Actually "Titanic" (97) broke from the top-DOWN. The documentry I saw (which explained the 10 degree theory) pointed out how that would have been an error. Still though, no reports from stokers, or crew about plates breaking apart within the ship? Not that I'm trying to disprove this theory, but it does leave a lot of questions. I just think it would be strange to break apart like that from the bottom, yet still have power and lights up until the very end. Besides, you can't really argue with the way the plates are torn. OR maybe there's something that just hasn't been found yet.

sorry. thats what i ment. i was rushing when i wrote it.

wait, thats what i said, she broke from the bottom not the, top as seen in titanic'97. meaning she broke apart from the top in the movie.

When you mean broke from the bottom, do you mean at the stern end (where it broke apart on the movie or in general knowledge?) or are we talking about further forward. I have been hearing so many theories about this, I'm getting them confused.

I have not seen that documentary, and because of that, I just dont understand the physics. Every other stress test I have seen in the past have shown the stress most extream around the forward and aft expansion joints at the top of the superstructure.

When the bottom started to break, what happened? Did the keel buckle then break? Was it the iceberg that tore a chunk out of the bottom to cause this stress underneath? I dont get it. If we are talking about the stress of the ship dipping down to the head, it seems to me that its the part exposed out of the water that is going to have the most stress, not the part that is cushioned under the water.