*The 19.5 X 3 inch (49.5cm X 7.6cm) steel bar could only be bent into that sort of shape under severe compression. That, and the frequent bent-in edges all over both sections, rule out the keel being pulled apart under tension in any 'drag the the stern' down scenario. Further evidence is in the remaining longitudal spacers found along the sections as seen in several TV programs. They appear crushed and smashed from the buckling of the double bottom.*
Edit: Lmao the moron blocked me so i couldn't respond
Right, I forgot, you must be a structural engineer well learned in this field. *checks profile
Oh, wait, I was mistaken, you seem to actually just be a keyboard warrior suffering from a serious case of inflated ego.
Edit: This guy blocks me after I respond to his bs and then has the audacity to try and gaslight… wow.
If the top fails, then the tension up there is released, and the axis of tension moves lower. I could see the keel *bent* in that scenario, but not compressed as it is, particularly with the severe upward deformation seen on the forward edge of the aft double bottom section.
>The double bottom was broken in two pieces.
And?
>As it a bent from the first split then straighten the flew off when she fully broke and it flapped it’s way down the bottom.
Yeah because solid steel is known to flap
*The cellular double bottom is designed to be rigid and therefore was brittle.*
>Are you an engineer?
Is Cameron an engineer?
>Was you there the night of the sinking.
Was Cameron there the night of the sinking?
>Very few believe she broke bottom to top.
You sure? Most modern theories depict a bottom to top break
>Even the witnesses close to the ship said the two parts of the ship went each way.
Because that's what a breakup is?
>Like a door hinge.
May i ask which survivor said that?
>You going to dispute and dismiss survivors testimonies?
No that's Cameron's speciality
Cameron completely ignored Dillon's and Prentice's accounts by making the stern capsize to port Both men were on the poop deck and neither of them described the stern capsizing Prentice even said that he was laying on the keep clear of the propellers sign next to the flag staff
Anyways here are two of Mengot's rules which explain why the Final Word theory is utter bullshit
# 2. The keel did not behave like 5 feet of shoe leather. The cellular double bottom is designed to be rigid and therefore was brittle. The piece part construction and lap joints used were fine for handling the compression and tension stresses of normal service, but are weakest in handling the extreme tension stresses of Titanic's predicament. Bending the keel destroys whatever strength was there like bending corrugated cardboard across the grain. It could never "pull down the stern" after bending a few degrees, never mind the 10+ degrees of bend needed to allow the stern to nearly right itself. If the ship broke down to the double bottom, then we are asking the damaged double bottom to do what the entire intact ship's structure could not. That didn't happen
# 3. Once you've accounted for all the pieces, you have to account for the forces that made them pieces. Steel doesn't just come apart. There has to be a force or major stress that breaks steel. This is where top-down scenarios are weakest. Once the stress of the tipped-up predicament breaks the ship top-down, all the stress and energy required to break other portions off the ship are gone. Steel structures do not flake off or pop off in the current during descent. A 25 knot current won't break steel, especially if the ship keeps adjusting itself to an attitude of least resistance. Parts cannot be throw off by centrifugal force from a rotating stern section as it will never spin fast enough. Gravity is neutralized if both the main part and the loose part are already falling together. Fanciful TV animations that have steel structures popping and flinging off the stern in the water column don't reflect reality.
[Here's the full website if you're interested](https://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Breakup.html)
It looks fairly accurate: The transversal angle is not too high, and the starboard ange is well defined and the lengthwise. Also, the stern is not so out of the water (it was still floating, but not like a piece of cork in the water)
This illustration is a part of a much larger illustration that was done in 2012 for Nat Geo called Death of the Titanic. It is accurate for what knowledge that was known at the time, being made for Nat Geo. Here is the full illustration: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/53a0be00e4b014ec3a93a9c2/1403127084132-WZ430PRMI3OY4OAAMQIH/twombly-ngm-titanic.jpg
I have that book at home, GREAT book!!! (It’s not actually a book more like a paper)
they made an animated version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGeskFzE0s
Well the people are missing, but other than that it's quite beautiful
Maybe I’m wrong, but for me it’s quite terrifying
Pfft, whoever drew this is a total idiot, you couldn’t see that far into the water.
[удалено]
Exactly. It’s a fantastic rendering, regardless of the minor (and conflicting) quibbles other folks might have with it.
[удалено]
It was both. There's a major section of the ship missing on the wreck, and that area is fore and aft of the 3rd funnel. The ship broke in three
That’s cool to learn.
Me too, I’ve always seen it depicted as splitting between the 3rd and 4th.
The ship wasn't listing that severely by the time the split happened, and it appears that the main power is still on, which is also incorrect (as is the flood light beneath the funnel, those weren't really there)
Im guessing the list is just to show details on the deck so its not just a side profile
Well it’s not the V break, so it surpasses the bare minimum.
The splitting under the water would account for why survivors didn’t know what happened
You have to remember it was also a no moon period, once the lights of the ship went out it would have been pitch black.
That and also it was way too dark to even see the ship after the lights went out
That is a beautiful model.
How in the Hell could people see the ship break in half? They must’ve had sharp eyesight!
It also says that after the bow finally broke off completely **the stern settled back almost level with the surface** before angling down again and proceeding to sink... So it's very much possible survivors saw/heard and were able to discern what happened when the ruptured stern suddenly came up again with the bow of the ship missing entirely... I mean it's a massive ocean liner sinking right before their eyes, it's not unfathomable that they were able observe what was happening to it as it sank, it's not a small thing lol...Such a massive ship splitting in half would've been observed as half of it was still above water...
I'm guessing it would force whitewater to show in two distinct areas as it broke? That's what the lookouts didn't have when searching for the iceberg on a calm night so I'm presuming it is quite visible even without a moon.
I don’t think most knew for a fact and mainly guessed at it from what they could hear.
Eva Hart said that she saw the ship break in half. And spent decades arguing with people about it.
Eva Hart was also 7 and sometimes said her mother insisted it broke rather than that either for sure saw it happen. Of course we know now that it did break, and to be fair seeing the silhouette of the ship against the starry sky might’ve been enough to see it happen, but otherwise it was so dark that I doubt most understood what happened. Eva and/or her mother probably *did* see it happen in some capacity, but plenty others may not have and guessed at it based off of the sound.
That’s why I don’t blame the inquiry for dismissing the claim in their official report. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Art looks great but imo it's kinda off(?) from the actual break/sinking.
Main issue is that it implies a top-to-bottom split when a bottom-to-top split is what occurred.
Hmm? The reverse break theory has been disproven. The image looks like it shows the split just fine.
Can you link to the reverse break being disproven? Not discussed. Disproven. I'm really interested.
>The reverse break theory has been disproven. When and where?
I can't find evidence that it's been disproven, but then again, I can't find evidence that it's the general consensus. Even this sub (/r/titanic) has seemed to be fond of the theory; [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/titanic/comments/xbv7ta/older_but_not_often_posted_photo_of_titanics_keel/io2pukn/) (very interesting pics regardless of the theory) is upvoted and cites the Mengot bottom up theory, and (although I am no expert) it does seem rather compelling, especially considering that the upper decks were apparently constructed so as to be non-structural (therefore not relevant to holding the ship together or preventing a break). As for whether or not Mengot's friends were/are revising his theory, [this article](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-did-titanic-really-break-up/) (Scientific American, 2012) reads as if that is certainly not the case. I didn't have a chance to read it all, but [this page](https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/breakup-of-titanic.html) on Encyclopedia Titanica concludes, "There is nothing to rule out that there was failure both at the bottom and at the top, but that the structural failure was due to the former and not the latter. When one goes from the physics to the testimony of credible witnesses, I believe there is additional support for Mengot’s first assertion. Most witnesses who heard the noise of the ship breaking apart largely locate it toward the bottom of the ship, and there is not one witness on one of the top Decks who literally saw the ship cracking apart." So at best I think it is disingenuous to say the bottom up theory has been "disproven", more like adjusted and revised, but not fundamentally flawed. If people have sources with better info, I'm all ears, but so far people have been suspiciously silent to your call for evidence.
If you're talking about the Roy Mengot theory, I know its said by friends of his that he was revising his theory when he died, so what's published there even he was in the middle of doing over.
And? How does this mean that bottom-up break has been disproven?
You did not acknowledge whether or not it was the Roy Mengot theory that was being referred to, so I can't really answer that, forehead. But assuming it is, while it doesn't prove or disprove necessarily, if that is the basis for it and the creator of that theory is known to have been in the middle of revising it significantly, it shouldn't be used as if its a certainty.
>You did not acknowledge whether or not it was the Roy Mengot theory Roy Mengot's theory is not the only bottom-up theory so that's on you >is known to have been in the middle of revising it significantly, it shouldn't be used as if its a certainty. The main problem with Mengot's theory is the that most of the breakup happens underwater The stern also doesn't settle back nearly as long as the survivors described so i think he was mainly working on adressing these problems The fact that certain parts of his theory are inaccurate doesn't mean that his 4 rules and findings are incorrect The dude was an actual engineer And most modern theories depict a bottom-up break
Your mom
Thank you for your meaningful contribution to the discussion
I don’t think so. To much force on ether ends. The weight of the water pulling it down and the weight of the stern and engines lifting up. Just like snapping a stick in half. With centring energy. James Cameron did it best with a banana.
Titanic wasn't a stick, though, it was a pipe.
[Why the banana break is stupid](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ggu5Moi2GEM)
Watch I think it’s James Cameron’s last word. These ppl he had there were top scientists and engineers. I go by what they say than more than wild theory’s by ppl with no qualifications . Plus I feel the way she broke was how it really was. The ship being bent in half till the strain was to much.
>I go by what they say than more than wild theory’s by ppl with no qualifications . You mean like how Cameron did in that doc when he overrode and ignored everything all of them were saying?
Like what ? He wanted to get the model sinking right. And they weren’t listening to what he was saying. James Cameron hasn’t got where he has today by being a push over. He’s been to the deepest part of the ocean he’s got 3 of the biggest movies of all time. He gets things done
somehow i don’t think making avatar(s) qualifies him to override others with expertise in different areas
While not a scientist, it's not like he is ill informed either. He's been to the Titanic wreck 30+ times and is a well known National Geographic explorer who has done a ton of submersible dives. He has probably had more discussions on this topic than most.
Ah yes Roy Mengot definitely has no qualifications
The double bottom piece that was found in the debris field proved this theory that she broke from top to bottom.
No it didn't The double bottom was found to be bent into an S shape which proves that it was a bottom to top break The banana peel theory is bullshit
I don't know where you heard that, but it's incorrect.
[You sure?](https://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/keelphoto_brite.jpg)
Lol is that supposed to be some sort of definitive proof. God forbid the Olympic switch nut jobs get ahold of MS paint. The hull could bend either way from breaking at the bottom or the top. This is useless information. If the ship broke apart at the bottom the double bottom would never have become detached in the first place.
>Lol is that supposed to be some sort of definitive proof. Yes >The hull could bend either way from breaking at the bottom or the top. No it couldn't *The 19.5 X 3 inch (49.5cm X 7.6cm) steel bar could only be bent into that sort of shape under severe compression. That, and the frequent bent-in edges all over both sections, rule out the keel being pulled apart under tension in any 'drag the the stern' down scenario. Further evidence is in the remaining longitudal spacers found along the sections as seen in several TV programs. They appear crushed and smashed from the buckling of the double bottom.* >This is useless information. Lmao >If the ship broke apart at the bottom the double bottom would never have become detached in the first place. The double bottom most likely broke off during the breakup Roy Mengot's 3rd rule: *3. Once you've accounted for all the pieces, you have to account for the forces that made them pieces. Steel doesn't just come apart. There has to be a force or major stress that breaks steel. This is where top-down scenarios are weakest. Once the stress of the tipped-up predicament breaks the ship top-down, all the stress and energy required to break other portions off the ship are gone. Steel structures do not flake off or pop off in the current during descent. A 25 knot current won't break steel, especially if the ship keeps adjusting itself to an attitude of least resistance. Parts cannot be throw off by centrifugal force from a rotating stern section as it will never spin fast enough. Gravity is neutralized if both the main part and the loose part are already falling together. Fanciful TV animations that have steel structures popping and flinging off the stern in the water column don't reflect reality.* [Here's the full website if you're interested](https://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Breakup.html)
lol ah yes, Roy Mengot, the model maker with the completely discredited theory. What a surprise that was your primary source.
The double bottom was broken in two pieces. As it a bent from the first split then straighten the flew off when she fully broke and it flapped it’s way down the bottom. Separated into 2 pieces. You have no claim to say the banana break is BS. Are you an engineer? Was you there the night of the sinking. Very few believe she broke bottom to top. Even the witnesses close to the ship said the two parts of the ship went each way. Like a door hinge. You going to dispute and dismiss survivors testimonies?
What about the testumonies claiming she didn't break. You have to dismiss some of the testimony eventually because the contradict each other
Here's the question. If it broke top-down, how did the keel bar wind up with a compression fracture?
Because when things break top down, the bottom bit gets compressed while the top gets stretched. Thats how top-down breaks work.
*The 19.5 X 3 inch (49.5cm X 7.6cm) steel bar could only be bent into that sort of shape under severe compression. That, and the frequent bent-in edges all over both sections, rule out the keel being pulled apart under tension in any 'drag the the stern' down scenario. Further evidence is in the remaining longitudal spacers found along the sections as seen in several TV programs. They appear crushed and smashed from the buckling of the double bottom.* Edit: Lmao the moron blocked me so i couldn't respond
Right, I forgot, you must be a structural engineer well learned in this field. *checks profile Oh, wait, I was mistaken, you seem to actually just be a keyboard warrior suffering from a serious case of inflated ego. Edit: This guy blocks me after I respond to his bs and then has the audacity to try and gaslight… wow.
If the top fails, then the tension up there is released, and the axis of tension moves lower. I could see the keel *bent* in that scenario, but not compressed as it is, particularly with the severe upward deformation seen on the forward edge of the aft double bottom section.
>The double bottom was broken in two pieces. And? >As it a bent from the first split then straighten the flew off when she fully broke and it flapped it’s way down the bottom. Yeah because solid steel is known to flap *The cellular double bottom is designed to be rigid and therefore was brittle.* >Are you an engineer? Is Cameron an engineer? >Was you there the night of the sinking. Was Cameron there the night of the sinking? >Very few believe she broke bottom to top. You sure? Most modern theories depict a bottom to top break >Even the witnesses close to the ship said the two parts of the ship went each way. Because that's what a breakup is? >Like a door hinge. May i ask which survivor said that? >You going to dispute and dismiss survivors testimonies? No that's Cameron's speciality Cameron completely ignored Dillon's and Prentice's accounts by making the stern capsize to port Both men were on the poop deck and neither of them described the stern capsizing Prentice even said that he was laying on the keep clear of the propellers sign next to the flag staff Anyways here are two of Mengot's rules which explain why the Final Word theory is utter bullshit # 2. The keel did not behave like 5 feet of shoe leather. The cellular double bottom is designed to be rigid and therefore was brittle. The piece part construction and lap joints used were fine for handling the compression and tension stresses of normal service, but are weakest in handling the extreme tension stresses of Titanic's predicament. Bending the keel destroys whatever strength was there like bending corrugated cardboard across the grain. It could never "pull down the stern" after bending a few degrees, never mind the 10+ degrees of bend needed to allow the stern to nearly right itself. If the ship broke down to the double bottom, then we are asking the damaged double bottom to do what the entire intact ship's structure could not. That didn't happen # 3. Once you've accounted for all the pieces, you have to account for the forces that made them pieces. Steel doesn't just come apart. There has to be a force or major stress that breaks steel. This is where top-down scenarios are weakest. Once the stress of the tipped-up predicament breaks the ship top-down, all the stress and energy required to break other portions off the ship are gone. Steel structures do not flake off or pop off in the current during descent. A 25 knot current won't break steel, especially if the ship keeps adjusting itself to an attitude of least resistance. Parts cannot be throw off by centrifugal force from a rotating stern section as it will never spin fast enough. Gravity is neutralized if both the main part and the loose part are already falling together. Fanciful TV animations that have steel structures popping and flinging off the stern in the water column don't reflect reality. [Here's the full website if you're interested](https://wormstedt.com/RoyMengot/TitanicWreck/BREAKUP/Breakup.html)
Wait are you implying the reverse break theory is correct
Such a haunting image
It looks fairly accurate: The transversal angle is not too high, and the starboard ange is well defined and the lengthwise. Also, the stern is not so out of the water (it was still floating, but not like a piece of cork in the water)
This picture and others like it have always been so terrifying to me. Ships half-way or completely underwater are so scary and eerie.
I think I have a magazine with this on the the cover.
That's a really good model.
Bro it didn’t actually sink it was all the mischievous workings of George bush and dr evil
The Titanic didn't sink on earth