The Big Fitz rode a wave and took a nose dive and the bow hit the lake bottom HARD. The bow striking the lake bottom CAUSED the Big Fitz to break midship. This caused the load of iron ore to spill in, basically, one large pile vs being strewn about. The screw(s) were turning when the Big Fitz hit bottom and caused the stern to rotate only 180° before landing inverted. It was a sudden event and most of the crew probably died from blunt force trauma or this knocked them out before drowning. Great video though.
Per the response from Captain Cooper, the Captain of the Arthur M. Anderson that was 10 miles behind the Fitz, she was dying earlier before her plunge to the bottom as well. Per Captain Cooper, Captain McSorley radioed around 1510 or so, and said that he had a problem. That the Fitz was listing to starboard, the fence rail was down, two vents were missing, and the pumps were on but not gaining anything. Which means they were taking in so much water that the pumps were not able to keep up. I think Captain Cooper had the most accurate description on what he thought happened. it was taking in too much water, was already not in good shape, had 3 waves roll up her back, and her nose dove to the bottom. Her screw kept driving her down till she slammed into the lakebed. And that the crew probably never knew that the ship was plunging to the bottom till the windows shattered.
@@self-awaregunship6869 pretty much except she was 128 feet longer than the lake at the point she went down, so the screw had nothing to do with it. that was all Lake Superior
Ok. I take that back. Even though none of these simulations are accurate (waves were from the NW and Fitz was headed SSE) it did show me how at an angle the screws would still be submerged and driving her forward
This is more like how the Carl Bradley and Daniel J. Morrell sunk - two similar freighters who met their End on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron respectively. Both of those crews had time to abandon ship and the Bradley was able to get off a Mayday signal. If this model had happened to the Edmund Fitzgerald, I'm almost sure she'd have gotten off a Mayday. I do admire the video model and it shows that when one is on the seas and it is their Time, it is their Time.
Yeah one survivor for the Morrell, but yeah agree with the earlier comment. There is no way it broke on the surface, especially with the fact that over 200 feet of the middle is crumpled plates. It most definitely hit the bottom nose first at speed weighed down from the ore and excess water and splintered. It would have happened in literally less than a minute.
If the Fitz broke a the surface then she would have called in a mayday etc. She took a rogue wave from behind driving her to the bottom then breaking and Mcsorley probably thought the Fitz would recover but she didn't and that would totally explain why there was no mayday.
I always thought she bottomed out at Caribou shoals cause McSorley reported a starboard list not long after passing those shoals. But more recently I have viewed interviews with the cook who rode that ill fated ship for many years. He sat out that year. He did not hesitate to place blame on McSorley, insisting he broke her in two. "Can't make no money sitting at anchor", McSorley was an "all weather captain" who supposedly "beat the shit" out of the Fitz. The cook says someone showed him the rotten keel, and claims the crew were getting afraid to sail on her. Then I talked to one man who worked at the steel plant where she was built and insists they passed off defective welds. So for whatever reason, shoaling and/or stress fractures, the Fitz was taking on water faster than her massive pumps could spit the water out. Those two 50 foot waves that captain Cooper reported would have caught up to the Fitz right around the time she disappeared off radar. The first wave came from behind and washed above her decks and pushed the bow under water. Hundreds of tons of water and taconite probably rushed forward and kept the bow under and prevented the bow from recovering> .The second wave twisted the ship in half and the bow nose dived to the bottom. The up to 3 foot layer of taconite pellets on the bow strongly suggests breaking apart at the surface with the bow detached from the stern, the stern raining massive amounts of pellets on the bow. The massive damage from the bow strongly suggests that the bow struck bottom at a 90 degree angle, twisted in half from the stern. They found the port side door to the pilot house open. The body they discovered near the bow had a hastily placed cork life jacket on. It was either inside out or upside down. This gives clues as to how she sank. Not to be morbid, but I believe the first wave pushed the bow under water. One of the crew in the pilot house made a hasty attempt to escape, but the second wave caused the bow to nose dive straight to the bottom, dragging that crew member that tried to escape with her. Cork life jackets lose any and all buoyancy at pressure of 500 feet, so that poor guy never got out of the pilot house (not that he would have likely survived or been rescued if he had) In any event, it was sudden and catastrophic, the bow going under rather fast and suddenly, and would explain no time for a distress call as well. Examination of the capsized stern section show no signs of damage, scratches, or evidence of shoaling. If the bow scraped bottom at Caribou, we will never know. It is buried under some 1o feet of mud. So I now lean towards the stress fracture/bad design/rotten keel theory, but have not abandoned the shoaling theory. It had to be one of the two. With any and all future dives called off by the majority of families and the Canadian government, the answer to the mystery may never be conclusive. What is known is that she took on water, she disappeared right around the 2 massive waves would have caught up to her, and she broke apart on the surface. I refer anyone who is so curious to watch Thom Holden's green stick fracture theory. Makes sense.
Spot on. The fitz was abused her whole career.Load lines were changed twice to take on bigger loads, Mc sorely was a rough weather captain who was paid big bonuses to beat the shit outa her to make as much profit for the company as possible.He could have easily kept her in port and rode out the storm , he was getting maritime updates all through the day and he knew a big storm was in his way but being the greedy arrogant captain he was he thought superior could nt beat him and took 28 other lives to the bottom with his arrogance. Many men who sailed on her have said she was tired and should be overhauled but critical maintaince was pushed back again and again for profit , the hull plates that were meant to be replaced are still in the warehouses in Duluth harbor bearing the Fitz,s name. How eerie.
@@twolak1972 I might agree with this explanation but it's sister ship was out in the same eliminates. I can't see all these Captain's making the same same bad call do to greed. They misjudged the low pressure cell.
If this was an airplane it would have been brought to the surface and reassembled piece by piece and we would know the reason she sank. I don't believe a small handful of families should have the right to stop the investigation which would have, as in aircraft investigations, gained knowledge that may prevent future failures. They say it is a grave site but so are all plane, train and car crashes that result in death.
The only problem with this is the bow damage on the Fitzgerald and the scar and trench that the ship left when it hit nose down and the fact the stern at and lyes at only about a 30 degree angle with the crack and almost lining up with a 20-40 foot section missing that was most likely destroyed on the way down. The stern is upside down and the evidence of the ship hiring the reef is just in front of the cracked area in the front half and lying on the bottom of the ship. And on the aft section one of the doors is open to the engineering section and proof that men tried to get out or got out as the ship was going down by the bow and the rear half would have had to be above water when the door was opened. Then there is the radio call just before between captains just before the sinking it was between 5-10 minutes before. The captain said there was a bang and one of the stanchions just broke and the ship was nose down a little but they where handling there own and minutes later the ship’s lights where gone and there was reports of large waves about that time. It would be interesting to remodel the video with these conditions.
A good approximation of the "greenstick" theory with the exception that the middle third of the ship was obliterated in the breakup instead of shearing cleanly at one spot. It's almost as if a twisting moment destroyed the middle third of the hull which is unrecognizable on the wreck except as a mass of twisted and broken steel.
I feel that she grounded on shoals around Caribou Island and it damaged her keel, hence the calls about railings being down and the vent caps missing. Bad welding may have played a part in this as well along with the stress on her from all the overloading she'd done through her years. As she took on water she would rise and dive with the waves till those two big ones came up on her. the first caused her to rise, then dive, and the crew thought she'd recover but the second wave hit so soon it pushed her down with help from the shifting talconite into the mud and snapped her where she was damaged by the shoals. She was pushed in hard and fast, more than a spinning prop could do since a large portion of her is obliterated into a steel mess between the two halves. She had no time to make a distress call in that scenario whereas if she had split on the surface they'd have managed at least some attempt since it's unlikely she would have instantly sunk
The Edmund Fitzgerald certainly took on water but the Laker didn’t sink like this. She sank after being hit by 2 very large waves & went down into a trough, being bow heavy, the stern, with motor drove her down hard into the mud after which she split in two with the stern section flipping over & landing a mere 171 feet away. If she had broke apart as you say, the 2 halves would have been a lot farther apart & the damage to the bow would have been negligible.
Theories are but ALL we have, conjecture, happenstance, didn't help having a egomaniac Capt with a overloaded ship that should've stayed in port to wait the storm out, but didn't help having a horrible fetch and 35 ft waves, all led to a horrible preventable disaster. Sad.
No.... the boat went down that way... the life boats were torn off their attachments and the dents and damage to the front super structure are consistent with the two pieces banging together on the way down. Implosion damage on the bow is supportive of the animation as well.
It so sad 😭😭 that all 29 men😢🙏🙏 loss there lives that night on Lake Superior!! Great job 👍👍on the video ! There still investigating 🤔🤔The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald still to this day on how she sank ! It a mystery!
Imagine if the ship made it to it's destination, unloaded all of it's iron ore and then made it back home, but after finding some damage to the ship they decided the ship will not be taken across the great lakes ever again
One of the strange things about shipwrecks, specially famous ones is that although sad it immortalizes the wreck forever,if the Titanic hadn't sunk it would have sailed the oceans for a few more years and then unceremoniously broken up for scrap,instead it has become a icon,same with the Bismarck, the Fitzgerald, Lusitania and so on. A iron ore carrier is nothing but a nasty ship that carries a dull cargo across the sea,the EF has become much,much more than that after sinking,heck it even has a song dedicated to it,it has become a legend .
This is my personal opinion but I believe that the back of the ship ducked down because of a wave and the captain thought it was gonna come back up but the back was filled with water and the back hit the shallow floor and then SNAP and it was only there for 5 seconds before dissapearing under the waves
@@skywatcher2025 allen George kalmen born on feb 7 in 1932 not trying to be creepy but i just looked him up to see if real i found him on findagrave.com Ship's Second Cook aboard the SS Edmund Fitzgerald which sank in a storm on Lake Superior, November 10, 1975, with all hands lost. And i found his parents Stephen G Kalman spouse Laura ida Larson Kalmon and thats all
Terrible video. Completely inaccurate. It wasn’t daylight. The sky wasn’t clear to partly cloudy and the ship didn’t float down. Your computer animation needs some work.
Not buying it. "Were holding our own" The ship breaking like that would have been noticed in time for an sos or something. The stern breaking woulda put bigger distance to the bow when she came to rest. I still believe in the straight down after being swamped theory
Very plausible but I think the stern barrel rolled and spiralled as it went down dumping taconite pellets over the bow section and clipped the port side of the bow at least twice before it finally touched bottom. Mcsorley actually used to call the fitz “ the wiggling thing “, check out the documentary called “ the mystery of the Edmund Fitzgerald “ it’s on CZcams
Not even an accurate model of what happened. Everyone knows the bow struck bottom first due to it going under and the weifhof the ore shifting causing it to sink faster. A little over 200 ft of the bow was sticking out of the water until the waves broke her in two.
No that's not the way it occurred, there'd be way more damage to the bridge and the bow is sitting upright, that said it would have sunk a lot quicker if it sunk in the way depicted in the video
When big ships go in rough waves,they are designed to flex and wiggle a bit so the steel does not develop a high stress instantly and break instantly,where as flexing steel can flex and be fine.
She did break on the surface after the large wave that hit the Anderson finally caught up to her stern she to overloaded and the mix of water leaking in and pellets moving about blocked her pumps and she broke her back from stern to bow her bow nose dived instantly but her screw pushed her stern ahead a few feet then she went down with the screw pushing her stern in to the sea bed where it spun upside down and crashed down . I pray the men went quickly and where altogether when she nosedived. Bad design of the ship was her weakness and overloaded by what she was designed to carry . To much weight bow and stern left her middle the weakest and the factors of the bad seas and overloaded and bad design all added to her sinking . Rip the brave men of the Fitzgerald
No one actually knows how she sank. All we have is theories. And if she broke on the the 2 parts would be farther apart. Kinda like the Daniel J Morell. She split on the surface and the 2 parts drifted and then they sank. The Morells 2 parts were found 5 miles from each other. So if the Fitzgerald did split on the surface her 2 sections would be farther apart. And I'm not saying that that's not what happened to the Fitzgerald, but no one actually knows how she sank.
I think you were trying to be deep and insightful. Or perhaps metaphorical, but you in my opinion... Fell short. I really don't understand stand your comment. If you heard of the Titanic, you can't know about the Fitzgerald?
@@johnhurd6243 well sorry but that opinion i changed it. so yes comment is from 1 month ago and thats when ive been like "dang these kids dont know taht edmungfd fixtxz gerfnd alsfdoso spzilit in alf"
Man she just reached that critical point and whoosh. She’s gone. Great vid!
The Big Fitz rode a wave and took a nose dive and the bow hit the lake bottom HARD. The bow striking the lake bottom CAUSED the Big Fitz to break midship. This caused the load of iron ore to spill in, basically, one large pile vs being strewn about. The screw(s) were turning when the Big Fitz hit bottom and caused the stern to rotate only 180° before landing inverted. It was a sudden event and most of the crew probably died from blunt force trauma or this knocked them out before drowning. Great video though.
I believe the theory that he says by think that the break was just way more Violent
Per the response from Captain Cooper, the Captain of the Arthur M. Anderson that was 10 miles behind the Fitz, she was dying earlier before her plunge to the bottom as well. Per Captain Cooper, Captain McSorley radioed around 1510 or so, and said that he had a problem. That the Fitz was listing to starboard, the fence rail was down, two vents were missing, and the pumps were on but not gaining anything. Which means they were taking in so much water that the pumps were not able to keep up. I think Captain Cooper had the most accurate description on what he thought happened. it was taking in too much water, was already not in good shape, had 3 waves roll up her back, and her nose dove to the bottom. Her screw kept driving her down till she slammed into the lakebed. And that the crew probably never knew that the ship was plunging to the bottom till the windows shattered.
@@self-awaregunship6869 pretty much except she was 128 feet longer than the lake at the point she went down, so the screw had nothing to do with it. that was all Lake Superior
Ok. I take that back. Even though none of these simulations are accurate (waves were from the NW and Fitz was headed SSE) it did show me how at an angle the screws would still be submerged and driving her forward
You have no clue what the fuck you're talking about so shut the fuck up
This is more like how the Carl Bradley and Daniel J. Morrell sunk - two similar freighters who met their End on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron respectively. Both of those crews had time to abandon ship and the Bradley was able to get off a Mayday signal. If this model had happened to the Edmund Fitzgerald, I'm almost sure she'd have gotten off a Mayday. I do admire the video model and it shows that when one is on the seas and it is their Time, it is their Time.
The Morrell had only one survivor if memory serves me correctly.
Yeah one survivor for the Morrell, but yeah agree with the earlier comment. There is no way it broke on the surface, especially with the fact that over 200 feet of the middle is crumpled plates. It most definitely hit the bottom nose first at speed weighed down from the ore and excess water and splintered. It would have happened in literally less than a minute.
it's sad that nobody knows what way she sank... R.I.P. all 29 crew
If the Fitz broke a the surface then she would have called in a mayday etc.
She took a rogue wave from behind driving her to the bottom then breaking and Mcsorley probably thought the Fitz would recover but she didn't and that would totally explain why there was no mayday.
I always thought she bottomed out at Caribou shoals cause McSorley reported a starboard list not long after passing those shoals. But more recently I have viewed interviews with the cook who rode that ill fated ship for many years. He sat out that year. He did not hesitate to place blame on McSorley, insisting he broke her in two. "Can't make no money sitting at anchor", McSorley was an "all weather captain" who supposedly "beat the shit" out of the Fitz. The cook says someone showed him the rotten keel, and claims the crew were getting afraid to sail on her. Then I talked to one man who worked at the steel plant where she was built and insists they passed off defective welds. So for whatever reason, shoaling and/or stress fractures, the Fitz was taking on water faster than her massive pumps could spit the water out. Those two 50 foot waves that captain Cooper reported would have caught up to the Fitz right around the time she disappeared off radar. The first wave came from behind and washed above her decks and pushed the bow under water. Hundreds of tons of water and taconite probably rushed forward and kept the bow under and prevented the bow from recovering> .The second wave twisted the ship in half and the bow nose dived to the bottom. The up to 3 foot layer of taconite pellets on the bow strongly suggests breaking apart at the surface with the bow detached from the stern, the stern raining massive amounts of pellets on the bow. The massive damage from the bow strongly suggests that the bow struck bottom at a 90 degree angle, twisted in half from the stern. They found the port side door to the pilot house open. The body they discovered near the bow had a hastily placed cork life jacket on. It was either inside out or upside down. This gives clues as to how she sank. Not to be morbid, but I believe the first wave pushed the bow under water. One of the crew in the pilot house made a hasty attempt to escape, but the second wave caused the bow to nose dive straight to the bottom, dragging that crew member that tried to escape with her. Cork life jackets lose any and all buoyancy at pressure of 500 feet, so that poor guy never got out of the pilot house (not that he would have likely survived or been rescued if he had) In any event, it was sudden and catastrophic, the bow going under rather fast and suddenly, and would explain no time for a distress call as well. Examination of the capsized stern section show no signs of damage, scratches, or evidence of shoaling. If the bow scraped bottom at Caribou, we will never know. It is buried under some 1o feet of mud. So I now lean towards the stress fracture/bad design/rotten keel theory, but have not abandoned the shoaling theory. It had to be one of the two. With any and all future dives called off by the majority of families and the Canadian government, the answer to the mystery may never be conclusive. What is known is that she took on water, she disappeared right around the 2 massive waves would have caught up to her, and she broke apart on the surface. I refer anyone who is so curious to watch Thom Holden's green stick fracture theory. Makes sense.
Dude, your comment is GIGANTOROUS
Spot on. The fitz was abused her whole career.Load lines were changed twice to take on bigger loads, Mc sorely was a rough weather captain who was paid big bonuses to beat the shit outa her to make as much profit for the company as possible.He could have easily kept her in port and rode out the storm , he was getting maritime updates all through the day and he knew a big storm was in his way but being the greedy arrogant captain he was he thought superior could nt beat him and took 28 other lives to the bottom with his arrogance. Many men who sailed on her have said she was tired and should be overhauled but critical maintaince was pushed back again and again for profit , the hull plates that were meant to be replaced are still in the warehouses in Duluth harbor bearing the Fitz,s name. How eerie.
@@twolak1972 I might agree with this explanation but it's sister ship was out in the same eliminates. I can't see all these Captain's making the same same bad call do to greed. They misjudged the low pressure cell.
@@twolak1972 Why are the Hull Plates still there? That is indeed eerie, but sad in a way to think about what use to a ship like The Fitz would be…
If this was an airplane it would have been brought to the surface and reassembled piece by piece and we would know the reason she sank. I don't believe a small handful of families should have the right to stop the investigation which would have, as in aircraft investigations, gained knowledge that may prevent future failures. They say it is a grave site but so are all plane, train and car crashes that result in death.
The only problem with this is the bow damage on the Fitzgerald and the scar and trench that the ship left when it hit nose down and the fact the stern at and lyes at only about a 30 degree angle with the crack and almost lining up with a 20-40 foot section missing that was most likely destroyed on the way down. The stern is upside down and the evidence of the ship hiring the reef is just in front of the cracked area in the front half and lying on the bottom of the ship. And on the aft section one of the doors is open to the engineering section and proof that men tried to get out or got out as the ship was going down by the bow and the rear half would have had to be above water when the door was opened. Then there is the radio call just before between captains just before the sinking it was between 5-10 minutes before. The captain said there was a bang and one of the stanchions just broke and the ship was nose down a little but they where handling there own and minutes later the ship’s lights where gone and there was reports of large waves about that time. It would be interesting to remodel the video with these conditions.
Carl, the “missing section wasn’t 20 to 40 feet. It was 200….. It’s actually not missing, it’s in a lot of smaller pieces. But it’s 200 ft, not 20-40.
A good approximation of the "greenstick" theory with the exception that the middle third of the ship was obliterated in the breakup instead of shearing cleanly at one spot. It's almost as if a twisting moment destroyed the middle third of the hull which is unrecognizable on the wreck except as a mass of twisted and broken steel.
I feel that she grounded on shoals around Caribou Island and it damaged her keel, hence the calls about railings being down and the vent caps missing. Bad welding may have played a part in this as well along with the stress on her from all the overloading she'd done through her years. As she took on water she would rise and dive with the waves till those two big ones came up on her. the first caused her to rise, then dive, and the crew thought she'd recover but the second wave hit so soon it pushed her down with help from the shifting talconite into the mud and snapped her where she was damaged by the shoals. She was pushed in hard and fast, more than a spinning prop could do since a large portion of her is obliterated into a steel mess between the two halves. She had no time to make a distress call in that scenario whereas if she had split on the surface they'd have managed at least some attempt since it's unlikely she would have instantly sunk
The Edmund Fitzgerald certainly took on water but the Laker didn’t sink like this. She sank after being hit by 2 very large waves & went down into a trough, being bow heavy, the stern, with motor drove her down hard into the mud after which she split in two with the stern section flipping over & landing a mere 171 feet away. If she had broke apart as you say, the 2 halves would have been a lot farther apart & the damage to the bow would have been negligible.
I see. This is an outdated video. Please check my other Fitzgerald videos.
Theories are but ALL we have, conjecture, happenstance, didn't help having a egomaniac Capt with a overloaded ship that should've stayed in port to wait the storm out, but didn't help having a horrible fetch and 35 ft waves, all led to a horrible preventable disaster. Sad.
Not quite how it happened. The nose ploughed into the lakebed and the stern was left farther behind.
Ah! Had little clue on how the ship landed. Thanks!
Dan Vetor
But that’s just a theory.
Robert Kersey a ship wreck theory thanks for watching
@@MackeyBigBoy4014; A theory backed by the wreckage itself.
No.... the boat went down that way... the life boats were torn off their attachments and the dents and damage to the front super structure are consistent with the two pieces banging together on the way down. Implosion damage on the bow is supportive of the animation as well.
The crew didn’t know the ship was sinking until the water broke the bridge windows
You mean pilot house
UHH
@@jaylen1067 NO ITS BRIDGE
@@rmsolympicwhiteinene9589 it’s actually called a pilot house on the Great Lakes
The water is too deep. EF was ~730 feet long; and came to rest in 533 feet of water. Otherwise not a bad animation.
Not an animation
It so sad 😭😭 that all 29 men😢🙏🙏 loss there lives that night on Lake Superior!! Great job 👍👍on the video ! There still investigating 🤔🤔The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald still to this day on how she sank ! It a mystery!
Imagine if the ship made it to it's destination, unloaded all of it's iron ore and then made it back home, but after finding some damage to the ship they decided the ship will not be taken across the great lakes ever again
One of the strange things about shipwrecks, specially famous ones is that although sad it immortalizes the wreck forever,if the Titanic hadn't sunk it would have sailed the oceans for a few more years and then unceremoniously broken up for scrap,instead it has become a icon,same with the Bismarck, the Fitzgerald, Lusitania and so on.
A iron ore carrier is nothing but a nasty ship that carries a dull cargo across the sea,the EF has become much,much more than that after sinking,heck it even has a song dedicated to it,it has become a legend .
This is my personal opinion but I believe that the back of the ship ducked down because of a wave and the captain thought it was gonna come back up but the back was filled with water and the back hit the shallow floor and then SNAP and it was only there for 5 seconds before dissapearing under the waves
This is not how she sank. A wave came over her deck pushing one end down to the lake floor, and then it broke in half
So far from accurate. The bow hit at 30 mph. It didn’t softly touch down. And it was a very sudden sinking.
Video is outdated
@@TopHatTITAN bruhhh why would you out date the vid>:(
@@melonygrant7284 Because it is?
My great great uncle was on the ship when it went down.
CrazyJohnsonBoys what was his name?
@@wyatt2920 Allen G Kalmon
@@skywatcher2025 allen George kalmen born on feb 7 in 1932 not trying to be creepy but i just looked him up to see if real i found him on findagrave.com
Ship's Second Cook aboard the SS Edmund Fitzgerald which sank in a storm on Lake Superior, November 10, 1975, with all hands lost.
And i found his parents
Stephen G Kalman spouse Laura ida Larson Kalmon and thats all
@@Emerald4673 Yep
Nice try...
"This is the reason why it was made V-Break."
Noice one!
Terrible video. Completely inaccurate. It wasn’t daylight. The sky wasn’t clear to partly cloudy and the ship didn’t float down. Your computer animation needs some work.
Video. Is. Outdated.
they don't make them like this anymore.... for good reason
The Fitz sank in less time then it took to watch this video. Plus she went down bow 1st
Outdated video
The stern piece actually sits upside down irl
Not buying it. "Were holding our own" The ship breaking like that would have been noticed in time for an sos or something. The stern breaking woulda put bigger distance to the bow when she came to rest. I still believe in the straight down after being swamped theory
Very plausible but I think the stern barrel rolled and spiralled as it went down dumping taconite pellets over the bow section and clipped the port side of the bow at least twice before it finally touched bottom. Mcsorley actually used to call the fitz “ the wiggling thing “, check out the documentary called “ the mystery of the Edmund Fitzgerald “ it’s on CZcams
Not even an accurate model of what happened. Everyone knows the bow struck bottom first due to it going under and the weifhof the ore shifting causing it to sink faster. A little over 200 ft of the bow was sticking out of the water until the waves broke her in two.
Outdated
Ayo its like titanic
No that's not the way it occurred, there'd be way more damage to the bridge and the bow is sitting upright, that said it would have sunk a lot quicker if it sunk in the way depicted in the video
Good job 👍
God vídeo
Does a ship of her size really wiggle like that???
Yes
@@ethangamingplayz5488 Wrong. Ships are built to flex. Just like airplanes.
@@richierich396 Woah so that why a ship while i was in a trip started flexing on me his horn (my worst joke till now)
@@libreriaycafeabc1446 Smoke crack?
Yes: it's called 'hogging'.
could you please tell me where you got this model from?
The floating sandbox website has this model and many others for download
But how do u do it.
@@TopHatTITAN WHAT ,MY VERSION DOESNT HAVE THE EDMUND
Go to the floating sandbox website and go to ship packs. Its the very bottom one
Not even close
Why wouldn't the iron ore fall out of the ship, allowing the two pieces to bob up & down in the water for a long period of time?
As i remember, ship doenst this wiggle but good sinking
When big ships go in rough waves,they are designed to flex and wiggle a bit so the steel does not develop a high stress instantly and break instantly,where as flexing steel can flex and be fine.
Based of the captions reports prior to sinking I wouldn’t agree with this model.
Video is outdated
Rip the edumund Fitzgerald 1950-1975 November 10 night Monday.
What?
@@johnhurd6243 what you mean what?
@@johnhurd6243 I just fix it.
How do you get that
Floating Sandbox
Utter BS. Not even close.
She did break on the surface after the large wave that hit the Anderson finally caught up to her stern she to overloaded and the mix of water leaking in and pellets moving about blocked her pumps and she broke her back from stern to bow her bow nose dived instantly but her screw pushed her stern ahead a few feet then she went down with the screw pushing her stern in to the sea bed where it spun upside down and crashed down . I pray the men went quickly and where altogether when she nosedived. Bad design of the ship was her weakness and overloaded by what she was designed to carry . To much weight bow and stern left her middle the weakest and the factors of the bad seas and overloaded and bad design all added to her sinking . Rip the brave men of the Fitzgerald
No one actually knows how she sank. All we have is theories. And if she broke on the the 2 parts would be farther apart. Kinda like the Daniel J Morell. She split on the surface and the 2 parts drifted and then they sank. The Morells 2 parts were found 5 miles from each other. So if the Fitzgerald did split on the surface her 2 sections would be farther apart. And I'm not saying that that's not what happened to the Fitzgerald, but no one actually knows how she sank.
SS Johnson h. Ronald
funnymike
Wut the game call
Floating Sandbox
Hi?
Hi
team four star
Honestly. The design of these ships is just an accident waiting to happen.
Is??? Then why haven't any ships sunk since? But then again... everything is an accident waiting to happen. That's why they are not called on purposes
rlcraft
What is game name guys?
Floating Sandbox
titanic kids never heard of edmund fitzgerald right?
the titanic kids think titanic was the only ship split in half
I think you were trying to be deep and insightful. Or perhaps metaphorical, but you in my opinion...
Fell short.
I really don't understand stand your comment. If you heard of the Titanic, you can't know about the Fitzgerald?
@@johnhurd6243 well sorry but that opinion i changed it. so yes
comment is from 1 month ago and thats when ive been like "dang these kids dont know taht edmungfd fixtxz gerfnd alsfdoso spzilit in alf"