It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Titanic didnt sink, its sister the Olympic did!

page: 7
72
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I suppose the people that died on that voyage on the Titanic have nothing to say to dispute this. What difference does it make at the end of the day? They had museum tours of artifacts from the Titanic that I went to...if you think your grandparent died on that ship, and that's what history says, then it must be so. Made a lovely movie, though. I especially liked the part where Rose took the axe to Jack's hand cuffs and cut them off. All I know is brrr....and I mean that would have been cold, cold water to go off into dreamland in, and I do know a bit about cold.




posted on May, 20 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofsheba
if you think your grandparent died on that ship, and that's what history says, then it must be so.

Huh?
Why MUST it be so?



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

I wouldn't know, void...you tell me




posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofsheba
a reply to: VoidHawk

I wouldn't know, void...you tell me



Just for you





posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk



I so appreciate you for enlightening me
Wow....ever so grateful, thanks!



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofsheba
a reply to: VoidHawk



I so appreciate you for enlightening me
Wow....ever so grateful, thanks!

Well, you've added so much to this thread I thought it was the least I could do. Enjoy



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

Not really, but at least I'm honest
Next time I will promise to do better
Peace



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Just done the search thing and found this was posted a couple of years ago, but the OP didn't present much and the videos are deceased, so...HAVING GONE TO ALL THIS EFFORT! I'm posting it again.
 



There is much evidence to back up this theory, but there's one piece that’s very hard to dispute!
Look at this picture, what do you see?


Do you see the letters MP? olyMPic
I snapped that still from the footage shown of the Titanic when it was found on the sea bed. You can see that footage in the linked video below.




The Titanic sailed from Southhampton.

Southa MP ton

Hahaha

edit on -05:0058145362014-05-20T19:36:58-05:00 by Psynic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Nochzwei
How could a destroyer ie hawk get sucked in by the propeller suction of the olympic
Take a look at how big the propellers were!
When they spin they push VAST amounts of water out behind them, that water has to come from somewhere. The water along side the liner moves towards the liner to replace the water pushed out the back by the propeller. Any ship in that water will be drawn towards the liner.

Yes but no so much as to ram her, puncture the hull, damage/ bend the prop shaft and bend the keel plate.


Well, it DID happen, and apart from you nobody is disputing it, not the navy, not White star, and not even the captains of both ships!


I've been in the navy



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
That doesn't make you THE Navy!!



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
There's another issue that we need to consider. What the hell would have been the point of switching the propellers? Why bother? If they planned to sink the Olympic/Titanic in the middle of the Atlantic, then there was no chance that the wreck would have been inspected by a loss adjuster from Lloyd's of London as no-one had a submersible capable of going even a fraction of the distance from the surface to the bottom of the ocean.



The conspiracy "theory", if that's what you want to call it, is that the ship's owners switched the names on the two liners and it was actually the Olympic discovered in 1985.

The "evidence", allegedly was the identification number stamped into one of the three propellors.

An enthusiastic truther made the claim that it had to be the Olympic because the Titanic couldn't possibly use a spare prop from Olympic as the "pitch" was different and would produce "extreme vibration if it worked at all".

I have shown the error in that theory by pointing out that the propellor pitch was entirely adjustable and that both ships used wing props identical in EVERY dimension.

No one is suggesting the propellors were switched to conceal the liners true identity.

Projectbane is entirely correct in pronouncing these claims 'complete nonsense' and I will add, a total waste of time.




You haven't shown how the propeller pitch was adjustable for a ship like this in 1912. Do you have any documentation supporting your claim, like links?

So these guys at RMS Titanic Remembered are also wrong?


One difference was their propellors, or screws: the pitch of the two ships’ screws were different. This is, the size, shape, and angle of the propellor blades were slightly different, altering the amount of thrust each screw created as it turned in the water. Obviously screws of different pitches could not be used on the same ship, as it would create not only differential thrust problems for handling the ship, it would also create severe, even potentially dangerous, vibration. (Propellor design in the early 20th Century was very much an inexact science, with a lot of “cut-and-try” involved, so it wasn’t uncommon for shipbuilders to use props of different pitches on ships of the same class, to work out which propellor design was the most efficient for that particular class of ship. This is what was done with the Olympic and Titanic.) So a propellor blade meant to be installed on the Olympic couldn’t be used on the Titanic, nor could one of the Titanic’s propellor blades be used on the Olympic.


Link

Notice they mention the shape of the propellers were different. This could be a problem.

Please show us, with supporting documentation (not just your say so), how the folks at The Titanic Remembered, got it so wrong?



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ionwind

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
There's another issue that we need to consider. What the hell would have been the point of switching the propellers? Why bother? If they planned to sink the Olympic/Titanic in the middle of the Atlantic, then there was no chance that the wreck would have been inspected by a loss adjuster from Lloyd's of London as no-one had a submersible capable of going even a fraction of the distance from the surface to the bottom of the ocean.



The conspiracy "theory", if that's what you want to call it, is that the ship's owners switched the names on the two liners and it was actually the Olympic discovered in 1985.

The "evidence", allegedly was the identification number stamped into one of the three propellors.

An enthusiastic truther made the claim that it had to be the Olympic because the Titanic couldn't possibly use a spare prop from Olympic as the "pitch" was different and would produce "extreme vibration if it worked at all".

I have shown the error in that theory by pointing out that the propellor pitch was entirely adjustable and that both ships used wing props identical in EVERY dimension.

No one is suggesting the propellors were switched to conceal the liners true identity.

Projectbane is entirely correct in pronouncing these claims 'complete nonsense' and I will add, a total waste of time.




Text

So these guys at RMS Titanic Remembered are also wrong?


One difference was their propellors, or screws: the pitch of the two ships’ screws were different. This is, the size, shape, and angle of the propellor blades were slightly different, altering the amount of thrust each screw created as it turned in the water. Obviously screws of different pitches could not be used on the same ship, as it would create not only differential thrust problems for handling the ship, it would also create severe, even potentially dangerous, vibration. (Propellor design in the early 20th Century was very much an inexact science, with a lot of “cut-and-try” involved, so it wasn’t uncommon for shipbuilders to use props of different pitches on ships of the same class, to work out which propellor design was the most efficient for that particular class of ship. This is what was done with the Olympic and Titanic.) So a propellor blade meant to be installed on the Olympic couldn’t be used on the Titanic, nor could one of the Titanic’s propellor blades be used on the Olympic.


Link

Notice they mention the shape of the propellers were different. This could be a problem.

Please show us, with supporting documentation (not just your say so), how the folks at The Titanic Remembered, got it so wrong?


Uhrrrrm, If you read your own links you'd see where the props are described as being adjustable in pitch.

You kids play amongst yourselves now, I'm done with pointing out the obvious.

SS TITANIC
SOUTHAMPTON

edit on -05:0013145332014-05-20T22:33:13-05:00 by Psynic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Nochzwei
That doesn't make you THE Navy!!
You haven't the slightest idea, what ramming is, at right angles to the centre line and what it takes a destroyer or a cruiser to do that.
The prop suction cause is laughable at best.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk
Actually I have watched your video and it's a load of complete and utter bunkum from start to finish. Titanic/Olympic were not the largest objects fashioned by man, I can think of a long list of ships that have been longer, like the USS Enterprise. It took six weeks to permanently fix the damage from the Hawke, not seven, and the Titanic propeller shaft was used to repair the damage, not the propeller itself.

Edit: the bloody program froze before I could finish this. To continue - the crockery, napkins, menus and countless other items had the name of the Olympic on it, so a quick switch was impossible. There is absolutely no evidence that Stanley Lord had been involved in insurance fraud before.
As for the Samson - no. The records show that she was still in harbour at Isafjord, Iceland (The Ship that Stood Still, p297) when the Titanic went down.
Then there's the massive mistake about the distress signals. Titanic did NOT fire 'red, white and blue' rockets. Those are company signals. Titanic was firing white distress rockets that were made by the Cotton Powder Co. Ltd, and according to Boxhall, one of the officers on the Titanic, he sent up between 6 and 12 of them - he couldn't remember exactly how many. Second officer Lightoller said that 8 were sent up, which fits in with what the muppets on the bridge of the Californian saw.
There. Case closed.



edit on 21-5-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Gosh. I point out some facts and all of a sudden this thread had tumbleweeds blowing past it. Who'dathunkit?



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Gosh. I point out some facts and all of a sudden this thread had tumbleweeds blowing past it. Who'dathunkit?

Maybe people stopped listening to YOU!



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

There. Case closed.


Its amazing how often that line is used on these boards, and ALWAYS by the deniers, always trying to have the last word.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

There. Case closed.


Its amazing how often that line is used on these boards, and ALWAYS by the deniers, always trying to have the last word.


Deniers? I have just provided facts that debunk your video.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

There. Case closed.


Its amazing how often that line is used on these boards, and ALWAYS by the deniers, always trying to have the last word.


Deniers? I have just provided facts that debunk your video.

No, you merely provided YOUR version that you allow yourself to believe to be the truth.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

There. Case closed.


Its amazing how often that line is used on these boards, and ALWAYS by the deniers, always trying to have the last word.


Deniers? I have just provided facts that debunk your video.

No, you merely provided YOUR version that you allow yourself to believe to be the truth.


Oh come off it. My version? I cited one book, plus numerous facts. The rockets alone is damning evidence against the video.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join