Titanic: the first staged 9/11 ~ Full Length
Titanic: the first staged 9/11 ~ Full Length
George B (December 4th, 2012)
I the facts in this video are accurate . . . it would seem to be very plausible that the Titanic was its sister ship the Olympic and its sinking was a deliberate act to recover $12.5 million in insurance money . . . the rescue was a botched operation . . . Very interesting . . .Originally Posted by TheCorruptOnes
Last edited by George B; December 4th, 2012 at 07:10 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
HideGardiner's Ship That Never Sank
One of the most controversial[7][8] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?[9] In it, Gardiner draws on several events and coincidences that occurred in the months, days, and hours leading up to the sinking of the Titanic, and concludes that the ship that sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.
Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows.
On 20 September 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy Warship HMS Hawke in the Brambles Channel near Southampton. The two ships were close enough to each other that Olympic's motion drew the Hawke into her after starboard side, causing extensive damage to the liner - both above and below its waterline (HMS Hawke was fitted with a re-inforced 'ram' below the waterline, purposely designed to cause maximum damage to enemy ships). An Admiralty inquiry assigned blame to the Olympic, despite numerous eye-witness accounts to the contrary.
Gardiner's theory plays out in this historical context. As Olympic was found to blame in the collision (which, according to Gardiner, had damaged the central turbine's mountings and the keel), White Star's insurers Lloyds of London allegedly refused to pay out on the claim. White Star's flagship would also be out of action during any repairs, and the Titanic's completion date would have to be delayed. All this would amount to a serious financial loss for the company. Gardiner proposes that, to make sure at least one vessel would be earning money, Olympic was then converted to become the Titanic. Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name plates. The plan, Gardiner suggests, was to dispose of the Olympic in a way that would allow White Star to collect insurance money on the ship. He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship. If numerous ships were stationed nearby to take off the passengers, the shortage of lifeboats would not matter as the ship would sink slowly and the boats could make several trips to the rescuers.
Gardiner uses as evidence the length of Titanic's sea trials. Olympic's trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but Titanic's trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with (Gardiner alleges) no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.
Gardiner maintains that on 14 April, Officer Murdoch (who was not officially on duty yet) was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers who knew of the plan and was keeping a watch out for the rescue ships. One of Gardiner's most controversial statements is that the Titanic did not strike an iceberg, but an IMM rescue ship that was drifting on station with its lights out. Gardiner based this hypothesis on the idea that the supposed iceberg was seen at such a short distance by the lookouts on the Titanic because it was actually a darkened ship, and he also does not believe an iceberg could inflict such sustained and serious damage to a steel double-hulled (sic) vessel such as the Titanic.
Gardiner further hypothesizes that the ship that was hit by the Titanic was the one seen by the Californian firing distress rockets, and that this explains the perceived inaction of the Californian (which traditionally is seen as failing to come to the rescue of the Titanic after sighting its distress rockets). Gardiner's hypothesis is that the Californian was not expecting rockets, but a rendezvous. The ice on the deck of the Titanic is explained by Gardiner as ice from the rigging of both the Titanic and the mystery ship she hit. As for the true Titanic, Gardiner alleges that she spent 25 years in service as the Olympic.
Researchers Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall took issue with many of Gardiner's claims in their book, Olympic and Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy.[7] Author Mark Chirnside has also raised serious questions about the switch theory.[8]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_T...ries#section_3
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship.
And the hundreds of crewmembers see water pouring into the ship through the seacocks and just stand there and watch???
How can an otherwise intelligent person be so stupid to think that plan would work?
they were told the ship was unsinkable.
That was in the book, I assume, but not in the video above . . .
He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship.
And the hundreds of crewmembers see water pouring into the ship through the seacocks and just stand there and watch???
How can an otherwise intelligent person be so stupid to think that plan would work?
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I must of been preoccupied with my iPad at the time but I guess I missed the part where they explain how they got the boat to sink. If it wasn't from the iceberg then how did they get water in it?
The hypothesis of the film is that it was the Olympic, not the Titanic that sank. As far as I know hull number 401 matching the Titanic is the only hull number that's been found on the wrecks structure by explorers and salvage crews.
101 Things You Thought You Knew About the Titanic . . . but Didn't!Finally, concrete evidence backs up the commonsense argument: The Titanic's hull number, 401 (Olympic's was 400), is the only one which has ever been found on Titanic's wreck.
Did you watch the last part of the film where they show the ships bow? The forged "Titanic" letters have rusted off and reveal a "MP" - part of the word Olympic that was actually engraved or embossed into the original metal panel of the ship. No doubt in the my mind just from that proof alone these ships were switched.
That seems perhaps a little hasty. No doubt at all? Really?
It starts at 49:40.
Several things:
The welders must have been drunk when they welded "MP" because they don't line up with the original letters and the M is lowered than the P.
There are plenty of much higher resolution videos online. Aren't you suspicious why a "documentary" producer would use the worst quality footage?
Could you give a link to the photo in question??
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
It's in the OP video.
Note the lack of riveting: http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...ameplate11.jpg
Last edited by Mick; December 6th, 2012 at 07:52 AM. Reason: added rehosted image
No they weren't.
the myth of unsinkability didn't being until AFTER the titinaic was sunk.
Olympic served until 1935 - was subject to a "mutiny" by firemen due to fitting of collapsable lifeboats (seen as unseaworthy) after the sinking of Titanic, was a troop transport in WW1, returned to being a luxury liner after WW1, was involved in a collision in New York Harbour in 1924 that necessitated major repairs, collided with a lightship in 1934.
she was also used as a full scale model for teh commission investigating the disaster - including examination of the water tight features and manouvreability trials.
You might think it strange that no-one noticed a substitution in all that time!!
That plus the fact that the Olympic was in teh yard at eh same time as titinic was being built - so you need to silence a thousand or more workers on the 2 ships?
the article also says:
Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows
the differences in these "small detailings" are patently obvious in pictures of the time -
Is that enough debunking??
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
supposedly the "MP" are under the "AN" - but I just don't see them - can you highlight them somehow??
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
From the YouTube video:
The images from Parks Stephenson, in the composite image above:
Original layout, note the anchor hole to the right.
It's a bit fiddly to overlay them, due to perspective and the curveture of the hull, but here's an approximate fit:
Here's the original C and the wreck C (moved to the side slightly).
Note how the straight inner vertical of the C, combined with the rust and other damage obscuring most of the letter, make it look more like a D, or maybe a P.
Presumably the imaginary "M" is somewhere around where the "I" was?
Pete Tar (December 6th, 2012)
Yeah I can see "TITANIC" as per the composite photo previously posted - I don't see "MP" aywhere in it.
Here is an analysis of what would have to be done to switch the ships when they were both in dock - it is a little more than just replacing the name and covering in the "minor detailing" of having open promenades
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Pete Tar (December 6th, 2012)
Well, I guess that's what you call-
Debunked.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
Crewman 1: "Oh look, the seacock is open and water is pouring into the ship"
Crewman 2: "Don't worry, the ship is unsinkable. Let's go have a spot of tea. Yawn."
HappyMonday (December 9th, 2012)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks