Titanic Deliberately Sunk by JP Morgan

[Voyageur]

Is it not always the same? Twin Towers, Building 7, Titanic (Olympic) - destruction and sinking, great loss of human lives and of course Insurance payments, theft and other reasons like preludes to wars.

 

[Voyageur]

Just checking the link. Interesting, since this afternoon, an additional 4,000 + have watched this.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

This was a very, very interesting documentary. Thank you for sharing!

I have always been interested in the Titanic, ever since seeing the movie by James Cameron when I was 13. I remember that at the time I was a die hard Leo fan-girl and even though the fictional story really touched me, so many of the facts presented in the story seemed so weird and made no sense.

Like how they did not see this iceberg in the middle of the night, when it could have clearly been seen if one was paying any attention. Or there was not enough life boats. Why would anyone make a ship that size without enough life-boats? Or how the first life boats to be boarded (only by a few people) was started 45 mins after they hit the iceberg. SO many inconsistencies even for my mind at age 13.

So watching this, and knowing about the history of JP Morgan (and what he did to Tesla), and in recent years, debacles of bank bailouts and all that... it is imo absolutely plausible and likely that this happened.

But I think what made my jaw drop to the floor above all else, was the presence of the seal-hunting ship the Simmons between 'Titanic' and the Californian. I mean.. what are the odds of that happening? That is just some bad luck for those poor people on the 'Titanic'. And the fact that the navigator messed up on the coordinates of where the 'Titanic' should have been. A fatal mistake indeed!

And in the end, the cover-up... it is so believable that the governments would cover it up like they did. It makes me think of how 100 years from now (if there is a future, the way things are going) a documentary similar to this could be made about 9/11 and the cover-up. People would ask, how could the people actually believe such blatant distortions to facts, but we all know the answer to that...

 

[Sirius]

Thanks for sharing this piece of information. I didn't know much about the Titanic before.

 

[Voyageur]

Not sure if i'll get this right as it tends to be a bit confusing. Looked at many photos of both ships earlier along with blueprints. Have a hard time determining the bow holes often taken in photos from the starboard side and each ship shows the same number from that angle (i think); the port side however shows differences, yet never sure which ship one is looking at based on old grainy photos even though the header names it. There are differences in the 'A' deck configuration as the documentary says and there is a photo of her last voyage April 5 1935 out of NY wherein the Olympic, if that is what it is, looks like the Olympic on 'A' deck, different from the Titanic's 'A' deck which appears to be open below the third stack. So how to account for this if the pictures are what they appear to be, of the right ships during their initial launch switched.

There is a Pdf _http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/pdfs/Olympic_suites1929.pdf here that describes Olympic's retrofits. Curiously or not, the author says that just following Titanic's loss the Olympic (if it was really the Titanic) in 1912 - 1913 underwent retrofitting mostly to fist class, which is 'A' deck, and which has this difference between ships. If the Titanic (now possibly the fake Olympic) had these major works done right after the sinking event, and if the evidence on the bottom of the ocean could be (and there appears to be evidence) verified, what better time to mask the Titanic with a few more port holes, illusions of accidents with riveting and plates along with fabrications to the 'A' deck's facade to become the Olympic - sounds like a conspiracy and people may ask; but why all that work, why take the chance? The documentary explained perhaps 12 million pathological reasons against the 2 million reasons to not do this, along with a bankrupt White Star Lines of course. Different event, same modus.

Well this is just a few short conspiratorial thoughts running further on this possible switch. There are many people who make ships a part of their life's work, real ship buffs, so maybe something else will be brought forward that fits.

 

[Voyageur]

Just a caveat. Don't know what the exact date she was retrofitted; right away or a few months later? The analogy is kind of like 9/11, when the world was in shock, the PTB were running around cleaning up the evidence and it was awhile after this was done that people started asking tough questions. In a covered dry dock with paid lips and a small crew, this i think would be feasible. And in this case, like a good illusion, people would not question it so easily, they might not see the camouflaged elephant in the room.

 

[bngenoh]

Is it not always the same? Twin Towers, Building 7, Titanic (Olympic) - destruction and sinking, great loss of human lives and of course Insurance payments, theft and other reasons like preludes to wars.

Yes almost always the same, truly it is a sickness, I mean money for all things, I think this is one of those events that went horribly wrong for the conspirators, just like 911, due to the sickness of greed. Even now with all that is happening on the globe, wars for profit are still raging and seem about to intensify, this state of affairs would be utterly incomprehensible without psychopathological knowledge.

 

[Maat]

If it's true, did they get their inspiration for the wreckage in the book of Morgan Robertson ??

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan

also some coincidences remain puzzling

 

[Zadius Sky]

If it's true, did they get their inspiration for the wreckage in the book of Morgan Robertson ??

Do you mean "from" the book?

I think that's a possibility since I was just thinking, why change the names of the ships at all? If they said that Olympic has been repaired, then no worries. But, if it actually sunk due to a hit with an iceberg, then the fault would be with the previous damages and all "focus" would on that and the blame would be with White Star Line. But, changing it to Titanic, a fresh ship "designed to be unsinkable" would take the whole focus off the White Star Line and JP Morgan.

osit.

 

[cholas]

Thanks for sharing and indeed very interesting.

As for the potholes at the bow of each ship being different, this page seems to point out the differences clearly.

_http://joeccombs2nd.com/titanic/titanic-olympic-how-to-tell-them-apart-in-photographs/

Of course it could be disinfo. To quote:

Another so-called issue should be visited with the full facts — the so-called different number of portholes on port side (white painted) forecastle.
Both liners had 14 when launched. Olympic by the time of her trials sported 16, and Titanic had 16 from soon after being launched. On starboard side it seems the original number, 15, went unchanged on both ships.

In a quick search of photos(which seem to be inaccurate in themselves), it does seem that the number of portholes did change but exactly which ship are we really seeing in the various photos? According to the site, the refit of 'Olympic' happened in Sept, 1912.

If the ships were switched, the refit would have had to happen soon after the sinking and before passengers were allowed to travel on the 'Olympic' because everything would have appeared 'new' anyway ie: no wear and tear. A 'refit' would have been a good cover.

I'm a bit confused by the proposition(done by the actors in the documentary) that the original Olympic would not have passed her inspection after the collision with Hawk but soon after the Titanic's sinking she obviously passed fine, for the next 20-odd years?

 

[Mountain Crown]

Some of the main objections to this theory that I’ve come across:

Problem #1: The Titanic's H&W yard number (the project number assigned to her by her builders) was "401"; much like a car's VIN, it was deeply stamped into many of her key components - including her propellers. Olympic was hull #400. The starboard wing propeller has been photographed on numerous dives to the wreck, and clearly has a "401" etched into its brass. My question for you is: If White Star's plan was to sink the Olympic in mid-ocean, where no investigator could see the yard number, why would they bother to switch propellers (and the other items found on the wreck bearing the "401" yard number)?

Problem #2: Obviously, all 14,000 Ulstermen working on fitting-out the Titanic were not in on the conspiracy; otherwise, there's no way the secret could've been kept longer than a week! So the majority of the workers knew nothing of the scheme. However, if you concede this, then answer this question: Why is it that not one of the 14,000 workers thought it odd that the ship they had been working on before the weekend had been moved - during the weekend - to where the Olympic had been parked for her repairs, and the Olympic had been moved to where the Titanic had been fitting out? The only way this could have been avoided would be if, after switching the identities of the two ships, the sisters had then physically switched places in the shipyard, so that on Monday morning the re-branded Olympic would be where the Titanic had floated before the weekend? You would also have to answer why none of the workers rushing to complete the "Titanic" for her "maiden" voyage noticed that she suddenly seemed a lot more complete - unless you wish to suggest that as part of the switch they managed to complete Titanic's fitting-out in a single weekend with a skeleton crew of workers, whilst simultaneously gutting the Olympic to make her appear incomplete.

Problem #2 in summary:
• Switch every identifying trait/item from Olympic to Titanic, and vice versa (including propellers)
• Fully complete Titanic's fitting out so she can return to service immediately as Olympic
• Gut the Olympic's interiors to appear as if she still required several weeks of fitting out
• Physically switch the two ships' positions in the shipyard so as to not confuse the workers on Monday morning
• Do all this in a single weekend
• With a fraction of the men normally assigned to the project.

Problem #3: I have made this point in every "switch theory" thread that has come along since I joined this board in the late 1990s, and have never received an answer; perhaps you'll be the first. In order to make an insurance claim, the ship must be declared a total loss. Period. End of requirement. The insurance policy did not say the ship had to be sunk in deep water, beyond sight of land while engaged in passenger trade. In the insurance business, if the cost of repairing something exceeds a given percentage of the cost of replacing it (in the case of automobiles, for example, it is 60% of the replacement value), then it is declared a total loss. My (as yet unanswered) question is this: Why go to the trouble (and risk) of staging a wreck in mid-Atlantic, with paying customers and valuable officers and crew aboard, when the same goal - total loss of the ship - could be accomplished as the ship floated, unmanned, at quayside? All it would take is a few gallons of petrol and box of matches .....

Problem #4: The story of the letters M and P beneath the fallen letters on the wreck isn't true.

Problem #5: Various portions of The Olympic have been on display since its last voyage and can be identified as the Olympic, not the Titanic.

 

[thorbiorn]

As other viewers I also found the video interesting, but reading some of the comments I can understand that all is not as black and white as described in the film or historical documentary.

Some of the main objections to this theory that I’ve come across:

Problem #3: I have made this point in every "switch theory" thread that has come along since I joined this board in the late 1990s, and have never received an answer; perhaps you'll be the first. In order to make an insurance claim, the ship must be declared a total loss. Period. End of requirement. The insurance policy did not say the ship had to be sunk in deep water, beyond sight of land while engaged in passenger trade. In the insurance business, if the cost of repairing something exceeds a given percentage of the cost of replacing it (in the case of automobiles, for example, it is 60% of the replacement value), then it is declared a total loss. My (as yet unanswered) question is this: Why go to the trouble (and risk) of staging a wreck in mid-Atlantic, with paying customers and valuable officers and crew aboard, when the same goal - total loss of the ship - could be accomplished as the ship floated, unmanned, at quayside? All it would take is a few gallons of petrol and box of matches .....

Is it believable that a few gallons of petrol could damage the ship up to the 60 % level? Would it be easy to cover up?

The question of paying customers, officers and crew, might have been taken into account if all that was said about the California waiting for the Titanic is true. It is a bit strange that the California was loaded with sweaters and had no problem finding coal in the middle of a period with coal shortage. And why would it wait out at sea? One explanation might be that they only had to be at the harbour at such and such date and only could take their return cargo then. Therefore they stayed out at sea to save money, but does this explain all? I also read an account of a Norwegian seer who tried to warn the company of impeding danger ahead of the voyage. He did not get through, but did others?

It is mentioned in the movie that some VIP passengers cancelled their tickets at the last moment. One interpretation might be that they were warned by people in the know. It might also be that their feelings of sickness were real, but disappeared when they had taken the 'right' (for their destiny) decision not to travel.

In principle one could take all the arguments in the film and make three columns, in the first the claims or hypothesis, in the second the pros and cons, in the third the conclusion. Again one could order the claims and arguments based on their merits so that all the strongest arguments for an unintentional accident hypothesis would be in one group, and all the arguments for a sabotage or intentional accident would be in the other group.

 

[cholas]

Problem #1: The Titanic's H&W yard number (the project number assigned to her by her builders) was "401"; much like a car's VIN, it was deeply stamped into many of her key components - including her propellers. Olympic was hull #400. The starboard wing propeller has been photographed on numerous dives to the wreck, and clearly has a "401" etched into its brass. My question for you is: If White Star's plan was to sink the Olympic in mid-ocean, where no investigator could see the yard number, why would they bother to switch propellers (and the other items found on the wreck bearing the "401" yard number)?

In the documentary it is claimed that Titanic's propeller, marked #401, was put on Olympic after the collision with Hawke. The sources I've read so far say 'propeller shaft', not necessarily the propeller itself after this accident.

However, there apparently was a collision with an underwater wreck some time later while the Olympic was eastbound from NY in which she lost her prop and one was borrowed from Titanic(#401) for a quick repair. The question remains: Why wouldn't the newly-made propeller for Titanic also be marked #401?

Problem #4: The story of the letters M and P beneath the fallen letters on the wreck isn't true.

Haven't found any proof yet that this is true. It would certainly be the smoking gun if it were.

As for the pieces from Olympic being auctioned off, it does seem that the interiors of the sister ships were very much alike. Things like wood paneling and clocks would likely not be marked 'Titanic' or 'Olympic'.

 

[cholas]

The question of paying customers, officers and crew, might have been taken into account if all that was said about the California waiting for the Titanic is true. It is a bit strange that the California was loaded with sweaters and had no problem finding coal in the middle of a period with coal shortage. And why would it wait out at sea? One explanation might be that they only had to be at the harbour at such and such date and only could take their return cargo then. Therefore they stayed out at sea to save money, but does this explain all?

There seem to be differing accounts but the more official version has the 'Californian' located in the middle of an ice field on a dark night, thus the need to wait until daylight to safely continue. Other accounts say there was no significant ice between Californian and Titanic.

It was apparently the norm, however, to carry on through the ice day or night as the more dangerous bergs could easily be seen from a considerable distance.

Nothing found as to what the Californian was really carrying for cargo. I'd like to see references from the documentary supporting the 'woolin sweaters'. She was not designed as a passenger ship as the documentary has us believe and in fact only had room for 45 persons. This in itself leaves the question, how could she take on 1600 and transport them to NY at 10kts/hour, through ice?

 

[Voyageur]

Some of the main objections to this theory that I’ve come across:

Problem #3: I have made this point in every "switch theory" thread that has come along since I joined this board in the late 1990s, and have never received an answer; perhaps you'll be the first. In order to make an insurance claim, the ship must be declared a total loss. Period. End of requirement. The insurance policy did not say the ship had to be sunk in deep water, beyond sight of land while engaged in passenger trade. In the insurance business, if the cost of repairing something exceeds a given percentage of the cost of replacing it (in the case of automobiles, for example, it is 60% of the replacement value), then it is declared a total loss. My (as yet unanswered) question is this: Why go to the trouble (and risk) of staging a wreck in mid-Atlantic, with paying customers and valuable officers and crew aboard, when the same goal - total loss of the ship - could be accomplished as the ship floated, unmanned, at quayside? All it would take is a few gallons of petrol and box of matches .....

Perhaps because they believed a sunk hull could never hold future evidence and psychopathology was not being considered.

It has been a 100 years to bury the evidence, if deception (murder too) was a fact - yes, a long time, yet also not so long. It seems preposterous that all the workers would not know, yet thousands of people built an atomic weapon and it did not come out. We have well know false flag operations and yet the disinformation campaign banks on brushing it all off, even under conclusive evidence. Seems if this Olympic sinking is true, White Star, the British Government & JP Morgan were not the first to do these things and not the last, yet they were very capable.