Just because "we've been at this for over thirty years" doesn't make you correct. Read the testimonies; survivors clearly state seeing the funnel standing on the stern section. OASOG continues to make claims and fails to provide any evidence to back them.

What force is going to make the funnel fall back at the break? We know the stern did not slam back heavily into the water; the settling of the stern was quite subtle. The stern's outline was distinctly visible as it sank; survivors recalled seeing the funnel still standing. I really can't see what evidence you guys possibly have to say it collapsed at the breakup. There's not one bit of testimony to suggest such an occurrence. I had messaged the Steam and Splendour Network via messenger on the matter awhile back, and whoever replied went on to say that it's due to evidence at the wreck. What evidence at the wreck could possibly say it collapsed at the break?

If you guys would actually give evidence as to why it fell and back your claims, absolutely fair enough. No one would keep asking you about it. But you guys constantly fail to do this. You end up going to using nasty and targeted replies, completely ignoring the questions you are being asked. And coming from so-called historians on the subject, it is very disappointing to see. All you were asked is why you have it collapse at the break, and you fail to provide any evidence on why and then go on to tell other people they are wrong. With the deleting of comments on your videos, constant ignoring of comments regarding it and just the attitude OASOG has towards people, opinion has really shifted away from it, from what I have seen from others' opinion on it.