All Titanic Breakup Theories (V1)

I do not own this music or all of these clips, so I labelled them, only the clip at 4:00 is mine.
Music:
Clockwerk's boss theme (A Strange Reunion) - Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus.
If you would like to talk on Discord, here is a link to my server: / discord

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

I just realised that I mislabelled Parks Stephenson's theory as 2005! 😳 Anyway, fun fact: The 2012 miniseries and Titanic VR are the only breakups to depict the aft mast collapsing, which would have happened if the stern crashed down into the water.

[@ayoutubechannel8925]

the 1985 theory is actually from Return From The Titanic which was from 1987

[@yarelamunoz4866]

TC

[@benkemper4606]

Can you make a updated video on this?

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

I'm working on that right now.

[@riccracc9882]

james cameron did that too

[@j0shmyg0sh90]

I thought it was obvious... They clearly had a toxic relationship and were more unhappy together than apart, so the stern dumped the bow. The bow - being the manipulative partner that caused the relationship to sink - kept holding on. The stern eventually split up and filed a 600m restraining order.

[@Darklias660]

:v

[@sixbases6793]

Lol

[@petroleumjelly1488]

Exactly

[@pgsanimations3747]

😆

[@WiseGirl3849]

What ._.

[@DKrueger1994]

Favorite breakup theories and why: 1. James Cameron 2012/THG/"On A Sea of Glass"/Tom Lynskey (Couldn't decide, but they were almost the same) They all look similar altogether, but the outcome is still the same, and it was also plausible considering the way the Titanic sits today, but would not lean towards the "confirmed" 2. 1995/2001 theory As seen from the movie "Titanic", it was widely acceptable, and accurate, would fall between "plausible" and "confirmed" if this were to be Mythbusters with Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman Most hated breakup theory: 1. AARON1912 I can speak on all of us about why. The first question I want to ask Aaron1912 is "What kind of crystal meth were smoking when you thought of that?!" The theory violated so many rules in the laws of physics it ain't funny. I never took physics in high school, but I'll tell you one thing: it's impossible for the bow, which was filled up with water, to get pushed back up out of the water. If Godzilla was doing bench presses, I would believe it, but other than that, the V-break theory is the most hated breakup theory in all of the Titanic community.

[@Nefr_10]

True

[@Boypogikami132]

#VBreakSucks #Aaron1912Sucks

[@objectshowteardrop]

I like Aaron1912 V-break Because its funni

[@ayoutubechannel8925]

the 2006 v break looks a little bit more accurate (although how much stress would 11 degrees make)

[@Nefr_10]

@@ayoutubechannel8925 NO

[@FriskMeemur]

I personally believe the Titanic didn't exactly snap like a twig, but I believe the middle section of the Titanic started cracking, and then broke apart like gravel. Maybe a gentle breakup would be better than a extreme one. It still would be extremely loud, The sound would come from the snapping of rivets and cracking sound of the Titanic break up- area disentigrating into meter or more sized chunks.

[@unknownmfcker.0]

This.

[@alecboi777]

i believe there was an explosion somewhere inside which made the ship split.

[@digitalgamingctcc4110]

2:43 how about this? Just a bit harder.

[@OfficialTrainzGod]

and more snapping from the wood and walls

[@sorrenblitz805]

That wouldn't synchronize with Survivor Testimony though. The ones who said they saw her break said the lights flickered as a terrible crash happened, all went dark but a few lights on the stern. The chief Baker said he heard a tremendous rumbling from the bowels of the ship as if the engines had begun tumbling forward. Another passenger claimed he saw the aft boilers tumble through and out the gap of the break up. We'll probably never know exactly how it looked or what caused it to break but we know it wasn't gentle.

[@applecore4720]

We can never truly be certain what theory is closest to reality. However; we are certain- beyond any reasonable doubt- that the /furthest/ from reality is Aaron's.

[@dekuthetechpriestoflondon6791]

Most definitely

[@jellyreenerjacobs5600]

Yes for sure

[@georgebrankov2143]

Absolutely. His theory has been proven wrong.

[@spaceguy20_12]

yeah, how did a 4k kilograms push so much on a 90k kilogram bow section

[@DC25_MALLETS]

99% of the the theorie's here are plausible. then there's that one. (also my theory is done, great video!)

[@coneheadgrunt7971]

The Arron v-break?

[@DC25_MALLETS]

@@coneheadgrunt7971 of course its the v break, it's literally the only one that is physically impossible in every way. (I know v-breaks are possible with other ships, like if an explosion blows it in half) but still, no way it could

[@coneheadgrunt7971]

@@DC25_MALLETS oh ok I agree with you in all ways I was just wondering.

[@r.m.s5917]

@@coneheadgrunt7971 the reason the v break wasn't possible because the ship was having a tug of war; the bow and stern. The massive engines in the ship kept the ship stable with its weight, and the water in the bow was heavier than the engines. Eventually, the stern gave way and split off.

[@tropicalbutter126]

@@r.m.s5917 another one is that, if v break *were* possible, then that means there would have to be a lot of air in the bow, even then, the air in it will force the bow up and lessen the strain of the ship, and bot break into 2

[@LOTUS-ARTS001]

The first video I've seen about titanic break up to show the 1985 theory. Very underrated. Good job

[@Cruz474]

I love the documentaries that try and show how dark it was that night. the closer we can replicate the eye witness accounts the better.

[@sidney3117]

GoHawks 💙💚

[@RB01.10]

And isn’t it mostly accepted that the lights went fully out a few moments before the breakup? That would explain why there were so many conflicting accounts?

[@sorrenblitz805]

@@RB01.10 no more recent research into the survivor accounts have pretty much concluded there were some emergency lights still on after the breakup, how long they were on is debatable. Just like we now know they did indeed have multi-colored rockets and not just white flares.

[@RB01.10]

@@sorrenblitz805 I have read about the emergency lights being on, but the main lights surely went fully out before the breakup and sinking right?

[@sorrenblitz805]

@@RB01.10 the main lights actually went out slowly over the night as the boiler rooms flooded. They were bright at 11:40 pm, but by 2 am the main lights were reported to be an ominous dim red color. When the break happened the main lights flashed an went out, and some emergency lights remained on on the decks of the stern as it keeled to port, while tipping up as it slipped under, leaving Chief Baker Charles Joughin as the last person to disembark the Titanic alive.

[@_R-R]

I believe that one way or another, the hull didn't break apart immediately, dragging the stern upright. If she broke up completely and immediately, the stern could've stayed afloat longer. Or until the Carpathia arrived altogether. But, as with all shipwrecks, we'll never know for certain.

[@ducklingboi8813]

There is still a piece of double hull on the sea floor which proves that it got dragged down.

[@_R-R]

@@ducklingboi8813 Exactly. Bow section dragged stern upright, THEN broke apart completely.

[@ryans413]

The double bottom pulled the bow down it was the strongest part of the ship

[@RB01.10]

But wouldn’t the rest of the section below the waterline be open to flooding?

[@higueraft571]

@@RB01.10 Particularly, the double-bottom had buckled *inward*, which shoved the boiler up into the ship. The lower section had actually given first, but the Superstructure was what kept the ship together for so long, til the weight of the Stern finally broke it, stern came loose, and the Double-Bottom, while *still* being attached, drags the Stern under. That's more or less the "agreed" theory.

[@CloakedOnyxGaming]

We don't talk about Aaron1912...

[@ballisticgaming7062]

It's crazy to think that we are still not 100% sure how this legendary ship actually went down.

[@connorredshaw7994]

The thing is I don't think we'll ever be 100% sure but over time we have definitely got more closer to how she sank

[@raymondpratt3055]

I think personally it could have been a subtle breakup. Could explain how some people who survived denied that it did in the first place

[@Boypogikami132]

So 2011 theory?

[@MilkyWay-nq1fk]

@@Boypogikami132 most likely not as there are suvivors who said they could hear the stern splash into the water which means it had fell with great force. I think the reason so many suvivors didn't know if it broke up or not was because the heat of the moment. You're worried about surviving not watching it sink

[@sorrenblitz805]

@@MilkyWay-nq1fk moreso the Lack of Heat in the moment. Some of those boats also managed to get a few miles away and probably couldn't exactly get the best vantage point to watch a shadow sink beneath the pitch black waves. There weren't really any sources of light besides the stars that night.

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

@@Boypogikami132 2011 is very subtle, to the point where the stress isn’t even enough to break the ship.

[@RB01.10]

Add to the fact that the lights reportedly went out right before the ship split which maybe explains why so many didn’t see it split. If the lights stayed on during the split I feel there would’ve been less people saying it didn’t split because then it would’ve been obvious

[@Boypogikami132]

I really love that this dude took a Roblox sinking theory into account. Most KZbinrs don’t even wanna touch that game, except the KZbinrs who are in the Roblox community

[@TylerMcNamer]

One thing we all can agree on. *This was one fucked up night.*

[@andy_thechicken]

Language 😐

[@coolbionicle]

Never thought I would hear a Sly Cooper boss theme in a video about the Titanic.

[@chrism.4600]

How ever it happened, in my honest opinion, was surely avoidable! 1, Going too fast at night, especially with all the recorded berg warnings, and having a almost flat calm sea, 2, The binoculars was locked in a cupboard, and the white star line worker that had the key was in so much of a rush when he left the ship (before it set sail) that he forgot to give the key to his relief 3, why wasn’t a light on the bow to help the crowd nest workers see better 4, The main thing, there wasn’t enough life boats on board, (no regulation at the time) Damn shame, Over 1500 lives died, and theres no excuse for that.

[@HalitorianEmpire]

yes I agree, it was completely avoidable however with the binoculars, they would've been useless anyway because they only use the binoculars when they've spotted something. also if they had a light on the bow, that would've made it harder to see things that isn't in the beam of light. Also when they did spot the iceberg, the person in the wheelhouse turned the wheel the wrong way as they thought the turning was still like the old ships where, when you want to turn one way, you turn the wheel the opposite way.

[@Henry46858]

@@HalitorianEmpire actually back then, Tiller commands were still widely in use, so, if the Officer tells you to turn " Hard a'Starboard", because they were using Tiller commands, the helmsman would turn to Port. For more detail I would recommend Part Time Explorer's video on Tiller commands.

[@crazyguy_1233]

Going fast until seeing ice was standard procedure for all ships of that time. Binoculars were for the bridge crew only because lookouts were not supposed to focus on one small spot. A light in the lookouts crowd nest would make it too bright to see anything. Titanic had more lifeboats than required and wouldn't have been able to launch more anyways because they didnt even get the ones they had all launched. It was a tragedy but it was unavoidable. Her sinking brought new standards like lifeboats for everyone and new systems that speed up launches significantly. It took Titanic sinking to bring us to our modern safety standards.

[@crazyguy_1233]

@@HalitorianEmpire It was unavoidable. It took a major ship to sink for standards to be updated. Things like this are said in hindsight but Titanic was doomed to sink no matter what. Her boats were just enough for her davits had there been more she wouldn't have launched all of them.

[@Boypogikami132]

For number 1, I disagree. It’s because that was standard protocol at the time so you can’t blame that. For 3, a light on the bow would make the ship look weird, might rather put it on the crows nest. For 4, the reason there were too little lifeboats was because in a emergency, the lifeboats was supposed to be ferries, not mini-ships. Also it was over the minimum amount of lifeboats were allowed at the time. And White Star Line didn’t want the boat deck to be “cluttered”

[@FederinzC]

Very interesting. I would personally say that, even considering the fallacies of the testimonies, the break might not have been very destructive and explosive, as it would have been very noticeable even in the dark and hectic circumstances and we would have more unanimous accounts probably of the ship right out exploding (or at least giving that impression). Less angle and more subdued separation would be my choice.

[@higueraft571]

Actually, from the more accepted sorts of theories and what we've discovered, it's pretty likely the ship had begun splitting earlier, prompted by the Double-bottom buckling inward and pushing a Boiler upward. If there *were* any reliable survivors of that section around this time, they probably would've been able to report the floor being split open, possibly even *visible* boiler. However the Superstructure was strong enough to keep it intact to the angle it's supposed to have broken at, til it gave way, and the Stern came free, attached by that same segment that'd buckled in the first place, which then dragged it down with the Bow section.

[@jpenir]

If you read all the testimony at the hearings about the breakup I think like 75% of those asked said it broke up. The people that didn't say it broke up were the officers so they went with that as official record even though it wasn't correct

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

Actually, the majority simply didn't know if the ship had broken, they couldn't deny or confirm the breakup.

[@jpenir]

@@Wolfric_Rogers yes the majority didn't know but most the people that directly commented on it said the ship broke in half. I can't post links on KZbin but there's a site that compiled all the data. It makes clear from the testimony that 14 people stated that the Titanic broke in half and only 4 said it didn't. I think 60 others didn't know. So at least 3 times as many.

[@Boypogikami132]

I think what the officer wanted us to know pre-85 was that the ship didn’t break so that Titanic would’ve looked more stronger that what she really was to protect their higher-ups, or possibly the higher-ups forced the officers to falsely claim that the ship didn’t break in half so that they wouldn’t be look upon as the owners of a ship that was poorly constructed and had broken apart because of said poor construction work.

[@1PhantomT]

@@Wolfric_Rogers yet some did.

[@ccchhhrrriiisss100]

Great job, Crunch Bandicoot! The interesting thing is that some of the eyewitnesses were simply not reliable. Some claimed that the ship didn't "break" at all. As such, I think that we can discount much of their in-the-water testimonies. So, why the discrepancies? Remember: The people in the water were at sea level. Most were already in lifeboats somewhat distant from Titanic. It was very dark and the only light was from the stars and the ship itself (until the point when the lights went out). Due to the way they were designed, half of the people in the lifeboats were looking one way and the other half were looking the other direction. The lifeboats were in very different places around the sinking too. The people's perspective was influenced by: A.) Night; B.) Distance; and, C.) Perspective from the boats (or water in a few cases). Consequently, the stories do not align in many instances. I think that some stories were fabricated somewhat (i.e., Charles Joughin) or influenced by tales told and repeatedly retold aboard Carpathia (during the journey to NYC). For instance, the "shooting" aboard Titanic (often attributed to Murdoch) is told by "eyewitnesses" who weren't even on aboard at the time -- and a few were on the other side of the ship! As for the breakup: I think that your view is very plausible -- as well as Roy Mengot. I think that the stress on the lower hull was enormous (given the increasing weight and angular momentum of the bow). However, this also shifted to stress on the upper parts of the structure (pulling of the stern as the weight of the buoyant stern countered the downward pull of the bow). My guess: - The under-hull fractured and failed first. This led to a quick jerk downward of the bow (still connected to the upper structure). - This sudden jerk probably broke apart the upper decks -- which pulled forward (fracturing it) as it went into the water partially attached to the bow. This was the "explosion" that some people described. - The release of the broken upper decks with the bow then released the stern allowing it to settle (and probably on an even or semi-even keel). - The stern then began its final plunge largely on whatever the last piece holding onto the structure was (either a few remaining rivets and/or beam of the hull or, more likely, some connected portions of the upper deck). This was likely on the port side given the testimony about a list to port as well as the swinging of the raised stern toward starboard by some of those in the water, in lifeboats or on the overturned lifeboat. The stern was pulled on the port side by the last remaining attached part(s) of the bow. I think that the breakup happened fast (almost like an explosion) and the settling of the stern, pivot, release of the bow/upward broken parts was fast. This was subsequently followed by the somewhat slower final rise (of the tip of the stern) and descent of the stern structure.

[@ratemisia]

While many of the basic points of your theory are sound in reasoning, the details tend to over- or underestimate important parts of Titanic's design, and when examining the strength of different components, we come to a different hypothesis on how the breakup happened. It has been strongly indicated that the last thing to separate between the two sections (bow and stern) was the keel of the ship - there was no double hull up the sides, but the keel (or the flat, bottom surface parallel with the seabed) was much more strongly reinforced than the rest, making it much more resistant to loads than the superstructure and hull - making it significantly better equipped to withstand the stresses of the break, however momentarily. As such, I find it implausible that the upper parts of the ship would be the last to separate, and instead suggest a double keel separation last. It perplexes me how you portrayed the lower hull as brittle and rigid, yet also predicting that the upper decks would be flexible and able to crush and bend while somehow also holding tensile loads from the dead weight of the sinking bow. The superstructure was much weaker and less rigid than the hull of the ship structurally (after all, that's much of the reason why it was called the superstructure,) and there were expansion joints in the superstructure allowing expansion and contraction from thermal loading to be dissipated safely. This would have quite possibly made for a "mushy" start to the separation, where the superstructure split and disintegrated and the mid decks began to crumple under the compressive force, followed by a sudden snap as the structural members of the hull failed and it broke in two at once. Survivor testimonies report hearing low rumbling sounds intermittently, interpreted by some as the ship breaking up, which could have been parts of the ship crunching or structurally failing, and then a small number of explosions within the ship, which could have been steam explosions or major structural beams failing and causing large parts of the hull to separate. Moreover, we have some evidence that the ship did not split explosively, as several survivors who were very close to the ship as she sank claimed to have seen her go down intact (although obviously, she didn't;) and if they were very close, the separation could not have been too noticeable at least above water, indicating that the separation started out as a slow process likely at a relatively shallow angle in the water (at least, compared to the sheer dive depicted in Hollywood imitations of the sinking) and fully completed after the part of the ship that was splitting had submerged. After the split, the stronger double keel was still attached, but began to tear away from the bottom of the stern, pulling it back upwards by a few degrees again before tearing away completely. The separation was rough, causing watertight bulkheads in the stern to be compromised and many decks to be left open to the water (allowing debris from middecks to float to the surface, as survivors pointed out in testimonies supporting an explosive break,) so while it initially settled to a level attitude, the stern rapidly began to list over to one side, and yawed around approaching, but not reaching vertical before it was submerged, plunged straight down, and partially disintegrated - creating much of the debris field we see between and around the two main sections today.

[@higueraft571]

More or less the more likely/accepted theory is that: The Double-Bottom where the break ultimately occured had buckled inward and shoved a boiler into the upper levels. The Hull by this point had practically failed, the only thing keeping it from tearing free at a much shallower angle being the Superstructure above. When that went, the only think keeping them attached was the Double-Bottom section that'd failed to begin with, dragging it down til that too ripped free. It fits the most common reports, and what we see in the wreck site. Of course, there WAS an explosion, but that was after the Stern had gone under, from all the air trapped inside. Maybe 30~ seconds after?

[@TCR_710-Cap]

@@ratemisia What a nice discussion, you both made good points. If I'm honest, I have problems with most of the theories shown here, or at least with details on one or the other. If I recall correctly, there are two contradicting theories, ones states "keel broke first", the other "keel broke last". In my personal opinion, and I'm neither an expert nor an engineer, and maybe it's my wishful thinking, the two double bottom sections (or at least one) shows the keel BENT. This means compression in the keel area, and simultaneously expansion in the superstructure area. The latter can be seen as "decks opening up", maybe at the aft expansion joint. In a nutshell: 1. keel bends, 2. superstructure expands and breaks, 3. keel breaks, and all within a second or so, so that you can't really distinguish those three events from each other. I'm leaning much towards the Mengot theory, but can't get my head around those re-inforcements on B Deck (?) at the 3rd funnel casing. It somehow feels "wrong" that they failed AFTER the keel at failed. I do think they were at least responsible for "forming" the aft and fwd tower. Both these towers seem to break away too clean in most animations, I very much like the way Ken Marshall portrayed the break: www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/threads/ken-marschall-vs-simon-fisher-breakup-painting.38819/. Maybe he did that before the towers came into knowledge, but I always envisioned a terrible mess of broken and twisted parts. Oh, btw., I don't believe in a sudden down jerk of the bow. We're talking here about thousands of tons of ship and water inside, inertia of masses, you know. I can live with a sudden fall of the stern, but since I think the break occured at a low angle it wasn't felt as a fall, but more like a settling. I think the consensus was between 19 and 23 degrees.

[@ratemisia]

@@TCR_710-Cap Good points! Having reexamined the testimonies, I can propose a breaking more similar to your theory, reducible to a few key events in the breakup: - Early in the sinking, the first and later second funnel fall, as reported by survivor testimony - The ship begins to list to port as Scotland Road floods, and passengers are ordered to move to the starboard side of the ship to counteract the list as noted in survivor testimony - Most survivors leave by lifeboat - When the ship gets up to somewhere between 20 and 30 degrees (survivors report 30 to 45, but this is implausible,) fittings and structural members in the hull start to loosen and pop, creating the "groan, rattle, or rumble" that lasted several seconds before the lights went out. The hull is significantly weakened, but does not fail yet. The superstructure is not yet significantly damaged, as officers reported in their testimonies that the deck showed no signs of structural failure. - The lights go out in the ship, and the hull continues to fail for another several seconds, possibly with the superstructure beginning to fail in this time - The double keel, now bearing a majority of the forces; crumples and ceases supporting the load, but does not disconnect. - Immediately after this, the superstructure fails and the hull disintegrates in the area of the split, allowing debris from amidships to float to the surface as described by survivors after being brought on the Carpathia - The stern falls, but due to its size, this appears as more of a settling - The crumpled keel, now under tensile forces instead of compressive ones as the bow sinks, momentarily (2-10 seconds at most) holds on to the stern, pulling it down slightly before separating but not drawing it all the way into the water - I misread a testimony of the final plunge, misattributing Jack Thayer's testimony as a yaw: "...[she was] gradually [turning] her deck away from us, as though to hide from our sight the awful spectacle..." In fact, he saw a further *roll* to the port side, approaching 90 degrees; assuming he was on the starboard side of the ship. The stern settled into the water, approaching vertical as it submerged due to trapped air bubbles in the far stern that imploded as it sank. The whole breakup likely took place over about 5 seconds, or however long it took for the stern to momentarily settle and the keel separate.

[@spatchmo6938]

Everyone knows the Titanic broke because the giant talking octopus that needs to hold his breath underwater wasn't strong enough to hold the ship together, after he was the one that threw the iceberg in front of Titanic in the first place

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

It’s fake but I quite like ur pfp

[@syndeko1632]

hahaha XD i remember watching that movie some time back.

[@siryes2169]

In the 1985 version is all survivors accounts averaged. Some reported it went to a even keel, some reported it straight up, some reported it listing

[@Waptor1]

I would personally believe in James Cameron 2012 or Titanic Honor and Glory 2020 but less aggressive of a break since it was supposed to be built the best that Harland and Wolf could possibly create one.

[@crisstudiosextra9061]

But even keel?

[@ethaneade4937]

I honestly think that the one at 1:46 is the most believable theory.... Though I don't think the stern would have risen that high after the break up though.... The way it breaks in that one seems more correct in terms of physics

[@tenorcenter]

The only thing is that Mengot’s theory doesn’t take into account the people that saw the decks opening up. Some even recalled seeing the inside of the break where sparks shot out. His theory seems a bit too subtle compared to some very explicit testimony.

[@crisstudiosextra9061]

The even keel?

[@ericgolightly8450]

I think 4:28 but yours is also very good

[@poland.oficial]

In fact this theory is the worst because it crumpled instead of breaking, so if it had sunk like that, it would have crumpled since it started to tip.

[@poland.oficial]

the 1995 and part time explorer are the best ones.

[@PelsckoPelesko]

1:20 Guys to let you know, this isn’t Aaron 1912’s theory, as this v-break follows physics, unlike his

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

2006 V break probably defies the laws of physics much lesser

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

It is obvious that it is not really the idea of aaron1912 because the bow didn’t rise up

[@ellernatefromvidlii]

Aaron still uploades. Lets just appreciate hes less active in the titanic community

[@imsonicnoob2112]

Idk why, but the 1985 theory looks so horrifying

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

The really high angle right before the the breakup probably.

[@imsonicnoob2112]

@@Wolfric_Rogers Yeah, but the way the bow moves underwater tho

[@rhamorne]

For me its the animation quality of it

[@ThatWolfFromHyruleGaming]

I believe any theory which states the "bottom up" break, as it makes the most sense and enables the wreck to stay as we find it. Roy Mengot was the first to propose such a theory and anyone following his example is okay in my book.

[@Maritime_History]

Nice video. Thank you for doing this.

[@rhettkientz3065]

The truth is we will never truly know how the Titanic exactly split, and we may never truly know how she sunk. Everything was there at the right place at the right time, or in this case the wrong place at the wrong time. And it was a series of events that had to play out just right for her to sink.

[@greycatturtle7132]

Ye

[@JafuetTheSame]

The truth is we will never truly know about anything unless experienced personally...

[@johncockburn6573]

But that’s just a theory A FILM THEORY

[@mrjayjay124]

As someone who watched the Aaron1912 videos, the way his V-Break happens is as follows: 1. Ship strikes iceberg in the same way as we all know. 2. The crew opens ALL watertight doors for the pumps. This allows water to flow aft freely. 3. Ship sinks down vertically, leaving lots of air in bow and stern. 4. Water piles up at midsection, and drags it down with enough counterforces from the bow and stern that it rips into a V-break, allowing the bow and stern to shoot upwards as the ship sinks towards the middle.

[@Nefr_10]

AARON2012 THEORY SUCKS

[@SepticLoser]

Its physically impossible. The stern section was filled with air, because all the water entered the ship too fast, and air was left in small pockets causing an implosion. because of how light air is The pressure of the deep sea, would destroy the bow if there was air inside. Henceforth why the stern looks like a bad day at taco bell and the Bow looks good enough for the break up you can never really know a person do you.

[@Nefr_10]

@@SepticLoser yea

[@mrjayjay124]

@@SepticLoser Yes, exactly

[@Garsons-oq4lh]

I'm skeptical of the bow's steep angle underwater at 0:37, 1:14 and 2:48. Discovered on Cameron's 2001 expediton in cabin D-27 was an upright carafe and glass still sitting on the shelf of the wash stand. This wash stand shelf had a guard rail to keep objects in place and of which faced forward towards the bow. The question is how did these breakable objects not tumble off and forwards if the bow was at such a steep angle?

[@ThatWolfFromHyruleGaming]

Exactly. Also a steep angle downwards would dislodge the boilers from their seats, so the bow never went down further than 35 degrees as stated by Edward Wilding

[@ailopeformers8669]

Although this is true, there is one thing we can agree on, the V break never happened.

[@ailopeformers8669]

@@ThatWolfFromHyruleGaming yeah I think it spilt in half around 14-25 degrees. But at least its not as inaccurate as aaron1912 v break.

[@georgebrankov2143]

@@ailopeformers8669 However, the stern sinking at a steep angle is still the most credible theory for the sinking of the Titanic, even more so than in 2012.

[@billvanek5570]

@@ThatWolfFromHyruleGaming Wilding was wrong.

[@BryanGeisler]

this is what got me into sinking theories, thank you for making this!

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

Your welcome. I'm making an updated version, if you have a theory, I could include it.

[@BryanGeisler]

ok, i have a theory. the break up is not the best though lol

[@BryanGeisler]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmfWf2yNaJiibqc heres the break up theory, it is better than the break up in my sinking theory.

[@Larkin561]

Cool video and good editing it’s very good sinking well done 👍🏻

[@MrGab2.0]

“Ships need water, but water has shipwrecks,and shipwrecks have they’re own mystery”

[@zhackiethedog]

Their*

[@MrGab2.0]

Did I stutter

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

@@zhackiethedog no one gives a care in the world about grammar, this is the internet, we do anything

[@whenthe1999]

I think everyone's theory is great throughout the years

[@ottomatic6432]

Except Aaron1912's theories. Those are the only theories that just don't work.

[@theoneandonlycarpathia]

I rang the notification bell harder than the lookouts that faithful night in 1912

[@lolchipperson11person12]

I like tornadoHarrys theory of the breaking it just feels right for some reason and that reason is that just the 3rd funnels part just falls off,sometimes the smartest way to show something is the easiest if that makes sense.

[@SCIFIguy64]

I believe the hull of the stern folded into the hull of the bow, as the decks snapped apart. They were connected until both sumerged, with bow folding in almost at a right angle, pulling the stern down. Somewhere along the way, the stern twisted off like you would twist off a paperclip at a bend due to the drag.

[@HorrorMonster4406]

I personally think that Part Time Explorer had it, because if Titanic broke up like that, then it would explain the 3rd funnel deck house out in the debris field and not connected to the bow or stern.

[@crazyguy_1233]

I agree. It's always how I saw the breakup in my head.

[@reshiyum]

i’m crying you really put titanic the legend goes on in this

[@btshalflifegarrysmodayasee9497]

Nice and detailed breakup theories (Expect for Aaron1912's theories).

[@edgardomaat801]

This is the most iconic different theory of infamous ill-fated RMS TITANIC sinking and split and half.

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

Which theory are you talking about?

[@BestEachDay]

Nobody now knows, and nobody then knew for sure, because it was dark. Many of the survivors didn't even know for sure that it broke apart. We will never know how it really happened. Several things are certain, though: It was huge. It was terrifying for those who suffered through it. It was intensely destructive. And, it was a very, very deadly event.

[@jamescasey3408]

With all the money spent on inquiries, looking for it, dives to it, recovery of artifacts, movies, documentaries, etc. it would have been cheaper to build and exact replica, sail it in the Atlantic, find and hit an iceberg in the same area, then watch it sink.

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

That would have to be way too precise to actually work.

[@BabyItsSunny]

I really do think due to a lot of water in the front and just the weight of the back made it break in the middle bringing the front more into the water. But it's crazy how none of us will ever know how it broke

[@Unknown-sg4tv]

How To Make Problems Extremely impossible 1. Invent time machine. 2. Travel to 22nd century. 3. Invent a machine that can change probability to make probability certain that problems are Extremely impossible Forever in original timeline.

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

O-o-okay...

[@leo.909]

0:07 Return from The Titanic (1987) 0:28 James Cameron (1995) 0:51 Titanic: The Legends Go On (1999) 1:04 Titanic: The Lost Mysteries (2001) 1:17 Parks Stephenson (2006) 1:19 Roger Longs V break (2006) 1:46 Roy Mengot (2008) 2:00 Aaron1912's V Break theory (2010?) 2:14 Inside the Titanic and What Sank the Titanic (2011-2012) 2:29 Titanic: Miniseries (2012) 2:43 James Cameron (2012) 2:49 Titanic: Historys take (2013) 2:54 TornadoHarry (2014) 3:11 Aaron1912 improved V Break (2019) 3:16 Titanic: Honor and Glory (2020) 3:32 Elrond Gasal (2020) 3:47 Titanic VR (2020) 4:00 Wolfric Kintobor (2021) 4:14 Dr Wacky (2021) 4:28 Part Time Explorer (2021) 4:49 ShinGoji (2021) 5:04 RobloxianX (2020) 5:18 *Lost Documentary* *(2006)* If you see any mistakes please reply.

[@pizzaguyjabbarandfriends]

0:007 is Robert Ballard’s Theory in 1985 not Return from the Titanic

[@andy_thechicken]

Aaron 1912 was in 2009 yeah

[@IloveCruiseShips1912]

TornadoHarry's was in 2021

[@leo.909]

​@@pizzaguyjabbarandfriends The video is from 1987, the theory is from 1985, try not to get confused.

[@leo.909]

​@@IloveCruiseShips1912 oops, (Listen, I am not making Titanic Enthusiasts get mad at me.)

[@brandonescobar6749]

Tornado Harry’s one is the best titanic snapping theories about The titanic breaking in Half

[@candldagreat982]

1:26 now i know that Aaron1912s v break is complete bogus, but the one in 2006 is reasonable.

[@chickensouvlaki]

theres so many that i have never seen and its so cool to see them

[@LOTUS-ARTS001]

Feel free to always use my titanic footage when needed

[@terraspace1100]

Bruh

[@RSRFan_]

@@terraspace1100 take a j o k e

[@georgebrankov2143]

0:28 The 1995 theory is the best and most reliable theory in my opinion.

[@votpavel]

yall fail to mention a godzilla that swung its tail under the water and broke the ship in half

[@Only_football162]

Dummy…

[@IntrepidMilo]

No one will ever know for certain how the ship broke apart.

[@poland.oficial]

they will. my plan is to sink the titanic 2. heheheha

[@columnedfox5508]

with so many theories about how titanic sank. we'll never really know how she sank...

[@poland.oficial]

im gonna sink the titanic 2 and see how is sank.

[@Meegma]

People also forget since most of these have non-natural light April 15th was a completely moonless night and once the power in the ship went there was absolutely no light to see her except the faint glow of the stars but not enough to light up the sky enough to see her

[@johncockburn6573]

But hay that’s just a theory A FILM THEORY

[@u1richh]

I have a theory. The ship sank. We will never truly find out how it exactly broke apart unless there was somehow footage brought back by a time traveler.

[@johncockburn6573]

That is one of film theory’s videos

[@titanicenjoyer6930]

There's one way to find out. Rebuild the ship 1:1 SCALE AND THEN SINK IT AT THE SAME SPOT

[@ghxianlee9355]

@@titanicenjoyer6930 that’s not how it works thus the wreck ship of the original one will be destroyed

[@jabbersthekillerrabbit5057]

I never knew that the titanic breaking apart was debated, I thought there was only one and everyone accepted that it

[@GamePlayerZ1912]

It is because survivors are very contradictory on how it broke apart, due to being on different positions and watching it on a very dark night. So there are several theories to try to explain how the ship broke apart.

[@taylorbeckett9686]

That Sly Cooper theme tho

[@Marcus_MG42]

That night, 344 women survived and 126 died, while [367 men survived, and 1364 men], along with 53 children perished into the abyss of the killing cold of North Atlantic.

[@GamePlayerZ1912]

2:00 the cursed one

[@lerebox]

its worse than hitler

[@dylangabriel6673]

Titanic Animations disprove Aaron1912's V break

[@tigerproducts6905]

This got to be one of the most stupidest Theory I ever heard in my entire life and also the worst Theory the entire us planet history

[@dylangabriel6673]

@@tigerproducts6905 Yeah

[@PantherAusfD1944]

And 3:10

[@therandomnessfacility9948]

I personally believe the titanic broke in three and my evidence for that is: In the bow part if the shipwreck, it only has room for only two funnels. And ar the stern part it only has room for 1 funnel, so where did the other funnel go? Is it on the now perished 3rd part of the titanic?

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

There are actually four middle sections: The forward tower section, the aft tower section, the forward galley section and the aft galley section.

[@cadenthecadburyengine8198]

The James Cameron theory addressed this with the third/fourth section breaking off the stern underwater

[@therandomnessfacility9948]

@sev Fan 72 that's your opinion.

[@crazyguy_1233]

@sev Fan 72 It was definitely 3 or more sections. Her 3rd funnel deck house is completely missing all the way down. She had to have split forward and aft of the 3rd funnel.

[@crazyguy_1233]

@sev Fan 72 Titanic never had an explosion only implosions once she was fully submerged l.

[@lumindoesvideos]

I am a firm believer that while it likely rose into the air and snapped in half because the front filled with water, it probably took at least 10 minutes for it to actually snap. Ships aren't normally built to be able to go from horizontal to vertical so it would be an unfavorable bending load applied in a direction it's not supposed to bend. If it did take 10 minutes or more to snap, you'd definitely hear it. It would've groaned in ways it shouldn't, you'd hear weaker things like the wood floors cracking, things start to slide, pipes burst, that sort of stuff. Eventually you'd hear the big bits cracking in the superstructure, metal bending and tearing and eventually it just gives out. The stern falls back, knocking its last funnel down and it starts flooding from the giant opening that came from the snap. It may get partially dragged down by the bow, cables and flexible chains may still have survived till this, but the downward pull would be too much and those snap as well, leaving the sinking stern to drift a bit and finally sink on its own time, but given the condition it would be in after being ripped off, it wouldn't float for long.

[@higueraft571]

In particular, the theory is that the Double-Bottom section at the splitting site had buckled inward, shoving a Boiler up, the hull itself had given at a far shallower angle, HOWEVER, the Superstructure kept it together til it too eventually failed, causing a sudden split to-down, only connected by that same bottom now dragging the Stern down with the bow.

[@billvanek5570]

I agree with everything that you said, except for the "10 minutes" parts. The first break, as recorded by Jack Thayer, was starting at the first plunge (starboard bridge going under quickly, at a low angle), when Thayer was jumping, and continued long enough for him to hear it better when he came to the surface. So it took seconds, not minutes. The second breaking, at high angle, took 15-20 seconds: "It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as [if] the heavy machinery [had] dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship....it was a noise no one had heard before, and no one wishes to hear again: it was stupefying, stupendous, as it came to us along the water. It was as if all the heavy things one could think of had been thrown downstairs from the top of a house, smashing each other and the stairs and everything in the way." Another man described it as "a prolonged rush and a roar like the ten-thousand tons of coal sliding down a metal chute several hundred feet long". So it was many seconds, but not many minutes.

[@TheSyareo]

Titanic VR is my favorite game

[@skylarsorell9212]

I know it wasn't solid and that the forces acting on it were nigh incomprehensible, but it still amazes me that something that big just snaps in half like that

[@sorrenblitz805]

It's very likely she'd been breaking in half the whole night there, quietly and subtly at first until that final moment of catastrophic no return.

[@gregvassilakos]

Take the cardboard tube from a roll of paper towels and bend it. At the mid-length of the tube, the cross section will oval so that it is shorter in the plane of the bend. This happens in any tube shape, circular or rectangular, that is bent to the point of failure. This effect of the cross section deforming is missing in all the animations of the breakup of the Titanic. If you look at images of the wreckage on the ocean floor, it can be clearly seen that the upper ducks were pulled downward toward the keel. This is consistent with the bending failure of a tube shape. In short, as the bending failure of the hull, occurred, the upper decks were pulled downward toward the keel, and the hull went into V-shaped failure with the keel in compression and the upper decks in tension. Any animation that has the forward hull bending upward following the failure is just plain wrong.

[@MrRobert3227]

This or the water that the Titanic pulled down

[@billvanek5570]

Some people say that the collapse of those decks (not ducks) aft of the 2nd funnel on the bow wreck could have happened during the 70 years of corroding on the ocean bottom. But if it was just corrosion, why not the rest of the decks in the bow, then? So I agree with you: as the stern bent down, it would pull the decks in tension (forward and aft, and downward), collapsing the support columns between the decks before the decks finally snapped. You're right to notice that all of the theories that show a single break (especially a top-down, completely-through-the-ship crack) result in all the stress going into accomplishing such a break, leaving no stress to break loose the 'forward tower' and 'aft tower' or to crush down the decks.

[@RobloxianX]

Very nice!

[@nb_cash]

It would have been cool if you included Ken Marschall's theory that is depicted in one of his paintings where the ship is crippling apart rather than breaking clean. Since I was a kid, that was how I believed Titanic broke up when she sank until the James Cameron 2012 theory came along.

[@naterosen9786]

Honor and glory 2020 is my favorite and the most probable, because the bow wasn’t at the much of an angle, so it must’ve been lower to the water androstenedione people back up the honor and glory theory.

[@crisstudiosextra9061]

THE EVEN KEEL?

[@billvanek5570]

Honor and Glory has one of the same flaws that most of the other theories have: the first plunge happens too slowly. Everyone shows a slow flooding of the starboard boat deck where Collapsible 'A' was being worked on (actually upside down and tied to the falls, but immoveable/stuck under a funnel guy wire). The flooding there was actually fast---so fast that it came along like a wave, and caught up to people who tried to flee aft. There were no waves on the ocean at that time; any wave had to be created by the ship's motion. Lightoller, atop the wheelhouse: "Just then the ship took a slight but definite plunge…and the sea came rolling up in a wave, over the steel-fronted bridge, along the deck [starboard Boat Deck] below us, washing the people back in a dreadful huddled mass." And further up, by the 2nd funnel: "Water catches up with them and sweeps them up the deck toward the stern. Ship seems to be rushing forward and down, making the wave that engulfs them." There was no easy-going floating around of Collapsible 'A'.

[@rdj9606]

I’ve seen some v break theories that made me wonder. Perhaps mostly just the 2006 one. But at the same time I don’t think I could allow my self to believe it, because once the ship was fractured, in a logical sense the bow, which was an insane amount of dead wait is immediately going to dive down after being separated from the stern, furthermore continuing the break up process. Over all the whole break up seems to be quite obvious. The ship was in no way designed to have its stern out of the water like it was -creating immense stresses in the middle, and of course giving way to this force as a result. As most of us believe it to be this way( in some sort)anyways. Sadly we also know we will never fully know how things went down that night, but the break up of the Titanic is something I’ve never fully been able to grasp on a human level, the terror those poor people felt in that moment... the sounds.. the visuals of a mighty ship like Titanic breaking into, (or perhaps pieces) just awful.. but to actually be on the ship as it happened. The whole sinking is just tragic. May they all rest peacefully.

[@Lycan_Jedi]

The problem with the V break theory is it doesn't work no matter how you look at it. The fact is by the time it broke up, The bow was completely flooded, while the bow was filled with air, which means the bow is dragging the ship straight down, it's not going under at a level like he suggests. And there's nothing in the middle to weigh the ship enough to start the break to begin with even with the water. The fact is there's nothing that could even possibly make the break happen like that. The only type of break that makes sense is a stress fracture, which would require a massive amount of weight that couldn't be supported, or a large amount of force pushing down or up. But with the eyewitness testimonials we know she broke up on the surface, not underwater so that does away with any force pushing downward, and there's nothing that could push the ship upwards so it's weight.

[@higueraft571]

Basically, the more likely/accepted theory is that the Double-Bottom hull at the split had buckled inward, pushing the boiler up, and more or less compromising the integrity. AKA the Hull itself had failed at a much shallower Angle practically. What *did* keep the ship from splitting for so long was the Superstructure, til that eventually gave out, causing the entire thing to tear free practically. Still attached only by that double-bottom section that continued to drag down the Stern til it too eventually gave out.

[@user-tw7su8qt1p]

Thank you for the video. Can you tell me what the background music is?

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

Clockwerk, Sly Cooper 1.

[@user-tw7su8qt1p]

@@Wolfric_Rogers thank you!!!

[@demben9335]

I liked the 2012 james camreon Theory because it depicts the downwards exel and the first cracks among the ship as well as the implode and not center collapse and the mast was put 10 feet into the ship

[@hieratics]

Where is the cartoon when a giant octopus break the titanic?

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

That's not a theory, that's just stupidity.

[@titanicbigship]

@@Wolfric_Rogers then why did you add the V break

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

@@titanicbigship, because some people believe it, therefore making it a theory, except not a possible one. No one believes that a giant octopus kept the Titanic together as it sank.

[@TornadoHarry]

Yasss my theory

[@paulzan2246]

What’s the name of the song playing here?

[@Nobody-su7tf]

TY FOR DOING TORNADOHARRY

[@darius8501]

2:00 ill give you 48 hours to delete this 🔫

[@user-zq3qx9md5v]

lol

[@gabrielleirbag2030]

I believe the one where it broke in half

[@nathantudor5763]

Conspiracy theorist! I only believe the one where it sinks!

[@user-sf1ww4vk2g]

​@@nathantudor5763You do know some survivor testimonies about the bow missing and the stern settled back right?

[@nathantudor5763]

@@user-sf1ww4vk2g holy moly that’s some threadromancy! My comment was in jest!

[@softmouse1825]

Wow amazing

[@xirensixseo]

titanic the legend goes on. im having flashbacks to jon

[@LudicrousTorpedo]

Hey mate, what was the documentary from the 2001 version ? Also, I can't believe you really searched some these theories like TornadoHarry, Shingoji, Titanic Animations, Titanic : Honor and Glory, and Part-Time Explorer, Dr Wacky. Really impressed me mate ! And who animated it the last one ?

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

Glad you enjoyed this! I accidentally mislabelled a few of these... The one I labelled as 2001 was actually from Titanic: The Last Mysteries, 2004. The final one was from a 2006 documentary, unfortunately, everything but the sinking simulation is lost. I am going to be making an updated version of this video at some point soon to include a few more theories.

[@suede7799]

If the time machine has exists

[@suede7799]

I would save the titanic

[@Randolph_]

Never knew there are a lot more theories than the 1995 version (1997 movie) and the 2012 version (titanic 100 years)

[@Chsbrubru]

all cool i wonder what theory rec room titanic used

[@bobtheawesome727]

We all know the talking dog did it. The "science" might not back it up, but we as the good people of the united states know in our hearts it was the rapping dog that broke the Titanic.

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

He certainly broke my hope for a decent movie!

[@samsanimationcorner3820]

That fucking dog! My autistic friend saw him once way back 20 years ago or so, and has not shut about him since!

[@railfandepotproductions]

He gave me nightmares, a Serbian man in the boiler room s would be good company

[@LucaThePupineer]

Fun fact: it’s impossible for titanic to vbreak

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

V a break 2006 is likely impossible but can happen. Aaron1912 V break in the other hand is pure impossible.

[@jeroendesterke9739]

I remain amused by the graphics of Titanic breaking up above the water as opposed to the fracture occurring submerged. Cameron's film shows her breaking in half like a cold chocolate bar.

[@LyricalXilence]

OK seeing it this way the Aaron 1912 V Break doesn't make sense. The standard V break looks more like a possibility now, but I still don't think it happened that way. 1995 is definitely what James Cameron based his movie break up on. Roy Mengot didn't make sense the first time I saw it, but with this animation I can visualize it better; his theory is stating that the breakup was very dirty and happened under water. The "break" we all associate with Titanic comes off more like a bend causing structural damage on top leading to the bottom just giving in and separating causing the bow and stern to become 2 parts.

[@pressstart1490]

To be honest we will never know what exactly happend that night. I believe Part-time explorer, Dr Wacky, and ShinGoji look the best in my opinion

[@BaileyLeFloof]

In the 1985 theory, not sure what about it but I find the low quality coupled with a starless night rather creepy… also it’s interesting seeing it TWIST a bit rather than straight up and down snapping.

[@coffeecrashed]

What is the music? It's an absolute jam.

[@Wolfric_Rogers]

Clockwerk, Sly Cooper 1.

[@coffeecrashed]

@@Wolfric_Rogers thank you, you're a saviour.

[@codymckernan3556]

The reason there is so many theories is not the fact that she split. But 1 singular piece was broken. This was the bottom of the hual, the idea of the v break came out as the idea is it split and caused the bottom to break off. Then hundreds of more theories came into play

[@randomizer01j23]

2:01 No.

[@Ricardocomics14]

Very nice video, to me my favorite theories are the V break (2006), Roy Mengot theory and your theory, it doesn't show exactly the separation of the stern and maybe is that why done survivors said that sunk intact and others that break up, people who think it sank intact saw the stern falling, but not the separation. And people who think that break up saw the stern falling and no separation, but they think that, if the stern collapsed, obviusly it split. Great video! I will publish my own theory in my channel, that its based in survivors testimonies like Jack Thayer etc. 😉👍🏻

[@tigerproducts6905]

The V breakup is absolutely stupid

[@Ricardocomics14]

@@tigerproducts6905 I mean the 2006 one. not the Aaron1912 one.

[@tigerproducts6905]

Yeah we'll both of them represent the V split and it's absolutely stupid

[@zhackiethedog]

@@Ricardocomics14 yeah i like the 2006 one too it just seems too chaotic that the stern bobs up fast and smashes everything under it

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

@@tigerproducts6905 you don’t realize that the bow in the 2006 theory didn’t come out of the water?

[@pusheenthecat9264]

I would hardly call Aaron1912's opinion a theory. His "theory" defies laws of physics in so many ways.

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

TornadoHarry is probably the only theory I’ve seen where the aft tower falls

[@titanicbigship]

2012 v-brake made more sense than the 2021 updated v-brake

[@CoolidgeFanboy]

A surfaced V - Break for Titanic wouldn't make any sense no matter how it happened.

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

Actually I don’t understand this comment

[@MrRobert3227]

V break in titanic makes no sense also learn to write so we can understand

[@titanicbigship]

@@ThatIsALakeSir the entire four piece of the ship arises out of the water in the 2020

[@TheGamingPolitician]

Chads who understand physics > V break believers

[@ThatIsALakeSir]

Aaron1912 v break is near impossible 2006 V break is lil accurate

[@liezllyncanlas2936]

what song is this?

[@brave_jedi9437]

I could have sworn, that one of the breaking theories looks like it’s Disney animation.