Unbelievable: The 3D Scan That SHOCKED Everyone About the Titanic!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2024
- Where is the damage the iceberg caused to Titanic's hull?
A complete 3D reconstruction of the shipwreck of the Titanic, assembled from more than 700,000 images, taken from every conceivable angle, reveals the ship like we’ve never seen it before.
0:00 3D Scan Reveals Titanic Shipwreck
1:09 Same theory for 100 years
2:11 Portion of damage covered by mud
3:04 Iceberg did NOT scrape side of Titanic!
4:04 Parks Stephenson challenges history
5:13 So where is the hull damage?
Footage appearing in this video has been sourced from and credited to:
Atlantic Productions / Magellan... atlanticproductions.tv
Paramount Pictures... www.paramountpictures.com
National Geographic... www.nationalgeographic.com
COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, ALLOWANCE IS MADE FOR “FAIR USE” FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING, SCHOLARSHIP, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH. FAIR USE IS A USE PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT STATUTE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INFRINGING.
Screen captures and motion clips used in this video are protected by the Fair Use Law, section 107 used for commentary, criticism, news reporting or education for transformative use.
www.copyright.gov/fair-use/mo... - บันเทิง
Most of the damage if not all, is hidden in the mud
This is what I waa thinking, or that the titanic was actually impaled rather than slashed.
@@cameronhaines1544 Thinking it was little bit of both, especially initial impact.
That's my thought on the matter too.
Yeah or the literal 100 years of buillt up rust 😅
Maybe. There was a huge fire in that section during construction that seems to be mostly ignored.
The bottom or Keel of RMS Titanic was actually a Double Bottom Hull Construction. Meaning there were two sets of hull plating placed a few feet apart. This was to ensure that if the ship did strike an underwater object, like rocks or an iceberg, it shouldn’t penetrate both hulls. The proposed scenario seems unlikely because if the ship had struck the berg at its bottom, both hulls being breached would have also been unlikely. There were visual inspections of the damage by several crew members, yet there were NO reports of water bubbling up through the floors of compartments as it would have been. Several Boiler men and stokers were hit with an icy jet of water from the lower starboard side of the ship, and this is documented in Robert Ballard’s book from official sources. Also, had this happened, Both hull plates would have needed to have been breached. Had that occurred, there would likely have been a large hole ripped open in the bottom of the ship, similar to RMS Britannic’s hull damage, caused by the exploding German Mine, but more extensive along a length of the hull. With catastrophic damage of this sort, Titanic would’ve foundered in Minutes not Hours, maybe as little as thirty minutes or less! She actually stayed afloat for 2 hours and 40 minutes! The Robert Ballard documentary film “Titanic”. The Nightmare and the Dream, clearly shows a “Morse Code” -..-..-..- type of damage, where rivets have popped and steel plating slightly forced oped in the fashion shown. It would only take a very slight crease in the plating to allow water into the ship, and this is present along a significant length of the “visible” lower portions of the starboard side! This damage is only visible very close up, and probably won’t be seen clearly in this scan! It was also shown that the rivets and steel used in ship construction of the time, became brittle under extreme cold conditions. This undoubtedly played a part in the unfortunate chain of events. Titanic’s hull had been subjected to very cold water temperatures for a long time before iceberg collision. With the steel hull plating already weakened, it wouldn’t have taken much of an iceberg impact to buckle them and pop the rivets, thus opening up the ship to the ocean. Reports from survivors told of a very gentle vibration, and Not a violent impact as the ship scraped along the side of the iceberg. Little did the passengers and crew aboard Titanic realise, that this gentle little scrape of ice would be proven to have fatally wounded their ship…In less than three hours; Titanic would disappear beneath two and a half miles of water…. and into legendary status….She wouldn’t be seen again for more than 73 years!
Very descriptive analysis, one of the best I have read. It really paints a picture for those reading. Thank you. I'm no expert and I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your narrative certainly makes sense and connects a lot of dots. Fascinating.
The hull did break in half..perhaps a weak area that allready had damage ...anyway depends on the shape of the iceberg both kinds of damage are possible..
The speed of the ship along with it's weight and the weight if the iceberg itself amounts to more than just a scrape after all it would take hundreds of tons of force to break even "brittle" rivets after all these rivets can get to be as large as a human fist
I like your comment- I just left one saying similar things but i believe you explained it much better! Thank you for being another voice of sanity.
so your saying it's unsinkable?
The iceberg did not tear holes in the ship. It popped rivets and the hull plates became slightly separated.
You have no clue what happened
@@johnnychimpo7539 Fireman Fred Barrett saw it happen from the inside and testified at the inquires. Why should I Doubt him? Do you know better?
@@johnnychimpo7539 you know any better? Right you don't 😂
@@Maximus20778 so you don't know better?
I remember hearing the same theory. The iceberg pushed into the ship
The berg damage is hidden beneath the mud.
It was actually scanned a few years past with ultrasonic sonar, and indicated it was something like 12sq feet total spread over a half dozen buckles between plates down a twenty or thirty foot length of the hull about ten feet above the keel.
Hell even back in 1912 Edward Wilding calculated the area to be roughly that size. Because of her double bottom the iceberg would've had to punch through both layers to sink her.... Also there's an image/mosaic of her starboard side and in that mosaic you can *clearly* see the hull plating having parted right around where boiler room 6 would be.
Your comment did what this video failed to do. How can someone make a video like this, and not do their research?
The Titanic might have sank, but it refused to truly die.
that’s correct ✅
Titanic will die only if humanity forgot her story
@@nnicee99ushe'll rot and will very forgotten
It died alright.. along with everyone who didn't get in a life boat...
Could have impacted side and bottom. As EZ Taylor, Titanic survivor is quoted as saying “I felt the boat rise and it seemed to me that she was riding over the ice. I ran out on deck and then I could see ice. It was a veritable sea of ice and the boat was rocking over it.”
I know people reported a lot of ice on deck right after whatever impact it was so I'm inclined to believe it definitely sideswiped the berg but both having happened is for sure believable.
People reported a large amount of ice on deck that had been knocked off the iceberg. So Im inclined to think it probably did grt close enough to scrape the side. It is very deep in mud and the impact of hitting the ocean floor at 30mph warped it as well. You can see this in the shape of it. It may have forced the openings shut (not shut but squeezed them together) and then buried in mud, plus the rust and sediment may make it all impossible to see.
Now this is by far the best guess from the rest.
Makes perfect since.
Yep. Stories were told of passengers playing Football with the ice chuncks on the forward deck of Titanic.
I hate to tell you this isn't true and the guy is flat out wrong or lying in the video. The iceberg damage still visible past the mudline was filmed and photographed several times on different expeditions. The first time was the 1986 Ballard expedition. You can see two photomosaics of the damage made from close up images in his book "The Discovery of the Titanic".
The most recent images I know of the iceberg damage is in the 2010 side scan mosaic.
@Starshipsforever I know it is, but I'm saying it was greatly lessened upon impact with the ocean floor from what it would have appeared like after it hit the berg.
The suspected gash from hitting the iceberg was believed to be much closer to the keel, and actually even believed to have partially pierced the keel, so the part of the ship that hit the iceberg is most likely buried under a bunch of mud, and would probably not be visible in these scans.
Not a gash. A Series of separated plates and popped rivets for about a 300 foot span. The gash theory was tested and found that if it were like what was first believed, Titanic would have sank in 15 minutes...
My guess would be more or less on level with the bilge keel.
The iceberg damage still visible past the mudline was filmed and photographed several times on different expeditions. The first time was the 1986 Ballard expedition. You can see two photomosaics of the damage made from close up images in his book "The Discovery of the Titanic".
The most recent images I know of the iceberg damage is in the 2010 side scan mosaic.
The bow is in 45 feet of mud, the damage is below that, buried. There are bits visible though further back, I'm sure ballard scanned them at one point.
He mentions it in his book.
Yes Ballard found a small separation of the steel plates in the VHS secrets of the titanic by national geographic 1997 collectors edition at the end last 15 minutes titled Titanic's last hours there is video proof of the plate separation
The bow is buried in 60 feet, and the stern is buried in 45 feet. In Dr. Ballard's book "The Discovery of the Titanic", he has two close-up photomosaics of the damage.
The Olympic class of ship (as with most ships of that era) had a double bottom, known as the tank top, consisting of a second water tight layer of plating spanning the entire length and width of the hull. This was to minimise damage and flooding from grounding, the most common type of incident that ships will experience.
Which is why the main damage had to be above that level.
Trump put a bomb on the ship
Um Titanic did not have a double bottom!
@@extersmedleyjr118 Source?
@@extersmedleyjr118 Ee... Titanic did have a double bottom...
Years ago I recall a reading a witness testimony of a passenger who claimed the ship felt as if it lifted slightly out of the water then dropped back down again, suggesting it hit something under the water and not visible at the surface. Whatever happened, the damage to the ship was more than it could sustain and stay afloat.
The the expedition to find the titanic with a cover to find two missing submarines at the site. The expedition found them then used the extra 12 hours down there to find the Titanic. Did the Titanic hit one or did they get between them in a torpedo battle.
@@1DVSBstop..
@@mavo_hiphop No they not have to stop just because you are a sheep and beleive what ever you are told! Go get another vax!
That’s the thing with growler bergs, you don’t get to see what is spread out under water.
They are referring to when the ship broke apart the back came up again and then sunk after the front broke off
The damage was multiple small punctures caused by iceberg scraping the starboard hull below the waterline. The rivets popped out making small gaps between the hull plates they were holding together. There was no gash but gaps.
You were there the night it sank?
@@maratonlegendelenemirei3352 no, survivors were. Wreck expeditions with experienced people after 74 years were there. Researchers with adequate equipment were there.
The same thing can be asked to the people claiming one large gash.
Essentially I believe that's true, based on expert opinion, not the challenge of the poster who asked if you were there....
"Peering through the mud with sound waves, the team found the damage to be astonishingly small -- a series of six thin openings across the Titanic's starboard hull. The total area of the damage appears to be about 12 to 13 square feet, or less than the area of two sidewalk squares." Source NYT '97
@@maratonlegendelenemirei3352 i was there on the night, as i identify as one of the passengers. men can also have babies im told.
Fred Barret's testimony at the inquiries are proof. He saw the hull damage happen from the inside in real time.
Actually, you can see iceberg damage in the 3D scans. You can see a section of hull plates that are separated below the impact hole and just a little aft of that. Take a closer look. It's there. But anything forward from that point is buried in the mud. The iceberg damage is on the starboard side of the ship. But, it is still possible that the ship may have ran over a shelf of the iceberg along with the side of the ship. Both could be possible. But again, you can see what looks to be iceberg damage on the starboard side of the hull which looks to be around boiler room 5
Good eye! And by the looks of it, I’d say it’s definitely more likely to be iceberg damage than impact damage.
i want to say that Ballard said they could see it to on one of his expeditions.
Are you referring to the giant hole on the starboard side? I believe that hole was made as a result of the impact to the ocean floor. The hull went head first into the mud at a high angle, then as the front-bottom part of the bow was imbedded in the mud the rear/rest of the bow came down and hit the bottom, it bent the superstructure of the ship and tore that hole there. That hole is located right where the ship was forced to bend. I believe Ballard himself believes that's what happened.
The iceberg only buckled the hull plates and popped some rivets allowing water to pour in , otherwise a huge gash would have sunk the ship in about 20 minutes.
This was explained in a recent video (J. Cameron with the gentleman who found it in 85). There was no huge gash. Measurement of damage was more like 11 vs 300 and definitely not an open gash. The dissimilar metals (iron/steel) buckled, opened up in spots and let water in… then the ship kept moving, pulling water in rapidly.
All this time, I thought there had to be some catastrophic iceberg damage. Like it ripped open the whole side or something. But no, it hit the iceberg rather gently but at wrong spot and in middle of night. Almost like an arrow, guided by a Goddess, hurled directly toward the heel of the perfect warrior.
It was literally like the perfect storm. Everything that could have gone wrong, went wrong.
Yeah, but if he didn't ignore this then this guy couldn't have made this video for a profit.
Yep. And there were ways the ship could have been saved, like countering balance, by shoving weight from the front of the ship to the back. You know, to keep it even in the water.
Almighty God in control of everything. No ship is unsinkable if He says otherwise. Humans are too proud of their so called great creations that we forgot the power of Almighty God over all things.
Just a gentle collision with invisible iceberg is enough to cause the ship to be buried permanently
@@victorsamsung2921Fothering might have worked too, at least long enough for Carpathia to arrive. I'm thinking they had nothing to fother with, no sails, no hatch tarpaulins. Collision mats only carried by warships? Also maybe only a small deck crew. Plenty of stokers and hospitality staff, but not so many sailors (in the sailing ship sense).
You were almost there. It was a guided arrow, to the Achilles heel, aka a torpedo fired at the weak point
This set up the perfect time to plan an expedition to clear the sea floor away the hull and expose it to get the definitive answer.
The gashes aren't actual gashes for boiler rooms 5 and 6, the water came in as rivets popped off from the force of the iceberg and the steel plates separated slightly allowing water to get in through the newly made gaps, thus you would not see gashes down the side of the ship as the gashes aren't there, they are simply larger gaps between the plates now covered in rusticles. Most of the damage except for the most forward section had this type of damage to it which allowed water into the ship. The double hull plates are only on the bottom and did not extend up the sides.
correct. the video maker is delusional.
@@davidhusband5022 They're a friggin idiot. But then again most conspiracy theorists are. They latch on to one small thing and ignore then rest.
That starboard hole at 0:42 looks pretty visible to me.
You also don't need BIG holes, just dents enough to knock the rivets slightly out of joint.
It is also possible that the bottom got scraped.
That hole is where the hull buckled and fractured when it hit the seabed.
I remember seeing a figure somewhere of the combined damage the iceberg caused, meaning it has been measured at some point, and it really wasn't that much. The total if I remember correctly is something like in the 12-15 square feet area.
A tiny, 4" hole, 30 feet below the water line, will flow 1,000 gallons of water a minute into the ship.
the ice berg damage is more of as grounding effect rather than a sideswipe effect, most of the sideswipe damage occurred in the first 20 or so feet of the bow, which is under that large mound of sediment
I recall a interview with a elderly gentleman who stated he felt the ship shudder and come to a stop pretty quickly. He stated he went to the upper deck and was surprised to see large chunks of ice on the deck..
So all we need is an INTERNAL SCAN What are you waiting for ?
Call Ballard and Cameron haha.
James Cameron said when he was down there ( over 30 dives) they had the rover move sand/silt away from the bottom and what they saw was shocking! It look like it was painted yesterday. Apparently, something in the sand ( chemically) has preserved the paint and finish. He said the technical term and what exactly was in the sand that preserved it, but I am old and can’t remember
Still inspiring hare-brained conspiracy theories after 111 years!
Isn't it a hare-brained conspiracy theory to assume that people with immense wealth and power, have never lied, cheated, and conspired before?
Exactly.
Next they'll be saying that Captain Smith paid for the ship to be sunk.
@@dcmastermindfirst9418. That or aliens did it lol
Excuse me. I’m pretty sure the iceberg hit the side that’s hidden in mud:/
In my humble opinion as a Coastguardsman, I would say that how the iceberg brought her down specifically is irrelevant. Titanic made contact with an iceberg which caused a mass casualty sinking event. The resulting change in culture and laws regarding liners running full speed through known ice fields, improved safety standards and the International Ice Patrol founded in 1911 are implementations of the lessons learned from that frigid night.
Stop being sensible. What many of the people who read the posts on here want to see is ' Olympic & Titanic were swapped, so that Olympic could be sunk by J.P. Morgan to claim insurance & create the Federal Reserve.
Yes, I know it's rubbish from end to end, but the berks do like their fantasies.
The wreck unfortunately has a new debris field now.
Watch Drain the Titanic, you can see the ice burg puncture points in their 3D model. No 300 ft tear. Iceburg 30ft length gash. Gaps in the hull 11 square feet . And when they ran it through their model of how much water would be let in by the gashes, the results were around the same time it took for the titanic to sink .
I notice that you have missed the photograph that shows red paint on the iceberg. Plus the iceberg did not open a big gash, it pushed the plates in which popped the rivets and the water rushed in through those gaps. And they have proven there was a fire on board which weakened a critical bulkhead that lifted at the bottom and allowed water to rush in and bypass it and that caused the Titanic to sink deeper which allowed the water to rush over the top of the forward bulkheads. The bulkheads did not reach the deck, there was a gap between them. The Chief Stoker said the fire had caused the bulkhead to bulge at the bottom and the weight of the water pushed it up and away from its anchor points. That was given as evidence at the inquiry in England. So much for people claiming to be experts on the Titanic.
Hold on, when Robert Ballard dove down in 1985 he clearly discovered the hull damage on the starboard side. It’s even in his book. The scans are clearly there.
Do you have a source fot this claim? I couldnt find anything about a discovered gash.
According to Chat GPT 4.0
“Ballard's team did observe damage to the hull, but they did not definitively determine the exact nature or extent of the iceberg damage. The area of the hull that was in direct contact with the iceberg is buried in sediment, which makes it difficult to assess.”
@@Minimalici0us true I get the almost same result. But I think with hull damage is not the gash itself ment, more likely the hole that has been created when the bow crashed on the seafloor. I need to read the book tough.
Frederick Barrett - head fireman in boiler room 6 and Titanic survivor. Barrett’s testimony in both the US and UK inquiries after the disaster proved crucial in understanding the extent of the damage and the details regarding how Titanic sank he said water came pouring in two feet above the stockhold plate
The 30' long sideswipe is in the very first scene of the video. The hole wasn't a long gash but a weakened point due to a coal fire that weakened the integrity of the hull. Given the location of the hole, the ship was doomed almost immediately.
Edit: the real conspiracy is the ship was attacked because JP Morgans business rivalries were all onboard. Hence why he decided to not take the trip at the last minute. .
Yes, very convenient that, isn't it....they were against forming what was to become the Federal Reserve, whereas JP Morgan and several others were all for it
Blablabla 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm not a physics expert by any means, but a coal fire would have been extinguished immediately when half of the Atlantic Ocean is pouring into the ship.
I don't know. Looking at the starboard side shot, just aft and below the big point where the hull buckled, you can see a line where rusticles are growing independent of the rest of the plating. As if the upper edge of that line of plates is bowed out away from the hull. Right in line with the reported damage to Boiler rooms 5 and 6...
The titanic brushed the side of the burg, which caused plates to separate partiality. It wasnt a huge gash or hole. The damage was smaller then 9 square feet if i remember correctly. The problem was where and how much. They couldnt get to the damage quick enough to plug it, 12 ft of water in less then 15 minutes, and it was in 6 compartments. The ship was made well, probably the best made ship of its time. The problem was no ship had hit a burg in that way at that point in history, plus they thought anything that could damage the ship they would see in plenty of time. The problem was there was a cold water mariage, no moon and still ocean water. So they didnt see the burg till it was less then 500-600ft directly nose on of the ship. The fact that they still almost missed it is amazing. The fact they kept the ship afloat for 2hrs and 40 minutes afterwards is comendable. The crew were heros that night. It was just a tragic accident.
this makes sense because no one ever talks about a list of the ship, if the hole is in the very bottom you will have flooding that will cause the ship to sink like this instead of listing to one side or the other and rolling over.
You know what sir that's the most intelligent thing that I've seen in this entire comment section yes if all the damage was to the port side of the ship Titanic as All Ships would have immediately started a heavy list towards the damaged side of the ship and would eventually have capsized killing everyone on board but the very fact that they were able to wait almost an hour before even preparing the lifeboats and sending out a rescue call and that they were able to launch all the lifeboats from both sides of the ship because Titanic had virtually no list is a giant clue the flooding was occurring from the very bottom of the ship and not from the port side not to mention the fact that there's eyewitness testimony from Fireman that were in Boiler Room 6 who said water was coming up from the floor
But she was already listing. They had moved all the coal to the port side from the burning bunker and she had a slight list to port. After the impact, she straightened up for a while. Scotland Road ran along the port side of the ship and was basically just a very long hallway that filled very quickly once the water reached it.
@@BrennanBarrier still not enough list from flooding to be corrected by shifting coal around in bunkers, there was only so much coal available to shift.
Parks has often mentioned, even years ago, that Titanic grounded on the ice. I remember back in 2012 reading this on a forum, him mentioning it in a video about Titanic (not a documentary) and other media about the grounding effect. There was a video that mentioned Parks "had another theory" about the sinking and I commented wondering what it could be. About 15 people commented back that Parks believed the ship had grounded. I have always trusted his views and beliefs on the disaster more so than other historians, though there are a few I trust as well. This is pretty interesting stuff.
Parks never mentioned, or maybe he Doesn’t know a basic Fact about Titanic’s Bottom Hull or Keel Plating. It was actually a Double Hull Construction! Two huge sets of hull plates placed several feet apart the entire length of the hull, to prevent that very thing from happening. After Titanic collided with iceberg, crew members went to inspect the damage. There were NO reports of water bubbling up through the bottom of the holds as it would have been and. Several Boiler men and stokers were hit with an icy jet of water from the lower starboard side of the ship. This fact is documented too! Had Both hull plates been breached, there would have been a ripped open hole a significant way down the bottom of the hull. The water ingress would be so massive, Titanic would’ve foundered in minutes, not hours! (Actual time to sink: 02 hours 40 minutes) This would have been a violent event, surviving passengers reported feeling a “Gentle Vibration” and not a violent impact! In Dr Robert Ballard’s first video “Titanic” The Nightmare and the Dream. You can clearly see the damage to her starboard side, damage caused the iceberg. Slightly pushed in plating and popped rivets, with the first 50 feet buried in the mud!
I agree with the comments made. I have studied titanic for over a decade. A gash on the bottom of the ship causing the sinking is unlikely due to titanic having a double bottoms to prevent such an issue. My guess is the scan just didn’t pick up the iceberg damage. As well as we have accounts from inside of titanic of water coming in through the side of the hull of the ship.
Uh yeah sure pal
Yep. All those rusticles have done a great job after 110 years to cover the damage. And don't forget the damage wasn't even that big, like a gash. Just very thin and long cut in the bolt connection between the plates.
Where can I study Titanic?
They were talking about damage that was "finger width" between boiler rooms 5 and 6. If you go to the 3D scan you can barely see the slit when zoomed in. Just gotta look harder.
You missed where Bob Ballard stated that 50 to 60 feet of Titanic was inaccessible to see the damage because it was buried that deep into the mud. Count the panels by sections from top going down. I count five on this scan, butt in the dry doc image there are twelve(both counted at the middle) sections of 9 to 10 foot tall panels in rows going from front to rear. Hell she weighed 46,000 tons and hit bottom so hard and deep that it collapsed the whole bow section.
You wouldn't be able to see it in that 3D scan anyway because no one ever said huge holes were ripped out of the side... The damage was basically all just popped rivets and slight wrinkling of the sheet metal, allowing the seams between the sheets of metal to allow water in, and you wouldn't be able to see missing rivets in a 3d scan with the resolution provided by that photogrammetry scan technique.
I have a book on the history of the Titanic and apparently the ship left a patch of paint on the iceberg as it went past and this was proof that the collision did occur. As for the information revealed in this video, I don't know what to think because all I've heard about in main is how the ship split in 2 and the stern levels imploded on top of each other and faced in the opposite direction of the bow, but having said that, I've always wondered what the hole on the side of the shipwreck signifies and yet nobody has ever spoken about it.
If you understand how icebergs are shaped and how the ship was moving when it hit, you'd understand perfectly why the damage furthest back the hull from initial contact point is lowest on the ship, and probably under it at the point you can see the whole vertical hull.
I'm surprised Parkes Stephenson said that. He knows his stuff for sure, but would also know the general damage area is: -under mud, -very possibly squashed/mangled on seabed impact, -and has actually been radar scanned years ago, from what I recall, what they could see did indicate some evidence of small slices/openings.
-not to say grounding didn't happen also, but I think a stokers witnessed leaks springing up the hull side.
One engineer calculated that the opening in the hull was only 12 square ft. With the riveted overlapping iron plates it would only take a small gap in a seem spread half the length of the ship to sink it. The gap in a seem might only be able to be viewed from a low angle. Whatever the damage it was the fact that it involved too many different compartments for the ship to stay afloat that really mattered. If all the hull damaged was in one water tight compartment the ship likely would have survived.
its insane to think that an average sized bedroom of space can sink a ship the size of 10 mansions so fast
It wasn't a massive gash, it was a series of scrapes that punctured the lower side of the ship that filled certain rooms, just enough to sink the ship. If what you're saying is true with a MASSIVE gash, the ship would has sunk a lot faster. Plus, it's covered in mud, good theory for fantasizing though, really thought you beat all of the experts who dedicated their entire lives to it.
This kind of helps proves my belief that Titanic ran aground over the iceberg that was below the waterline, buckling the double keel, rather than just simply scraping along it.😊 Thankyou
Funny that I left this comment before watching the video, so I'm not the only one who thinks this!😊
5:19,you can see the buckled hull plates in a straight line just behind the blow out damage just above the mud line. This area is boiler rooms six and five,it has been shown numerous times throughout the years. There was possible grounding damage to boiler room four according to witnesses but evidence is there of the side strike.
It is hard to see but it looks like the plates just above the mud might be a little farther in than the plates above them. It is all covered in rust and silt.
@@canuckprogressive.3435 It’s hard to see for sure at this angle,but even with rust and muck on the hull you can see a straight line where the hull plates are popped out. Robert Ballard took photos as well as many others of this area,there’s even a small pipe sticking out of the hull plates from the inside out. I think it was the late 90’s or early 2000’s they did a radar scan of the mud line where the bows buried and found numerous buckles from the fore peak tank to cargo hatch two. I believe it was National Geographic that filmed it. Was pretty interesting you should try a look it up.
@@garyschiffli1043 It's literally impossible for us to distinguish iceberg damage and damage from hitting the ocean floor.
@@ohgoditsjames94 The damage from hitting the sea floor consists of ripped and buckled hull plates. The possible iceberg damage is a straight line that follows the plate line and is well behind the impact area.
@@garyschiffli1043 Precisely, you don't think the impact will have exacerbated the iceberg damage? The energy from the impact will have been transmitted throughout the entire length of the hull, it wouldn't have been localised to just the forecastle.
I seem to recall Ballard taking an image that showed part of the side gash. It was in his book "Discovering the Titanic."
I believe the 45ft gash from the iceberg damage that was in Boiler Room #6 is visible to the naked eye when oceanographers in the submersibles are looking at that section well below the first funnel opening and below the A Deck, B Deck promenade decks. But the remaining gashes are definitely not visible bc of the sea floor mud covering almost entirely of the starboard side of the Titanic
Ballard found the damage during his original survey of the wreck. A few dented hull plates, that would have allowed water to breach through the seams.
The first issue that came to mind when I first heard this analysis is that passengers reported ice on the deck and that doesn't fit with just scraping along the bottom.
All I know is JP Morgan had all his art work removed before she sail and canceled his ticket. He claimed to be sick ,but went shopping with his mistress .what did he know?
He must have been tipped off that there was a fire in a coal bunker.
Now THAT makes a heck of a lot more sense to me. Thank you.
It's crazy she's still down there in the very same spot she was over a century later
There was also a fire burning for two weeks before titanic left the port now that could have weakened the plate steel when it hit the ice mountain
No it wasn’t even near where the iceberg struck and it wouldn’t do anything
The damage is below the level of the mud. It is a long way down. I believe it was a deeper strike than survivors knew as it is more likely than tapping along the side unless it was so low that it was just above the bottom. It had to be one of those two areas. A high strike below the water line just isn't probable from the we almost cleared it claims.
I have always had problems with the theory that the ship sank as a result of horizontal gash from the iceberg. I believe that the inertia of the forward motion of 54 thousand ton ship had an impact that burst a seam below the water line. After the impact, the ship kept going, grazing the side of the iceberg but the ship was already doomed.
I still want to see exactly what name is engraved or bolted on both bows and the stern of that wreck. Olympic or Titanic ?
You would think that THAT would have been a priority and only feeds the growing evidence of a conspiracy.
hey history x, would love if you could take a look at the design of titanics double bottom, or maybe explore similar era double bottoms to see the possibility of an iceberg breaching, certainly an interesting video so much to learn even hundreds of years later!
HUNDREDS of years 😳
@@ChairmanPaulieD a hundred years, ya know what i mean :)
@@jacobv6505 ah ok I figured that’s what you meant 👌🏽
The damage IS visible, BUT you have to know exactly where to look, and even THEN you can barely see it. I knew where to look on the model, and I saw it, but even then it's very hard to pick out. Bear in mind that, like many others here have mentioned, most of the damage is hidden by the mud. Only the very "tail end" is visible. it's there on the model, but if you don't know the bow section, you're never gonna see it on the model. You will find it, almost 'invisible', at around 5:19, just above the mudline, aft of and below the big hole under the forward Well Deck. It crosses what looks on the model like a small vertical 'crack' that runs down from D-Deck. You can JUST see it as a straight line that is slightly brighter then the hull around it. THAT'S the visible portion of the 'berg damage.
An experienced Captain wrote a book about the "grounding" years back. I've been following TITANIC research for over 40 years, and found his evidence GREATLY plausible. It was supposedly "disproven" over the fact that the 2 discovered double bottom pieces from the break area (from under the 3rd funnel) that are flipped upside-down on the bottom show no grounding damage. What the naysayers didn't consider, is that at that point, there WOULD be no damage as the hull would have been off the underwater ice shelf by the time the 'berg was alongside the 3rd funnel. No damage because the hull was off the ice at that point. Remember, Murdoch was trying to clear the stern from impact, and he succeeded. But, even with bottom damage, the traditional openings in the side were enough - the total combined area of opened seams is nearly IDENTICAL to the damage suggested by Edward Wilding (assistant to TITANIC designer Thomas Andrews) at the inquiry.
P.S. I would take anything Parks Stephenson says at face value - he is one of the most respected individuals in the TITANIC community, and has long held our respect.
Perhaps the iceberg damage sufficiently weakened the starburd side, allowing the ship striking the ocean floor to remain reasonably level.
Which side suffers the most from the final ocean floor impact?
The side that was gashed open by striking an iceberg.
That side is now crumpled up and the initial iceberg damage is "buried" in the surrounding structure folding.
I think that’s been explained a lot. The hull didn’t suffer extensive damage, it was the rivets, extreme cold water and the scraping of the iceberg. The experts theorized the cheaper rivets the builders used, popped off and allowed the seams to come apart, allowing water in the ship. They went on to say only around a 3 foot section gave way, and the damage outside was minimal, not the hull being ripped apart. Also, if those experts are wrong, the section that would have been damage is buried in over 2 feet of ocean bed. So, the 3D scan would not have been able to scan either scenario.
The floor of boiler room 5 was found we'll away from titanic. It was eventually found a few years ago. One of ballards men saw something when the tutanic was discovered. It took years for him to convince someone to try and find it. If i remember rightly it's about three miles from the wreck.
I heard there were two of these keel sections found about three quarters of a mile from the wreck site.
😳
Only the front compartment was completely watertight up to the ceiling. The rest could overflow. It didn't need to cut all the way to boiler room 6. This has been detailed in a few videos going over why if the ship had collided rather than scrape, the ship would have survived.
as long as the ocean level would have been below the bulk heads' tops and the balance right, there would have been no spilling to other areas. with the 6th compartment filling it became too heavy to keep the bulk head tops over water level and it started sinking for good. otherwise it would have lasted.
So turning to avoid was the wrong move. Should have gone full reverse and taken the hit dead on.
That was short and sweet - thanks for not filling it up with a bunch of filler and drama. GJ
Incredible video. Fascinating. Thank You!
Titanic wreck : 12k deep above sea level
USS Johnston: 22k deep above sea level
Have these scans actually been truly "released" online anywhere? As in made available as proper quality high-res (like "8K" equivalent at the very least) lossless images? Or even as good quality jpg files for that matter. Doesn't seem like it. Looked around a lot and found nothing. All we have are these few short blurry videos (looks basically like 480p upsized) and some rather low-res images.
Surely a LIDAR scanner could see through the mud and answer this question.
The only way that you're really going to be able to know it's to get a very small drone deep within the ship with a high-power transceiver, with some kind of undersea work lab or long-duration submersible beside it to catch the signal and control the vehicle. I think an in-depth study of this kind is worthy because, we really do need the answer
A naval architect that testified at the Titanic Inquiry stated that the damage that sank the ship was probably very small which is the reason that Titanic took so long to sink. A huge gash on the side or bottom would have sent her to the bottom before a single lifeboat was ready for launch and the death toll would have been even more catastrophic.
I agree with that fact
Agreed!
so what theory do you believe of the iceberg damage on the hull of the Titanic? Do you believe the iceberg damage underneath the hull near the keel and double bottom that opened her up like a tuna can OR do you think the iceberg breached the steel plates on the hull below the waterline ? Cutting small slits in her cargo hold and the Boiler Room #6 and coal bunker in Boiler Room #5
@@ChairmanPaulieD the 3D model is very detailed and doesn’t show evidence of damage along the side. It’s very possible that Titanic ran over the underwater portion of the iceberg. One passenger reported hearing a sound that sounded like the ship ran over a thousand marbles. That would suggest that the scraping sound came from the bottom of the ship rather than the side.
I had a 06 Jeep Liberty about ten years ago that I used to call the titanic. In any snow or icy conditions, it was near impossible to stop. Ended up causing two rear end collisions with it. Both times I tried to swerve the avoid collision but ended up hitting them with the headlight area/front fender. You know what’s even more wild? It ended up being a total loss due to a flood. So in the end, it also sank.
As other commenters have said a sonar scan decades ago revealed separated plates under the mud which is believed to have been the damage that sank the ship. That is what made the new theory of sheared /popped rivets and the hull separating from scraping the iceberg the most likely scenario rather than the 300ft gash that was widely believed until then. There IS damage there , we just can't visually see it.
Kudos. I was wondering that myself on the video "Where' the death slash?" Had to be at the bottom.
Thanks for watching, Kathleen!
A dive team in the 90s used sound waves to survey the iceberg damage buried under the mud and found no gash, it was six small slits across six watertight compartments starboard side so it was not on the underside and even the movie got it wrong by depicting a big gash opened up.
What the world really wants is to find that iceberg and hold it accountable. Oh wait, nobody ever saw that iceberg ever again and its whereabouts are unknown.
I read somewhere. That giving the order to reverse the Titanic back from the Iceberg back was what, sealed it’s fate eventually. It might have stayed afloat a little bit longer. But it would have sunk anyway eventually.
If you’d watched That Engineering Guy’s video about the Titanic, you would know that the hull was not “torn open” as people used to assume, but rather it suffered joint failures in the front which caused a hull breach. The reason for this was that during its construction, Titanic’s workers utilized a specially designed riveting rig which drove heated rivets through the side panels, which then pulled the joints more tightly together as they cooled. This rig was too large to use in the front (prow ?) of the ship, so instead that area was riveted by hand. Those joints were not as secure as the rest, so upon impact with the iceberg the fantastic amount of stress caused the weakest joints to fail, resulting in a massive hull breach.
Wow, this is way too cool, root cause is still similar, just wrong location!!!
Thanks for watching, Ron!
@@HistoryX
Typically do Ken, just don’t always comment unless, like this one is something I never knew or new information….
This again was really cool…..
That was interesting thank you. I look forward to more videos.
Thanks, Dutchman! Always a pleasure hearing form you!
we have photos of the iceberg damage, one is in a mosaic in 2012 and there's a spot near the bottom that's in the right spot
The separated hull plates are hidden by mud. But the area weakened by the coal bunker fire is clearly there. It supports the theory that bulkheads collapsing speeded up the sinking.
Don't worry they hit that iceberg, they worked very hard to coordinate and steer at full speed directly into the iceberg as EJ Smith was told to
Bollocks.
Oh shut up
I feel like the grounding theory works better than the sideswipe theory
I would assume the damage is buried in the mud. They say that there is like 20 to 30 feet that is under the mud line, and that everything under the mud is still pristine and not eaten up with rusticles like the rest of the ship.
The damage could've been compressed back together after the bow slammed into the ocean floor. The iceberg popped rivets along hull seams on her starboard side. Just enough to compromise six watertight compartments. A 300 foot gash would've seen her sink in less than an hour instead of two hours forty minutes.
I actually agree with this, Common sense says that cuz she fell at a rate of over 30mph so she FWOOM slammed into the bottom of the ocean
That's what people keep missing. Ships were and are engineered for very specific loads. Smashing bottom first or at an angle into a sea bed after a couple miles of free fall in sea water, isn't one of the design parameters. Things will buckle and crush or get driven into mud pretty far.
I'm glad you've made this point, because it's one I keep writing myself, it's literally impossible for us to distinguish iceberg damage and damage from hitting the ocean floor.
Titanic hit the mud hard. The damage on the starboard bow is buried under sediment. Peering through the mud with sonar, the team found the damage to be astonishingly small -- a series of six thin openings across the Titanic's starboard hull. The total area of the damage appears to be about 12 to 13 square feet, or less than the area of two sidewalk squares.
They are coming up with this explanation because they are realising that the original gash and popping of the rivets story doesn't make sense and people are noticing from the wreck photos that there was never any such gash along the side and are trying to explain the strange hole in the bow, so they are coming up with an alternative explanation to keep peoples minds happy that it was an iceberg when it likely wasn't.
Olympic knows
@@michaelwills1926 Finally, someone who knows what really happened.
I disagree, Titanic had a double bottom. I believe the damage is buried.
i wonder how possible it may be that the double bottom could've been breached, seems unlikely but worth a look
@@jacobv6505 The sinking was caused because five, or possibly six, compartments were punctured. On the side of the ship below the waterline, not beneath the ship.
There is documented evidence of the iceberg damage on the starboard side near boiler room 6. There is a 20 foot strip of missing rivets. Drain the Titanic documentary shows this. I’ve personally talked to Parks as well and his belief is that the Titanic did in fact run over the iceberg and the vertical sheering forces caused rivets to fail and unzip. This is why you don’t see any evidence of a gash or major opening of the hull plates, just missing rivets. This also makes more sense since the rivets near the water line were counter struck so all the videos of the ice burg knocking off the heads of rivets is false since that would be impossible.
Cheers
Alot of the survivors who have passed now , alot of them were children , they claimed they were playing with the ice on the deck, throwing pieces around playing games , when they were interviewed . These interviews are on youtube .
I heard something interesting about some rich influential person that happened to be on that ship and his death resulted in the start of WW1. It makes me wonder why the ship is still pushed in merchandise and media to this day. Is it really that popular? Like someone is trying to put it in your face that they did it, but it's hidden in history.
Obviously a meteorite came straight down #2 funnel and right out the bottom of the ship .. duh 🙄
Interesting theory, thank you very much for showing it. Too bad it is impossible to penetrate this sand with any radar or sonar devices I would love to see the actual damage the iceberg did. If the scan is so good that single rivets can be seen maybe the damage can be made out be checking which area has popped rivets or bent hull plates? An area with missing rivets is maybe an area where the force of the collision has bent the metal and made the water rush in.
I get what you mean that the bit that got hit is clearly visible and not damaged but this can be for 2 reasons.
1. The iceberg didn’t scrape that far somehow.
2. The bit that got hit has been collapsed overtime and rust formed around it causing it to disappear
Who else is Fed up of being ReserveĐ on the matter...
2 titanics.
The one sunk because it had the last billionaire families not wanting a federal reserve.
Get it.
On purpose.
There was literally a 2012 Documentary About this and there was no side swipe damage but slits on the hull of the ship If you look closer at boiler room 6 you can see it open steel plates with rivets popped out
You can see some damage along the very bottom line up to the boilers area. It may not be a gapping hole in that zone, but there's damage, even some visible holes, probably enough to cause flooding of the boiler rooms.
Parks Stevenson is very respected within the Titanic community and such but I really do think that everyone is so on edge to try and be the next person to find some new evidence or theory about Titanic and the sinking that simple knowledge on the ships construction and previous expedition research gets overlooked and thrown aside. A similar situation happened with Senan Molony and his regurgitated coal bunker fire theory and a so called dark spot on the hull of Titanic seen in a photo that had just came to light.
In the early 90's there was an expedition to Titanic to find the iceberg damage utilizing I believe side scan sonar to pear through the mud. The amount of hull damage that was found during that expedition added up to within 1 square foot of the already calculated damage based off of how fast the ship sank and the reported damage that was compiled not long after the Titanic sank. If there would have been more damage but on the bottom of the hull Titanic would have sank a lot faster, if that damage could have even caused flooding within the ship to begin with, and that brings me to my next point. Titanic was constructed with a double bottom hull, meaning if there was any damage to the outer skin the water would only flood in the small spaces under the inner skin, and not extend into the rest of the ship. Titanic had ballast tanks within those two layers of steel hull plating along the length and width of the ship. The only iceberg damage that is still visible can be seen just behind the big hole opening right where the mud slopes down. The visible slit in the hull looks to run right along where two plates overlap each other putting it about exactly where Fred Barret witnessed the water coming in in Boiler Room 6.
Rumour has it that the Titanic never sank and was scrapped in 1935. But the Olympic actually hit the iceberg and sank.
It's exactly that, a rumour, with no evidence or proof.